CZ Talk:Approval Process

Contents of previous version

Draft Approval Process For discussion

The meaning of editorial approval. Editors may approve Citizendium articles, i.e., certify that they meet article standards. When an editor approves of an article, he or she is explicitly claiming that that particular version of the article meets those standards, and that he is willing to stake his professional reputation on that claim. The relevant standards are outlined in Approval standards.

An author of an article is anyone who has made a significant contribution to the content of an article, rather than a contribution that is confined to copy editing, stylistic adjustments etc. Any author may, at any time, seek approval for an article that he or she has been contributing to, but may not approve that article himself or herself.

Approval thus requires the involvement of an editor, expert in the relevant field, and who has not contributed significantly to the article content. To secure the involvement of an editor, an author may approach any CZ editor with relevant expertise, or might place a call for approval on the relevant Workgroup page. A call for approval should be made when an article is approaching a state that the authors believe to be adequate, but not necessarily in a final polished state. The call for approval should be indicated by a 'call for approval' tag placed at the top of the article Talk page. An editor who accepts in principle the role of approving an article under development should also indicate this at the top of the Article Talk page.

The approving editor should place comments intended as editorial guidance at the top of the Talk page. These comments should address conditions still to be met before the article can be approved.

When the editor believes that the article is fit for approval, he or she should simply place an Approval Tag at the top of the article page. (When the software has been written to permit this, we will want to display the latest approved versions of articles to users by default, rather than the latest unapproved version.)

Not done yet

I'm finished editing this page for now. I'll be adding more info hopefully tomorrow. --Larry Sanger 03:01, 21 December 2006 (CST)

A couple of points:

1) Involving copyeditors (informally)

I would most definitely take this beyond a voluntary step. I think articles need to be signed off on by the Chief Copyeditor, his or her designees, the Copyediting Workgroup, whatever. Make that a required step in the article approval process. We can be utterly certain, for example, that the likes of Britannica have that as an essential step in their workflow. Thus

From Author(s) --> To Copyedit "department" --> To Editorial "department" for approval --> To Sysops for placement of the Approved template

It is only in this way that all CZ articles will be appropriately standardized, tallying to a unified "feel" of the aggregate product. Without it, articles will appear (and probably actually be) uneven in style, if only because editors may interpret differently or unevenly apply copyediting standards, or because some really are better writers than others. Moreoever, onlookers of the project, such as librarians and academics, will look upon such an additional step very favorably. The keyword in articles going from authoring to final approval should be rigor. This step adds importantly to that. It is a detail the importance of which ought not be minimized.

2) Who may nominate

At least in my reading, this is currently unclear in this policy. If authors can nominate articles for approval, then state so specifically within a brief section under the heading Who may nominate.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Stephen Ewen 00:36, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Stephen:

Re (1), please see the section of the Forums about copyediting. That's where to put this. But here's why I at least have been slow to add any copyediting requirement. We certainly wouldn't want any single person to have to approve articles for copyediting (what a bottleneck), and even any one of a large group of people officially having to approve the article's copyediting would tend to slow the approval process down far too much. Bear in mind that wiki editing, particularly when approval is going on, is a very open, public process, and, in time, I think you're going to see boatloads of people offering far too many copyediting suggestions (and making many minor, conflicting copyedits) when approval time approaches. The result will be quite good--not perfect, perhaps, but large, dynamic collaborations cannot be in the business of perfectionism without grinding their processes to a halt.

Re (2), perhaps all that needs to be said is that to nominate is to approve, and only editors may approve. Authors may not nominate. --Larry Sanger 09:55, 15 January 2007 (CST)

as per Larry's request

I tried to edit the page to reflect our Biology article experience. I do have a question- what happens to the old approved biology (and by inference-other articles being replaced by new editions).? Are they archived? In this case there is very little difference between the editions, but I can imagine cases where the preceding and newly current edition might be extremely different. I think we should have a way to save them so that they are easily retrievable.Nancy Sculerati MD 17:49, 25 January 2007 (CST)

It happens I worked on the what I have just dubbed "re-approval" section just before reading this, and before actually discovering that Larry has done a very good job spelling out the distinctions between sysop permissions and Constable roles and responsibilities , a clarification which significantly improves the practical and ethical guidance in the approval process page so that difficulties like the recent editing glitches in Biology (which I was in the middle of) can be avoided in the future.

