| 7 | |
| 8 | = Review Guidelines |
| 9 | |
| 10 | - '''mark.m.mcmahon''': |
| 11 | ''Would you suggest the following:'' |
| 12 | - Review the diff for each page that was copied (spelling, grammar, technical) |
| 13 | - Review the page as a whole, formatting, etc |
| 14 | * '''cboos''': Indeed, that would be my preferred way. |
| 15 | Spelling and grammar fixes should be done straight ahead, no need to discuss them |
| 16 | of course, the same for formatting fixes I suppose. |
| 17 | Suggestions for documentation changes, additions or clarifications (or simplifications!) |
| 18 | could be done in a variety of ways, just be creative! For example: |
| 19 | * add a `=== Discussion` section at the bottom, with your remarks or additions |
| 20 | * add `#!div` in place with some distinctive style, e.g. |
| 21 | {{{ |
| 22 | {{{#!div style="background:#efe" |
| 23 | Addition: / Rewrite: / ... |
| 24 | }}} |
| 25 | }}} |
| 26 | {{{#!div style="background:#efe" |
| 27 | Addition: / Rewrite: / ... |
| 28 | }}} |
| 29 | * in place italics may not stand out distinctive enough from the original documentation, |
| 30 | you could use `[[span(style=background:#efe, Also mention...)]]` |
| 31 | [[span(style=background:#efe, Also mention...)]] |
| 32 | * ... or much simpler, none of the above, just boldly change the documentation |
| 33 | if you think you can make an improvement (we'll notice the change and review the |
| 34 | differences anyway) |
| 35 | - does it make sense to log a bitesize, documentation bug for each doc review task? |
| 36 | * '''cboos''': I don't think so, I think it'll be more effective to collaborate |
| 37 | on the document in place |
| 38 | - '''rblank''': I would suggest starting with the pages under 0.12, proofread whole pages (spelling, grammar, consistency, obsolete text) and fix things as you go along. You may want to open a single "Documentation review" ticket to document your progress for others potential reviewers (and get attribution!). |