Forum Talk:Approvals Committee Discussions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Help system All recent posts Back to top Contact Administrators Archives

Approvals Committee Discussions

Non-members: for comments, please use the forum.

Pages: ContentGovernance and PolicyStyleManagementTechnical IssuesRequests for HelpCompetitors and PressArchived Boards

Evaluating articles 2018

Start September 20

Articles for consideration of approval

Results of voting
    • I am impressed by the thoroughness of it. The statement in the introduction about it not being released as a single was thoroughly confusing at first, but became clear later in the article. Under the heading The Album the first paragraph has several defects. The sequence in the first sentence of that paragraph is not clear – it seems to go backward in time. In the bit about “backwards reverb” the second sentence has one too many “it” in it, and the sense depends on which is the right one. The last sentence has a “that” that shouldn't be there. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I will correct the last one, but I can't correct the first two because I do not know what the true meaning should be (or how to find out). --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Martin, I re-read the piece carefully and do not see the problem you are referring to. There are a number of unfamiliar words used throughout that assume an interested reader will understand. The business about the backward reverb presumably falls in that category. I see you made the copy-edit corrections. I will vote for approval. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I made an edit to the lede, moving a phrase in a sentence from one part to another, to ensure (I think!) correct grammar. Aside from that, I have no idea what the article is about. If both of you are happy with it, I will vote for it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
    • For the second of my objections, I have removed the "it" at the end of the sentence, to give what I think is probably the correct sense. But I still do not understand the first sentence of the first main section. This says "The song was rehearsed and assembled during the course of the band's second North American tour in 1969, with its basic framework recorded upon return to Olympic Studios in London, May 1969, with . . . . additional overdubs added whilst in Los Angeles." Were the additional overdubs pre-recorded for use in Olympic Studios, or were they added at some later stage on a return to the States? Otherwise, as I originally said, it seems a thorough article. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Who wrote the original lede? Could we try to get his/her opinion? Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Start August 18, new articles for possible approval

Results of voting


Bill Tilden
Hayford: yes; Anthony: yes; Martin: yes
Richard Condon
Hayford: abstain; Anthony: yes; Martin: yes
Alkaline pasta
Hayford: yes; Anthony: yes; Martin: yes
Pali Canon
Hayford: yes; Anthony: yes; Martin: yes
W. S. Gilbert
Hayford: yes; Anthony: yes; Martin: yes


Here are three articles I have written over the years and that I think are ready to be considered for approval. They have all been posted to Wikipedia but have then been severely edited and/or truncated to fit into the unique Wikipedia style (or LACK of style). Frankly, I think these are *far* better than what is in Wikipedia. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This article was enjoyable and informative. It was a story well told, with coherent narrative flow. It could be improved by including a list of sources. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I DID try for a narrative. Which, of course, WP took out completely. This was maybe the first LONG article I wrote, and Larry S. said that he enjoyed it also. I will try to add some more sources, but beyond the DeFord book and a couple of others there really weren't all that many. DeFord basically covered just about everything. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's a point I want to bring up: back when the project was first underway, Larry kept insisting that various references, links, and sources be put into OTHER tabs and places rather than in the standard Wikipedia format. Remember "Catalogs"? I had to do a couple of tennis articles under Catalogs rather than as ordinary articles. With the Tilden article, for instance, there are tabs for Related Articles, External Links, Bibliography. I can SEE why Larry wanted SOME of them, but I think that they are millstones around our necks. Almost ALL of the stuff that he insisted should go into those tabs *I* think should just go into the Sources or Notes at the bottom of the main article. What you do think? Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you, Hayford. I added two more sources. I will vote to approve. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! When I have a little more time tomorrow, I will definitely add some more sources to the Tilden article. They exist, and they *should* be there! Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As you can probably see, I have added some stuff to the original article and also created a new one called Bill Tilden career statistics. Is there any way I can add the color BLUE to the [Expand] mention in the lede paragraph? I can't find anything in Help about it. Thanks, Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks all right to me. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A most informative and entertaining article about a fascinating novelist. I need to check whether the reference links are still valid. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
All the links in the references are valid. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article. All reference links are valid except reference 4. I have asked Hayford to fix reference 4. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed reference link #4 by simply removing it. I don't know how it crept in there, and it was certainly not needed, even if it *had* been working. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The only problem I can see with this article is that the process of revision still seems active. At some point it will have to be frozen. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

