Edit "Editorial Workflow" KB article

[laflannery]

Background

The current article could use some updates to clarify content and add some missing content

Suggested Updates

• "In Review" Heading
  • It should be clarified who has access to this status. I do not believe this will show for everyone so if an editor is looking for this and does not see it, that should be explained
  • The content under this section is referring to status in the plural - "THESE aren't automated.." "THEY don't send notifications...". However, this section is only about 1 state so this seems misleading - what other state would this be referring to?
• "Archived" Heading
  • The content here discusses that there is no delete option, however the screenshot below shows a delete CTA. This is a bit confusing.
• "Revision Log Message" Heading
  • This says the field is required, which is not the case (I save content on stage without adding a message). We should confirm with the team if this was ever the intention and should therefore be updated in the CMS or if not the article can be updated.
  • UPDATE - this will now be the case once Require revision logs for all content types #12449 is completed
• The article does not mention "Save Draft and Continue Editing" or "Unlock". These options should be added

Acceptance Criteria

• Article is updated
• Article is reviewed by Helpdesk
• Article ready to publish upon completion of Require revision logs for all content types #12449

[laflannery]

@EWashb I found this article about archiving & deleting linked to the main one we are updating. I feel like I should be updating this one as well, but also do you think this is helpful? Just this giant list of content types? Or should I fold in the relevant info into the main article (which roles can do it, etc) and forgo this separate KB article?

[laflannery]

@EWashb Latest revision is here: https://prod.cms.va.gov/node/35029/latest
If you don't mind taking a look and seeing if it makes sense

[EWashb]

This looks good to me @laflannery. Makes sense.

[EWashb]

Oh and about your question on the archiving and deleting, I don't really know who that is helpful to other than us. Editors will only see what they are allowed to see anyway.

[laflannery]

@EWashb I removed the reference to this other weird article. I didn't archive it because maybe we will need it. But I just don't think we need to confuse editors by linking over to it

This is ready to go and is magically linked to the code update and will be published when that goes live.