Grants talk:IEG/Enhance Proofreading for Dutch

LanguageTool

@TaalTik: It sounds like LanguageTool is an existing tool on Dutch Wikipedia. Can you provide some more information on it such as links to the code or documentation? Is it already widely used? whym (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

One assumes that https://www.languagetool.org/ is meant. Its one of the most well known/widely used of the open source grammar checkers. Bawolff (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I presumed that the tool was going to be a gadget on MediaWiki, which could be wrong in light of Bawolff's comment above. Is it going to be a web service on Tools Labs [1]? If so, how can we help a wide range of users of Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) will find and use it? whym (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is already a tool on Wikipedia: https://tools.wmflabs.org/languagetool/?lang=nl , but it could be incorporated even more, like auto proofreading at a submit. But that is not part of my proposal; the proposal is all about making LanguageTool and Wikipedia more compliant, like rules not conflicting with Wikipedia markup, a more complete dictionary, especially filled with Wikipedia words (proper names) and no false alarms from those names.

About the license; I am sure there is a compatible license; I am not familiar with legal matters, but license is very free indeed.

TaalTik (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary

@TaalTik: Can we make sure spelling dictionaries are (or are going to be made) available under a free license? If they are imported from Mozilla products, Ooo or LibreOffice into an on-wiki gadget, do you know if the licenses can be compatible? whym (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I think its great to see proposals that enhance the wider open-source eco-system. Bawolff (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Finalize your proposal by October 1st!

Hi TaalTik. Thank you for drafting this proposal!

• Once you're ready to submit it for review, please update its status (in your page's Probox markup) from DRAFT to PROPOSED, as the deadline is September 30th.
• If you have any questions at all, feel free to contact me (IEG committee member) or Siko (IEG program head), or just post a note on this talk page and we'll see it.

Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2014

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2014 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2014 begins on 21 October 2014, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Jtud (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification suggestions

Hoi TaalTik, just a reminder that you should post some notes about your proposal on the Dutch Wikipedia, preferably at several noticeboards. This will bring in more feedback, and perhaps assistance with your idea. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Similar mentoring projects

This is similar to mw:Mentorship programs/Possible projects#Collaborative spelling dictionary building tool and mw:Mentorship programs/Possible projects#Unified language proofing tools integration framework. I suggest that you first complete a microtask of those suggested there, and comment on the related bugzilla reports. Then, I'd like to know how the two efforts will help each other. Please contact User:Amire80. --Nemo 09:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Enhance Proofreading for Dutch

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	5.2
(B) Innovation and learning Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?	4.7
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	5.7
(D) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?	3.5
Comments from the committee: Lacking community discussion and endorsements from members of the target community. No evidence of active community engagement. No quantitative measures of success have been defined. It is unclear whether any adequate measures are easily available unless there has been existing research into the prevalence of detectable errors on the Dutch Wikipedia. The proposed labor rate appears high for the type of work involved.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results, and WMF is proceeding with its due-diligence. You are welcome to continue making updates to your proposal pages during this period. Funding decisions will be announced by early December. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Round 2 2014 Decision

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
We would love to see more engagement with your target user community in any future ideas you have.

Next steps:

1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.