Template:Review: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(use formal language, "reads like" -> "is written like") |
m (1 revision imported: Adding modules for infoboxes ) |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 04:53, 3 March 2024
 | This article is written like a review. (October 2024) |
This template should be used when the article appears to have been written by a reviewer on behalf of the subject of the article, or having some connection with the subject. It is used when the article is not necessarily representing a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgemental in tone.
Placement
Place at the top of the article and/or sections to alert editors.
Usage
- articles
- For articles needing major clean-up, place
{{Review|article}}at the top of the main page. - For articles needing minor clean-up, place
{{Review|article}}at the top of the talk page.
- sections
- To mark specific sections instead of the whole article, place
{{Review|section}}at the top of the section.
- remarks
- Please do not subst: this template.
- To replace the text "a review", you may use
{{Review|article/section|yourtext}}or{{Review|2=yourtext}} - You may use the optional date parameter, e.g.
{{Review|date=October 2024}}. This helps with the categorization of articles requiring attention. - The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste
{{Review|date=October 2024}}at the top of the article or talk page. - Add a new item to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag.
Notes
- This template will add tagged articles to dated subcategories of Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by month and to Category:All articles with style issues.
- This template is a self-reference.
Redirects
- {{Review-section}}