imported>Approval Manager |
|
| (132 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive. | | Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive. |
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | | {{archive box|auto=long}} |
| == Homeopathy reapproval ==
| |
|
| |
|
| Hi, Joe, could you take a look at the last comment section at [[Talk:Homeopathy/Draft]] and tell us what you think needs to be done. Ie, how many Editors do we need, and who can they be? As far as Constable approval, I've been working on the draft, so I'm out. Matt *hasn't* worked on the draft, but was, I believe, an Editor for the *Approved* version. I'm sure that there are other technical aspects also to be considered. Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
| | == [[Randomized controlled trial]] == |
|
| |
|
| == Another issue -- please see the new Forum topic == | | From my talk page: I dropped the ball! So glad you are here :) We need a date in the metadata and there is an issue on the talk page. [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk%3ARobert_Badgett&action=historysubmit&diff=100780572&oldid=100779195 see Robert's talk page]]. |
|
| |
|
| Bibliographies in Approved articles apparently aren't protected!
| | :I certified approval of version dated 04:39 26 January 2012. This is a re-approval of a previously approved version. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| See: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2675.0.html [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
| | ==Priorities in Economics, Politics and History== |
| | I should be inclined to give first priorities to articles that serve as portals to others. At the basic level they would, of course, be [[Economics]], [[Politics]] and [[History]]. Equally important are some higher-level portals such as [[Financial system]], [[Great Recession]], [[Fiscal policy]] and [[Europe]]. If topicality is considered important, you might consider [[Eurozone crisis]] and [[Arab Spring]]. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Good timing! I've been wanting to address that. I replied in the forum thread. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
| | :That certainly makes sense to me. I'll have a look myself, but do you think any of those top-level articles are ready or nearly ready for approval? The articles on current issues might be hard, since they will presumably continue to be updated as things unfold. Since approved articles preempt drafts as the first thing visitors see, such articles would need to be frequently re-approved. -- Joe Quick ([[User:Approval_Manager|Approval Manager]]) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Starting series on their way == | | == Approval 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article == |
|
| |
|
| I'd like to start several series of articles on the way to approval, starting with the hopefully less controversial top-level. One good starting place is [[interrogation]] and a more challenging one is [[extrajudicial detention]]. They have "peer" or even higher-level articles such as [[eduction]] and [[elicitation]], as well as going down into national and period policy. | | Hi, I'd like to request for the approval of the 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article. This way I know what needs to be corrected. --[[Carlo]] |
|
| |
|
| Are the workgroups realistic in terms of coverage and available editors? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| | == Various computing articles == |
|
| |
|
| :Finding a law editor could be a challenge. There is a lawyer at the University of Chicago who chairs the program in human rights and who likes me a whole lot who I might be able to convince to help us out. She's awfully busy though, so I don't want to waste a favor unless we're '''''really''''' confident that we've done the best job possible.
| | There are a number listed on the "ready for approval" page, at least one old enough to have been added by Howard. Most I cannot approve because they are my writing. For the Howard one, I've commented on the talk page. |
|
| |
|
| :Otherwise, Roger Lohmann and Shamira Gelbman can probably cover politics and Daniel Mietchen can probably cover psychology, but I don't think these topics are within the fields of expertise for any of them. I'm at work now and waiting for a student who should be here in a few minutes, but I'll try to give it some attention tonight. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| | Two I'd particularly like to see move along are [[Block cipher]] and Cypherpunk. Both are mainly my writing, both were previously approved, but both have had a fair bit of change since. Cypherpunk is irritating; WP imported most of our article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Citizendium_Porting#Articles] but both have changed since then and their current version is noticably better than our approved version. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::Could we consider using the available editors for the primary tasks, but getting non-citizen law experts to submit reviews to you? We're going to have the problem of expertise at the workgroup level of granularity; while I may be an expert on [[routing]], I'm not on [[HTML]], although both are Computers. In like manner, I know a lot about some military and intelligence technologies and periods, but, since I've been on a horse twice, I'm not the best to be writing about horse cavalry. | | :Sandy, I will look into that, and get back to you for thoughts you may have on how to facilitate moving the process along for specific articles. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::Apropos of that last, relatively few of the [[United States Army Special Forces]] personnel sent into Afghanistan to fight with the [[Northern Alliance]] could ride, and were severely chafed. Since there was no opportunity to measure them for chaps, the eventual solution was to airdrop heavy-duty pantyhose. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| | You asked on my talk page which articles might be ready, and who could approve. [[Block cipher]] is one; Peter Schmitt was an approving editor for version 1. I think Pat Palmer is the only active computers editor other than me. |
|
| |
|
| :::'''''That''''' is amusing. What article is that in?[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
| | That is a large article. It might be quick & simple to approve some shorter ones such [[Alice and Bob]], [[Rot 13]] or [[Caesar cipher]]. The most interesting short one is Cryptology. On Wikipedia, that is just a redirect to cryptography. Here. there was a lot of discussion, see the talk page. I think it is fine as it is. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::::[[Afghanistan War (2001-)]]. I expanded the section, and, since it's presumably stable material, put it into a text box. In general, I avoid text boxes as hard to edit while collaborative work is in progress.
