Except in rare cases (like Wei Dai's Fair Division of Black-Hole Negentropy) I'm still using article upvotes to partially determine whether to promote articles to the front page - some informal mixture of "number of upvotes" + "editor's judgment". I mention this because while comment voting is still healthy, the amount of article voting seems to be dropping off. As of now I'm still drawing the inference that no one thinks "Are You Anosognosic?" worthy of promotion, or wants to see similar articles from me in the future - since other articles have at least gotten more votes than 0. But as the amount of article voting diminishes, it becomes harder to trust such inferences. Maybe people liked that article (or others I haven't promoted) and just didn't bother to upvote.
I'm posting this observation just in case people figure that upvoting articles doesn't make a difference. It does. It also encourages authors to write similar posts in the future, or alternatively not.
Promotion should be based on whether an article would be valuable to random first time visitors from the wider Internet. These articles should be +5 Informative, at least somewhat relevant to the ordinary life, and readable out of context.
Are You Anosognosic is a question the community. A random visitor must read several articles to know why are you asking that question, and what is it all about.
Incidentally, Sayeth the Girl shouldn't be promoted regardless of its score because it's meta. Random visitors are unlikely to benefit from it.
Not what promotion is for. It's a filtered feed for routine readers.