Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Peer review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Main Project Page
- Members
- Announcements
- Project category
- Assessment
- Collaboration
- Peer reviews
- Translation
-
- Article assessment
- Review Stubs for Merge candidates
This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.
view full worklist
Taxation articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
FA | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
A | |||||||
GA | |||||||
B | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 25 | ||
Start | 7 | 14 | 17 | 35 | 9 | 82 | |
Stub | 2 | 1 | 6 | 80 | 56 | 145 | |
Assessed | 15 | 22 | 29 | 123 | 65 | 254 | |
Unassessed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 388 | 388 | |
Total | 15 | 22 | 29 | 123 | 453 | 642 |
The peer review department of the Taxation WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement. The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make marginal and good quality articles to excellent, encyclopedic ones.
- Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) before a peer review. Consider that use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Taxation WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time.
All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Taxation WikiProject. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)
Contents |
[edit] Instructions
[edit] Requesting a review
- Add
peer-review=yes
to the {{WikiProject Taxation}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax). - From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
- Place
=== [[Name of nominated article]] ===
at the top. - Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review (what are your goals? FA? GA? etc) and sign by using four tildes (
~~~~
). - Add
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Peer review/Name of nominated article}}
at the top of the list of requests on this page. - Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.
[edit] Responding to a request
Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====
) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.
[edit] Archiving
Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:
- Replace
peer-review=yes
withold-peer-review=yes
in the {{WikiProject Taxation}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page - Move
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Peer review/Name of nominated article}}
from this page to the current archive page. - Remove article from Peer review announcement list
[edit] Requests
[edit] Business rates
Having expanded the article up from a stub, I'd appreciate some guidance on where to go from here. As it's my first major piece of wikipedia work, I'd appreciate more experienced opinions. In particular, I'd like to know:
- Is the article is reasonably clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic?
- Does it go into the correct depth? (There are potentially reams of details that could be expanded on; does it hit the right note?)
- Does the structure help, or is it a bit too sub-sectioned?
- Explaining the billing side first, and the rating side second, is technically the wrong way round, but it's the way I usually explain the topic to people. Doing it the other way round seems to leave them bogged down in detail. Does it work in wikipedia?
- Any manual of style elements I've missed.
- The lead is undoubtedly weak; I've spent little time on it in the theory that fixing the body of the article will let the lead flow. All hints gratefully received.
All comments gratefully received - I'd rather a harsh comment on something I've missed than leaving it unfixed. Winklethorpe 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Archives
Articles archived - 2007