I have used the term "re-approval" deliberately because I have found the mechanics of a second approval are trickier than the first.

In that section I map out a proposal for placing version records at the top of the talk pages, and in it it is suggested that the urls to the source versions are kept in an area at the top of the talk page. Also annotation of the sysop saves of newly form re-approved articles is suggested.

These steps (or similar ones), will automatically preserve an index to old approved versions in the history logs, which are automatically preserved anyway - meeting Nancy's request - thanks to the nice properties of the Mediawiki history log (I know that Larry and others will realize this, but us newbies often don't).

These and similar procedural-ethical precedents that we are establishing seem to me to go to the heart of making CZ what we want it to be David Tribe 15:58, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Tags in the history log

In the forum Chris Day has opened up discussion of A and N , W and X tag fields used in the history logs . I assume these tags are being used by sysops, and think guidance should be expanded in this document. David Tribe 16:30, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Approval Timeframe

The timeframe policy is currently,

For DATE TO APPROVE, write down the day after tomorrow, or perhaps better a few days after that if to allow time for completion of last minute copyedits. You must give others at least 24 full hours to examine the article after you have placed the ToApprove template.

David Still has suggested that we give people more time to evaluate nominated articles, and I agree that 24 hours (the minimum) doesn't seem like very much time at all. Do people see it as important that this process be fast, or can we afford to give people more time to comment? How about 3 days (72 hours)? --Mike Johnson 21:17, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Redirecting the talk page as part of the approval process?

This discussion has been pasted here from Talk:Biology and User talk:Chris day

Below from Talk:Biology:

As part of our approval process, we should redirect Talk:Approved article to Talk:Approved article/Draft, to avoid discussion being carried on in two places. Shouldn't we?

Unless you have worked out a different solution (tell me if you have, please!), may I ask someone to (1) create an archive (see User talk:Larry Sanger for an example) of this page, (2) place both a link to that archive and the most recent entries from this page on Talk:Biology/Draft, and (3) entirely replace the contents of Talk:Biology (i.e., this page), which should have been copied either to the archive or to Talk:Biology/Draft, with this: #REDIRECT [[Talk:Biology/Draft]]

For extra credit, update the article approval process page with these steps. :-)

Of course, if you have some way of understanding what goes on Talk:Biology and Talk:Biology/Draft, and you want to make that a general rule for the whole of CZ, please enlighten me!

--Larry Sanger 16:00, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Larry, check Talk:RNA interference talk. That's the way David had me do the last one. Matt Innis (Talk) 16:09, 20 February 2007 (CST)

It's better to have a redirect page the problem with a note directing people to the new talk page is that some users will not notice it. Chris Day (Talk) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)

[edit clash] I prefer having one talk page only. With respect to the archive, I suggest we use the move function to preserve the edit history of this page at the archive too. This is important since any links to this page will automatically be redirected to the appropriate archive page. Currently there is already one archive for biology, but it was only cut and pasted from this talk page. The edit history for those edits are still associated with this page. I suggest we move this whole page to Talk:Biology Archive 1. Then copy and paste the content from Talk:Biology_archive_1 to the top of the new archive at Talk:Biology Archive 1. Then we should delete the old archive. Any continuing discussion can then be transfered to the Talk:Biology/Draft page. Chris Day (Talk) 16:15, 20 February 2007 (CST)

So, am I right that there just isn't any rhyme or reason to the current confusing situation? --Larry Sanger 16:29, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Yes, you're right. In the long term it is not viable to have two talk pages for every approved article. Once the approval has occured the article talk page should be archived and redirected to the draft talk page AND fully protected so it cannot be changed at a later date. If you unlock the move function then we can proceed. Unless others have a strong argument for not doing this? Chris Day (Talk) 16:39, 20 February 2007 (CST)

It's fine with me. Nancy Sculerati MD 16:44, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Sounds perfect. That way future editors will still have access to previous discussions and decisions on the same page and no-one will make the mistake of posting on the wrong page. I would ask that you outline the steps well for those of us who have do it. Matt Innis (Talk) 18:52, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Below from User talk:Chris day:

We could consider naming the archive "Version1" rather than "Archive1" because it is feasible that we will have archives of talk pages that are not associtiated with the saved version. Matt Innis (Talk) 18:58, 20 February 2007 (CST)

