Submit a Comment to WikiCritic

Paste the URL where your comment is published. See Format guidelines below.^*

I own this content and agree it may be shared under a CC-by-sa license.

* We don't host comments, we collect them. No accounts, no login. Your page must be publicly readable.

Prototype—submissions are not yet live.

All you really need to know

Write and publish a comment

Post your comment on a wiki page—an article, its talk page, a deletion discussion—on your blog, on X, or wherever you like: anywhere we can read it without logging in.

Say what you're commenting on

Add a short block so a reader (human or AI) knows the Wikipedia article you're talking about; and, if the page does not already make it clear, you may want to reveal your name and relevant credentials or background. If confirmed, this may result in your comment being more heavily weighted. You can add more if you like—credentials, grades, and the rest are set out under Format guidelines below. None of it is required, and there is no form to fill in: write your comment however you like. The one strict requirement is the line “This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.”

Submit the URL

Paste in the URL of your comment above. Our agent fetches the page, normalizes it to the WikiCritic format, and imports it.

↻

Revise by re-submitting the URL

If you find something is incorrect after we have imported your comment, simply re-submit the URL and we will re-import it. Posting the correction somewhere new instead? See Revising a comment below—you'll need to tell us which comment it changes.

The one line we require

REQUIRED

This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.

Include this sentence anywhere in your post. It is the only thing a machine actually checks for—it's how you grant permission to import and display your words. Everything else on this page is optional and free-form; our agent works out the details.

A sample comment

Here is just one sample block of data plus comment text. Unformatted prose is fine too, the agent will sort it out.

WikiCritic comment
Page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture
Comment tags: Review
Credentials: Licensed acupuncturist, 14 years
Overall: D. Neutrality: F. Scholarship: C.
Lede — Neutrality: F.

[Add here a one-paragraph review. For example: The lede brands acupuncture a “pseudoscience” in its very first sentence—language markedly stronger than the WHO, the NIH, or the NHS use—and the article never recovers the neutral footing an encyclopedia owes its subject. Well-sourced clinical evidence is handled selectively: the 2017 Cochrane review on chronic pain is cited for its caveats while its positive finding of moderate-quality effectiveness goes unmentioned, and two thousand years of practice across East Asia are compressed into a few dismissive lines. As a licensed practitioner of fourteen years, I am not asking the article to endorse acupuncture—only to describe it as fairly as its own sources permit, which at present it does not.]

This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.

A blank form you can paste into your blog

Rather than retype the structure above, copy a blank version straight into your post and fill in what applies. It carries the Page: line, a space for your review, all seven grades, the reviewer-info keys, and the licence line already written out. Only three of them are needed—the page, the licence line, and either some commentary or at least one grade. Delete every line you do not use.

WikiCritic comment
Page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARTICLE_NAME

[Your review goes here. Write it however you like—a paragraph or ten pages.
Plain prose is fine; our agent works out the rest.]

Overall:
Completeness:
Competency:
Scholarship:
Neutrality:
Currency:
Simplicity:
Lede — Overall: (and any other criterion you want graded for the lede alone)

Comment tags:
Revision:
Credentials:
Stance:
Conflict of interest:
Representative of subject:
First-hand witness:
Endorses:
Disputes:
Replaces:
Updates:

This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.

Grades are letters A to F, and you may add + or −. One comment reviews one article—to review several, post one comment for each.

Format guidelines

Add as much of this structure as you like—our agent understands all of it, and plain prose too.

Let an LLM do the formatting

You can have an LLM read this page and pre-format your comment. We recommend that if you want more control and certainty about how your comment will be used—the more of the structure below your post already carries, the less our agent has to infer.

Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or whatever you use

Read the WikiCritic format guidelines at this page:
https://wikicritic.org/submit-comment.html

Then format my comment below to match those conventions.

Rules:
1. Keep my words. Do not rewrite my argument, soften my criticism, or make it more polite.
2. Fill in only the fields you can determine from what I actually wrote—Page, Grades,
   Reviewer info, and any Replaces / Updates or Endorses / Disputes I mention.
3. Invent nothing. No credentials, grades, sources, diffs, or URLs I did not supply.
   If you cannot fill a field from my text, leave it out entirely.
4. You may name the kind of comment it is—Review, Talkback, Page suppression,
   Subject response, Rebuttal—if that much is obvious from what I wrote. Do not add
   content tags; our agent detects those from the text itself.
5. Leave out my post's title and date. My own site already displays those.
6. End with the license line exactly as it appears on that page.
7. Return the finished post and nothing else—no commentary, no explanation.

