Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Sorry, that bit in brackets wasn't meant to be a summary of the
> criteria for each class, it was a description of the difference
> between the classes. Each has lots of other criteria, but they are
> essentially the same for both.
>
>   
Getting back to one of the main points: I think we could have a clearer 
system, certainly, and I think clarity should be asked for on behalf of 
the readers, who outnumber the writers.

It seems that there are basically two things that go on: material is 
found for an article on topic T; and then the way the article on T is 
written gets reviewed in a box-ticking kind of way, mostly for 
conformity to the Manual and referencing. Which is fair enough. The 
points at issue seem to be:

- At what level of advancement of the article T should it actually be 
"commended" to the reader (implicitly) by the rating?
- Beyond that level, should the number of rungs of the ladder be made 
small (fewer but more taxing reviews), or larger (more hurdles, each of 
which deals with a limited number of matters)?

My vague suggestion for the first part is that "rate on a scale of 1 to 
10" is intuitive for just about anyone as reader, but our traditional 
labels seem more designed for writers. Thinking B+ = 5 and A = 6 at 
least puts a more normal complexion on what we are talking about. As for 
the second part, it is not particularly something that bothers me, given 
the way I have always worked. But making reviewing more "modular" (and 
predictable, removing the "instruction creep" that moves goalposts) 
would seem sensible, so I'm for more layers.

After all, professional book production would tend to distinguish 
editorial input, subediting, and copy editing as phases. The thread is 
about outside review, which is yet another idea, but with a book would 
be tried for at an earlier stage, I think.

Charles



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Nihiltres wrote:
> (Pardon me if I'm doing something wrong regarding the mailing list, I'm a 
> newbie to posting despite lurking for some time)
>
> David Lindsey wrote:
>
>   
>> Finally, though this idea failed to gain any real traction on wiki, I would
>> like to state my support for the idea of adding a fifth criterion to
>> WP:WIAFA: "5. The article, if possible, has been reviewed by an external
>> subject-matter expert."  Even if no such criterion is added, though, I would
>> like to emphasize that it will always, or nearly always, be productive to
>> attempt to find an expert reviewer.
>> 
>
> 
>
> Yes, expert reviewers are generally a good thing. I think that there might be 
> some trouble with controversial articles (if the expert is slanted one way or 
> another, a review correcting "mistakes" might not be helpful to NPOV). The 
> dubiousness of Citizendium's homeopathy article makes a good example.
>   
+1

> I don't currently believe that expert review should be added as a criterion 
> for Featured articles, however, because of the classic problems with experts. 
> First,  how would the interactions/credentials be verified? I can just 
> imagine it now: "I'm submitting this article 'Unobtainium synthesis' to FAC 
> because I think it meets the criteria. Also, the article got an excellent 
> rating on review by Dr. L. Olfake, which she emailed to me the other day." 
> (In case you didn't catch it: "lol fake") Second, how do we avoid 
> Citizendium-like problems? (This is certainly an issue, see also the earlier 
> "Citizendium dead?" thread in this list) Third, would it add systemic bias, 
> or extra hurdles to the process, as Charles Matthews mentions? I'll stop 
> touting the issues, because that's not quite helpful, but there are 
> significant problems with integrating expert review that we ought to address 
> (if not solve) before making it remotely mandatory.
>
> If we were to integrate expert review, I'd start it as another *layer* of 
> Wikipedia. I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of 
> review a given article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and 
> the perceived level of quality involved, is a good thing.  The Wikipedia 1.0 
> assessment system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…) seems to serve as a decent 
> start for that sort of thing. (In the long run, I'd love to see some system 
> integrating this with some addition to the planned "patrolled revisions" 
> feature that adds passive flags to revisions.) If we were to bolt on an 
> expert review process to the Featured article system, why not make it a new 
> level? I can imagine it now: "FA+". Take a community FA, and give it a 
> (reasonably verified) expert review, and if all outstanding issues are 
> addressed, call it an FA+ instead. Granted, this involves all sorts of 
> instruction creep, but it's just a starting idea. A practical implementation 
> is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)
>
> I think that expert review is a good idea (we like expert participation as 
> long as they're not jerks about it), but I'm cautious about its feasibility 
> in Wikipedia as an "official" process.
>
> 
>
>   
First let me just say generally pretty much every word in your "ramble"
is genuinely insightful. Let me share some thoughts it inspired in myself.

To me it seems people who could be tapped for outside input to wikipedia,
even when they are people who generally don't want to edit wikipedia
actively themselves, shouldn't be limited to academics by any means.
Think journalists and professional people in their field doing work as an
ordinary day job just as two examples.

