It doesn't seem it's as good as it can be. We should try to do something very similar to thisKingjeff 21:19, 27 February 2006 (EST)
How is it better? Feel free to make any improvements. It's just one week old. So I am sure that there is a lot of room for improvement. Actually, it might be a good idea to slot one of the German destinations you want to get into shape before the World cup to see how it goes --Ravikiran 21:53, 27 February 2006 (EST)
The page design looks good at wikipedia and the proccess is very good. There are templetes etc on the wikipedia. Kingjeff 08:30, 28 February 2006 (EST)
Precisely as there are here. You're asking for things that already exist. However, you do make the point that we might consider looking in the DotM slush pile for CotM candidates; that's fair enough. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:01, 28 February 2006 (EST)
Ok. The original comment was asking the same thing. The concept is the same. But I think we should more or less use the same process as Wikipedia for Article Improvement Drive. If we develop it to the same standard then it'll be a better page. Kingjeff 13:31, 28 February 2006 (EST)
Should articles be removed from the slush pile page, or perhaps moved to a new section (maybe at the bottom of the page?), when they are eventually featured as a DOTM?
I reckon just a small line saying theyve been nominated, and if they have actually been the DotM, then cut them out of the list. This isn't a record of what has been nominated but failed to become DotM, its more of a dump for putting discussions and objections. Tim 06:34, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
I'd been thinking the same thing as the anonymous contributor above, so I plunged ahead and created a section for "Upgraded articles". It's useful to have the record, not least as an illustration of how previously slush-piled things have been put into working order, so that others can go and do likewise. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 24 November 2006 (EST)