CZ Talk:Sign-up page for Council members to review Citable Articles

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Guidelines for Reviewing Citable Articles

In reviewing Citable Articles, one should ask oneself the following questions:

Have there been developments in the understanding of this topic since it was approved? Those developments might be in the realms of technological advances, scholarship advances, or new events bearing on the topic.

If the article does not specify a target audience, in respect of level of education and/or degree of specialization, does the lead sentence and/or lead paragraph read comprehensively for a general audience, a high school or undergraduate student, or interested layperson?

Is the Citable Version better than the editable Main Article?

If better, is it still acceptable to us as ‘citable’, or should it be eliminated until an editable Main Article achieves certification of Approval? (Many users have pointed out that some of these previously approved articles are outdated or otherwise flawed.)

If not better, should the current editable Main Article be substituted in place of the Citable Version?

If the answer to the latter question is no, should the Citable Version be eliminated until an editable Main Article is nominated for approval and is certified Approved?

Basically, are we okay certifying as ‘citable’ the Citable Versions listed.

Anthony.Sebastian

Michael Faraday/Citable Version

The lede should be reworked to make it easier for the reader to get an overview of Faraday's life and work. Otherwise this is a well-written and well organized, informative article.

The editable main article has has no substantive additions warranting replacement of the citable version.

Recommendation: keep this citable version as is; consider reworking the lead of the editable main article.

Acid rain/Citable Version

This article is well written and well organized, informative, and reads with coherent narrative flow. It was largely adapted from the article on acid rain in the website, Encyclopedia of Earth, which allows reuse through the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.

I found a few errors requiring copyedits. For example, the following sentence appears to lack a word:

“Recovery from acid deposition requires decreases in acid gas emission which to reductions in acid deposition and allow chemical recovery.”

Perhaps it should read:

“Recovery from acid deposition requires decreases in acid gas emission which [leads] to reductions in acid deposition and allow chemical recovery.”

The last substantive entry for this citable version was in November, 2010, nearly 3 years ago. Since acid rain is an ongoing process accompanied by ongoing abatement and prevention programs, it probably should be considered for updating. Examples of some articles appearing during 2011-2013 that might add to the article are as follows:

  • Hongve, Dag, et al. "Decline of acid rain enhances mercury concentrations in fish."Environmental science & technology 46.5 (2012): 2490-2491.
  • Xie, Hai Wei, and Yan Zhang. "The Research Status of Acid Rain." Advanced Materials Research 726 (2013): 4033-4036.
  • Reis, S., et al. "From acid rain to climate change." Science 338.6111 (2012): 1153-1154.
  • Chen, Zhen Min, Wei Xie, and Hai Ying Zhang. "Error of Acid Rain Research, Effect of Atmosphere CO2 Ignored." Advanced Materials Research 610 (2013): 381-384.

Recommendation: I recommend that this well-developed and well-organized article be retained as a citable version, with a note above the lede stating that the article was last updated substantively in November 2010.

It would seem that the editable main article could readily be updated and reapproved, then substituted for the current citable version.

Ammonia production/Citable Version

Typical of articles in which Milton Beychok is the main author, this article is well-organized, well-developed, and informative. It has a coherent narrative flow.

The article has not been updated for nearly 3 years, so the question always arises whether there may be additional information relevant to the topic. For example this article from 2012 seems pertinent: Thermochemical production of ammonia using sunlight, air, water and biomass, by Michalsky, Ronald.

The editable main article does not improve upon the Citable Version.

Recommendation: I recommend keeping this excellent Citable Version. Suggest that the authors review the editable Main Article and consider whether updating could lead to an improved Citable Version.

Martin Wyatt

Air pollution dispersion terminology/Citable Version

There appear to be no detectable differences between the citable version and the main article. As a non-expert, it appears all right to me. Recommendation: (subject to other views) confirm.

Alcmaeon of Croton

The only difference between the two versions seems to be Anthony's substitution of cognomina in the main article for cognomens in the citable version. This seems to me to be mildly pedantic. In my view either version would do.