So you think the talk page should be archived after every approved version? That might be a good idea, although this might result in very short archives? Maybe it is best to not have the archives linked to each version but have a visible marker to mark the points in the discussion that each archive occurred. Something along the lines of the following:

Discussion for Version 1.2 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

This would make it possible to associate the discussion with various versions without fragmenting the discussion into small packets. Chris Day (Talk) 19:13, 20 February 2007 (CST)

That would work! That way the history of the decisions will be related to the versions that are associated with them. I know that Biology probably won't change much, but I can see how a controversial subject such as acupuncture or pseudoscience could end up going through some long discussions without making significant changes to the articles. That would work. Matt Innis (Talk) 19:30, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Does this sound like a good plan? If so I will write a procedure into this help page. Chris Day (Talk) 19:49, 20 February 2007 (CST)

A suggestion

As the number of CZ articles, authors, and editors grows, it will be increasingly more cumbersome for authors to find the appropriate editors to approve particular articles. At the same time, it will be harder and harder for editors to keep track of all of the articles that might be approaching the approval stage.

I think we need a system by which authors can easily bring good content to the attention of editors with relevant expertise. A template (or maybe just a category) would do the job, I think. An author would insert the template with relevant workgroups. The article would then show up in a category of author-nominated articles that would be browseable by editors from the proper workgroups.

This way, I don't have to look through the bio page for each and every author in a workgroup to find the right person to approve an article. And an editor doesn't have to check every article that might conceivably fall under her area of expertise.

Thoughts? --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:54, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree this is important. Above Larry says that authors may not nominate an article of approval. On the other hand adding the {{ToApprove}} may well be the best way to recruit editors. Rather than have a seperate proceedure for attracting editors why not just let authors use the ToApprove template? Chris Day (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, if we allow authors to use the ToApprove template, then we will eventually have to deal with a nomination that makes it to the deadline without an editor having seen it. It would then be automatically approved without an editor's input. (Is that right?) We don't want to deal with that, so I think it would probably be best to keep the two stages separate. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:12, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Link to approval standards

At the moment, the section "When and how to use the {{ToApprove}} template" starts with the sentence

An approving editor (or "approver") should be of the considered opinion that the article satisfies the Citizendium article approval standards.

where the phrase "article approval standards" links to Citizendium Pilot:Policy Outline#Article Standards. Should this link instead point to CZ:Approval Standards? I'm asking because the way I read those pages, Citizendium Pilot:Policy Outline#Article Standards sets a much higher standard than CZ:Approval Standards. I'm assuming that the former is the ideal to which all articles should strive (like an A grade), while the latter is what is needed to be approved (like a pass grade). However, I'm hesitant to make the change. -- Jitse Niesen 07:55, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

approve article, not talk?

When I added the ToApprove template to the talk page of complex number, as directed, the "articles to approve" special page lists Talk:Complex number as the one needing approval. Code glitch? or did I do it wrong? - Greg Martin 20:09, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

This has been the convention, it's been added to the talk page, since usually that's where discussions about approvals have been and I think there were occaisons where -when put on the article- it was missed by the "talkers". Of course, putting it on the talk page leads to the silly list of talk pages up for approval. If you like though, we can put it on both the article and the talk page - or just the article. What do you think? Now's the time to set these conventions. Nancy Sculerati 20:38, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

The problem is: when the template is put on the talk page, then it's the talk page that's added to the "articles to approve" category and listed when that category is viewed. It really means the article, not the talk page, is being nominated. I think it's a relatively minor problem we can just get used to (at least until maybe special software is set up or something). An alternative would be to put one template on the talk page and at the same time a different template on the article page. The template on the article page could be invisible and just add the page to the category. This might cause problems if people made mistakes and didn't add or remove the two templates at the same time. --Catherine Woodgold 18:38, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

meaning of "worked on"

It says "If the editor has worked on it herself, she asks another editor to approve it; or, if there are several editors all doing significant work on the article, then at least three of them can agree to approve it." I think this needs to be reworded or clarified. To me, "worked on it" sounds as if it includes doing any edits to the article, even minor ones. --Catherine Woodgold 18:43, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

moved from Approval Announcement page

I have been involved in a few approvals both as editor and sysop activating the approved version, and actually pioneered (and wrote) the slightly challenging draft approval (Version 1.1 etc.) process. All this is obvious to editors who have been through extensive editing and approval of big articles like Biology and Life.

