User talk:Chcknwnm/Sandbox

It's a good system. Because how can you be sure about that I promote good articles into Version 0.5? With this system we will be able to look after the whole working-nominating-promoting process. Great!

I think discussion about failed nomination should go on this discussion page. Because the original page will be too long anyway.
Who will decide about the reviewer-article pairs? It means a big work, as far as I can see.
And can reviewers ask to get for example scientific related areticles to review? NCurse_work 10:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, that this system hasn't been implemented yet, so you can still solely review articles to pass or fail them, this is just an idea on the table. I agree, discussion should take place on this page, rather that the project page. I am willing to take on the task of running the pairing of articals to reviewers. Based on feedback so far, I think that reviwers should be assigned articles for categories that they are familiar with, or somewhat familiar with. Articles that don't fit with a reviewer will have to be assigned randomly. Also reviewers can't review articles that they nominate, so if you for instance are the only one to nominate the science articles, other peolpe are going to have to review them, and you'll have to review other tpoics (that doesn't sound like a good system though). Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Then when will we move it to Wikipedia namespace? I think it will work. NCurse_work 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work on updating the whole thing tonight and making assignments based on categories people are familiar with, if possible. After that, I guess I'll move it to the WP namespace, unless there's any objections. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep it simple?[edit]

This is a good idea, in that it should help ensure the quality of articles passed -- definitely a good thing. But it does add more work and complicates the process. This is supposed to be a test: Why not just keep it simple? -- bcasterline • talk 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't like to use this system? But then how will we look after the nominations? Are you sure that I will choose the right articles? That's why this system could work, but it's worth it. Like that we can review everybody's work. :) NCurse_work 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's true, and I agree that the finished product will be of higher quality. For that reason, I'm not strongly opposed to this proposal. But V0.5 is a test release, not a final version, and I don't see the need for added complexity. I think this release would benefit more from ease of participation and an earlier date of completion. -- bcasterline • talk 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject expertise[edit]

The only problem with this system is that I don't get to review articles for which I have expertise in, and I am assigned to articles in which, to be blunt, I have no clue about. I imagine the same must be true for everyone else; while I wouldn't mind doing a secondary reveiw, is there a way to assign "primary" reviewers to areas in which they can identify if something is glaringly wrong? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]