From 44434be692bcf4c452f296b6ae774f3aceb7c736 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Anders L. Kolstad" <33656949+anders-kolstad@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:25:52 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Update and rename community-review---full-version.md to indicator-review-checklist.md #72 --- ...eview---full-version.md => indicator-review-checklist.md} | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) rename .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/{community-review---full-version.md => indicator-review-checklist.md} (93%) diff --git a/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/community-review---full-version.md b/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/indicator-review-checklist.md similarity index 93% rename from .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/community-review---full-version.md rename to .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/indicator-review-checklist.md index 03268b2..aa84b71 100644 --- a/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/community-review---full-version.md +++ b/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/indicator-review-checklist.md @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ --- -name: Community review - full version +name: Indicator review - checklist about: A checklist for complete reviews of indicator pages found on ecRxiv title: '[REVIEW]: "indicatorID"' labels: REVIEW @@ -29,7 +29,8 @@ Also, under **lables** in the right column, locate and choose the correct indica ### General checks - [ ] **Contribution and authorship:** Does the author list seem appropriate and complete? -- [ ] **Meta data:** Does the metadata entered for the indicator seem correct, including ECT class and ecosystem type? +- [ ] **Meta data:** Does the metadata entered for the indicator seem correct, including ECT class and ecosystem type? +- [ ] **Common language summary:** The common language summary is consice and clear. - [ ] **Introduction and concusion:** Is the introduction written so that it sums up the general method and usabillity of the indicator? - [ ] **Legibility and structure:** Is the documentation written so that is is easy, or at least possible, to follow the arguments? Is each header and sub-header populated with the appropriate text? - [ ] **Images, tables and figures:** Does the documentation contain the appropriate amount of tables, figures and images, and do these have high enough quality?