Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10


Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-submitting?

I submitted Tara Conner for peer review but it only got one response and nothing after I responded to those comments. Is it possible to re-submit it? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, plenty of articles go through several peer reviews. Quadzilla99 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just assuming that anyone is allowed to archive and this was getting very long. I will put a distinguish to show it is not exactly the same as the Archive 2 of the Peer Review. This makes things go out-of-sync.

Secondly, is it possible to have featured WikiProjects? Simply south 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can archive, and no, WikiProjects cannot be featured; though some featured portals have strong links to WikiProjects. Oldelpaso 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

username subsections

Why the practice of wikilinking the username in the subsection title, when creating a subsection for that user's comments in Peer Review areas? I keep thinking there's an article for review called Kirill Lokshin. :) Seriously, subdividing by user makes sense, but to my mind the linking of the username doesn't: it's distracting, and one is after all signing the message anyway. –Outriggr § 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it's a practice only done at WikiProject specific peer reviews. Example being the Military history and Biography WikiProject's. My guess it is for better organization since those participating reviewers usually do a throughout review. Your seeing this done here because User:MartinBotII began copying an pasting peer review pages from Military WikiProject here. — Tutmosis 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my specific question came through: I think the subsections are good for organization too, it's just that wikilinking the username makes it look like the username (now in blue) is another article—on my screen anyway, there's not much font size difference. Thanks, –Outriggr § 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add my name to the list of people being slightly irritated about the wikilinking of username headers. My esteemed fellow Wikipedians: there is no reason to do it; it just confuses the reader scrolling through the PR page. If someone wants to access your user page, they can always click on your signatures. Please consider dewikifying your tags. Thank you. --Plek 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is absurd. I spent a few minutes reading one username that could have been an article, with its short paragraph that could have been a peer review request, rather than feedback. I am boldy adjusting the Peer Review response section to include directions not to link the username header. The current format is NOT intuitive (being unindented), user-friendly, or accessible to those with poorer eyesight. –Outriggr § 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Urgh, just seen this. Sorry, I didn't realise it was confusing, it was just laziness on my part (three tildes being marginally quicker to type than 6 letters). I won't do it from now on. Trebor 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I never thought of the three-tilde thing; at least now I understand why the linking is so predominant. But, I just realized that these peer reviews go back to various wikiprojects, so I should probably broach my "bold move" with Biography first. –Outriggr § 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I dropped by PR and was pleasantly surprised to see that username sections are no longer being linked by most users. Thanks. –Outriggr § 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews?

I put Andrew Van de Kamp up for peer review on the 12th January. Six days later it has had zero reviews. On further inspection, it seems that a worrying number of peer reviews also have no reviews. What is happening? Where has everybody gone? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I would agree with Dev920's sense of wonderment. I put up two articles I'd like to prepare for and FAC, both Joyce Kilmer and Rutgers University, and I only got commentary from people one or two people, and only because I asked them to take a look. I was disappointed with the turn out these two PR requests got, and am saddened to see I'm not the only one whose wondering where everyone seems to have disappeared to. —ExplorerCDT 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There are just a lot more people wanting reviews than are giving them. If everyone who left a review could review a couple of other articles themselves, it would help immensely. I try to get through a fair amount, but it's ridiculously swamped. At the moment it seems that people prefer to hammer it on FAC than help it here. That said, I'll have a look at your articles. Trebor 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If possible, you should list the reviews through one (or more) of the associated WikiProjects instead. Most of them now have the bot set up to replicate listings onto this page, so you won't be losing anything; and WikiProjects tend to be more conscientious about actually providing reviews for anything that shows up at their doorstep, so to speak. Kirill Lokshin 12:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I try to provide reviews after I have received my own (unless I'm distracted by an FAC) - but I can't do that unless I receive reviews! I have started using the WikiProjects' peer reviews, and I'm going to start one at WP:LGBT, but there isn't one for my article, so I was getting a bit worried. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
To me it seems important not simply to list an article here, but to seek reviewers proactively. Often an article's strongest opponent makes a good reviewer. The Village Pump is a good source, as are direct invitations to prior active editors who have stopped editing. Relying on "passing trade" is not the best way. You have to advertise. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This was a common issue on the 2nd archive of this page (here and here, for example; the response to the latter is very relevant). One way to get more reviews is to invite (politely) editors from related WikiProjects or who have shown a large amount of interest with the article in question or related topics; VP also works as mentioned above. I usually spend some time on articles which have passed through PR one time w/o any comments and then are renominated, as well as other articles at random. It's also the reason that I thought up of the concept of the script. AZ t 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How the heck do I edit these things?

