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

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 (Many users have pointed out that some of these previously approved articles are outdated or otherwise flawed.)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

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.

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.

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.