Help:Revision review

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Wikibooks uses the FlaggedRevs extension (also known as flagged revisions or stable revisions) so that editors and reviewers can review page revisions for quality. Reviewed pages are said to be stable.

This feature allows readers who are not logged in, or have set their stability preferences accordingly, to be served with stable versions for pages where they exist. This makes low activity books more resistant to vandalism.

Regular contributors are automatically given editor status by the software. Editors automatically review pages at the lowest setting (called sighting a page) when they save, so active books will usually have contributions by non-editors added shortly after they are committed.

Contents

Quality criteria and levels

There are three criteria on which a module can be reviewed for quality; composition, accuracy and coverage. Each of these has four levels for which editors can rate by. The default rating is the lowest level: "Poor/unrated". The following sections describe the rest of the levels.

Reviewers can additionally rate modules at a fifth level, featured quality, required for a book to become featured.

Composition

The quality and suitability of prose. You should be familiar with the reading level of the module's target audience before grading its composition.

Correct spelling and grammar
Proofread for spelling, grammar, punctuation.
Good structure
Page is well written with good paragraph structure where ideas flow logically through the page.
Consistent style
Language is consistent rather than a patchwork of different contributors' tone and style. Fonts, tables, diagrams, illustrations and other elements on the page are used in a consistent way. Take the book's local manual of style into consideration when reviewing its style.

Accuracy

The degree to which concepts, theories, directions and other information presented is verifiably true. You should be familiar with a book's intended presentation and audience first. For example a book for amateur astronomers might oversimplify concepts and have lower accuracy demands than an astronomy book intended for experts.

Acceptable
Some explanations is presented which rules out obvious bias, assumptions, speculation, nonsense, etc.
Good/Average
Presented information is reasonably explained and seems to make good sense, possibly following up from another page.
Verifiable
Accuracy can be confirmed safely by following directions as outlined, by applying concepts as explained, or by checking sources that the book provides.

Some books discuss literary works, which may be harder to grade. As a general rule of thumb grade accuracy based on whether what is discussed can be verified to be true by reading the literary work in question. For example a fictional character's motives might be verifiable by describing and analogizing what the character says or does, or how the fictional character behaves.

Coverage

How much depth and breadth the module spans. You should be familiar with the intended scope of a book, before rating a revision's coverage.

Acceptable
The page gives a brief overview of the subject it claims, but not much more then that, with no obvious omissions.
Good/Average
The page covers the intended material reasonably well, but may not have any examples, little discussion or relevant background, and no information about tangential subjects.
Great
Covers the material well, and includes proper background, discussion, and examples. May include mention of tangential subjects or links to related books or resources for further reading.

Featured books

If most of the pages in a book have a revision that has been flagged as being of good quality in all 3 categories, the book can be nominated to be a featured book. If the Wikibooks community agrees that a book should become featured, a reviewer can flag all pages in the book as being of featured quality in all 3 categories.

Pages in a book can be considered featured quality if:

  1. The page is a model that other pages should follow,
  2. The material presented is undeniably true, you would use it to teach other people or teachers would use it in a classroom, and
  3. The page does a superb job of covering the material. Most common questions are answered or points readers to where they can find answers.

Editors and reviewers

Editor and reviewer are terms used in the FlaggedRevs extension for users who can review page revisions. On Wikibooks, editors can review up to, but not including, the level which is required for Featured books. Marking modules for feature quality requires reviewer status.

If/When you can satisfy the editor criteria you should receive the editor flag automatically, otherwise you can request the editor or reviewer flag. If you could satisfy the editor criteria given enough time, please provide a reasonable argument for why you should be given the editor flag manually instead when requesting the editor flag. The criteria for reviewer has not been clarified yet. Administrators have reviewer tools.

Automatic editor status criteria

You should automatically get editor tools when/if you meet the following criteria:

  • Have a registered account that is at least 30 days old, with an email set and confirmed in Special:Preferences.
  • Never been blocked, or previously had the editor or reviewer tools removed (you can request the tools in this case).
  • Have at least 100 edits since registration (excluding deleted edits), in which:
    • 50 or more edits are to pages other than discussion pages.
    • 50 or more edit summaries are used.
    • 10 or more unique pages are edited at least once.
    • 10 edits are spaced 2 or more days apart from each other (which takes at least 18 days, if you edit every 2 days).
    • 10 or more edits are in recent changes at the time automatic editor promotion is checked.

Monitoring activity

There are two logs of page reviews:

Other related special pages:

See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Revision_review"