Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Review Team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia 1.0 Projects (talk)(FAQ)
WP 1.0 bot list (talk) — (stats)
Selection bot (talk) — test data
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.7 (t) (Nominations) (t) [You can help]
"Selection" project (Talk)
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project (Talk)
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

The goal of this group is to review articles nominated for one of the WP:1.0 releases, according to the appropriate criteria. If a reviewed article meets those criteria, it is then removed from the nominations list and added to the version article list, and the talk page template is updated accordingly. Active release versions are:

Version 0.7 (talk) — Nominations (talk) — List by quality — Statistics — Log

Nominations have now started for the next Release Version (dubbed V0.7) - please see Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/To_do and sign up where you can help. If you are new to reviewing, please take a look at the Reviewing FAQs.

[edit] Criteria

These criteria can be summarized as follows:

Importance

See Wikipedia:Release Version/Scope for more a detailed analysis. We may choose not to include even a featured article, if the topic is too specialized for the particular release. Importance is of course both subjective and relative - for our purposes the importance should be in terms of the whole of Wikipedia. In early releases we will focus on "Top-Class" subjects, but the scope will widen as the size of the release grows. The bot will judge importance based on four independent criteria.

Quality

An article on an important topic may be rejected if it is considered to be of poor quality. Articles are often assessed according to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme, and articles are usually expected to be A-Class or FA-Class for topics outside the core topics and vital articles lists.

[edit] Being a reviewer

The reviewer's job is to evaluate and process nominations. For version 0.5, the procedure for this is clearly laid out at the side of the nominations page. If you're interested in helping out, thank you for giving your time! You don't need to have a college degree, we just want you to be honest and objective, and also supportive of the overall project. If you want to review please add your name to the list below.

[edit] List of reviewers