Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVII Tranche Project Audit

Pre-audit discussion

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: My dear coordinators, thanks for your support and encouragement to start this. I've fleshed out my idea to the maximum possible. Please give inputs before we actually start. At this point I would request coordinators interested to be a part of this audit to comment the same. Also, as you can see that I have proposed to 3 teams with 2 members each, with one lead, this counts to 7 members on board. Keeping in view of the Project's administration, I would suggest we'll have 4 members from the present coord fold, 3 from former tranches. However, we'll decide on that after a clear consensus. For now, I request all the coords to go through the page, and propose your ideas to make the best out of this activity. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Cinderella157

My initial observation is that this is an ambitious project.

• Does the tabulated list represent prioritization?

Yes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• The process proceeds by documenting (a list) of associated pages associated with each task. Where should the list be created? I note that not all of the tasks have a page associated with them and not all of the pages associated with a task have individual talk pages but default to the "Discussion" page. If the discussion of each task defaults to the projects discussion page, I could see that the work-flow could get cluttered on the one hand. On the other, there is probably already enough traffic there already. I would suggest that tasks lists be created as a sub-page of the audit page which would then have a dedicated talk page for each task.

Yes, a sub-page of the audit would be the best option. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• There probably needs to be some iterative element to the audit. I have made an initial review of the main page. I can see that the outcome of other tasks may feedback to the main page. The tasks are not independent of each other in space or time. The tasks are interrelated (initially) and any improvement/issue in one can feedback to others through the course of the audit. Just suggesting the process accommodate this.

That is a good idea. For this, we can create the sub-pages at the beginning itself, notify the Project's talk page about the audit. We can allow the members give inputs until the audit is complete. What do you say?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • contribs)

Not quite what I meant. The audit proceeds linearly (or a couple of lines), with each element being reviewed and closed in sequence: A → B → C → D. However, the elements A to D do not exist in isolation of each other but as part of a whole. Upon reaching and reviewing C, an issue might be identified that "feeds back" to A. The review at C may indicate an "issue" at A that was not apparent in the initial review of A. An iterative improvement will be needed at A to address the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I can see and suggest that we need to do something else in the first instance. We should document the things that "the project" physically does and who or "what" does these (since some tasks are done by bots). It would document the tools and features of WP that are associated with the project and the tasks performed by the project. As a new coordinator, I have been looking more closely at these things and finding things that are perhaps not easily found. Mapping and tracking of categories associated with the project is one of these things.

I'm afraid that I didn't get you one this. Please elaborate. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

We have "broad statement" about what we (the project) does but what are the "nuts and bolts" things that we do. For example, the Acme Manf Co makes widgets - broad statement and what we have now. "We have a widget making machine and we check them for quality" - we have this too, but it doesn't describe the actual process, what tools are used and who does what. Some (a lot) of this is undocumented "corporate" knowledge. I hope this is enough detail of what I mean? I could expand the analogy.

A direct example. Xbot identifies possible new milhist articles. It is based on a list of parameters "here". This is how it works. The list is maintained by person Y. (what if they leave?) the bot does this to identify new articles. They are found here ... etc.

Another direct example. To close ARCs person X checks list every so often. They notify them here. Person Y does close this way ... This is documented to some degree.

Part of this documenting process is to put it all in one spot.

The next step is the point I initially raised below. Basically, it is a SWOT analysis - are there opportunities to improve what we do and how we do it. How can we streamline process? How can we reduce work loads? How can we reduce redundant effort? Increase accuracy and timeliness, and reduce the opportunity for error. Personally, I think that these two tasks are the highest priority and the greatest contribution we could make, even if we do nothing else. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Having identified the physical tasks and how they are done. The next step is to identify opportunities for improvement. I observe that our project categories are placed on the talk pages of articles. In consequence, articles are not accessed through the article page but through the talk page. I reviewed the A-Class Medal nominations for Nick-D and Hawkeye. In this case I was going from the article to the talk page of the articles to check the promotion dates for each article in the current nomination and the articles for the previous award. I did this IAW the instruction: "the role of the second (and any subsequent) coordinators is only to verify that the editor is due to receive this medal in order to prevent accidental awards." By the time I had done this, the awards had been made. A similar thing happened with the two ARCs for close. IAW: "Please wait 24 hours after a review is listed here before closing it to allow time for last-minute reviews." I had reviewed one of the articles for close and was going to post that it was to be closed "subject" to the appropriate time elapsing but found a notice that it had already been closed. I am in no way "finger pointing" but indicating some "issues" that might be "improved".

This is something that needs attention. For that, I've created a section titled "Processes to be amended", please add whatever things that are need to changed for better functioning of the Project. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Finally, I don't see the audit considering the relationship of the project to the rest of Wiki and en Wikipedia in particular. I am not suggesting we audit Wiki but we need to consider where the project sits within the domain and the interface of the project with WP? Some of our "findings" might feedback to Wiki and WP. There might also be opportunities to engage with or arising from other WP project where there is an overlap of interest. Bios is one, which has a taskforce (I think) fol military bios. Certainly, their template has an option for it. There may be an opportunity to streamline tagging between the two groups. I know that Bios has been flagged by the audit but this is an example that might apply elsewhere too.

