Wikipedia:Scientific peer review: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:36, 11 March 2006

Revision as of 22:37, 11 March 2006

Line 54:

<span style="font-size:16pt">How to format the subpages</span>

<nowiki>===[[articlename]]===</nowiki><br><i>Why youthe thinknominater thinks the articles needs the peer review, and sign itsigned with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.</i><br/><nowiki>====Board comments====</nowiki><br><nowiki>=====[boardmembername]=====</nowiki><br><nowiki>====Non-board comments====</nowiki><br><nowiki>=====[nonboardmembername]=====</nowiki><br><nowiki>====Recommendation====</nowiki><br>

<span style="font-size:16pt">How tonon-board members will respond to a request</span>

*Scan the list of requests below, and if one catches your fancy, follow the link to the article and read it. If you think something is wrong with the article—e.g., it's too long, there's no lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—you're welcome to post a comment in the appropriate section on this page for comments from non-board members. Feel free to give area-specific ratings, for example on presentation, factual accuracy, &c.

*If you have the time and knowledge to resolve relatively minor issues in the article itself, this will be appreciated. If you do so, please consider making a note of this on the page to keep others informed about the progress of the article.

*Include a permalink to the page you reviewed so that comments have a context in the future after changes have been made.

Line 64:

<span style="font-size:16pt">How the board will respond to a request</span>

*In the first week or two after the request members of the board will post comments individually, preferably commenting on different aspects of the article and discuss its factual accuracy. The board members may rate aspects of the article to give clarity to the nominator. They may also overrule the suggestions of non-board members, though this should be used sparingly (for example, when a non-board member claims a true statement is false).

*Just before it is removed from peer review the board will make a recommendation to the nominator as to the course of action they(s)he should take. This will summarise the main sentiments expressed in the discussion. Someone will then replace {{tl|scipeerreview}} on the article's talk page with {{tl|oldscipeerreview}}.

<span style="font-size:16pt">How to resubmit a request</span>