The decision about which version is approve comes up time after time. It seems always to be complicated by a rush of last minute changes, and most frustratingly, while we are attempting to complete last minute copy edits, there will be a late arrival of a controversial edit of substance which by older rules, would freeze further copy editing because it is slow to be reverted in the approved copy (eg see long debate about proofs in the forums, recent talk in Life, older talk in Biology etc). The very recent entry of Dr Sculerati as an editing role hopefully will solve these trivial but annoying challenges.

My considered advice, in blunt terms is:

Intellectuals should shut up for a few days till the approval V 1.1 goes through, then let fire with all cartridges with a pistol fully loaded. Deep philosphical debates at the wrong time are slowing down the printing presses and confusing the workers!.

(Tongue in cheek emoticon goes here (-)

But which version?

The path I have trodden as nominating editor is to continually update the URL pointer in the template To approve Tag to the latest version containing good copy, and annotate, with each pointer update, the approval area with comments like

URL pointer updated David Tribe 16:47, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

so that the sysop (constable) actioning the approval has a clear indication of which version has full editorial support. This is assuming that ALL the edits contained in the pointer are typographical correction to a just previously duly nominated approved version. Again, last minute proposals to change text in a substantial way derail the judgement process by the "disinterested" constable.

In the last two Math approvals, even after the deadline, there were debates that required mathematical and other judgments. I took the view that I was unqualified as a sysop to judge the validity of them ( I understood what they were, and thought the Taylor series link was probably OK and a trivial decision but it's 40 years since I studied Taylor series) and that the articles had been through a thorough approval period, and that in any case if the issues turned out in the judgment of the Math editors out to be crucial, Math editors could push for Version 1.1 within about 24 hours if need be.

Revision of a Approved article to Version 1.1 or 1.2 should be no big deal. Version 1.1 should be an efficient phase for identifying overlooked glitches on approved versions, and my advice is to avoid redrafts and major change till even version 1.2 is on the board.

My attitude is based on the conviction we need to notch up many more approved articles, and that the degree of error in articles that have reached this (Version 1) stage is trivial compared to the great swathe of mediocre stuff we still have sitting there. As we say repeatedly, we have bigger fish to fry.

In fact we should have a "Bigger fish to fry", or just a fish image , template to make the point David Tribe 16:47, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

David, this all seems very sensible. Maybe we should standardize this, such that the nominating editor (in the 1-editor model) would be authorized to update the pointer so long as she or he felt the changes were improvements which did not require re-examination or raise concerns (anyone who disagreed with this could certainly say so on the comment page, and the constable could grant an extra 24 hours if requested, but "there being no objections" then that updated pointered version would become the approved one. I'm thinking right now of Literature, the first entry I've been involved in approving, and my involvement in this case is limited by the fact that I'm its principal author, so all I can do is pace about in the "waiting room" as it were! Russell Potter 16:59, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I have been updating the pointer fully knowing it wasn't explicitly approved in the rules (but wasn't explicitly forbidden). It would be really unproductive to penalise an editor for doing this. It is called using editorial judgment. It seems obvious that it doesnt need speling out. But what is obvously sensible to some, is opaque to others. Once as a sysop I corrected a trivial but glaring visual flaw in an approved article and it was said afterward that this action was illegal. It took about a week for this to be redone legally by someone else, because it was rather mechanically complex, involving draft versions. I prevented one week of uglyness in an approved article and I am unrepentant about fixing an image presentation that looked atrocious with huge photos obscuring the text, if I recall correctly. But it did convince me that those with direct experience at the coal face have to speak up when formal procedures are not perfectly tuned. The key step is to modify the rules by due process so they work better.David Tribe 17:22, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Russell has a unique problem in that he is only an author and his editor has gone missing. Technically he can't do anything and the article is about to be approved without his changes. Right now the rules would have constables approving the tagged version unless the editor comes back and changes the pointer. Is that right? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:26, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, after looking at the changes that Russell has made [1], I think they are copy edits. You, as Approval editor, should be able to allow me to approve the article and then you would naturally incorporate his changes. So, instead, I see nothing that should keep me from approving it all on May 10th, right? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:33, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I think the Editorial Council is the place to get the mechanics of implementation standardized. Nancy Sculerati 17:30, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for that comment Dr Sculerati. It happens I'm on the Editorial Council, and I should try and progress it there. David Tribe 17:43, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

