Wikipedia:Grand Unified Reviewing Discussion


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have set up this page as a discussion venue for reviewing systems on the English Wikipedia. I particular, I feel that we need at least two reviewing systems, perhaps interconnected: one system to check articles for technical accuracy (this system should be open to everybody) and a second system to check articles for factual accuracy (this system should not necessarily be open to all, but only to trusted editors).

I believe that we should have only one or two reviewing systems, and that the community should focus their effort on these systems instead of on the English Wikipedia's current number of at least four.

I invite discussion, and hope that the community may work out, support, and maintain at least one system dedicated to ensuring that readers of the English Wikipedia get high-quality, accurate information and assurance of this. As the author of a proposed reviewing system (see Reviewing) which does not seem to be gaining much popularity, I call for a new, unified reviewing project that truly fulfils its purpose of bringing reliable information to all.

Best regards,

— Thomas H. Larsen 08:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: The purpose of this page is to focus on the how, not the what, of reviewing. See also the Content Review Workshop for broader discussion.  — Thomas H. Larsen 09:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion would be greatly helped if you made a more concrete suggestion / proposal as a starting point. All I can tell by reading this is that it sounds as if you want to get rid of WP:PR, WP:GAN, WP:FAC (and WP:FLC) and who knows what else, with nothing concrete proposed as a replacement. Also, your proposed reviewing system is a red link. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted per a MfD discussion initiated before this page was started. However, I have created Factual review, which (may) perform a useful purpose, feel free to comment.  — Thomas H. Larsen 08:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.