| | == Portal articles == |
|
| |
|
| ::::In this case, my major concern is the background color — should it properly be beige, taupe, Nearly Nude, etc., and should it show texture? Was there any experimental use of fishnets? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
| | May I draw your attention again to the portal articles [[Politics]] and [[Economics]] ? Both are well-developed with large numbers of wikilinks. You might also consider [[Europe]] on the same grounds. I should be willing to introduce any changes that are deemed necessary. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :Howard, the ''very'' short subsections in [[interrogation]] bother me. They make the article feel unfinished even if there isn't anything more to say about those topics. Is there a way that some or all of them could be incorporated into other parts of the text? --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC) | | :Thanks, Nick, will do. |
|
| |
|
| ::Other than things that should be clearly introductory to subordinate sections, I think those have been cleaned up. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC) | | :For each of those three articles, will you give me a list names of users that I can ask for comments on the article, including an Editor or two among the article's workgroup categories. |
|
| |
|
| :::We don't seem to have progressed; any way to get this moving again. Incidentally, relatively short subsections do help greatly when wikilinking to other articles; I might agree with you if this were a pure linear paper document. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | | :Thanks. —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager |
|
| |
|
| :::: May I remind you? It is possibile to add anchors as link targets without using sectioning commands. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 09:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | | ::The only two names that come to mind are Roger Lohman and Russell Jones. As politics and history editor, Roger is well qualified to asssess both [[Politics]] and [[Europe]] - and Russell might be persuaded to add his comments. On the face of it [[Economics]] presents a difficulty because - as far as I know - I am the only available member of the economics workgroup. However, an assessment of [[Economics]] requires no knowledge of economics because it is no more than a portal. And, although Russell does not claim to be an economist, I note that it says in his talk page that economics was a component of his PhD thesis. So the two of them together might provide assessments of all three articles. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 09:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
| | |
| :::::Also remember that short sections have readability advantages, especially with small or low resolution screens. What might seem unfinished in a printed document is good human interface design in a hyperdocument. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| [outdent] You're right, Howard; I lost track of this one. I'll get back to it as soon as I can manage. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 18:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Kamehameha I ==
| |
| | |
| In my opinion, [[Kamehameha I]] is as close to being "complete" as it can be. I think I have covered all major aspects of his life. I am asking you four; Joe Quick (as approvals manager), Roger Lohmann (as a history and politics editor), Russell Jones (as a history editor), and Howard Berkowitz (as a military editor), to look over the article and suggest any changes you think neccessary. Between the five of us, I don't see why we can't get this article improved. Thanks for your time. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Re-approval of [[Amine gas treating/Draft]] ==
| |
| | |
| Joe, a day or two ago, I made a number of revisions/additions to the [[Amine gas treating/Draft]] article as suggested by [[User:Wim Van Wassenhove|Wim Van Wassenhove]] ... so the article is in need of re-approval. The original approval was by [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]]. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Would you put me in contact with a Mathematics editor? ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Joe,
| |
| | |
| Paul Wormer and I have been working on the article "Associated Legendre Functions". I think it is now ready for promotion to "ToApprove" stage. I have been working with Peter Schmitt on another article and intended to ask him to do this. However, Peter will not be available for the next 2 weeks. Would you recommend a mathematics editor that Paul and I can work with to get the article approved? Also, does the approval target the cluster or just one of the articles in a cluster. In other words, do I have to make an approval request for the main article and for each sub-page in the cluster or does approval focus on all of the pages in a cluster? [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :One way to do this is by having a look at the active editors listed in the following table (obtained via <nowiki>{{Workgroup|group= Mathematics}}</nowiki>):
| |
| {{Workgroup|group= Mathematics}}
| |
| :[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Right. However, I don't know which of these are actually "active." That is, after reading some of the comments on various fora, it appears there are editors who are listed as active, but in fact rarely show up. I would like to contact a mathematics editor that will work with us on a reasonable time-scale. Since I don't know which of the listed editors are actively participating, I was hoping Joe would have a better handle on the question. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 18:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[Henry's Law]] needs re-approval again ==
| |
| | |
| Joe, I just made some significant fixes to [[Henry's law]] as explained on its Talk page. It needs re-approval again. This one and [[Amine gas treating]] which also needs re-approval (see above) were both approved originally by David Volk. Would you please contact him about re-approving both of them? Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :: I made 2 suggestions for the [[Amine gas treating]] article, and I will get around to [[Henry's law]] as time allows. There are alot of little math changes that are hard to "see" by looking at the "differences". [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Thanks, David. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Re-Approval of [[Amine gas treating]] ==
| |
| Joe, how do I nominate a draft for approval? Can I just paste in the lastest draft link in place of the old one? [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 21:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Yes, David, paste that link in the url= and then put your name at ToA editor= and the green template should miraculously appear. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Yep, that's all it takes. That goes for any other articles you want to re-approve too. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Give the article a look-see to determine if it worked please. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 18:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Joe, is changing the url link something you could do? Or can I do it? Or is that not kosher? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::: OK, I copied the link for the current Draft page into the metadata page for approval. If this is not the correct procedure, please let me know. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::: David: Yes, that's exactly right. We should be all set.
