|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reviewing page.|
Interface: Pages with pending edits · Pages under pending changes · Pending changes log · Advanced review log
Documentation: Main talk · Reviewing guideline · Reviewing talk · Protection policy · Testing · Statistics
|Threads older than 7 days may be archived by.|
Brakpan Skyline Pic Upload
why you removed data
Major grammatical errors in a contribution?
If an edit is otherwise neutral and has information not in the article but the writing quality (grammatical errors, etc.) stemming from non-native speaker are of such an extent that the article's overall quality suffers dramatically and would require rewriting by someone with specialist knowledge of the topic, should it be accepted or rejected? I didn't see anything about this in the archives. My sense of the rule is that there's nothing that does not say accept, except for the fact that the quality of the encyclopedia would suffer from acceptance (which is a sort of IAR reason for reject). Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- My view is that reviewers are not meant to make assessment on quality of submissions. Just to check that they it doesn't violate any policies. That said in cases like you mention, I would usually accept and then improve the grammar / spelling myself without really changing the gist. If I don't have the time or inclination, or I can't see an easy way to fix it I will often leave it for the next more ambitious reviewer. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- In my view, WP:Reviewing#Acceptable edits covers this. That is, "You should treat the edits as you would habitually." if there is no Reviewer policy reason to reject. If the grammar is such that on any other article you would revert it, you are still free to revert it. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Article submission denied despite sufficient third party sources
The article which was created for Integra Global, the international private medical insurance provider was rejected for the second time on 12 November. I am writing to dispute this rejection as I believe that there are sufficient sources as evidence of the subject's notability.
I can see that other private insurers have been approved to enter the Wikipedia open space, Now Health International, Bupa & Cigna to name a few. I also think that the basis of disapproval of my article is unfair because although there are less sources listed than the aforementioned insurance groups, Integra Global should not be penalised because it is a younger and smaller company. The third party sources that have been included do however prove that Integra Global is a notable company and one that should be given the right to be included in your encyclopedia.
Automatically accept self-reverts?
When a user makes and edit and then reverts it again, the changes still appear on Special:PendingChanges for review. Is it technically possible to avoid this (as it seems unnecessary – no net change was made to the article), or is there a reason to still have them reviewed? Gap9551 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)