On 24 May 2010, at 07:57, Erik Zachte wrote: > Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in > connotations than Double Check.
> Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions. The downside is that 'Review' could be linked to an editorial review, and hence people might expect to get feedback on their revision rather than a simple 'yes/no'. I'd also personally link the name more to paid reviewing than volunteer checking. Combining the two, and removing the potential bad bits (i.e. "double" and "review") how about "Checked Revisions"? Mike Peel _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
