On 9/12/06, Carl Peterson carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
What would be ideal is if we could establish a content-area (i.e., WikiProject) peer review as a prerequisite for the purposes of content (esp. for technical articles)
Not too difficult to set up, in theory. WikiProject-run peer reviews (in the Wikipedia "get advice for an article" sense, not the academic sense) are becoming more common (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_peer_reviews); and more FAC-like evaluation (rather than suggestion) methods are also being attempted (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessme...).
... then have it go to a "Brilliant Prose Committee" of qualified persons (e.g., people with actual degrees or a lot of experience) to evaluate the writing style, the readibility, the grammar, etc.
Presumably the nominator would still have the primary responsibility of fixing the article to meet the criticism of the committee, rather than actually having the committee be rewriting the thing?
But this hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting wide support, obviously, if only because of the ensuing bloodbath over who would be on the committee. ;-)