User:Jinnai/Review

While some may think they can write the prefect article, every article can always use a second, third or even more pairs of eyes checking it over. Reviewing an article does not have to be as daunting of a task as it may seem. While, no one should feel pressured to review if they don't feel up to task for, there are plenty of things anyone can do and many ways to help the backlog of reviews needed at Wikipedia.

Basics

Before starting to review articles, it's best to have some knowledge. The best way to go about doing this is editing existing articles. Improving articles can give perspective on what can be improved in other articles because of the experiences of seeing what is and is not in other articles. While just because something exists in one article doesn't mean it should in another, it also doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't exist. That needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Another good thing to do is know at least some of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines, notably the five pillars. Other good ones to know are some of the general style guidelines and the content guidelines. While no one expects everyone to be intimiatly familiar with every policy and guideline, it can help to have a basic idea of how Wikipedia functions as it'll improve the chances that any advice will help improve the article to better reflect Wikipedia's standards. For formal reviews, don't impose your own criteria. It's okay to give your own suggestions at a Peer review or other informal reviews because you have no power to change the listing classification of the article. You can give advice and opinions to improve it, but make certain not to tie them to whether the article is improved or not.

Other things that can help, but isn't required is:

• A decent grasp of the English language.
• Some general knowledge about the article being reviewed.
• The ability to explain why any proposed changes are better than the status quo.
• Courage to admit that sometimes that status quo is better.
• Courage to admit you're not sure.
• Give solutions, not just problems.

WikiProject reviews

Many WikiProjects have their own review structure. Some of these are informal requests for grade assessment. Some projects will have their own criteria grades (other than Good Article, Feature Article and Feature List) so its best to check the WikiProject first. Sometimes there may be checklists. In general, deciding whether an article should be advanced to a higher grade needs only person and is partly a matter of opinion. Someone may come in and disagree, but it's uncommon if the guidance on those class assessments are followed. The exceptions to those would be {{B-class}} and {{A-class}} which tend to have higher standards because they represent well written articles. These require more thorough reviews and knowledge of policies and guidelines, but they are still relatively informal compared to other higher-level reviews.

Peer reviews

For someone who may be afraid to more formal reviews such Feature reviews or even Good Article reviews, Peer review is a great place to start and always in need of more reviewers. Wikipedia's Peer Review is not the same as an academic peer review. The people who review the article may be experts and they may be people with no knowledge on the subject. The point is, putting an article up for a formal Wikipedian Peer Review is a way to get some general input without necessarily citing any policy or guideline on how to improve the article. That means, anyone can come and join. All one needs is an opinion, the ability to give constructive criticism and be able to accept that any suggestion may not be used, although some knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is likely to improve the ability to give a better review.

Unlike WikiProject reviews, Peer reviews are meant to be read by a general Wikipedian readership. Thus even if someone is not familiar with the subject, that should not be seen as a reason not to comment. That is the reason the person put it up the article; they want input from anyone willing to give it.

Good article reviews

See also: Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles

Reviewing Good articles (GA) is the lowest level of a formal Wikipedia-wide review. While its meant to be a somewhat stricter standard than most WikiProject {{B-class}} assessments, its not meant to be super stringent. However, the one key difference between a WikiProject review and a GA review is that the latter is meant to be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reader. That means anyone can come by and review any article even if they have no history in working with anything closely related to that article so one doesn't need to be an expert to review, just preferably be interested in the article.

The other key thing is that Good articles have a list of specific criteria. There is a template one can use to help with links to specific policies to ease the burden for new reviewers. Like with any other review, if you don't feel you can answer a question yes or no, you can ask for someone else to take a look. There are a few points to remember about GA reviews:

• They don't have to be perfect. They can fail one point and still pass.
• Not everything needs to be verified at this level. If its something common sense would tell you isn't controversial and is easily verifiable if you needed it (such as checking the DVD box for a movie rating) then it might not be necessarily to cross every t and dot every i.
• Do not impose criteria not listed at WP:GA Criteria. There is no need to conform to any guidelines not listed there.

Feature reviews

Feature reviews, notably Feature article (FA) and Feature List reviews, are done a bit differently. First and foremost, there will likely be many reviewers. Some will review the entire article while others may only review cetain aspects. Secondly, there will be assigned delegates who decide whether the article is promoted. Finally, these reviews generally far more harsh than any other review because except for a reassessment review at some later date there is no other review.

What this means for any potential reviewer is anything that someone stops that could use improvement is fair game. This can be as simple as checking to make certain there are no grammatical mistakes or that all images have a copyright tag of some sort to making certain the sources are all reliable or that the information from the sources actually says what it does. While the gloves can be taken off here, one should also assume that the article is already of a high quality to begin with. Don't go in there with the intention of keeping the article from being promoted. Also, unlike Good article candiates, any applicable policy and guideline, including WikiProject ones, may be brought up so long as it can apply to the FA criteria.