Archive:Approval and Feedback: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian No edit summary |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (Initial set of problems as enumerated by Larry in email to editors) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] | *[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] | ||
* (add your name if seriously interested, i.e., if you're interested in doing real work for the initiative) | * (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 | |||
Revision as of 22:32, 12 February 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 (I'm just assuming :-) --LMS)
- David Shapinsky
- Carl Hewitt
- Martin Baldwin-Edwards
- Supten Sarbadhikari
- Anthony.Sebastian
- (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