Article feedback/Version 5/Testing

Welcome to our testing page for the Article Feedback v5 project!

The WMF Editor Engagement team has been updating this tool in recent weeks, improving both the the user experience and back-end architecture, in preparation for upcoming deployments of AFTv5 to English, French and German Wikipedias.

This page links to the new version that was just deployed on the English, French and German Wikipedias. The links below are for the English Wikipedia version. To test some of the new features that have not yet been deployed on the main production wikis, check out this prototype testing page.

We'd love it if you could help us test this beta software, as outlined below. We welcome any bug reports, issues or suggestions from community members. Once you've tested AFT5, please share your feedback on this discussion page or report bugs on Bugzilla.

See also: project overview page, feature requirements page, research.

How can I test this tool?
Here are three articles we recommend you test on the English Wikipedia:

• Golden-crowned Sparrow (feedback page) This is a low-traffic, uncontroversial article with ~392 posts as of this writing (used frequently for testing).

• Higgs boson (feedback page) This is a medium-traffic, uncontroversial article with ~799 comments as of this writing.

• Barack Obama (feedback page) This is a high-traffic, controversial article with ~1,720 comments as of this writing. (Note that controversial, semi-protected articles like these get less useful feedback than others).

Some of the features below can be tested by anonymous users, but many of the moderation tools and advanced filters require an auto-confirmed editor account.

Which features can I test?




We are now testing a set of new features, which we developed to reduce the editor workload through a variety of ways (e.g.: by providing simpler moderation tools, better filters or surfacing useful feedback).

Here's a brief overview of new features you can help us test, with links to their requirements:

• Better feedback filters: surface good feedback, hide useless comments. To test this feature, go to any feedback page above, then compare 'Featured' and 'Unreviewed' tabs. The 'featured' tab should appear by default and only list posts marked as 'useful' or 'helpful' by moderators. The 'unreviewed' tab lists all posts that have not yet been moderated. These separate filters surface the best feedback in the default view, and make it harder for a casual user to see feedback that has not yet been moderated. If you are an editor, click on 'More filters' and check out the different filters (such as 'resolved', 'no action needed' or 'inappropriate').

• Simpler moderation tools for editors: moderating feedback is now easier and faster. To test this feature, please log in first, as editor rights are required to moderate. Click on the 'unreviewed' tab to try moderating feedback that has not yet been reviewed. This will show you the moderation tools on the right, which make it very easy to mark comments as 'useful', 'resolved', 'no action needed' or 'inappropriate', with only one click. To make moderation faster, you are no longer required to add a note for each moderation (but can do so by clicking on 'Add note'). If you change your mind, simply click 'Undo', then select an other moderation tool. Moderated feedback is then moved into the appropriate queue, which editors can view under 'More filters'.

• Separate reader moderation tools: encourages readers to moderate with their own tools. To test this feature, please log out, which will show you the reader moderation tools (mark as helpful/unhelpful, flag as abuse) below each feedback post. These reader tools are now only shown to anonymous users (and new editors). We have removed these reader tools for editors, to simplify their choices, so they only have to focus on their editor moderation tools on the right.

• Discuss on talk page: share useful feedback with editors on talk page. This feature makes it easy to promote a feedback post to the article talk page, so that editors can discuss it in the same place where they already have conversations about article improvements. To test this feature, click on the 'Discuss on talk page' link for any feedback post that has been marked as useful (it's in the moderation tool panel on the right of the feedback page). For feedback that is not deemed useful, we provide another tool, 'Contact this user', linking to the user page of the reader who posted the comment. This feature is intended as the first step towards a tighter talk page integration that could be continued in future releases.

• Satisfaction rating: show percent of users who found this article useful. To test this feature, count the number of happy and sad faces on the feedback page, then compare them to the overall rating shown at the top of that page. After logging in as an editor, click on 'More filters' to see posts marked as 'no action needed' and 'resolved', which are included in this satisfaction rating, along with 'useful' and 'unreviewed' posts (note that inappropriate comments are not included in this calculation). This feature helps give a sense of overall reader satisfaction with this article. While this is not necessarily an indicator of quality, it can help estimate if readers are generally finding what they were looking for.

Coming soon: Once these features have been fully tested on production sites such as the English, French and German Wikipedias, we plan to introduce a couple more features, such as: • Feedback link on articles: shows up if there is useful feedback for your article. • Auto-archive comments: remove comments that are not moderated after a while.

How can I report issues?
If you have any general issues, questions or suggestions about this release of Article Feedback, you are welcome to post a comment on on this discussion page. We will respond as soon as we can.

To report a bug, please post it here on Bugzilla. This link will automatically fill in these fields for you:
 * Product: MediaWiki extensions
 * Component: 'ArticleFeedbackv5'

When reporting a bug, please provide this information:
 * What is the problem you experienced?
 * What steps can we take to reproduce this bug?
 * What did you think would happen?


 * Hardware: What type of computer are you using?
 * OS: Your computer's operating system.
 * Web Browser: Your browser name and version
 * URL: Add a URL for the page where your bug can be found.
 * Attachment: Include a screenshot (if it helps show your bug visually).

To learn more about Article Feedback, watch this video tour, visit this Article Feedback v5 portal on the English Wikipedia. More information about this project can also be found on our project hub or the feature requirements page.

If you have any questions about this tool, we invite you to post them on the Article feedback talkpage.

Enjoy ...