« Modèle:Révision par des pairs » : différence entre les versions
[version non vérifiée] | [version non vérifiée] |
m Image namespace -> File namespace |
m Changed protection level for "Template:Peer reviewed": this is used on thousands of talk pages, should be full-protected, no reason to be edited anyways ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)) |
||
(Aucune différence)
|
Version du 19 mai 2009 à 14:48
Description
This template is used to advertise on an article's talk page the status of it being reviewed. It is designed to be simple to use, yet informative.
Use
{{peer reviewed
|revid=Revision ID
|copyright=Status
|newsworthy=Status
|verifiable=Status
|npov=Status
|style=Status
|reviewer=Your Username
|comments=Any Comments, ~~~~
|time=~~~~~}}
Revision ID is the number of the revision that has been reviewed. This is obtained from the History page of an article — it is the number after "oldid" in the current revision.
Status is pass for a passed section, or comments for a failed section.
- Copyright: The reviewer should check that the text and images are not copyright infringement.
- Newsworthiness: The reviewer should check that the article agrees with our content guide and is newsworthy.
- Verifiability: The reviewer should check that all information in the article is fully sourced, (using multiple independent sources is strongly encouraged) or has adequate Original Reporting notes.
- Neutral Point of View: The reviewer should check that all information in the article is written in a neutral and unbiased manner, with no editorial commentary/advocacy or unsourced opinion.
- Style: The reviewer should check that all information in the article complies with our style guide (on dateline, grammar and spelling, "inverted pyramid" structure, tone, wikilinks, categories, headline... etc.)
Examples
A Passed article would look like:
{{peer reviewed|revid=12345|copyright=pass|newsworthy=pass|verifiable=pass|npov=pass|style=pass|reviewer=Skenmy|comments=A very good article! --~~~~|time=~~~~~}}
A Failed article would look like:
{{peer reviewed|revid=12344|copyright=pass|newsworthy=pass|verifiable=Many claims are not backed up by sources|npov=Appears to be biased|style=pass|reviewer=Skenmy|comments=Otherwise a very good article. --~~~~|time=~~~~~}}