Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop/Peer Review mockup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a mockup page to aid discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop. It is not an actual Wikipedia process page. (In particular, the instructions below are taken verbatim from {{PR-instructions}} and have not been modified so far.)

Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback.

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

The path to a featured article

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. Featured articles

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.

To add a nomination:

  1. Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new discussion page.
  3. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~) and save the new page.
  4. Edit this page, pasting {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees in the category most appropriate. Ten categories are provided, corresponding to the WP 1.0 hierarchy.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects.

How to respond to a request

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title.
  • Feel free to correct the article yourself.

How to remove a request
In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the current archive any

  • inactive listings or listings older than one month,
  • inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments)
  • articles that have become featured article candidates

After removing the listing, contributors should replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}.

How to resubmit a request
If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time:

  1. Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] or the next open archive
  2. Edit [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and leaving [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion.
  3. Update the article talk page to reflect the new link to the archived peer review
  4. Place {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below.

Purge server cache

Crystal personal.png Peer review resources
Peer reviewers by subject
Language and literature
Philosophy and religion
Social sciences
Applied sciences
Natural sciences
Everyday life
Peer reviewers by ...?
Manual of Style review
Reference review
Image review



Language and literature[edit]


Philosophy and religion[edit]


Social sciences[edit]






Applied sciences[edit]


Natural sciences[edit]




Everyday life[edit]