Run a small review session without rewarding speed

Context and provenance

Choose a short review batch that fits your actual available time. Read each title and context first, then open the cited evidence. Check whether the source supports the specific explanation and whether the rights statement describes what is known rather than promising permission without evidence. Keep unclear cases separate from straightforward rejections.

Use a consistent decision note: what you checked, what the source supports, what remains uncertain and what the contributor can improve. Avoid generic messages that merely repeat the selected status. An optional AI appraisal can suggest questions, but its text-only input cannot establish that a page was visited or an image was inspected.

At the end of the session, record the number reviewed, accepted, rejected and left unresolved, plus the age of the oldest unresolved submission. Review time is a capacity observation, not a reason to approve weak material. The v5 queue displays a limited recent set; use database exports when auditing a larger installation. This workflow is a proposed editorial practice, not an assertion that automation removes review work.

Sources and evidence

1. W3C: PROV overview