The spoken article review is a process designed to provide helpful, objective feedback about recording and production quality to producers of Wikipedia spoken articles. It is also intended as a way of maintaining a minimum standard of quality for spoken articles, in order that they align with, and support, the encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia.
A list organized by subject-area can be found at
Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
The assessment covers three areas:
Listen to the recording in full and rate the perceived quality in each area as low, medium or high. See the rating criteria below. A rating of low in one or more areas will require the spoken recording to be unlinked from its parent text article until the problem is resolved. The user who produced the article should be notified of the problem in a clear and friendly manner and given appropriate opportunity and assistance to resolve it.
Each spoken article should be judged objectively and purely on its technical merit. Try to avoid letting subjective impressions, such as your personal reaction to the subject matter of the article, influence your judgment when making an assessment.
When you have started reviewing an article, consider adding a line to the table of articles under review to prevent duplication of effort.
Place the following template on the spoken article file talk page and fill it in with the results of the assessment:
==Spoken article quality assessment== {{Spoken article review |version= (pull link from media file and paste it with [-------]) |technical= |clarity= |accuracy= |notes= |reviewer=[[user:username|username]] }} ~~~~
As the review process is still under development, minor changes may be made to these criteria from time to time.
If the originator of the recording hasn't provided a link to the historical version of the article that the recording is based on, make a polite request on the user's talk page, and give the user a reasonable period of time to respond; if, after this time, the user still hasn't provided the link, the recording can't be assessed for accuracy and should be given a default rating of "Low"
The spoken article review is a process designed to provide helpful, objective feedback about recording and production quality to producers of Wikipedia spoken articles. It is also intended as a way of maintaining a minimum standard of quality for spoken articles, in order that they align with, and support, the encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia.
A list organized by subject-area can be found at
Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
The assessment covers three areas:
Listen to the recording in full and rate the perceived quality in each area as low, medium or high. See the rating criteria below. A rating of low in one or more areas will require the spoken recording to be unlinked from its parent text article until the problem is resolved. The user who produced the article should be notified of the problem in a clear and friendly manner and given appropriate opportunity and assistance to resolve it.
Each spoken article should be judged objectively and purely on its technical merit. Try to avoid letting subjective impressions, such as your personal reaction to the subject matter of the article, influence your judgment when making an assessment.
When you have started reviewing an article, consider adding a line to the table of articles under review to prevent duplication of effort.
Place the following template on the spoken article file talk page and fill it in with the results of the assessment:
==Spoken article quality assessment== {{Spoken article review |version= (pull link from media file and paste it with [-------]) |technical= |clarity= |accuracy= |notes= |reviewer=[[user:username|username]] }} ~~~~
As the review process is still under development, minor changes may be made to these criteria from time to time.
If the originator of the recording hasn't provided a link to the historical version of the article that the recording is based on, make a polite request on the user's talk page, and give the user a reasonable period of time to respond; if, after this time, the user still hasn't provided the link, the recording can't be assessed for accuracy and should be given a default rating of "Low"