Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Reviewing articles

Development
Since the content here is growing nicely, perhaps we could start thinking about how to best organise and present it? We have plenty of essays already, so my preferred option would be to turn this into a comprehensive, step-by-step tutorial, complete with examples from articles to illustrate the various points. We probably can't cover every eventuality on every type of article, and different reviewers develop different reviewing methods, but we could certainly come up with something that should help a new reviewer to produce a competent review (and may even be of use to experienced reviewers too).

One possibility might be to have a general preamble on this page that would apply to all reviews (ie comment constructively, point out the good as well as the not-so-good, be firm but fair, help to fix stuff if possible), and then split out sections or sub-pages for Stub, Start, B, A, and PR (some of the former would be very short!). Taking the A-Class section as an example, we could then use something like the following:


 * Before you review
 * Could include article selection, checking nom/author(s), checking for signs of problems (eg ongoing edit-wars)


 * Organising your review
 * Could include suggestions like using a sandbox page to create a draft, using a pre-written template etc


 * Starting your review
 * General advice - eg reread criteria & then article to get an overall feel for prose and obvious issues


 * Assessing criterion A1
 * Specific hints and tips for A1, including links to exemplar material


 * Assessing criterion A2
 * As for A1

...


 * Closing your review
 * Covering stuff like leaving a constructive summary, required updates to templates or other pages, remembering to watchlist and revisit the review page to respond to replies etc

There are other ways we could do this of course, so comments welcome ;) EyeSerene talk 09:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice stuff. One of the things I've mentioned in talk pages that always seem to go down well is that the review system is broadly linear, with a smooth progression in intensity as articles move up the scale. In other words, B1 is a lite version of A1, which beefed up is in turn a FAC requirement. People don't intimidated starting with B-class articles and it's really only a hop from there to A-class. &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

XVII Tranche Project Audit

 * reviewed Added a bit on peer reviews. Everything else looks good. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * checked: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)