CZ:The Article Checklist

The Article Checklist is a set of standardized notes that will eventually be placed on the talk page of every article in the Citizendium. Based on the data we input, the checklist automatically compiles useful categories, linked from Category:Checklisted Articles. We can use these categories to compile new statistics meaningful to humans and to organize article improvement projects.

We officially began using the Article Checklist on March 15, 2007, as part of The Big Cleanup.

How it works

The checklist is actually a template (if you're interested, here is an introduction to Mediawiki templates). Basically, you copy the blank checklist template onto a talk page, and then you can fill out the checklist simply by typing workgroup category names, code numbers, and yeses and nos. The template takes your input and spits out two things: (1) your answers, prettily formatted in a table, and (2) useful categories such as "Developed Articles," "Stub Articles," "Philosophy Orphans," and many others. (See below.)

An example of the Article Checklist in use can be found at Talk:John Doherty (fiddler). Note not only the checklist, but all of the "categories" listed at the bottom of the page: all of those categories are automatically generated by the checklist. If you're interested, feel free to play with the parameters of the template on Talk:John Doherty (fiddler), to see how they change the category list; but you might want to see below for help doing this, particularly for filling out the 'status' field, which uses numbers 0-4.

A complete list of articles that make use of the Article Checklist can be found at Category:Checklisted Articles.

• Citable Articles (Status 0)
• Developed Articles (Status 1)
• Developing Articles (Status 2)
• Stub Articles (Status 3)
• External Articles (Status 4)
• Advanced Articles (Status 0-1)
• Nonstub Articles (Status 0-2)
• Internal Articles (Status 0-3)
• Underlinked Articles
• General Category Check
• General Cleanup

See also: CZ:Unchecklisted Articles

The technically-minded may be interested to see the template found at Template:Checklist, which is the "engine" behind the checklist.

The blank template

Here's a copy of the blank Article Checklist template and it's instructions that you can copy and paste onto the talk page of articles. Once you have filled out the checklist, delete the instructions!

{{#switch: {{{info}}}

<!--general article properties-->
|       pagename = 
|        variant = 

<!--Required for checklist-->

|            abc =  
|      cat_check = 
|         status = currently no status
|    underlinked = 
|        cleanup = 
|             by = 
|           cat1 = 
|           cat2 = 
|           cat3 = 
|           sub1 = 
|           sub2 = 
|           sub3 = 
|           tab1 = 
|           tab2 = 
|           tab3 = 

<!--required for ToApprove template-->
|    article url = 
|    subpage url = 
|        cluster = 
|            now = 
|     ToA editor = 
|    ToA editor2 = 
|    ToA editor3 = 
|           date = 

<!--required for Approved template-->
|       A editor = 
|      A editor2 = 
|      A editor3 = 

}}<noinclude>{{subpages}}</noinclude>

In brief:

• pagename: must contain the correct name of the article.
• variant: records the dialect of English which the article is written in.

• abc: means the form of the title for alphabetization, e.g. "Doherty, John" or "Orient, The". Please think this one through.
• cat_check: put "yes" if you want someone to check over the categories.
• status: 0 for approved articles; 1 developed, 2 developing, 3 stub, 4 external
• underlinked: put "yes" if not enough other articles link to it (click "What links here" at left)
• cleanup: put "yes" if basic cleanup has been done.
• by: obsolete; leave blank.
• cat1, cat2 and cat3: workgroups; fill in numerical order.
• sub1, sub2 and sub3: sub-workgroups; fill in numerical order.
• tab1, tab2 and tab3: per-article subpages; fill in numerical order.

• article url: a URL link to the version to approve.
• subpage url: a URL link to the version of a subpage to approve.
• cluster: blank unless the whole cluster needs to be approved.
• now: the date and time when the nomination was made.
• ToA editor, ToA editor2, ToA editor3: name of the editor(s) who nominated the article for approval; fill in numerical order.
• date: deadline for comments (format yyyymmdd).

• A editor, A editor2, A editor3: copied from ToA editor etc when Approval is completed.

The template fields explained

Please place the checklist at the top of the article's talk page.

