Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Nominations/Archive 1

Initial discussion

This section was copied from the [main talk page]. Maurreen 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In case we haven't seen enough strategies ...

I'm hoping this one synthesizes many of the ideas, values and approaches that different people have brought to the project -- plus make good use of the multitude of Wikipedians.

Essentially, I'm thinking we could set up something roughly like WP:FAC. People would nominate articles or lists for inclusion. The community would consider each entry's quality and relative importance, and the community would decide whether to include the entry in the release version.

And for subsequent release versions, the community would also decide whether an entry should be removed or replaced. To guard against deterioration, at least the date of the qualification should probably be recorded.

We would set an eligibilty threshold, which would gradually lower. Possible thresholds include FA, FL, GA, core topics, countries.

And then when we get enough entries, we proceed to publish.

I'm biased, but I'm excited about this. Maurreen 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, Maurreen, I'm surprised we didn't think of this earlier! I think it sounds like an excellent idea, well done! We will be contacting all the WikiProjects again soon, should we say, "Which articles in your subject area should be on the CD?" I think I would like to decide on a publication DATE, since people are used to the idea that WP1.0 is at some point indefinitely in the future, perhaps years away. If we said that we wanted to catch the Christmas market by having a cutoff for entries by (say) Friday, September 1, 2006, I think people would focus their attention on it more. We would have ask them to nominate a specific version of each article, too, and perhaps ask them to update it if necessary right before the cutoff date. Your criteria sound excellent, though I would add another, namely "importance." Our first release is likely to be 2000 or so, so we don't have room for fancruft and the like - though I think bigger releases should include some fancruft and roadcruft if the quality is there. Walkerma 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am really surprised myself we didn't think of it before! I made a subproject page and am copying your comments. We can discuss the details there. Maurreen 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

End of copied material. Maurreen 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully tonight I'll be able to answer more. Maurreen 18:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin, you suggested "Important" as criteria. But I think we need more defined standards for nomination eligibility (vagueness is OK for qualification standards). Maurreen 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

About dates -- at least for this overall project, you prefer more planning than I do. Why don't we compromise by using your dates, but as a loose tentative goal? Maurreen 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One good measure would be the relative "stability" of an article as well as the number of edits. TRhe premise being that an artile that had considerable attention by a considerablne number of editors over a period of time, could be considered ready-to-publish. I would argue that such an article regardless of any "cruft", must be deemed "important". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with jossi. There are many excellent articles that might be considered "cruft," but are nevertheless well-written. Surely there is a place for some of them in a print version of Wikipedia. Besides, we aren't a traditional encyclopedia, are we? ;). As for deadlines, I would agree with them not being strict, but gathering momentum is always a problem. Although, letting people nominate articles FAC style looks like a good way to encourage participation.--Shanel 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many crufty articles should go in (probably even into 1.0), but in a release of 2000 articles (WP 0.5?) we need to make sure we cover the major topics first. I think we would look silly if (for example) we had Starfleet ranks and insignia (a former FAC) included but we didn't include Science fiction. Despite that, my dream is to see a WP release that includes both. I agree that importance (like "notability") is in the eye of the beholder, but I think we will be in a better position to judge that once we have contacted the WikiProjects a second time to get their lists of most important topics, and we have put together some trees to go beneath the core topics tree. I do think a deadline is a good thing, because we are going to need a cutoff point to go to press anyway. If we have 2000 articles together and organised - sure, we can wait a week and get 2050 articles, but that will growth never end. We should have a proposed cutoff date, and once we have everything organised for publication and we are just adding more articles we can make that date (or a later one) a firm date. If your article missed release 0.80, then just wait three months for release 0.81 (or 0.9, whatever). Walkerma 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I like this approach and agree that a deadline is a good idea. I'm not sure I understand why we would want to include crufty articles. I had thought that the whole idea of WP 1.0 was to establish a core of "good" articles. Have I missed something? Sunray 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Brainstorming refinements and issues to be decided

Maybe we should just list ideas and brainstorm here, then comment in a lower section. Please feel free to add stuff.

