Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process ...
Editors request a peer review by putting {} onto an article's talk page. The template displays a choice of topics for the review which the user can choose from. Clicking on a topic will create a new page for the review. The new page is preloaded based on the article's topic from templates {{Peer review/preload1}} to {{Peer review/preload10}}
This is the template with unfilled parameters: {{Spoken article review|version=|technical=|clarity=|accuracy=|notes=}} The fields should be populated with either low, medium or high based upon the assessment guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Review. Here is an example with the fields populated:
Examples of good feedback. A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting; Additional Resources
Notification templates[edit] { { subst:GANotice }} – To notify a nominator that you have passed, failed, held or started a review. Your GA nomination of Article. The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Article for comments about the article.
Academics and other experts are invited to contribute a peer-reviewed review article to the journal, and must create a corresponding Wikipedia version of that review article. Although the content should be similar, the peer-reviewed article and the corresponding Wikipedia article are textually different in order to ensure accessibility of the ...
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any " grade " (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review).
How to review a Good article nomination. First things to look for. Assessing the article and providing a review. Mistakes to avoid in reviews. Giving problems, not solutions. Imposing your personal criteria. Passing articles that do not meet the Good article criteria. Dealing with disputes. Get a second opinion.