Wookieepedia:The Official Guide to Article Reviewing

Welcome to the Official Guide to Article Reviewing, officially approved by the Inquisitorius review panel. This tutorial is intended to explain the basics of being a reviewer on the Featured article nominations ("FAN") page. There are also portions of this tutorial that are endorsed by the AgriCorps review panel, which manages the Good article nominations ("GAN") page.

So&hellip; what's a reviewer?
To understand what the job of a reviewer is, you first need to understand Wookieepedia's system of status articles, which represent the highest quality of articles that the site has to offer. All of these articles undergo similar review processes, which are conducted by both members of the Wookieepedia community and separate review boards.

The primary distinction between the three types of status articles is page length. The three types of status articles, along with their accompanying review boards, are listed below.

30px-FeaturedIcon.png Featured article
A Featured article is 1,000 words or more in length. The Featured article nominations ("FAN") page is managed by the Inquisitorius review panel. Refer to What is a featured article?

30px-GoodIcon.png Good article
A Good article is between 250 and 1,000 words in length. The Good article nominations ("GAN") page is overseen by the AgriCorps review panel. Refer to AC/Official Rookie's Guide to Mastering GAs.

30px-ComprehensiveArticle.png Comprehensive article
A Comprehensive article is up to 250 words in length. The Comprehensive article nominations ("CAN") page is handled by the EduCorps review panel.

The job
A status article reviewer is a Wookieepedia user who dedicates himself or herself to review articles on the aforementioned FAN, GAN, and/or CAN pages. While conducting reviews, they raise objections to a nominated article with the intention of improving it. This tutorial will explain the basics of reviewing and how to become a status article reviewer.

Starting up
The best way to get a feel for the Featured article nominations page is to experience the review process yourself. Writing an article and then nominating it as a Featured article nomination is the most effective way to understand the process. Alternatively, users will first submit an article as a Good or Comprehensive article nomination, because the GAN and CAN processes are usually faster (due to the shorter length limits on articles) and easier to handle.

Ethics and cooperation
Be cooperative and respectful. Even if you do not agree with the way a sentence is written, or a template is formatted, etc., there is no reason to harass or otherwise intimidate the author of the article that you're reviewing. At the end of the day, it is fine to agree to disagree. If you are unsure about how to address a disagreement, seek out advice from a current member of the Inqusitorius (or AgriCorps or EduCorps). For more information, see the policies No personal attacks and Civility.

The basics
All articles are required to follow all of our policies. It's a simple statement, but it's true. The following are particularly important policies of note.
 * The article should adhere to all tenets of the Manual of Style, which&mdash;along with the following Layout Guide&mdash;is generally essential reading for writers and reviewers of status articles of any kind.
 * If there is an applicable one, the article should adhere to the Layout Guide. Even if there isn't a specific guide for the type of article, it should not stray far from the precedent of other articles in terms of layout.
 * The article should be written from a neutral point of view.
 * With the exception of the introduction, the article should adhere to the Sourcing and Attribution policies. Everything should be referenced (except the introduction), and there should not be any original research or speculation anywhere in the article. Anything that is unknown, like the next or previous fields in succession boxes, should be left blank.

Besides the basic policies, here's some tips about reviewing in general.
 * Ask questions. If something in an article doesn't make sense, then ask the author for clarification. He/she might have made an error, and it's always good to ensure that our articles are readable and understandable.
 * Don't always fix things yourself. While some errors are often sofixits&mdash;slang for easily-remedied problems that can be fixed by the reviewer during a review&mdash;it's also helpful to let the author know about the errors so that they can work on not making it in the future.
 * Linking! There are (and counting) articles on the site! Even though you probably won't be linking to all  in a single article, a well-written article should still be thoroughly linked. Even basic concepts and subjects such as time, days, ocean, ground warfare, and space warfare, etc. have articles, and they need to be linked to. Be sure to make use of pipelinking, especially when the article that is being linked to has a conjectural title. Conversely, there should be no links to disambiguation pages or redirects.

