Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Committee review process and framework

How are General Support Fund proposals reviewed for Wikimedia Community Fund?

Wikimedia Community Fund

General Support Fund – Proposal review framework tool

This short tool intends to support proposal reviewers to understand and apply the review criteria by connecting the review framework with the application flow.

It also seeks to consolidate and organize your thought process to prepare for fund deliberation discussions. Your program officer may also use/ share consolidated responses with the wider committee. Please compose your comments as though you are directly addressing the applicant, so that your feedback can more easily be incorporated into recommendations to be posted on the applicant talk page later on. Please be mindful that the clarity of your comments and suggestions can help your fellow committee members, as well as applicants, to read through the consolidated analysis. You can also provide some concrete examples that may help the applicant make the necessary clarifications or adjustments.

Application title:

Grantee name:

Grant ID number (filled by Program Officer):

Corresponding Questions in the application form corresponding to these aspects:	Main Aspect	Evaluation criteria	Yes	No	Unclear, follow up-question is needed
5, 6, 8, 9	Value for knowledge equity impact: Involvement of underrepresented groups or contributions of underrepresented content about, e.g.: women people with disabilities neurodiverse people indigenous groups LGBTQ+ groups people from lower socioeconomic status caste-oppressed communities youth speakers of minority languages underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)	Knowledge equity dimension is appropriately considered in the activities, content or target groups.
5, 6, 8, 9	Value for the volunteer community	Practices have included the community of volunteers in the planning, implementation and reflections on the project are demonstrated well, or some form of community endorsement for the work suggested is present.
		Measures to maintain or improve community health, safety, and inclusivity are considered.
		Feedback from the community on how the project impacted them (e.g. their work, skills or capacities) has been or will be collected and will inform the next strategy or program planning.
		Activities to recruit or retain volunteers are included.
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15	Value for the movement	Proposed activities and strategies are clear and respond well to the challenges presented.
		Cooperations and partnerships are built that have the potential to upscale thematic areas / large scale campaigns / transfer to other regions and contexts, or provide synergies in activities of different groups.
		Valuable transferable methodologies, tactics, or strategies are applied (e.g. in a thematic area or in community revitalization).
13		Activities are in line with the 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations and initiatives.
If answered “No” or “Unclear”, do you have specific actionable recommendations to implement in the proposal or clarifying questions connected to the values the proposal brings:
14, 15	Feasibility of the proposed work	The proposed scale and significance of the contributions are realistic, and are a result of the project (would not have materialized otherwise and demonstrate no duplication of effort/overlap with other similar projects and other communities’ activities).
10		The timeline of the delivery demonstrates feasibility.
11, 12		The capacity and role of involved team members, volunteers, subcontractors and external partners are clear and demonstrate the extent to which the implementing team as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
16-22		Budget: the planned implementation of revenues and expenses is reasonable, justified, and reflects sustainability.
If answered “No” or “Unclear”, do you have specific actionable recommendations to implement in the proposal or clarifying questions connected to the feasibility of the proposal:
Overall strengths (or if grantee is returning, positive changes / improvements / welcomed organizational developments (e.g. in governance, financial management, or transparency practices) we see:		Overall Recommendations / Opportunities Seen:
Follow-up / Clarifying questions for Meta, if any:
Initial funding recommendation, if already clear: Full funding Partial funding, recommended % or amount of funding: ______________ No funding No decision at this time, discussion is needed No decision at this time, a meeting with the grantee is needed

See also[edit]