Reserved for a log of re-approval events for Life article
See here for help.
Version 1.0 approval
One editor approval possible on the grounds that Tribe has had insignificant and mundane author involvement David Tribe 08:44, 4 April 2007 (CDT) Updated URL David Tribe 05:54, 5 April 2007 (CDT) Updated URL David Tribe 21:19, 5 April 2007 (CDT) Updated URL David Tribe 01:12, 10 April 2007 (CDT) Updated URL David Tribe 05:42, 10 April 2007 (CDT) shortened deadline to 1 week from first tagging. David Tribe 22:11, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Updated URL to last version with out substantial change from agreeed final form
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life&oldid=100075828 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life&oldid=100075828 DOUBLE CHECKED OK David Tribe 18:03, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
There is multi-editor demand for actioning approval now so deadline set to now after very long editing process. David Tribe 17:56, 10 April 2007 (CDT) Verified 4 editors agreed none disagreed. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:26, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
With Leng support we would have three editor approval also . Leng has given support below. David Tribe 05:55, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
You have Sculerati support for approval. Nancy Sculerati 05:55, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Version 1.1 approval
The purpose of this approval is to fold in minor corrections to the obvious typos and errors in version 1.1. That is all the uncontested uncontroversial minor revisions. For such a change I am putting up a 4 day deadline as being adequate.
The points also included are (i) a slight revision of the Blind-watchmaker quote, (ii) making the great men theme less intrusive,(iii) a single common ancestor scientific simplicity softened. (iv) finalise the exact re-wording of the Si-chemistry statement. The last point (iv) should be the focus of a collaborative re-edit
but the mechanics of editing it in light of later edits are complicated by due process for discussion, so it may have to wait till that due process occurs.
(strikethrough after taking up one of Catherines alternatives slightly modified)David Tribe 17:51, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
Tribe judge's he has tacit support for this act from from Sculerati, Leng, Day and Sebastian from various discussions. Confirmation here would be appreciated.David Tribe 18:59, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
- David, I did a few fixes today, re silicon and evolution of cells (latter in Appendix), and some minor text tweaks. With those, I support the upgrade. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:36, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
- Updated URL Incorporates above mentioned fixes, supported also by Day in Tribe user talk, with thanks David Tribe 00:04, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Updated URL http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100081336 David Tribe 07:26, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- URL updated http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100081731 David Tribe 17:51, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- URL updated after style check http://locke.citizendium.org:8080/wiki?title=Talk:Life/Draft&oldid=100082093
SHORTENING APPROVAL DEADLINE TO CLEAR THE DECKS OF BUGS, GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD David Tribe 06:33, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
- URL udated last time before approval http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100082364
David Tribe 07:17, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
- URL updated again http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100083248 David Tribe 05:32, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
UPDATED URKL http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100084516 Punctuation issue resolved, cell number issue resolved; protein number issue resolved incorporating A Sebastien latest text which is scientifically uncontroversial and documented by added references. No issues seen by D Tribe that amount to disagreement with text that hasn't been fixed. Deadline exceeded. David Tribe 23:42, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
David, I see that the approval date is passed for version 1.1, but am unclear as to whether we have other editors ready to approve. The talk page seems to reflect some confusion about whether to approve. Can you get me another head count? --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:10, 19 April 2007 (CDT) Constable
- All issues of content at the time of the April 18 deadline are corrected by edits. Protein numbers are fully addressed by AS text introduced by D Tribe by pasting from the talk page. There are no outstanding issue with the text at the time the April 18 deadline passed and subsequent matters are legally irrelevant and in any case insubstantial. David Tribe 03:12, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
I CONFIRM http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100084516 is approved by three editors and is the Last supported good draft . I ALSO CONFIRM THAT FOR SOME DAYS NOW THE APPROVAL PROCESS HAS BEEN CUMBERSOME AND ILL ADAPTED FOR CORRECTION OF OBVIOUS TYPOS ON A PREXISTING APPROVED VERSION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED PROMPTLY AND THIS PAGE PROVIDES CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT EDITORS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH TOOLS THAT ALLOW THEM TO ACT. ALL IS REQUIRED IS TRAINING and CONSENSUS FOR AN AGREED PROCESS WHICH IS TECHNICALLY STRAIGHT FORWARD. ANY AGREED PROCESS WILL WORKDavid Tribe 12:33, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
We now have TRIBE SCULERATI DAY AND SEBASTIAN SUPPORTING THIS SO ANY CONSTABLE CAN ACTION APPROVAL David Tribe 17:24, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks David, for your efforts to clear this up. Combining the following comment from above:
- We now have TRIBE SCULERATI DAY AND SEBASTIAN SUPPORTING THIS SO ANY CONSTABLE CAN ACTION APPROVAL David Tribe 17:24, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
And one on my talk page:
- Preferably wait for triumvirate since the difference between the two versions above includes many copy edits from Gareth. It would be good to get those in the approved version. Chris Day (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
It appears that we have three editors that approve the article in its current version. We have one, Chris Day, that agrees that it is the best version, but is concerned that the fourth editor is not here to approve. The fourth editor, Gareth Leng, is apparently unavailable.
Using the following approval standard:
- Group approval. If there are at least three editors, all of which are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two (or more) expert editors.
After lengthy evaluation of the above rule, I can only conclude that it appears that the rule expects that if three editors were working on it, then three are needed to approve it. By the same token, the placement of the words "at least" and "(or more)" tells me that if there are ten editors working on it, all ten are needed to approve. Using this interpretation, we would need to wait. On the other side of the coin, Professor Leng has not shown any sign of disapproval. However, there have been significant changes since his last edit. Barring any further clarification of the rules, I must wait before considering this article approved for the current version. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:58, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Matt, apparently, that bit needs to be rewritten. A minimum of three out of however many editors at work on an article may approve it. If some other editor disagrees, that's another matter, however. --Larry Sanger 23:31, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
|Gareth Leng nominated this version of this article for approval. The Biology Workgroup oversaw this approval and the article was approved on, or around, 10th March 2008.|