User talk:Approval Manager

Welcome to the talk page for the Approvals Manager

Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive.

Homeopathy reapproval

Hi, Joe, could you take a look at the last comment section at Talk:Homeopathy/Draft and tell us what you think needs to be done. Ie, how many Editors do we need, and who can they be? As far as Constable approval, I've been working on the draft, so I'm out. Matt *hasn't* worked on the draft, but was, I believe, an Editor for the *Approved* version. I'm sure that there are other technical aspects also to be considered. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

refusal of an approved article to go away from "to approve" list

Hi Joe,

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial/draft persists in showing on the To Approve List that the Kops look at. I tried putting a null into it and saving, but that didn't change anything. Is there something in the metadata that is screwing up its disappearance? Hayford Peirce 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I tried to fix that. It's happened before and gave me trouble then too, but I can't remember what I did. I'll look again, I guess. --(Approvals Manager 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Got it! It was the difference between "Draft" and "draft" --Joe (Approvals Manager 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Okie, I understand that the article itself is called "Draft", with a capital D, but just where did you make the fix, so I can do it myself if necessary? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Article categories, including the toapprove category, are placed on the article talk page by the subpages template. THey don't update until the talk page is edited. Usually, it only takes a minor edit to the talk page to get rid of the toapprove category after approval. I tried that but it didn't work until I figured out that I had to edit ".../draft" with a lowercase 'd'. --Approvals Manager 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie, with that knowledge, I guess I'll just let you worry about this in the future, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue -- please see the new Forum topic

Bibliographies in Approved articles apparently aren't protected!

See: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2675.0.html Hayford Peirce 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good timing! I've been wanting to address that. I replied in the forum thread. --Joe (Approvals Manager 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Null edits

You don't have to do this, you know, you can just click edit and then click save. It won't show anything in the history, but will update all relevant categories, lists of links, etc. It's called a null edit.
sorry if you know this, and I'm misunderstanding what you were doing.
Caesar Schinas 13:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, null edits have had the effect of deleting a lot of text. There was a discussion about this on someone's talk page, though I don't remember where. It doesn't always happen, but it's annoying when it does, so I've gotten into the habit of simply adding a space somewhere. Thanks for your note though, it's good to have someone around who understands the technical stuff. Joe (Approvals Manager) 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I haven't seen that, but I'll be more careful in future.

Sorry if I seemed to be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...

Caesar Schinas 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Drugs banned from the Olympics

Joe, I am considering nominating Drugs banned from the Olympics for approval. I did delete 2-3 redundant line spaces and I revised the Related Links subpage somewhat (copy edits and added a link or two). Am I still eligble to nominate the article? Milton Beychok 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have been an Engineering Editor ever since I joined. Its being a Chemistry Editor that was just granted. Milton Beychok 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You should be fine on nominating Drugs banned from the Olympics. Those certainly don't look like anything more than editorial changes to me. I knew that you were an Engineering editor before (Earth Science too, right?) but it seems like all of those articles are by you! I figured there would be material in the Chemistry workgroup that maybe someone else wrote. :-) --Joe Quick 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Once you've nominated the article, I'm going to suggest it to some biology editors too. Anthony Sebastian is an editor in Biology and in Health Sciences, so he might be a good person to approach. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I will review the article as soon as I can, check references, etc., and get back to you here. Anthony.Sebastian 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I reviewed the article. I can co-approve this article, but believe it could use a few edits to render it both more user friendly and more informative, the former by defining certain words, the latter by adding more explanations why certain drugs banned, i.e., some more mechanistic explanations.

Some items that caught my attention:

Intro: define ‘doping’

Banned androgenic agents: consider reversing order of first and second sentences

In respect of the lists of banned androgenic steroids: define words ‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’

Paragraph on blood doping should have subheader; otherwise out of place’

Hormones and related substances: first sentence should start with word ‘certain’, and should define ‘peptide’

Beta-2 agonists: should say why banned, physiological mechanism.

Hormone antagonists and modulators: Needs some physiology (why ban aromatase inhibitors?)

Diuretics and masking agents: not clear re ‘masking agent’ versus ‘diuretic’

“The cannabinoids marijuana and hashish are also banned.” Why?

Why are glucocorticoids and beta blockers banned?

Anthony.Sebastian 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I directed David Volk's attention to your comments, since he's the primary author of the article. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I did not look to see who contributed to the article, just reviewed it on its merits alone, as I judged them. David Volk writes outstandingly for CZ. Anthony.Sebastian 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right about that! I figured he'd be the most likely to respond quickly to our comments since he has already put so much work into it. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Another nomination

Joe, take a look here. Milton Beychok 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll be going out of town for a week starting Sunday, but it looks like you should be in good shape without me. --Approvals Manager 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)