A Context Page
This is a context page that will help readers situate a StudyPlace article, an important part of making peer production fully effective. For the rationale behind this page see Help:New articles.
This section makes explicit the questions, concerns, resources, and standards that characterize the community of peers to be respected in the collaborative work on the article.
Please complete, revise, deepen.
List important points, each concisely stated with brief thoughts about how to present it and why it is important. This list may evolve into an annotated outline as points accumulate and spawn sub-points (You can easily generate an outline from the list by putting number signs at the beginning of points — # for a major point, ## for a sub-point, ### for a sub-sub-point, etc.) Over time, this outline may or may not match the "Contents" box of the article itself, which MediaWiki automatically generates for any article with more than three section headings, but for purposes of commenting on an article it may be helpful for editors to ensure that it does.
Scope and norms
Here the producers of an article name the people and resources that have been significant in influencing its production. Such a list defines a frame of reference indicating substantive attainments, both as present on StudyPlace and as presences in the culture at large, that are in effect the public norms for assessing the work at hand. This frame of reference sets the norms with respect to which those working on an article manage their interactions and those reading an article assess its strengths and weaknesses. The frame of reference should be as extensive as possible, since it will help contributors inform each other of the different backgrounds and special interests that they bring to a common subject. No contributor will have command personally of the whole frame, but the collaboration of many contributors should combine so that their common work meets the scope and standard of its peerhood.
. . .
This section makes public review comments that readers may make with respect to the substantive article and the peerhood for it. In effect, this is the peer-review appropriate for work in a digital commons.