Wikipedia:Approved article revisions


 * For the latest developments on similar features, please see Article validation feature and Reviewed article version.

This proposed stable version system is not based on frozen forks, separate wikis, or software changes; this can be done right now and is based on edit histories. Using an article, small changes can be made then be sent off to be reviewed and then mark the confirmed revision on the article.

Recognizing an article
If you believe an article can exist as a stable version, keep these in mind:
 * The article won't have any major revisions anytime soon.
 * The article should be in a fairly good state; if there are obvious problems, fix them first, then send them off to be reviewed.

Keeping the above in mind, send the article to Peer review, or the article's talk page if it's populated enough, stating that you want to have the article in an acceptable state. Reviewers should keep the following basics of articles in mind:
 * The article adequately cites sources and contains no original research. All things must be supported by at least one external reference.
 * The article adheres to Neutral point of view
 * The article is properly categorized, uses correct grammar and is understandable.

Any article to go through this process will be as good as the most lenient reviewer! It is not advised to make substantial improvements to the article in the meantime, since you will have to get the new text reviewed as well (to make sure the addition is acceptable to the qualities listed above). For that reason, only minor modifications should be suggested. Major changes can come in after the article achieves the confirmed status.

This part of the process is technically optional, however it is really suggested to carry this out.

Submitting for approval
After making modifications based on the review suggestions, the revision containing the latest improvement can be listed on Article revisions for approval. A good article candidates-like process will be used &mdash; if the revision has been listed for at least three days and there are no outstanding objections, a tag can be placed at the top of the current revision of the article. Additionally, the revision can be listed in a list of stable versions.

Assuming the article was Jimmy Wales and the revision in question was this one, a template could be placed at the top of Jimmy Wales reading:

Removing approved status
If one of the listed sources doesn't work anymore, there was a previous oversight in the original request for approval, the approved revision is too old, or you're about to resubmit the article for approval, the article's status of having an approved revision should be removed. While the first two are obvious, the latter third is to prevent confusion; imagine seeing an approved revision within an approved revision!

To have approved revision status removed from the article, list it on the removal section of Article revisions for approval and state your reason. If it's listed for at least three days and there are no outstanding requests for the approved revision status to remain, then remove the template from the article and any applicable lists of stablized articles.

In regards to removing status due to resubmitting the article, this should be done approximately every four-six months, or everytime a major change is made. In addition, the process is much simpler: simply remove the green Approved Article tag from the article and then re-request article approval. This is to ensure that articles remain of a consistent quality.

Advantages

 * There won't be two pages containing the same article
 * No changes in the software
 * Very little process added
 * Simple goal to aim for (the standards for approved revisions should be minimal)