Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Reviewing_1911

Contents

[edit] Article comprehensiveness

The guidelines here only refer to checking if the content is up to date. While we're at going through all 11,000 articles again, wouldn't it make sense to put a quick note on each WP article's talk page as to the status of it relative to the EB article? The most important thing I can think of is is our article as complete/comprehensive. If the EB article had 5kb of text and ours is 1kb, we certainly didn't do as good a job in being comprehensive. Now of course some things EB covered we don't need to, but we should at least note it on the talk page. In any case verifying completeness wouldn't be much more work. Any other ideas for things ver important to check while we're at it? - Taxman Talk 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verified items

The below items were verified prior to the reorganization and the changes could not be easily reincorporated. Where possible please update the status on the appropriate page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Verified
  1. Aaron (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - biblical figure, can't be out of date
  2. Aaron Burr (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - good article
  3. Abner (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - biblical figure, can't be out of date
  4. Abner Doubleday (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - good article, up to date with baseball stuff
  5. Abraham (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - biblical figure, can't be out of date
  6. Acapulco (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - 1911 text appears restricted to "geography" and "history" section; article looks all right
  7. Acorn (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - pretty decent article, well referenced
  8. Adirondack Mountains (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - good refs, appears fine
  9. Ahab (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - biblical figure, can't be out of date
  10. Akkadian Empire (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - not the best article, but isn't out of date
  11. Alexis (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - ancient Greek poet, can't be out of date
  12. Alps (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - good article on the mountain range
  13. Alwar (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - isn't out of date; stubbish on contemporary matters.
  14. Alypius of Antioch (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - good article, minor changes to links made.
  15. Alzira (city) (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) - used Spanish version of article to update

[edit] Double-checking and proposed deletion

I propose that articles be double-checked to make sure that they are accurate and a procedure for deleting unsalvageable articles be made.

I have added this to J-1 Completion Tagging: Articles with - are untouched. Articles with = have been redirected. Articles with V have been verified link is correct and contains 1911 or proper tag. Articles with C have had some attempt at proper categorization.
I suppose a F tag for fact checking and maybe strike through when the work has been verified by another? Electrawn 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I've been doing with B. I have checked each article and, when I'm satisfied, deleted them from the list. That's what User:Reflex_Reaction specified when creating the lists. In the end, we have to declare someone's review to be the final one and let the babies go. If you feel strongly, I can bring the original list back and add tags instead, but it's not just me; there have been others working in (and deleting from) other letters. FWIW, my own checklist is:
  • Move to "non-inclusion" list if warranted
  • Create a redirect if warranted
  • Put in extra 1911 text if I feel I can, and do any obvious style or OCR cleanups
  • Add {{1911}} where there is actual 1911 text present, and make sure the tag is in a References section
  • Assess the article for one of the tags update-EB, 1911POV, include-EB, ni-eb and add it
  • Add categories and interwikis where I can
  • Delete and move on
There just aren't enough of us to have two reviewers (that makes three, including the original editor) checking each article and be finished by doomsday. David Brooks 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems we are on the same page. Being new to the project, I'm just tagging the work, I suppose I am asking for a quick peer review. If satisfactory, I'll just start deleting as well. Electrawn 19:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I must admit I've used the tags, especially {{Update-eb}}, liberally, implying yet another pass by some future writer. David Brooks 19:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Double-checking

I propose that the articles be verified by more than one person to help avoid careless work or work that is poor because the editor does not know or understand what needs to be done, which is why we need to do this verification in the first place.

One option would be to place articles in a "proposed verified" list. The article would have to be removed by a second editor after verifying the article. Having the original and one to three other editors signing their names next to the article would be another option. Also, the article would have to stay in the list for a certain period of time, at least a week, perhaps more if there are a lot of articles to go through. Editors would be strongly encouraged to give a descriptive edit summary or a note on the talk page explaining the sources that they checked and the changes they made, or if no changes were necessary. There is a question of what to expect from the later editors. I suggest they at least read the article to get a feel for whether its information may be out of date or inaccurate and check at least one source. Besides verifying other information, checking a source will help identify many of the topics that now have different names or are not properly accented. A list of things that are very likely to be out of date could be given to editors for this, such as the population of a city and its main industries.

I am open to different ideas, but I think it is important that some type of double-checking occurs. Otherwise we will have the same problems we had with the previous project. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion list

I think that there should be a list of articles that are proposed for deletion. Articles should not be removed from the list or deleted unless there is a consensus to do so. There was such as list when the articles were being added, but apparently all of them were eventually added, anyway. I don't think that the articles should be taken to Articles for Deletion on a case-by-case basis. People tend to have strong feelings about whether or not to include an article from the 1911 EB. If they don't think that we have done our homework and/or we don't make a very persuasive case for deletion, they will likely vote keep without doing much checking into the articles themselves. Once a bad article has survived AfD because of a poor nomination, it will be much harder to delete it. Some editors will vote keep simply based on the previous decision. The default is and should be to keep articles, but when it is from the 1911 EB, there is too much reluctance for deletion.