Recommendation (half-hearted): Use the Main Article as the Citable Version.

Ancient Celtic music

There are considerable differences between the Main Article and the Citable Version. Some of the differences are technical improvements, but the Main Article also has a new heading "General characteristics", with sub-headings but no text.

I do not think either version a satisfactory exposition. The citable version seems rather confused, and the confusions are not sorted out by any amendments since made. The main example of this is in the apparently contradictory remarks about the archaeological evidence on the carnyx. Some of the apparent contradiction is sorted out by footnotes, whose substantive material would be better incorporated in the text, but on reaching the end of a poorly organised discussion, I am not clear whether a whole carnyx has been discovered, or why, if one, or even fragments have been found, the diameter of the tube is, as the article states, a matter of conjecture.

Recommendation:This needs to be looked at by others, but I suggest that the Citable Version should be deleted, leaving just the main article.

Andrew Carnegie

The only differences between the Citable Version and the Main Article are the copy edits and added links by Russell D Jones. These are all improvements, and the main article is in this respect superior to the citable version. However, the improvements could go further, as there are several ungrammatical passages, starting with the second sentence under the "Building the Steel Industry" heading, which has no main verb. As far as I can see the article is accurate and helpful. I am not sure about one statement, but it is comparatively trivial.

Recommendation: that the Main Article be further edited and converted into the Citable Version.

Civil Society

This was one of the first articles that I looked up in Citizendium, if not the first, and it completely convinced me about CZ's value because it was clear, reasonably well organised and informative.

The differences between the Citable Version and the Main Article consist entirely in a series of contributions by Roger A Lohman, one set at the beginning of the Origin section, the other, on the subject of Gramsci, in the section on The shifting fortunes of Civil Society. As far as I can judge, both these sets of additions are valuable, but I think the ones on Gramsci belong better in the section on Civil Society and the state. They interrupt the flow of the section they are in at the moment, and there is already a reference to Gramsci under the "state" heading.

Recommendation: that the positioning of the remarks about Gramsci be altered as suggested, and the Main Article substituted for the Citable Version.

It seems to me that the Gramsci paragraph and at least the next two discuss relations of civil society and the state if not political power. This isn't my field; I can clean up copy, links, and references but can offer little substantive contributions. Russell D. Jones 20:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
(In looking at this again, I find that in fact there were no additions to Gramsci in the main article.) In reply to Russell's point,I would say that part of the purpose of the concept of civil society, however defined, is to discuss its relations with the state. Mentioning that is not out of place in an account of the historical development. Apart from anything else, Gramsci appears out of the historical sequence, and, if not moved to the other section, should be one paragraph further down. Of course, one could say that this is nit-picking and not what we are supposed to be doing. In that case, I would simply say that the changes to the Main Article are improvements. --Martin Wyatt 19:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Palace

This is a comprehensive and informative article. There is one minor improvement and some technical changes in the Main Article. As there are proposals for the site, the article would need to be kept up to date, and if this cannot be done, I would suggest that there be some caveat to the section on the present use of the site. Meanwhile, I recommend that the Citable Version be approved.

Edward I

The Main Article contains quite a few minor improvements on the Citable Version (including one I have just made myself - Edward the Confessor was not a "legendary" king in any sense of the word). Neither version is totally satisfactory, but I have not identified any inaccuracies.

Recommendation: that the Main Article replace the Citable Version.

History of agriculture

There is no difference between the Main Article and the Citable Version.

The article starts off quite well. The section on Origins seems fine, apart from the use of an abbreviation, PPNB, with no explanation. After that there are minor defects and a major problem with imbalance. The minor defects are an inconsistent dating system, switching between using BCE and the number of years from the present date; the occasional misspelling (e g Rennaisance for Renaissance); and occasional syntax error.

