Template:Peer reviewed/doc

This is a documentation subpage for Template:Peer reviewed (see that page for the template itself).
It contains usage information, categories and other content that is not part of the original template page.

See WN:REV for information on the relevant policy.

This template is used on over 8,600 pages.
Changes to this template may cause some server load, and mistakes will be visible on many pages. Please carefully test any edits before making them, and avoid making unnecessary edits.

update use count

Description

This template is used to advertise on an article's talk page the result of a review. It is designed to be simple to use, yet informative.

Please consider returning an article to {{develop}}ment with a comment on additional work needed prior to review, and notifying the original contributor, if you do not go through all the steps of the review process. A copy of the develop template with any parameters will display in red, and should ideally be placed at the top of the article to draw attention to it.

Use [Using Easy Peer Review]

First of all, make sure you are a reviewer, or this won't work. Also make sure you are on a page that is currently up for review (has {{review}} on it). You will also need to have javascript enabled for this to work (which you probably already have).
Find the review tab. This should be on the drop down menu in vector (See image on right), or a tab on the top of the page in monobook (beside the history tab).
If all else fails, you can also get to it by typing javascript:Bawolff.review.start() in the address bar and hitting enter. (This will work even if the article is not up for review, so make sure that the article is up for review before doing that.) If that doesn't work, it means the gadget did not load properly, in which case, notify user:Bawolff.
A form should popup (See image for example). Fill it out, hit submit and the gadget should take care of the rest.

Use [manual]

It's highly recommended that you use the EasyPeerReview method above instead.
{{peer reviewed
|revid=Revision ID
|copyright=Status
|newsworthy=Status
|verifiable=Status
|npov=Status
|style=Status
|reviewer=Your Username
|comments=Any Comments, ~~~~
|time=~~~~~}}

Revision ID is the number of the revision that has been reviewed. This is obtained from the History page of an article — it is the number after "oldid" in the current revision in the URL.
Status is pass for a passed section, n/a for not reviewed, or comments for a failed section.

Note: After placing this on the talk page, you must still remove {{review}} from the article, add {{publish}}, and create the opinion page with {{subst:Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events/body}}. Using Easy Peer Review avoids all these additional steps.

Checklist

When reviewing an article, you should check the following:

Copyright: The reviewer should check that the text and images are not copyright infringement.
Newsworthiness: The reviewer should check that the article agrees with our content guide and is newsworthy.
Verifiability: The reviewer should check that all information in the article is fully sourced, (using multiple independent sources is strongly encouraged) or has adequate Original Reporting notes.
Neutral Point of View: The reviewer should check that all information in the article is written in a neutral and unbiased manner, with no editorial commentary/advocacy or unsourced opinion.
Style: The reviewer should check that all information in the article complies with our style guide (on dateline, grammar and spelling, "inverted pyramid" structure, tone, wikilinks, categories, headline... etc.)

Examples

A Passed article would look like:

{{peer reviewed|revid=12345|copyright=pass|newsworthy=pass|verifiable=pass|npov=pass|style=pass|reviewer=Skenmy|comments=A very good article! --~~~~|time=~~~~~}}

Revision 12345 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Copyright: Passed
Newsworthiness: Passed
Verifiability: Passed
NPOV: Passed
Style: Passed

Comments by reviewer: A very good article! --Skenmy ^talk 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 12345 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Copyright: Passed
Newsworthiness: Passed
Verifiability: Passed
NPOV: Passed
Style: Passed

Comments by reviewer: A very good article! --Skenmy ^talk 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

A Failed article would look like:

{{peer reviewed|revid=12344|copyright=pass|newsworthy=pass|verifiable=Many claims are not backed up by sources|npov=Appears to be biased|style=pass|reviewer=Skenmy|comments=Otherwise a very good article. --~~~~|time=~~~~~}}

Revision 12344 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Copyright: Passed
Newsworthiness: Passed
Verifiability: Not ready: Many claims are not backed up by sources
NPOV: Not ready: Appears to be biased
Style: Passed

Comments by reviewer: Otherwise a very good article. --Skenmy ^talk 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.