| |
| :::::: Milt: It's obviously unnecessary now, but it would have been kosher for you to change the url only if you also became an approving editor. I would have done it using the Approvals Manager account if it had been unquestionably clear which version he intended to nominate, but it is better for approving editors to do this type of thing themselves.
| |
| ::::::--Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 18:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::: Joe, the reason I asked if it was kosher is that I was the creator of that article and virtually its only contributor. In fact, the reapproval was needed because of changes/additions that I made and I don't think I could sign on as an additional approving editor.[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Speech recognition ==
| |
| | |
| While it's not a subspecialty, I have a working knowledge of the subject, and the article seems decent. Beyond fixing the title, it needs citation cleanup, as a number are simply external links while others are just URLs. Can I do that as an approving Editor? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive.
From my talk page: I dropped the ball! So glad you are here :) We need a date in the metadata and there is an issue on the talk page. see Robert's talk page].
- I certified approval of version dated 04:39 26 January 2012. This is a re-approval of a previously approved version. Anthony.Sebastian 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Priorities in Economics, Politics and History
I should be inclined to give first priorities to articles that serve as portals to others. At the basic level they would, of course, be Economics, Politics and History. Equally important are some higher-level portals such as Financial system, Great Recession, Fiscal policy and Europe. If topicality is considered important, you might consider Eurozone crisis and Arab Spring. Nick Gardner 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- That certainly makes sense to me. I'll have a look myself, but do you think any of those top-level articles are ready or nearly ready for approval? The articles on current issues might be hard, since they will presumably continue to be updated as things unfold. Since approved articles preempt drafts as the first thing visitors see, such articles would need to be frequently re-approved. -- Joe Quick (Approval Manager) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Approval 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article
Hi, I'd like to request for the approval of the 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article. This way I know what needs to be corrected. --Carlo
Various computing articles
There are a number listed on the "ready for approval" page, at least one old enough to have been added by Howard. Most I cannot approve because they are my writing. For the Howard one, I've commented on the talk page.
Two I'd particularly like to see move along are Block cipher and Cypherpunk. Both are mainly my writing, both were previously approved, but both have had a fair bit of change since. Cypherpunk is irritating; WP imported most of our article [1] but both have changed since then and their current version is noticably better than our approved version. Sandy Harris 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sandy, I will look into that, and get back to you for thoughts you may have on how to facilitate moving the process along for specific articles. Anthony.Sebastian 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked on my talk page which articles might be ready, and who could approve. Block cipher is one; Peter Schmitt was an approving editor for version 1. I think Pat Palmer is the only active computers editor other than me.
That is a large article. It might be quick & simple to approve some shorter ones such Alice and Bob, Rot 13 or Caesar cipher. The most interesting short one is Cryptology. On Wikipedia, that is just a redirect to cryptography. Here. there was a lot of discussion, see the talk page. I think it is fine as it is. Sandy Harris 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Portal articles
May I draw your attention again to the portal articles Politics and Economics ? Both are well-developed with large numbers of wikilinks. You might also consider Europe on the same grounds. I should be willing to introduce any changes that are deemed necessary. Nick Gardner 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nick, will do.
- For each of those three articles, will you give me a list names of users that I can ask for comments on the article, including an Editor or two among the article's workgroup categories.
- Thanks. —Anthony.Sebastian 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager
- The only two names that come to mind are Roger Lohman and Russell Jones. As politics and history editor, Roger is well qualified to asssess both Politics and Europe - and Russell might be persuaded to add his comments. On the face of it Economics presents a difficulty because - as far as I know - I am the only available member of the economics workgroup. However, an assessment of Economics requires no knowledge of economics because it is no more than a portal. And, although Russell does not claim to be an economist, I note that it says in his talk page that economics was a component of his PhD thesis. So the two of them together might provide assessments of all three articles. Nick Gardner 09:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
