[theme-reviewers] New ticket

Thu Apr 21 18:23:59 UTC 2011

As long as all of the pertinent information is being provided to the Theme
author, the reviewer's "boilerplate" or template can be whatever they are
comfortable writing.

As standardization goes, it is generally considered a good thing, but I also
like to see the individual reviewer's own writing style to show through as
well. It keeps the process more human and approachable rather than
cookie-cutter ... even if we are all using our own version of a
cookie-cutter template (*grin*).

Cais.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Dre Armeda <feeds at armeda.com> wrote:

>  I think your boilerpate is awesome. I have one I use as well, but I may
> borrow from yours :)
>
> My example was merely an example :) I am not sure to what extent to
> standardize, but I think it is important to offer some consistency across
> all reviews. Everyone will approach a little differently of course, but
> having some standard areas at minimum would be helpful, especially in cases
> where the theme is not approved and will be re-reviewed.
>
> Dre
>
>
> On 4/21/11 9:14 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>
> I do use my own standard boilerplate, but I wouldn't want to impose it on
> anyone. Every reviewer is going to be most comfortable communicating
> information in his or her own manner.
>
> What I think is critical is communication of these two key points:
>
>  1) Why the Theme failed the review (i.e. the *required* issues)
> 2) How to communicate with the reviewer
>
>  For the first point, I simply list comments under the following headings:
>
>  '''Theme-Check Required''' (Note: we shouldn't have any more of these)
>
>  '''Required'''
>
>  '''Required, but can be fixed in next revision''' (Note: only if nothing
> is listed under the '''Required''' heading)
>
>  '''Strongly Recommended, not Required'''
>
>
>  Then, under the heading, '''Review Summary''', I add certain boilerplate
> text, that I recommend as generally useful for any reviewer, i.e.:
>
>  For a complete review:
>
>   '''Review Summary'''
>
>  '''This is a complete review.''' Theme cannot be accepted until items
> listed under '''Required''' are addressed. Once these issues have been
> resolved, please re-submit your Theme using the uploader tool on
> wordpress.org/extend/themes, and a new Trac ticket will be generated.
>
>  Note:
>  * Re-submitted Themes are given review priority over new Themes.
>  * Prior to re-submitting, please ensure Theme meets all requirements in
> the [http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review Theme Review Guidelines] and
> the [http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Unit_Test Theme Unit Tests].
>
>
>  For a cursory review:
>
>   '''Review Summary'''
>
>  '''This is a cursory review only.''' This Theme failed a sufficient
> number of criteria to warrant discontinuing further review. '''Prior to
> re-submitting, please ensure Theme meets all requirements in the [
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review Theme Review Guidelines] and the [
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Unit_Test Theme Unit Tests].''' Once
> these issues have been resolved, please re-submit your Theme using the
> uploader tool on wordpress.org/extend/themes, and a new Trac ticket will
> be generated.
>
>  Note:
>  * Re-submitted Themes are given review priority over new Themes.
>  * Test your Theme using the [http://pross.org.uk/theme-check/ Theme Check
> tool], and ensure that no errors are found, prior to re-submission.
>
>
>  Finally, under the heading '''Responding To This Review''', I add
> additional boilerplate text:
>
>   Theme developer questions, comments, and feedback are welcome and
> encouraged. Please use one of the following methods:
>
>   1) Leave a comment on this ticket
>  2) Email the theme-reviewers email list
>  3) Use the #wordpress-themes channel on irc.freenode.net
>
>
>  I'm certainly open to any additional standardization that you think would
> be useful?
>
>  Chip
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Dre Armeda <feeds at armeda.com> wrote:
>
>>  Chip, I think another area we may want to look at is how the reviews are
>> published to the theme submitter. What about standardizing the information
>> published in the review, and using a single template that contains all of
>> the relevant review points?
>>
>> As an example:
>>
>>    - Intro statement (exp. Thanks for contributing. The theme is awesome
>>    but there are areas you need to clean up)
>>    - Theme Check Info
>>       - Required Items
>>       - Recommended Items
>>       - Info Items
>>    - Debogger Items
>>    - Deprecated Calls Info
>>    - Test Data Info
>>    - Test Environment Info
>>    - Quick Observations
>>    - Recommendations
>>    - Closing Statement
>>
>>
>> Let me know if I missed anything. The objective is to manage expectations.
>> Standardizing gives a uniform feel upon delivery of the review information
>> to the submitter, and also gives reviewers a common approach which may
>> improve the process and learning curve.
>>
>> Just an idea. Continual process improvement will enable us as reviewers to
>> become more proficient :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dre Armeda
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/11 8:49 AM, Towfiq I. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> A good question.
>>>
>>>  When we only had 3-6 active reviewers, we would, purely out of
>>> necessity, perform cursory reviews. Unfortunately, that practice primarily
>>> led to the Theme developers addressing only the issues noted in the cursory
>>> review, and not ensuring that all of the Guidelines were met. Thus, we would
>>> end up seeing the same Theme, several times - and each time, reviewing the
>>> Theme would incur the overhead of a new review.
>>>
>>>  So, now that we have many reviewers, I would strongly recommend that
>>> every review be as thorough and complete as possible. Our goal would be to
>>> review a Theme only once (if perfect the first time) or twice (the second
>>> time, addressing all issues in the first review) before approval.
>>>
>>>  Also, doing so will help all of the new reviewers through the learning
>>> process of performing Theme reviews.
>>>
>>>  Chip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Totally Agree with Chip...
>>
>> --
>> Towfiq I.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110421/69d7e3f9/attachment.htm>