Coastal Wiki Quality Assurance
Provisions for quality assurance
The quality of the information in the Coastal Wiki is secured in 2 ways:
1. Editing authorisation. An authorisation is needed for introducing and editing articles in the Coastal Wiki. The Coastal Wiki Administrator can grant an editing authorisation to coastal and marine professionals with a background in science, management or policy. Articles are published under the author’s name. The author’s references are recorded in the Coastal Wiki contact database that can be viewed by any reader.
2. Article review. Recently, a Coastal Wiki Editorial Board (CWEB) has been established. The CWEB members review articles related to their field of expertise. They indicate their appreciation and comments in the discussion pages attached to each article. Authors are invited to revise their articles according to the reviews.
The CWEB replaces the review procedure established during the ENCORA project, where Theme Coordinators reviewed theme related articles. The present review process is coordinated in such a way that in the course of time each Coastal Wiki article is reviewed by at least one member of the CWEB.
Articles are normally not submitted to the CWEB prior to publication. Authors can submit draft articles to the CWEB if they wish.
The CWEB members address in their reviews the following questions:
- Is the content correct from a technical and scientific point of view?
- Is the content up to date?
- Is the article suitable for the general Coastal Wiki readership? (If a specific readership is targeted, this should be indicated at the beginning of the article.)
- Is the article informative? (Factual information, e.g., in tabular form, can have high added value)
- Are technical terms adequately explained? (e.g., linked with definitions in the glossary)
- Are major facts supported by references?
- Is important relevant information about the topic missing?
- Is the article in an adequate way linked to related articles in the Coastal Wiki?
- Are adequate suggestions for further reading provided?
- Is the English language correct?
- Is the article well structured, are the major messages clearly recognizable?
- Is the article easy to read and adequately illustrated?
- Has the article adequate length, or can it better be cut into shorter mutually linked articles?
The review is published on the discussion page attached to the article; the review provides a general appreciation, comments related to the review criteria and suggestions for improvement and for inclusion of important missing topics. The review is signaled under the article title by a banner “Article reviewed by <name CWEB member>. See the discussion page”.