His editor is a well respected author who is working on a project- she is not really missing. She -like many experts- is not so familiar with the wiki, and does not regularly spend time on it. Although in no way am I willing to influence her, I am extremely likely to be able to have her read the version that is considered the best one for her to read on the day of approval. Since I myself am rather lame at the wiki- it would be best if you could put up an approval nomination template- an honest one that does not have her name on it -that points to the version to be examined, make it obvious so there will be no mistake. It will be up to her to indicate which version she approves. I am confident that she will approve one, because she already liked the first one that she looked at and her criticisms were really minor. But we will stick to the letter of the law to the best of our ability to interpret it. Hopefully, should Citizendium continue to grow, someday we will have enough of a quantity of editors for each field that things will be easier. Until then, I am willing to make the effort to facilitate. Nancy Sculerati 19:36, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, did you see that these are the changes that we are talking about. [2]. What do you think? I think they are copy edits. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:15, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Matt has found an illustration of the point I am trying to make. The edits are not authorship but routine copyediting, and in those cases the URL should be updated by the editor supervising the nomination. In her absence, Dr Schulerati should,(as she is) in my opinion, be empowered to incorporate them into the approved version. That an approving editor in that work group is currently not on tap all the time, of course, is quite routine. It shouldn't hold up the implementation of a fair copy of what has been approved. We should add to the approval guidelines an explanation of this . I routine incorporated similar correction to the several articles I was managing. Explicit mentioning of what constitutes copyediting in the rules is needed. If there is a good faith error by, say Dr Schulerati, in calling these copyedits, it can be challenged by other editors and corrected in Version 1.1.David Tribe 20:37, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree that our current rules allow for the above using Nancy as the Approval Editor. I also agree that any new rule should allow that anytime there is a question of content, the change can be removed on request of any of the approving editors. However, lets remove this from this page and bring it to the CZ:Approval Process page, then make a resolution for the Editorial Council. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:57, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I have ONE very important point to make- no H, it's Sculerati :-) Nancy Sculerati 21:04, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I was writing for the fonetically challenged, which you are not ;-) David Tribe 15:18, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes ma'am. :D --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:07, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually- TWO important points, there is no such thing as "routine" copyediting without a nominating editor. I say this not because I am an idiot who can't copyedit, but because I am very very smart, :-), smart enough to know that in an article like Literature the copyediting should be done by the nominating editor. Take a look at her user page and click her web site. Dr. Sculerati, who is well known for her unique spelling and punctuation is not about to fool with the English Doctor. Same thing is true for Math, Science, the nominating editors should direct copyedits to avoid making a mess. What I will do is call her and go over it on the phone -audio- while we bothlook at the wiki-visual. That's legitimate, and that's if she doesn't come on the wiki on her own. Nancy Sculerati 21:14, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

This has been very exciting! -- many thanks Matt, and Nancy,and David and all for sensing the issues at at stake. However this works out, I do think it will help all of us think through and improve the Approval process. On a more technical note, I would be delighted if, with Nancy as Approval Editor, we can get the copyedited version of Literature approved on the original date. But if not, perhaps the 24-hour addendum method would work for what we could call version 1.1? In either case, or in any case, I am sure that before too long we'll have a good, solid start to this toplevel article. I hope we'll soon also have some more Editors in Literature, and that this also will help the process along considerably. Cheers to all, Russell Potter 21:17, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

p.s. to Nancy's last comment which appeared after I posted mine: the copyediting, whether 'routine' or not, was actually just me keying in edits suggested by the nominating editor, along with one other slight edit (a closed parenthesis) and a change from one image of books to another. In cases where the approving editor is more wiki-facile, I imagine these would not come up. Russell Potter 22:01, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Moved from Approval Announcenent page

Towards finalising approval

There seem to be six outstanding issues that have not been tied up.

