Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests

A requested COI edit is a request by someone with a conflict of interest for a volunteer to spend their time reviewing and doing the edit, and in related discussion. This guide provides information and suggestions useful to increasing your success at getting your proposed edit reviewed and reviewed more quickly. None are requirements for submitting an edit request.

Align with the objectives of Wikipedia

Editors are usually more willing to invest their time on edits that improve the encyclopedia than on those that appear to serve primarily other purposes, for example promotion of the article subject or its products, etc. As described in the next section, this also helps in other ways.

Be sensitive to factors that affect the amount of time that is being requested

It helps to be sensitive to factors that affect the amount of time that is being requested. This section describes ways to reduce the amount of volunteer time being requested by your proposed edit

Provide a finalized and clearly formatted request

Prepare a finalized and clearly formatted request (such as substitute "xxx" for "yyy" verbatim). Many well meaning editors fail to do this and accidentally make the review and edit a much larger job. To be successful at this:

• Specify exactly what text is to be removed (if any) for the proposed replacement or deletion
• Specify exactly / verbatim the new text or material that you propose adding. Do this without relying on / substituting descriptions or paraphrasing
• Specify exactly where the proposed new text or material is to be added

Avoid requests that are problematic or borderline

Avoid requests that are problematic or borderline. Borderline decisions are much more difficult than slam-dunk ones. They require more thorough review. Also reviewers know that their decision might be scrutinized by others. This may narrow the field for those willing to make the edit, and require reviewers to include a more thorough rationale for their acceptance.

Explain your reasoning

If it isn't or might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the subject, explain, succinctly, why you want to make a change. This makes it easier for a reviewer to evaluate the request and understand that your request was motivated by a good faith desire to improve the encyclopaedia.

Be consistent with and reflect knowledge of policies and guidelines

Being consistent with and reflect knowledge of policies and guidelines. This is not a requirement for submitting an edit, but it's good to understand that it is helpful.

Break large edits up into smaller ones

Make smaller and medium sized proposed edits rather than huge ones. An edit that is twice as large can take 4 times as long to identify the relevant changes being made.

For example, if your proposal consists of parts that are clearly uncontroversial and parts that are not clear, then consider splitting it into two requests. This will increase the chances of the uncontroversial changes being accepted quickly and shouldn't reduce the chance of the controversial aspects being accepted. Similarly if you wish to make multiple large and/or (potentially) controversial changes then split them into separate requests that don't depend on each other. This makes it easier on reviewers and more likely that at least some of your changes will be accepted.

Conclusion

A proposed edit that is mindful of the above is more likely to receive a prompt reply and more likely to be accepted. When a requested edit makes large departures from several of these, it may fail to get a volunteer to work on it.

See also

{{Request edit}}