Forum:CT:Increase CAN votes required

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Increase CAN votes required
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 Support proposal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:57, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Per the inconclusive results in the preceding SH discussion (which is a lot more detailed), I've decided to turn this into a CT and will just sum up the benefits from the application of these rule changes, which I propose. My proposition is a change in the CAN 'How to vote' section, increasing the number of votes required for an article to be successfully awarded Comprehensive status:

  • (...)If four members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window [0 to 48 hours post-nomination], and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the {{Eras|comp}} template 48 hours after the initial nomination. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{CA}} template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If two EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, three regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with just three EduCorps votes.

And the following list with the reasons to support my thesis:

  • In the CA page it says: "A Comprehensive article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach GA status due to its limited content." and as such its nominations should receive, at least, a similar treatment as do both FANs and GANs, therefore, only two votes required should not be enough to grant the article a CA status, regardless of the reviewers having experience or not.
  • For similar reasons, both GANs and FANs require a considerable amount of votes to pass, whilst CANs have very low requirements in terms of voting to pass yet, if I'm not mistaken, initially the whole point of the CANs were (as quoted above) to adhere to quality.
  • I've seen several users which refuse to review in the CANs because some of the nominations that passed had low levels of quality, something that can be corrected with a larger amount of reviewers and respective votes.
  • While any article is free to receive an unlimited amount of reviewers most people will ignore the article at hand if it already meets the required votes to pass, so for this reason, most CANs pass with just two or three votes.
  • This proposition is not intended to criticize ECs or to be more harsh on less-experienced nominators. It serves only to enhance/improve the quality of articles that are to receive CA status.
  • What I propose will hardly stall the CANs list, but even...even if it does, unlike the GANs board, there is no nominations' limit per author, and the nominations can keep coming while the review of preceding noms takes place.


Anyway, as a frequent CANs reviewer and nominator, this is where my opinion stands. My part is done, your call now. Winterz (talk) 19:39, February 26, 2013 (UTC)


Vote

Support

  1. Winterz (talk) 19:39, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  2. The CAN does move very quickly. Sometimes too quickly for the benefit of its articles, in my estimation. I get the impression too often that the emphasis on CAN is placed on quantity of nominations approved rather than on their quality. I've always maintained in discussions like this that the more eyes that look at a nomination, the better. This isn't about slowing down the nomination process but rather improving its substance and ideally getting more people involved. This can only be a good thing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:51, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. JangFett (Talk) 19:55, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. What Tope said. CANs don't need as many votes as FANs or GANs to ensure quality (as Cade pointed out), and will still require fewer votes then GANs after this amendment, but the current number of two is just too low. This proposal is a happy medium between the current situation and what the GAN requires. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 00:25, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  5. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 01:43, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  6. The argument that "they don't need as many reviewers because they don't have as much content" doesn't hold water with me. As I said here, "Reviewing Comprehensive Articles isn't just about critiquing what's in the article; it's about critiquing what's not in the article. While regular users can probably whip existing text into shape reliably, we need people with experience in finding what an article is missing to be involved in every CAN review." jSarek (talk) 11:27, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  7. 1358 (Talk) 18:05, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Rokkur Shen (talk) 02:37, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
  9. This seems like a good idea to me.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:23, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per Tope. Unfortunately (and excuse me for being so blunt), the CAN has been producing really low quality articles for a long time now. Just because they're smaller doesn't mean that they should be less quality. All status articles should be the same quality. Having a higher vote requirement will require more people to look at it, and maybe we'll start to be able to get the CAs to a higher quality overall.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 19:30, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
  11. The more votes an article has should mean that it has better quality, thus making Wookieepedia all the more perfect. Han shoots first (talk) 03:52, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Blarg. With the increase in number and activity of ECs, I wouldn't really be opposed to this. However, my statements on the unfounded quality objections still stand. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 03:00, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
  13. 501st dogma(talk) 17:41, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
  14. Seems reasonable Supreme Emperor (talk) 18:25, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
  15. More votes required can't hurt.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 18:28, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
  16. Winterz has a point, I guess. Stake black msg 18:57, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

I honestly don't see the benefits of this. Comprehensive Articles aren't Good Articles; they don't need as many reviewers because they don't have as much content. The 8-nomination limit CT served its purpose - the CAN page has been kickstarted, and people are reviewing again. All of my recent CANs have been on the page for at least a week before passing, and that's largely because there aren't enough EduCorps members. This will only serve to stall the CAN page's recent reviewing momentum, and it will place a further burden on the ECs when we have perfectly capable reviewers who review regularly. I have not seen any evidence that the quality of finished CANs is any lower than that of GAs or FAs, despite some users' assertions that CAs are poor quality. All in all, I don't believe this is a good idea. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 20:05, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
501st dogma(talk) 15:27, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 13:52, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  1. The claims of CAs being of poor quality are, IMO, greatly exaggerated. I might support this CT if I thought that it were justified based on actual incidents, but all this fuss seems to be mostly just jumping at shadows. Menkooroo (talk) 13:28, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  2. I might be quitting, but my sentiment that the shuffling numbers without actually addressing the people doing what we don't like won't fix anything has been fleshed out quite a bit over the relevant forums. Later days! NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:41, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Before I start just let me say that I have ignored the Senate Hall thread concerning this debate. I have done a lot of thinking on this one and have come up with the following conclusion: If you want to make comprehensive articles more "respected" increase the standards not the required votes. I don't think an 80 word article needs 3,4,5,6... votes. If such an article needs only 2 Edu Corps votes, don't you think they will have found all the errors and offered some suggestions to make it better? That's 40 words per vote. Anybody can handle that. If you want a CA to have higher standards, don't vote on one that does not meet those standards. Make objections to it. Offer advice on how to fix it and make it of a higher quality. (And note that higher quality does not always mean higher word count). You also say how some CA's don't get respected and are ignored. I'm sure it has happened but I don't see it happening often. And if they aren't getting respect from anoms....well that's not a problem, because whenever an anom makes an edit whether on a CA or FA or an article that has the {{Crap}} template everyone always hits the "diff" button to see if it is vandalism. Enough said. Fe Nite (talk) 18:29, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 01:26, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
    Per Cade and Menk. Stake black msg 01:31, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion