How I approach FA reviews edit
When I do a regular ("prose") review of a Featured Article Candidate, I typically check the following points:
- 1a. Read all the visible prose, including any end notes, captions, tables, or bullet lists that contain sentences or substantial phrases.
- 1b. Within my own level of knowledge about the subject, does the article contain all the things I would expect.
- 1c. Skim the sources to see if anything jumps out as possibly dubious quality, or if I notice any disturbing patterns. I don't usually do complete source reviews, but I might investigate a particular source or section in more detail if it catches my eye.
- 1d. Again, within my own level of knowledge about the subject, I watch out for anything that seems biased.
- 1e. Check the edit history and Talk page for any recent conflicts.
- 2. Call out (or fix) any style and formatting issues that that I spot, but I don't claim to be an expert on all the microscopic details of the Manual of Style.
- 2a. Evaluate the lead.
- 2b. Call out anything that causes concern, but I am not necessarily familiar with what sections are typical for every type of subject.
- 2c. When I skim the sources (see 1c above), I may notice formatting or consistency issues, but this may not be thorough unless I do a full source review.
- 3. Look at any images and read their captions, and may have feedback on quality, appropriateness, placement, or number of images. I might not listen to or watch other types of media. I don't typically check image licensing since that is covered in a separate image review.
- 4. Consider the length of both the whole article and sections, and whether sub-topics seem appropriately summarized, once again within my own level of knowledge about the subject.
I will not necessarily have checked the following:
- Image licensing (unless I explicitly do an image review)
- Sourcing beyond the skim mentioned above (unless I explicitly do a source review)
- Infobox details
- Non-prose templates, tables, or bullet lists of details that are expected in some subject areas (track listings for albums, family trees for royalty, etc.)
- External links, navigation templates or other "footer" material
- Wikitext that isn't visible, such as hidden notes or template formatting
If something catches my eye on any of these, I may make a comment, but that does not mean I checked that area thoroughly.
I may do some direct edits to the article, especially for things like format cleanups or simple prose improvements. As with any edit, the nominator may choose to revert or further modify my changes. I may also include some suggestions in my comments that are not strictly required by the FA criteria (such as recommending use of ALT text for images); I wouldn't typically withhold support over those.
What my support/oppose means edit
If I support after a regular review, that means I'm satisfied on the areas I checked (as per the list above) as of the time I put in my support. If a subsequent reviewer raises something I didn't notice, or the article changes in a negative way, I could withdraw support, but that's rare.
If I oppose, then either something I objected to has gone unresolved (no acceptable changes or satisfactory explanation), or the objections I have seem so daunting that I don't believe they could be resolved within a normal review period. If I'm one of the first reviewers and especially if the nominator is new to FA, I may politely suggest withdrawal rather than stating an outright oppose. Usually the nominator gets the hint, or if not, then the coordinators do.