Wikipedia:WikiProject Appalachia/Peer review

Welcome to the Peer Review Department of WikiProject Appalachia! This department focuses on peer reviewing Appalachia-related articles upon request by an author or nominator. This department is managed, staffed, and used solely by volunteers; please recognize that backlogs can and will occur. Wait times can range from an hour to a month, so don't be concerned if it takes time before a reviewer picks up your article.

Peer review can serve a number of purposes; it can be used as a validity check prior to undergoing a GA or FA review, a way to improve your article in general, a way to prove the validity of your citations and claims, and most of all an aspiration in and of itself. Peer review is not easy. It is time consuming for the reviewer and takes precision and skill from the nominating author/editor.

How to request and initiate a review

 * To request a review: Set,  , and  . This parameter populates Category:Appalachia articles for peer review. Consider also adding the article to this page's list manually.


 * To begin a review: A reviewer can set,  , and  . This parameter populates Category:Appalachia articles under peer review.


 * To place an article on hold as part of a review: (to give the author time to fix small issues found), A reviewer can set, delete  , and set  . This populates Category:Appalachia articles on review hold.


 * To fail an article: A reviewer can set, set  , delete  , and delete   and/or   if one or both exist. This populates Category:Appalachia articles with failed review.


 * To endorse an article: A reviewer can set, set  , delete  , and delete   and/or   if one or both exist. This populates Category:Peer reviewed Appalachia articles.

Upon the conclusion of a review, the reviewer should add the parameter  and include the revision id for which the review applied.

If an article has had multiple reviews:

 * In case of a failure: If the article will not be an endorsed article and this is not its first review, the reviewer should use the above guidelines. The reviewer should then set  then fill out   or ,  ,  , and   and if necessary repeat for  ,  . Only apply numbers for non-current results, the current result is only under prr and oldid. Currently, this program can only handle one current and three old reviews. Should this prove insufficient, contact the author of this documentation.


 * In case of an endorsement: If the article will be an endorsed article and this is not its first review, the reviewer should use the above guidelines. The reviewer should then set  and  . The reviewer should then set   then fill out   or ,  ,  , and   and if necessary repeat for  ,  ,  . Only apply numbers for non-current results, the current result is only under prr and oldid. Currently, this program can only handle one current and three old reviews. Should this prove insufficient, contact the author of this documentation.

For a nominating editor
1. Once a review is requested through the parameters above, your article has been placed in the queue and a reviewer will reach out to you in time. Wait times are unpredictable and range from an hour to weeks depending on backlogging.

2. Once a reviewer is available and capable for your request, a volunteer will place a tag on your article. A review page will be created and transcluded onto the article's talk page. At this point, the reviewer will begin the sometimes lengthy process of fact-checking, bias determination, and clarity-checking. They will be creating a list of what to work on, what to expand, what to shorten, and everything in between,

3. At this point, your article will likely be put on hold. It is exceptionally rare that an article passes right off the bat and to be placed on hold should be viewed as a triumph as it means that there is a clear path to passing and your article avoided a first-pass failure. From here, you will have been given a list or similar guide on what needs to happen to make the article pass. Any given hold should max out at around 14 days, at which point the reviewer will perform a second pass (this is case-by-case however). Notable progress towards success must have been made in order to remain in contention.

4. Now there are two possible outcomes: you passed or you failed. Failure does not mean your article is lesser or low quality, it only means that your article isn't among the top ~ articles out of the currently under this project's umbrella. Success, meanwhile, is a high achievement; it is the highest article action this project has the authority to grant.

5. Now that you've passed or failed, this isn't over. A failed article can be renominated continually if a sizable enough improvement has been made since the failure. An endorsed article will inevitably change overtime, that's why all endorsements are attached to a permanent link to that specific revision. As the article changes, this department can use its discretion to review an article's continued status (generally annually).

For a reviewer
1. Before beginning a review, a volunteer must first realize just what it is they're getting into. We request that you familiarize yourself with the review process, guidelines, and take a look at past peer reviews. You have to recognize the time commitment and effort required also; the time and effort is very similar to that of a GA review. You should expect to read the works cited, much of the further reading, and do some independent research if deemed necessary. You may also benefit from the free registration of grammar-checking programs if you don't speak native and/or professional level English.

2. Now that you know what you're doing, hop into the queue and the request table on this page. Generally speaking, the older a request the more urgently it ought to be reviewed, exceptions can be made at your discretion if you have specific expertise in a subject present on the list which may be beneficial to the process.

3. Once you've chosen an article, edit the parameters as explained at the top of this page and in the template documentation. Additionally, you will need to create a subpage for the review following the template: "Talk:(Page name)/APR#" where # is the number of times this article has been reviewed including this instance. Now, begin the review. Generally this process begins with a read through of the page in its entirety, feel free to make minor copyedits and minor edits if you believe they are not excessive and are easily fixed, though this is not required by any stretch.

4. Then, identify every claim made which is not obviously true (i.e. "the lake was discovered by John Doe" versus "the lake contains water"). Most every claim should be non-obvious and cited in one of three places: Previously within the article in a straightforward way, directly after the sentence which contains the claim, and/or within the end of the paragraph which contains the claim. Sources which apply to two paragraphs should be cited in both. All claims must have at least one verifiable and independent source. These references should each be read at least to the extent necessary to verify that the claim(s) made is/are explicitly supported.

5. You can use the provided guides or create your own so long as all aspects contributing to a fail and all aspects needing changed are present. This guide is as much for the editor as the reviewer; every aspect of the article should be scrutinized for bias, inaccuracy, major formatting issues, copyright violations, etc.. Even in the case of an endorsement there should be keys on what to improve and in what direction. Be thorough and honest.

6. You can now fail or hold an article or, in rare cases, pass it immediately. Failure versus holding is discretionary but you should generally hold an article if you believe that the issues between it and endorsement can be adequately resolved in about 14 days or less. Immediate failure should occur if the article is clearly underdeveloped, contains excessive bias/error, or has a length not fitting the subject matter. Length consideration is also discretionary, but note that the length of the article should adequately represent the importance and/or scope of the article's topic. An article on a person shouldn't contain a section on their favorite foods in great detail, but maybe it should for a chef. An article about a coal mine shouldn't cover the mine's annual yield in great detail but it should cover the broad strokes.

7. Now that the article is failed or held, your job is on hold also. You can feel free to make some copyedits but should avoid any major edits on the page until after the review process. Once the issues are addressed and the nominator approaches you or the roughly 14 days are up, do a review in the same manner as your first pass. Decide whether or not the article is ready, fill out the form/chart, and give pointers. You should extend a hold if progress was made but not quite to the point of success, you should fail if nothing changed (within reason), and you should pass if every point of issue was addressed, no new issues appeared, and the article passes the second pass. There is no hard limit to the number of holds but, while we encourage patience, use your best judgement as to when the time has come.

8. Now you're done. You can move on to the next review, work on the article you reviewed as you'd wish, work on a personal project, or do whatever it is you do. Thank you to all those who make it to completion of peer review