Hit List: The Inquisitorius' Top Ten Picks
From common sense to the obscure, here is a compilation of The Inqusitorius' Top Ten Picks of items to look for when reviewing an article.
 * 1) Reload the infobox. If an infobox is incomplete, or if it uses a version that lacks recent field additions, it can be easy to accidentally exclude vital information. Even if some fields are initially left blank, reloading the entire infobox will ensure that relevant information can be added to the infobox as it becomes available.
 * 2) Infobox-exclusive information. This is a particularly relevant objection for planet and droid articles. All information presented in the infobox should also be presented somewhere in the body&mdash;though The Essential Atlas coordinates and publishing eras are an exception.
 * 3) Punctuation and quotation marks. If an image caption is a full sentence, then it needs punctuation, and quotation marks should always be outside of punctuation. For example: "Doomsday," instead of "Doomsday", even if the punctuation isn't part of the stuff in quotation marks.
 * 4) Chronology. Articles should present information in chronological order. While this sounds like a no-brainer, it's still a valid objection. For example, an article on a battle, war, or other event should be written as chronologically as possible, in the order in which things happen. Also, if a childhood experience is brought up in the sections on a character's later life, then the childhood experience should have been explained in the beginning of the biography section. Betrayal.jpg
 * 5) Adhere to the naming policy. Characters should be referred to by their full name first, and then by their last name from that point onward. However, if part of the article deals with characters from the same family, such as a section of Han Solo's article that involves Leia Organa Solo, Allana Solo, and Jaina Solo, the characters should be referred to by their first names in order to reduce confusion.
 * 6) WP:DASH: the article should make proper use of the dash, with the en dash and em dash used in the appropriate instances instead of a hyphen.
 * 7) Double-linking. It's deceptively easy to forget to link an article, and it's just as easy to link an article twice. As an aid, if your Internet browser has a Find function ("CONTROL" + "F" on most browsers), this can be a simple tool to make sure that linking is in top shape.
 * 8) Consistency. This is an umbrella term for anything from the use of the Oxford comma to the name that is used for the Second Galactic Civil War (which, to date, has seven different and distinct names). Basically, if an author writes something a certain way (in which there is leeway), then the rest of the article should reflect the author's consistent intentions. As a reviewer, look for this, and encourage the author to do the same.
 * 9) Ranks and titles. All of us have made an error related to capitalization at some point or another. See the link for more information.
 * 10) Spelling, grammar, and the English language. This one should be self-explanatory. Although it's obvious, it's the most important.

Why should I review?
Now you know the basics of reviewing. So why should you become a status article reviewer?

Reviewers are the backbone of the site.
Without users dedicating themselves to reviewing articles on the FAN, GAN, and CAN, none of these systems would exist. Status article reviewers are users who know what quality is and are committed to promoting quality in the site's articles.

User votes count.
It might seem that for now, as a regular user&mdash;without (Inq),  (AC), or  (EC) in front of your signature&mdash;your vote doesn't count on the FAN, GAN, or CAN page.

But guess what? It does!

Check out the following breakdown of each voting system (numbers set by community consensus):

Without user votes, all three nomination processes would rely entirely on review panel votes, which has proven to be as inefficient as it is ineffective. The votes of all reviewers count on each nomination page, so reviewing (and voting) will make your voice heard.

Reviewers pay it forward.
Reviewing others' articles can often seem like a thankless job. (After all, it is unpaid.) However, reviewing is the fundamental essence of the Wookieepedia community. It's not bragging when we say that Wookieepedia is the best online encyclopedia out there&mdash;it's the truth. You will never find a wiki like this, where members are dedicated to helping each other learn and grow. Reviewers represent the site's level of community, collaborating and working toward the common goal of promoting quality across the site.

To put it in simpler terms: if you want people to review your article on a nomination page, go review others'  articles as well. Receiving a review for your article is a privilege&mdash;not a right&mdash;and a favor that should be paid forward.

The big secret
"In my book, experience outranks everything."

- Clone Captain Rex

It's not exactly a secret, but it shouldn't be a surprise: prominent, talented, attentive, and experienced reviewers become members of the Inqusitorius and AgriCorps, as well as the EduCorps. (However, that does not mean that just because you've read this page, you will automatically be asked to join a review board. This is just the beginning.)

Reviewing is a learning process that will teach you what a quality Wookieepedia article is. Both the Inquisitorius and AgriCorps vote in new members via internal selection. When looking for potential candidates, current members look for users who have shown time, commitment, and effort while reviewing Featured and Good article nominations.

If your goal is to become a member of the Inqusitorius and/or AgriCorps, this is where to start.
 * 1) Review, and review a lot. Show your commitment to regularly review articles, which is expected from all review panel members. There is no substitute for experience.
 * 2) Show us, not tell us, your interest. Actions will often speak louder than words, and the best way to show us your interest is to display your willingness to learn. If you have a question, ask for help. Learning never stops, even after you join the review panel.
 * 3) Regularly visit IRC. This might sound strange at first, but it's true: the fastest way to learn is on IRC in real-time, talking to current members of the Inquisitorius and AgriCorps. Additionally, monthly meetings for both panels are held in IRC, so maintaining a regular presence on IRC will be a vital part of your resumé.
 * 4) Seek advice. Working one-on-one with a current member of the Inquisitorius and/or AgriCorps is one of the most effective ways to learn what to look for. Members of both panels are happy to answer questions and guide users who are trying to find their way around the FAN and GAN. Seek out a member yourself and see if there's something you can do to improve your reviewing.

'''So what are you waiting for? Get to work and start reviewing today!''' (And don't forget the GAN and CAN pages, too!)