As part of the editor review process, prospective submitters are required to first participate in at least 3 recent reviews before filing a new request.

These guidelines are intended to be assistive and are not prescriptive. The first priorities of any reviewer should be to exercise good judgement and common sense. Reviewers may choose to evaluate and comment on any observation that they see fit, so long as their commentary is constructive.

Please note that context is important in evaluating an editor's contributions and observations should be weighed to determine relevance. As a general rule of thumb, recent contributions should be the focus of analysis, but in certain cases it may be helpful to consider an editor's progression in areas of past interest. If in doubt, remember that any activity may be considered or disregarded. Some users may also indicate particular curiosities and these areas should usually be considered a priority.

No two editors are the same — Wikipedians come from many different backgrounds and contribute in a wide variety of ways. Some concentrate on areas of intrinsic interest or expertise. Some edit indiscriminately according to systems of broader purpose. Still, some may have vastly different objectives: they may contribute through consensus building, bureaucratic proceedings, or even programming. Whatever the case, feedback should consider the range of participation.

Many times, editors will want to hear feedback on how well they are doing what they are doing. Other times, however, editors may want to know what they could or should be doing but aren't doing. These cues are important in providing useful feedback.

In the vast majority of cases, the quality of an editor's contributions will be important to consider. Some areas to consider include:

1. Substance
   1. Coherence (Does this make good sense?)
   2. Veracity (Does this conform to fact?)
   3. Neutrality (Is this neutral?)
   4. Verifiability (Is this substantiatable?)
2. Style
   1. Comprehensibility (Is this understandable?)
   2. Tone (Is this encyclopedic?)
   3. Vibrance (Does this captivate my interest?)
   4. Formatting (Does this text flow well and look appealing?)
3. Standardization
   1. Do edits reflect the Manual of Style?
   2. Do page titles adhere to relevant naming conventions?
   3. Does content quality, relative to the editor, appear consistent across the board?
4. Specialization
   1. Does the editor make a lot of minor edits?
   2. Does the editor perform many maintenance edits?
   3. Does the editor frequently utilize special tools?
   4. Does the editor concentrate on administrative tasks?^[1]
   5. Does the editor focus on the goals or needs of a WikiProject?
   6. Does the editor contribute through coding or by operating a bot?
   7. Does the editor specialize in any other noticeable area or serve as a "wildcard" that benefits the community in some unique way?

Collaboration is what makes Wikipedia possible. When editors come together and cooperate, they can ensure that all views are represented in the project, hash out difficult problems, and work toward achieving common goals not otherwise possible. Sometimes, cooperation is as simple as thinking of others ahead of time.

Disagreements can and do arise amongst members of the same professional body, between long-time colleagues, and even at the dinner table. In the case of Wikipedia, editors come from vastly different backgrounds. They may be affluent businesspersons and moonlighters, single parents and pensioners, professors with multiple doctorates and people who dropped out or never attended school, individuals who are neuroatypical or physically disabled, and even gifted children. They may, too, come from the First World, Second World, or Third World, and they may carry with them the experiences associated with their cultural heritage and socioeconomic backgrounds. Many times, they may also have deeply held convictions that conflict with those of other editors: one may identify as faithful while another identifies as irreligious, one may identify as nationalist while another identifies as a separatist, and one may identify as a conservative while another identifies as a progressive. This great diversity has enabled the project to become what it is today, though at times, it can lead to friction — and so an effective editor must be able to communicate their ideas well and interact with others constructively, sometimes even when the effort is not reciprocated.

Consider the following:

1. Cooperation
   1. Does the editor appreciate the efforts of others?
      1. Do they frequently "blank" large quantities of content?
      2. Do they follow up after participating in discussions?
      3. Do they discuss contested reverts?
   2. Does the editor consider their impact on others?
      1. Do they provide edit summaries when their absence might cause confusion?
2. Collegiality
   1. Does the editor maintain a respectable posture in heated discussions?
      1. Do they "keep their cool" other users are being unreasonable or belligerent?
      2. Do they continue to be constructive when participating in controversial debates?
   2. Does the editor represent their views effectively?
      1. Do they tend to make good points but fail to express them in a compelling manner?
      2. Do they present their ideas in a coherent and approachable fashion?
   3. Does the editor consider the merits of opposing views?
      1. Do they generally acknowledge or address such views in their responses?
      2. Do they ever concede a point of contention under any circumstance?
3. Best practices
   1. How well does the user approach issues that are not black and white?
   2. Does the editor conduct themselves responsibly in matters that require human discretion?

Evaluate the editor's overall participation and consider their productivity. For example:

• Trends — How has the editor's participation changed over time? Have they improved in some way? Do they seem to have forgotten something that they used to consider meaningful?
• Strengths — Does the user appear to be great at something specific or unique?
• Protocol — Would the editor benefit from better understanding of policies and guidelines?
• Opportunities — Do they seem like a good match for a WikiProject that might not know about? Is there a tool that would improve their editing experience?
• Effectiveness — Do you see a way that the user could be more effective?

Over the course of enough time, all editors can be expected to exhibit some patterns in their editing and behavior. These patterns may provide insight into an editor's interests, ethos, expertise, proclivities, and personality. Sometimes, these patterns may be useful in providing feedback.

Some examples of pattern behavior during interactions include the following:

• A willingness or tendency to help other editors, especially those who are less experienced or may not be appreciative (friendly)
• Overt attempts to inflate edit count (stat padding) ^{[See example]}
• Dismay inevitably occurring in most or all interactions, occasionally without ever breaking rules in a technical sense (toxic)
• Repeated efforts to portray a single subject in a positive or negative light (POV pushing)
• Calm, reasoned interactions with others at all times, even when they are hostile (diplomatic)

Examples of pattern behaviors while editing include:

• Heavy contribution in a particular area (subject expertise)
• Lots of minor edits that enhance the work of others (incremental)
• Frequent addition or expansion of content in many areas (expansion)
• Pursuit of an agenda clearly defined on the userpage, such as reconciling inconsistencies in dialect in any article (systematic)
• Significant efforts to process issues at noticeboards and to improve related policies (bureaucratic)
• Commitment to improving the project at the suggestion of others on article talk pages, through WikiProjects, or by direct request (collaborative)

Editors displaying consistent patterns of maliciousness, malevolence, or belligerence when interacting with others should be approached with caution. Some users, particularly those with mixed behavioral patterns such as a lengthy history of positive content contributions and negative interactions leading to repeated blocks, may have inherent antisocial tendencies that are best addressed from a thoughtful and pragmatic perspective. Other patterns can be good starting points for conversation about ways to improve, or they may simply be understood as an integral part of the editor's identity.