# Ideas around moderation
While it is a priority that articles on the bakery hold as high a quality as possible, it is counter-productive to only allow the very best to be published. A good set of moderation tool is therefore needed to help the good ones surface quickly and lending a helping hand to the not-so-good so it can become good.
Articles have three main quality pit falls. There can be problems with the concept, the implementation or the presentation (ie the article's ability to communicate). While a potential author may not be able to navigate perfectly around these pit falls, he or she can still have a valuable contribution.
Considering this it becomes clear that the moderation team's job must be more than just approval, but doing quality control AND quality aid. The spec. already calls for the implementation of a message system that would allow moderators to privately comment on potential improvements. **Adding to this could be a set of "markers" in the style of wikipedia.**
Examples from wikipedia :
- [May not represent world wide view](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritional_gatekeeper)
- [Fails to meet quality standards](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water_quality_legislation_of_the_United_States)
- [You can help wikipedia by expanding it.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhabat)
Some of these could be shown only to the author (quality hints), while others are public (ie. good concept, but the Cake core team does not advocate this solution). Another group could only appear on articles that has been made into a community article (fully wikifying the bakery article).
