Forums > Consensus track archive > CT Archive/Featured article ground rules

Seeing some examples of fanboyism voting/nominations on the Featured Article page, I propose some ground rules be set regarding nominations and voting. Keep in mind these are only suggestions, and can be modified to the collective needs of the community. Feedback is most welcome. StarNeptune 14:51, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • This has actually evolved into whether we should keep our current nomination/voting system or go for a new one. Your input is most welcome. StarNeptune 13:38, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)


The proposal for the current systemEdit


  1. Nominate an article that is well rounded and complete.
  2. When nominating an article, place the {{nominated}} tag at the top of the page of the article you are nominating, so others that see the article can go vote on it if they think it's worthy.
  3. When adding a nomination, keep the list in alphabetical order.
  4. Nominating an article because you think the subject is cool is a major no-no, and your nomination may be removed if you do that.
  5. Nominating an article that is also nominated at the Improvement Drive is also a no-no. It's at the improvement drive for a reason, and if you nominate an article on the improvement drive, your nomination will be removed.
  6. Don't nominate an article that obviously in need of more work (stubs, articles with sections needing expansion, sourceless articles or articles needing more sources, etc).
  7. If you disagree with a nomination, add Object in the comments section and state your case (civilly, please) as to why you feel the article is not up to snuff.


  1. Feel free to vote for as many articles as you want, provided you feel they are Featured Article quality. Add comments to the comments section regarding your vote if necessary.
  2. Take all nominations into consideration when voting, regardless of your personal like/dislike of the subject matter. If you can't put aside your like/dislike of the subject and focus on the quality of the article, abstain from voting. The purpose of the Featured Article is to showcase our best articles, not our most popular.
  3. Voting for an article simply because you think the subject is "cool" will result in you having your vote(s) removed, so don't do it. This is not a popularity contest, so don't treat it like one. If you persist in readding your vote, you will get a one day ban. Add it back after that, and you will get a two day ban, etc.


Stronger emphasis needs to be placed on the importance of objections. --SparqMan 06:14, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Featured article criteria should be established. Wikipedia's criteria are quite nice. --SparqMan 06:18, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Should any users be allowed to vote? --SparqMan 23:32, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd say yes, since this is a Wiki after all. Just as long as we make perfectly clear that this isn't a popularity contest. --MarcK [talk] 10:54, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Same as MarcK, but I think it should be limited to registered users. StarNeptune 11:18, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I would find fair that admins reserve the right to remove votes in case there are mass voting from newly created users. --Thinortolan 23:30, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Other nomination/voting processes to considerEdit

Maybe a move away from our current system will be beneficial. Here are some alternatives to the current system for your consideration.

Peer reviewEdit

Maybe we can set up a peer review system before an article gets nominated, similar to the one on Wikipedia. (credit to Adamwankenobi for this idea)

Objection systemEdit

This will be a nomination/voting system based on objections. SparqMan was the one who brought this up, so maybe he can explain it further. The process would work like so:

  1. An article is vetted through the nomination process (criteria, peer review, whatever we choose). This means it meets the minimum requirements of an excellent article.
  2. Users then submit objections to its selection (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
  3. Supports adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
  4. The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.

This removes the power of vanity votes and focuses on improving already great articles.


  • I like the objection idea. As stated, it prevents any fanboy votes for Quinlan, Kit, Aayla, etc., which seems to be our main problem. --MarcK [talk] 08:21, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to try to move this process along a bit (I'd love to get it done by next week), I support setting up a clear list of criteria for featured articles, and SparqMan's objection system once articles have been nominated. --MarcK [talk] 10:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Support the objection system. StarNeptune 11:19, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • What about aplying the same cancelation system than Wookieepedia:improvement drive for articles not receiving votes in several days? --Thinortolan 23:30, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, as of right now we've implemented a rule that if an article isn't voted on for a month then it's eliminated; however, if and when we put in this objection system that will be pretty much useless. --MarcK [talk] 19:39, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.