I wouldn't limit such input into a single mold either. There could be one
system developed for just quickly checking a single fact and asking if
they could point to an authoritative source which could be cited in the
article. Somebody who knows their shit might have things right handy,
and not mind telling what it is, so long as they don't have to insert it
into wikipedia themselves, and watch over it to make sure it stays put.

Another system might be recruit such folks to give an impartial
summary overview of what problems if any kind a specific article
in their field might have, be it bias, unbalance of coverage, facts
missing, surfeit of inessential information stuffed in, or simple
errors of fact. I do agree that in no way should this kind of system
be married to the FA process, for the reason that I don't think
there is grounds for limiting it to articles on that level, and of
course it would add a new hurdle to the FA process if it was
absollutely mandatory, and new hurdles the FA process doesn't
really need. And necessarily the resulting summary view of the
article could *never* be thought to be genuinely authoritative;
that would just be outright impossible. I think somebody said
of economics as a science that if you ask for an opinion on a
question on their field from 3 experts, you get 7 opinions. The
only way you coul

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Thomas Dalton]

On 27 April 2010 23:14, Charles Matthews
 wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 27 April 2010 21:33, Charles Matthews
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the research I remember says the transition from B to A makes the
>>> most difference to the reader. So I would make that central to any
>>> system: from 5 to 6, say. I have seen perfectly decent articles labelled
>>> "Start" - I mean articles with say five paras of solid, verifiable
>>> factual information. I doubt standards are even across the wiki, but if
>>> those are "Start" there have to be a couple of rungs on the ladder below
>>> that.; or Start = 3.  I see that mathematics uses B+ anyway, so that the
>>> lower side has five grades already. There does seem to be some problem
>>> with A right now, but abolishing it in such a fashion to reduce
>>> incentives to push articles up would really be a bad idea (whatever your
>>> anecdotal example says).
>>>
>>
>> But what is the difference between A and GA? Really, it's minimal (I
>> think A-class requires the content to be essentially complete, GA just
>> requires it to cover all the main points, which isn't much different).
>> You talk about the transition from B to A - is most of that difference
>> to readers between B and GA or between GA and A (I know the ordering
>> isn't perfect, but any A-class article should be able to pass GA with
>> only minimal changes)? I suspect it is between B and GA, so getting
>> rid of A wouldn't have any significant impact.
>>
> [[Talk:Go (game)/GA2]] is the only GA review I have ever looked at: it
> has many comments (measurements in both metric and imperial, for
> example) that ar far from your summary.

Sorry, that bit in brackets wasn't meant to be a summary of the
criteria for each class, it was a description of the difference
between the classes. Each has lots of other criteria, but they are
essentially the same for both.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 21:33, Charles Matthews
>  wrote:
>   
>> Well, the research I remember says the transition from B to A makes the
>> most difference to the reader. So I would make that central to any
>> system: from 5 to 6, say. I have seen perfectly decent articles labelled
>> "Start" - I mean articles with say five paras of solid, verifiable
>> factual information. I doubt standards are even across the wiki, but if
>> those are "Start" there have to be a couple of rungs on the ladder below
>> that.; or Start = 3.  I see that mathematics uses B+ anyway, so that the
>> lower side has five grades already. There does seem to be some problem
>> with A right now, but abolishing it in such a fashion to reduce
>> incentives to push articles up would really be a bad idea (whatever your
>> anecdotal example says).
>> 
>
> But what is the difference between A and GA? Really, it's minimal (I
> think A-class requires the content to be essentially complete, GA just
> requires it to cover all the main points, which isn't much different).
> You talk about the transition from B to A - is most of that difference
> to readers between B and GA or between GA and A (I know the ordering
> isn't perfect, but any A-class article should be able to pass GA with
> only minimal changes)? I suspect it is between B and GA, so getting
> rid of A wouldn't have any significant impact.
>   
[[Talk:Go (game)/GA2]] is the only GA review I have ever looked at: it 
has many comments (measurements in both metric and imperial, for 
example) that ar far from your summary.

Charles


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Thomas Dalton]

On 27 April 2010 21:33, Charles Matthews
 wrote:
> Well, the research I remember says the transition from B to A makes the
> most difference to the reader. So I would make that central to any
> system: from 5 to 6, say. I have seen perfectly decent articles labelled
> "Start" - I mean articles with say five paras of solid, verifiable
> factual information. I doubt standards are even across the wiki, but if
> those are "Start" there have to be a couple of rungs on the ladder below
> that.; or Start = 3.  I see that mathematics uses B+ anyway, so that the
> lower side has five grades already. There does seem to be some problem
> with A right now, but abolishing it in such a fashion to reduce
> incentives to push articles up would really be a bad idea (whatever your
> anecdotal example says).