My comment:
[paste your comment here]

Check what comes back before you publish it. Anything the LLM added that you did not write is your name on someone else's words—and a stated credential that turns out to be wrong costs you more than leaving it blank would have.

grey an example to replace with your own gold: type it exactly, colon and all

What every comment needs

Only the license line is machine-checked. The rest is what makes a comment usable: without them there is nothing to file or nothing to publish.

Page	The name or URL of the page you're commenting on. It need not be an article: a talk page, a deletion discussion, a policy page, or a page on another wiki entirely all work. A bare title with no wiki named is read as English Wikipedia. Without it we cannot file your comment anywhere.	For example Full URLPage: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture Bare titlePage: Acupuncture Another wikiPage: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akupunktur
Comment	Some meaningful commentary on the page—a review, a report, or a response. It can be a single sentence or several paragraphs, structured with the fields below or written as plain prose. Without it there is nothing to publish.
A page we can readnot part of your post	We have to be able to fetch your page ourselves. If we can't fetch it, we can't import it. Two things we can't read. An X thread: we can only retrieve one post at a time, so a review spread across several posts has to live somewhere else—post it on a blog and link to it from X, which works perfectly well. And anything behind a login or a paywall, which cannot be imported at all. An archive snapshot (archive.today, the Wayback Machine) works when the original page is gone or unreachable: if the snapshot carries the license line, the permission is right there in it, and a CC-by-sa grant once made is not revocable. What an archive can't do is establish control of the page, so it can't be used to replace or update an existing comment.	Where it can live Worksblog · Substack · Mastodon · Bluesky · academic page · a single X post Won't workX thread · Reddit · Facebook · Instagram · LinkedIn · private groups
License statement	One sentence, included anywhere in your post—the only thing a machine checks, and how you grant permission to import and display your words. See The one line we require above, where you can copy it.	Copy exactly This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.

Structured data (optional)

