User talk:Approval 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)
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))
Starting series on their way
I'd like to start several series of articles on the way to approval, starting with the hopefully less controversial top-level. One good starting place is interrogation and a more challenging one is extrajudicial detention. They have "peer" or even higher-level articles such as eduction and elicitation, as well as going down into national and period policy.
Are the workgroups realistic in terms of coverage and available editors? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Finding a law editor could be a challenge. There is a lawyer at the University of Chicago who chairs the program in human rights and who likes me a whole lot who I might be able to convince to help us out. She's awfully busy though, so I don't want to waste a favor unless we're really confident that we've done the best job possible.
- Otherwise, Roger Lohmann and Shamira Gelbman can probably cover politics and Daniel Mietchen can probably cover psychology, but I don't think these topics are within the fields of expertise for any of them. I'm at work now and waiting for a student who should be here in a few minutes, but I'll try to give it some attention tonight. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could we consider using the available editors for the primary tasks, but getting non-citizen law experts to submit reviews to you? We're going to have the problem of expertise at the workgroup level of granularity; while I may be an expert on routing, I'm not on HTML, although both are Computers. In like manner, I know a lot about some military and intelligence technologies and periods, but, since I've been on a horse twice, I'm not the best to be writing about horse cavalry.
- Apropos of that last, relatively few of the United States Army Special Forces personnel sent into Afghanistan to fight with the Northern Alliance could ride, and were severely chafed. Since there was no opportunity to measure them for chaps, the eventual solution was to airdrop heavy-duty pantyhose. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is amusing. What article is that in?Drew R. Smith 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Afghanistan War (2001-). I expanded the section, and, since it's presumably stable material, put it into a text box. In general, I avoid text boxes as hard to edit while collaborative work is in progress.
- In this case, my major concern is the background color — should it properly be beige, taupe, Nearly Nude, etc., and should it show texture? Was there any experimental use of fishnets? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Howard, the very short subsections in interrogation bother me. They make the article feel unfinished even if there isn't anything more to say about those topics. Is there a way that some or all of them could be incorporated into other parts of the text? --Joe (Approvals Manager) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Other than things that should be clearly introductory to subordinate sections, I think those have been cleaned up. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Kamehameha I
In my opinion, Kamehameha I is as close to being "complete" as it can be. I think I have covered all major aspects of his life. I am asking you four; Joe Quick (as approvals manager), Roger Lohmann (as a history and politics editor), Russell Jones (as a history editor), and Howard Berkowitz (as a military editor), to look over the article and suggest any changes you think neccessary. Between the five of us, I don't see why we can't get this article improved. Thanks for your time. Drew R. Smith 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Re-approval of Grand Trunk Railway
Joe, because of some changes made recently, Matt Innis left a note on the Talk:Grand Trunk Railway saying that the article needs re-approval. So I just nominated it for re-approval. Can you ask Roger Lohmann and Russell Jones (the other original approval nominators) to do the same? Thanks, Milton Beychok 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Russell Jones has now signed the re-approval nomination ... but no word as yet from Roger Lohmann. Can you contact him? Milton Beychok 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Sorry about the delay. Your first note escaped my attention for some reason. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 13:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Re-approval of Amine gas treating/Draft
Joe, a day or two ago, I made a number of revisions/additions to the Amine gas treating/Draft article as suggested by Wim Van Wassenhove ... so the article is in need of re-approval. The original approval was by David E. Volk. Milton Beychok 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you put me in contact with a Mathematics editor?
Hi Joe,
Paul Wormer and I have been working on the article "Associated Legendre Functions". I think it is now ready for promotion to "ToApprove" stage. I have been working with Peter Schmitt on another article and intended to ask him to do this. However, Peter will not be available for the next 2 weeks. Would you recommend a mathematics editor that Paul and I can work with to get the article approved? Also, does the approval target the cluster or just one of the articles in a cluster. In other words, do I have to make an approval request for the main article and for each sub-page in the cluster or does approval focus on all of the pages in a cluster? Dan Nessett 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- One way to do this is by having a look at the active editors listed in the following table (obtained via {{Workgroup|group= Mathematics}}):
Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata. |
|
| ||||||||
| Mathematics article | All articles (901) | To Approve (0) | Editors: active (2) / inactive (15) and Authors: active (280) / inactive (0) |
Workgroup Discussion | ||||
| Recent changes | Citable Articles (16) | |||||||
| Subgroups (1) | ||||||||
Checklist-generated categories:
Subpage categories:
|
Missing subpage categories:
Article statuses:
| ||||||||
- Daniel Mietchen 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. However, I don't know which of these are actually "active." That is, after reading some of the comments on various fora, it appears there are editors who are listed as active, but in fact rarely show up. I would like to contact a mathematics editor that will work with us on a reasonable time-scale. Since I don't know which of the listed editors are actively participating, I was hoping Joe would have a better handle on the question. Dan Nessett 18:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops, thanks!
for that, good to know someone is watching after me ;-) D. Matt Innis 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)