Approving Contributions
How to review submissions and maintain data quality.
The review queue
Contributions from users appear in the curator dashboard. Each submission shows what was added or changed, the contributor's notes, and the sources they referenced. Review contributions in the order they were submitted when possible.
What to check
- Accuracy - Does the information match what happens in the book? Check the referenced source if you're familiar with the material.
- Right character and book - Is this information about the right character, in the right book and chapter?
- Right type - Is the appearance type (point of view, on page, or mentioned) correct? Are life event types accurate?
- Sources - Does the contribution mention at least one source? Is it specific enough to verify?
- Clear notes - Are the notes helpful and specific? Do they stick to what happens in the text?
Actions
Approve
The contribution goes live on the site. The contributor is notified.
Request changes
Ask the contributor to fix something before approval. Be specific about what needs changing and why. The contributor can revise and resubmit.
Reject
Use this sparingly - only when the information is clearly wrong or can't be verified. Always explain why, and be sure before rejecting.
Writing feedback
- Be specific: "Chapter 15 shows Vin on page, not point of view" is better than "wrong type"
- Be encouraging: acknowledge what they got right alongside what needs fixing
- Be patient with new contributors - they're learning the system
- Explain standards rather than just enforcing them
Edge cases
When the appearance type isn't clear
Sometimes it's unclear whether a character is "on page" or "mentioned" - e.g. when they're seen from a distance or in a dream sequence. Use your best judgement and be consistent.
Conflicting contributions
If two contributors submit conflicting information about the same event, check the source material. Accept the more accurate one and explain the decision to the other contributor.