Hi folks, We are (finally) about to begin reviewing and proofing the NumPy docstrings! This is the final step in producing professional-level docs for NumPy. What we need now are people willing to review docs. There are two types of reviewers: Technical reviewers should be developers or *very* experienced NumPy users. Technical review entails checking the source code (it's available on a click in the doc wiki) and reading the doc to ensure that the signature and description are both correct and complete. Presentation reviewers need to be modestly experienced with NumPy, and should have some experience either in technical writing or as educators. Their job is to make sure the docstring is understandable to the target audience (one level below the expected user of that item), including appropriate examples and references. Review entails reading each page, checking that it meets the review standards, and either approving it or saying how it doesn't meet them. All this takes place on the doc wiki, so the mechanics are easy. Please post a message on scipy-dev if you are interested in becoming a reviewer, or if you have questions about reviewing. As a volunteer reviewer, you can put as much or as little time into this as you like. Thanks! --jh-- for the SciPy Documentation Project team