Talk:Review

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[edit]

My purpose is to reflect upon the relationship of reviewer and reviewee. Here a status persists that means the reviewers' words carry weight. Despite the independent merits of each item of work, the record of performance is less objective. Effort is relative to temporal nuances and the reviewers ignorance, amongst other factors. True merit is therefore almost impossible to measure and thus is often measured inaccurately.

The consequence may be significant, leaving the reviewee confused or frustrated by inconsistency and occasional inadequacy. Unchecked such feelings will erode productivity and the quality of work. The fix for this managerial fopa is surprisingly simple – review a random sample of tasks over a set period of time and identify appropriate reviewers for each. Not only does the reviewee receive more objective (read appropriate) feedback but peer review becomes a skill spread across the team – wherever there is competence.

Given the opportunity for a full cycle of review, i.e. the reviewee may pass comment on the reviewer, the work and objective review of its merits are subject to the same checks and balances. This quality control process may be self regulating to ensure a good standard of reviewer and thus assured work and an improving worker.

COMOB[edit]

scam to mobile phones look out if you get a message on your phone with freemesage from COMOB 1VID DELETE STRAIGHT AWAY

IT WILL CHARGE YOU £8.00FROM YOUR PHONE ON PAYG OR DIRECT FROM YOUR CONTRACT BILL THERE IS NO REFUND ONCE YOU OPEN THE MESSAGE 
EVEN IF YOU PHONE THEM OR SEND A TEXT IT COSTS 36P A MINETE AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THERE IS NO REFUND SINCE YOU OPENED THE MESSAGE

Added movie/tv/video review section; also, on lack of references generally[edit]

Hi - I added a movie/tv/video review section and also modified the book review section so as - really - to distinguish between book reviews that are really "literary criticism" and other reviews of, say, travel books, computer help books, and so on, which focus on practical merits.

The parts I added have no references, which I feel bad about and will try to fix. Really it would be good if interested people could recommend sources on the talk page related to issues like the history of reviews, classification of reviews, methods for writing reviews, professional vs. amateur reviews, academic/scholarly reviews, customer-created reviews on online sites, and so forth. Theodulf-W (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review comedies[edit]

Please include a section on the Internet webseries genre known as a review comedy. Examples include Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]