CZ:Approval Announcements

May 8, 2007

Newly approved articles:

The prime number 11 illustrated with square tiles. 12 squares can be arranged into a rectangle with sides of length 3 and 4, so 12 is not a prime number. There is no way to form a full rectangle more than one square wide with 11 squares, so 11 is a prime number.

The big news this Tuesday is our 2 newly approved articles: Complex number and Prime number. These are the first mathematics articles ever nominated for approval!

   

Like the first Biology articles, these articles likely need copyediting and the nominating editors can contact me to effect these.Nancy Sculerati 08:49, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

• Like the first Biology article, there seems to be discussion that a line or two is not accurate, or at least well stated, in one of the articles. Is this a copyedit? No, but if 3 editors can quickly agree to fix it, a version 1.1. of a "glitched' newly approved article can be up within 24 hours.

Congratulations Mathematics Workgroup!

Just as no book was ever published (to my knowlege anyway) without need for an erratum or copyedit (if a reader looked closely enough), these articles are a real accomplishment on the part of co-operative effort to synthesize a good article on the wiki - but, as newly frozen articles are likely to be imperfect.

• Hopefully, editors will soon reach consensus on copyedits, and the workgroup will look over both articles for any outstanding issues to be QUICKLY corrected.

• Other changes, and further development of each article, will - of course- continue on the draft pages and all are welcome to author there.

• Now that the Mathematics group has learned how it's done, we look forward to many more articles from you.

Articles newly nominated for approval:

   

In the Literature Workgroup- the lead article: Literature is due for approval on May 10. Discussion and correction is welcome. If no Literature editor removes the template, or asks that the date be extended, approval will occur on May 10.

   

In the Media Workgroup: Telephone Newspaper is due for approval on May 11.

WHICH version gets approved?

The template for nominating an approved version point to a version, at the same time the draft is modified up until approval. How does the Constabulary know which version to approve? I call on the constabulary to answer here, please. Nancy Sculerati

Keep in mind that the constable doesn't actually approve articles, only editors may do this. The constable only performs the mechanics of protecting the pages and setting up the draft versions. When the editor points to a version on the ToApprove template, that is the version that the constable performs the mechanics of approval and protects. Any edits made after the version that the editor pointed to will only be included in the new Draft version, not the Approved version. So technically, once an editor nominates a version for approval, authors may continue to work without being part of the approval process. Keep in mind that the approving editor (or editors) may update the version at any time before the "date to be approved" to include those new changes. So, when the the date of approval arrives, the constable performs the mechanics upon the version that the ToApprove template is pointing to on that day. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:06, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

What's the answer, then? It depends on the specific article and on communication between the nominating editor(s) and the constable approving the version - that's the answer. For the upcoming Literature article, for example, e-mails to the editor that nominated the article for approval may resolve any controversy over which version. Unless the template is changed to point to a new version,- or removed altogether by an editor in that workgroup-, when the approval date comes, it is the version pointed to by the template that the constable will approve. What if new incorporations in the draft would make it a better article? Well, then the article can be approved again- a new version, using the same rules that produced the first approval. Generally, however, if modifications between approved versions are minor, and the nominating editor(s) ask the constable for a short approval time between nomination and approval (like 24 hours) that will be granted.Nancy Sculerati

I have been involved in a few approvals both as editor and sysop activating the approved version, and actually pioneered (and wrote) the slightly challenging draft approval (Version 1.1 etc.) process. All this is obvious to editors who have been through extensive editing and approval of big articles like Biology and Life.

The decision about which version is approve comes up time after time. It seems always to be complicated by a rush of last minute changes, and most frustratingly, while we are attempting to complete last minute copy edits, there will be a late arrival of a controversial edit of substance which by older rules, would freeze further copy editing because it is slow to be reverted in the approved copy (eg see long debate about proofs in the forums, recent talk in Life, older talk in Biology etc). The very recent entry of Dr Sculerati as an editing role hopefully will solve these trivial but annoying challenges.

My considered advice, in blunt terms is:

Intellectuals should shut up for a few days till the approval V 1.1 goes through, then let fire with all cartridges with a pistol fully loaded. Deep philosphical debates at the wrong time are slowing down the printing presses and confusing the workers!.

