38:
355:
Anyone is free to participate in this workshop. However, because of the complex nature of the issues, and because of some acrimony in prior discussions elsewhere on these topics, it is suggested that editors who wish to comment familiarize themselves with some of the discussion history, and consider
260:
Please feel free to edit this list to improve it. Please make the problem statements positive, if possible, rather than negative: that is, please state the improvement you'd like to see, rather than making a criticism of an existing process. Where possible, please try to state the problem without
123:
At one level, the goal of all the content review processes is to improve the quality of main-space articles. This is too broad a definition, though, since many other things go on that also have this goal. This section lists the goals that one or more of the specific processes listed above tries to
87:
is intended to evaluate the various
Knowledge processes that assess and improve content. It seeks to clarify means and methods, reduce procedural overhead, and better attune processes outside of the mainspace with improvements in the mainspace. For now, editors are free to add general comments and
329:
The intention is for talk page discussions in this workshop to lead to ideas that can be taken to the talk pages of the relevant content review processes for further discussion and validation. On this talk page, a "Current topic" will be decided from time-to-time, in order to remain focused on
333:
After a topic is decided on, the workshop talk page will attempt to reach consensus on a proposal to address the topic. When sufficient consensus has been reached, a summary of the proposal will be placed on this page, under "Proposals". Further discussion on the talk page may refine it; and
346:
template, or the individual content review process pages. The workshop will discuss whether further proposals or new topics might change the current proposal, making it better to wait; or whether on the other hand there is some reason to propose it immediately, such as a belief that it is
337:
Once the workshop feels all significant outstanding questions for the proposal have been resolved, the facilitator will ask the workshop to agree on whether it is time to take the proposal to the wider community via an appropriate announcement location such as the
386:
The facilitator has no special authority beyond the agreement of the editors in this workshop to allow the facilitator to help guide the workshop. The role can be eliminated or the person performing the role changed at any time by consensus on the talk page.
292:
Can statistics be improved for any of the processes, in order to help measure their success? No process keeps complete statistics on both articles reviewed and reviewer participation, but there is great variation among existing
256:
This is a list of problems and topics that are agreed to be of interest by the participants in this workshop, and which are candidates to be the
Current Topic worked on by this workshop. These are in no particular order.
359:
If further recruitment of editors with knowledge of specific processes is thought to be valuable, consider notifying individual editors who you feel would be good contributors to this process on their talk pages.
280:
Acrimonious arguments at individual processes and in discussions between regulars at the different talk processes drain time and energy; is there a way to eliminate or reduce these source of friction?
330:
particular process issues. The workshop aims to be both methodical and organic; that is, it intends to focus on processes one-by-one but also let discussion emerge naturally.
286:
Can we avoid or mitigate the weaknesses of multiple-reviewer systems in which some undocumented and unrecorded form of consensus has to be decided on by a single individual?
283:
Can we avoid or mitigate the weaknesses of single-reviewer systems in which one user may mistakenly pass an article that does not meet the relevant standards?
289:
What can be done in all processes to reduce bureaucracy and instruction creep and make things easy for the content-writers wishing to use the processes?
52:
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
430:
396:
96:
89:
312:
Can we improve the mechanism for nominating articles for review, either for each process individually or across the project as a whole?
53:
343:
189:
The following is a list of some of the content review processes that exist on
Knowledge. Please add others if they are absent.
425:
239:
309:
Is the current set of labels—stub, start, B and A; and GA, FA—the right set of labels for assessing article quality or state?
413:
A prior topic on peer review is on hold until a bot can be written to produce example output for further discussion.
17:
229:
174:
Assess the degree to which processes are focused on content improvement relative to non-mainspace overhead
315:
What can be done to encourage in-depth review of reliability of sources in the various review processes?
274:
How can we encourage the connection of subject-matter experts with articles that need their expertise?
265:
How can reviewers be encouraged at all forums? Peer review in particular is perennially understaffed.
302:
What can be done to make it easier for editors to make articles comply with the somewhat technical
369:
277:
How can all the processes scale? Each has its own barriers to getting ten times more productive.
62:
45:
37:
233:
247:
Not a review process per se, but often heavily involved in the FA and other review processes.
271:
How do we recognize the value and quality of good, short articles that are unlikely to grow?
347:
self-contained or a desire to avoid recommending too great a change in a single proposal.