General

• We might want to try this out among ourselves a little while before publicizing it more widely.
• Which version of article?
• Might consider how this might complement user:BozMo's versions. It's a little confusing to me, but I'm hoping the various projects can mesh together somehow.
• Storage -- Do we want to store a copy of the entry? Do we want to trim entries as we go along for the paper version especially (for example, getting rid of links on paper or extraneous one for CD)?
• Wikiproject involvement -- Could maybe be an intermediary step between a small local trial and announcing Wikipedia-wide.
• Templates -- Might want at some point, to indicate nominated entries and those that have qualified or not. Might also use a template to mark items eligible for nomination.
• Nominations -- Need to decide how long nomination needs to be up for:
  • Range, specified or open?
  • 3 days
  • 7 days
  • 10 days
• The same page and basic process would also be used for removals and replacements. Items would be removed if they are found to have any factual error. Standards for replacement could be set later. They wouldn't be needed until we have had one release.

Dates

• General
  • Possible cutoff for submission of September.
  • Or no cutoff.
  • Hypothetically, if we had a satisfactory set of articles right now, do we have a guesttimate as to the time or effort that would be needed to go from that stage to publishing?

Specific nomination criteria one or some combination of the following

• FAs
• FLs
• GAs
• Continents and countries
• Core topics
• Important
• National capitals
• Other key geography or "place" entries
• Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have
• At least x number of Google hits
• Topic originated at least x number of years ago
• Non-Western
• User:BozMo's articles
• List of topic lists
• WP:AID articles
• Former FACs
• Peer-reviewed items
• Within one level of current qualified items
• Former FAs, GAs
• Products of formal collaborations
• Highly ranked by related Wikiproject or related group
• Clusters -- Not sure how this would work
• Other?
  • Stability of article, number of edits, time since firt edit (as a measure of "importance")
• None -- that is, everything could be eligible for nomination.

General nomination criteria,possibly for all nominations

• Child-friendly topics (of articles and within articles)
• Relatively stable entry, no edit wars or serious disputes
• Stable topic, likely to need little or no updating
• Previously proposed minimum quality standards or something similar
• Other?

Responding to nominations

• Possible threshold for "Qualifed"
  • No objections.
  • At least two people agree and no more than one oppose.
  • "Consensus"
  • X percent
  • Other?
• Obligation of opposition:
  • Everyone opposing "qualification" for a given entry should suggest corrective action (for lack of a better phrase) -- that is, improvements needed in the quality or more important entries needed first.

Side comments

Also worth looking at are former FAs (which may have a past version that is fine) and former GAs: at least one of these—Jew—was cut from the GA list only because it is so often vandalized, not an issue for this purpose.

I hope when we say "At least x number of Google hits" we mean as an additional way to qualify, not as a requirement limiting other ways to qualify. Some of our best articles are on obscure topics.

I also think we should be looking for "clusters" of good articles. For example, we have a lot of reasonably good articles related to Bucharest, Romania. I don't think any one article is featured (thought the Bucharest article is certainly close to that level), but it becomes much more interesting when combined with Palace of the Parliament, Palatul Telefoanelor, State Jewish Theater (Romania), Casa Capşa, Athénée Palace, Manuc's Inn, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to see you again. Thank you for your comments.

The number of Google hits would indeed be an additional way to qualify, not as a requirement.

Good points about the former FAs and GAs.

Bucharest, Romania, would not have occurred to me. But I know there are some areas that tend to be better or worse than average. Country articles overall seem to be relatively good combinations of quality and importance. Maurreen 19:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Introduction

This is a proposal for method to determine entries (articles and lists) for a release version of Wikipedia (a set suitable for publishing on fixed media, such as paper, CD or DVD).

Conceivably, we could achieve a suitable set by Sept. 1 and publish before Christmas.

Qualified entries should combine quality and importance of topic. But these traits should be considered relative to other qualified entries.

The basic procedure is similar to that for featured article candidates.

For entries to be designated as qualified, they would need to gain five positive votes for every negative vote (yeah, we know "voting is evil", but let's be realistic).

For subsequent release versions from this project, the community would also decide whether an entry should be removed or replaced.

Nomination details

If you nominate something you have worked on, please note it as a self-nomination. Please do not place more than one nomination at a time —- this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice. Nominations should be signed and dated and should include a link showing that the entry meets the criteria. Ineligible nominations would be removed.

Nomination eligibility

This would gradually widen. But to get the cream of the crop, we could start by requiring all nominees to be one of the following:

• Continent or country article
• Core topic article
• Featured article
• Featured list

Response to nomination

If you believe an article meets all of the criteria, write Support followed by your reasons.