(Tongue in cheek emoticon goes here (-)

But which version?

The path I have trodden as nominating editor is to continually update the URL pointer in the template To approve Tag to the latest version containing good copy, and annotate, with each pointer update, the approval area with comments like

• URL pointer updated David Tribe 16:47, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

so that the sysop (constable) actioning the approval has a clear indication of which version has full editorial support. This is assuming that ALL the edits contained in the pointer are typographical correction to a just previously duly nominated approved version. Again, last minute proposals to change text in a substantial way derail the judgement process by the "disinterested" constable.

In the last two Math approvals, even after the deadline, there were debates that required mathematical and other judgments. I took the view that I was unqualified as a sysop to judge the validity of them ( I understood what they were, and thought the Taylor series link was probably OK and a trivial decision but it's 40 years since I studied Taylor series) and that the articles had been through a thorough approval period, and that in any case if the issues turned out in the judgment of the Math editors out to be crucial, Math editors could push for Version 1.1 within about 24 hours if need be.

Revision of a Approved article to Version 1.1 or 1.2 should be no big deal. Version 1.1 should be an efficient phase for identifying overlooked glitches on approved versions, and my advice is to avoid redrafts and major change till even version 1.2 is on the board.

My attitude is based on the conviction we need to notch up many more approved articles, and that the degree of error in articles that have reached this (Version 1) stage is trivial compared to the great swathe of mediocre stuff we still have sitting there. As we say repeatedly, we have bigger fish to fry.

In fact we should have a "Bigger fish to fry", or just a fish image , template to make the point David Tribe 16:47, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

David, this all seems very sensible. Maybe we should standardize this, such that the nominating editor (in the 1-editor model) would be authorized to update the pointer so long as she or he felt the changes were improvements which did not require re-examination or raise concerns (anyone who disagreed with this could certainly say so on the comment page, and the constable could grant an extra 24 hours if requested, but "there being no objections" then that updated pointered version would become the approved one. I'm thinking right now of Literature, the first entry I've been involved in approving, and my involvement in this case is limited by the fact that I'm its principal author, so all I can do is pace about in the "waiting room" as it were! Russell Potter 16:59, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I have been updating the pointer fully knowing it wasn't explicitly approved in the rules (but wasn't explicitly forbidden). It would be really unproductive to penalise an editor for doing this. It is called using editorial judgment. It seems obvious that it doesnt need speling out. But what is obvously sensible to some, is opaque to others. Once as a sysop I corrected a trivial but glaring visual flaw in an approved article and it was said afterward that this action was illegal. It took about a week for this to be redone legally by someone else, because it was rather mechanically complex, involving draft versions. I prevented one week of uglyness in an approved article and I am unrepentant about fixing an image presentation that looked atrocious with huge photos obscuring the text, if I recall correctly. But it did convince me that those with direct experience at the coal face have to speak up when formal procedures are not perfectly tuned. The key step is to modify the rules by due process so they work better.David Tribe 17:22, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Russell has a unique problem in that he is only an author and his editor has gone missing. Technically he can't do anything and the article is about to be approved without his changes. Right now the rules would have constables approving the tagged version unless the editor comes back and changes the pointer. Is that right? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:26, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, after looking at the changes that Russell has made [1], I think they are copy edits. You, as Approval editor, should be able to allow me to approve the article and then you would naturally incorporate his changes. So, instead, I see nothing that should keep me from approving it all on May 10th, right? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:33, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I think the Editorial Council is the place to get the mechanics of implementation standardized. Nancy Sculerati 17:30, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for that comment Dr Sculerati. It happens I'm on the Editorial Council, and I should try and proress it there. David Tribe 17:43, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