At the end, we can do something like going to other WikiProjects, understanding their processes, what can we learn from etc. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This point is not just about learning from other projects but identifying opportunities to interact with them. The immediately apparent opportunity is with the Bios project, with an the overlap of military Bios. Bios has a military section and we have a bios section. Some of us might add project templates for both projects and some not. A bot then does certain things based on the template/s added. The opportunity for us (and Bios Project) is to automate the addition of each others template, where there is overlap. This point was meant to capture this but not limited to this. It captures any aspect of the greater domain that impacts on or interacts with our project. It may identify the negative as well as the positive, with a view to mitigating the negative as well as building on the positive. This has elements of risk management as well as quality improvement. Other examples are WP:GNG and WP:MOS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Some observations, for what they are worth. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Many thanks of the comments. I've answered them inline, however, you can always make changes to the page as the audit goes on, and we can always adopt new ideas. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As a general observation, Milhist writers tend to write long and complex sentences. Mia culpa too. However, this was bought to my attention by another editor. Consequently, I have modified my writing style here. I also copy-edit articles with this in mind. This is something for "us" to address - both in our project material and how articles are written. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Cinderella, thanks for the comments above. Reference your point about our project categories appearing on the talk page, this is an interesting suggestion, however, I'm not sure we could ever gain site-wide consensus to move them from the talk page to the article page. Categorisation can be a bit esoteric, IMO, but I think the key determinate is "...that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article", which would likely not be seen to include project categories, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding to Rupert, if I am not wrong, the categories are added to the talk page with the parameters from the project template, not manually. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so too but could we add hidden categories. This comes back to the SWOT analysis I mentioned above.Cinderella157 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Work load

I mirror AR's response about workload. I think this is way too ambitious. I think we need to cut it back for this tranche to a couple of items that might extend us but are achievable and make what you propose an ongoing and longer-term project. I think that documenting and reviewing the project "work-flow" (tools and tasks) is pretty ambitious and also. It also offers the most benefit, since it will "preserve" corporate knowledge and has the potential to streamline and improve how we do things. IMHO Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Review of pages / Academy

I have unofficially started to review the Academy pages. This "experience" suggests a more general process which I will attempt to describe.

1. Advise the project (on the project talk page) of the review in general. Invite comments in general at the Academy review talk page and specifically at "topic" talk pages. Make it clear that this will be a longish process and that all input will be considered. Periodically readvertise as topics are coming up for review.
2. An editor uninvolved with the topics creation reviews and copy edits the page. This person becomes the "reviewer" in the following process. Their role is much like the nominator in any other review process.
3. Any "significant" issues are notified at the "Academy review talk page" for resolution.
4. The reviewer proposes the topic page for checking at the "Academy review talk page".
5. A "checker" checks the work of the reviewer for accuracy, typos content etc. They fix minor matters and make a recommendation. If there are no unresolved issues, the checker may close the review.
6. In the event of unresolved issues, a "closer" may be called upon (per the Academy review talk page) to provide a third opinion and, having resolved the issue, close the review. I for one would respect this process.
7. In the course of reviewing a topic page, changes to a "previously" reviewed page may be indicated (by the "identifier"). These will not be simple typos. They may entail a change in terminology or something either more complex. Where this occurs, there must be concurrence of the ""identifier" and a seconder familiar with the implications of the change at the "previous" page. The matter may be simply resolved. If it is not, the "previous" pages may need to be reviewed anew to resolve the matter. This is the iterative process I have previously referred to. In any case, the issue and its resolution should be documented on the "previous" topics talk page. It should be linked to the topic that gave rise to the issue and provide an "auditable trail" of what has transpired.

The underlying principle is that, changes to project documentation are not the consequence of one persons action, that changes can be validated and that there is an "auditable trail" to substantiate the validation.

I submit that this process might be applied more generally to review of other project pages, albeit in a more general form. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Great work. I just skimmed the whole thing, and it is very interesting. However, I would go through this once again, adopt the possibilities. But currently as I am having exams, I might not be able to spare much time here, but I'll definitely do the needful within a week. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Academy review page

I have created a sub-page of the audit for review of the Academy - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit/Academy. It have added to the trache audit page as a link in the table. It includes some guidance on how to use the page and the review process. I would welcome a review of the guidance by way of edits or comments here. I have started to populate the page with"progress", which also serves as an example. I was trying to limit the TOC to level 1 but I couldn't make this work? The idea is that the TOC becomes a progress report. Lower level headings will detract from this (IMO). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I added the content to the main audit page from this, with some tweaks. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