Here are explanations of each field on the checklist. Bear in mind that we can, especially now, add and remove fields.

The 'abc' field

This field ensures that articles are properly alphabetized in category lists. Therefore, specify last name first, and remove articles to the last position. For example: Doherty, John; United States of America, The.

'cat1' to 'cat3' fields - Workgroup category or categories

Only workgroups found at CZ:Workgroups should be included here (or, for that matter, on the article page itself). The list here should be identical to the workgroup list found on the article itself. This is necessary in order to generate certain categories automatically. Do include the Topic Informant Workgroup if it is on the article page--as well as any other "Project Workgroups."

If you feel that a particular workgroup is needed for an article, but no such workgroup is listed on CZ:Workgroups, then please do two things: set cat_check = y (that's the next line in the checklist); and make a note of your suggestion on the talk page.

Fill in 'cat1' before 'cat2' or 'cat3'. Template:Checklist permits only three categories: 'cat1', 'cat2', and 'cat3'. Adding 'cat4' etc. will have no effect.

The 'cat_check' field - Check categories?

'cat_check' is used to indicate whether, in the opinion of the person filling out the checklist, the category list is OK or, instead, needs review by editors. Simply write 'y' or 'n' (or variations on these) for yes or no. Right now, this is your opinion; we have not settled upon any rules, yet, for how to determine whether an article's workgroup assignment is questionable or not.

This generates handy "category check" categories, such as Category:Philosophy Category Check and, regardless of what categories are specified, Category:General Category Check.

The 'status' field - Article status

There are five options for 'status':

0. Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our approval process. This should be used only if an article has been duly approved (i.e., it has an approval template).

1. Developed article: complete or nearly so. Note that this is reserved only for articles that appears to be nearing a completed length. Length is the main criterion of a "developed" article; we do not require people filling out the checklist to be expert to know if the article is of high quality, or even to read the article. Note: an except is lengthy articles sourced from Wikipedia that have not been changed very much; these are not "developed" but "developing," even if they are no longer "external" articles (see below).

2. Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete. An article with over 100 words but which still evidently needs quite a bit of work before it can be considered "developed." For example, there are blank sections.

3. Stub: no more than a few sentences, i.e., under 100 words. Note that very short articles--say, under 20 words--should be marked with the {{speedydelete}} template.

4. External article: from another source (such as Wikipedia or the 1911 Britannica), with little change. An article is not external if it has had at least three significant changes in three different places to the wording of an article. The following are not significant changes: removing unused templates, etc.; spelling and minor rewording; and deletions. Note that any original article, even if a stub, is automatically not external. Finally, note that no external article should be marked "CZ Live" (and vice-versa).

Specify them by adding the appropriate number to the 'status' field. This populates categories that could be very useful indeed for us, including categories corresponding to each of the five options, as well as "Internal Articles" (combination of 0-3), "Nonstub Articles" (combination of 0-2), and "Advanced Articles (0-1)--and for each of the workgroups listed. Thus, for example, if we have the Article Checklist on all of our articles, then we can produce a complete list of "Philosophy Stub Articles" or "Music Developed Articles" or "Biology Internal Articles".

The 'underlinked' field - Underlinked article?

An 'underlinked article' has none of the main expected links to it. For example, if "tree" is not linked from "plant" or "biology" or "botany" or any other such expected "parent" topic, then it is an "underlinked article." If it is linked from one of these, then it is not underlinked. Note, all orphans are underlinked, but some underlinked articles are not orphans. The reason we're tracking such data is that we want to make sure that there are significant connections to all of our articles.

Mark yes/no as before. When in doubt, mark as underlinked, or get advice.

The 'cleanup' field - Basic cleanup done?

