Template:Peer reviewed

Template documentation

This documentation is transcluded from Template:Peer reviewed/doc. (edit | history)
This template has a sandbox (edit) for editors to experiment.

See WN:REV for information on the relevant policy.

update use count

Description

This template is used to advertise on an article's talk page the result of a review. It is designed to be simple to use, yet informative.

Please consider returning an article to {{develop}}ment with a comment on additional work needed prior to review, and notifying the original contributor, if you do not go through all the steps of the review process. A copy of the develop template with any parameters will display in red, and should ideally be placed at the top of the article to draw attention to it.

Using the Review Assistant Gadgets

First of all, make sure you are a reviewer, or this won't work. Also make sure you are on a page that is currently up for review (has {{review}} on it). You will also need to have javascript enabled for this to work (which you probably already have).

Finding the Review Tab

To start, you have to find the Review tab. The location of the review tab depends on your skin:

• Vector 2022: The tab appears in the Tools sidebar.
• Vector (legacy): The tab appears in the More menu.

You will see two review options:

• Review — launches the legacy Easy Peer Review gadget.
• Review (EzPR 2025) — launches the latest (2025) version of the gadget.

Legacy Easy Peer Review

After clicking the Review tab, a form will pop up (see this image for an example). Fill out the form and hit Submit; the gadget will handle the rest. For guidance on completing the form, see Help:EasyPeerReview. If that doesn't work, it means the gadget did not load properly, in which case, notify user:Bawolff.

Easy Peer Review 2025 (Latest Version)

After clicking the Review (EzPR 2025) tab, a form-based interface will appear. The form contains two collapsible sections (click each section title to expand it):

• Review Details and Tools — displays basic information about the article, along with various analysis tools.
• Review Criteria — lists the five review criteria, each of which can be marked as Pass, Not Ready, or Exception.

Once you have reviewed the article, write your peer review comment and click Submit.

Additional Features in EzPR 2025

This version includes several advanced features:

• Save a partial review and return to it later
• Collaborative review support
• Sentence-level issue marking
• Automatic user notifications
• Integrated tools to analyse articles and check for copyright violations
• Ability to mark criteria as "exception"
• Post-publication changes review
• Integrated Lead Manager to auto-update all five leads in sequence
• QuickData tool to create a Wikidata item upon article publication

For full documentation, see WN:EzPR 2025.

Use [manual]

It's highly recommended that you use the EasyPeerReview method above instead.
{{peer reviewed
|revid=Revision ID
|copyright=Status
|newsworthy=Status
|verifiable=Status
|npov=Status
|style=Status
|reviewer=Your Username
|comments=Any Comments, ~~~~
|time=~~~~~}}

• Revision ID is the number of the revision that has been reviewed. This is obtained from the History page of an article — it is the number after "oldid" in the current revision in the URL.
• Status is pass for a passed section, n/a for not reviewed, or comments for a failed section.

Note: After placing this on the talk page, you must still remove {{review}} from the article, add {{publish}}, and create the opinion page with {{subst:Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events/body}}. Using Easy Peer Review avoids all these additional steps.

Checklist

When reviewing an article, you should check the following:

• Copyright: The reviewer should check that the text and images are not copyright infringement.
• Newsworthiness: The reviewer should check that the article agrees with our content guide and is newsworthy.
• Verifiability: The reviewer should check that all information in the article is fully sourced, (using multiple independent sources is strongly encouraged) or has adequate Original Reporting notes.
• Neutral Point of View: The reviewer should check that all information in the article is written in a neutral and unbiased manner, with no editorial commentary/advocacy or unsourced opinion.
• Style: The reviewer should check that all information in the article complies with our style guide (on dateline, grammar and spelling, "inverted pyramid" structure, tone, wikilinks, categories, headline... etc.)

Examples

A Passed article would look like:

{{peer reviewed|revid=12345|copyright=pass|newsworthy=pass|verifiable=pass|npov=pass|style=pass|reviewer=Skenmy|comments=A very good article! --~~~~|time=~~~~~}}

Revision 12345 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A very good article! --Skenmy talk 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 12345 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A very good article! --Skenmy talk 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

A Failed article would look like:

{{peer reviewed|revid=12344|copyright=pass|newsworthy=pass|verifiable=Many claims are not backed up by sources|npov=Appears to be biased|style=pass|reviewer=Skenmy|comments=Otherwise a very good article. --~~~~|time=~~~~~}}

Revision 12344 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Many claims are not backed up by sources NPOV: Not ready: Appears to be biased Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Otherwise a very good article. --Skenmy talk 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 12344 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Many claims are not backed up by sources NPOV: Not ready: Appears to be biased Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Otherwise a very good article. --Skenmy talk 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

See also

• {{Peer reviewed/Passed}}
• {{Peer reviewed/Failed}}
• {{Peer reviewed/Exception}}