Good Article Criteria
Great effort, I am actually amazed with the work in whole community portal.
I had a discussion earlier today with PandoraX, who kindly recommended me to paste my thoughts to here. Please let me know your openions:
- Hi Pandora. I have a question, do we have a template or nomination page for "Good Articles" that we can use, as in Wikipedia, to award a well written / rewritten article ?
- I do not know if such a regulation is added in the new comm. portal or elsewhere on Lostpedia...
- Thanks-- 14:52, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- ---Thanks for your prompt response. I actually had in mind another idea. AOTW is used for nominations of articles indeed, but only those which are accepted , if not of a repeated theme, are the ones that pass a minimum quality criteria. Even so, every now and then, one might weekly reject an article for being good but still requiring more work.
- Now with the Article Attack great addition, we still have the problem of after attacking it, how can you define if it is improved enough or still in need of more work ? An award is given to who tackles the most, but I understand that this would appointed after the article is done...so the question is, when can we say it is done? Although the Admins / Sysops can clearly do that job easily, but shouldn't the quality of the article be a nomination as well ?
- So if we are not going to nominate every article we re-write, to check the opinions on if it reached the required quality or not (which I imagine would flood the AOTW page), then I think we will need an intermediate check point. For example, I had the following thoughts:
- First, we nominate articles for Article Attack, every week.
- After accepting articles for attacking, and editors feel they are done with the rework. They nominate it as Good Article (maybe in a new nomination page, or a sub-section from Article Attack).
- Also articles that didn't undergo an article attack, but anyone feel it is of a good quality, can be nominated as well (which we can start right now).
- Then, after denoting articles as Good, nominations for AOTW shall be done only to those in of the pool of good articles. Thus, the rejected articles would be on the basis of needing to do little more improvements, not starting from scratch.
- Through this example or similar ones, I think we can achieve 2 points with one shot.. First, we find a way to determine when an article is done with the rewriting. Secondly, we will have the privilege of a large existing stock of good or almost good articles to chose from for the AOTW.
- Lots of thoughts, but let me know what you think :)-- 15:20, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- You raise some good points; on something aside from AOTW? I personally think one award alone would be enough; for example, if one doesn't "pass snuff", it usually doesn't get deleted from the nominations 'roll call' right away (unless there are a lot of "nos"), and gets revisited next week. A lot of articles which are "almost there" pass this kind of judgement, people work on them for a while, and then we do another vote. This is how Sri Lanka Video became AOTW. On Article Attack, I see you already started talking on that talk page, which is probably the best place to put out your new ideas. :) I am just one editor (and a pretty new sysop), and someone who hasn't done much with the Article Attack concept, so it'd be good to solicit feedback from other sysops and users over there (I'd cut and paste what you wrote on my page into Lostpedia:Article Attack's discussion. My understanding is it is still a work in progress, so everyone's ideas are still welcome. Good luck! --PandoraX 15:31, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- Final note: I do not believe that this must be done using another award. Just another nomination cycle accessible by all of us, and a template to denote the qualified articles, would be more than enough. Thanks-- 16:15, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- I don't think a Good award is needed. Articles will either be outstanding (good for AOTW), good, or poor (good for AA). Theres no need for an award which states that the page meets Lostpedia's standards, just for one that shows that it exceeds the standards, or it does not meet them and needs work.-- Paladine<c.t> 16:14, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- Hi Paladine. I don't think it must be an award, I just a meant a template, just like the Re-write template which states that an article is in strong need for re-write, but this time is a template to denote an article as qualified by Lostpedia standards to be a good article. What I actually care more about than a "good" template, is to pass the right for judgement publicly, for everyone to say that an Article Attack is done by now, and no need for more attacking of a certian poor article, and I thought the best way to do that is through a nomination / judgement cycle, that checks if the article is "done" or not, otherwise, how would we know..Right now, I think the initial thoughts are initially nominate an article for attack, which is great, but how can we say "stop attacking" ? How will the Sysops are to determine that alone ? without a judgement cycle where everyone can contribute ? I don't really think it is a good idea to start attacking an article, and never stop, until it is accepted as an article of the week..this way tons of previously poor articles will be pending, with everyone thinking they might still need rewrites..I hope you got my point. Thanks-- 16:27, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- AA is a weekly thing, so after a week the article will no longer be "under attack." If the community feels that it needs more work it could be nominated again, or add cleanup/rewrite templates to it. The goal of is to take poor articles that are not of the same quality as similar articles (ex. Whatever the Case May Be is obviously not the same quality as most other episode articles). While a policy regarding Lostpedia's standards for articles would be good, I don't know if we have to mark every article that meets these standards. -- Paladine<c.t> 17:25, 31 October 2006 (PST)
Suggestion for "Attacked" Voting Page
- Note: This section starts as a reply on the above discussion. I am opening a new discussion section, since I am adding a new suggestion here as well. For more details, please refair to the above.