If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Objections may be based on either quality or importance. Everyone objecting for a given entry should suggest corrective action (for lack of a better phrase) -- that is, improvements needed in the quality or more-important entries needed first.

To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it.

Miscellaneous

Further standards and guidelines may also be developed for nominations and qualifying.

Version identifying information will be recorded for qualified entries. The qualifying version may be stored on a subpage and extraneous links may be removed.

Templates we might use

• Entries eligible for nomination.
• Entries nominated.
• Entries found qualifed.
• Entries found not qualified for now.

Maurreen 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for inviting me to comment, though some of the others you asked may have better ideas:

I've always felt that something other than "voting" should determine the suitability of an article to be published. I'm leery of the tendency of wiki-pressure to reduce articles to the lowest-common-denominatiro, so to speak.

The problem of choosing authoritative experts remains unsolved. And letting just any anonymous person trump the experts isn't a solution either, even if that's the compromise we wind up going with.

We need to find a way to harmonize Jimbo's dream of "anyone can edit anytime" with co-founder Larry Sanger's passion for reliability.

Maybe there is a way to find out who really knows, and maybe this makes (or will make) them something of an elite. I fear that merely taking an anti-elitists stance isn't going to improve things. We still need to assemble and present the world's knowledge. If we can't do it here at Wikipedia, someone else will have to do it. --Uncle Ed 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How is the Unification Encyclopedia approaching the scaling problem? (How active is that project?) - David Gerard 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice to me as a start. I note that at least one group has done a CD of en: that starts with 2000 articles they just wanted to include - http://fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedia-CD-Selection/ . This appears to approach the problem from that end, rather than (as I've been trying to do with the it'll-happen-one-day article rating extension) coming up with something that can rate a million articles.

This also looks similar to Wikipedia:Good articles - another attempt at "FAC-Lite" - David Gerard 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have several points to make on what seems to have been a well thought out proposal, but which asks a number of key questions. Personally I would have to say that if we start to look at FAs, FLs, GAs, and former FAs then we are going to have to sift through a lot of articles. What we need to decide is a few key points. One certainly must be longevity: we do not want to produce something only for it to go out of date immediately after we finish it. Now of course any article can coneivbaly go out of date, but all of us know that by their very nature there are a number of FA articles and GA articles which could go out of date very quickly. Then again you may not think this is a problem, and we could easily produce updates, so I think it is a matter of whether we would like to produce a product which will remain static and not need further work, or one which will require, perhsps, quite frequent updates.

The next point to make is does it matter if an artilce is not at least at GA standard, it may simply have passed under the net? The point is do we want to have a benchmark set in stone or use a quicker form of peer-review of selections. Next point: how do we actually want to select articles? Would the best way be to do it alphabetically? I really wouldn't favour that, but a thematic theme may be a good idea.

In the end we need a system that will be relatively quick to adminster, and have a form of uniformity to it. I like the idea of having a benchmark of votes per article to get it included: say you need 5 votes for the article for every negative one (that way if it is clearly a good artilce to include uncessary time won't be wasted by having 100s of people voting for it).

Would it also be an idea to have perhaps a link to 2006 or 2007 (depending on when we would get the thing finished). I don't mean include lots of articles from this year, but perhaps try include some which are of special significacne for said years.

I think that what we need therefore is a:

• Clear method for approving articles: namely 5 positive votes required for each negative.
• Loose connection to the year of production
• Clear way of choosing articles systematically-I would propose a thematic system (e.g. start of with articles which relate to the UK).

I'm sure that people will add, or refute completely (!) these suggestions, but I hope they add to the discussion. --Wisden17 21:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This appears not to be an approach that would scale to a million articles - a hundred Britannica volumes of text - but one that would start at the other end: make a list of what you want in an encyclopedia, get those articles up to "good", keep going. We have the "list of articles every Wikipedia should have" (en: has all of these, but not all are feature-quality or even close), we have a couple of other similar lists, we have the list of what was on the fixedreference.org CD ... it's all a start!