244:
419:
303:
223:
406:
339:
217:
211:
205:
201:
197:
193:
180:
Come up with ideas to help the content review processes meet the goals listed above
106:
152:
Establish communities of editors who are encouraged to work on content improvement
402:
102:
401:
What can be done to ensure that content review processes evaluate articles for
296:
Are there opportunities for collaboration between the various review processes?
101:
What can be done to ensure that content review processes evaluate articles for
23:
171:
Clarify the scaleability of the various processes and suggest improvements
334:
implementation details and outstanding questions will be listed there.
128:
Produce well-written articles with accurate, broad, and neutral content
382:
keep the discussion moving through the process at an appropriate speed
92:
page, while the scope of the project is more precisely defined here.
268:
Is there a way to reduce redundancy between the FA and GA processes?
168:
Identify what is done well by which groups, and what is done badly
368:
This workshop has a facilitator: currently the facilitator is
177:
Identify redundancy between processes and suggest streamlining
32:
236:. These typically use a Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FA system.
226:. This is the origin of the Stub, Start, B and A ratings.
70:
44:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
143:Connect experts to articles needing content review
356:committing to an extended period of involvement.
232:with internal assessment procedures, such as
134:Train editors in how to write better articles
8:
299:Should there be a unified review hierarchy?
261:reference to a specific existing process.
252:List of some existing problems and topics
137:Encourage article editors to participate
164:This workshop has the following goals:
379:help identify and articulate consensus
372:. The role of the facilitator is to:
155:Improve and document article standards
146:Identify articles that can be improved
119:Goals of the content review processes
7:
376:help refine and improve the process
405:and to check the sources used are
149:Encourage the use of a house style
140:Encourage reviewers to participate
131:Improve the quality of the writing
105:and to check the sources used are
31:
325:How this page is intended to work
36:
240:Knowledge:Requests for feedback
431:Knowledge editorial validation
1:
447:
245:The League of Copy Editors
60:
18:Knowledge:Content review
391:Current topic proposals
85:Content review workshop
426:Inactive project pages
395:The Current Topic for
344:Centralized discussion
160:Goals of this workshop
95:The Current Topic for
202:featured pictures
194:Featured articles
81:
80:
22:(Redirected from
438:
224:Knowledge v. 1.0
73:
57:
40:
33:
27:
446:
445:
441:
440:
439:
437:
436:
435:
416:
415:
393:
366:
353:
327:
322:
304:manual of style
254:
206:featured topics
187:
162:
121:
116:
77:
76:
69:
65:
51:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
444:
442:
434:
433:
428:
418:
417:
392:
389:
384:
383:
380:
377:
365:
362:
352:
349:
326:
323:
321:
318:
317:
316:
313:
310:
307:
300:
297:
294:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
253:
250:
249:
248:
242:
237:
227:
221:
215:
209:
198:featured lists
186:
183:
182:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
161:
158:
157:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
129:
120:
117:
115:
112:
79:
78:
75:
74:
66:
61:
58:
50:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
443:
432:
429:
427:
424:
423:
421:
414:
411:
410:
408:
404:
403:verifiability
398:
390:
388:
381:
378:
375:
374:
373:
371:
370:Mike Christie
363:
361:
357:
351:Participation
350:
348:
345:
341:
335:
331:
324:
319:
314:
311:
308:
305:
301:
298:
295:
291:
288:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
262:
258:
251:
246:
243:
241:
238:
235:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
212:Good articles
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
191:
190:
184:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
166:
165:
159:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
126:
125:
118:
113:
111:
110:
108:
104:
103:verifiability
98:
93:
91:
90:brainstorming
88:ideas to the
86:
72:
68:
67:
64:
59:
55:
49:
47:
42:
39:
35:
34:
25:
24:Knowledge:CRW
19:
412:
400:
394:
385:
367:
358:
354:
340:village pump
336:
332:
328:
259:
255:
230:WikiProjects
188:
163:
122:
100:
94:
84:
82:
54:village pump
43:
364:Facilitator
218:Peer review
420:Categories
397:discussion
293:processes.
234:WP:MILHIST
124:achieve.
97:discussion
48:reference.
46:historical
407:reliable
107:reliable
63:Shortcut
320:Process
342:, the
71:WP:CRW
185:Scope
114:Goals
16:<
204:and
83:The
399:is
99:is
422::
200:,
196:,
409:?
306:?
220:.
214:.
208:.
109:?
56:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