I have two suggestions for how to handle deletions. The first is that the nominations are done in batches or individually on AfD, with specific explanations given in the nomination and a short summary of a longer, generic explanation, with a link to the full explanation. The second is that a decision to keep or delete is reached within the project, also with a thorough and specific explanation. The generic explanation may be unnecessary, especially if the specific one is thorough, but I think that it is a good backup and eliminates the need to state certain cases for deletion over and over again. If one is not used, perhaps a boilerplate nomination should be available, with the reasons for deleting the specific article added to it. One important thing to mention is that the text will still be available online at the two commercial sites and a version verified for accuracy to the original is being made on Wikisource. Again, I am open to other ideas. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need

Some of you may find the suggestions overly complicated or burdensome and I am willing to use a different system. However, our process for working with these articles needs to change. The quality of some of the articles is just awful. They are out of date, have the wrong name, are inaccurate, racist or no longer exist (common for districts, states and provinces). The first and most important reason for verification is to have accurate information in articles. Another reason is to avoid deletion of good articles with the bad by a group of admins fed up with the inaccurate articles or by Jimbo after an embarrassing news story on one or more of the articles (some of the articles are almost as bad as negro, though not as long). I would say that this is unlikely, but not out of the question. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template for verification

Here's a template that may help: {{ni-eb}}. Sometimes you'll find a Wikipedia article that is obviously deficient, and it has a decent 1911 article. If the 1911 info should be included into the Wikipedia article, and you don't feel like doing it right now, just put {{ni-eb|url of eb article}} on the talk page, and that adds the article to Category:Articles needing improvement from EB1911. Then someone who feels like it can go through those and add 1911 info to the article. What do you think? Useful? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is useful. Can a link to the jrank version be added? -- Kjkolb 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, any URL will work. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose another template

I see the {{ni-eb}} template has only been used in one place. It could be used in others, but I agree with the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Reviewing_1911. It would be more useful to have a talk page template, say {{update-eb}} saying something amounting to "This article contains information from EB1911 that may be out of date or otherwise inappropriate for WP. Please fix it and remove this template. You can also remove the template if you determine there really isn't a problem". That would capture the spirit of the 1911 cleanup, I think. Any objection? David Brooks 05:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And, now I've done a few, I have seen cases where there the existing article is just fine, but there are some factual nuggets in 1911 that could be inserted (so long as it is done stylishly, of course). The text of {{ni-eb}} is (currently) too strong for such cases.
Also, while I'm thinking about it, the problem with putting a template on a talk page is that the template must be deleted when the job is done, which goes against the "don't delete from talk pages" rule. If you do delete the template, at least leave a note behind. David Brooks 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out some new templates described on the project page. I'm going to start using them. David Brooks 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Once an article is tagged for later review, does anyone have an opinion on whether it should be removed from the list? I don't. David Brooks 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Now I do. I'm going to remove them. Otherwise, there's no mechanism for removing them if another editor helpfully fixes the article. In effect, the two categories Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates and Category:Articles needing improvement from EB1911 are extensions of this verification list. David Brooks 17:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The other 26,000 articles

I alluded to this before, but I wanted to put a marker down here. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article, EB1911 has 40,000 articles. We started the project with a list of 11,000 or 14,000 (I remember both numbers). I assume Bogdan kicked us off by taking the complete list of 40,000 and removing all the blues in one swell foop. Among those 26,000 (or 29,000) must be many articles where the WP entry is about a different topic from the EB entry, and more (probably many more) where it is less comprehensive - in those cases, the {{ni-eb}} template is appropriate.

In theory, it'd be nice one day to wade through that 26,000 list and check.

But I agree with the sense of the apparently few people still paying attention to EB1911: the most important task is to fix the really bad cases of uncritical inclusion (hence the {{update-eb}} suggestion), and revisit the reappearing redlinks. Yes, I'm back. David Brooks 05:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope that I too would be welcomed back to this project, considering my earlier fiasco (way back in January 2006) in dealing with these articles. I feel that I have a sense of responsibility in verifying these article as well. Additionally, I agree with you that it would be a good idea to go through the other 26 000 articles as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User submissions to the online 1911 versions

LoveToKnow has been wikified and is now accepting both corrections and updates. Jrank.org also accepts updates. Both claim copyright, so both should be considered tainted. See more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles#1911encylopedia.org wikified. David Brooks 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles_1911_verification_aecc.html"