Approval area

This page is important to bring together all the commentary specifically related to the approval process (e.g. Talk:Biology/Approval). There are two specific advantages, 1) The history of this page will be separate from the talk page history. 2) the approval discussion will be more coherent rather than being fractured in the talk page and between talk page archives. 3) this is useful for the constables that might need to find approval related edits in the future since it keeps the approval edits away from the talk page history.
Every article, even before the approval process begins, should have an approval sub-page that is transcluded at the top of the talk page, so its content is clearly visible. This can be added to the top of the talk page using the {{Approval history}} template (e.g. Talk:RNA_interference/Draft) or incorporated into the checklist (e.g. Talk:Biology/Draft). If added to the checklist this ensures that every talk page has a link to the approval area (I favour this change to the checklist). This is good since it reminds authors and editors to work towards approval rather than moving onto to other pages without first approving. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Chris Day on this but can add it seems to be current practicve to move Talk:Article to Talk:Article/Draft at the time the first version is approved. This retains all records at the Talk:Articcle/Draft, which is very sensible. Hence it is true that the approval ALWAYS occurs at the talk page of the article being revised and edited.David Tribe 02:44, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Agree that the addition of the Approval page to the checklist would make it considerably more efficient for constables and anyone interested in the Approval process. It even looks nice. I can't think of any significant reason not to do it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:25, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I forgot to mention that the articles talk page should be moved to the Draft talk page (as David mentioned above). This is important to keep edit history intact. At the end of each of these sections we should add the "How=to-version" of this discussion. Chris Day (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Location for the {{ToApprove}} template

There seems to be confusion for where the ToApprove template should be placed. i think we all agree that for the first approval it is placed on the talk page. For subsequent approvals it is less clear. There are three posible locations. The draft article (e.g. Biology/Draft), the draft talk page (e.g. Talk:Biology/Draft) or the approval area (e.g. Talk:Biology/Approval. I believe the latter page is the most sensible since all approval related edits can then be tracked in the history of that sub page. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

See above there need be no confusion if it is remembered that at the time of approval of the first version the Talk:Article page is moved to Talk:Aticle/Draft. Hence the To approve is aways placed at the Talk page of the article being edited (Talk:Article for the first version, Talk:Article/Draft for subsequent versions.) David Tribe 02:59, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

David, just to clarify, if the ToApprove template is placed in the approval area (such as Talk:Tux/Approval then it will be on the talk page. Look at what appears in the ToApprove category when the ToApprove template is placed in the articles approval area (see Talk:Tux/Draft for a current example)

Yes, another good reason for the Approval page. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:27, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

It seems to me that the essence of the confusion is that it is unclear what is meant by "the article being edited". The Draft page is the article that is literally being edited, but upon approval, it's not (just) the draft article, but the article itself that will be changed. It seems to me that there ought to be a uniform procedure for handling version 1.0 and subsequent versions of the article. Having an Approval page seems convenient (and I think it's probably a good idea), but it makes it less clear how to gollow the progress of an article. It would be nice to be able to start from the article itself (e.g., Tux) and be able to go directly to the right page for the approval template and discussion and, conversely, be able to go directly from the approval area to the article iself (not the draft of the article that will be approved). Greg Woodhouse 08:03, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree and this can be achieved easily by tweeking the approval templates. Chris Day (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Number of editors

Above, the mention of a fourth editor was broached. I am not sure this disucussion reached a conclusion either here or on the forum. Where do we stand since the approved template needs to be updated to reflect the consensus of that discussion? Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Currently, as a constable, I would have to go with the rules from the CZ:Approval Process page which make no mention of the 4th editor. Of course that is apt to change. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:31, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Proof reading phase

There was extensive discussion on this topic (i'll get the forum link). At present I have no opinion (i need to refresh myself on the opinions offered on the forums). Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

This can be solved by the fact that reversals (reverts) are permitted if a reason is given. Its revert without explanation that are verboten (Ive recently realised!).. It will be necessary sometimes if there are substantial edits occurring before all copyedits have been completed for the managing editor to revert them with a note that there is a proofing phase in action for a final article. Alternatively, they remain in place and the approval takes place with an earlier version and the managing editor (or whatever Nancy's title is) is empowered to complete all approptiate copy edits to the approved article. It will be (probably) be necessary to define a limited proofing period, or a definite proofing step or responsibility carried out by Nancy Sculerati.David Tribe 02:59, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