G'day Krishna, thanks for putting this together. My head is probably not really in the right place at the moment to look at this fully (bad day at work, sorry), but I do have one point of feedback at this. I think we need to be careful to keep this audit simple in its structure, and potentially also in its goals at this stage. I think we also need to be mindful that our workforce are volunteers who are potentially editing after a long day at work, or who have other goals on Wikipedia that they want to achieve in addition to co-ord work. As such, I'd suggest a potentially less formal approach that allows participants to pick and choose small tasks that they can do when they feel they want to, without feeling that they are signing up to something that they potentially don't have the time for. As such, maybe we could boil it down to a few key areas. Potentially: (1) a copy edit and content review of the key project pages (for instance Academy and subpages, contest, co-ord, content guide, notability guide, etc), which individuals can tackle (with major issues being raised in a wider forum, see the next point) and (2) a simple list of ideas/suggestions for improvement for discussion (including issues arising from 1). This could then, in theory, lead to a third stage: implementing the ideas from 2 if discussion resulted in concrete proposals with consensus to implement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Greetings, many thanks for the suggestion. I've simplified it a bit, and I hope it looks fine now. However, I feel that the tasks from 10–16 are much needed to improve the Project's interaction with its members and also for new ways. I am confident that I can handle those myself, but help is always welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna, just want to clarify a couple of things. On the audit page where it says "Understating other WikiProjects", should this be "Understanding other WikiProjects"? Also, could you please clarify what the intent or desired outcome or product related to this serial is? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Greetings Rupert, good catch, must have been a type, corrected the word. Coming to your second comment, I would like to answer that with help an example. Let us consider WikProject Medicine, as you can see on the Main page, the interface is good looking that we can adopt, an exclusive Wikipedia Library, and partners. Things like this may be learnt from other projects, and consider implementation of the same to our project. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Krishna. If I have it right, you are talking about using that serial/task to review other projects for ideas that we might implement in Milhist. If so, I would suggest that the product you are wanting created would be a simple list of opportunities, that could potentially feed into the SWOT analysis that Cinderella has suggested above. Regarding the progress table, in order to make it clearer what is desired, I suggest adding some some of task verb to the "Aspect" field (e.g. "review"). Ultimately, though, I think the structure needs a bit of tweaking. In this regard, I would suggest making it iterative as Cinderella suggests (i.e. put phases into the audit), with each phase having a clearly articulated purpose, method and endstate. For instance, Phase One: Copy Edit and Individual Page Review (during which each volunteer would adopt a couple of pages, copy edit them and take private notes on issues/ideas); Phase Two: Ideas and Issues Identification/Collation (during which the issues/ideas identified would be collated, analysed (possibly using the SWOT analysis mentioned by Cinderella) and discussed among co-ords (a sub phase of this phase could include ideas identified from other projects), Phase Three: Decision & Execution (during which minor ideas could be implemented with a local co-ord consensus, while broader reaching ideas could be put to the wider Milhist community for discussion/consensus). I would suggest that each phase would probably need a sub page of the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit page. The results of the audit could then be captured in an Outcomes section on the Phase 3 page, and summarised in The Bugle (a couple of paragraphs at the most). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Greetings Rupert, that is a good plan. But currently as I am having exams, I might not be able to spare much time here, but I'll definitely do the needful within a week. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert and Cinderella157: G'day, SWOT analysis is good idea for smooth and effective execution the audit. I',m glad that Cinderella started reviewing the Academy. I think the flow-process mentioned in the progress section,may be adopted for the entire audit, your comments please. If I am not wrong, in case the audit for a particular page is reopened, then it traces the loop back to reviewing, checking and closing; is that right? I'll make up the Progress table, and will notify the Project talk page, so that the members can have a look of what's happening. I would also like to include a point that, members can make comments at any point before the final closure. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if reopened, it is an iteration of the process. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

G'day all, I believe this is a too ambitious as well. I think we are better off creating a bite-size chunk we can get through relatively quickly than a one year plan with lots of moving parts. For example, I've just written some info for the content guide regarding biographies. Getting that done to a community-consensus standard (and the reviewing the rest of the page), would be great runs on the board. Then we move on to something else, one page at a time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the bite-and-hold approach, rather than a full breakthrough is probably best in this regard. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

More hands

@Cinderella157, AustralianRupert, and TomStar81: I think it'll be two long before we conclude the audit (with only a very few of us actively participating). I feel that it would be good to invite previous coordinators to participate in this. You comments please, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I've got no dramas with others taking part, but ultimately it isn't really the type of work that many people are going to volunteer for. As such, it will most likely take quite a while to complete. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. As Kirll Lokshin once wrote, "Most members will not participate in day-to-day internal affairs; they're here only to work on articles" and "...sometimes, the only editors who will pay attention to a debate on some abstruse point will be those that have a stake in changing—or retaining—the status quo." This was always gonna be a slow moving audit, and thats ok. It'll be that much more rewarding when we finish :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding responses and note also initial discussion/comments about the size of this task. I also refer to my earlier comments about priorities. The greatest priority should be given to that which has the greatest benefit. For myself, I have been otherwise occupied but will come back to this as the opportunity arises. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Main page audit

@AustralianRupert: Reviewed: I've made a couple of copy-edits, I think everything else looks fine. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Added a task force that was missing. At this stage, I don't have much time to look at this, though, I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)