But what is the difference between A and GA? Really, it's minimal (I
think A-class requires the content to be essentially complete, GA just
requires it to cover all the main points, which isn't much different).
You talk about the transition from B to A - is most of that difference
to readers between B and GA or between GA and A (I know the ordering
isn't perfect, but any A-class article should be able to pass GA with
only minimal changes)? I suspect it is between B and GA, so getting
rid of A wouldn't have any significant impact.

One alternative is to scrap the entire system and replace it with a
points system. We have a few categories like "completeness", "style",
"images", "references", etc. and an article gets a certain number of
points in each category depending on how good it is. Once an article
has the maximum points in each category, it is ready for FAC, which
basically is just to confirm the assessment was accurate (the
categories should be set up with the FA criteria in mind). This would
mean people working on the article know what areas need more work, it
gives an incentive to even fairly small improvements and it removes
the arbitrary distinctions between different classes of article.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 20:50, Charles Matthews
>  wrote:
>   
>> Nihiltres wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>  I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review a 
>>> given article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the 
>>> perceived level of quality involved, is a good thing.  The Wikipedia 1.0 
>>> assessment system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…) seems to serve as a 
>>> decent start for that sort of thing.
>>>   
>> If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really need
>> levels 1 to 10 for articles. It seems already to be hard to get an A,
>> fairly much impossible to get GA for an "average" topic, and as we know
>> only 1 in 1000 is FA (in round terms). And "expert review" = FA+ is
>> another quite defensible level. I think cutting to the chase, setting
>> substub = 1 and reviewed FA = 10 might be a great timesaver, and help a
>> process in which less "mystique" attached to the whole business.
>> Rebooting with FA = 9 sounds quite fun.
>> 
>
> I realised a few months ago that it had been ages since I'd actually
> done anything significant in the main namespace, so I decided to have
> a go at writing an article. With a little help from someone that
> turned up and started improving the article (in true wiki-fashion), I
> got it to GA fairly easily. It was at best an "average" topic - it was
> my local (about 700 year old) church. FAC is very difficult to get
> through, but GA is entirely doable.
>
> I think adding more levels would make the distinctions more arbitrary,
> which seems like a bad thing to me. I think we should remove a level,
> in fact. The current system at the top with A, GA and FA is very
> confusing. I think GA and A should be merged somehow (perhaps just get
> rid of A).
>
>   
Well, the research I remember says the transition from B to A makes the 
most difference to the reader. So I would make that central to any 
system: from 5 to 6, say. I have seen perfectly decent articles labelled 
"Start" - I mean articles with say five paras of solid, verifiable 
factual information. I doubt standards are even across the wiki, but if 
those are "Start" there have to be a couple of rungs on the ladder below 
that.; or Start = 3.  I see that mathematics uses B+ anyway, so that the 
lower side has five grades already. There does seem to be some problem 
with A right now, but abolishing it in such a fashion to reduce 
incentives to push articles up would really be a bad idea (whatever your 
anecdotal example says).

Charles



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Thomas Dalton]

On 27 April 2010 20:50, Charles Matthews
 wrote:
> Nihiltres wrote:
>> 
>>  I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review a 
>> given article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the 
>> perceived level of quality involved, is a good thing.  The Wikipedia 1.0 
>> assessment system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…) seems to serve as a decent 
>> start for that sort of thing.
> If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really need
> levels 1 to 10 for articles. It seems already to be hard to get an A,
> fairly much impossible to get GA for an "average" topic, and as we know
> only 1 in 1000 is FA (in round terms). And "expert review" = FA+ is
> another quite defensible level. I think cutting to the chase, setting
> substub = 1 and reviewed FA = 10 might be a great timesaver, and help a
> process in which less "mystique" attached to the whole business.
> Rebooting with FA = 9 sounds quite fun.

I realised a few months ago that it had been ages since I'd actually
done anything significant in the main namespace, so I decided to have
a go at writing an article. With a little help from someone that
turned up and started improving the article (in true wiki-fashion), I
got it to GA fairly easily. It was at best an "average" topic - it was
my local (about 700 year old) church. FAC is very difficult to get
through, but GA is entirely doable.

