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 (Many users have pointed out that some of these previously approved articles are outdated or otherwise flawed.)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

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.