This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was reword the GAN rules to ensure all objections are struck before closing.Green Tentacle(Talk) 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose a minor addition to the GAN process that would allow every reviewer of a nomination a fair and equal chance to have their concerns resolved by the nominator. Currently, the GAN process states that once an article reaches 5 votes after a week following its nomination, the article will be considered "Good." The current wording of the rule:
If an article has a net total of five votes of support (+5) after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination), the article will be considered a "Good article"
However, this says nothing of objections placed by reviewers that remain to be resolved once the nomination reaches 5 votes after a week. In some cases, an article will pass with unstricken objections simply because the nominator never had a chance to get to them all due to heavy voting. Therefore, I propose we amend the ruling to allow an objector to have his or her concerns fairly resolved by stating that a GAN cannot be considered "Good" until all objections have been stricken or otherwise overridden. Indeed, the new addition would be similar to the current rule for a FAN, which states an article will be queued:
...if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 5 Inquisitor supports and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden)'
So, the new GAN would read something to the effect of "If an article has a total of five votes after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination) and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), the article will be considered a 'Good article.'"
I believe this will help "democratize" the GAN process, again, to give everyone a fair chance at reviewing. Additionally, I know some users have had concerns in the past about Wookieepedia projects "railroading" nominations through. I believe this addition will help curb anything of that nature.