I think adding more levels would make the distinctions more arbitrary,
which seems like a bad thing to me. I think we should remove a level,
in fact. The current system at the top with A, GA and FA is very
confusing. I think GA and A should be merged somehow (perhaps just get
rid of A).

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Charles Matthews]

Nihiltres wrote:
> 
>  I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review a given 
> article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the perceived 
> level of quality involved, is a good thing.  The Wikipedia 1.0 assessment 
> system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…) seems to serve as a decent start for 
> that sort of thing. 
If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really need 
levels 1 to 10 for articles. It seems already to be hard to get an A, 
fairly much impossible to get GA for an "average" topic, and as we know 
only 1 in 1000 is FA (in round terms). And "expert review" = FA+ is 
another quite defensible level. I think cutting to the chase, setting 
substub = 1 and reviewed FA = 10 might be a great timesaver, and help a 
process in which less "mystique" attached to the whole business. 
Rebooting with FA = 9 sounds quite fun.

Charles


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Nihiltres]

(Pardon me if I'm doing something wrong regarding the mailing list, I'm a 
newbie to posting despite lurking for some time)

David Lindsey wrote:



> I would like to think that we can all agree that Professor Wertheim's
> critical response is a helpful one, and that adapting the article
> appropriately would be of benefit to Wikipedia.  The entire process of
> finding an expert to review the article took no more than a half hour of my
> time and produced a benefit for Wikipedia that substantially exceeds that
> cost.



Yes, the critical response is helpful, and reacting to it would be a good idea.

I do raise my eyebrows at the time required, though. There are plenty of 
difficulties involved in finding an appropriate expert, contacting them, 
and—importantly—convincing them to use their time to review the article. It's 
hard to generalize that most Wikipedians should be able to find a (willing) 
expert on a subject in so little time, especially for more obscure or less 
academic topics.



> Finally, though this idea failed to gain any real traction on wiki, I would
> like to state my support for the idea of adding a fifth criterion to
> WP:WIAFA: "5. The article, if possible, has been reviewed by an external
> subject-matter expert."  Even if no such criterion is added, though, I would
> like to emphasize that it will always, or nearly always, be productive to
> attempt to find an expert reviewer.



Yes, expert reviewers are generally a good thing. I think that there might be 
some trouble with controversial articles (if the expert is slanted one way or 
another, a review correcting "mistakes" might not be helpful to NPOV). The 
dubiousness of Citizendium's homeopathy article makes a good example.

I don't currently believe that expert review should be added as a criterion for 
Featured articles, however, because of the classic problems with experts. 
First,  how would the interactions/credentials be verified? I can just imagine 
it now: "I'm submitting this article 'Unobtainium synthesis' to FAC because I 
think it meets the criteria. Also, the article got an excellent rating on 
review by Dr. L. Olfake, which she emailed to me the other day." (In case you 
didn't catch it: "lol fake") Second, how do we avoid Citizendium-like problems? 
(This is certainly an issue, see also the earlier "Citizendium dead?" thread in 
this list) Third, would it add systemic bias, or extra hurdles to the process, 
as Charles Matthews mentions? I'll stop touting the issues, because that's not 
quite helpful, but there are significant problems with integrating expert 
review that we ought to address (if not solve) before making it remotely 
mandatory.

If we were to integrate expert review, I'd start it as another *layer* of 
Wikipedia. I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review 
a given article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the 
perceived level of quality involved, is a good thing.  The Wikipedia 1.0 
assessment system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…) seems to serve as a decent 
start for that sort of thing. (In the long run, I'd love to see some system 
integrating this with some addition to the planned "patrolled revisions" 
feature that adds passive flags to revisions.) If we were to bolt on an expert 
review process to the Featured article system, why not make it a new level? I 
can imagine it now: "FA+". Take a community FA, and give it a (reasonably 
verified) expert review, and if all outstanding issues are addressed, call it 
an FA+ instead. Granted, this involves all sorts of instruction creep, but it's 
just a starting idea. A practical implementation is left as an exercise for the 
reader. ;)

I think that expert review is a good idea (we like expert participation as long 
as they're not jerks about it), but I'm cautious about its feasibility in 
Wikipedia as an "official" process.




