288:
anything that seems inappropriate, point it out. Nominators are (obviously) familiar with the topic, and often omit important but basic information which is so obvious to people working in the field that it's never mentioned in textbooks, but which casual readers won't know. (The people who write articles on animals are no doubt sick to death of me asking "What do they eat?" at FAC.) If you're going to oppose on stylistic issues (dashes, images, formatting, infoboxes, reference style…), make sure you're familiar with the relevant policies—and it never hurts to double check, since style guidelines change quite often—since there's a reasonable chance the article is intentionally formatted in that way for good reason and opposition will just annoy people—but if you're confident that the article is misformatted, don't be afraid to point that out.
358:
informed opinion ... hot air doesn't help the delegates. If you see a FAC that has a lot of support after six days that may be maturing to promotion, scan it for anything that might need attention prior to promotion-- MOS, prose, anything-- even if you don't enter a support or oppose, enter a comment telling the delegates what you've looked at, because if nobuddy looks at everything, the overworked delegates end up with more work in their lap. It's MOST helpful for all FAC regulars to sit down and read the entire page periodically to see the view from this vantage point :)
39:
275:(using the tools at the top of the FAC page, takes only a couple minutes to do and isn't too daunting) and offering random comments on stuff I didn't understand in the article. The latter of these is particularly helpful now because it (usually) represents non-specialist review and a clarity check, and it can flag an article for review by a more experienced prose reviewer.
305:"letting loose" less experienced reviewers in the system. We need to try and break this dual-edged syndrome. If you have the confidence to put up "your" article up for review, you should know enough about the assessment criteria to do some reviewing. It doesn't matter what the content of an article is, you can still check and comment upon the following:
339:
Shorten reviews ... if they have a lot of nit-picks, put them on the article talk page. FAC is for determining if an article meets WIAFA, not where articles should be substantially rewritten in a peer review. FAC should be Oppose with short examples, Support with explanation of extent of review, or
235:
In short: focus on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the content and quality of the writing and references. FACs often end up with, in my view, an excessive amount of attention being placed on MOS issues (though this situation has gotten better in the last year), and this is discouraging for both
182:
There are loads of simple things, like checking whether all of the cited sources either do or don't have a location specified, but by far the most useful thing any reviewer can do is to read the article – all of it – and try to understand it. I not infrequently oppose articles because of their prose,
357:
Scan the entire page to see where your input might be most helpful. If there's a FAC dragging at the bottom of the FAC page, see if it's mired in debate or just lacking review. If it's lacking review, anything you can add may help. If it's mired in debate, enter an opinion only if you have a well
261:
If you don't feel up to the task of reviewing an entire article, you can just review sections/content you want. Don't be afraid to point out something you feel is a problem; just be ready to defend your perspective just like the nominator has to (or you can explain your reason upfront if you feel it
208:
Personally, as a new reviewer, I found it easy to step into FAC and/or A-class reviews by just reading through the articles and remarking on what sounded weird to me. That's still my most common review I do. The more complex reviews, like reference reviews, can be picked up after observing others do
248:
A couple of points in particular might be good to emphasize, mainly those about not needing to do the whole thing. That's a main reason I don't touch FA reviews very often; most are easily 30kb+ of prose, and I don't feel right only reviewing part and stopping (i'm a guy who has to read an article
195:
I've not had much FAC experience , but one suggestion I have is before jumping in with a review, a new reviewer should probably read a couple of old reviews first. This will help give them a "feel" for the process and see what they could look at, e.g. either a single aspect (MOS, images, copyright,
274:
Well, it'd be helpful for someone to do spotchecks for copyvio/plagiarism and to do image licensing checks, but those are both things that newer reviewers tend not to be comfortable with (or, in most cases, good at). Personally, I started at FAC with two main reviewing tasks: dab/deadlink checking
353:
We particularly need reviewers not familiar with a topic to review them for jargon, readability, context ... if you don't know a topic, feel free to review it for readabilty, but try to avoid entering stupid commentary on subjects you may not be familiar with ... just say, reads well, or jargon
287:
Don't be too worried about (or intimidated by) all the talk about the MOS. Those (few) parts of the MOS which are genuinely important, someone else will be looking out for. Read the article top-to-bottom; if there's anything that doesn't make sense to you, anything that seems to be missing, or
304:
in FAC (or ACR/PR/GAN) comes up, people often say they agree that one should review others' entries when they've put up an article for review, but they're not confident about it, or those on offer are not their line of country, content-wise. I've also heard old hands say they're unsure about
129:, but more articles means we need more reviewers! This month, we asked some frequent writers and reviewers of Featured Articles: "Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful?" Much of this advice applies to A-class review as well.
169:
will be helping out the copy editors a lot. If you are supporting only part of the article, please say that; many of the articles I review have typos and other obvious problems that other reviewers could have fixed themselves, but didn't. (More about that in next month's
152:
The basic checks like dabs, dead links, image licenses (NFCC compliance if they know their way around the filespace), typos etc. That saves time for other reviewers. Prose isn't difficult to check, either, and the simpler parts of the MoS can be got to grips with
249:
all at once). I'm sure others have that same irk, so if they know it's entirely fine to just touch on what they know/what they can read/what they got through with their time then it could help bring in more readers/reviewers. Every little bit helps.