Reviewer infoabout you — a cluster, use the keys below	Any of the following, in your own words. Leave out whatever the page already makes clear or that doesn't apply. Credentials: How we tell an expert from a member of the general public, so that informed commentary gets due weight. Stated credentials that are confirmed will result in your comment being weighted more heavily. Stance: Where you stand on the topic. Knowing it helps readers interpret your critique; disclosure strengthens credibility rather than weakening it. Conflict of interest: A disclosed conflict is more credible than a hidden one—we want this path to exist. Representative of subject: You are not the subject, but you are authorized to speak for them. First-hand witness: Not a credential—a statement that you were personally in the events you're describing.	For example Credentials: Licensed acupuncturist, 14 years Stance: Free-market advocate Conflict of interest: Paid consultant for the article subject Representative of subject: Counsel for the article subject First-hand witness: I am the editor who was reverted
Grades	Letter grades from A down to F, the way a teacher grades a paper. There are seven grades you can give: Overall, plus the six criteria beneath it. Use as many or as few as you like—a lone Overall is useful on its own. Overall is your summary judgement of the article, not an average we compute from the other six. The rubric below describes five levels—A, B, C, D and F. Use + and − when you think an article sits slightly above or below what the rubric says for a letter. A B− means the B description fits, but only just. There is no separate description for the half-steps; they are yours to judge. Where a description fits two levels, assign the lower one. Say whether you are grading the lede, the whole article, or both separately. Plenty of reviews never get past the lede, and that is a legitimate thing to grade—just tell us which you mean. If you don't say, we take it as the whole article. Overallyour judgement of the article as a whole ASound. A reader can rely on it. Nothing important is missing, wrong, one-sided, or out of date, and a general reader can follow it. Changes would be improvements, not repairs. BGood, with known limits. A reader is well served but should verify anything they mean to rely on. Its faults are visible and a competent editor could fix them in an afternoon. CUsable with care. Serviceable on the basics and unreliable past them. Someone who stops here leaves under-informed, but not misled. DNot to be relied on. Substantial failures on more than one criterion, and the reader who suffers them has no way to notice. FShould not be the encyclopedia’s answer to this topic. A reader is worse off for having read it than if the page did not exist. —Not an average of the six below, and we do not compute it from them. One failure can decide it: an article can be complete, current, and beautifully sourced and still earn an F for taking a side. Where your Overall departs sharply from your other grades, that gap is worth a sentence in the comment itself. The six criteria Completenessdoes it cover what it must cover ACovers every major facet a competent treatment would include. A reader who knew nothing arrives knowing what matters. What is left out was left out on purpose. BSubstantially complete. One or two secondary aspects thin or missing; nothing a specialist would call a hole. CCovers the obvious and misses the non-obvious. Noticeable gaps, no single fatal one. DMajor facets absent. The reader leaves with a materially incomplete picture and no sign that they have. FSo partial as to mislead by omission. What is missing changes the meaning of what is there. Competencyis it accurate, responsible, informed AAccurate, and stated with the right degree of confidence. Handles technical material without error or false simplification. Reads as written by someone who knows the field. BAccurate in substance. Occasional loose phrasing or an overstated claim; nothing that misleads. CBroadly accurate with identifiable errors—or correct facts assembled by someone who does not understand them. DErrors in material claims, or confident assertion where the field is unsettled. An informed reader is stopped repeatedly. FSubstantially wrong about its subject, or so amateurish that no part of it can be relied on. Scholarshipquality and range of the sources it should have AA thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. The sources a specialist would expect are present, they are the best available, and they are used for what they actually say. BWell grounded. Minor gaps in the literature, or a weaker source used where a stronger one exists. CAdequately sourced but unrepresentative—heavy on what is easy to find, light on what is authoritative. Or well cited in volume and thin in quality. DKey literature absent. Load-bearing claims rest on weak, partisan, or tertiary sources, or the bibliography is padded with work that does not support the text. FEffectively unsourced, or sourced so as to misrepresent the literature it cites. Neutralityfair to everyone with a stake, not just to experts AOn every controversial question the topic raises, competing perspectives are presented fairly and the article takes no side. The factual aspects of disputes are described plainly. No lean is discernible, in emphasis, placement or word choice. BEven-handed, with lapses. No sustained lean, but an occasional word choice or framing favours one side. A reader would not come away with a skewed impression of who is right. CA discernible lean. Every significant view is present and taken seriously, but one side gets less room, later placement, or cooler language, and a reader would notice which side the article prefers. DSeverely imbalanced. Opposing views are acknowledged without being treated fairly—characterized by their opponents, or answered rather than stated. FOne-sided. Significant perspectives are ignored or misrepresented. The article reads as an argument. Currencyhow up to date is the discussion AReflects the present state of the subject, including recent developments and current scholarship. BCurrent in substance. One or two recent developments not yet incorporated. CSeveral years behind. Nothing false, but the discussion has moved and the article has not. DSubstantially dated. Superseded findings or defunct arrangements presented as though current. FDescribes a state of affairs that no longer obtains, with nothing to indicate it has changed. Simplicityas simple as the topic allows, for the general public AAs simple as the subject permits without distortion. A capable general reader can follow it start to finish, and the lede is intelligible to anyone. BMostly plain. An occasional unexplained term or dense passage. CFollowable with effort. Jargon arrives before its definition; sentences carry more clauses than they need. DOpaque to a general reader. Written for people who already know the subject, and the lede does not orient. FIncomprehensible outside the specialty. It assumes what the reader came to find out.	For example Whole articleAcupuncture — Overall: D. Neutrality: F. Scholarship: C. Currency: B. Lede onlyPeter Schiff, lede — Neutrality: F. Simplicity: B. Both, separatelyLede — Neutrality: F. Whole article — Neutrality: D. Bare minimumOverall: C−
Endorses / Disputesa pair of keys	Point at other WikiCritic comments you agree or disagree with. Name as many URLs as you like. Endorses: You agree with this comment and want your name behind it. Disputes: You disagree. Lighter than writing a full reply of your own (a Rebuttal, defined under Kinds below)—you are registering disagreement in passing. There is no voting on comments, and there won't be. An endorsement counts only when it arrives attached to a published comment of your own, which is what keeps it from being cheap. Use whichever URL you have to hand—the address where the comment was originally published, or its WikiCritic page. Both resolve to the same comment.	Write one of Endorses: https://…/their-review Disputes: https://…/their-review
Revision	Wikipedia articles change constantly. Include a version's revision ID (the long number in the article's page-history URL) to tie your comment to the exact version you read. Skip it and we'll attach your comment to the current version.	For example Revision: 1365729205

Comment tags

you suggest, the agent decides

Tags are how WikiCritic files and filters comments. You never have to add any: our agent reads your post and tags it from what it finds. Naming the kind yourself—Review, Talkback—is welcome and the sample block above does it. The content tags in the second table are ours to detect; don't assert them.

