Rs chen 7754 06:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Well of course you use common sense if the nominator can't respond to concerns. Rs chen 7754 06:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC) As opposed to the current system? T C N7 JM 06:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Well, at least now people can review other articles if one nominator is not responding for whatever reason. Then we really have an ACR that is stuck. Dough 48 72 06:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC) What happens if the nominator takes a long time to address the issues? Due to either real-life issues or due to just ignoring them (both of which happen on a regular basis in the current system, and which lead to my pings that people seem to be upset about).
#MAPUBLISHER INTEGER WITH COMMA PRO#
In addition, another idea to foster reviews may be to impose quid pro quo, in which editors who send articles to ACR must conduct a review of another article at the venue. However, editors with articles currently at ACR would not be allowed to send any more articles there until all their reviews are closed. If we were to do this, we would need to grandfather the articles that are already at ACR to remain there, even if an editor has multiple articles there currently. This is similar to the limits that are imposed on editors at FAC. Rather, I would prefer if we limit editors to nominating one article at a time at ACR, as that would be fair in that a single editor is not clogging the venue with 5 or so articles and would allow multiple editors to be able to use the venue at the same time without there being too many articles. T C N7 JM 05:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC) I do not think that we should limit ACR to having a certain number of articles at a time, as that is not fair to editors who want to nominate articles but cannot because other people already have articles there. I believe that what we should do is only allow one article at a time to be reviewed, but allow a queue of as long as four other articles to be set up behind it, making sure the queue only has one article per editor. If the focus is on only one article at a time, we as a project can make sure that the article is in the best shape it can be before being sent off to FAC. Mitch 32 ( The imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity.) 05:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Personally, I think the reason it's so backlogged is because the focus is being put on more than one article at a time. Let's talk, we've done it before, but something needs to be done. I personally would rather have 1 article at ACR at a time, which I also hereby propose, but that is not set in stone, hence the 1-5 earlier. At the same time, I also propose a max of anywhere between 1-5 articles at ACR at a time to prevent reviewer burnout, which also in effect seems to be a major problem. Personally, I want to propose we change the system to have one ACR per person, which would drop our current queue to five articles. In effect, I know I would post my own and review some if we had less articles to review. We have eight ACRs at the moment, 6 by 3 editors alone. People have complained off-site about the lack of reviewers, so I am going to bring back a proposal from the dead. No further edits should be made to this discussion.įor what's it's worth, people look at A-class review, there are many articles sitting there. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
0 kommentar(er)
