CZ:Approval Process

Overview

Here, in broad strokes, is how the approval process goes. An editor decides than article is ready to approve, or nearly so. If the editor has worked on it him/herself, he or she asks another editor to approve it; or, if there are several editors all doing significant work on the article, then at least three of them can agree to approve it. So then (one of) the approving editor(s) places a {{ToApprove}} template on the article's talk page. Then, after some designated amount of time, a sysop (a person with "sysop" administrative rights on the wiki) then freezes the approved version of the article on the main article page under an {{Approved}} template. At the same time, work on the article continues on a "Draft" page easily accessible from the main article page. New versions, found on that "Draft" can then be nominated to replace the approved version, and the procedure repeats.

The provisional nature of this process

This process is provisional and probably temporary in this form. The use of templates, in particular, may be regarded as a temporary stopgap measure; eventually, we will want to integrate certain procedures into the software itself. But it is actually desirable to test out the process first "by hand" before stabilizing it in code.

Who may approve

For any given topic, only editors who may be considered experts on that topic may approve an article on that topic.

Expert editors may approve articles in either of two configurations: individually or as part of a group.

Individual approval. Editors working individually may approve articles if they have not contributed significantly to the article; there is, in this way, a kind of peer review. No single editor may approve an article to which that editor has contributed significantly. In other words, no editor may approve his or her own work singlehandedly.

Group approval. If there are at least three editors, all of which are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two (or more) expert editors.

When and how to use the {{ToApprove}} template

An approving editor (or "approver") should be of the considered opinion that the article satisfies the Citizendium article approval standards.

The actual act of approval consists of placing a {{ToApprove}} template on the talk page of an article. (You may wish to consult the Wikimedia help page about templates for background. We haven't yet written our own help page for templates.)

Here is an example of the template as it appears:

Nancy Sculerati MD has nominated this version of this article for approval. Other editors may also sign to support approval. The Biology Workgroup is overseeing this approval. Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on December 14, 2006.

Here is the code that produces that template:

{{ToApprove|editor=Nancy Sculerati MD|url=http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Biology/Draft&oldid=100012889|group=Biology|date=December 14, 2006}}

Or, more generalized:

{{ToApprove|editor=APPROVER USERNAME|url=URL OF VERSION TO APPROVE|group=WORKGROUP|date=DATE TO APPROVE}}

To prepare the template, simply copy the above code and make the following replacements:

• For APPROVER USERNAME, put the username of the approver. This is your username without the [[ ]] brackets and without the usual User: prefix.

• For URL OF VERSION TO APPROVE, you need to look in the relevant page history. If this the first time the article has been approved,

Updating the {{ToApprove}} template after revision

It is all right if, in the days following the initial placement of the {{ToApprove}} template, the article undergoes significant revision. If after such revision the approver is still willing to approve the article in its revised state, he or she should update the URL in the template to point at the most recent satisfactory version of the article, found under the "history" tab. At any given moment it might or might not be the most recent version.

If an article is undergoing group approval, it must be the sense of at least two other editors, in addition to the approver, that the newly-revised version is also worthy of approval.