Kinds — one comment, one or two of these

Review	An overall assessment of the page: how good or bad it is, and why. A review can include factual corrections, sourcing complaints, proposed remedies, and grades all at once—you don't need to file them separately.
Talkback	A report about what's happening behind the page: an editing dispute, a revert, a warning, a block. Every Talkback carries one or more of Reverted content, Threat report or Block report. Link the relevant Wikipedia diffs (the URLs that show the exact edit) when you can—they make the report far more credible.
Reverted content	Well-sourced material was removed or reverted.
Threat report	An editor was warned or threatened for good-faith editing.
Block report	Someone was actually blocked or banned.
Page suppression	A report that the page itself has been removed from view rather than merely edited—deleted, held in draft, or folded into something else. The complaint is about the page's standing, not about anyone's conduct on it. Carries one or more of Deletion report, Draft report or Merge report.
Deletion report	The page was deleted, or is up for deletion. Arguments about whether the subject is notable enough to have a page belong here—that is nearly always what a deletion turns on.
Draft report	The page is stuck in Draft or was rejected at Articles for Creation, and never reached the encyclopedia at all.
Merge report	The page was merged into another or turned into a redirect, so the subject no longer has an article of its own.
Subject response	For the rare case where you are the very person, organization, or thing the page is about, and you want to respond on the record.
Rebuttal	A response to someone else's WikiCritic comment, not to the article itself. Include the URL or title of the comment you're answering.

Content tags — what the comment contains

Detected by our agent when present. A comment may carry any number of them, or none.

Factual correction	A specific claim in the article is false, with a source.
New sources	Sources the article should cite but doesn't.
Sourcing dispute	A cited source is misrepresented, deprecated, or doesn't support the claim.
Proposed remedy	A concrete suggestion for what the article should say instead.
Commendation	Praise for what the article gets right.
Omission	Material the article leaves out altogether. Different from New sources: the gap is in what is covered, not in what is cited.
Outdated	Nothing was false when it was written; events have simply moved on and the article hasn't.
Link rot	A cited source no longer resolves, so the claim it supports can't be checked.
Citogenesis	The article is the ultimate source of its own citation: a claim originated on Wikipedia, was repeated by a publication, and that publication is now cited back as evidence for it.
Systemic pattern	The problem you're describing runs across many pages rather than this one alone, and you say so. The agent tags what you assert here; it does not go looking across other articles to check.
Coordinated editing	An allegation that several accounts are working together to hold an article in a particular shape.
Diffs provided	Your post links Wikipedia diffs. Not something you claim—we tag it because we can see them.
Sources cited	Your post cites external evidence for what it asserts.
Undisclosed paid editing	An allegation that someone is being paid to edit and hasn't said so. Listed last because it is real but very seldom provable from outside.

Revising a comment you've already submitted

Comments are not edited on WikiCritic—they are re-imported from wherever you published them. The simplest correction is therefore to fix your own post and send us the same URL again. If instead you publish the correction somewhere new, you have to tell us which comment it changes and we have to be satisfied that the two came from the same hands. Both of those are set out below.

Replaces / Updatesa pair of keys	When a new post is meant to change a comment we have already imported, say so plainly and name the URL. The agent cannot reliably work this out on its own—and if you don't tell us, we have no way to know, so you end up with two live comments on the same page under your name. Replaces: Overwrites the earlier comment entirely. Updates: Stacks a dated follow-up beneath it while the original text stays visible. This is what you want for a re-check: “the problem described above was fixed in revision 1234567” or “still present as of today.” Either address works—the URL where you originally published, or the WikiCritic link to the imported comment.	Write one of Replaces: https://…/my-earlier-post Updates: https://…/my-earlier-post
Same-owner checkhow this works — nothing to type	WikiCritic has no accounts, so control of the source page stands in for one: if you can edit the page a comment came from, you can change that comment. Same URL Edit your original post and re-submit the same URL. Nothing else is needed, and this is much the simplest way to correct a comment. Same site, same account, different URL Accepted automatically. A second post on the blog or handle that published the original is proof enough. Same site, different account Not accepted on its own. Sharing a platform proves nothing about who you are, so this is treated exactly like a different site. Different site The original has to point at the new one. Add a link to the new post from the old post, or from the same account that published it: a fresh post from the same handle counts. A new page merely asserting that it replaces an old one is not enough on its own—anyone could write that. If common ownership can't be established, nothing is lost. We import the new comment on its own and link it to the one it refers to; it simply doesn't overwrite anything.

Learn how the system works →

← Back to dashboard