And really, visibly getting the "core" articles of an encyclopedia up to "good" can only be good for Wikipedia. Do we have an action list? Does someone want to bring one of the past 1.0 lists back to active status to tick off? - David Gerard 14:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The core topics project and the accompanying COTF is doing exactly that, and it has an action list on the main page. See the core topics discussion page for discussions on expanding that list to one of the "list...every Wikipedia should have" lists. You are right, David, the consensus in recent months is towards "growing" the encyclopedia, starting small (1-3000?) and getting bigger. As the WikiProjects come more & more on board with worklists, expert assessment and more GAs, we can release something more like 10-20,000. That way we know we have something where every article is (a) on a significant topic and (b) reasonable quality. Something we can be proud of! Walkerma 02:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comments by Uncle Ed, for 1.0 I think it will be impossible to have expert peer review for every article. However, at least every article will have had at least two people agreeing that it is good, and in some cases the article will have come from the WikiProjects where it will have had expert peer review. I hope that in time we can have the WikiProjects review all significant articles in their area of expertise. Wisden17, I think your ideas sound eminently sensible. We already have had extensive discussions of categories at the core topics discussion page, and we will probably update our core topics tree accordingly (this tree is just a rough thing to guide us). Meanwhile at WVWP we are planning on a second contact with all the projects to get their "must have" top 20 lists, and that could include an appeal to offer their key articles to this project for "qualifying." If we can get a good number of these submitted from 300 or so WikiProjects, and integrate them with 200-1000 core topics, we will have 2-3000 good quality articles on significant topics. Please help us out! Walkerma 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. They are all well thought out. I am short on time at the moment, but will try to respond within the next 24 hours. WP being down Sunday messed up my schedule. :) Maurreen 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From the above, it seems like the main issues to be decided at this point are:

• Dates or no dates for cut-off or goals
• Nomination criteria: importance vs. quality, breadth, "cruft"
• Qualifying threshold: experts, 5-1 support to oppose ratio or something else

(I feel like I'm forgetting something ...) Maurreen 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, about possible "themes" one of the four eligibility criteria in the draft proposal is countries and continents. Geography has relatively broad interest, and even a full set of those articles could plausibly stand alone. Maurreen 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of good points above, I agree with most of it. I am iffy about linking to a given year, partly I am wary of biting off more than we can chew.

David pretty much hit my intention on the nose: "make a list of what you want in an encyclopedia, get those articles up to "good", keep going."

I like Wisden's idea of the 5:1 ratio of positive to negative. Maurreen

04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination eligibility

It's hard to make up my mind how I feel about nomination criteria. But usually, I think we should start relatively small but broad and then gradually widen.

I'm thinking we could start by requiring all nominees to be any one of the following:

• Continent or country article
• Core topic article
• Featured article
• Featured list

I'm guessing that right now, maybe about 1,500 entries would qualify. This would give some opportunity to any interest, be open enough to encourage participation, but it would still set requirements for either quality or importance, giving meaningful focus. It has a some theme. What do you think?

What about WikiProjects?

Work via WikiProjects has been active identifying articles of quality, and the WikiProjects complete assessment list counts 145 A-Class articles, or 263 articles if you count the complete listing of isotopes. I see that the cutoff right now is placed at Core Topics / Featured Articles—should high-quality articles identified by WikiProjects be considered? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. But I also like using a standard that includes review by people not involved in the subject and that is widely established.

Maybe the nomination eligibility could include Good Articles, and the A-class articles from WikiProjects complete assessment list could be nominated for GA. Maurreen 17:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Themes

A couple of people have already mentioned the idea of releasing CDs that have themes to them. I think that's a great idea. In fact, I think the only way that this project will actually start to go somewhere will be if we narrow our focus down on one topic, say (for the sake of the conversation) British History, pre-Restoration, and then focus on all the articles that fall under that subject heading whether they are FAC, GA, FA or not. Not every article will make the cut. Some stubs will have to be left out. Or we can keep them in. Even the Britannica has stub legnth articles.

The emphasis needs to be on accuracy, not prosy.

Possible criteria for inclusion

Is it linked to an article that will definitely be included on the CD.

• If yes, then its in.
• If no, then its not.

Just my own thoughts. --*Kat* 14:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're generally right, Kat, and in subject-specific areas like this we may have to include some lower standard articles in order to ensure comprehensive coverage. However, I don't think the criteria for inclusion can be as simple as you say, because you will have an explosion of pages. In chemistry, for example, you will find things like, "This salt was first found in minerals near Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" or "(Chemist) Joe Smith grew up in the London suburb of Sitting-by-the-Sea" - before long you find you have to include hundreds of places, plants, etc.

