[WikiEN-l] Expert feedback on Featured Articles

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Sorry, that bit in brackets wasn't meant to be a summary of the
> criteria for each class, it was a description of the difference
> between the classes. Each has lots of other criteria, but they are
> essentially the same for both.
>
>   
Getting back to one of the main points: I think we could have a clearer 
system, certainly, and I think clarity should be asked for on behalf of 
the readers, who outnumber the writers.

It seems that there are basically two things that go on: material is 
found for an article on topic T; and then the way the article on T is 
written gets reviewed in a box-ticking kind of way, mostly for 
conformity to the Manual and referencing. Which is fair enough. The 
points at issue seem to be:

- At what level of advancement of the article T should it actually be 
"commended" to the reader (implicitly) by the rating?
- Beyond that level, should the number of rungs of the ladder be made 
small (fewer but more taxing reviews), or larger (more hurdles, each of 
which deals with a limited number of matters)?

My vague suggestion for the first part is that "rate on a scale of 1 to 
10" is intuitive for just about anyone as reader, but our traditional 
labels seem more designed for writers. Thinking B+ = 5 and A = 6 at 
least puts a more normal complexion on what we are talking about. As for 
the second part, it is not particularly something that bothers me, given 
the way I have always worked. But making reviewing more "modular" (and 
predictable, removing the "instruction creep" that moves goalposts) 
would seem sensible, so I'm for more layers.

After all, professional book production would tend to distinguish 
editorial input, subediting, and copy editing as phases. The thread is 
about outside review, which is yet another idea, but with a book would 
be tried for at an earlier stage, I think.

Charles