Pending Revisions conveys that publication is deferred, but not for what reason.
Based on only the name it leaves a new editor guessing: maybe there is a server delay and the matter will resolve itself in next twenty minutes?
Double Check or Revision Review tells clearly there is human intervention needed for the next step.
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.
compare
"This article is in Pending Revisions". or "Pending Revisions applies to this article"
and
"This article is in Revision Review. " or "Revision Review" applies to this article.
the latter sounds more natural to me.
There is only so much one can convey in two words without further explanation.
So a new editor will not have a clue from the name what the review process entails.
At least it is clear it is a process, and human intervention is key.
Erik Zachte
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
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
Aye I personally think "edit" is much simpler for people then "revision" which I think will confuse more people, especially English learners/2nd language (COI notice: Simple English Wikipedia). When I made the argument on the discussion page most people were against it because they felt people would see "edit" as meaning every little change they did (so there were lots of edits in each revision) but I still think that most would consider an edit==revision.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.comwrote:
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
-- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
In German Wikipedia, our word "gesichtet" is a little bit strange. "Sichten" is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness.
That's funny. Internally, especially in technical discussions, "sighted" gets used a fair bit. All this time I'd been assuming that, however weird "sighted" sounded in English, it must be perfectly good German.
For non-native speakers, "sighted" is rarely used in English. The main uses I can think of are to describe a person who isn't blind ("For the hike we paired a sighted person with each blind one"), for spotting rare animals, or for an archaic nautical flavor ("Cap'n! The bosun's mate has sighted the pirate ship from the fo'csle!").
As they say, there's sometimes a quality in a good translation that you just can't get in the original.
William
Well, what James Alexander says - maybe we can make up something of "edit". "Checked edit". Ziko
2010/5/24 William Pietri william@scissor.com:
On 05/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
In German Wikipedia, our word "gesichtet" is a little bit strange. "Sichten" is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness.
That's funny. Internally, especially in technical discussions, "sighted" gets used a fair bit. All this time I'd been assuming that, however weird "sighted" sounded in English, it must be perfectly good German.
For non-native speakers, "sighted" is rarely used in English. The main uses I can think of are to describe a person who isn't blind ("For the hike we paired a sighted person with each blind one"), for spotting rare animals, or for an archaic nautical flavor ("Cap'n! The bosun's mate has sighted the pirate ship from the fo'csle!").
As they say, there's sometimes a quality in a good translation that you just can't get in the original.
William
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org