WikiEducator talk:Quality Assurance and Review/Featured learning resource

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Additional Criteria?214:20, 20 May 2009
Lists and feeds013:49, 3 December 2008
Review process templates111:17, 28 September 2008

Additional Criteria?

I'd like to suggest additional criteria, on the topics of language and audience -- I'm thinking these could go under content validity and fitness of purpose:

  • the resource specifies the target audience.
  • the tone (e.g., familiar or proper) and difficulty of language used to communicate learning materials is well suited to typical learners' needs and comfort level.
  • the presentation material is written and organized such that complex content is easier to understand

I think WE could really benefit from identifying and featuring quality resources. I hope this process is able to move forward in the near future.


ASnieckus (talk)11:03, 15 May 2009

Hi Alison,

These are valuable suggestions and there is no reason why we can't focus energies on identifying and featuring quality resources.



Mackiwg (talk)22:31, 18 May 2009


Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'll add my suggestions to the criteria and keep an eye out for others who would like to work on getting a featured works process implemented. I'm willing to help.

Thanks, Alison

ASnieckus (talk)14:20, 20 May 2009

Lists and feeds

Are you thinking about having dynamic pages of lists - by review status, reviewer, for example? How about an RSS feed or subscription so potential reviewers can see what's coming up?

--Vtaylor 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Vtaylor (talk)13:49, 3 December 2008

Review process templates

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 11:10, 28 September 2008

Hi folks,

so may I suggest a list of templates (assuming that they don't already exist):

  1. review requested (author seeking review; adding the template would add the article to the template page where volunteer reviewers would pick it up)
  2. Reviewer one committed (added by first reviewer; template should include an anticipated completion date)
  3. Reviewer two committed (added by second reviewer; template should include an anticipated completion date)
  4. Reviewer three committed (added by third reviewer; template should include an anticipated completion date; this template should trigger removal of 'review requested' template and addition of 'under review' template; can this be automated?)
  5. under review
  6. review submitted (could be three of these also, or when three come in we could move on to next phase:
  7. under revision (authors are responding to reviews)
  8. revision submitted (revised document reconsidered by either an associate editor equivalent or same three reviewers?)
  9. final decision (this is where I think we depart from traditional publishing; it would be accept, reject, or additional revision. In a wiki world the article is still there, now it meets, does not meet, or requires additional work to meet standards)

Any thoughts?

Declan Dmccabe 13:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dmccabe (talk)03:29, 28 September 2008


I like these templates... The template should include a place for the reviewers name and a link to their WE user profile. Should we assume that all reviewers need to have enough detail in their WE profiles to determine there appropriateness as a reviewer?

I guess we also need a featured works template for each of the five features works types. Sooo...

10. featured works (this template should include an attribute indicating which featured work it is. I'm wondering if the featured reuse, featured project and featured institution templates should make reference to all the resources included in their being selected as a featured works.)

Cheers, Peter --Peter Rawsthorne 22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Prawstho (talk)11:17, 28 September 2008