This task involves the work of defining how volunteers (likely those who are experienced with editing) can both:
# Provide feedback about Peacock Check when they notice it behaving in ways that they do not think align with what Wikipedia policies and guidelines prescribe
# Learn more about the feature itself
For Reference Check, we made it so people could tap the `editcheck-references-shown` tag and be taken to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/False_positives.
Although, for reasons @Trizek-WMF articulated in T353726, this approach could benefit from improvement.
=== Story
# As an **occasional user**, or a **user discovering the Tone check tag**, I want to know in a quick way what the "Tone check" tag stands for.
# As a **user curious about how Tone check works**, I want to be able to learn about Tone check in depth
# As a **user who wants to improve the functioning of Wikipedia**, I want to be able to report an issue related to Tone check.
# As the **Tone check feature maintainer**, I want to make sure that users can discover the feature and contact us.
# As a **Mediawiki patroller**, I want to limit the number of pages I have to perform reverts on
=== Requirements
=== Approach
Users should follow a unified path, that can be used for all checks:
# click on Check tag
# arrive on a Help page presenting the feature page that is:
* centralized - Mediawiki should be preferred, even if we can't prevent local communities from creating their own
* simple - a short presentation of the feature should come first, with more details in sub-sections
* tags used and their meaning
* check's configuration
* if applies, testing process
* translatable
# [if relevant] the user can go to a false-positive report page dedicated to the check
Using a sub-page of the main page for false positives can diminish the number of false reports.
Example for step 2: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Edit_check#Reference_check