However, the main problem is that the article is incomplete in a way that creates radical imbalance. The discussion of agriculture in Europe jumps from prehistory to the Middle Ages. After the Origins section, the bulk of Asia is totally ignored, as is sub-Saharan Africa. There is no mention of the 17th century developments in technique which made it possible to over-winter cattle and led to a great increase in meat production.

Recommendation: that the Citable Version be deleted.

Joan of Arc

As far as I can tell, this is a good, well-organised, informative article, with no substantial drawbacks. It is enhanced by the other pages in the cluster (though for some reason the protection system on my computer did not like the link to the Joan of Arc museum). The Main Article contains some minor improvements on the Citable Version, and these are worth incorporating.

Recommendation: that the Main Article replace the Citable Version

Literature

This article deals quite well with a difficult topic. I have just three mild criticisms, which could go on the discussion page: (1) It sort of assumes that criticism is purely an academic activity, when for hundreds of years this was not the case, and criticism could be considered as a branch of literature itself. (2) It rather reads as though it has been written by committee - I guess that is probably unavoidable, as it has been. (3) It could be structured more as a portal article, an introduction to other articles under the subject heading, and if that were explicit, there would be no need for some of the discussion of non-literary uses of the term. Nevertheless, it basically looks all right to me.

The Main Article contains some minor improvements, and also a couple of substantial changes. I leave it to others to decide whether the substantial changes are improvements or not, and therefore recommend that the Citable Article be confirmed.

Northwest Passage

This is quite a good article in some ways, but it is inaccurate and incomplete. The inaccurate bit is the statement that after the third of Frobisher's voyages in 1578, "Elizabethan explorers abandoned the plan". In fact, John Davis, who is not mentioned, made one of his voyages in this quest in 1587. It is incomplete, not only from the failure to mention John Davis and Sebastian Cabot (who may have reached Hudson's Bay before his crew forced him to turn back), but also because the two sentences on motivation fail to mention one of the principal motives: "to discover this voyage of Cathaia by this way, which for the bringing of the Spiceries from India into Europe were the most easie and shortest of all the other wayes hitherto found out." Being no expert on the subject, I find this out by merely looking into a selection from Hakluyt's Voyages. There may be other problems, and the article may need updating.

Recommendation: that the Citable Version be deleted, leaving just the Main Article.

William Ewart Gladstone

This is a good informative article, accurate as far as I can judge, and mostly well written. In particular I like the initial summary which I thought perceptive and illuminating. On the down side, it is not very well organised and there are a few grammatical errors. The Main Article contains some alterations, mostly minor corrections. I find that I made one of the alterations myself, so I will not say that they are all improvements.

Recommendation: that the Citable Version be retained, and that consideration be given in due course to replacing it with the Main Article

Scarborough Castle

Another good and informative article. I have a few pedantic quibbles about some of the wording, I feel that the description would be enhanced by a diagrammatic ground plan (but maybe no such thing is available out of copyright), and I am not sure that a picture of George Fox, of whom no known portrait exists, reveals much about the castle; but these are minor matters. There are quite a few small changes to the Main Article, and all these are improvements as far as I can see.

Recommendation: that the Main Article replace the Citable Version.

Great Siege of Scarborough Castle

A considerable amount of work has been done on the Main Article since the Citable Version was approved. Errors in the Citable Version have been corrected (for instance, inappropriate references to Cromwell, who in 1645 was only the Lieutenant General commanding the horse in the Parliamentary army), and much information has been added. As far as I can see all the changes are improvements. I therefore recommend that the Main Article replace the Citable Version.

Social Capital

As far as I can judge, this is an informative and comprehensive article, carefully compiled by several contributors. There is no significant difference between the Main Article and the Citable Version. I recommend that the Citable Version be confirmed.

Terrorism

Terrorism is a difficult subject, which this article attempts to tackle in as neutral a manner as possible. The Citable Version was approved over six years ago, and since then there have been numerous changes to the Main Article, most of which I consider to be improvements. Both versions are informative, and both of them, in my view, could be better organised. On the whole I recommend that the Main Article replace the Citable Version.