User:Adacore/FAC Checklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current featured article candidate list located at: Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list

My procedure for reviewing WP:FACs (so I don't forget stuff when I do it):

Readthrough & Copyedit

  • Read through the article and copyedit. Perhaps move comments to article talk page, or seperate page on user space, if more than a dozen or so? Note that in the process of a FAC copyedit only very minor changes should be made directly to the article. Most changes should be suggested in comments to allow the article editor(s) to implement and possibly improve them, or provide a reason why the suggested change would not be beneficial.
    • Check for grammatical inaccuracy.
    • Check for factual inconsistency.
    • Check for passages that don't scan well, repeated words, etc.
    • Note any violations of the WP:MOS conventions on numbers, dates, etc (no, I don't know by heart, nor do I ever expect to, most of the contents of the MOS).
    • Are any sections irrelevant to the article scope (if so, suggest removal).
    • Check for overlinking/underlinking.
    • Check that everything in the article that requires a citation has one.
    • Check that all wikilinks lead to the correct wikipedia page (where it's not obvious).
    • Is the length and balance of article sections appropriate? If not, suggest splitting or cutting the length of longer sections and/or merging or increasing the length of shorter ones, either by adding/removing text or by restructuring the sections (or the entire article).
    • Is every section of the article adequately covered in the lead?

Images & Tables

  • Check all tables and view the image page for all images:
    • Is it relevant?
    • Are the title and/or caption appropriate?
    • Is it properly licenced?
    • Is it correct (especially in the case of user created images such as maps/diagrams or tables)?

Referencing

  • Check all the references:
    • Are they reliable sources?
    • Are they relevant?
    • Do books have correct ISBN numbers?
    • Is the formatting correct?
    • Do links work?
    • Does a quick search turn up significant potential material that could be used to improve or reference the article that isn't already used?

Miscellaneous

  • Check the history for evidence of dispute, revert-warring, etc.
  • Check for significant factual omission, where possible (easier with personal knowledge of the subject, which is somewhat rare).
  • Read through existing support/oppose/comments on the FAC page and reply if it would be helpful.
  • Revise any comments that have already been addressed by others while doing the review!

Exception to the above note on copyediting

  • Check the LOCE requests page - if article is listed there, do full copyedit if possible and set copy=yes (hence killing two birds with one stone and avoiding repetition of work).


Currently open with comments:

Closed: