Wikinews talk:Reviewing

The article should explain

The article should explain how users do subscribe to this group. Lysy (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a process that is still being discussed at the moment, but for the time being trustworthy editors are promoted by any administrator. Discussion is taking place at Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical#Getting_.22Editor.22 and also in other threads at Wikinews:Water cooler/technical. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I want my edits to appear to anons automatically, but before I make a big fuss of it all by requesting for the reviewer right and get a few hundred opposes^{[citation needed]}, I want to know the criteria for becoming a reviewer and how much more do I need to do before I can achieve that level. Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Our standards for the reviewer standards are generally low overall not very high. The only two things you need to show is that: 1) you know your way around our article writing policies, especially WN:SG, fairly well so as not to make a gross mistake, and 2) that you're trusted. You would certainly meet the latter criteria, and after looking through your contribs and articles, I'd say you meet the former too. I would likely support you if you nominated yourself for the status. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tempo, our standards for obtaining reviewer are most definitely not low! The requirements include a good knowledge of policy, demonstration of clear understanding and adherence to such, and - perhaps most importantly - a good grasp of the English language; both spelling and grammar. I am very surprised you would characterise our standards as low. I certainly do not. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I meant "low" in the sense that one doesn't have to write a whole boatload of stories in order to get approved - two or three good articles are enough - is "low" as in compared to what most Wikipedians' perceptions of the standards are. Of course we're not going to give any random bloke off the street Reviewer status :-) It is supposed to be "easy come, easy go" after all. However, that probably wasn't a good choice of wording on my part, i rephrased. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have flagged revs, so I don't really have a 'Wikipedian' perception of the standard. Besides, Wikibook's standards (in WNReviewer=WBEditor, WNSuperreviewer=WBReviewer, for the reference of those who are not wikibookians) are rather low as well - definitely lower than WN. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the Wikipedians I've talked to seem to think that "Reviewer" is almost like adminship here, or that it's an admin-lite, and are afraid to nominate themselves for it even if they've written quite a few quality articles here. Really, if you've proven you can write correctly and follow our style guide, there shouldn't be any reason not to give out the bit. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• As Tempo says, his was poor word choice - something I'm always quick to jump on ;-). It is, as he says, a process of verifying you know the standards. What is at-issue is understanding that you cannot start and publish yourself. To satisfy requirements for our articles to be listed in Google News initial reviews must be carried out by an independent editor. We certainly do want a large number of people with the privilege; such people can then make grammatical and spelling corrections to improve existing articles. Just don't add sources published some time after the date of our article; WN:ARCHIVE may come as a bit of a culture shock if you're used to absolutely any other project. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

@Tempodivalse: Actually I'm also a Wikibookian, so I'm less confused. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Most newbies here come from Wikipedia, and you have a big userpage on en.wp, so I was sort of assuming the same here. All the better that you are on Wikibooks; you probably already have experience with how flaggedrevs works. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Darn it, now I've learnt a new lesson: Don't be overly hasty when dealing with RfPs! :P (Now that I've had experience, I think the requirements aren't low at all - they're WAY　higher than Wikibooks. Though I can't blame Mr Tempodivalse because as he said, most newbies are 'pedians, but I'm also a 'bookian. Kayau (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Now... I just want to know how I've been doing, how I'll be able to work towards reviewer, apart from avoiding passive voice. Kayau (talk · contribs) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Reviewers

Where is he list of all reviewers? --Lib2know (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to choose who will review your articles; that's part of the concept of independent review. --Pi zero (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)