MarioWiki:PAIR: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Archive: The Goomba review came after the project, but I'll archive it for now...)
Line 65: Line 65:
|signature=[[User:Knife|Knife]] - ''July 31, 2007‎, 19:51 GMT''
|signature=[[User:Knife|Knife]] - ''July 31, 2007‎, 19:51 GMT''
|titlechange=[[Boo]]}}
|titlechange=[[Boo]]}}
----
{{PAIRreview
|A-rating=3.5
|A-comment=It's a good, accurate article, but sometimes it screws up. Like when it says Yoshi saved Mario in Super Mario 64, when in fact it happened in its remake, Super Mario 64 DS.
|D-rating=3.0
|D-comment=Again, it has some depth, but some sections, like New Super Mario Bros., New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Paper Mario, really could be more in-depth.
|G-rating=3.5
|G-comment=Grammatical errors are few, yet they do make an appearance every now and then.
|I-rating=2.0
|I-comment=Normally, the problem with articles is that there's too many images, but here, there's not enough images. The Lost Levels, Super Mario World, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, the Super Mario Land series, the Nintendo comics, Super Mario Adventures, Club Nintendo, the Mario Party series, the Smash Bros. series and Bowser's Inside Story are all missing images.
|F-rating=3.5
|F-comment=Like lots of articles, the Paper Mario templates leave a big blank, which is annoying. Also, the infobox at the beginning stretches the page, when it could be removed by adding <nowiki>|expand=expandable</nowiki> so easily.
|FR-comment= This article is hit and miss. It's lacking in depth, lots of images could be added and the formatiing could use a fix-up.
|signature=[[User:Reversinator|Reversinator]] - ''February 23, 2010‎, 17:08''
|titlechange=[[Goomba]]}}


----
----

Revision as of 23:44, February 7, 2013

It has been decided that the Super Mario Wiki will no longer support this feature. This page is kept and protected strictly for historical purposes.


Panel for Article Improvement & Recognition

As an optional part of the renewed FA process, PAIR can help toward getting an article ready for an FA nomination and have a high enough quality to pass voting requirements, but again is not mandatory.

Panel Members

Members need to :

  • be dedicated to this work & active
  • be experienced and successful writers
  • will respond to request for review, from Category:Review Requested asap
  • refrain from extending this list past 12 for the time being
  1. HK-47 (talk)
  2. Gofer
  3. Pokemon DP (talk)
  4. Cobold (talk)
  5. Plumber (talk)
  6. Knife
  7. Phoenix Rider (talk)
  8. Xzelion (talk)
  9. Reversinator (talk)
  10. Reddragon19k

Process

This is an optional first stage for the FA process, more importantly a way to improve an article's quality over time.

Example: A user or group of users have extensive knowledge of a certain subject in the Marioverse (i.e. Game/Character) and want to improve the article to FA status.

  1. User(s) ask two reviewers for scores using {{PAIRreview}}, judging article on accuracy (facts), depth (details), grammar, images (# and quality), and formatting (organized) on a scale from 0-4 in .5 increments, on the talk page of the article. They should use {{PAIRrequest}} for efficiency. A final rating out of 20 is given by adding the individual ratings. Reviewers in the comments give suggestions for improvement, or what they disliked.
  2. Article is worked on for one week, then the same two reviewers review it again. If there are no changes after a week, the users have to seek the reviewers when they are ready for another review session, but they must wait at least one week, even if they are ready (preferably, there's always something to improve)
  3. Review can be justified by users working on article and by other reviewer as reasonable to be considered official, but since this is a general gist of the article's quality, and scores do not matter when nominating the article as an FA, it is not necessary to justify.

In the end, it is up to the users who want an article to be the best it can be and the reviewers to help them – they must work together.

Archive