And what's wrong with that? *Kat* 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to judge whether an article is a "must-have" on its own merit (though links can help with that). I think the relevant WikiProject(s) should be the main judge of that, and we should probably consider themes where we have very active WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history.

We should remember that this idea is not new - it is essentially the WikiReader concept. If you take a look at the German WikiReaders] you can see that some were released as PDF and books, some only as books.

Oh neat. First time I've ever heard of WikiReader. *Kat* 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Topics include countries (Sweden, 44pp was their "test", Nauru, 92 pp, and Portugal, 213pp). Other topics include whales, terpenes, outdoor activities, the Internet and Autism. I particularly like the Internet idea - I was at a conference recently on social software and almost every speaker used definitions from Wikipedia. When I got up to speak (on Wikipedia, of course!) I commented that I hadn't seen people use the Britannica definition of "podcasting" and "E-paper" etc! I bet that a "bang-up-to-date" wikireader on something like social software or any other cutting edge theme would be a big seller, because we have that advantage of having many very up-to-date articles. Walkerma 15:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For nomination eligibility criteria, I think "linking to the CD" is to open, wide, vage, fuzzy.

The wikireaders are a good point -- people interested in a given area can already do something like what Kat suggests.

But I think at least at this time, a narrow focus isn't going to help much toward an overall release of a general encyclopedia. Most of aren't going to put much effort into a subject we aren't already interested in. Eventually, if there is ever a set of wikireaders that generally covers the subjects a person would expect to find in an encyclopedia, that would be a different story.

I might be biased, but if a theme is going to be used to whatever extend, I would suggest that it be either:

• geography and places (essentially and encyclopedic atlas), or
• lists (to total to an almanac).

Both of these could have a small enough quantity to be manageable, doable, we could see the light at the end of the table. But they could also have broad enough interest to spur momentum and be worthwhile to stand on their own.

The geography focus has the advatage over the lists is that the set is easily defined (for instance, all countries and continents).

But I still think a multi-prong approach is better, just my opinion. Maurreen 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting professional reviews: Short cuts and strategies

One key need for a release version is to try to ensure that every article, that needs it, receives professional reviews. Most probably, through WP's community review processes, some articles have already become relatively free of errors. However, some articles, even some FA and GA approved articles, probably would benefit from professional reviews. Here are some possible ways to organize this:

Professional review short cuts & strategies

1. General outreach Get the ball rolling by promoting the need for professional reviews -- as in forming it as a project or listing it at the top of relevant project pages as a work item.
2. Involve existing projects: The Scientific peer review group is forming and there is Peer review. Request their input. Ideas (and help perhaps) will come.
3. Summarize FA professional review discussions: Eventually, a professional review process probably needs to be part of the feature article review process. People have probably discussed this. What has been come up with?
4. Subset: Tackle chunks of articles, such as the geography subset. This is a key strategy. It gets the ball rolling in a test case.
5. Triage: Surely many of the more recently completed FAs are in good shape. Verify this. This is another key strategy. Organize a preliminary assessment: invite a few experts to do a "quick" triage of some article categories that are well developed. (Astronomy might be one. What are others?) Request "triage" reviewers to rate articles by quality as in: (a) fairly error free, (b) needing minor or some revisions, and (c) needing major work. Then, recruit professional reviews for the articles needing minor revisions. Recommend articles with major problems be taken off various approved lists. I think this triage assessment could be a high priority. One would eventually want redundant triage reviewing. Probably, a number of specialized wikipedian reviewers already know what is clean. We need to request that knowledge be recorded and then organize it in one place and then fill in gaps.
6. Track reviews: There needs to be a table for all professionally reviewed articles and articles yet to review (with FA/GA quality article nominations approved by some group) that records: the reviewer, a link to the review(s) (at least 2 reviews needed for each article, perhaps more or a community discussion if POV issues come up), perhaps a summary of major issues, check off on editing completed, a link to the final article version, and dates that review and editing are completed. (Anonymous review doesn't seem doable on the net.) Having a table will make it easy for reviewers to dive in. Perhaps a table (even database, as numbers of reviewed articles increase) format could be programmed and then shared with active topic area wikiprojects.
7. Series of Betas with parallel Long-term quality review plan: Simultaneously pursue two strategies in publishing WP collections: (a) Subset beta-versions that are published with a prominent disclaimer as being articles-in-development. (Recruit reviews for as many of the betas as possible, but don't let it slow up Beta publication of articles that pass some sort of release qualifying process, seperate from the professional review.) (b) Begin building a long term process of recruiting professional reviews, as integral to RQ review, that aims to "verify" and achieve Britannica-or-better article quality.
8. Engage academic classes and communities: Invite and recruit academics to invite their advanced grad students to review articles. Some students will find a home in WP. This is already happening, yes? Priority: repeatedly notify academic/professional wikipedians and actively supportive academics about the need for professional reviews and where to dive in.
9. Main page link: When the professional review process is developed, post an invite and (sub)project link on the main page.

