Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Reviews

Introduction
Each constituent page within the Manual of Style may be reviewed periodically against specific criteria, to ensure pages remain relevant and effective. A review should always be conducted when a page is first proposed for incorporation into the MoS. All reviews are recorded using the DocumentHistory template in the talk page header of the reviewed page.

Conducting a review
To conduct a review:
 * 1) Create a review record: from an edit window, copy the Review section below to the bottom of the talk page of the page to be reviewed. If the page does not yet have a DocumentHistory template in its talk page header, add one at the same time. Add an entry to the template to record the review, with a status of "ongoing".
 * 2) Post a message, with the subject "Review of (enter pagename here)", on the main MoS talk page, inviting interested parties to contribute to the review.
 * 3) Before the review is ended, reviewers should aim to implement all changes for which there is consensus, noting actions taken in the review record.
 * 4) Once all actions are complete, archive the review record by enclosing the section contents in an Archive top/Archive bottom pair, and update the status of the review entry in the DocumentHistory template.

Review of (enter pagename here)
This page is currently undergoing a review to ensure it forms a relevant and effective part of the Manual of Style. Please add review comments below along with notes of any improvement actions taken during the review.

Role within the MoS
Questions which may highlight issues. Does this page fulfil a recognized and necessary role within the MoS? Is there a role conflict with any other MoS page?
 * Review comments

Relationship with other MoS pages
Questions which may highlight issues. Does this page have a clear identity in relation to other MoS pages? While a reader is obtaining guidance from this page, is it clear to the reader where to go for more general, and more specific, guidance related to its topic?
 * Review comments

Effectiveness of guidance
Questions which may highlight issues. Is the prose clear and concise? Does the guidance given reflect consensus?
 * Review comments

Size and structure
Questions which may highlight issues. Is this page too large to be manageable, or too small to be meaningful as a page in its own right? Should it be restructured? Should it be merged with another page?
 * Review comments

Duplication of detail
Questions which may highlight issues. Is any detail here also present on any other MoS page? Are the two in step? Should the detail be confined to one place, and only summarized at the other?
 * Review comments

Other

 * Review comments