Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop

Closing articles

Just a bit of a curiosity what we are planning to do as far as "closing" articles. For example, Thescelosaurus has been quite thoroughly rewritten, and at this point is probably an acceptable level for a dinosaur FA. A bit more could be done on paleobiology, but beyond that I don't see much more time being needed to be spent on it. Will we "close" sections like is done with FA nominations and then let the bot archive them? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be smart to close them based on consensus. If every contributing members is of the opinion that the contributions are done, it can be closed. I agree that doing this in the same way as FA nominations would probably be the easiest way to handle it. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be some sort of evaluation in the end? As for paleobiology, there has been a bunch of papers going into its limb biomechanics, but I don't see it mentioned in the article, which would be necessary for the comprehensiveness criterion. I'm also not sure the postcranium section has been updated, as all the sources there are very old. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still not done yet, sorry for being slow, I will get to that … I also think that we need to copy edit for prose quality, comprehensibility, consistency, and due weight after we are done with the content additions, to ensure FA quality. But yeah, I also think we should try to get some official approval of some sort. We could do that internally, or, as The Morrison Man suggested at some point, maybe asking at WP:FAR might be an option to get external input; at least we could ask at their talk page what they suggest we should do. But first, we need to actually finish this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to handle it internally we could appoint 'coordinators'? A few people who are knowledgeable and experienced enough to judge article quality and could then review workshopped articles once theyre complete? The Morrison Man (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think a couple of editors should read the entire article and evaluate it first. I'd volunteer, as I'm otherwise uninvolved in the rewrite (only added some images). FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Discord server, some people along with I have brought up a vague idea of a stamp for GAN/FAC articles that have been revised from the workshop instead of initiating any GAR/FAR actions. Any ideas? PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of 'WP:PALEO seal of approval', then? If used to indicate that an article has been reworked and checked by the project, I could see that working out. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of this. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include the WikiProject approval within the "Article milestones" section in the yellow box at the top of the talk page. The article history template has such functionality already implemented; we could simply use the "WPR" parameter: This generates a new entry such as "November 21, 2024 – WikiProject approved revision – Diff to current version", where the date is linked to the approved article version, and the "WikiProject approved revision" is linked to the respective section in the Article Workshop archive. We could do the same for GAs. I wasn't aware of this option; this would surely be the cleanest without the need to re-invent the wheel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template also has the "collaborated" option, so it is theoretically possible to include any WikiProject internal collaboration/review in the "Article milestones", independent of outcome and article status. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good way to implement it. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! When the writers say it's ready, I and others could start full scale FAC-style reviews in the entry section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also have some time available to review it. Do we want to set reviewing guidelines? (minimum amount of reviewers, etc.) The Morrison Man (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single reviewer who does a comprehensive FAC-level review is better than 10 reviewers rubber-stamping the article, so I don't think setting a minimum amount of reviewers will help. As we have limited manpower anyways, maybe we should just take any review we get, and "approve" when there is no oppose and no major (FAC-critical) issue outstanding? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense for the lack of manpower. I think it could also be good to leave some time between the completion of the review and the approval of the article to allow for any further opposing comments The Morrison Man (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]