Loading…
Loading contentLoading…
Loading contentWhat makes a good, sourced, reviewable contribution — and what the review looks for.
A good contribution is small, sourced, attached to a real object, and honest about its domain and evidence. Reviewers check exactly these things. Start from a template.
Correct a field on an existing entity (e.g. a planet's radius), backed by a source.
targets: entity, source
Correct the type, confidence, domain, or note of an existing relationship.
targets: relationship, source
Propose a new typed relationship between two existing entities.
targets: entity, source
Propose a new entity (with a stable id) and its initial sourced metadata.
targets: entity, source
Add an authoritative source that supports an existing entity or relationship.
targets: entity, relationship, source
Attach a formal citation (paper, dataset, catalogue) to an entity or relationship.
targets: entity, relationship, source, citation
Improve the provenance record of an entity, relationship, or image.
targets: entity, relationship, image, source
Submit a verified scientific image of an entity, with license, credit, and source.
targets: entity, source
Correct the metadata (credit, source, instrument, provenance) of an existing image.
targets: image, source
Suggest a localized title/description for an entity in another language.
targets: entity
Correct or add an event on a sourced timeline.
targets: timeline, entity, source
Report a completeness or correctness issue with a published dataset.
targets: dataset, entity
Report an issue with an Open Data API endpoint or its documentation.
targets: api
A scientific reviewer's note on an entity, relationship, image, or dataset.
targets: entity, relationship, image, dataset, source
An editor's note on an entity, relationship, image, dataset, or timeline.
targets: entity, relationship, image, dataset, timeline