Case studies/Revision guide and evaluation rubric
Welcome to the case study revisions and feedback guide!
This guide is designed to help you give feedback on Case studies written by the Wikimedia community!
How should I use it?
When reading another case study, take notes or give feedback in response to these questions. If you leave notes from the revision questions on the talk page of the case study, that will help the author update or expand
What about more specific feedback?
We recommend when reading case studies for feedback, that you should:
- Fix grammar or style issues within the case study itself.
- Leave feedback at specific parts of the case study with comments (i.e. <!-- COMMENT HERE --> ).
- Use the revision questions below, to offer more structured feedback on the talk page.
Revision questions
[edit]Structure and organization
The case study needs to be sufficiently logical and organized to be useful for other participants. To revise for this consider:
- Does the case study stay focused on the main program tactic? Will an unfamiliar audience understand the connections between each section of the case study?
- Does the order and organization within the various sections develop explanations of ideas that might be new to the audiences?
- Does the case study explain the context around concepts specific to their experience (i.e. Wikipedia community values, local language or cultural context)?
Evidence and reproducibility
Case studies are, in part, a persuasive tool to demonstrate to various audiences that the project is reproducible and impactful. To revise for this, consider:
- Do claims about impact or engagement have enough evidence to support them? Can someone familiar with Wikimedia software and tools reasonably examine the impact of the work?
- When the case study describes a common practice in the Wikimedia community, does it point to sufficient documentation for someone unfamiliar with that practice to replicate it?
Appeal
The Wikimedia community is largely composed of volunteers, and part of the success of Wikimedia programs is their ability to generate enthusiasm from participants. Consider the following revision questions, to strengthen:
- Does the case study sufficiently illustrate why all participants invested time and energy into the project?
- Does the case study give sufficient advice or guidance on how to avoid mistakes or make the effort more effective?
- Does the case study need illustrative stories from the participants to strengthen understanding of the project?
- Is the case study sufficiently illustrated with multimedia that shows participants engaging in the project?
Evaluation Guide
[edit]When we ask the panel of Wikimedia and community leaders to review the case studies, we will be giving them a basic rubric like:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Complete | |||||
| Instructive | |||||
| Unique | |||||
| Representative | |||||
| Appealing | |||||
| Professional |
This rubric alongside notes by the reviewers will allow us to collect specific evaluations of each of the case studies, to better understand what and how we want to work on each project.