Difference between revisions of "Help:Page validation"

Revision as of 12:21, 9 August 2012

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 Case Study or section 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 Key Questions and case analysis/synthesis.

If you want to view additional versions of a given page (older or newer) that are not considered to be "stable," 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.

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

Sections need more information/expansion

This page contains 1 or more sections that lack detail and need improvement! Please consider adding to it. Check the discussion page to see comments about the work requested.

Disputed content

There is a dispute that the content of this page is not accurate. Check the discussion page to see comments about the work requested. Consider improving it.

Needs to be better connected to AquaPedia resources ("wikified")

This page required additional internal links to other AquaPedia cases or pages. Consider improving it or other "wikification" tasks Check the disscussion page to see comments about the work requested.

Lacks References

This page could use the addition of additional references and citations. Consider improving it. Check the discussion page to see comments about the work requested.

Lacking appropriate range of viewpoints

This case may only have a limited viewpoint represented. Consider improving it by adding additional Analysis/Synthesis/Insights or adding more details to the case. Check the discussion page to see comments about the work requested.

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. It is that simple!