User:CWDillon/Peek at Eval Wiki Flow

From Odp

< User:CWDillon(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: {{subst:Form:Content_OP_Proposal_Review_Form}})
Current revision (21:49, 26 February 2010) (view source)
(Removing all content from page)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
-
add title=New QC Review about Content OP Proposal
 
-
Content OP Proposal Review Template
 
-
CreationDate
 
-
Input your review in the fields below. If you are unsure of the meaning of the fields, click on the question mark to get an explanation.
 
-
 
-
The "overall suggestion" should reflect your overall suggestion for this submission, and should be motivated in the responses to the review questions.
 
-
 
-
Try to cover as many of the aspects as possible, and if applicable give detailed suggestions to the author how to improve and revise the submission.
 
-
 
-
Thank you for contributing!
 
-
 
-
 
-
{| class="formtable" style="width:100%"
 
-
!style="width:20%"| Review Submitted By {{#infotip:type=tooltip|This field indicates who is the reviewer. This field is associated with the property {{:Property:SubmittedBy}}|}}:
 
-
| SubmittedBy
 
-
|-
 
-
! Content ODP Being Reviewed {{#infotip:type=tooltip|This field is associated with the property {{:Property:ReviewAboutSubmission}}|}}:
 
-
| ContentOPUnderReview
 
-
|-
 
-
! Revision ID {{#infotip:type=tooltip|This is the version number of the pattern being reviewed, since the pattern can be modified later this number keeps track of which version you reviewed. This field is associated with the property {{:Property:ReviewAboutRevision}}|}}:
 
-
|RevisionID
 
-
|-
 
-
! Overall suggestion (score) {{#infotip:type=tooltip| * (-1) : This is not an appropriate submission, in case the author wishes to revise it a new submission is needed => suggest to reject it!
 
-
* (0) : The submission needs a major revision to be certified, the author should revise it and ask for a new review => suggest to reiterate with new reviews!
 
-
* (1) : The submission needs a minor revision to be certified, after revision the pattern can be certified without a new review (reviewers should give detailed recommendations) => suggest minor revision!
 
-
* (2) : The submission is ready for certification => suggest accepting it for certification! |}}:
 
-
|Score
 
-
|-
 
-
! Review Summary {{#infotip:type=tooltip|Summarize the main points of your review here. Make sure to motivate the overall score, and if you have any direct questions to the author please state them here. This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasReviewSummary}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewSummary
 
-
|-
 
-
! Reviewer Confidence {{#infotip:type=tooltip|Please describe your confidence with respect to different aspects such as ODPs in general, the problem addressed, and the domain of the pattern, rather than giving one overall assessment. This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasReviewconfidence}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewConfidence
 
-
|}
 
-
 
-
 
-
----
 
-
 
-
Review the pattern "content" and input your detailed comments below:
 
-
 
-
 
-
{| class="formtable" style="width:100%"
 
-
!style="width:20%"| Problems {{#infotip:type=tooltip|Are there any problems or even errors in the pattern? Do you have suggestions for correcting the problems? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasProblems}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewProblems
 
-
|-
 
-
! Community Relevance {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Is this pattern relevant? Does it solve an important problem of the domain? Or is it for example a trivial solution or a solution to a very specific problem interesting only to a few people? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasRelevance}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewRelevance
 
-
|-
 
-
! Relation to Best Practices {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Does the pattern represent a best-practice how to solve the modeling problem? Are there alternative solutions? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:IsBestPractice}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewBestPractice
 
-
|-
 
-
! Reusability {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Is the pattern reusable in many situations, or is it very specific? Also related to relevance (see above). This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasReusability}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewReusability
 
-
|-
 
-
! Relations to Other Patterns {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Is the pattern related to other patterns? Are there similar patterns already in the catalog? In other domains? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasRelations}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewRelations
 
-
|}
 
-
 
-
 
-
----
 
-
 
-
Review the pattern "presentation" and input your detailed comments below:
 
-
 
-
 
-
{| class="formtable" style="width:100%"
 
-
!style="width:20%"| Overall Understandability {{#infotip:type=tooltip|Is the pattern easy to understand from the description? Are all details of the pattern clear? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasUnderstandability}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewUnderstandability
 
-
|-
 
-
! Clear Problem Description {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Is the problem description clear? There should not be any uncertainty as to what problem the pattern solves and under what conditions it is applicable. This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasClearProblemDescription}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewClearProblem
 
-
|-
 
-
! Clear Relevance and Consequences {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Is the relevance of the problem clear from reading the problem description, and are consequences of using the proposed solution stated? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasClearRelevanceDescription}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewClearRelevance
 
-
|-
 
-
! Clear Figures and Illustrations {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Are examples, figures and other illustrations of the pattern clear and relevant? Are notations explained (if non-standard)? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasClearFigures}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewFigures
 
-
|-
 
-
! Missing information {{#infotip:type=tooltip| Is there any information missing about the pattern? This field is associated with the property {{:Property:HasMissingInformation}}|}}:
 
-
| ReviewMissing
 
-
|}
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
{{{end template}}}
 
-
save
 

Current revision

Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers