Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maurreen (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 19 March 2006 (more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal to find quality articles via Wikiprojects

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-
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. MONTHS 13-15 Write/get written/improve a handful (hopefully!) of missing articles.
  6. MONTHS 13-18 Look into getting this published.
  7. MONTH 24 Go to press?
Comments please? Walkerma 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: I put this timeline up to try to show what might be done, I am not saying it will happen! I wanted to stimulate discussion, but apparently I failed! As I am a newbie here, I apologise for placing this in the middle instead of at the end, hence the move. Walkerma 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

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)


Strategies table

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)

New Core topics page

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)

More sub-project pages

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)

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)

Modified Wikipedia 1.0 Rating Proposal

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)

Project WikiSort has begun!the1physicist 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Archive_4&oldid=44547979"