Forum:CT:GAN: A Chance for Everyone

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:GAN: A Chance for Everyone


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.

Support

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Makes sense. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Graestan(Talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. I agree.—Tommy9281(Lússë i Morë Hwesta súya!) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Should have been like this to begin with. Unit 8311 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. I thought this was in place already. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Of course. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. The inflatable forklift agrees.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. You mean...articles went through with unstruck nominations before? Used car dealership indeed. Thefourdotelipsis 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Per 4dot. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Now THIS is the sort of GA reform I don't have to think about. jSarek 01:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Should have been done long ago. Havac 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. GAN: The nom stops here. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. I fear this will lead to the Inquisitorious having to ensure objections are struck (or left un-struck) correctly... —Xwing328(Talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I sincerely hope not. We have plenty to do as is. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm assuming that "we" refers to one-third or so of the Inquisitorius. Graestan(Talk) 14:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. --Eyrezer 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments