Help talk:Extension:Translate/Quality assurance

Review comments
--siebrand 14:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has no outbound links, and no screenshots. That feels a little under documented somehow.
 * Both message documentation and review can do with a screenshot. Next to that, message group workflow states are also part of QA.
 * Workflow states are mentioned, but review has its own heading, where states do not. Maybe reword the heading?
 * I think that the problem here is that this page should describe how to use the extension's tools for quality assurance, while some (or most) of the current content should be in Translation best practices. This page should IMHO be mainly directed at translators, to fully explain them how to use the review tasks to improve the translations and do the other things they're mentioned for in other documentation pages. It shouldn't be a tutorial because there are many different things one can want to do (perhaps the page should be organized by objectives rather than tools?) and some information will serve also/only for translation managers. Nemo 00:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved out what I felt less relevant and I've significantly expanded the rest. I've added to the general information previously present some more details about what users see (not describing everything: mainly what's not obviously seen), what I consider the two main use cases and the section requested by Siebrand above on worflows, to explain the interaction. Nemo 16:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are my comments from an ordinary user's eyes: --Whym 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's better to separate how-to-use type of explanations and what-you-can-do type of things clearly. I felt this document is a mixture of explanations of how to use the review tool what we want to do to assure quality.  Some readers might want to get the first quickly.
 * Clearly say we (newly) allow the user to perform an action 'accept' in addition to edit a translation.
 * Missing a top-level summary that lets you know what problems you can solve with this tool. It shold be somewhere close to the  beginning. I think it's worth mention in the beginning that with the tool you can quickly go through a lot of messages, check the quality and share the results with others, and it will ultimately allows you to quickly find and beat bad translations.

Add section on how to make other users translation reviewers
Can you add a section explaining who can give translation review status and how? Lloffiwr 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is indeed a bit of a mess, as noted above, but I don't understand how this fits here. Do you mean something like Help:Assigning permissions? Perhaps we should just improve it, but do people really have problems understanding Special:Userrights? For wiki-specific things, on TWN I've just expanded translatewiki:Project:Translation reviewers, is this what you mean? Nemo 18:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More reviewers than translators?
I think there could be two types of using reviewers. One is a mass review approach, which is to attract as many reviews as possible and use the collective result as an indicator of quality. The other is to select well-trained translators and trust them to evaluate translations. Am I correct in that we are taking the first approach? And if so, would we want to recruit more reviewers than translators? Reviewing could be an easier task because they are only required to have reading and decision skills and not required to write. As a seemingly successful example, in Twitter Translation Center it can be seen that almost all people make many approvals and less translations, indicating that there are more 'reviewers' than 'translators'. --Whym 11:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? It's certainly not the Twitter approach, because there's no "approval voting" among multiple choices (that wouldn't even be a wiki). The criteria for translation review right can vary: on TWN they tend towards high quality but are still being defined, while on Meta all users have review rights probably because there are more translations to review and update more quickly (especially for fundraising). Nemo 12:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking 'we' as all installers of the extension, and wondering if this feature is designed for only one of the two uses. If I understand it correctly, both situation can be covered and it's just a matter of to whom you assign the right of reviewers. --Whym 12:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot review something you don't understand. If you recruit people just to click a button you get a beauty contest, not necessarily based on the technical merits. It's also prone to abuse, like has happened for example in Facebook. In the end it depends on how do you configure and distribute the review rights. – Nikerabbit 12:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Users (translators) can edit their translation ; translation; comment
In the translation original to these sentences, it's better mentioned that users can edit their own translation, while they can't review their own work but others'. --Omotecho (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC) URL added. —Omotecho (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's unclear in "Users can only review translations they haven't made themselves"? –Nikerabbit (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Of course we will not review our own translation, however, I would suggest adding a phrase such as 'you can edit your translation...' helps when we open Review page and wish to correct/edit our own translation. Do you think it outfocuses the main objective in that paragraph?  --Omotecho (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Feel free to add it. Someone will improve or remove it if they see fit. This is a collaborative documentation after all. –Nikerabbit (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A wrong internal link to Special page; translation
The link needs to be replaced in this message, it is supposed to direct to proofreading page/sample. Presently, it links to translation extension. --Omotecho (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would rather remove the link. There is no sample page to link to. –Nikerabbit (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. --Omotecho (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the link. – Nikerabbit (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)