CZ:The Article Checklist

Basically, the Article Checklist is (or will be, if we start using it) a set of standardized notes about every article in the Citizendium. The proposal on the table is to place this checklist on the "Talk" page of every article. The checklist tracks data that we can use to organize article improvement projects and to compile new statistics meaningful to humans. It does this by automatically compiling useful categories, linked from Category:Checklisted Articles.

Testing starts March 8: please see The Big Cleanup. You can also discuss this proposal.

How it works

The checklist is a template (if you're interested, here is an introduction to Mediawiki templates). Basically, you fill out the checklist simply by typing workgroup category names, code numbers, and yeses and nos. The template takes your input and spits out two things: (1) your answers, prettily formatted in a table, and (2) new and very useful categories such as "Developed Articles," "Stub Articles," "Philosophy Orphans," and many others.

An example of the Article Checklist in use can be found at Talk:John Doherty (fiddler). Note not only the checklist, but all of the "categories" listed at the bottom of the page: all of those categories are automatically generated by the checklist. If you're interested, feel free to play with the parameters of the template on Talk:John Doherty (fiddler), to see how they change the category list; but you might want to see below for help doing this, particularly for filling out the 'status' field, which uses numbers 1-4.

A complete list of articles that make use of the Article Checklist can be found at Category:Checklisted Articles. Checklisted articles make use of a variety of useful categories, including but not limited to:

1. Developed Articles
2. Developing Articles
3. Stub Articles
4. External Articles

• Internal Articles = 1-3
• Nonstub Articles = 1-2
• Underlinked Articles

The technically-minded may be interested to see the template found at Template:Checklist, which is the "engine" behind the checklist.

How we could use this to organize massively distributed work

So, how could the Article Checklist be used?

First consider that we have done remarkably well with The Big Speedydelete. This shows wonderfully what a big crowd of smart people can do if given definite, useful, self-directed tasks, clear instructions, and a way to get credit. Suppose, then, we start another "Big" project, a Big Cleanup, which does all the relatively simple stuff that needs to be done, or checked, in articles. For instance:

• Is the title bolded?
• Are the correct workgroup tags used?
• Are the old Wikipedia interwiki links removed, if the article came from Wikipedia?

And so on.

Well, when people do The Big Cleanup, they can put the Article Checklist on the talk page of every article. One of the items on the checklist is: "Basic cleanup done?" If you say "yes" to that, that means you've gone through the "basic cleanup" list, which can be found below, and you've done everything on that list. If you mark "no," then the article is added to "General Cleanup" and (supposing it's a Physics Workgroup article) the "Physics Cleanup" categories.

If we use the Article Checklist as part of The Big Cleanup, not only would we track the information that the article had been cleaned up, but for relatively little work, many useful categories that would result. Perhaps the most important would be the "status" information about the articles in our database: this would allow us to determine what percentage of articles are "developed," "developing and past stub stage," "stubs," and "sourced from elsewhere and undeveloped," and how many articles there are in each category. This sort of data would be really useful for workgroups to get an idea of where they are at, what their needs are, and so forth.

But this would be only the beginning. These dynamically generated categories would make new projects possible. We could tackle orphans by workgroup; we could upload images and templates by workgroup (or alphabetically); we could expand stubs alphabetically, or by workgroup; we could make and execute some hard decisions about relatively unedited articles from Wikipedia, Britannica, and other sources.

Then, if we expand the checklist and sets of categories, we might keep track of any of dozens of different attributes: need copyediting; needs rewrite for style; intro needs to be rewritten; bias; education level inappropriate; appears to be original research; and so forth.

The blank template

Here's a copy of the blank Article Checklist template and it's instructions that you can copy and paste onto the talk page of articles. Once you have filled out the checklist, delete the instructions!

{{#switch: {{{info}}}

<!--general article properties-->
|       pagename = 
|        variant = 

<!--Required for checklist-->

|            abc =  
|      cat_check = 
|         status = currently no status
|    underlinked = 
|        cleanup = 
|             by = 
|           cat1 = 
|           cat2 = 
|           cat3 = 
|           sub1 = 
|           sub2 = 
|           sub3 = 
|           tab1 = 
|           tab2 = 
|           tab3 = 

<!--required for ToApprove template-->
|    article url = 
|    subpage url = 
|        cluster = 
|            now = 
|     ToA editor = 
|    ToA editor2 = 
|    ToA editor3 = 
|           date = 

<!--required for Approved template-->
|       A editor = 
|      A editor2 = 
|      A editor3 = 

}}<noinclude>{{subpages}}</noinclude>

In brief:

• pagename: must contain the correct name of the article.
• variant: records the dialect of English which the article is written in.

• abc: means the form of the title for alphabetization, e.g. "Doherty, John" or "Orient, The". Please think this one through.
• cat_check: put "yes" if you want someone to check over the categories.
• status: 0 for approved articles; 1 developed, 2 developing, 3 stub, 4 external
• underlinked: put "yes" if not enough other articles link to it (click "What links here" at left)
• cleanup: put "yes" if basic cleanup has been done.
• by: obsolete; leave blank.
• cat1, cat2 and cat3: workgroups; fill in numerical order.
• sub1, sub2 and sub3: sub-workgroups; fill in numerical order.
• tab1, tab2 and tab3: per-article subpages; fill in numerical order.

• article url: a URL link to the version to approve.
• subpage url: a URL link to the version of a subpage to approve.
• cluster: blank unless the whole cluster needs to be approved.
• now: the date and time when the nomination was made.
• ToA editor, ToA editor2, ToA editor3: name of the editor(s) who nominated the article for approval; fill in numerical order.
• date: deadline for comments (format yyyymmdd).

• A editor, A editor2, A editor3: copied from ToA editor etc when Approval is completed.

The template fields explained

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

The 'abc' field

We would be putting the checklist on the "Talk" pages of articles. In category lists, then, articles will all appear under "T" for "Talk," unless we specify otherwise. Therefore, we should give the name of the article here for alphabetization purposes. For example: Russia; United States of America, The; Doherty, John.

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."

Fill in 'cat1' before 'cat2' or 'cat3'. Template:Checklist permits only three categories, 'cat1', 'cat2', and 'cat3'.

The template is limited to three workgroup categories.

Check categories?

The small-font parenthetical note is generated by 'cat_check'. This is used to indicate whether, in the opinion of the person filling out the checklist, the category list is OK or, instead, needs review by editors. Simply write 'y' or 'n' (or variations on these) for yes or no.

This generates handy "category check" categories, such as "Category:Philosophy Category Check" or, if no categories are specified, "Category:General Category Check".

Article status

There are four options for 'status' (examples to be given later):

1. Developed article: complete or nearly so
2. Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
3. Stub: no more than a few sentences
4. External article: from another source, with little change

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 four options, as well as "Internal Articles" (combination of 1-3) and "Nonstub Articles" (combination of 1-2)--and for each of the categories 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".

Underlinked article?

An "underlinked article" is that 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.

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

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.

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 found atop the talk 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.