CZ:The Article Checklist

The Article Checklist is a set of standardized notes that should be placed on the metadata page of every article in the Citizendium. Based on the data we input, the checklist automatically compiles useful categories, linked from Category:Checklisted Articles. We can use these categories to compile new statistics meaningful to humans and to organize article improvement projects.

We officially began using the Article Checklist on March 15, 2007, as part of The Big Cleanup, which concluded on May 23, 2007. We now, as a rule, add the checklist to all new articles as they are created. For articles that "slip between the cracks," we have a list of Unchecklisted Articles, to which you are encouraged to add the checklist.

How it works

The checklist is actually a template (if you're interested, here is an introduction to Mediawiki templates). Basically, you insert the blank checklist template into the article's metadata page (the page No metadata template will do this for you automagically), and then you can fill out the checklist simply by typing workgroup category names, code numbers, and "yes"es and "no"s. The metadata mechanism takes that information and, through some complicated plumbing you don't care about, spits out two things: (1) your answers, prettily formatted in a table, on all the separate pages that make up an article, and (2) adds entries useful categories such as "Developed Articles," "Stub Articles," "Philosophy Orphans," and many others. (See below.)

An example of the Article Checklist in use can be found here. Note not only the checklist, but all of the "categories" listed at the bottom of the article page here: all of those categories are automatically generated by the checklist. If you're interested, feel free to play with the parameters of the metadata in Template:John Doherty (fiddler)/Metadata, to see how they change the category lists, etc; but you might want to see below for help doing this, particularly for filling out the 'status' field, which uses numbers 0-4.

A complete list of articles that makes use of the Article Checklist can be found at Category:Checklisted Articles.

• Citable Articles (Status 0)
• Developed Articles (Status 1)
• Developing Articles (Status 2)
• Stub Articles (Status 3)
• External Articles (Status 4)
• Advanced Articles (Status 0-1)
• Nonstub Articles (Status 0-2)
• Internal Articles (Status 0-3)
• Underlinked Articles
• General Category Check
• General Cleanup

See also: CZ:Unchecklisted Articles

The technically-minded may be interested to see the template found at {{Subpages}}, which is the "engine" behind the checklist.

The template fields explained

Here are explanations of each field on the checklist, but do bear in mind that we can, especially now, add and remove fields.

The 'abc' field

This field ensures that articles are properly alphabetized in category lists. Therefore, specify last name first, and remove articles to the last position. For example: abc = Doherty, John; abc = United States of America, The.

'cat1' to 'cat3' fields - Workgroup category or categories

Only workgroups found at CZ:Workgroups should be included here (or, for that matter, on the article page itself). The list here should be identical to the workgroup list found on the article itself. This is necessary in order to generate certain categories automatically. Do include the Topic Informant Workgroup if it is on the article page--as well as any other "Project Workgroups."

If you feel that a particular workgroup is needed for an article, but no such workgroup is listed on CZ:Workgroups, then please do two things: set cat_check = y (that's the next line in the checklist); and make a note of your suggestion on the talk page.

Fill in 'cat1' before 'cat2' or 'cat3'. Template:Checklist permits only three categories: 'cat1', 'cat2', and 'cat3'. Adding 'cat4' etc. will have no effect.

The 'cat_check' field - Check categories?

'cat_check' is used to indicate whether, in the opinion of the person filling out the checklist whether the category list needs to be reviewed by editors. Put "yes" if you want someone to check over the categories or no if you consider them to be OK. Right now, this is your opinion; we have not settled upon any rules, yet, for how to determine whether an article's workgroup assignment is questionable or not.

This generates handy "category check" categories, such as Category:Philosophy Category Check and, regardless of what categories are specified, Category:General Category Check.