- Ok, let me verify this..do you mean a tag or a template will be added to pages that will be "under attack" during the attacking week, and by the end of the week it will be removed, which marks the article as a normal again ? If this is the case, then I think this a great alternative solution for the problem. It means instead of using a "good" template as I suggest, we do it the other way round and use a "bad" template, to be lift off when an article is complete...Ok, good, but again the question is, how will "all the community" decide if the rework is done, and the "bad" template should be removed, if not through another vote cycle ?
- But in case you mean its nomination will no longer appear in the Article Attack page, after the week ends, which I think is what you mean, then I agree with you that it will no longer linger there in the page. Of course, otherwise the page will be flooded with articles under attack, nominated weeks ago. But I think you are now missing my point. I do not want to expand this subject further, but our case here is quite different from AOTW. During the week an article is accepted for nomination as a AOTW, nothing will happen to it, and nothing is expected to happen after the week ends. The article is featured, and then replaced by another, keeping the "featured" template as a marking of quality (that it was good enough to be featured). On the other hand, during the week an article is nominated for attacking, it will undergo seious work, that I doubt will end by the end of the week. Of course I may be wrong on this point for some articles that were well rewritten very quickly, but I'm speaking in general. Hence, a week ends, and the article is no longer in the Article Attack page, yet it may very well be still under rewriting attacks, which is a false indication.
- Given that, as you mentioned the community has the right to re-nominate it for re-attack, when can they do that ? If re-nomination door is opened after the week ends, then its very possible that the Article Attack page will be full of re-nominations due to pre-mature nominations, since I doubt that a full attack can be done in a week as I said. Aagain, we come at the problem of needing a channel to use in voting, whether the article is now good or not.
- That's why Wikipedia, for example, has Today's featured article category, and Good Article category, and you never see a featured article, that was not marked as "good" first. This makes the selection for their featured articles easier, mean while, keeps a stock of agreed-on "good" articles to use in many other applications. Their marking of articles as "good" is of course done through nominations, just as how they select an article to feature. But as soon an article's quality lowers for some bad addition or modification, anyone can nominate it for "a peer review", like how we will do here using Article Attack, and it automatically falls from the "good" category".
- I don't mean that we should emitate them, but I think it might be a good idea to learn from their mistakes, and despite Lostpedia's diferences with the Wiki, we all admit that they came a very long way, to reach their level of quality.
- I may even suggest another solution, that I hope might work:
- Lets create "Under Attack" template, and create another voting page connected to this nomination page. While yours will be used in voting for articles to attack, the second can be called "Attacked" voting page, for example, where any of the attacked pages' editors may nominate the article, after the attacking week ends, whenever they feel its rework is done. Then the whole community can contribute in judging. Only when the article passes with enough votes, the "Under Attack" template is removed. Ofcourse, the basis for nominating and voting for articles, whether they are "bad" or "good" or "featured"-worthy, should have been by now the Lostpedia:Manual of Style (proposed), but since it is still "proposed", then we can continue vote based on our expereince.
- Anyway, that's my own suggestions for now, to be continued..I hope all the community can pitch in, and give their openions on this long discussion.
- c u-- 19:22, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- My understanding of AA: A user pick an article that needs a lot of work. Other users will vote on whether that article and sysops will decide what article should be selected for this weeks AA. The selected page will have the Template:ArticleAttack placed on it and be linked from the Community Portal. For that week editors looking for something to do should help contribute to that article with the goal of bringing the article up to snuff by the end of the week. I'm guessing that one editor will go ahead and rewrite the bulk of the article (winning the award) and other editors will improve on the rewrite. The next week the template is moved to another page, and the page is changed on the community portal. I think this limited time is key to AA. There are many articles with rewrite/cleanup/stub templates that need work, but people don't take the time to go in and work on them. If a new article is presented once a week people will have a sense of focus on specific areas of a specific article that needs work. People may still work on the article after AA, and thats whats great about a wiki. People work on random articles all the time, not just rewrite or cleanup articles. I think this will be my last comment on the issue until AA starts -- Paladine<c.t> 19:42, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- I agree, let's wait and see how it goes. Mean while i'm wishing this project all the luck, after all it is a great idea. -- 22:30, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- The general idea is a Monday-Sunday article attack, and on the next Monday it changes etc. At this point, the article may or may not be good in terms of our standard, but I have no doubt it would improve dramatically. The idea is to improve an article that shames us, and so will probably focus on character or episode pages (i.e. integral to the wiki). I don't know about marked articles as good - it is a bit subjective, whereas I think its easier to agree if a page is brilliant or rubbish --Nickb123 (Talk) 02:37, 1 November 2006 (PST)
- ---Yes Nick, I think the 1 week attack, with the Template:ArticleAttacktemplate Paladine mentioned, will definitely improve the quality of rubbish articles, that we will no longer be ashamed of many main articles we have now. That's why it is just a great idea (now that we won, and are officially recognized by the "Wiki").
