See Also: How_To_Help

For logged-in users, there's a review form at the bottom of each page that looks like this:

Users can review the page's content and submit their review.

Revisions won't go live until they've been reviewed by an editor.

Bare Minimum Requirements (Sighted)

For a page to meet the "sighted" guideline, meaning it's had a cursory first look, it needs to pass these requirements:

• Is clear of vandalism.
• Contains no spam links. Links to external forums or documents are fine, but they should not be sales-related.
• Is clear of libel and unsourced statements about living persons.
• Is clear of obvious unencyclopaedic content.
• Contains some references to reliable sources.
• Has been spell-checked. (Firefox/Opera/toolbars can help with this.)
• Is readable (uncluttered)
• There should be no links to non-existent images.

Review Components

The review components are:

Accuracy

• Unapproved - if something about this revision of the article doesn't pass the smell test, don't approve it. If it doesn't feel right to you, even if it may be correct, that means the author needs to provide more detail about the validity or reasoning behind the article.
• Sighted - passes a basic "sight" check. There's nothing overly bogus.
• Accurate - passes a technical fact check.
• Well-Sourced - this level is not really relevant for SQLServerPedia. We know where the original content came from, since Quest provided the KnowledgeXpert content. No need to give this moderation, and we'll see if we can remove it from the moderation software.
• Featured - extremely accurate to the nth degree.

Depth

• Unapproved - this revision of the article is not deep enough to meet our standards, and the author needs to provide more coverage on the subject.
• Basic - meets our standards and gets the job done. For a first revision of an article, this would be the natural rating.
• Moderate
• High
• Featured - reserved for the best examples where we would show the article as a good example of an extremely in-depth article.

Readability

• Unapproved - not readable enough. The content can be accurate and deep, but not necessarily readable - think syntax sections of Books Online. There's nothing wrong with Books Online, but that's not what we're trying to build here.
• Acceptable - can be easily read and digested.
• Good - enjoyable to read.
• Concise - conveys the most amount of information possible in the shortest space while still being enjoyable to read.
• Featured - you're printing it and framing it for your office.

Choosing Something Other Than The Defaults

The defaults are there for a reason. if the article looks okay, just click Submit Review and go on with your life.

The only reason to change away from the defaults is if something is out of the ordinary - it's really good, or it's not good enough.

Behind the scenes, the moderation software is tracking rating history in the database. As DBAs, that means we could someday write reports to gauge the quality of an editor's work. As DBAs, we also know that takes work, and since there's no ROI in it, we're not really caring about that right now.