MarioWiki:PAIR: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(half true, half clever three-fourths testing if thier paying attention or not) |
(updated.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<big><big><center>'''P'''anel for '''A'''rticle '''I'''mprovement & '''R'''ecognition</center></big></big> | <big><big><center>'''P'''anel for '''A'''rticle '''I'''mprovement & '''R'''ecognition</center></big></big> | ||
As part of the renewed [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles|FA]] process, | As an optional part of the renewed [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles|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== | ==Panel Members== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==Process== | ==Process== | ||
This is the | 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. | '''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. | ||
#User(s) ask '''two''' reviewers for scores using {{tem|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 {{tem|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. | #User(s) ask '''two''' reviewers for scores using {{tem|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 {{tem|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. | ||
#Article is worked on for one week, then ''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) | #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) | ||
#Review | #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. | ||
#If a reviewer wants to improve an article him/herself, s/he cannot review that article. | #If a reviewer wants to improve an article him/herself, s/he cannot review that article. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
''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 | ''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.'' | ||
[[Category: MarioWiki Policy|{{PAGENAME}}]] | [[Category: MarioWiki Policy|{{PAGENAME}}]] | ||
Revision as of 12:12, September 8, 2007
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
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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- If a reviewer wants to improve an article him/herself, s/he cannot review that article.
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.
