Lostpedia
m (: Acknowledging my mistake, and stressing on suggestion)
Line 20: Line 20:
   
 
*This is not a repeat. As you can see from [[Lostpedia:Article of the Week Archive|the archive]], this article has not been featured before. --{{User:Jabberwock/sig}} - 09:35, 30 October 2006 (PST)
 
*This is not a repeat. As you can see from [[Lostpedia:Article of the Week Archive|the archive]], this article has not been featured before. --{{User:Jabberwock/sig}} - 09:35, 30 October 2006 (PST)
  +
  +
  +
: My Mistake. [[Electromagnetism]] was not repeated indeed, as I found later from the archived list. I must have thought it did, after reviewing its nomination progress so many times last week, that gave me the feeling of "Didn't we already do this before?". Anyway, I am just leaving my posted suggestion for encouraging more rewrites and nominations, to have a large stock to choose from. I notice every week there is usually 2-3 articles nominated, as with the acceptance criteria we set for ourselves, I feel we might easily end up one week with no articles to approve for selection.
  +
  +
Hence, instead of the small number of nominations per week, due to the little shortage in high-quality articles with different themes that we are experiencing, I suggest, without lowering our criteria, to spread the motivation for nominating articles and encourage ourselves on improving different articles to live up to the standards we set, and even encourage users to review nominated articles and learn from the experience. It might be a hectic to review several nominations posted per week, but if we were able to organize it, I think it would be a great idea to improve the quality of our portal dramatically.
  +
  +
Hope this suggestion might be useful, as it was a personal motivation for me to improve my edits.
  +
  +
Thanks--{{User:Nomad/sig}} 10:46, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Revision as of 18:46, 30 October 2006

Question

  • Plkrtn just made an edit (link) that either moved or removed the nominations text. Questions:
  1. Are we going back to the old format, which was rejected? (In this format, nominations are linked to a particular week, and do not roll over). A return to the old format is implied by plkrtn's new text: PLEASE VOTE FOR WEEK 39 BELOW, where the link below is a link by week.
  2. Is there something I'm missing? I click on week 39 and it is empty.
  3. Is this a reorganization in progress by plkrtn?
-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 03:56, 18 September 2006 (PDT)


I think we should discuss this first. However, I am going to remove the first nomination of Sri lanka video to rejection cause its taking up room. Anyway, back to topic, I don't know why it was removed but I've reverted it and we can just discuss it now --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:46, 18 September 2006 (PDT)

Missing AOTW

Did you notice that no Article was selected to feature during this week; week 44 (Oct 30 - Nov 5) -2006 ? When I checked the Project page today, I have noticed two nominated articles with no votes at all. Consequently, the AOTW section in the Main Page is currently empty, which looks rather strange, as if it is a section that is still under construction...I do not know if it is acceptable to have a missing AOTW, but I generally believe that we should come up with a corrective action to prevent such an event from repeating in the future. -- 06:59, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Its sorted now, thanks for pointing it out --Nickb123 (Talk) 07:07, 30 October 2006 (PST)
  • Great. Re-adding a great article as Electromagnetism was a great solution for the time being. However, I hope an alternative long-term policy is to be considered for the future, other than repeating previously selected AOTW. I suggest, for example, to encourage more people on improving existing articles and nominating them, so you would a have a queue of at least 3-4 accepted articles to choose from every week. I believe lots of great articles are out there, only requiring some good improvements to make a great AOTW...but Users need to be encouraged into taking this task.

Thanks again for your prompt response-- 08:32, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Sorry but, what? I didn't "re-add electromagnetism" - it was the next one, there is no repeating --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:26, 30 October 2006 (PST)


My Mistake. Electromagnetism was not repeated indeed, as I found later from the archived list. I must have thought it did, after reviewing its nomination progress so many times last week, that gave me the feeling of "Didn't we already do this before?". Anyway, I am just leaving my posted suggestion for encouraging more rewrites and nominations, to have a large stock to choose from. I notice every week there is usually 2-3 articles nominated, as with the acceptance criteria we set for ourselves, I feel we might easily end up one week with no articles to approve for selection.

Hence, instead of the small number of nominations per week, due to the little shortage in high-quality articles with different themes that we are experiencing, I suggest, without lowering our criteria, to spread the motivation for nominating articles and encourage ourselves on improving different articles to live up to the standards we set, and even encourage users to review nominated articles and learn from the experience. It might be a hectic to review several nominations posted per week, but if we were able to organize it, I think it would be a great idea to improve the quality of our portal dramatically.

Hope this suggestion might be useful, as it was a personal motivation for me to improve my edits.

Thanks-- 10:46, 30 October 2006 (PST)