Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 4

message: :As I recently mentioned here, we do now have a successful model for peer review of a large number of articles (384) by a Wikiproject team leading to a set of approved articles (still growing).  I propose we do the following-
# MONTH 1 Contact each active WikiProject (a few hundred of these?), asking them to assess the key articles in their subject area for quality, NPOV and completeness.  We could suggest (but not require) they consider using the chemistry assessment method.
# MONTHS 1-4 This committee should meanwhile identify significant areas not covered by Wikiprojects, and try to find at least a few appropriate articles from these subject areas.  We could use the same assessment criteria as the Wikiprojects.
# MONTHS 1-8 Collect lists of quality from Wikiprojects, with some polite prodding or assistance.  If most projects cooperate, then by the end of this process we should have 5000-10000 quality articles (my estimate).
# MONTHS 8-12 Collate all of the articles into an appropriate order for publication, dividing these up according to editors general area of expertise.  Look for any important missing topics that may have been overlooked.
# MONTHS 13-15 Write/get written/improve a handful (hopefully!) of missing articles. 
# MONTHS 13-18 Look into getting this published.
# MONTH 24 Go to press?
:Comments please? Walkerma 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Sorry I missed your earlier note here. I haven't looked at the links, but your plan has a lot of potential. I'm willing to help, but probably only a limited amount. Maurreen (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to find quality articles via Wikiprojects 

message: I have posted a table on the project page that summarises (as best I can) the ideas presented over the last 10 months or so.  My idea is that we should start to move from talking about strategies over to implementing them.  After spending many hours studying all of the ideas, I am struck by the fact that we would be best served if all four ideas went ahead in tandem, not just one.  For example if we just focus on FAs, we end up with a small, random list, but if we blend in some core topics it becomes more balanced.  If we add in Wikiproject ideas, we get a bigger, balanced list.  And in the long term, we must fix the Wiki to make all our lives easier.  I apologise if my table is clumsy, I'm not an HTML expert, also feel free to edit this if I've got anything wrong.
So please think about which of the four sub-projects you want to work on (I plan on contributing to at least two).  I don't see the need to sign up to these, we can all contribute to all four as we feel we want to.  I plan on setting up four separate sub-project pages in the next few days to organise the work and monitor progress (or lack of?), so watch this space! Walkerma 22:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategies table 

message: In order to get things moving on the Core topics sub-project, I have started a new page which can be a home for the project to get 100-200 qulaity articles  The page contains a table that can show assessment, comments, as well as useful links to portals etc.  Please take a look, and if you want to contribute please help out with some article assessments, especially if any of these fall in your area of expertise.  I have given my own assessment of about a dozen articles so far (just to get the ball rolling), and I will continue to assess as time allows.  If you are unsure of how the assessment criteria apply in practice, take a look at my assessments and comments to get an idea.  This assessment scheme is currently being used very successfully by about 5 people at WP:Chem to keep track of 380 articles. Walkerma 09:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics|Core topics]] page 

message: I have started off a Featured Articles First sub-project page - currently this just lists the pages by category.  How should we organise the work on this page?  I also began a Work_via_Wikiprojects sub-project page, and put up an associated page for tracking articles submitted by Arts Wikiprojects.  Please give feedback if you like/dislike the new pages, and please feel free to get involved.  Thanks, Walkerma 06:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking about this, what kind of things you wish to see done to FA's before they get sent to the Wikireader? I have a couple FA's that I would easily love to send to yall for this project. Zach (Sound Off) 05:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sub-project pages 

message: This is just to notify everyone that there is a new proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Pushing_to_1.0#Modified_Rating_Proposal.  If there is support, I may follow User:Walkerma's suggestion and lead the WikiSort project.the1physicist 20:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Project WikiSort has begun!the1physicist 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified Wikipedia 1.0 Rating Proposal 

message: I don't like the locking idea,but one of the main reasons wikipedia is not taken serious is that when you open an article it may have been factually vandalised.I really don't understand why an easy link to a "fact checked version" can't be given.A article is never complete,but one with a grave factual error is much worse.Until it's possible for a reader to have easy acces to such a version (link from the page history maybe),wikipedia will remain more of an entertainment medium than something that can be used for research (Anon)
:I don't agree with the custodian proposal. Unless you set up 24/7 rotating shifts of custodians, the plan will not achieve the goal of providing articles of guarenteed quality, free from vandalism. Only some form of protection can do that.Seabhcán 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree as per Seabhcan above. My concern is also about the office of the Custodian creating a new hierarchy. On the RfA, people may be asked to prove their credentials as a custodian first. This would only increase the bureaucracy here. --Gurubrahma 07:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: Hi, An initial list from WikiProject Business and Economics is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics/Version 1.0 assesment. Please add any other business & economics article you have collected there. Currently, I am trying to add only a-class or b-class articles. Hope that helps. --Pamri • Talk • [ Reply] 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for that! Clicking on the buttons there I see you have a good set of articles available, including some key subjects such as capitalism.  I have been in contact with Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory, and the discussion there has produced a list of candidate articles, though some are not FA/A/B-class yet.  Should I suggest that they put their articles on your lists? Would you like to review the assessments first?  My own assessments are given here, but I'm a chemist, not an economist! Thanks again, Walkerma 15:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I updated the list and populated the start-class articles. We can link to the game theory lists, so it is reviewed and discussed in one place. I am not that much of an expert on game theory, so I guess I will leave the reviewing to that project. --Pamri • Talk • [ Reply] 18:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business & Economics 

