Wikipedia talk:Approved article revisions

doh, why didn't I think of that --68.109.175.242 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

The main problem that I see with this proposal is that the standards for creating stable versions seem to be too lax. I would prefer the method that some other proposals have suggested to use only featured articles for stable versions. We know that the FA criteria are very strict, so this ensures that every stable version is of high quality. This proposal seems to say that every article should have some stable version regardless of whether it is Wikipedia's best work. I disagree. --Danaman5 02:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my idea of a stable version is one that is acceptable to the basic rules — basically something one can use in research. How exactly would you recommend changing the criteria? —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hold the stance that only featured articles should become stable versions. I know it isn't popular, and many disagree, but I simply view article quality as being more important than having lots of articles with stable versions. Yes, there aren't a lot of FAs, but why are we in a rush to stabilize? If articles aren't featured quality, they are not suitable for professional research, so stabilizing them in that state would just give Wikipedia a reputation for having bad stable articles, instead of unreliable dynamic ones. --Danaman5 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating your stance clearly. However, you seem to be talking toward a slightly different goal than the one, I personally, am most interested in. I want a process to note down a reviewed revision as a help to editing, not for readers particularly. Specifically, it'd be great to be able to easily say "what's changed in this article since a number of people reviewed it?" - right now, I can't do that (AFAIK), and it makes maintaining and integrating changes into larger articles much harder, because you don't know where to start from. I'd be happy with a stable article proposal that didn't even mention the reviewed revision on the main page at all, just on the talk page. Does this change your opinion at all? JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesse, what's wrong with putting the link to the approved revision on the main article? If we do that, we can provide the best article possible to people interested in reading. However, I do like the idea of approved revisions being used to help editors. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it on the main article - but some people (such as Danaman5) do, and I was just clarifying that this is very useful even without putting it on the main page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(de-indent) Oh, well, that's different then. Sorry, I must have misunderstood your intent. A lot of the recent proposals seem to be geared more toward satisfying our readership. If the willingness and resources are there, I'd like to see this go forward as a way to assist editors. We just shouldn't necessarily advertise it.--Danaman5 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, many are; that's why I wanted to explain my personal biggest interest in this sort of thing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of proposal

First critical point: This proposal does not require software changes, multiple articles or separate wikis. Big plus in favor of this proposal over all the others.
Second issue: Some question the quality standard to be a "stable" article. Obviously, the answer is somewhere between a good article and a featured article. I would vote for good article quality because this would allow more articles to be stabilized as soon as they reach GA status. I think there are too few FA articles to make FA a viable standard for this purpose.
Third issue: Approval method. GA-type voting makes sense especially if GA status is the standard. In effect, you could have the nomination for GA status also be a nomination for "stable" status.

If an article is approved for GA status, that version automatically becomes the stable version. If, after an article reaches GA status, someone wants to nominate a later version to be the new stable version, then the article goes through the "stable version" process again.

If the article reaches FA status, that version automatically becomes the new stable version. If after an article reaches FA status, someone wants to nominate a later version to be the new statble version, then the article goes through the "stable version" process again.

--Richard 06:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many others share my opinion, but I don't see stable versions as some sort of sacred cow. Basically, articles we should approve are ones that can be used as a good source: NPOV, written well, and completely sourced. To that end, we should have as many articles with approved revisions as possible so we can always have a Good Version™ to offer to our readers. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best "stable-version" idea I've seen so far

One thing I should point out, though... most of the "stable version" ideas so far have tried to present the stable version to the reader by default, and have new edits made on a separate article. This seems to do the opposite. Also, the template is fairly discrete; I have a feeling people might ignore it or miss it completely and just read the current version of the article instead – Gurch 09:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe making it bigger and more blatant that the stable version is a better one with something like : For this article is in constant change and may not be accurate, a stable version has been checked for accuracy, neutrality, and grammar and is available here. Lincher 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make the template more apparent, without making it look obnoxious, please let me know. —this is messedrocker (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to add a little thing and bolded the text in order to see the link to the stable version. Cheers ! Lincher 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your modifications! I've decided that the template should be green, because blue links on a different blue background will be problematic for the colorblind. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

That's about it. Yes. This is useful. Let's use it. The rest has already been said on previous pages. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Minor suggestion: in the stable version template, instead of "accuracy, neutrality, and grammar", how about "accuracy, neutrality, and clarity"? I don't think to many Wikipedia users are kept up at night by the thought of coming across bad grammar in an article. --Alex S 07:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and why shouldn't we be? Good grammar is just as necessary to an article as citing sources and neutral point of view. However, I agree that clarity is often a problem, and is related to grammar. Why not state "accuracy, neutrality, clarity, and correct grammar"? J. Finkelst e in 14:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll change the text and make the template more apparent. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testing this system

There seems to be an overall support for this system, so when should we start beta-testing this idea? —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets plan on a test starting a week and a half after the page was created, which will be August 30th. You could add a note to the page saying: "We will be testing this for a month starting August 30, 2006, presuming it continues to be generally supported." JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. The process will start up on September 1, 2006 — that's when we can start the process of checking articles for all the good things (NPOV, grammar/clarity, fully referenced). After those reviews, specific revisions can then be listed for Approved Article Revision status. September 1 is a short while away, so would it be okay if I created the Article Revisions for Approval page? —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All the pages have been set up, and we will get started with the process on September 1. In the meantime, you can start checking articles that you want to have approved article revisions. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page template

We know there will be a template that will be placed on the article itself — a small yet noticable green strip. I think there should be a more detailed box that could go on the talk page. Let me come up with a draft and tell me what you think. —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales revision 70711689, dated August 19, 2006, has been listed as an approved article revision for featuring complete accuracy, neutrality, clarity, and correct grammar. Please be sure to get a new approved revision after this article has been substantially revised.
Difference between the approved revision and the current revision

The reason I used the checkmark is because it shows that the article has been checked. Note that this is based on the example used on Wikipedia:Approved article revisions. Feel free to improve on the template. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now available at {{aartalk}}. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the placing and text of the template.

