User:Russell Potter/sandbox

DISCLAIMER: NOTHING HERE IS ANY SORT OF OFFICIAL OR FINISHED DOCUMENT OF ANY KIND

Possible set of rubrics or criteria which might be suggested for Approval help:

• An Approved entry should be readable, engaging, and informative.

• An Approved entry should be free of any obvious grammatical errors (bearing in mind that we do not want to eliminate stylistic touches,

simply make sure the prose scans well).

• An Approved entry should be clearly formatted, with illustrations in places where needed, and at a size that enabled the text to be followed easily

• An Approved entry should offer, when appropriate, sources for further reading, and links to useful and reasonably reliable external information.

• An Approved article need not be absolutely complete or encompassing of every possible aspect of its subject. It should, however, be at least a 'step in the right direction,' giving the basic facts and able to stand independently. There will always be room for further refinement!

Approval help

The Approval process at Citizendium is deigned to identify, strengthen, and publicize our best work as we go along. We want Approved articles to be both informative and engaging, and to showcase the range of Citizendium's authors' and editors' capabilities. Eventually, there will be hundreds and even thousands of Approved entries. Any entry that's clear, accurate, and readable, is a potential candidate, even if the topic is a modest one; it's aprocess, not a product, and Approval is only the first stage

Approval, it's important to emphasize, should not be seen merely as the completion of a process, but also as its beginning. From the moment an article is approved, a /Draft page is created which invites and encourages further improvement. For this reason, there is no need to put off the nomination of an article simply because there is some work to be done -- there always will be! -- but it's an excellent way to get immediate attention from the authors and editors most able to contribute.

If you see an article which looks as though it's approaching the kind of quality which merits Approval, the first thing you should do is let others know about it. CZ:Feedback requests is one place to start; here you can post an entry and ask for general, or specific help in strengthening it. You can also go to the Workgroup pages and let Editors in those workgroups know about the entry. The Talk page of the entry is a great place to discuss what's needed, or reach a consensus that the article is ready for Approval.

Starting the process

When you and at least a few other Citizens feel it's time, approach an Editor in one of the article's fields (you may also approach more than one). Get their assessment, and if they agree, ask them to nominate the entry. They should nominate it on the article's Talk page, and let the Approvals Management editor know about their nomination. Editors have the right, on their own, to place the Nomination tag on the Article's talk page; if needed they can ask any Constable for assistance. Editors, too, should let the Approvals Management staff know about their nomination; they will ususally add a notice on the article to the Approvals announcement page. This brings further attention from all Citizens. If you need help, leave a note on any constable's page (or write to constabulary@cz.org), or do the same with the Approvals Management staff.

The nominating Editor, working with with Approvals Management editors, will decide how much time to allow for the Approval process. In the case where multiple Editors nominate, they will decide collectively on a date. The date by which approval will occur is then set; once that date has been reached, any nominating Editor may request a Constable to make the entry Approved. The article's main page is then protected, tagged as approved, and a /Draft page created.

Bumps along the way

It sometimes happens that the article's authors feel they aren't ready, or perhaps become overwhelmed with the attention and edits the entry's nomination generates. They can ask the nominating Editor to withdraw or postpone the Approval, but the final decision is up to that Editor. More time may be added to the clock if needed. At the same time, the main Authors and others who contribute should keep the nominating Editor up to date on the evolution of the entry; if they are happy with a particular version, they may ask the Editor to update the version in the Nomination tag.

It sometimes happens that all this attention leads to edits with which the Authors, or the nominating Editor, feel are inappropriate. Perhaps they alter the entry's tone, or create subsections which would take too long to complete, or the Editor feels ought to be made into separate entries. The nominating Editor can ask that certain kinds of edits not be made, though he or she cannot put a stop to editing; if he or she feels that there is a certain version that is preferable, however, a Constable can be notified to make sure the pointer, and the eventual Approved version, will be the right one.

Approval (yay!)

On the appointed date, the nominating Editor may at any time request a Constable to make the entry Approved. This is not, however, the end of the process. If, despite all care, some obvious error has remained in the Approved entry, the nominating editor and a Constable may repair it without repeating the whole approval process. Lastly, even once approved, the entry can and should be further refined on its /Draft page. By the time we have a great many Approved entries at, say, version 1.0, we ought to also have some second, and third approvals of older entries which may by then by at version 3.2 or 4.4. ... it's all a part of the process!