The 'status' field - Article status

There are five options for 'status':

0.		Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our approval process. This should be used only if an article has been duly approved (i.e., it has an approval template).
1.		Developed article: complete or nearly so. The two main criteria of a "developed" article are coverage of all topics the article "should" cover, as well as something close to a "suitable" length expected for an approved article. All this is (for now) in the opinion of someone who knows the subject, not necessarily an editor. Note: an exception is lengthy articles sourced from Wikipedia that have not been changed very much; these are not "developed" but "developing," even if they are no longer "external" articles (see below). For a Wikipedia-sourced article to be "developed," it must have been entirely gone over by (a) Citizen(s), and the Citizen(s) must say that they have done all or nearly all the work needed for it to be approved.
2.		Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete. An article with over 100 words but which still evidently needs quite a bit of work before it can be considered "developed." For example, there are blank sections.
3.		Stub: no more than a few sentences, i.e., under 100 words. Note that very short articles--say, under 20 words--should be marked with the {{speedydelete}} template.
4.		External article: from another source (such as Wikipedia or the 1911 Britannica), with little change. An article is not external if it has had at least three significant changes in three different places to the wording of an article. The following are not significant changes: removing unused templates, etc.; spelling and minor rewording; and deletions. Note that any original article, even if a stub, is automatically not external. Finally, note that no external article should be marked "CZ Live" (and vice-versa). Cf. the definition of "CZ Live" found here.

Specify them by adding the appropriate number to the 'status' field. This populates categories that could be very useful indeed for us, including categories corresponding to each of the five options, as well as "Internal Articles" (combination of 0-3), "Nonstub Articles" (combination of 0-2), and "Advanced Articles (0-1)--and for each of the workgroups listed. Thus, for example, if we have the Article Checklist on all of our articles, then we can produce a complete list of "Philosophy Stub Articles" or "Music Developed Articles" or "Biology Internal Articles".

The 'underlinked' field - Underlinked article?

An 'underlinked article' has none of the main expected links to it. For example, if "tree" is not linked from "plant" or "biology" or "botany" or any other such expected "parent" topic, then it is an "underlinked article." If it is linked from one of these, then it is not underlinked. Note, all orphans are underlinked, but some underlinked articles are not orphans. The reason we're tracking such data is that we want to make sure that there are significant connections to all of our articles.

Mark yes/no as before. When in doubt, mark as underlinked, or get advice.

The 'cleanup' field - Basic cleanup done?

This variable, 'cleanup', is just yes or no (so, 'y', 'Yes', 'no', etc.). What it indicates is that the article has gone through a "basic cleanup," which means

1. For each article, complete this to do list:
   • Bold the article title, if necessary, where it appears in the first sentence or so of the article. Note that certain phrases, and "list of X" titles, do not need to be bolded. See Article mechanics.
   • Remove all unused (red) templates, category tags, images, and interwiki links. It might be a good idea to copy the templates and images to the talk page for people to reinsert later. Please don't remove links to nonexistent articles (unless you feel moved to work on the article: removing such links isn't part of the "assignment").
   • Add appropriate workgroup category tag(s). Please use only the workgroup categories listed under CZ:Workgroups. (Note, this page is linked on the left sidebar as "Workgroups".) If you think there needs to be a new workgroup created in addition to one that you've placed an article into, then when you fill out the checklist, simply specify: cat_check = yes to request that someone check over the categories. Also, add "Category:Needs Workgroup" (capitalization important) if, and only if there are no suitable workgroups for an article.
   • Add Category:Topic Informant Workgroup if necessary, i.e., if an article is a biography of a living person, profile of a company, group, etc.--essentially, any article that concerns an existing nonpolitical entity with legal interests.
   • Add (or remove) the CZ Live tag as appropriate. An externally-sourced (e.g., Wikipedia) article is "CZ Live" if there have been at least three significant changes in three different places to the wording of an article. Hints:
     • To determine whether an article should be marked "Live" you might have to click on the page history, and compare the most recent edit with the very first edit. Use the "diff" between those two versions to determine whether the article has been changed enough.
     • The following are not significant changes: removing unused templates, etc.; spelling and minor rewording; deletions; and shuffling text without changing it.
     • Any new article, even if a stub, is automatically "CZ Live".
     • You might wonder if Category:CZ Live is necessary, since we will be constructing Category:Internal Articles. Perhaps--but we should not remove Category:CZ Live or even stop from maintaining it well, until after we have created Category:Internal Articles as its replacement--which means, not until we have added The Article Checklist to all of our articles.
     • Articles that are "CZ Live" are internal (checklist 'status' = 0-3); articles that are not "CZ Live" are external (checklist 'status' = 4).
   • Check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box if any part of the article is sourced from Wikipedia. To determine this, you might again have to look at the article history and look at the very first version of the article. If that has a lot of red templates and categories, it came from Wikipedia. NOTE: if, for whatever reason, this is the only edit that you want to make to an article, you have to make some small edit in the article text box as well (e.g., add a space at the end of a line--it won't show up). Otherwise your checkbox change won't be saved. Do look at the bottom of the page that there's a link to Wikipedia.
   • Hint: use page history! You should probably make a trip to the page history for most if not all articles. If you want to determine whether an article is sourced from Wikipedia, then just look at the first version in the edit history. Virtually all Wikipedia articles left in the database have templates and images (that we have not uploaded, and thus are distinctive red links). That should be enough for us to tell whether to check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box. If you want to determine how much an article has been changed from its Wikipedia original, go to the page history and press the radio buttons next to the oldest and the newest edits, and hit "compare". You'll be able to see the differences there. We have mostly been assuming that the original-uploaded version is identical to a Wikipedia original. Note: if an article is an "external" article and it has not been changed enough to be considered "CZ Live," consider whether according to our deletion rules you should put the {{speedydelete}} template on the page (put this template on the article's talk page, please). Please do mark it for "speedy deletion," if appropriate.

