Indeed "revision" and "review" makes the impression that much more is done than actually is. (Revision = not only a check, but also alterations, it sounds to me.) I am afraid that is the problem with pretty much of all the expressions that have been put in forum.
In German Wikipedia, our word "gesichtet" is a little bit strange. "Sichten" is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness. Actually, the subject we should talk about is not an article or a "revision", but the version that has been changed by an edit. Kind regards Ziko 2010/5/24 Michael Peel <[email protected]>: > > 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 > -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
