On 4/11/12, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 10 April 2012 14:33, Daniel Mietchen
<daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
The process is not cast in stone, and suggestions
on how to iron out
some potential rough edges are more than welcome.
It's a useful survey, clearly. The big diff pasting in the new version
does offer (edit summary) some way of tracking what went on, which is
welcome, though not really for the purists. The one striking thing is
the lede, which is a bit "impatient" for the general reader. Comparing
with the old lede, the meaning has shifted somewhat, also. It could do
with some division of sentences, use of "in other words", that sort of
thing.
The review process here is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circular_permutation_in_proteins#Open_Pee…
I'd be particularly interested in seeing that sort of review process
compared to the Good Article and Featured Article review processes,
and may drop a note off at both of those processes at some point
(unless someone else does so first). What I'm thinking in particular
is that some FACs would benefit from what is essentially an *external*
peer review process (as opposed to the internal peer review and other
review processes). i.e. Actively soliciting reviews from those holding
credentials (academic or otherwise) in the topic area. Historically,
given the "anyone an edit" and (mostly) pseudonymous nature of
editing, there hasn't been much interest in this model of reviewing,
but I'd be interested to see reactions to this.
Carcharoth