 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
 | Factual review — (discussion) (reviews list) (participants list) (FAQ) |
Factual review is a general venue where editors can seek input from other community members on the factual accuracy (correctness of claims and adequacy of coverage) of articles. All editors are invited to initiate reviews on well-written articles, and all community members are invited to participate on these reviews provided they do so in a constructive manner. If you wish to check articles for technical accuracy, please use peer review instead, and if you wish to discuss an aspect of factual review itself, please do so on the discussion page.
"Factual accuracy" refers to the accuracy of what is written; "technical accuracy" refers to the accuracy of how it is written.
If you are a constructive participant on factual review, please add your name to the participants list along with your main interests. (In the future this list may be used to contact editors on a regular basis with notifications of collaborations, but editors will always have the choice to opt out of such communications if and when they are implemented.)
Factual review aims to provide a productive environment for the verification of the factual accuracy of articles; in order to help achieve this, it implements a classification system which divides articles for review into different categories so that editors may focus on providing feedback on articles that fall into their own body of knowledge. Editors who have an interest in certain classifications are encouraged to watchlist the classifications and/or add the pages to their browser's bookmarks/favourites list.
Current classifications (please get consensus on the discussion page if you believe that a classification should be added or removed) are:
- arts;
- economy and business;
- humanities;
- people and places;
- science;
- technology and computing; and
- miscellaneous.
Note: There is a potential for sub-classifications and even sub-sub-classifications if necessary, but these will not be implemented until there is enough participation in factual review to justify doing so.
In addition, factual reviews are carried out per-section-per-article instead of simply per-article. Put another way, this means that editors may assign themselves to factually review and provide feedback on certain sections in articles nominated for factual review. This allows editors to even more closely match themselves to areas of knowledge that they are suited to. Of course, more than one editor can factually review one section; but a factual review may not be closed unless (a) it will provide no useful feedback, or (b) all sections of the article being reviewed, including the summary, have been reviewed and adequate commentary has been produced for all of them.