User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates

Disclaimer: This is intended as an in-depth guide to reviewing at WP:FAC; a simpler guide is available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. See also User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article.

Featured articles (FA) are promoted via the featured article process (FAC), which is always in need of new reviewers with an interest in contributing to Wikipedia's best content. In fact, some nominations are not promoted simply because not enough reviewers look at the article. All Wikipedians are welcome to review articles at FAC. When reviewing, here are some important points to keep in mind:

FAC is not Peer Review: WP:PR is a great way to get feedback on an article, but FAC is instead designed to determine whether or not an article meets the criteria. If you find yourself leaving a huge "wall of text" on a review page, consider whether your comments are best placed elsewhere (article talk, review talk, etc), or whether the volume of concerns merits an oppose !vote and a suggestion of peer review
Make comments actionable: review commentary should be in relation to the criteria outlined at WP:WIAFA
Be constructive: rather than simply opposing because "the article sucks", detail the reasons for your oppose in a constructive fashion. Similarly, if you're supporting, explain why or give details of further possible improvements. A key question to consider when reviewing is "What can be done to make this article better?"
Declare: give the delegates and other reviewers enough information to evaluate your review. If you've reviewed only on particular criteria, say so explicitly. If you have a relevant Conflict of Interest or previous involvement with the article (for example, if you were the GA reviewer), mention it.
Read: be prepared to read the entire article, and perhaps also its talk page, sources and previous reviews as necessary, before entering an unmitigated support.

The following is an outline of the types of review present in an "ideal" FAC, though in some circumstances some of the following may for whatever reason not be needed or possible. Depending on your level of comfort and expertise, you may choose to combine multiple review aspects, though you should indicate which criteria your review covers. You should endeavour to read commentary provided by other reviewers, to engage with the nominator with regards to your review, and to revisit your !vote if necessary.

Preliminary review[edit]

Before beginning an in-depth review of the content, there are some preliminary points that should be checked. These are especially important where you are the first reviewer.

Is the article eligible for FAC? Lists should be directed to WP:FLC. Articles that are already FAs should be directed to WP:FAR.
Is the nomination procedurally correct? The nominator should be a significant contributor to the article, according to the edit count tool; if he or she is not, the significant contributor(s) (if they are still active on Wikipedia) should be consulted prior to nomination. The article should not currently be listed at WP:PR or WP:GAN. The nominator should not be the sole nominator of another article currently listed at FAC, and may be the co-nominator of no more than one other article at FAC. The nominator should not have had any nomination archived within the past two weeks. However, be aware that the delegates occasionally grant exemptions to some of these procedural rules, so check for this prior to posting a "procedural close" !vote. In general, an awareness of the article's history (including previous reviews) is helpful.
Is the article clearly and obviously below even the standards for B-class? This might apply if the article has few to no citations, has multiple valid cleanup tags, etc. In such cases, suggest withdrawal of the nomination and PR or GAN as a preliminary step.
Is the article stable? If it is subject to ongoing edit wars or is undergoing an active major change (ie. is tagged with {{inuse}} or similar), you'd be reviewing a moving target

After completing these steps, you may begin evaluating whether the article adheres to the policies regarding content and the featured article criteria.

Writing and MOS[edit]

Criterion 1a, which requires prose that is "engaging, even brilliant," is one of the most difficult to achieve. Prose reviewers should ideally be proficient in written English. Read through the article looking for grammar and spelling problems, inconsistencies in the application of linguistic rules, phrasing awkwardness, and ambiguity or lack of clarity. The article's tone should be neutral and encyclopedic, avoiding colloquialisms and slang terms, jargon, non-neutral words, and similar problems. Also check that the article uses a consistent variety of English. Writing resources like User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and WP:Checklist may be helpful in guiding prose reviews, but the best guide is often experience and writing/editing ability.

MOS reviews are highly specialized reviews evaluating an article's adherence to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. These can cover anything from adherence to WP:LEAD to proper use of hyphens versus dashes. Other common issues include under- or overlinking, linking to disambiguation pages, use and formatting of quotations, and consistent date formatting. User:AndyZ/Suggestions provides some things to look for.