message: Ok, Added a few articles about India at Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/Version 1.0 assesment. I am setting the bar higher for these than the business-related articles. --Pamri • Talk • [ Reply] 05:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, there are a lot of nice articles there.  We are currently slowly working through all of the Wikiprojects, and with a lot of projects and only a few people to handle them, we have yet to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities and the other Indian projects, but now we have a head start!  It really helps a lot to have people who specialise in specific areas providing suggestions.  Thank you so much! Walkerma 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: I've been trying to start up the featured articles first project, so if you're interested in a system of review of featured articles, see Wikipedia:Featured article review. Let me know what you think. Tuf-Kat 00:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  This is the last of the four WP1.0 projects to get under way, yet arguably it should be the easiest to get to completion.  I'm glad you're reviewing them one by one, though you have a lot of work ahead!  I think you will need to set up a table (such as this?) or a list to keep track of which ones are OK and which ones need work. Good luck, and thanks for taking the lead! Walkerma 05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FAR

message: Just looking at some of the changes to the FAs on the project page and a lot of them seem to involve further linking to other articles. Cay you be sure that all the articles thus linked will actually make it into 1.0? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Hello all, it has been great to see there has been a lot of work on rigorous standards for v1.0. I have started Wikipedia:Requests for publication which can be applied immediately about how to approach it. Individual articles are put up for publication, that is, they are checked against the standards and copied off into a separate namespace and be protected. Its quite similar to the featured articles process so pages are protected as soon they have reached the quality desired. Yes, there is always an editable version no matter what. Read for more info. -- Zondor 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a decent idea, but aren't you being a bit premature going around to talk pages of non-featured articles (like Talk:United States) and suggesting "publishing" a version of the article? I am not at all sure that we will get consensus to do this with anything short of featured articles. And imaginably not even that, because some people consider long-term protection inherently objectionable. --  Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  they do not have to be featured articles to qualify for publication because standard / good / usable / v0.5 articles can. i emphasise people can republish as much and as often as they like. -- Zondor 22:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for publication]] 

message: I noticed a request at the Medieval Project talk page dated from October.  Since I doubt this project is still checking for responses I'd like to offer a nomination.
*Joan of Arc is nearing completion of its second peer review.  The editors expect to nominate it for featured article status soon.
Some related articles, though not at the same standard, could be worth considering as the best English language Internet summaries of their respective subjects:
*Battle of Jargeau
*Battle of Meung-sur-Loire
*Battle of Beaugency
*Pierre Cauchon, principal judge responsible for Joan of Arc's trial.
Durova 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I'll add these to the list, except for Joan of Arc. I just want to see if it reaches FA status or not. :)--Shanel 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you still seeking medieval articles? 

message: I understand the topic is distributing an authorized version of the best articles of V1.0, by DVD or paper. I was thinking that there could be a version "1.0 button" on the top right of each article that makes it to 1.0 status. That way people can see that the article reached the point of authoritative status, and people can read the authoratative 1.0 version online frozen at its 1.0 editing status. Of course the adding of new material will go on, but the authorized 1.0 version can be flagged in the history and made easy to display at the touch of a button. This way people will have access to an authoratative article frozen in time, much like our rivals at EB, but they will still have access to the chaotic ongoing adding of new information. I am sure this has been discussed before, I just haven't come across it in the archive. Let me know if this has been discussed before at my talk page, and here. Thank you.
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the WP1.0 is coalescing around such an idea.  This idea is fairly similar to the RFP idea above, now known as Wikipedia:Stable_versions, as well as the Good articles project.  If you look on the talk page of an article like ammonia, you will see it already carries a "Good Article" tag.  When we go to publication, such GAs will almost certainly become 1.0 articles, so in effect the GA tag is similar to your suggestion.  2006 will see much development, I think; we will very soon have user-based assessments to guide us, and GAs & stable versions as accepted policies too.  Along with the subprojects from this group, we should end up with a healthy collection of articles to use. Thanks for your suggestion, and please come & help us out if you wish! Walkerma 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  V1.0 available from each article