Talk:Biology/Draft: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Thomas E Kelly
imported>Thomas E Kelly
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:


Talk about Biology, the major, as part of the definition of biology (?) or would that be another article.  [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 18:43, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Talk about Biology, the major, as part of the definition of biology (?) or would that be another article.  [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 18:43, 4 January 2007 (CST)
:Perhaps a redirect to Eduvcation in biology? [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 02:21, 13 January 2007 (CST)
:Perhaps a redirect to Education in biology? [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 02:21, 13 January 2007 (CST)


==Minor Edits==
==Minor Edits==
Line 28: Line 28:
==micrographs==
==micrographs==
The micrograph of sperm cells does not have a scale or a magnification factor. I apologize for not having noticed it before. This one I consider a major error.  [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 02:42, 13 January 2007 (CST)
The micrograph of sperm cells does not have a scale or a magnification factor. I apologize for not having noticed it before. This one I consider a major error.  [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 02:42, 13 January 2007 (CST)
== Microbiology ==
Microbiology is not listed in
== Forum post on minor edits to approved articles ==
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,421.msg3264.html#msg3264

Revision as of 00:07, 15 January 2007

Edits since first approval

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Biology/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100013668

I request to get this edit edited by editors and considered for approval. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:43, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Personally, I think people should be able to add little links like this and get them in to the approved article faster. I think this could seriously be a negative to CZ if this small issue isn't addressed. However, CZ does a great job getting scientific 'experts' involved in editing. However, ease of addition is an important concept in wikis. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:47, 4 January 2007 (CST)

I concur. I also made a request to fix spelling errors in the approved version (a couple of the errors being rather glaring), but the talk page does not seem to be active, so I am also making this request here as well. --Ted Zellers 22:37, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Suggestions

Talk about Biology, the major, as part of the definition of biology (?) or would that be another article. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:43, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Perhaps a redirect to Education in biology? DavidGoodman 02:21, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Minor Edits

Thomas, I don't want to turn you off, but at this point in the CZ pilot, we are not so much into minor edits, and this is why: we have an idea to work on a large number of articles and get them into an "approved" status. It seems that the idea of an approved article in CZ is not the same as a WP feature article. Instead, it's a coherent article that is true and useful. The idea being that a user can access CZ and, reading approved article, feel confident that this is the real deal, so to speak. On a wiki where changes are constant, or at least very frequent, it's a dynamic state where improvements happen quickly, but so do mistakes or language that might not be an outright mistake, but something that confuses the explanation. There are only a few of us working now, and the system for approval is cumbersome. There are so many important topics that need to be totally rewritten that the task of tweaking an article that is in good enough shape to have been approved is not a current priority. Hopefully, when there are more people and a new server, this is not an issue. Biology was the first approved article and its far from perfect, but its basically ok. As far as Biology the major, that would be another article. We will get back to incorporating your, and other, suggestions from the draft into the next edition of the approved biology, but realistically, revised editions of approved articles are not going to be daily or weekly or, at this early stage, even monthly. The draft, on the other hand, is open to continual updates. That's how I see it, anyway. Nancy Sculerati MD 21:53, 12 January 2007 (CST)

P.S. I acually don't agree with the definitions of microbiology that seem to be the edits in question. Sorry. Nancy Sculerati MD 22:09, 12 January 2007 (CST)

am I understanding this correctly? You disagree that medical microbiology includes the study of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and the immune response to them?? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:15, 12 January 2007 (CST)
forgot parasites. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 19:50, 13 January 2007 (CST)
I have replied to this in the biology forum as follows:

'I think this is exactly wrong. We are trying to produce a well-edited version, one that will be obviously well-edited. This means accuracy, bt it also means copyediting. There is nothing that gives the appearance of amateurism faster than inconsistence and error in style, punctuation, and detail. (well, spelling mistakes are even worse, but I think the article has been checked for this.)' To say, 'let's do a haphazard job, and hope people will make corrections,' is one of the factors that has done in the reputation of Wkipedia

micrographs

The micrograph of sperm cells does not have a scale or a magnification factor. I apologize for not having noticed it before. This one I consider a major error. DavidGoodman 02:42, 13 January 2007 (CST)


Microbiology

Microbiology is not listed in

Forum post on minor edits to approved articles

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,421.msg3264.html#msg3264