Article Nominations should be placed here for discussion of 'upgrading' or 'downgrading' the status in accordance with the article rating guidelines. New discussions should be added as a subsection of the appropriate section, and will be archived when a consensus is reached.
It is preferable to add constructive comments about what can be improved rather than just saying, "No." Articles' statuses should be changed after a clear consensus has formed, or after the article has been sufficiently improved with respect to negative comments. This process isn't just a 'yes'/'no' vote - it's about finding what needs to be improved in the article, if it's not at the right standard.
Criteria at Bronze-level articles. Upgrading to bronze is not a huge deal, but it is beneficial to wait for comments here first to see how the article can easily be improved.
Criteria at Silver-level articles.
Nomination by Dalek - I feel this article is in the region of a silver-level article, and would like comments from other users.
- From the nominee: I accept that this article doesn't give extensive examples and references for pseudomathematical activity. I think this reflects the nature of pseudomathematics over other kinds of pseudoscience. In the fields of medicine, biology, physics... people can make claims of a theory, and it can be very difficult to disprove, they can cling onto it with, "But you can't disprove it..." or make up woo-ish explanations about quantum nonsense. However, mathematics allows no such space for 'alternative theories' - theories which cannot be proven (and can often be easily disproven) don't gain the same momentum. That's why homeopathy is seemingly credible to some people, but no pseudomathematics is. The theories we're dealing with in the article generally get sent to University mathematics departments, and move no further. Instead, we're looking at an overview - what books on the topic claim are most common, some specific examples, and a good and strong overview of fields attracting nonsense. EXTERMINATE 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Nominated by Sam — even though it doesn't have any illustrations, it's a well-written and complete article
Cover story nominations
Criteria at Cover stories. Upgrading to cover status should generally require broad consensus and answer/improve all criticism of the article.
Articles should be listed here if it is felt that they do not meet the criteria for their current status. It is always better to try to make the article meet its current criteria, but if this isn't an easy task, list away.