This page details step-by-step instructions on how reviewing is done. For rules of reviewing, see WP:DYKRR.

Within the context of DYK, reviewing refers specifically to the process by which a nominated hook and the associated article(s) are evaluated, improved, and eventually either rejected as irreparably unusable or approved. This page is intended as a guide to aid editors in the reviewing process.

Nominations are listed at Template talk:Did you know. On that page, the nominations are generally arranged in chronological order, with the oldest nominations at the top of the page. It's a good idea to focus on reviewing older nominations that haven't received any attention yet.

For your first several reviews, you may want to exercise extra caution. Consider reviewing in topics with which you are familiar. Consider reviewing articles that have sources in your primary language(s). When you leave your review, add a comment explaining that you are a new reviewer and would like a second opinion.

To qualify for DYK, an article needs to meet several special criteria, in addition to being checked for normal encyclopedic issues. You must check ...

1. ... that each boldlinked article is new enough.
2. ... that each boldlinked article is long enough. The DYKcheck tool is helpful in evaluating these first two, or if you want to figure it out yourself, detailed instructions are here.
3. ... that each boldlinked article is well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free.
   1. The Earwig tool can be helpful for detecting direct plagiarism, but it will not catch close paraphrasing and only checks certain types of sources; manual spot-checks should also be carried out.
   2. If the article is entirely or substantially sourced to offline, foreign-language or paywalled sources, verify the basic facts, or at the very least, the existence of the article subject.
4. ... that each boldlinked article is presentable.
5. ... that the hook is cited to a reliable source.
6. ... that the hook is interesting.
7. ... that any images are freely licensed, clear at a diminished size, and used in the article.
8. ... that each QPQ has been done, where necessary.
   1. Nominations between 8 March 2024 and 12 April 2024 (inclusive) were made during backlog mode, where editors who had nominated twenty or more articles are required to provide an extra QPQ for every new nomination.
9. ... that there are no other, more subjective issues.

Type your review in the section for that nomination – this can either be done manually, or with the {{ DYK checklist}} or similar template.

If you are typing in your review manually, you should begin your review with one of the six review icons. This allows the nominator and other editors to more quickly understand your review decision, including the severity of any problems. It is also used by the bot to keep the tally of how many hooks have been passed. After posting the icon, indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

{{ subst:DYK?}} Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

Be sure to give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have, since several other editors may comment on the nomination before you return.

Symbol	Code	Status	Description
	{{ subst:DYKtick}} {{ subst:DYKyes}}	Approved	No problems, ready for DYK
	{{ subst:DYKtickAGF}}	Approved	Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline or paywalled hook reference accepted in good faith
	{{ subst:DYK?}}	Query	DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{ subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
	{{ subst:DYK?no}}	Maybe	DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{ subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
	{{ subst:DYKno}}	Rejected	Article is either completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible. Notify nominator with {{ subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
	{{ subst:DYK?again}}	New review	Requesting a second opinion or fresh review

If the outcome of your review is anything other than an approval ( or ), please consider notifying the article nominator(s); you can do this with a personal message on their talk page or by placing {{ subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} there, replacing Article with the title of the nominated article. This will automatically create a new talk page section and will automatically append your signature, so there is no need to do either of those.

An article cannot be officially promoted until a reviewer has given their approval ( or ) to at least one of the article's hooks. Nominators are encouraged to work with reviewers to come up with hooks that meet the standards of the DYK process, and new alternate hooks can be proposed by anyone (nominator, reviewer, other third party) in an effort to produce at least one viable hook. Once a reviewer has conducted a thorough review of the nomination and given their approval by placing the requisite symbol on the discussion page along with a statement indicating which hooks are ready, and if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessment, an uninvolved editor will soon review the discussion and likely close it and promote the article.