User:Joopercoopers/Zen and the art of good reviewing

Reviewing the work of others requires tact, diplomacy, judgement and thought. These attributes are even more pertinent at GA/R because, in contrast to GAC, the principal editors of the article are usually unwilling participants. The goal of the review is to improve the article, but reviewers should make genuine attempts to elicit the willing participation of principle editors in the process. You may gain a better GA by being authoritarian and offhand but you risk losing the author of, potentially, more GAs in the future.

Equip yourself with the tools

1. Know the GA criteria.
2. Know core policy and be able to interpret it—it's rarely black and white and usually requires judgement.
3. Know how GA articles can be substandard in their application of general policy.
4. Ideally you'll have written a GA or two and gone through the promotion process yourself—empathy is your greatest asset.
5. Develop patience and wisdom. You may have to do a lot of reading before taking an article to GA/R—at the end of that effort it shouldn't be a foregone conclusion that you're taking the article to review because of the effort you've just put in—sometimes, you should just drop it.

Assessment

The following procedure is recommended:

1. Take your time to read the article thoroughly, more than once. It's just so embarrassing for reviewers to have the obvious pointed out by editors.
2. If the article has deficiencies that can be easily fixed, (MOS transgressions etc), fix them. Knowing a reviewer is prepared to help rather than judge is a great way to get an editor on side. It also established your moral right to a say in the article.
3. Watch out for toxic edit wars. Just because the talk page looks clean and tidy at the moment, doesn't mean there isn't evidence of editing Armageddon simmering in acid in the archive. You may need to tread carefully, so see if you can get some context or explanation why the article is a particular way.

Notification

1. Raise your concerns in the politest way you know how on the talk page of the article. Giving compliments about the bits you like helps balance this.
   1. Raising concerns requires pointing out specific deficiencies with the article, and providing examples so the editor doesn't have to guess which bits you have problems with. When you have done this read the article again and make sure your criticisms seem fair—is it possible you've misread or misunderstood something the first time around?
   2. Do not use templates. Reviewing needs to be editor and article specific, this is not a sausage factory. Personal contact is warmth. Impersonal passive voice edicts are almost guaranteed to ruffle feathers.
   3. Do not assert authority "By the power invested in me by the GA/R I'm here to tell you that unless your article shapes up, pre-tty sooooon, why I'm gonna......"
   4. Do not play teacher. Assume the editor knows more about the article and Wikipedia than you (It's unlikely, what with you being a snappy, shiny sparkly reviewer and all—but play the game). Ask questions and say please. "Congratulations (heading) A nice article! I spotted a few things that I think could do with tidying up and/or correcting. Not sure what you intended, may I note them here for you to handle? :...."
   5. Do not threaten editors with GA/R if they don't snap to it. A reviewer turning up and demanding immediate action means an editor has to divert his/her attention, time and resources (perhaps from his/her latest FA candidate) to deal with you. It may require him/her to revisit the library to review the print sources again. Respect his/her time and come to an arrangement, he/she might be doing something this weekend. Check that editors aren't on short wikibreaks, visiting their mother, dead or have a hot date with a supermodel—usually a quick read of the talk and user pages give clues to this.
2. If a week has gone by and there's still no productive improvement or response, give an outline of your remaining concerns, an acknowledgement that you can't fix them on your own (presumably because you don't have the knowledge or books) and say you'd like to get some more editors' opinions of your concerns at GA/R. Wait for a response. If you get a good response, work with the editor. If you're ignored, post to GA/R. If you're told to sod off, post to GA/R. If you're told you're in the way of the editor's plans for wikidomination, post to GA/R. At this point you've bent over backwards to such an extent that if the editor isn't working with you by now, he/she never will. A note of caution though—if you find this happens to you quite frequently, re-read this page, are you doing what it recommends? If it still seems to be happening, go to FAC—you're ready.

Effective GA/R management

1. Follow the procedure and post the GA/R
2. Give a thorough and detailed list of your concerns regarding the article. Raising concerns requires pointing out specific deficiencies with the article, and providing examples so the editor doesn't have to guess which bits you have problems with. When you have done this read the article again and make sure your criticisms seem fair—is it possible you've misread or misunderstood something the first time around? If this sounds like repetition.......
3. Do not be annoyed if you end up saying the same things all the time to different editors—this is part of your reviewer job—you need to make editors feel they are being listened to for the first time and respond with virginal sensitivity and not <rolls eyes—not again, when will you people learn>. You need to be patient.
4. Never give non-apology apologies, use sarcasm, say xyz 'must' be done, say you're just too busy to give a full and proper explanation, or generally behave like you've just inherited half of Africa from your Uncle.
5. Unspecific, inarticulate and sloppy prose is not a good way to engender the trust of editors that you know what you are talking about.
6. Marshal the other contributors—if someone isn't being polite to our precious 'cut glass' editors, step in and stop it, you're the nominator, have order in your court.
7. Do not remind angry established editors of the No personal attacks policy, they will often already be aware of it. They also might know case law and have a significantly more nuanced interpretation of NPA in relation to 'frank and open debate' than you do.
8. If you ever feel it's unfair that editors can huff and puff all they like and yet you have to remain a paragon of virtue—stop doing GA/R—you're held to a higher standard of behaviour, wear it with pride.
9. It isn't the editors' fault they're sensitive—you've just called their work a big steaming pile, and it has to go through a special procedure to see if other people think so too. You need to find endlessly inventive ways to make this experience more pleasant for them. Accentuate the positive. Smile benevolently and serenely at all times whilst writing, and as a principle, try and avoid GA/R and sort it out on the talk page of the article.