Given time, outreach and community building, a professional review process will grow (and is growing already) organically in the Wikipedia community in synergy with existing projects. Comments? --Vir 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved to here from project page by Walkerma 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) shortly after posting)

Oops! Thanks :) --Vir 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A Proposed Process For Editing

[An expansion of the ideas for this proposed process was created by AtionSong here Three Level Editing.]

Just a process as we move closer to executing a .5 or 1.0 plan.

For an article to get a .5 or 1.0 rating, it should go through the following system:

• A version of the artical as it is when the process begins is archived, and this is the article edited on. No edits related to this are made to the active article, and nobody can edit the archived version except the 3 selected editors. The archived article then goes through 3 levels of editing:
• LEVEL 1: At level 1, an editor who is not necessarily an expert on the subject content would read through the article for, and make corrections to:
  • Neutral Point of View
  • Correct Spelling, grammar, usage, and other mechanics.
  • The article is organized in a logical way
  • Proper format
• LEVEL 2: Once the article has passed through level 1, a level two editor who is an expert on the topic would check the article for:
  • Correct facts
  • Adequate content
  • Adequate linkage to other related articles
  • Logical sequencing and organization
  • Artical is correctly categorized as well as categorized adequately
• LEVEL 3: Once the article has passed through level 2, a final level 3 editor who is possibly an expert on the topic, or that general topic (e.x. not a specific band, but a perhaps a specific genre, but not just on "music) would check the article for:
  • Correct, appropriate, and/or adequate references cited
  • No copyright violations on images or content
  • Controversial language or facts not related to NPOV
  • Artical is visually appealing

If an article has any problem that is not immediately fixable at any of the levels (e.x. not a neutral point of view), the archived version should be deleted, and the active article should be tagged. The article can then be archived for editing again when the problem is fixed.

Once an artical has been passed through all 3 levels, the archived version should be protected, and tagged as .5 or 1.0 ready. Does this sound like a good idea? -AtionSong 21:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from the main 1.0 project talk page. --Vir 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)]

Sorry, I think your plan is not now practical, mainly because of the limited number of people we have working on this. I'm a big believer in simplicity. Maurreen 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal, AtionSong. I'm also a great believer in simplicity, and I'm also very much aware of our limited (though growing) number of active members, so I have a lot in common with Maurreen on that. However I do think that the idea will be a very good one to consider as the WP1.0 project matures (I'm thinking here of WP:2.0) and so we should keep it in mind. Also, I think we can include elements of this idea even in WP1.0. For example, I notice that Tito proposed a similar "final check by an expert" in his "roadmap" above - we could try to do something like this for at least some articles, particularly if the new scientific peer review initiative gets off the ground. The Work via WikiProjects people (such as myself) are also in contact with subject experts. Thanks, Walkerma 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that recruiting expert reviews, even by specialists, is quite doable. It is a matter of defining some processes and of doing outreach. The 1.0 project will grow in size and input. I'm not sure about the exact process above, but specialist reviews are very much needed. More than one expert review per article would be good. One process that could facilitate this is, through various media, to invite experts to participate in, not only in a scientific review project or 1.0 project, but also in discipline-related wikiprojects to improve articles. Some reviewers might prefer to work independently too. Other ideas are mentioned in the post just above this. Vir 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Length of time any nomination is active

Maybe any given nomination could be active for about a week, depending on level of response and consensus. But I'm very open about this. Maurreen 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Break

I might take a break. Maurreen 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)