Page MenuHomePhabricator

Explore ideas for entry points to Review
Closed, ResolvedPublic


As part of T137783, this ticket explores the idea of providing relevant ways to access to review.


  • Persistent access. Provide a central and persistent way to access the review tools that users can create the habit of accessing.
  • Connect when relevant. Provide ways to access review information and tools when those are relevant for other activities the user may be engaged in.


  • Daily review. Adriana has the specific intention of start reviewing contributions. The user can easily find the way to the reviewing tools.
  • User support forums. Adriana has been helping in the Teahouse for a while. When answering a question from a user, her name rings a bell. She can check the recent activity and easily find other opportunities to help such as recent edits likely to be reverted or unanswered questions on article talk pages. When done with answering questions, Adriana wants to find more people that may need help.

Explored solutions

Contrib entry point.png (768×1 px, 242 KB)

The contributions page can be used as a central point for creating new contributions (similar to Content Translation), and we can consider that reviewing is also a good way to contribute to the project.

Users can access their contributions regularly when they want to contribute and discover new ways to do so.

Teahouse - Invite.png (768×1 px, 329 KB)

Places such as the Teahouse can connect with review feeds (in the example, a "Invite newcomers to the teahouse" sections was added at the end). In this way, users can find newcomers in trouble before they experience rejection and had to learn how to find the places to ask for help.

Teahouse - Discuss.png (768×1 px, 274 KB)

Gadgets can be provided to allow editors to get additional context about the user in place. This will allow to get relevant information when replying to the user as well as continue helping the user in other edits that may require so.

Event Timeline

Some kind of review feature could be important both to articles in general and to translated articles. A core problem is that it is somewhat difficult to voice concerns over an article, as it very easily turns into a dispute over the editor when it should be a dispute over content.

Perhaps an idea could be to simply select a piece of text from the article and ask a question about it, with the option to edit the text and make proposals in the dialog itself?

In content translation some of the disputes seems to arise from simple translation errors, and it is to scary to start changing someone elses text. If we can shift to proposing a text the editor himself can accept, perhaps that invites to more collaboration.

Thanks for your comments @jeblad.
There are really good ideas there. From what I understood:

  • Support the review activity for specific kinds of content (e.g., providing translation relevant aids when reviewing translations).
  • "Edit suggestions" as an alternative way to contribute.

Both make a lot of sense, but they also require to figure out many unanswered questions.

Given the wide space that the reviewing process represents, our initial steps are focused more on helping reviewers to find good-faith newcomers in order to review their work and help them. There are many other areas ( prevent low-quality edits by newcomers from happening or providing better reviewing tools to reviewers). Improving the "find" part will also help us to understand the related activities to be improved next.

More details about the overall project are available in MediaWiki

A core problem is that it is somewhat difficult to voice concerns over an article, as it very easily turns into a dispute over the editor when it should be a dispute over content.

This is really interesting. Any ideas on why the dispute is presented or understood at the personal level as opposed to being about content?

jmatazzoni claimed this task.

Resolving this. let me know if that's not appropriate.