User:R8R/Elements

This presentation is about the future of our project, or, to be exact, about what we have to do to make it keep on being good. It is written for some perspective; be good not now but ever. There are little human resources. We thus need to find out how to use them effectively and how to make the future incoming workforce especially useful. Despite the small size, this project can go through a small organization work. The editing paradigm could also be altered. This report is broken into several parts. This is done to discuss different topics closer.

Articles

They are the most important articles-- they thus go first. For the same reason, it will be the biggest part.

About FAs

There are currently 17 FAs. 17/118=0.144. If we add the 4 A-class articles, it is only 17.8%. All the 10 years brought us only 17.8% FAs (and near FAs). We can therefore conclude the dream of coloring the whole table blue will take more than a generation if even there is a two-fold acceleration.

We should also remember that the editors will not edit articles that are GAs already. Thus, making it green and not blue is a path leading us into the evergreen table. Which we are approaching: the GAs make 46.6% of our articles.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Let us think closer

Bringing an article through GAN is a relatively time- and effort-cheap process. It also shows us that the article is of reasonable quality. FAC is the top of development. The best we could do (it should be noted that it is because our editors reach it, not because the review is so good).

Not all our articles are as important as others. For the less important articles, it should be okay to simply GA it, given the limited resources. Why to FA, then?

Really good quality. FAs will be a good reward to those who read it. Especially that our more-read articles are read by professionals (I do not know why). Anyway, if we satisfy them, we can be sure we can satisfy anyone coming for info, except maybe those who look for something very specific, which we do not include normally. Also, more readers means more requirement, since we want to satisfy them all (as long as the article remains a Wikipedia article and is structured properly). They are our showcase. They are supposed to be as good as possible. Those less-viewed articles attract pros less commonly. Not our showcase. Not our number 1 priority (but do not have to be neglected either, read “About editor interest” for more).

But what needs to be featured?

Every (excluding FAs and A-class articles for now) article needs to be improved. To different extent, but need to be improved. We are reader-oriented. Thus, we should think about readers first.

I propose the following scheme as a reference point:

We multiply the number of views by the quality coefficient (FA - 0.0, A - 0.05, GA - 0.25, B+ - 0.35, B - 0.4, C - 0.6, Start - 0.8, Stub - 1). The higher the number is, the greater the need is.

Here is the result for the Top 30 (view Top30, not index Top30):

143933 Gold
87830 Aluminum
82516 Magnesium
78539 Sodium
70450 Iron
65227 Iodine
65215 Calcium
60884 Isotope
58517 Nitrogen
53843 Copper
52808 Sulfur
52507 Silver
45596 Silicon
44663 Chlorine
43005 Mercury (element)
42568 Phosphorus
39287 Carbon
33607 Potassium
29543 Lead
29009 Platinum
26642 Lithium
26614 Tungsten
26489 Palladium

Even though it covers only the view Top 30, it is safe to say the improving Gold and Aluminum (B-class) would benefit much more than livermorium (C-class, index: 9142) or History of the periodic table (C, 26168). That should always be had in mind.

About grouping

It is no secret that different groups of elements are written differently. How does that help?

It is always useful to have an article to go after. Having such an article does not mean it should be exactly replicated as many times as needed, with only figures and some uses differing; but it may provide a few useful ideas. We may therefore wish to have at least one FA in each element category (here, I mean a different thing than our element coloring). Here is an approximate list:

Alkali metals: Li-Cs
- (FA: Cs)
- (GA: Li, Na, K, Rb)
Alkaline earth metals: Be-Ba
- (GA: Be, Ca, Sr, Ba)
- ≤C: Mg
REE: Sc, Y, La-Nd, Sm-Lu
- (FA: Y)
- (GA: Sc, La, Ce, Pr, Sm, Eu, Dy, Tm, Yb, Lu)
- ≤C: Nd, Gd, Tb, Ho, Er
(Relatively) Common metals: Al, Ti-Mn, Co, Ni, Zn-Ge, Zr, Mo, Cd, In, Sb, W, Tl, Bi
- (FA: Ti, Zn, Ge)
- (GA: V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Ga, Zr, Mo, Cd, In, Sb, W, Tl, Bi)
- ≤C: Al
Antique metals (all very common): Fe, Sn, Pb, Hg, Au, Ag, Cu
- (FA: Pb)
- (GA: Cu, Fe, Ag, Hg)
- ≤C: Sn, Au
Rare metals: Nb, Hf, Ta, Re, Os, Ir
- (FA: Nb, Ir)
- (GA: Hf, Ta, Re, Os)
Precious metals: Ru, Rh, Pd, Pt
- (GA: Ru, Rh, Pd, Pt)
Solid nonmetals with past to honor: B, Si, P, S, As
- (GA: B, Si)
- B: As
- ≤C: P, S
Major atmospheric gases: N, O
- (FA: O)
- (GA: N)
Halogens: F-I
- (FA: F)
- (GA: Cl, Br, I)
Heavy chalcogens: Se, Te
- (GA: Se, Te)
Noble gases: Ne-Xe
- (FA: Xe)
- (GA: Ne, Ar, Kr)
Radioactive, not mined: Po, Ra, Ac, Pa
- (GA: Po, Ac, Pa)
- B: Ra
Radioactive, mined: Th, U
- (FA: U)
- (GA: Th)
Synthetic (including later actinides): Tc, Pm, At, Fr, Np-Es
- (FA: Tc, At, Fr, Cf)
- (GA: Pm, Np, Am, Cm, Bk, Es)
Last actinides: Fm-Lr
- (GA: Fm, Md, No, Lr)
SHEs with chem.: Rf-Hs, Cn-Fl
- (FA: Db)
- (GA: Rf, Sg, Bh, Hs, Cn, Nh, Fl)
SHEs w/o chem.: Mt-Rg, Mc, Lv
- (GA: Mt, Ds, Rg, Mc, Lv)
No nucleosynthesis section SHEs: Ts, Og
- (FA: Ts, Og)
Undiscovered SHEs: 119, 120, 121
- (GA: 119, 120, 121)

