Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Service/Peer review
This page is set aside for peer review requests made to the Wikiproject Fire Service. The primary objective of a peer review is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.
The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.
All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of WikiProject Fire Service. When articles are tagged for peer review, they are placed in this category, and when the review is completed and they can be found in this category.
Instructions[edit]
To create a request, add the article to the Article list below by copying in the following:
#[[Article Name]]
#* ~~~~
#* ''Reason for Request''
Article list[edit]
- New York City Fire Department
- Daysleeper47 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article continues to need improvement and I would hope that all WP:FD editors would take a look at it, add sources and improve the overall quality. This could be our flagship article!
- Helitack
- Pleasure Ridge Park Fire Protection District
- Cskcsk (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Help with how to possibly improve and get ratings
- Added 2 categories to this page Drake Dawson (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Instructions for reviewers[edit]
If you are choosing to review an article listed above, it is suggested that the following criteria form a basis of your review.
1. It is well written. In this respect:
- (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
- (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
- (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;
- (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
- (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
- (b) the citation of its sources using an accepted form of inline citation is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page);
- (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
- (d) it contains no elements of original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
- (a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
- (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
- (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
- (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
- (a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
- (b) any non-free images have a fair use rationale
Once you have reviewed an article, and you are sure the person asking for the review is happy, please change the tag on the talk page of the article in question to: