On Friday 06 July 2007 18:49:17 P. Birken wrote:
I have thought a bit about the text of the infobox and I would like to change two things. First of all, for reviewed revisions, the text should state the name of the reviewer, to enhance transparency. And then, I consider the text a tad long and therefore, a bit confusing to the reader. Maybe we could shorten it to the essence. In the german setting, this would look like:
This is the latest quality revision, approved by [[User:Reviewer]] on 24 June 2007. The current revision is usually editable and more up to date. There are 0 revisions [[Difflink|awaiting review]].
I'd make it super short, like in my very first mockups (then also Aarons design would again work usability wise, if you just have a one liner without a green box around and without lots of quality scale bars):
This is the last [[explanation-1|checked]] version. The [[link to current| current revision]] is usually editable and more up to date ([[Difflink| diff]]).
This is the last [[explanation-2|approved]] version. The [[link to current| current revision]] is usually editable and more up to date ([[Difflink| diff]]).
(note the small word difference, which is enough as quality level is clearly signaled by icon)
The single reasons:
# No user should be given. An occasional reader does not even know a single Wikipedian and he also shouldn't. In every place in Wikipedia we urge people to step behind their work. No author is allowed to sign an article, no author is allowed to own an article. This unique Wikipedia feature of the "outside invisible author" did als help us a lot in order to reduce our own selfishness and in order to maintain NPOV. Internally (the regular authors) have enough tools in order to maintain transparency on quality flagging. # No date A date doesn't tell that much alone. An article about "Mars (Planet)" is rather comprehensive and significat changes are on a very long time scale. "Paris Hilton" truly will become quickly outdated in a couple of weeks (at least for her "fans" that love to watch her life in real time). The difference to current version alone is a sufficient indicator for the degree of "outdated". #No number of newer versions: As well a anon user is not interested how many versions are awaiting review, as he simply cannot make use of this information. This is only useful for authors.
So what you can see right at the article page should be only targeted at our "customers" and not our "workers".
Cheers, Arnomane