User:Michael.C.Wright/reviewer

I am a Reviewer on Wikinews (verify), which means I have the ability and responsibility to review articles prior to publication. The reviewer role involves ensuring that articles meet Wikinews' high content standards, including newsworthiness, verifiability, accuracy, neutrality, and adherence to style guidelines. I understand the reviewer role to be on a peer basis with authors; all published content on Wikinews is the combined effort of at least two people—an author and a reviewer. For authors new to Wikinews, getting the first few articles published may seem daunting. This page provides a few suggestions for authors to increase the likelihood of their articles passing review. I also have a check-list for reviewing that I roughly follow. I include this information to ensure the process is as transparent as possible.

Where most articles fall short

The following is the beginning of my review process, but not the entire process:

I typically start by checking for copyright issues. Any more than three consecutive words copied from an original article means the article gets more scrutiny.

I use tools to check for AI-generated content.

Another early check in my review process is evaluating the lede and headline for congruency, then checking the lede against the WN:5Ws. Tip: I use AI to help analyze the lede against our WN:5Ws guideline. Authors can do the same before review. See WN:AI for more.

If the headline and lede jive with each other and the 5Ws are addressed, I will move on to verifying every fact presented. This is the most common place for authors to trip-up. WN:Source requires that all information be verifiable.

If there are glaring problems at this point, I will likely mark the article "not ready" so the author can fix the problems.

Once all the facts are verified, I'll evaluate whether the article follows an inverted pyramid style and check smaller style issues such as date, number, and currency format.

The above process typically identifies the most-common reasons I have marked articles as not ready in the past. Therefore ensuring that all facts are sourced, the 5Ws are addressed, and the article follows an inverted pyramid gets an article well on its way to publication.

Some principles I follow

I believe new authors learn best by doing. In these cases, even though as a reviewer I could correct some issues myself, I often ask new authors to do so.

With few active reviewers, reviewer-hours are scarce. Authors should minimize avoidable errors to ensure reviewers can focus on approving more articles. Experienced authors are expected to produce work with fewer style issues over time.

Review Standards and Conduct

As a reviewer on Wikinews, I am committed to upholding the project's core principles of verification, neutrality, and copyright compliance. This section outlines my approach to reviewing, addressing common issues encountered in published articles, and my philosophy of constructive collaboration with authors and fellow reviewers.

Reviewers are peers; collaboration and mutual respect are essential to maintaining Wikinews' integrity.
Any perception of authority by one reviewer over another, if it exists at all, should be based solely on consistent, high-quality reviews—not on titles or how long someone has held the reviewer role.
All advice from peer reviewers should be weighed against their demonstrated track record and the quality of their contributions.
Holding reviewer status for a long time or having admin privileges does not inherently make one a better or more experienced reviewer; what matters is the quality, accuracy, and integrity of their reviews.
WN:IAR reminds us that the most important principle is project improvement; rules, policies, and guidelines should support this goal.
Reviewers should approach discussions and corrections with humility, understanding that collaboration strengthens the project and benefits everyone.
When addressing issues in articles, reviewers should focus on evidence and policy, rather than speculation or interpretation.
Transparency and openness in review decisions build trust within the community.

Note: I have observed recurring issues in published articles (e.g. plagiarism, unsupported statements, analysis or interpretation) and have corrected these where possible, or notified others where the articles were protected by the archival process. My intent is to maintain the project’s integrity and uphold our core principles. I’ve chosen not to escalate these concerns further for now, trusting other reviewers will also observe and act on them. My focus remains on systemic improvements, not personal disputes.

If you have specific concerns about the reasons for actions I have taken as a reviewer, please feel free and welcome to post those questions on my talk page.

Suggestions for authors

Writing articles

Start with Reliable Sources: Every piece of information in an article must be sourced, per WN:Source. Consider using {{verify}} as a temporary, in-line citation.
Focus on What's New: The focal event must have occurred within the last seven days, per WN:Freshness
Balance the Story: Ensure all relevant perspectives are included and backed by sources. See WN:NPOV (policy) and WN:Neutrality (essay) for more.

Preparing for review

Proofread: Check for grammar, spelling, and formatting issues.
Verify Sources: Ensure all claims are supported by the provided sources. Consider using {{verify}} as a temporary, in-line citation.
Follow the Style Guide: Answer the WN:5Ws, use the inverted pyramid structure, and write an informative headline.
Consider Using Pre-Review: Seek feedback using {{pre-review}} to refine the article before submitting it for review.

Common pitfalls to avoid

Unsourced Claims: I estimate that most of the times I've failed an article on review, this is the cause. Every fact must be verifiable. Unsourced facts will be removed unless they contribute to the WN:5Ws, in which case the article will fail review.
Opinion or Editorializing: Articles should inform, not persuade. Biased articles will fail review.
Stick with your articles: Once you've submitted an article for review, keep an eye on it and its talk page. Be prepared to work with a reviewer to improve it and ultimately get it published.

Final thoughts

The goal of every article is to inform readers with accurate, timely, and well-structured reporting. As a Reviewer, I am here to help improve articles and support authors in achieving publication. Collaboration is key, so don't hesitate to reach out for feedback or guidance.

English Wikinews is in desperate need of more reviewers. If you'd like to become a reviewer, please contact me to learn how.