At 10:21 PM 11/17/2004 +0000, Charles Matthews wrote:
So, where I can put my finger on my unease, is that I can see a case where, if pressed to review an article some months ago, I would have said 'sub-standard'. Clearly a term paper, wierd notation, author not quite on top of it. The problem is, it took me half a year of having it on my conscience to realise that I did know enough to rescue it, and get the point straight. And I think the wiki process shows up well, there; it has done little harm, and, with all due modesty, if I wasn't already familiar with the point, it pushes the envelope on the WP coverage.
I'm not sure what your objection here is. If you're on the review board and you come across an article you think is substandard, then you can just skip it and move on. Half a year you get the epiphany on how to fix it, so you go back and fix it and then you can mark it as being "1.0 quality" or whatever the tag will be. I don't think any of the variant systems that have been proposed include any sort of deadline or schedule for reviewing specific articles.