I, too, think this thread is a good and appropriate initiative.
Your thread also inspired me to finally get something done that I've thought a short while back, which is to add a page for actually doing the work
of the judging, or such, of the nominated articles. That new page is here
. Right now, the page is mostly just
created, and has virtually no content in it. As for what should be in that page, I'm thinking one thing that could be kept there is some sort of log
showing the results of each judging round. The article discussion may also come in very handy, of course.
The activity level in tinWiki seems to now be increasing a bit -- which is a very nice thing. There's still not too much activity, though, and the
likely article candidates also aren't necessarily all that many, yet. Therefore, I feel that doing the judging every week may be a bit more often
that what's necessarily the most appropriate. That's just how it seems to me, though.
Anyway, an important issue that should be discussed a bit, is the topic of what criteria an Outstanding article should live up to. I've read the
criteria that are used in Wikipedia for some category like this, although it was a while ago, and I'm not sure I read them all, but that's at the
back of my mind, naturally. So, with that as my starting point, and since I also thought they seemed to make sense (as I remember it), my view would
be that an article that gets the Outstanding award shouldn't simply be better than others, but should live up to some specific demands. A short list
of demands should, as I see it, be created and displayed in the Outstanding nominees page (and in this new page I created today).
Anyway, again, I think it's healthy in several ways if the good articles are held up as such and given proper acknowledgement. So I definitely agree,
Fox, that it's good if we could get some work done on evaluating some articles and get some deserving ones into the Outstanding category. I also
agree that it's probably natural if you, WOS, and I make the decisions. Perhaps 'down the line' when there are more contributors and so on, the
jury group might be natural to compose in some different way, but that would be something to think about in the future...
How do you generally like the idea of the new page, Fox and WOS?
And would you agree that some list of 'demands' should exist? What would you suggest should be included in that list, if so?
edit: had to improve or specify a sentence a little bit....
[edit on 7-9-2008 by Optimist]