    • I put a note on Peter Jackson's talk page, asking him if he had any revisions or additions to the article, and asking him to check the online links for accessibility. I liked the article. I think it is approvable in its present form. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Peter responded. He has no revisions or additions to make. Online links ok except for one that he will check on. I vote for approval.Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • W. S. Gilbert Martin: this looks very like the WP article. The CZ main author says that he wrote most of the WP article.
    • This is a very readable and interesting article. I removed the online links to Boise State University, as none of them were accessible. We need to include a note that part of the article was imported from Wikipedia. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Robert Lewis Stevenson Martin: this needs some reorganising, and possibly some more material.
  • William Wordsworth Martin: also needs a bit more work.
I have now done as much work on this as I am likely to do, and have put some comments on the talk page. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Start August 4, vote August 24

Result of voting

The committee voted unanimously to retain all three articles under consideration. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


  • Hayford Peirce yes
  • Anthony Sebastian yes
  • Martin Wyatt: It looks to me as though we are voting to keep all three of these, provided Anthony is happy with the bacteriophage one. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Approved/Citable versions for re-evaluation


Acid rain/Citable Version
Although this article is only five years old, I suspect that the content needs updating. Six of the links in the references do not work. In general I found it helpful and informative. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have updated all the non-working links in the references. Readers who click on some of the updated links will find updated information. I agree with Martin that the article needs updating, but it remains an excellent article on the subject of acid rain generically. I would vote to retain it as a citable version until we can find somebody to update the acid rain situation in the United States.
I vote FOR it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Bacteriophage/Citable Version
I found this article pleasingly informative. All links work. I am quite unable to judge the content. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks very knowledgeable to me. I vote FOR. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree, we should retain the article. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Boiling point/Citable Version
Two minor complaints about this article: (1) the introduction is repetitive; (2) the section on calculation of boiling point is technical, and I think would be better at the end. Most of the references are to non-electronic sources, consequently only one of them does not work. I am not competent to agree or disagree with any of it, but as far as I can see it presents no other problems. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

As Martin says, the first part SEEMS repetitive to me. But that may be because I don't know enough about the subject to understand the nuances being discussed and illustrated. I will hold off on voting for the moment. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I found that the repetition was helpful and would be helpful for a general audience. Repetition is the mother of learning. The section on calculation of boiling point can be easily skipped over by the general reader and it seems okay where it is located. I fixed the broken link of reference #10. I will vote to retain the article in its present form. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. I will vote the way Anthony does. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Start April 2, vote April 24

Result of voting


  • Hayford Peirce
  • Anthony Sebastian: Cryptology yes; DNA yes.
  • Martin Wyatt
Because of things coming up, I am getting my votes in early.
Cryptology: abstain
DNA: re-approve

--Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Previously approved articles for reevaluation

Cryptology/Citable Version

Seems to me that this is an *awfully* short "article". It really seems to be just a way station to send the reader elsewhere. But, I suppose, there's no rule or precedent that *precludes* it being "approved" or "cited". But I will be happy to hear other opinions about this. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Hayford that this article is just "a way station" to send the reader elsewhere. Because of that, I have incorporated the related articles tab into the article so that the reader can pursue the topic of cryptology. I also put the date of the reference article by Rivest into the citation. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow, what a difference! Thanks, Anthony! Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I am still not sure of the value of having it as a "citable" article. Who would want to cite it? And can we vouch for all the related articles? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

DNA/Citable Version

Looks like an amazingly complex article to me, written by experts and fully referenced. So, subject to comments by you, I will certainly be voting in favor of it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I can just about make out the writing on the diagram that Peter Jackson refers to, but I agree it ought to be larger/clearer. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
We should re-approve the article. Gareth Leng has agreed to work on the editable main article to update it. Then we can consider it for re-approval, rendering it citable version 2 if approved. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I vote FOR. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Start February 19, vote March 2

Result of voting

List of Cleveland Storm football seasons: The Committee votes not to approve this 'article'.
Alcmaeon of Croton/Citable Version: The Committee votes to retain this citable version.


