Archive:Approvals Committee/Announcements: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (→2018: I don't really know how to get this discussion underway, but I've given it a go, in re Cowdray House) |
imported>Martin Wyatt |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Previously nominated article for consideration: [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cowdray_House Cowdray House] <br> | Previously nominated article for consideration: [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cowdray_House Cowdray House] <br> | ||
:I just looked through the Cowdray House article and was impressed by the degree of detail and apparent scholarship involved. On the other hand, I couldn't see any *obvious* reasons about why this *lengthy* article was created. And I'm very much of an "inclusionist" in general -- if someone wants to write an article about anything except the most *trivial* item, then I'm for it. I then looked at the Wikipedia article about the same subject. I truly *hate* to say this, but I think the WP article is far superior. It is nowhere near as lengthy, but at least in the *first* paragraph it tells us WHY this ruin is noteworthy. And it leaves OUT a lot of minute details, so that the more *important* ones can be discerned by a reader whose interest in the subject is very close to zero. I certainly would not vote to *remove* this article, but, as you can tell, I have a notable lack of enthusiasm for it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] ([[User talk:Hayford Peirce|talk]]) 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | :I just looked through the Cowdray House article and was impressed by the degree of detail and apparent scholarship involved. On the other hand, I couldn't see any *obvious* reasons about why this *lengthy* article was created. And I'm very much of an "inclusionist" in general -- if someone wants to write an article about anything except the most *trivial* item, then I'm for it. I then looked at the Wikipedia article about the same subject. I truly *hate* to say this, but I think the WP article is far superior. It is nowhere near as lengthy, but at least in the *first* paragraph it tells us WHY this ruin is noteworthy. And it leaves OUT a lot of minute details, so that the more *important* ones can be discerned by a reader whose interest in the subject is very close to zero. I certainly would not vote to *remove* this article, but, as you can tell, I have a notable lack of enthusiasm for it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] ([[User talk:Hayford Peirce|talk]]) 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
:This appears to me to be a good article, comprehensive without being over-specialised. If I suddenly took an interest in Cowdray House, it would, I think, tell me much of what I wanted to know, and the bibliography would give further guidance. I have checked one or two of the facts, in the course of which I discovered that William Fitzwilliam was one of the great figures of Henry VIII's reign whom hardly anyone pays any attention to. The links in the references are working. The Related Articles sub-page had nothing on it, but I have added some links on the basis of the metadata. I think the article could be approved. --[[User:Martin Wyatt|Martin Wyatt]] ([[User talk:Martin Wyatt|talk]]) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Previously approved article for re-evaluation: [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Acid_rain/Citable_Version Acid rain/Citable Version] | Previously approved article for re-evaluation: [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Acid_rain/Citable_Version Acid rain/Citable Version] | ||
Revision as of 11:34, 7 January 2018
Non-members: for comments, please use the forum; the Talk page is for Committee members to discuss the development of this page.
This page is for members of the Approvals Committee to make announcements.
2018
Getting started
Let us start slowly with the two articles listed below. Plan on voting on Thursday, January 18, 2018. Keep discussion in this section.
Previously nominated article for consideration: Cowdray House
- I just looked through the Cowdray House article and was impressed by the degree of detail and apparent scholarship involved. On the other hand, I couldn't see any *obvious* reasons about why this *lengthy* article was created. And I'm very much of an "inclusionist" in general -- if someone wants to write an article about anything except the most *trivial* item, then I'm for it. I then looked at the Wikipedia article about the same subject. I truly *hate* to say this, but I think the WP article is far superior. It is nowhere near as lengthy, but at least in the *first* paragraph it tells us WHY this ruin is noteworthy. And it leaves OUT a lot of minute details, so that the more *important* ones can be discerned by a reader whose interest in the subject is very close to zero. I certainly would not vote to *remove* this article, but, as you can tell, I have a notable lack of enthusiasm for it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- This appears to me to be a good article, comprehensive without being over-specialised. If I suddenly took an interest in Cowdray House, it would, I think, tell me much of what I wanted to know, and the bibliography would give further guidance. I have checked one or two of the facts, in the course of which I discovered that William Fitzwilliam was one of the great figures of Henry VIII's reign whom hardly anyone pays any attention to. The links in the references are working. The Related Articles sub-page had nothing on it, but I have added some links on the basis of the metadata. I think the article could be approved. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Previously approved article for re-evaluation: Acid rain/Citable Version
Discussion Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
About the Committee
The Approvals Committee is responsible for the assessment of Citizendium articles. Members also use the discussions page.
The Committee comprises two Editors and one Author. Since January 2018 its members have been:
- Hayford Peirce (Editor)
- Anthony.Sebastian (Editor)
- Martin Wyatt (Author)
Articles
|
|
|