- We can have also several iterations of Article Attack, the first now, where nominations will be only accepted for the very low quality "rubbish" articles, and "poor but adequate" articles will be rejected on the bases of "Not Now, we have worse articles to tackle". Then a second iteration, where the higher quality "rubbish" articles can be nominated, and so on, until no more articles are bad. That's also another great idea with the Article Attack.
- But also, we have to think ahead. As you know what interests people most in Lostpedia, and what makes it stand out, is Themes / Theories and other collective articles that point the readers to a new Global view theme of Lost, just like Electromagnetism, currently a great Lostpedia achievement. Characters, and episode articles are like available everywhere on the net, and already of a much lower quality and scope than ours, and also, now with season 3 kicking in, so many new rubbish supporting character or episode articles will be created here, that we might go to somewhat endless cycle of improving newly added rubbish articles. Meanwhile, lots of previously attacked or existing "poor and adequate" articles will be lying around as is, yet are accessible (and people will want to check them out) from the character and episode articles we will be busy working on. Take Hieroglyphs for instance, an article I started working on lately...when I started rewriting it,( before ), I felt it was not bad, but it was not good either, and many might agree on that. But my own judgment was based on my late reading of the Lostpedia:Manual of Style (proposed) and the Lostpedia: Theory policy, and my own hate for too much bullets, which again you might agree with me about :)
- But as you said, currently, it is quite subjective, though if you think about it, so is our judgment of what's "rubbish" or what is "brilliant" as well. The reason for that is that currently, we don't really have a defined standard that everyone has to conform with, as a minimum boundary. How many are aware or care that much about Lostpedia:Manual of Style (proposed), or fair use ?, except the admins and maybe some writers. Of course, it is absolutely important for everyone to have their own unique style, which motivates others to change and perfect theirs. However, what I am looking for, is a minimum set of regulations that everyone must follow. This can achieved through a template that marks an article as conforming to standards a.k.a. "Good article", which I was suggesting to pass the right for this judgment by all the community, beside the Sysops, through voting.
- Of course, to enable that, first we have to move the Lostpedia:Manual of Style (proposed) from the proposed stage to official and implementation. Which is why I will put a little words on this topic and add a link to here, over the Admin talk page, for all admins to have a look at it first.
- Meanwhile, since this is dependant on the finalizing of our Manual of Style, I am embracing what we currently have, just like Article Attack and will do my best to contribute. I greatly believe in what Kaini mentioned about not arguing and concentrating on perfecting Lostpedia, hence I really care that this discussion doesn't escalate to the level of an argument, which is the last thing I want (I know it didn't so far, but saying that for future sake). So I will make this my last comment for now, waiting to see what others will add.
- Thanks a lot for your excellent effort and that of Paladine -- 15:11, 1 November 2006 (PST)
Article Attack / Under Attack
I think the idea of an Article Attack is great! However, I'd like to suggest we come up with a name that hasn't been used previously for an article that is under attack by a vandal/abuser. --Admin 18:05, 1 November 2006 (PST)
Other Ideas (Feel Free to Expand this list):
- Article Improvement
- Article Focus
- Article Challenge
- In case we would change the title, I vote for Article Challenge, it has almost the same effect using different words.-- 12:01, 2 November 2006 (PST)
Hey guys, just wonderingg when the new article for attack will be put up. It is Monday, and needs to be changed. Personally, I didn't like the Lostpedia:Talk as one, as it was VERY difficult, and no one really did anything :), so we need to move on. --Marik7772003 14:42, 11 December 2006 (PST)
- I was a little gutted that it had little attention, but you're quite right it was a mean one. I was going to just leave it on for another week, but mainly also I couldn't find anything bad enough to replace it with at the moment. Maybe I could change it to Kate's bio? The language in that could do with a lot of changes --Nickb123 (Talk) 14:47, 11 December 2006 (PST)
I'll be honest...
- ... I'm really starting to dislike the AAA. It was good for organizing articles which didn't have crossreferences, but lately it seems like just another excuse to stick the same charts and infoboxes on. --PandoraX 12:15, 25 February 2007 (PST)
- I'm drawing away from template categorising ones, and focusing on more prose based rewrites like what was done with the Hurley page. I agree, I think it should now focus more on text than presentation. I think this new one on Lost will be better as its an information orientated task --Nickb123 (Talk) 12:40, 25 February 2007 (PST)