List of Cleveland Storm football seasons

  • Hayford Peirce
  • Anthony Sebastian
  • Martin Wyatt - sorry, I completely missed this going up. I am going to vote no, because I don't know what qualifies a list as an article. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hayford Peirce -- I'm generally pretty all-inclusive, but I think that if Larry were still around he would have insisted that this "article" go into what he called "Catalogs" -- I think some of the tennis stuff I did a long time ago were NOT allowed to be "articles" but are still around as "catalogs". Also, the ONE footnote or reference for this VERY detailed "article" does not work. So there's no verification for *any* of it. Remember in the early days when some kid in New Mexico (I think) created numerous phony articles about hockey players and imaginary high schools (as I vaguely recall)? He caused an enormous amount of trouble, and it took a lot of effort to clear things up. So I am definitely voting NO on this one. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Alcmaeon of Croton/Citable Version

  • Hayford Peirce
  • Anthony Sebastian
  • Martin Wyatt: Re-approve (but I think Pythagorus needs to be corrected to Pythagoras). --Martin Wyatt (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hayford Peirce: Re-approve -- and I have corrected the Pythagoras spelling. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Previously nominated article for consideration of approval

A lack of references makes it very difficult to fact-check this article. It should not be the job of the Approvals Committee to search for the appropriate sources for fact-checking; the author needs to tell us where he got his data from. I would encourage the author to do so before we consider this article for approval. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Previously approved article for reevaluation

I probably should recuse myself from voting inasmuch as I wrote this article. I did check the online links in the reference section and they appear valid. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Start February 12, vote February 23

Results of voting

By unanimous vote, the Committee rejects approval for Liquefied natural gas and encourages users to rectify the dead online links in otherwise excellent article. The Committee suggests removing History of agriculture/Citable Version as a citable version and encourages users to consider alternative ways to structure the topic. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Previously approved article for reevaluation

I stand by the rude comments I made on the Talk page of this article. It is no defence of the decision to approve to say that "CZ urgently needs approved articles" if they are as inadequate as this. If it is to be re-approved (I hope not), it should be the updated version which includes my improvements (though these are themselves inadequate). --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree substantially with Martin and I add the following comments: (a) the subject, History of agriculture, is too large a topic than one article can cover with as few sub-topics as this article contains; (b) as it stands, the referencing is grossly inadequate; for example, the long section on agriculture in the Middle Ages has no references at all; (c) most of the references in the reference section have no online links.
I suggest we remove this article as a citable version and encourage interested users to consider alternate ways to structure the topic. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Previously nominated article for consideration of approval

I see no reason to differ from the very positive views expressed on the talk page. However, this article reinforces my prejudice against quoting online sources rather than printed ones. As far as I can see none of the links, except the one to a printed source, is now working. I could have a go at repairing some of them, but I am not good at that sort of thing. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I see Martin's point about the references. I tested the first 10 online references, and none of them worked. I suggest withholding approval on this article until such time as Users can rectify the references. If the reader cannot access the references, the article cannot be approved. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Without even looking at the article, I have to agree with Anthony on this -- one or two broken links in a LONG article can be overlooked, I suppose, but if the first TEN don't work, then essentially the article is without sources or citation. So I will vote NOT to approve it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Start January 22, vote February 2

Result of voting

By majority vote, the Approvals Committee approves Industrial cooling tower and re-certifies Jane Addams/Citable Version. We encourage users to work on the Main Article Jane Addams for consideration of re-approval.

Previously nominated article for evaluation of approval:

This article seems approvable, and I would vote yes unless otherwise convinced by the other members of the Committee. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My only problem is that the links on references 3 and 9 no longer work, and the link on reference 5 timed out, so I don't know whether it works or not. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Martin, I fixed the three references you referred to. They now work. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Previously approved article for reevaluation:

I have a little knowledge of the history of the settlement movement in Britain, but none of that in America, so I just take an independent view of it. If we are going to re-approve this article, the question is which version. The Main Article contains a number of changes to the Citable Version which are, I think, mostly improvements. The main exception to this is the deletion of the paragraph on lesbianism. There was considerable discussion on the talk page about this paragraph prior to approval, and in the end a change was made in a footnote. Some time after the approval, Russell D Jones, who had taken no part in the previous discussion, removed the whole paragraph without giving any reason that I can discover. There doubtless is a reason, but it cannot be judged. My own inclination would be (1) to use the Main Article, but (2) to reinstate the paragraph, and (3) to promote the comment in the footnote to the text. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I labeled the current citable version, "Version 1, 17-Aug-2013", in the event we want to follow Martin's suggestion. I think the article is ok in its current citable version. The main article needs further work: there has been 3910 new articles/books published since 2014 under Google Scholar search term, "Jane Addams" biography. Some of those should be incorporated into the main article, both as text and references. Also, the referencing needs more links to online versions/excerpts. The section on further reading could use annotating. My preference could be to vote yes on keeping the current citable version as is, then reconsidering the main article for re-approval after it has been reworked. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I have just realised that the deadline for this is almost on us, so will just say that it looks as though we will do what Anthony suggests, which is fine to me. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)