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 (OWRS) 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
Recommendation:

Authentication
Recommendation:


 * As a reviewer, I can log in to the review system using my usual credentials for the organization I'm affiliated with.


 * Note: this requires more research to determine which systems are the most used across the expected target organizations. It will require connectors to authentication systems like institutional OpenID, Shibboleth, LDAP, etc.

Review assignment
Recommendation:

Common requirements:
 * As a reviewer, I have a queue of requested reviews.
 * As a reviewer, I can accept and decline requests for reviews. If I accept, it is assigned to me. If I decline, I must provide a reason why, and it remains unassigned. An article can be assigned to multiple reviewers.
 * As a reviewer, I can receive notifications when a new review is requested from me.
 * As a reviewer, I can volunteer to review an article (even if it's already assigned).
 * As a reviewer, I can receive periodic reminder notifications about requested reviews assigned to me.
 * As a reviewer, I can sign off on (i.e. "agree with") another reviewer's review.

Self-managed model:
 * As a reviewer, I can request a review from another reviewer, and attach a message to the request.
 * As a reviewer, I can suggest that a review that was requested from me be transfered to another reviewer. This is the same as manually declining and requesting a review.

Coordinated model:
 * As a review coordinator, I can assign requests for reviews to reviewers.
 * As a review coordinator, I can accept or decline a voluntary review, or a proposed transfer.

Review content

 * 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

 * 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.)