His editor is a well respected author who is working on a project- she is not really missing. She -like many experts- is not so familiar with the wiki, and does not regularly spend time on it. Although in no way am I willing to influence her, I am extremely likely to be able to have her read the version that is considered the best one for her to read on the day of approval. Since I myself am rather lame at the wiki- it would be best if you could put up an approval nomination template- an honest one that does not have her name on it -that points to the version to be examined, make it obvious so there will be no mistake. It will be up to her to indicate which version she approves. I am confident that she will approve one, because she already liked the first one that she looked at and her criticisms were really minor. But we will stick to the letter of the law to the best of our ability to interpret it. Hopefully, should Citizendium continue to grow, someday we will have enough of a quantity of editors for each field that things will be easier. Until then, I am willing to make the effort to facilitate. Nancy Sculerati 19:36, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, did you see that these are the changes that we are talking about. [2]. What do you think? I think they are copy edits. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:15, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Matt has found an illustration of the point I am trying to make. The edits are not authorship but routine copyediting, and in those cases the URL should be updated by the editor supervising the nomination. In her absence, Dr Schulerati should,(as she is) in my opinion, be empowered to incorporate them into the approved version. That an approving editor in that work group is currently not on tap all the time, of course, is quite routine. It shouldn't hold up the implementation of a fair copy of what has been approved. We should add to the approval guidelines an explanation of this . I routine incorporated similar correction to the several articles I was managing. Explicit mentioning of what constitutes copyediting in the rules is needed. If there is a good faith error by, say Dr Schulerati, in calling these copyedits, it can be challenged by other editors and corrected in Version 1.1.David Tribe 20:37, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree that our current rules allow for the above using Nancy as the Approval Editor. I also agree that any new rule should allow that anytime there is a question of content, the change can be removed on request of any of the approving editors. However, lets remove this from this page and bring it to the CZ:Approval Process page, then make a resolution for the Editorial Council. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:57, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I have ONE very important point to make- no H, it's Sculerati :-) Nancy Sculerati 21:04, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes ma'am. :D --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:07, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually- TWO important points, there is no such thing as "routine" copyediting without a nominating editor. I say this not because I am an idiot who can't copyedit, but because I am very very smart, :-), smart enough to know that in an article like Literature the copyediting should be done by the nominating editor. Take a look at her user page and click her web site. Dr. Sculerati, who is well known for her unique spelling and punctuation is not about to fool with the English Doctor. Same thing is true for Math, Science, the nominating editors should direct copyedits to avoid making a mess. What I will do is call her and go over it on the phone -audio- while we bothlook at the wiki-visual. That's legitimate, and that's if she doesn't come on the wiki on her own. Nancy Sculerati 21:14, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

This has been very exciting! -- many thanks Matt, and Nancy,and David and all for sensing the issues at at stake. However this works out, I do think it will help all of us think through and improve the Approval process. On a more technical note, I would be delighted if, with Nancy as Approval Editor, we can get the copyedited version of Literature approved on the original date. But if not, perhaps the 24-hour addendum method would work for what we could call version 1.1? In either case, or in any case, I am sure that before too long we'll have a good, solid start to this toplevel article. I hope we'll soon also have some more Editors in Literature, and that this also will help the process along considerably. Cheers to all, Russell Potter 21:17, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

---

May 3, 2007

This Thursday we'd like to focus on developing articles that require editors' and authors' attention.

   

Literature

The lead article in the Literature Workgroup is coming along beautifully. Are there Literature editors out there who have not yet applied for Editorship? Granted, it's a steep hurdle for qualifications - but if you have a Ph D in Literature or related fields, please e-mail personnel@citizendium.org. This is an important article that is on the verge of blossoming. Eyes wanted.

All interested editors, authors and readers, please see Literature.

UPDATE: Now nominated.

---

New medium of the last "turn of the century": Telephone Newspaper

It's an obscure topic, true- but a fascinating one! Telephone Newspaper is a window into the past development of journalism in electronic media - albeit very low voltage electronic media. Is this article properly classified as to workgoup? It certainly seems that nomination for approval should be the next step by the editor(s) who can perform due diligence and verify accuracy. Will it languish, fully formed, for want of approval?

Where is its nominating editor?

Telephone Newspaper awaits you!

UPDATE: Now nominated.

---

Here's one we have the editors for; getting this article into shape for approval nomination requires meeting a different sort of challenge. This article is inter-disciplinary to its core, at least among the sciences, including social sciences, and — it's in the workgroup — philosophy, too.

