So, yeah, if you've ever been in the Discord, you've probably heard the review board members complaining about meetings and paperwork. And not for nothing, because it's always hard to coordinate meetings across a global userbase and the paperwork can take forever. So, I finally went and did it, and spent the afternoon expanding JocastaBot to handle it. Here's a summary:
When a user notices an issue with a status article, they can start a review process for the article by issuing a command to JocastaBot in the Wookieepedia Discord. (For the purpose of this example, we'll assume it's a CA)
After this command, Jocasta will add the {{CAreview}} template to the article and create a page at Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article reviews/<article name>, or, if that page already exists, it will add a new review section to the page. The user can then add their objections to the review page, and any user can add more objections or address them, just like the current review pages. Unlike the current system, this review page will remain indefinitely, even after a review is completed. Jocasta will handle archiving of the review sections, and the pages will be moved along with the subject article if its title changes.
So, once the review page exists, what happens?
Jocasta will continually monitor the review pages, and once a day their statuses will be reported to a dedicated channel in the Discord. After a minimum time period (maybe 7 days, we'll make it configurable in User:JocastaBot/Nomination Data), if all objections have been satisfied, a review board member can issue a command to Jocasta that will mark the article as having passed review. This will remove the {{CAreview}} template from the status article, archive the review section with {{CAR archive}}, and update the article's history on the talk page.
However, if an article's objections are still unaddressed, the article continues in this state until a) it's addressed or b) a maximum time period (again, configurable, maybe a month?) passes. After this, review board members will issue another command to Jocasta to mark the article as On Probation. This will leave the {{CAreview}} template up, but add a parameter to it that will change the text to indicate the article is on probation, and will also change the article's icon in {{Top}} to pca instead of ca (I'm thinking yellow icons instead of blue).
If the content or quality of an article on probation has changed significantly, the review board can declare the article to be in Redux, which will add a Support section like on nomination pages, and the article will then require 3 votes from review board members to be restored to status.
The final stage of this is when an article has undergone drastic changes, such as a total rewrite or merging with another article, or that its quality has fallen so far to the point that the review board deems it necessary to revoke the article's status. In this case, they can use another command to Jocasta, which will mark the article as a former status article and update the history, just like the review board members do during meeting paperwork.
In summary:
- No more review board meetings or paperwork
- JocastaBot is used to create review pages for status articles, and additional commands used to change states
- Articles remain in review state for a minimum # of days, after which they can be Kept if all objections are satisfied
- If an article still has outstanding objections after 30(?) days, it is moved to the Probation state and its status icon is changed
- If an article on probation has changed significantly, the review board can declare it in Redux, which requires 3 review board votes to restore status
- The review board can strip articles of their status after drastic changes in content or quality
Side note: articles currently under review by the review boards will be migrated, but existing Redux articles, those will be a case-by-case basis on whether or not to migrate them or leave them in the old system.
Alright, that's a lot of text. Thoughts? Cade 
Calrayn 05:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Comments
- Amazing as always, Cade. I'd say for articles currently under Redux, it'd be easiest to leave them in the old system, though. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 05:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think I'd actually prefer the new system for redux. My only questions is, where would the SAs currently under review be listed? Currently the meeting pages list them, so without those, will there be somewhere users can easily find them so they can assist in fixing them? Master Fredcerique
(talk) (he/him) 06:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think I'd actually prefer the new system for redux. My only questions is, where would the SAs currently under review be listed? Currently the meeting pages list them, so without those, will there be somewhere users can easily find them so they can assist in fixing them? Master Fredcerique
- I'm not on Discord, so if I find issues with SAs, I should just ask a member of the appropriate review board to tell Jocasta create a review, right? -ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola - I finally get to design a meeting and you nuke them all eh :P Great work as always Cade. You're a gem for this. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nice. A couple things from me.
- I'm thinking it would be good if we can adopt a nominations-style voting system on the review pages, for keeping/killing articles under review.
- Based on that, we could also perhaps implement handy categories for reviews with sufficient or nearly-sufficient vote numbers like we do for nominations.
- There should be an option for the panel members to close a review early, similar to the non-sense clause for nominations.
- It would be great if we could have a page hosting the history of article reviews like we do for nominations, i.e., in the format "Article|Review begin date|Review end date|Result".
- I also agree with the above point that we should also facilitate a way for users to submit articles for review that isn't Discord-dependent. Imperators II(Talk) 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm thinking it would be good if we can adopt a nominations-style voting system on the review pages, for keeping/killing articles under review.
- Very nice! Congrats on all of this, you killed it. Just a quick thought, we do need to come up with a system for users who are not on discord to still formulate reviews! HeadSpikesWalls (she/they)
(talk!) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) - Looking forward to implementation! No. More. Meetings!—spookywillowwtalk 18:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
