Indeed "revision" and "review" makes the impression that much more is done than actually is. (Revision = not only a check, but also alterations, it sounds to me.) I am afraid that is the problem with pretty much of all the expressions that have been put in forum.
In German Wikipedia, our word "gesichtet" is a little bit strange. "Sichten" is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness.
Actually, the subject we should talk about is not an article or a "revision", but the version that has been changed by an edit.
Kind regards Ziko
2010/5/24 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
On 24 May 2010, at 07:57, Erik Zachte wrote:
Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in connotations than Double Check.
Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions.
The downside is that 'Review' could be linked to an editorial review, and hence people might expect to get feedback on their revision rather than a simple 'yes/no'. I'd also personally link the name more to paid reviewing than volunteer checking.
Combining the two, and removing the potential bad bits (i.e. "double" and "review") how about "Checked Revisions"?
Mike Peel _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l