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 (Many users have pointed out that some of these previously approved articles are outdated or otherwise flawed.)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

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

In my going through the list of what I undertook to do, I have skipped over Crystal Palace, but shall return to it.

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)

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.