MarioWiki:PAIR

Panel for Article Improvement & Recognition

As part of the renewed FA process, no random article can be picked as a nomination. It must be accepted by part of a panel of reviewers (experienced writers) who will judge the article based on its depth, factual correctness, and more. Preferably, users wanting a specific article to be featured will continually ask this panel for reviews to see their progress.

Panel Members
Members need to be:
 * dedicated to this work & active
 * experienced and successful writers
 * will respond to request for review, from Category:Review Requested asap


 * 1) Gofer
 * 1) Gofer

Process
This is the new stage, 1/2, of getting an article to FA status. The other stage is the nomination itself.

Example: A user or group of users have extensive knowledge of a certain subject in the Marioverse (i.e. Game/Character) and want to improve the article to FA status.
 * 1) User(s) ask two reviewers for scores using, judging article on accuracy (facts), depth (details), grammar, images (# and quality), and formatting (organized) on a scale from 0-4 in .5 increments, on the talk page of the article. They should use for efficiency. A final rating out of 20 is given by adding the individual ratings. Reviewers in the comments give suggestions for improvement, or what they disliked.
 * 2) Article is worked on for one week, then same two reviewers review it again. If there are no changes after a week, the users have to seek the reviewers when they are ready for another review session, but they must wait at least one week, even if they are ready (preferably, there's always something to improve)
 * 3) Review must be justified by users working on article and by other reviewer as reasonable to be considered official.
 * 4) Steps 1-3 repeat, with the same two reviewers, until both reviewers score an 18 or above out of 20. If just one of the reviewers scores above 18, the users may then ask the other reviewer to review again at soon as the next day, when they are ready.
 * 5) Once the qualification is met in Step 4, the article may be nominated, with a link to the talk page for reference. The old system takes over, but with more insurance of a strong article worthy of featured article status.
 * 6) If a reviewer wants to improve an article him/herself, s/he cannot review that article.

''In the end, it is up to the users who want an article to be the best it can be and the reviewers to help them. They must work together to achieve the goal, otherwise the whole revised system approved in Proposals will fall like Peer Reviews. First up, past FAs and current nominations should be reviewed asap, to see if they still hold up the quality they were established with long ago. 21:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)''