Template:Peer reviewed/doc

See WN:REV for information on the relevant policy.

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 development 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.

Use [Using Easy Peer Review]

 * 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).
 * Find the review tab. This should be on the drop down menu in vector (See image on right), or a tab on the top of the page in monobook (beside the history tab).
 * If all else fails, you can also get to it by typing  in the address bar and hitting enter. (This will work even if the article is not up for review, so make sure that the article is up for review before doing that.) If that doesn't work, it means the gadget did not load properly, in which case, notify user:Bawolff.
 * A form should popup (See [[media:EasyPeerReview-filling out.png|image]] for example). Fill it out, hit submit and the gadget should take care of the rest.

Use [manual]
It's highly recommended that you use the EasyPeerReview method above instead.


 * 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. 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:

A Failed article would look like: