Edit Help: Help:Page validation

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.

Warning: This page already exists, but it does not use this form.

Category:

what are the most useful categories for this help article?

Using AquaPedia Reading and Researching Editing Articles Adding New Content User Interaction Other Help Topics

Enter the article content below. Help articles should be focused and short. Please link or transclude other help articles where relevant. Provide examples or screenshots where helpful.

AquaPedia uses a software extension for allowing editors to monitor changes that are made to pages, and thus control more carefully the content that is displayed to readers. Editors and reviewers will read newly added pages and page updates, and then indicated that the pages have been reviewed.  If a given [[Help:Case Study | Case Study]] or [[Help:Background Article | Background Article]] has been previously approved, the default view of that page is considered "stable" which means that it has been checked by an editor. These checks include: spot checking references, reading for glaring factual errors, and also reading to make sure that factual content is presented from a neutral point a view (POV), and particularly nuanced POVs appear only in [[Help: Key Questions| Key Questions]] and [[Help:Case Analysis and Synthesis |  case analysis/synthesis]].
 
If you want to view additional versions of a given page (older or newer) that are not considered to be "stable" or "quality" you may use the "History" tab located at the upper right of the page content area.

When editors and administrators review a new case study or section, they may approve it even if it is not comprehensive. The most stable version expreses the version of the page that is considered to be the most ''complete to date'' version that has been read by an editor or administrator and could be considered valuable to an AquaPedia reader. Newer unapproved revisions may not have been read, or editors may be unsure if they improve upon the previous versions of a case. Always check a case discussion page to see if there are conversations about the page.

=Revision/Version Review Ratings=
Unchecked — http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/whitelist/1.png — marks versions of pages that have not yet been reviewed by an AquaPedia Editor

Stable — http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/whitelist/2.png — marks versions of pages that have been read and checked by an Editor, but the case or article could be improved. Case Review flags and discussion pages should document revision reviews.

Quality — http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/whitelist/3.png — marks versions of pages that are very detailed, and contain enough information to be considered complete and up to date at the time of review. These cases may be built upon further, but are considered to contain high quality and detail in terms of information, a strong bibliography, multiple points of view, and comprehensive linked resources.

==Guidance for Editors and Contributors on Revision Review Ratings==

Editors and Administrators can rate revisions when approving them. Each case/article revision has three categories, and there are multiple rating levels within these categories.

*'''Accuracy''' — How accurately does this case/article represent the facts? are the sources cited being used appropriately? how reputable are the sources?
**Full Check Not Performed
**Many Inaccuracies - references not used properly or missing entirely, inappropriate sources used for potentially contentious or disputed information, several factual mistakes are apparent
**Acceptable - references used appropriately, sources appear to be quality sources, may lack citations in some areas or require additional fact checking for minor details.
**Well-sourced - high quality, references are complete, most references are considered to be high quality
**Best Possible - very high quality, on par with a refereed journal or textbook.

*'''Depth''' — how detailed is the case/article? does it provide an appropriate level of depth for the topics discussed? does it require additional topics to be discussed?
**Sparse Detail — case/article is incomplete, case/article contains only some basic information
**Moderate Detail — case/article is not complete, but contains enough information to be a useful resource
**Very Detailed — case/article is either approaching completeness across a broad range of information or contains detailed information on limited aspects
**Best Possible — case/article contains detail on a broad range of required topics, the depth of the case/article present would be sufficient for inclusion in a refereed journal or textbook.

*'''Readability''' — How is the grammar/style/punctuation in the case/article? Does the case/article need additional copyediting and proofreading? Would the case/article benefit from a skilled user providing formatting help?
**Very Low — poor grammar/style/punctuation that may effect the reading experience and interpretation of information
**Acceptable — case/article may have minor issues in grammar/style/punctuation or spelling that do not significantly impact readability. Sub-sections may or may not be well organized from a reading perspective
**Good — case/article may have minor issues in grammar/style/punctuation or spelling that do not impact readability and the organization of sub-sections allow for easy reading/scanning for information
**Well-Written — case/article does not have issues with grammar, style, punctuation or spelling. Case is well organized and easily read/scanned. Good incorporation of images/figures/tables and additional sidebars.
**Best Possible  — case/article reads like a professionally edited document. Layout/organizations of sub-sections is professional and clear.

=Case/Article Review Warnings and "Flags" =

Editors and confirmed users can use the "case review" or "page review" feature within the editing tabs for any case study or article. There are checkboxes that these users can select if they feel that general readers and potential contributors should be informed of room for improvement in a case.

If the box appears only as a square icon, you can click on each box and have the alert expand to its full size. These alerts will appear at the top of the article or case study that has been reviewed.

'''Examples'''

<div style="clear:both;">
''Sections need more information/expansion''
<br />
{{Mediawiki:Expand Section}}
</div>

<div style="clear:both;">
''Disputed content''
<br />
{{Mediawiki:Disputed}}
</div>

<div style="clear:both;">
''Needs to be better connected to AquaPedia resources ("wikified")''<br />
{{MediaWiki:Wikify}}
</div>

<div style="clear:both;">
''Lacks References''<br />
{{Mediawiki:Add References}}
</div>

<div style="clear:both;">
''Lacking appropriate range of viewpoints''<br/>
{{Mediawiki:MPOV}}
</div>

=For Editors and Confirmed Users =

If you read a section or case that is not fully complete, accurate, or has other issues, please use the case/page review feature to mark these issues. It is very helpful to open a discussion thread on the case/article discussion page to explain the problem, suggest how it might be fixed, and seek feedback or assistance from others on improving the case.

If you fix the problem, uncheck the boxes on the case review tab in the case editing tabs and save the case. Re-review the current revision and only update review values if your changes represent truly significant improvements.

Provide a summary of the type/purpose of updates you have made. This summary is displayed on the "History" tab for the page and is not part of the page as it is viewed:

This is a minor edit Watch this page

Cancel

Edit Help: Help:Page validation

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Explore

Learn More

Advanced