There's a frighteningly large amount of misinformation being thrown around here, so let me attempt to inject some real information into the discussion.
First, we're promoting slightly more than one article per day (after 280 something days in 2005, we've promoted something like 295 articles). So at the present rate, we could have a new, different featured article on the main page every day forever. (Oh, and Mero, last week, we promoted 9 featured articles, not 4)
Second, the FAC process is designed to expose flaws in an article. That's why all objections have to be actionable (and, corrospondingly, specific enough so as to be actionable). Someone has to fix the problems in order for an article to be promoted, and that job usually falls to the nominator. I do not like the idea of forcing the reviewers to fix the article - that's just a bad idea.
As for Tony's idea - well, I don't want to put too fine a point of this because I respect Tony, but his idea (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/029601.html) is terrible. Unredeemably bad, in fact. The FAC is a sane, well-mainted part of Wikipedia *THAT ACTUALLY GENERATES GOOD ARTICLES*. So, let's scrap the process and make it more like Votes for Deletion, eh? Oh, wonderful idea... It introduce a massive bureacracy to what is a rather effecient process (and don't take my word on that -- library science graduate students studied the FAC process and concluded that it "is not ideal, but it does seem relatively rigorous."- http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~stvilia/papers/qualWiki.pdf -- remind me again how many research studies have concluded that the VFD/AFD works well?) Tony's proposed changes represent a huge step backwards. Consider the example articles Tony pointed at. If those articles "Exemplify Wikipedia's best articles", then he has rather low expectations. The featured article criteria are the standards we hold articles to, and every single one those articles is lacking (as Geni pointed out). Is holding articles to a high standard a bad thing? I would hope not.
-Mark