CZ:Approval Process: Difference between revisions
imported>Gareth Leng mNo edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger (Not actually working on this yet...I just noticed something I thought needed changing.) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The approving editor should place comments intended as '''editorial guidance''' at the top of the Talk page. These comments should address conditions still to be met before the article can be approved. | The approving editor should place comments intended as '''editorial guidance''' at the top of the Talk page. These comments should address conditions still to be met before the article can be approved. | ||
When the editor believes that the article is fit for approval, he or she should simply place an [http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Approved_Article Approval Tag] at the | When the editor believes that the article is fit for approval, he or she should simply place an [http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Approved_Article Approval Tag] at the top of the article page. (When the software has been written to permit this, we will want to display the latest approved versions of articles to users by default, rather than the latest unapproved version.) | ||
Revision as of 23:00, 7 December 2006
Draft Approval Process For discussion
- The meaning of editorial approval. Editors may approve Citizendium articles, i.e., certify that they meet article standards. When an editor approves of an article, he or she is explicitly claiming that that particular version of the article meets those standards, and that he is willing to stake his professional reputation on that claim. The relevant standards are outlined in Approval standards.
An author of an article is anyone who has made a significant contribution to the content of an article, rather than a contribution that is confined to copy editing, stylistic adjustments etc. Any author may, at any time, seek approval for an article that he or she has been contributing to, but may not approve that article himself or herself.
Approval thus requires the involvement of an editor, expert in the relevant field, and who has not contributed significantly to the article content. To secure the involvement of an editor, an author may approach any CZ editor with relevant expertise, or might place a call for approval on the relevant Workgroup page. A call for approval should be made when an article is approaching a state that the authors believe to be adequate, but not necessarily in a final polished state. The call for approval should be indicated by a 'call for approval' tag placed at the top of the article Talk page. An editor who accepts in principle the role of approving an article under development should also indicate this at the top of the Article Talk page.
The approving editor should place comments intended as editorial guidance at the top of the Talk page. These comments should address conditions still to be met before the article can be approved.
When the editor believes that the article is fit for approval, he or she should simply place an Approval Tag at the top of the article page. (When the software has been written to permit this, we will want to display the latest approved versions of articles to users by default, rather than the latest unapproved version.)