326:
All of the above need to be reviewed for each article under assessment, and this covers a large chunk of FA criteria. If a new reviewer has to leave coverage and accuracy to others, that's okay, at least they've contributed something
113:
349:
Review anything you can ... if you can't review enough to enter a support, state exactly what you have reviewed ... that could be images, sources, we particularly need some plagiarism, close paraphrasing spot checks, MOS, prose ...
262:
will be contentious). Usually pointing something out isn't an issue, but sometimes it can be. If you don't know about the subject, try reading all/most of the article first. You should definitely check for copyright violations.
140:
No technical qualifications are needed; you don't need to know the MOS inside and out. Just read the article and see if it reads well, etc. If you do know the MOS that's a plus, but hardly necessary.
66:
62:
74:
70:
346:
Be aware that ill-conceived commentary can be offensive to nominators-- if you're unsure of something, say so. Keep it brief so you don't doom the FAC with lengthy debate.
371:
236:
new reviewers and editors considering nominating an article for a FAC. There's no need for FA reviewers to be MOS experts - all that's needed is attention to detail.
53:
38:
21:
47:
17:
95:
301:
220:
112:
Have an idea for the next editorial? We welcome all submissions—for more details, please visit the
321:
depending on your skill level in
English, prose (readability, grammar, logic of expression, etc)
188:
175:
8:
214:
133:
332:
145:
280:
267:
241:
166:
122:
365:
293:
210:
201:
126:
254:
228:
165:
Anyone who gets good at spotting even one of the points mentioned at the
343:
State exactly what their background and involvement is with the article.
315:
citations for every statement or at least at the end of every paragraph,
90:
158:
98:
183:
but only when in my opinion it compromises the reader's experience.
209:
them. I picked up the tricks of reference reviewing from watching
196:
etc.) or the whole article (comprehensiveness, readability, etc.).
312:
consistency in formatting (dates, abbreviations, citations, etc),
340:
brief commentary of things that may need attention.
372:WikiProject Military history newsletter articles
363:
121:We're happy to see more articles showing up at
318:appropriate licensing for each image, and
14:
364:
18:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history
223:) at 'my' articles' and others' FACs.
27:
37:
28:
383:
49:Your military history newsletter
13:
1:
7:
127:featured article candidates
10:
388:
97:Reviewing FACs and ACRs –
167:Milhist A-class checklist
118:
42:
110:
55:Issue LXI, March 2011
41:
300:When the subject of
123:our A-class review
43:
108:
107:
89:
88:
85:
84:
379:
189:AustralianRupert
176:Malleus Fatuorum
91:
56:
50:
34:
33:
30:
29:
387:
386:
382:
381:
380:
378:
377:
376:
362:
361:
119:
104:
81:
58:
54:
48:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
385:
375:
374:
360:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
341:
329:
328:
324:
323:
322:
319:
316:
313:
307:
306:
290:
289:
277:
276:
264:
263:
251:
250:
238:
237:
225:
224:
198:
197:
185:
184:
172:
171:
155:
154:
142:
141:
109:
106:
105:
103:
94:
87:
86:
83:
82:
61:
60:
59:
46:
45:
44:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
384:
373:
370:
369:
367:
356:
352:
348:
345:
342:
338:
337:
336:
334:
325:
320:
317:
314:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
299:
298:
297:
295:
286:
285:
284:
282:
273:
272:
271:
269:
260:
259:
258:
256:
247:
246:
245:
243:
234:
233:
232:
230:
222:
219:
216:
212:
207:
206:
205:
203:
194:
193:
192:
190:
181:
180:
179:
177:
168:
164:
163:
162:
160:
151:
150:
149:
147:
139:
138:
137:
135:
134:Sturmvogel 66
130:
128:
124:
117:
115:
102:
100:
93:
92:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
57:
51:
40:
36:
35:
32:
31:
23:
19:
333:SandyGeorgia
330:
291:
278:
265:
252:
239:
226:
217:
199:
186:
173:
156:
143:
131:
120:
111:
96:
78:
75:Article news
67:Project news
302:reciprocity
146:HJ Mitchell
101:and friends
71:Member news
281:Iridescent
268:Nikkimaria
63:Front page
350:anything.
242:Wizardman
79:Editorial
366:Category
294:Ian Rose
221:contribs
211:Ealdgyth
202:The ed17
170:column.)
114:newsroom
20: |
327:useful.
153:easily.
125:and as
354:thick.
255:Jinnai
229:Nick-D
331:From
292:From
279:From
266:From
253:From
240:From
227:From
200:From
187:From
174:From
157:From
144:From
132:From
16:<
215:talk
159:Dank
99:Dank
22:News
368::
335::
296::
283::
270::
257::
244::
231::
204::
191::
178::
161::
148::
136::
116:!
77:•
73:•
69:•
65:•
52:–
218:·
213:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
