Forum Talk:Approvals Committee Discussions: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
Line 7: Line 7:
====Previously nominated article for evaluation of approval:====
====Previously nominated article for evaluation of approval:====
*[[Industrial cooling tower]]
*[[Industrial cooling tower]]
 
This article seems approvable, and I would vote yes unless otherwise convinced by the other members of the Committee. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


====Previously approved article for reevaluation:====
====Previously approved article for reevaluation:====

Revision as of 16:14, 30 January 2018

Help system All recent posts Back to top Contact Administrators Archives

Approvals Committee Discussions

Non-members: for comments, please use the forum.

Pages: ContentGovernance and PolicyStyleManagementTechnical IssuesRequests for HelpCompetitors and PressArchived Boards
Archives
none

Evaluating articles 2018

Start January 22, vote February 2

Previously nominated article for evaluation of approval:

This article seems approvable, and I would vote yes unless otherwise convinced by the other members of the Committee. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Previously approved article for reevaluation:

I have a little knowledge of the history of the settlement movement in Britain, but none of that in America, so I just take an independent view of it. If we are going to re-approve this article, the question is which version. The Main Article contains a number of changes to the Citable Version which are, I think, mostly improvements. The main exception to this is the deletion of the paragraph on lesbianism. There was considerable discussion on the talk page about this paragraph prior to approval, and in the end a change was made in a footnote. Some time after the approval, Russell D Jones, who had taken no part in the previous discussion, removed the whole paragraph without giving any reason that I can discover. There doubtless is a reason, but it cannot be judged. My own inclination would be (1) to use the Main Article, but (2) to reinstate the paragraph, and (3) to promote the comment in the footnote to the text. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I labeled the current citable version, "Version 1, 17-Aug-2013", in the event we want to follow Martin's suggestion. I think the article is ok in its current citable version. The main article needs further work: there has been 3910 new articles/books published since 2014 under Google Scholar search term, "Jane Addams" biography. Some of those should be incorporated into the main article, both as text and references. Also, the referencing needs more links to online versions/excerpts. The section on further reading could use annotating. My preference could be to vote yes on keeping the current citable version as is, then reconsidering the main article for re-approval after it has been reworked. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)