Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
BSI proof-correction marks (conforming to BS 5261C:2005) as prepared by the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading; The style guide for publications of the European Union is presented in 24 European languages and includes a section on proofreading. Each edition has a sheet of proofreader's marks that appears to be the same apart from ...
The peer review on Wikipedia can be harsh. Your edits may be reverted by automated tools designed to rapidly remove large volumes of vandalism. The editors using these tools may not be willing to take the time to fix problems in your edit, as they ideally ought to do. Seek more constructive review from other editors.
In these cases, you must be prepared to discuss and justify your contributions. The role of "Talk page" discussion is so important that the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle has been encouraged as a model for editing. If your only edits to talk pages are periodically blanking your own, then this is not the project for you.
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).
To request a Peer review, edit the article talk page, add {} to the top of the page, and save the page. This will create this template ({{Peer review}}) with a link to a new peer review page for the article. Follow this link, and add your request in the edit box as instructed.
Others have found that the collaborative dialogue provided by peer-editing may cause it to be much better at reducing language errors than self-editing. [4] Today, self-editing is being taught in numerous ways. Some researchers have found a significant improvement in student essays through self-editing worksheets. [16]
Since the review is transcluded on the peer review page, the category gets added to the peer review page too. To find the culprit, visit the AnomieBOT page corresponding to the topic under which the entire peer review page is listed, and look for strange entries. The entry immediately below the mess is likely to be the cause of the problem.
The second uses a member check group session with each group member being shown a summary of the analysis. Regardless of the method used to peer review or member check research it must be done to ensure quality research and improve upon the research being performed before it is submitted for publication and considered as a reliable study.