To be clear, I'll say that I support this proposal even in its current form. I feel bound to suggest though, that it would be even better, if the thingy would not be the first thing that a reader encounters when reading the page, it might suggest a casual browser who doesn't understand the system, that there has been some technical error which has brought them to a defective page. I would humbly suggest locating it at the bottom of the page would be much preferable.

Indeed, I think the phrasing might perhaps be even further improved by rephrasing it something like this:

"While this is the current edition of our article on this subject, with the latest updatings and improvements in its content, should you feel worried at all that some of the newest attempts to improve it have, for whatever reason, degraded its clarity, accuracy, neutrality or grammatical form, be advised that you can find a version of this article which has been thorougly vetted in all these aspects of its quality here."

-- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 07:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Cimon, what's different about this proposal is that unlike most, the live version is presented first, then the stable version is available. That's why I'm inclined to want to have the small strip at the top of the article. I agree that the current wording may be a bit scary, however the wording you suggested is awfully wordy. Would it be possible to try to condense some of that into a simpler statement? —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know wordiness is my great failing. I would much welcome if some able to write more concisely can do so. I suppose if the text made it clear that the page the reader was looking at was the most current one, having it at the top wouldn't be that bad. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 07:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cimon and I have settled on "Being constantly edited, this current page may not at all times adhere to our highest standards. For that reason, a version that has been checked for accuracy, clarity, grammar and neutrality is available here." If anyone else has another idea, propose it here before a massive edit war breaks out. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great...

... how do you check accuracy??? For example, if we state that we have checked articles, does it mean they have been fact checked? or does it mean we think they are accurate because we assume good faith (e. g. : we could have assumed good faith for the Siegenthaler incident but it was still not accurate). Lincher 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I insist that reviewers must not be lazy. In specific revisions up for approval, each fact must be verified to make sure at all the information is backed up by at least one source. If there's use of the footnote citation system, all the better. —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar concern. I think an article should have to be approved by three reviewers that are on a list of "Approved Article Reviewers". In this way, reviewers have accountability and visibility. It would be easy to join this list but we would keep track of how reviewers judgements line up with other reviewers. From my understanding, under the current system, someone with a political agenda could unilaterally decide that a biased article was approved. I don't feel that I've got a full understanding of the exact process, though. KevinPuj 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. However, how WP:ARFA works is essentially the same as WP:GA, and they don't seem to be running into any problems with it. I guess it's the kind of thing that works in practice and not on paper (like Wikipedia itself). —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But eventually, wouldn't it be good to be able to publish, in one form or another(I'm thinking some software for The Children's Machine or something), to have a truly verifiable version? More effort and rigor in the process(two-three editors per approval) would mean a lot more significance once the project is expansive. Regardless, I think someone should have to join a list of Approved Article Reviewers before they can officially approve a version of an article. KevinPuj 22:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live!

WP:ARFA is now live! Feel free to make requests on that page, and examine the proposed articles. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, nominate articles from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2006 and similar pages. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Is there a way we could include future minor edits in an approved version? Say an article gets approved and then someone comes and changes capitalization somewhere. The current revision is no longer "approved" and the average non-Wikipedian feels that it is inferior and goes to an old version, which the non-Wikipedian feels is out of date. KevinPuj 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, you can remove the approved tag from the article, then re-nominate the article on WP:ARFA. Sorry for the delay, by the way. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Is there anything in the software that can count how many major and minor edits have been made since the last revision? That might be useful to someone browsing the article. KevinPuj 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very nice, but I'm afraid not. The next best thing is the feature in {{aartalk}} that allows you to compare the approved revision with the current revision. —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low participation

It appears that you have far too little participation here to get meaningful input for a wiki-wide process. Also, it appears to be at least partially redundant with Featured Articles and Good Articles, and whatever software feature requests are pending relating to the matter. I would suggest you advertise this process some more before considering the current test an accurate sample. >Radiant< 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk notice

We should really have a talk page notice that can be placed on the talk pages of articles nominated here; I strongly suspect many contributors to the article may not even know they are being discussed. I'd do it myself, but I'm lazy at the moment, so I'm posting here in case someone else is willing to do it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean a counterpart to the talk page template above for those that have been nominated but haven't yet passed? I can come up with something like that; I'll have one ready later. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly; it could say something like: "A revision of this article has been nominated to be recognized as carefully reviewed. Please coment here." JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A revision of Jimmy Wales has been nominated to be a approved article revision for featuring complete accuracy, neutrality, clarity, and correct grammar. Please review and comment on the proposal on Wikipedia:Article revisions for approval.

Tell me how that looks. And feel free to replace the symbol I used. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. The symbol is fine. I've put it into {{arn}}, and will add it to the current nominations. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)