Forums: War Room Standards Council update
Note: This thread has been unedited for 128 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.

For the longest time, the Standards Council has been a small group of three editors reviewing article quality, though I doubt that these days most users even know what the Avatar Wiki:Standards Council is since we've been quite inactive for a looooooooong while. I certainly take my responsibility for that.

As such, I propose the following changes to increase activity.

  1. Expand the group from 3 to 5 members
  2. "Allow" the community to directly nominate an article for a specific class.
    To achieve this, I'm thinking to create a new nomination page where anyone can nominate an article for either A or B class and give the Council their reasoning why. Any Councilmember can then decide on their own whether they want to accept the nomination (akin to how administrators used to approve image proposals, just to have a first line of quick quality control) and move it to the nomination page of either A or B-class. If they don't accept it, a thorough reasoning should be provided, as well as some pointers on what can be improved before the article is eligible for at least B-class
  3. Lastly I would like to change the approval process for a certain class from unanimity among the Councilors to a majority rule after 2 month.
    Reason for this change is that it takes way too long nowadays for the Councilmembers to react to a nomination proposal (myself included). A deadline of 2 months, while long, is not inevitable and still gives the busy Councilors the time to thoroughly review the article on their own time while being short enough to have a clear end to the nomination. If no Councilor reacts within that time, the article will be promoted on the sole reason that at least one Councilor took the time to nominate the article and thus approved it for said status.

Thoughts? Lady Lostris vstf (talkHotN) 13:20, November 9, 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. I think getting the community more involved with quality of articles only has net positives, could potentially increase the number of editors (I know I for one haven't been able to be as active as I'd like due to college). I also think more promotions over all only has positive results. Fire Pabu Sprite Ferret 20:31, November 9, 2018 (UTC)
I think increasing the number of members would be a good idea (3 did always seem a rather low number to me) and allowing users to nominate articles would certainly be a good way to increase activity. To accompany having a nomination process, I would also suggest expanding on the stated requirements for an article to be judged A- or B-Class, or some kind of description of why an article might be considered good but not B-Class, or B-Class but not A-Class. The wording at the moment on each page seems a bit too vague.
One thing I would change is to make clearer that a councillor can move an article to consideration but not necessarily agree with the article being promoted, or have a clear opinion either way. This would be similar to the image proposals, where an admin might feel that an image is worthy of discussion but not agree with actually making the change. I say this just because the wording makes it sound like a councillor should agree with promotion before accepting the nomination, rather than agreeing it is worth consideration. Forming an opinion either way takes time, and I feel like otherwise an article could end up stuck in limbo of being nominated but not moved to consideration.
This would make the process as follows:
  1. A user nominates an article to be promoted to B-Class or A-Class and provides a reason for their nomination.
  2. A council member assesses the nomination and the reasoning provided and decides whether the article should be moved to consideration.
    • If the nomination is rejected, a thorough reasoning should be provided with pointers on what can be improved before the article is eligible for at least B-Class. There should be a waiting period of X days before a rejected article can be reconsidered.
  3. If the nomination is accepted, the council member moves the article to approved for consideration. That council member does not have to state their opinion on promotion when moving the article to consideration.
  4. The article is considered for promotion by the council over a 2 month period.
    • If within two months at least 3 members (if the total is increased to 5) are in agreement on accepting or rejecting promotion, the article is promoted/rejected accordingly.
    • If after two months no majority amongst all members is achieved, promotion is considered based on a majority among those that voted. In the case of a draw, promotion is rejected.
    • If no member gives their opinion within two months, the article is promoted.
  5. If an article is rejected for promotion, a thorough reasoning should again be provided. There should be a waiting period of Y days for articles that are considered but rejected for promotion
  6. Council members can consider an article for promotion to a class different than the one stated in the nomination. If an article nominated for A-Class is only considered sufficient for promotion to B-Class, a specific reason should be given.
For the waiting periods, I was thinking maybe 7 days for the first and one month for the second. HAMMEROFTHOR 22:33, November 9, 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with these addenda, though I would switch the waiting periods: 1 month for an article that was rejected after a community nomination, as that means that the article was overall insufficient and in need of a thorough rewrite, and 7 days for an article that was rejected after a draw among councilmembers, as the approval by some councilmembers at least implies that there is a certain quality already present, otherwise it never would've gotten considered and garnered at least some support for promotion and thus needs less time to fix it for the appropriate class. Lady Lostris vstf (talkHotN) 12:25, November 10, 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I hadn't considered that perspective, but that definitely seems a good change. Would the 7 day wait period also hold if promotion was considered but rejected, or just in the case of a draw? HAMMEROFTHOR 13:36, November 10, 2018 (UTC)

I'd think so, since the reasoning of "at least one councilmember thought it was good enough" applies. Lady Lostris vstf (talkHotN) 09:16, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

I'm on board with this idea and the proposals made by Thor. I think this could do the wiki some good. Tono555 Korra-chao2 15:45, November 12, 2018 (UTC)