User:Wiae/So you want to be an AFC reviewer
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: This is an essay written to guide new Articles for Creation reviewer participants. |
The Articles for Creation process comes with reviewing instructions that should guide reviewers reasonably well. However, in the past year of reviewing drafts at AfC, I have come to realize that many things to keep in mind while reviewing are not actually set out in those instructions. Consider this my personal "missing manual" for AfC.
Before you start...
[edit]Read the instructions!
[edit]The instructions at WP:AFCR are an essential read. For one thing, you have to make sure you meet the project's eligibility requirements. Further, it's important to have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies: notability, verifiability, no original research, the neutral point of view, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not. If you're not familiar with these documents, take some time to browse them until you're familiar with them. In particular, note the six invalid reasons for declining an article. Keep these in the back of your mind as you review.
Remember whose work you're reviewing
[edit]AFC allows unregistered or new users to create an article that's likely to stick on Wikipedia, without fear of having their incremental work speedily deleted by an overzealous Huggle user. (I say this because my Huggle trigger finger is sometimes a little itchy!) The drafts you'll be reviewing are probably not written by expert editors, but rather by relative newbies. Don't bite them, no matter how badly they may seem to misunderstand notability or the intricacies of inline citations. It may seem like aeons ago, but we were newbies once too. I know I made plenty of embarrassing mistakes when I started editing, and if someone had excoriated me for my mistakes, there's a good chance I wouldn't be here today. Assuming good faith isn't just Wikipedia policy; it's also the courteous thing to do. So, although AFC reviewing can often require large reserves of patience, keep in mind that the author of the draft you're reviewing would probably gladly accept some friendly help in navigating the web of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
The missing manual
[edit]- Hang out at Articles for Deletion.
Conclusions
[edit]Seems like a lot of rules and reading, but you'll get the hang of it in due time. Consult Wikipedia policy at every step, start with the easy ones, pay attention to the comments of other reviewers, and ask questions on their talk pages or at the Reviewer help page if you get stuck. Once you feel comfortable with AfC reviewing, if you enjoy helping new editors, there are perennial questions at the AfC Help Desk that need answering. With your reviewing knowledge and skills, you can make Wikipedia a better place for everyone!