User:K6ka/drafts/sims/Forum:Article Peer Review Project

This proposal has been in the back of my mind for a long time. I particularly want this project to be created ever since the lack of featured quality on the wiki and the start of the Fanon Peer Review Team. The goal of this "Article Peer Review Project" is to evaluate mainspace articles and determine their quality and eligibility for being featured.

Here's how it works:


 * 1) The goal of this project is to evaluate articles, give them a rating based on their quality, and then suggest ways for the article to be improved.
 * 2) Article quality is based on the following things:
 * 3) *Are there typos/grammatical errors in the article? (Is it well written enough for a Grammar Nazi to remain quiet?)
 * 4) *Is the article informative? Does the reader gain significant knowledge out of reading the article?
 * 5) *Is it well written? Is the style of prose engaging and of a professional standard? (No fancruft, bias, or any of that crap)
 * 6) *Is it well organized? (i.e. Lead, hierarchical body, footnotes/navboxes, etc.)
 * 7) *Does it have media of good quality? (e.g. Images, videos, audio)
 * 8) *Is the article of appropriate length and coverage? (stays on topic, doesn't go into irrelevant detail)
 * 9) *Does the community accept the article? (i.e. There are no talks of deleting or merging it into another article)
 * 10) The reviewer then gives the article a rating:
 * 11) *Excellent - The article has no pressing issues, is well written, and is informative for the reader.
 * 12) *Good - The article has some minor issues, but is otherwise well written and still very informative.
 * 13) *Fair - The article has several issues, could use some improvement when it comes to prose, and is still informative.
 * 14) *Poor - The article has many issues and may require copy-editing and possibly a rewrite.
 * 15) *Needs improvement - The article has many issues and may need to be completely rewritten.
 * 16) *Stub - The article should be tagged with a stub template. Stubs should contain enough information for the reader to get a small idea of the subject and enough for other editors to pitch in and improve the article.
 * 17) *List - The article is in the format of a list. There's no standard criterion for lists, but they should generally be well organized and tidy.
 * 18) The rating should be added to the talk page, in a template just below the talkheader but above everything else. The reviewer should sign their signature on the template.

Only excellent and good articles may be nominated for featured article status.

You can also use automated tools or a set defined of rules to put some weight in grading an article (though they should not be entirely based on said rating). You can use the Hemingway App or this readability test to evaluate articles.