Further specialization in process may help, but thats only part of it. Some would say its just more "process creep", and I tend to think the truth somewhere in the middle between process upgrades and guidance upgrades.
IAC I think I need to apologise for my earlier comment, "please forgive us..." which was indeed a bit snippy (though quite edited down from what I had in the draft :|). Our traditional proper response to anyone has traditionally been "{{sofixit}}" and it should remain so, regardless of who makes the criticism. There are in fact only two--exactly two--kinds of people in this world: Those who edit Wikipedia and those who dont.
And furthermore, I think ATP focusing on particular articles ("the pick on a crappy article game" - Flcello) at this point is rather useless, when there are indeed bigger fish to fry --considering my opening point, namely that stuff needs' be done.
Sincerely, SV
--- Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's the list I was thinking of. The cleanup process is currently so bogged down that it's hard to know what needs to be done, though. In the meantime, I've created a template -- {{cleanup-priority}}, which currently is a cleanup tag for any articles which are of sub-par quality on that list (and should only be limited to that list, I think), hopefully it will help focus things a bit. (If people disagree with the "prioritization", well, they can argue that on the list itself -- if we have such a list, and take it at least partially seriously, then I think using it as a base for a prioritization scheme is a good idea).
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com