This process continues to mature. It is quite obvious that no matter how perfect our initial Approval process there will be a period of finding "errata" that needs either "copy editing" by the Approval Managing Editor or "re-approving" via the same approval process. I do think it is important, as Nancy pointed out last week, that the Approval tag should be much harder to remove once it is placed to avoid trivial reasons for removal in controversial articles. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:40, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Gallery pages

Are the gallery sub-pages to be treated as separate articles or as part of the main article? I am in favor of treating them as part of the main article. As soon as they are created their talk pages should be directed to the articles talk page. After the first approval the gallery talk page would be redirected to the draft talk page (similar to the article talk page being redirected to the draft talk page). Any changes to the gallery would be discussed on the draft talk page and require approval of the set (article and gallery). The gallery would be protected at the same time as the article. The advantage I see here is one unified talk page for the suite of pages (article, draft and gallery) since they are so closely related. There is nothing worse than fractured discussion. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

General {{Approved}}template

For simplicity i am in favor of one approved template to be pasted onto all related subpages (article, approval, draft and gallery (if it exists)). This makes the job easier for the closing constable. the template will be tailored to give a different out put depending on which page it is placed. Why is this an advantage? Two reasons for starters, the closing constable does not have to remember to place the draft category onto the new draft sub page, it will be automatic. The closing constable does not have to juggle mutliple templates. Chris Day (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

This would be great. We need to work in this direction. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

What are you talking about?

(Sorry, I couldn't think of a good heading) Is the current best practice described somewhere? I know of CZ:Approval Process but that is rather incomplete and it looks like you guys are much further. For instance, the approval subpage that you're talking about is completely new to me.

When we (the maths workgroup) had our first approvals, the following questions came up:

How much work can editors do on an article before they are considered authors, and hence they need to go for group approval instead of individual approval?
Should changes in the nominated revision in the ToApprove template be documented in the approval area? I saw at least one editor doing this diligently.
If a nomination is supported by another editor, can the nominating editor change the revision to approve? The supporting editor? Logically, they would probably need to agree before changing, but that could be rather hard to organize.
How to archive the talk page once approval is achieved?
What is Template:Experimental about? It's used on Talk:Biology/Draft and Talk:Life/Draft, which we used as guidelines.

Probably, none of these questions is terribly important (except for the third one, for which I'd like to know the answer), but if you rewrite the Approval Process you may take them on board. -- Jitse Niesen 08:12, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

You are correct that many of these issues are not even addressed on the CZ:Approval Process page. This is the primary reason to have this discussion so we can get this whole thing nailed. I wonder if this discussion would be more appropriate at CZ_Talk:Approval_Process? The reason it is here is that Nancy brought up the "what to do with galleries during approval?" issue on this page. I then added several other issues that i thought needed to be discussed.

The idea of an approval area has been around for a while, as part of the regular talk page, but i thought that it would be a lot more efficient if it was on its own subpage (and then transcluded to the relevant talk page). This is unofficial but i think it has enough support that it should be considered as an update for the approval process. In my opinion, all discussion related to approval should be on this subpage, including all the ToApprove templates and this should start when the article is created.

I agree your third point is very important, i believe this is related to the proof reading issue too, although i do not think there is a definitive answer. With regard to the experimental template i apologise for the confusion, I should probably strip that out ( a better model would be the talk:RNA interference/Draft page. The experimental template is a modified version of the checklist template that incorporates the talk archive box and the approval area. The use of that template, rather than the regular checklist template, means the archive box and approval area are generated automatically on the talk page or draft talk page. Chris Day (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Proposal 1

My first proposal would be that we go ahead and add the approval page to the checklist template so that we have an efficient way of handling all approvals in the same manner from the beginning of an article. The approval page is the page with the blue top bar on Tux/Draft talk page (for any newcomers to the discussion). This would be in reference to the above conversation on Approval Area. Any thoughts? --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:04, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Clearly i agree with this approach. It may seem complicated now but once everyone is familiar with the concept of an approval page it will make life a lot easier. There is nothing more complicated than trying to tease apart the various approval related comments from the the talk page and talk page history. Yet that is what we are currently trying to do. Chris Day (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for lack of continuity, but...

Could you kindly go back to the Approval Announcement talk page? I had made comments after several posts there before I realized that you had abandoned that page. Please read them and we can continue here.-or there. Nancy Sculerati 14:37, 16 May 2007 (CDT)