This variable, 'cleanup', is just yes or no (so, 'y', 'Yes', 'no', etc.). What it indicates is that the article has gone through a "basic cleanup," which means

1. For each article, complete this to do list:
   • Bold the article title, if necessary, where it appears in the first sentence or so of the article. Note that certain phrases, and "list of X" titles, do not need to be bolded. See Article mechanics.
   • Remove all unused (red) templates, category tags, images, and interwiki links. It might be a good idea to copy the templates and images to the talk page for people to reinsert later. Please don't remove links to nonexistent articles (unless you feel moved to work on the article: removing such links isn't part of the "assignment").
   • Add appropriate workgroup category tag(s). Please use only the workgroup categories listed under CZ:Workgroups. (Note, this page is linked on the left sidebar as "Workgroups".) If you think there needs to be a new workgroup created in addition to one that you've placed an article into, then when you fill out the checklist, simply specify: cat_check = yes to request that someone check over the categories. Also, add "Category:Needs Workgroup" (capitalization important) if, and only if there are no suitable workgroups for an article.
   • Add Category:Topic Informant Workgroup if necessary, i.e., if an article is a biography of a living person, profile of a company, group, etc.--essentially, any article that concerns an existing nonpolitical entity with legal interests.
   • Add (or remove) the CZ Live tag as appropriate. An externally-sourced (e.g., Wikipedia) article is "CZ Live" if there have been at least three significant changes in three different places to the wording of an article. Hints:
     • To determine whether an article should be marked "Live" you might have to click on the page history, and compare the most recent edit with the very first edit. Use the "diff" between those two versions to determine whether the article has been changed enough.
     • The following are not significant changes: removing unused templates, etc.; spelling and minor rewording; deletions; and shuffling text without changing it.
     • Any new article, even if a stub, is automatically "CZ Live".
     • You might wonder if Category:CZ Live is necessary, since we will be constructing Category:Internal Articles. Perhaps--but we should not remove Category:CZ Live or even stop from maintaining it well, until after we have created Category:Internal Articles as its replacement--which means, not until we have added The Article Checklist to all of our articles.
     • Articles that are "CZ Live" are internal (checklist 'status' = 0-3); articles that are not "CZ Live" are external (checklist 'status' = 4).
   • Check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box if any part of the article is sourced from Wikipedia. To determine this, you might again have to look at the article history and look at the very first version of the article. If that has a lot of red templates and categories, it came from Wikipedia. NOTE: if, for whatever reason, this is the only edit that you want to make to an article, you have to make some small edit in the article text box as well (e.g., add a space at the end of a line--it won't show up). Otherwise your checkbox change won't be saved. Do look at the bottom of the page that there's a link to Wikipedia.
   • Hint: use page history! You should probably make a trip to the page history for most if not all articles. If you want to determine whether an article is sourced from Wikipedia, then just look at the first version in the edit history. Virtually all Wikipedia articles left in the database have templates and images (that we have not uploaded, and thus are distinctive red links). That should be enough for us to tell whether to check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box. If you want to determine how much an article has been changed from its Wikipedia original, go to the page history and press the radio buttons next to the oldest and the newest edits, and hit "compare". You'll be able to see the differences there. We have mostly been assuming that the original-uploaded version is identical to a Wikipedia original. Note: if an article is an "external" article and it has not been changed enough to be considered "CZ Live," consider whether according to our deletion rules you should put the {{speedydelete}} template on the page (put this template on the article's talk page, please). Please do mark it for "speedy deletion," if appropriate.

The 'by' field - Checklist last edited by?

Simply type ~~~~ (four, not three, so the date is given).

If you are updating or correcting the work of someone else--even a single line in the checklist--then sign your name before the previous person's name (so they are listed in reverse chronological order); separate names with a semicolon (;).

The extensibility of the system

If this checklist can be found atop the talk page of all new articles, clearly, we would like the data to be kept up-to-date, and the system extensible.

There is no reason that we cannot keep this data up-to-date. This is not a foregone conclusion, but it seems entirely possible that people will develop a strong interest in keeping data about, for example, the "status" of the articles they work on--and thus, the other data as well--up-to-date.

The system is extensible in that it will be easy enough to add new fields to the checklist, as long as they are optional fields. We might produce variables that allow us to keep track of other sorts of data we might find useful, for example, how much copyediting an article needs, whether the article has any number of specific problems, such as improper use of footnotes, not enough footnotes, stylistic problems, etc. Any or all of these variables could then be used to track the overall maturity of an article, and (by producing appropriate categories) to organize large-scale efforts to tackle particular problems.