• Can there be a swarm of authors and editors that buzz this one into high polish?
• Or will it continue its tradition of being one of Citizendium's magnets for contention ?

Scientific method is developed, and has been developing — as well as been deconstructed — for a very long time.

Now is the time for all good men and women to review:

SCIENTIFIC METHOD

---

Articles newly nominated for approval:

   

Two mathematics articles are now up for approval: Complex number and Prime number. These are the first mathematics articles ever nominated for approval! I've copied the nominating editor's remarks from the Forums below: Note that these articles can still be improved before the approval takes hold on Sunday, May 6. In particular, a few sections were rearranged or moved to other articles recently, so the current version probably doesn't flow as well as it used to from section to section. But also there are several comments on their discussion pages that haven't been addressed yet; while many of them can wait for the future, we might as well try to get as good a first version approved as we can. So be bold! Greg Martin

---

no new articles have been approved in the last two days

May 1, 2007

Articles newly nominated for approval:

   

Two mathematics articles are now up for approval: Complex number and Prime number. These are the first mathematics articles ever nominated for approval! I've copied the nominating editor's remarks from the Forums below: Note that these articles can still be improved before the approval takes hold on Sunday, May 6. In particular, a few sections were rearranged or moved to other articles recently, so the current version probably doesn't flow as well as it used to from section to section. But also there are several comments on their discussion pages that haven't been addressed yet; while many of them can wait for the future, we might as well try to get as good a first version approved as we can. So be bold! Greg Martin

Newly Approved Articles:

   

Our very first History articles to be approved!

• Pittsburgh,_History_to_1800
• Pittsburgh,_History_since_1800

CONGRATULATIONS!!

April 27, 2007

This announcement is for the wiki hackers among us: the skin for Approved articles needs a facial.

What's needed? (All registered users should feel free to add to & edit this list)

• Approved articles need a look that tells the user that he or she is reading an approved article

• A conventional means of indicating important facts (such as: nominating editor, date approved, list of approving editors) is also needed

• A clear disclaimer

What's been said so far?

Here are threads on the forum that all deserve our attention (please add to these):

• Article Approval notice box size too large? http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,861.0.html

• Re: Proof versions of articles« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2007, 04:43:23 PM »[3]

• Should there be a Group Approval Template? [4]

Here are current pages on Citizendium that have to do with Approval templates:

• Our current Nomination for Approval Template http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:ToApprove

Invitation to link sandbox trials here

(To make your own sandbox page, edit your user page and create a link to the sandbox page as if it already existed, like this: [[User:Nancy_Sculerati/Sandbox]]. After completing the edit, you'll see the red link; just click on the red link to start the new page. Any author can create a page anywhere in the same way. -- as per Pat Palmer)

Perhaps drafts of templates and styles for approved articles might be linked here?

• http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Larry_Sanger/Approved_in_pagehist&oldid=100084129
• http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Nancy_Sculerati/Sandbox
• http://www.harbormist.com/pat/Biology.htm - fake page with example of a watermark

April 26, 2007

Developing articles that need editors to nominate them for approval (or indicate what is needed before such nomination can be made):

• First Punic War

Copying Jason's post from the Forums [5]: I have a favor to ask of the History Workgroup. The article First Punic War appears high on Google searches. It has been steadily climibing, currently 10 to 12 in rank on a search for first punic war. If this article can be pushed along to approved status, this would be good PR. -Jason Potkanski Tech Lead

April 24, 2007

Our first of the Tuesday Night Rundowns on approved articles begins! Our first set of announcements is itself an "announcement of firsts".

---

Developing articles that need editors to nominate them for approval (or indicate what is needed before such nomination can be made):

Calling Mathematics editors to review:

• Prime number
• Complex number

These are candidates for our first Mathematics articles for nomination. Where are our editors?

---

Articles newly nominated for approval:

Humanities

   

Our very first History articles to be nominated!

• Pittsburgh,_History_to_1800
• Pittsburgh,_History_since_1800

---

Just Approved Articles

   

• Infant colic Our very first Health Sciences article to be approved!