Archive:Approval and Feedback: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Roger A. Lohmann No edit summary |
imported>D. Matt Innis (I missed this! You assumed correctly ;-)) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Persons interested in taking an active role in developing and managing this initiative (please add your name if you're seriously interested): | Persons interested in taking an active role in developing and managing this initiative (please add your name if you're seriously interested): | ||
* [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] | * [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] | ||
* [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] | * [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] | ||
* [[User:David Shapinsky|David Shapinsky]] | * [[User:David Shapinsky|David Shapinsky]] | ||
* [[User:Carl Hewitt|Carl Hewitt]] | * [[User:Carl Hewitt|Carl Hewitt]] | ||
Revision as of 12:34, 10 March 2008
This is the future home of an Approval and Feedback Initiative: it's all about recognizing excellence.
Persons interested in taking an active role in developing and managing this initiative (please add your name if you're seriously interested):
- Larry Sanger
- D. Matt Innis
- David Shapinsky
- Carl Hewitt
- Martin Baldwin-Edwards
- Supten Sarbadhikari
- Anthony.Sebastian
- David E. Volk
- Jaime Nubiola
- User:Roger Lohmann
- (add your name if seriously interested, i.e., if you're interested in doing real work for the initiative)
Problems with current (Feb. 2008) article approval system
- Rate of approval too slow
- Too much confusion about what the process is
- No simple, prominently-placed version of instructions
- No easy way to get the word out to specific sets of editors that we want reviews
- No set way for editors to simply *review* an article and thereby enumerate what an article needs in order to be approvable