Coverage[edit]

FAs should be comprehensive but written in summary style, covering all of the relevant topics neutrally and with appropriate weight, and fitting into the article hierarchy. If after reading the entire article you are left with questions about the topic, this may indicate a problem with coverage; conversely, articles that are too long or excessively detailed are also problematic. Also check that the organization of the article makes sense and avoids very short or very long sections as appropriate.

Neutrality[edit]

In addition to giving due weight to different aspects of the topic, FAs should be neutrally written. Words to watch should be carefully checked to ensure they are not weaselly or puffy. The tone should be encyclopedic throughout the article, particularly where dealing with topics of potential conflict.

Sources[edit]

Source reviews evaluate reference reliability and formatting. Make sure that inline citations are included where appropriate. Articles may use any reference style sufficient to identify the specific source used, so long as it is applied consistently. Check to ensure that all necessary information is included: page numbers for books and publishers for websites are among the most frequently omitted (see WP:CITE for required vs optional info). Compare like-to-like citations, looking for any inconsistencies in formatting. Foreign-language and subscription sources should be identified as such. In terms of reliability, FAs are required to use high-quality reliable sources, which are of a higher standard than bare reliability. Secondary sources from reputable publishers are preferred; self-published sources should only appear in limited circumstances. If you're unsure of the reliability of a particular source, ask the nominator to explain how its usage is consistent with WP:RS, WP:V and related guidelines. For specialized articles, for example biographies of living people and medical topics, refer to the relevant guidelines for sourcing standards. You should also check that all of the external links are functional; Checklinks is available for this purpose. For further information on evaluating sources, see Wikipedia:FCDW/June 23, 2008 and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You.

Spotchecks involve comparing the article text and that of sources to ensure that the article accurately represents the sources (WP:V) without verging into copyright violations, plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing. Automated tools are available to detect blatant instances of plagiarism; these include Duplication Detector for known sources, Coren's bot for unknown sources, and non-Wikipedia plagiarism detection tools. However, these automated methods have limitations, and cannot accommodate the verifiability aspect of spotchecking; therefore, manual checks are usually required, especially where automated tools indicate a potential issue. There are a number of resources available for this type of review: a Dispatch on plagiarism, User:Nikkimaria/How to spotcheck and User:Tony1/Plagiarism and close paraphrasing: tips for reviewers.

Media[edit]

Image/media reviews look at the licensing and use of media in reference to the Wikipedia image use policy. Images should be relevant, should be laid out and formatted in an appropriate manner, and should include captions. Captions should meet a similar standard for verifiability as the lead (that is, cited where the information is not included in the article body) and should meet the same standards for MOS compliance and prose as the article text (although captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods). Verify that media description pages include a valid source and licensing tag. For fair-use media, check that a complete fair-use rationale is present and accurate, that the copyright holder is identified, and that the use of the media is consistent with WP:NFC. In particular, non-free sound samples should be no longer than the shorter of 30 seconds or 10% of the original. Note that alt text is currently not a requirement for images. For further information on media reviews, see Wikipedia:FCDW/August 11, 2008 and Wikipedia:FCDW/September 22, 2008

Expert vs layperson[edit]

A featured article should be accessible to the general public without sacrificing accuracy; to that end, both expert and lay reviewers have an important role to play, particularly in esoteric or technical topics. An "expert" review is provided by someone familiar with the subject matter of the article. This reviewer is well-placed to evaluate such aspects as neutrality, comprehensiveness and use of sources (particularly identifying any major views or resources that should be incorporated). A review by a person unfamiliar with the subject of the article is a valuable resource, as those more conversant with the topic sometimes find it difficult to evaluate the relative accessibility of the text. Non-expert reviews can evaluate the use of jargon and indicate points which may require further explanation.

Mistakes to avoid[edit]

Do not base your review solely on your opinion, but in reference to the criteria
Do not support an article that does not meet the criteria. It does not matter how important the topic is or how you feel about it, nor does it matter who the nominator is and how much work he/she has put in. If you support only on certain criteria, say so.
If needed, be sure to check back later to assess changes made in response to your comments. It might be helpful to watchlist the review.
If a dispute arises, avoid personalizing the discussion. State your point and be responsive as necessary, but extended and off-topic discussions should be avoided. Stay polite and know when to disengage.
Do not dismiss the opinions of other reviewers, but be open to feedback and adjust your reviewing style as necessary