Also, H, He, C, Rn, and Pu cannot be included into a group comfortably, because no such group exists (H, C) or the element stands out too much (He, Rn, Pu).
- (FA: H, He, Pu)
- (GA: C, Rn)

Unsatisfactory:
- B (easier to improve quickly to become satisfactory): As, Ra
- ≤C (long-haul attempts): Mg, Al, P, S, Sn, Nd, Gd, Tb, Ho, Er, Au

If you think the list should be corrected, okay, let us discuss. The whole point is to group elements into groups of elements that are as similar in writing rather than finding element with similar properties (that is what our normal PSE is for). In over a half of the offered groups there is already at least one FA. Only the groups “Solid nonmetals with past to honor,” “Heavy chalcogens,” “Radioactive, not mined”, “Last actinides,” “SHEs with chem.,” and “SHEs w/o chem.,” there is a problem. In a short term (say, 12-24 months), we essentially need to work only on the first three. The others can be waiting for its enthusiasts. Such classification, if implemented, can be kept after we fix all the groups, just to make new (and sometimes old) editors look where could something similar be. That is not necessary, though; but having such an example is necessary. Remember, if a new editor finds an article to follow, the task gets x2 easier, so he is more likely to stay.

Even outside the “helping the editor” context, it is still a useful idea in context of editor activity diversification. Especially that within the limits of a group, you can pick up article that is the most interesting to you. (Read “About editor interest” for more)

About editor interest, activity diversification, and goals

As said, we are reader-oriented.

However, since it is also a non-commercial project and we work on articles because we want to and not because of money, etc, we should consider that setting a hard task will mean ignoring the hard task (already true for some of our short goals). We need therefore to please the editor as well.

For that, our tasks should be often very flexible. That would help bring it more activity. And they have to be “hard” at the same time. (To be more exact: flexible contents and a hard limit) With a little enthusiasm in mind, that is the most effective scheme possible.

Like “get us at least 2 stable element FAs in the following 12 months.” Or, even better, change “Short term” to (say) “To do until March 2014” and get there points like “get us at least 2 stable element FAs.” Flexible contents (2 stable element FAs leaves much space to choose from), and the hard date as a limit. There is choice, there is an external pressure. Perfect combination for productivity for a non-binding community. Some criteria should be stricter, but agreed on with in mind that someone will have to do that.

The goals instrument has its potential; it was very useful during some time before I showed up (hope the two are unrelated). If we decide what to put there after a discussion, it may be useful. After an agreement on want to do based on what we want to do (which combines personal preferences and responsibility for the reader’s interests), the work will get a significant stimulation. Any changes should be agreed. Some criteria fulfilled should stay stroke until the term expires, if the term system will go.

If anyone cares, of course.

If anyone is tired of writing about articles on one kind of articles, the goals are also the best way to switch (even though they will be agreed with personal interests in mind).

About improving GAs you have not written and why it is not always needed to do the most important task right now

Because if we do all the neat-o’s now, we will have little left for future. This, in response, is a sign of the project’s slowdown. “Nonsense!” you say. It is not. It is a question of psychology. It is not the right place to discuss that (leave me a message if unsure). The basics are, since the important job is done, editing a non-important article is not help but a relative waste of time (while you could write something about stars or languages or whatever).

Of course, it will slow down sometime anyway, but let us try to delay that until the PTQ is green-blue.

And also, what to do with to-be-FAs GAs? Improve them to the FA status. There are few articles which really need it; those are only Li, W, Pt, Pb, Cu, C, Hg (see the list). And that's it. (Note: "need" does not equal "could use") It would be a really good improvement for reader. Even though they are already GAs. We would show everyone real quality. This is a great benefit for our readers. The only article in my watchlist that has a comment option is Astatine (A-class, not FA yet because needs a small beauty work, but otherwise FA-worthy). And the comments like “this was a great page!! I really appreciate wikipedia.... thanks for making this website free” and “The same in Spanish please! This is the only one totally correct and full of information, not the same in the rest of languages.” is what we are working for.

A related question is, some our TM GAs are not GA-worthy anymore. This should cause the rethinking of statuses of some of them; this, in return, may some of the articles not GA anymore, easing the problem.

Organization work

New guidelines

The question is, why bother?

Because we will systemize our knowledge and ease the getting involved for the possible newcomers.

Our Guidelines section is outdated: all our articles already developed to that standard.

What could come there? The lists of similar elements (see above), some tips, useful links (like how to instructions), and encouragement for research. Or whatever. The point is that by doing this, we will learn or at least systemize what we know. And get rid of a section outdated for years.

Field to discuss the current and future development

“Wait, isn’t our talkpage enough?”

In principle, it is. But we need a space to see how the work goes. Somewhat like /Articles’ talkpage, but everything related. There is a need for space where one says, “I’m working on X.” and lets that know/seeks help.

This is easily established.

It will not improve productivity, just the visual presentation of how we go. In fact, I have many ideas how that could be used. Not sure if any of them will be implemented. But, again, I think, graphic representation should be.