The 'by' field - Checklist last edited by?

Simply type ~~~~ (four, not three, so the date is given).

If you are updating or correcting the work of someone else--even a single line in the checklist--then sign your name before the previous person's name (so they are listed in reverse chronological order); separate names with a semicolon (;).

The extensibility of the system

If this checklist can be retrieved and used through the metadata page of all new articles, clearly, we would like the data to be kept up-to-date, and the system extensible.

There is no reason that we cannot keep this data up-to-date. This is not a foregone conclusion, but it seems entirely possible that people will develop a strong interest in keeping data about, for example, the "status" of the articles they work on--and thus, the other data as well--up-to-date.

The system is extensible in that it will be easy enough to add new fields to the checklist, as long as they are optional fields. We might produce variables that allow us to keep track of other sorts of data we might find useful, for example, how much copyediting an article needs, whether the article has any number of specific problems, such as improper use of footnotes, not enough footnotes, stylistic problems, etc. Any or all of these variables could then be used to track the overall maturity of an article, and (by producing appropriate categories) to organize large-scale efforts to tackle particular problems.

A list of benefits

The big benefits:

• We assign articles to Workgroups. After we've finished, workgroups will have a complete list of articles in their care. As a result,
  • The "recent changes" function for each workgroup actually tracks the recent changes made to all of the workgroup's articles. For example, have a look at recent changes for the Biology workgroup. Pretty handy.
  • Workgroups can see what they have started on--and what they haven't. It's an inventory. We just don't have that now, for any group.
  • These benefits in turn allow workgroups to start functioning (better).

• We divide our body of articles into five categories: approved (status = 0), developed (status = 1), developing (2), stub (3), and "external" (4) (i.e., borrowed from Wikipedia but not significantly changed). Furthermore, since every article is also marked with its categories, the Article Checklist automatically generates lists of articles such as Biology Developed Articles and Computers Stub Articles.
  • This gives us a nice overview of what proportion of our articles are at what stage of development. Nice for bragging.
  • It helps workgroups a lot. For example, it alerts workgroups to what high-priority articles are underdeveloped; it also alerts them to what articles that are "developed" but not yet approved.
  • It will allow us to find easily and, if we so decide, delete articles that were copied from Wikipedia (or wherever) without significant changes.

More benefits:

• We place "CZ Live" on all articles on which we've done significant work. This is probably several hundred more than those that we are now taking credit for. This generates our most visible statistic, and it also allows for alphabetical browsing; so it's important that we use that tag correctly.
• We give Wikipedia credit where we've borrowed their content. This is crucial for purposes of our being compliant with the GNU Free Documentation License.
• We get a list of all the articles that are about living persons (and other legal entities); they are listed at Category:Topic Informant Workgroup. This allows us to manage these sensitive articles more effectively.

Still more benefits:

• We get a list of all articles about which someone is uncertain of the proper categories: General Category Check. We also get similar lists for each workgroup (e.g., Politics Category Check).
• The articles look considerably "cleaner": we get rid of unused (red) templates, category tags, images, and interwiki links.
• We get a list of "underlinked" articles, meaning those articles that have no links from any of their expected "parent" articles. For example, if "tree" were not linked from "Biology," "Botany," "Plant," or any other such important "parent" topic, then it would be underlinked. Having a list of such articles allows us to work toward integrating all our articles into a more systematic whole.
• All article titles are bolded.

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}