Article feedback/Extended review

Several groups and organizations have created ad-hoc tools to create and store quality reviews of Wikipedia content.

The Open wiki review system aims to provide a standard, customizable framework for such organizations to conduct open quality review of Wikipedia content, and integrate the results through the Quality indicators API.

This system is primarily intended for Wikipedia.

System type

 * What form does the system take?

Recommendation:

Authentication

 * How does a credentialed reviewer authenticate?

Recommendation:

Review assignment

 * Who decides who will review what?

Recommendation:

Features recommended independently of the choice:
 * Personal queue for pending reviews

Review content

 * What is the content of the actual review?


 * As a reviewer, I am invited to edit the article myself to fix the errors I notice.
 * Criteria, metrics, scales, etc.
 * Free-form comments
 * Article feedback/UX Research

Recommendations:

Review publication and access

 * How is the review accessible?

Recommendation:

Features recommended independently of the choice:


 * As a reviewer, I can showcase a public list of the reviews I've made.
 * Rationale: Academics and professionals often consider that there is no professional benefit or reward to participate to Wikipedia.
 * As a reviewer, I must disclose if I have a conflict of interest with the article I'm reviewing. If I have one, I must explain what it is.
 * Conflicts of interest can be about the article itself (e.g. the reviewer has significantly edited the article) or the topic (e.g. the reviewer is a known critic of some of the points made)


 * As a review reader, I can view all the details of the review: name of the reviewer, affiliation, date of the review, revision reviewed, COI disclosed, full content of the review, reviewers who approved the review.


 * As a software developer, or a system administrator of a wiki, I can access the entirety of the reviews and their specifics using an API built into the OWRS.

To be considered

 * Comments on reviews
 * Restriction of reviewable articles (depending on category, selection by review coordinator, etc.)