Cheers,
Nihiltres
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Charles Matthews]

David Lindsey wrote:




> Finally, though this idea failed to gain any real traction on wiki, I would
> like to state my support for the idea of adding a fifth criterion to
> WP:WIAFA: "5. The article, if possible, has been reviewed by an external
> subject-matter expert."  Even if no such criterion is added, though, I would
> like to emphasize that it will always, or nearly always, be productive to
> attempt to find an expert reviewer.
>   
It was interesting to see the Wertheim comments: they certainly appear 
fair, but none would seem to justify removing or holding up FA status. 
They are more like decent Talk page comments asking for clarifications.

I would oppose this suggestion, though, on "systemic bias" grounds. I 
know that it can be argued that a FA can be on any topic, but I guess 
standard "systemic bias" slants towards topics popular with 
English-speakers readers are fairly obvious when the list is sorted. 
There is no reason to add hurdles that basically are going to make that 
worse. (Again, it can be argued that it need not do that, as it can be 
argued that requiring images need not, requiring dense referencing need 
not, and so on. But collectively these requirements are part of a slant 
towards topics that are in certain areas.)

Charles


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[David Lindsey]

Following some of the responses to my recent article on featured
articles,
I decided to carry out a single test run of what adding expert feedback to
the featured article process might look like.  To this end, I selected
(several days ago) a recently-promoted featured article, The Open
Boat,
and set out to find an expert reviewer.  I initially asked Paul Sorrentino,
a professor at Virginia Tech, biographer of Crane and editor of several
works on Crane, to have a look at the article.  He declined to participate,
saying that he was currently too busy, but recommended that I approach
Stanley Wertheim, author of, among many other books, The Stephen Crane
Encyclopedia.  Professor Wertheim kindly agreed to undertake the review, and
produced the following commentary for me (which he agreed to have publicly
distributed):

"Dear Mr. Lindsey*,*


The W*i*kipedia article on "The Open Boat" seems to me for the most part
well-written, accurate, and appropriate to the topic. I do not find serious
omissions and it seems to me that the major biographical sources and
critical views are well represented. I believe that it is a good thing that
some of the more recent post-modern critical interpretations are not
presented since they would only confuse the general reader, as I think they
confuse many professional readers.

*
*

*Introductory Paragraph*: It may be misleading to say that the Commodore sank
after hitting a sandbar.  The Commodore was beached twice on sandbars in the
St. John’s River before it attained the open sea, and the following day the
ship foundered following a mysterious leak in the engine room that could not
be contained.

* *

The story is not told “from the point of view of an anonymous
correspondent.”*  *There is*  *a detached narrator. The focus is on the
collective (and sometimes individual) consciousness of the four men in the
dinghy as they react to their ordeal. This mistake is repeated in the *Plot
Summary* section where it is stated that the narrarion is from the point of
view of the Correspondent, based on Crane himself. Also in this section “the
metaphysical conflicts” are described as “the correspondent’s thoughts”
rather than the collective reflections of the men rendered by the
third-person narrator. What is more puzzling is that some of this confusion
is attributed to me (See ftn. 27) when in fact I clearly state in the source
cited that these are the reflections of “the collective mind of the men in
the dinghy,” not those of the Correspondent.

* *

*Publication History*: The newspaper prelude to “The Open Boat, “Stephen
Crane’s Own Story” was not first published in the *New York Press*. It was
printed in various newspapers on January 7, 1897, by the Bacheller syndicate
and the title was taken from the *New York Press* version.



*Man Versus Nature*: In “they came to believe that nature instead
ambivalent,” I would substitute “indifferent” for “ambivalent.” Indifference
is stressed in the rest of the paragraph. “Ambivalence” would indicate
personified and contrasting attitudes rather than neutrality.


Why is the the Commodore sometimes referred to as simply Commodore? Isn't
the article "the' necessary?"


I would like to think that we can all agree that Professor Wertheim's
critical response is a helpful one, and that adapting the article
appropriately would be of benefit to Wikipedia.  The entire process of
finding an expert to review the article took no more than a half hour of my
time and produced a benefit for Wikipedia that substantially exceeds that
cost.


Thus, I would like to reiterate my call for the use of expert reviewers.  I
am happy to lend my assistance to anyone who would like to become involved
in contacting experts.  Obviously, the authors of featured articles should
be the best-suited for contacting experts, as they should have a grasp of
who might be appropriate to ask, and so forth, but this need not always be
the case.


Finally, though this idea failed to gain any real traction on wiki, I would
like to state my support for the idea of adding a fifth criterion to
WP:WIAFA: "5. The article, if possible, has been reviewed by an external
subject-matter expert."  Even if no such criterion is added, though, I would
like to emphasize that it will always, or nearly always, be productive to
attempt to find an expert reviewer.


David Lindsey
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l