I wanted to make a small comment on the I-290 entry, but I still have no idea how to do it. If I click on the header I go to the page itself, which isn't useful. And if I edit the PR page, there's a big warning saying DON'T EDIT! This really needs to be a LOT simpler. Can we make the bot put a link to wherever the magical page to edit actually is? Maury 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I finally figured this out. So you come to this page and see something you wouldn't mind helping out on. So then you click on the topic header, but that takes you to the actual page. From that point you have to click on the Discussion tab to see the talk page, and then you have to find the peer review template tag and click on the correct one of the two links there. THEN you can edit it.
No wonder no-one's filling reviews! If there was a link right here to the editor I think the number would go up. Maury 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally, you would click on the section edit button on the PR page. If you have turned off section editing in your preferences, then I agree finding the page would be difficult.-gadfium 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of editing interest

Pardon me for asking what may be a silly question, given the routine concerns I see in the discussions about low participation and backlogs here, but is there a concern about peer reviews being done by editors who have made significant contributions to an article? I'm not talking about WP:COI, where the editors have some involvement in the subject itself. I mean that, in my mind, a "peer review" of a work is done by someone who has had no significant involvement in composing that document. If what we mean by "peer review" is nothing more than a call for any interested editors to make suggestions, I suppose there's no issue. But I didn't see this specifically addressed anywhere in the current WP:PR, this talk page, or any of this page's archives, so I'd like to get opinions from the regular participants here. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with someone that has contributed to the article giving their opinions on it's improvement. Peer-reviews here do not necessarily mean everything recommended in it needs to be actioned. I think that the more thoughtful comments and discussion the better; regardless of who is making them. - Shudda talk 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review falling apart?!

I listed Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War for review a week ago, and all I've gotten is the automated review (thank goodness, at least it's something!). I noticed my request wasn't the only one that hadn't gotten responses; in fact, few did. I also listed the article on the CVG PR, but only one person helped there. Peer review is obviously being forgotten, and this isn't a good thing (unless you're an anti-wikipedia geek, trying to stir up anarchy within our domain... ;). Shouldn't a request for new reviewers be posted on the community portal, the admin noticeboards, wikiprojects, etc.? I'll help if I see anything I can help with, but frankly, that won't be enough... · AO Talk 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I have always thought one way would be to have some sort of system where anyone requesting peer review agreed to look at three other articles. It could be an honors system or it could be links required (here are the three articles I have looked at and added comments to) before anyone reviews your article. Just an idea Ruhrfisch 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As a rule I have been editing two for each one posted. But it doesn't matter, I still usually only get the automated review, but they do help.A mcmurray 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Muhhaha! I added two 200 point questions to the WP:HOLICTEST regarding peer review; we should be getting help. :-) · AO Talk 10:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There are some relevant discussions here, here, and here. By the way, thanks AO for 450 more points on WP:HOLICTEST (though I really don’t plan on taking it any time soon). AZ t 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By far the best way to get reviews is to ask some users directly on their talk. Otherwise yours can get lost in the sheer volume of articles. Trebor 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I also initiated a "peer review exchange program" with another editor whose article hadn't been reviewed yet. An "I'll read yours, if you read mine" sort of thing. Awadewit | talk 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sound of Music?

Shouldnt they mention the movie "Sound of Music" it's like my all time favorite movie and it's a classic! 

                       From your wikipedia comment giver,
                                 Abby (AKA Sammy's BFF)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.121.30 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Resubmitting article for peer review request

Hi people. I followed the steps given on the project page for 'How To Resubmit Request'. I could do Step 1, but Step 2 just blew over my head; don't know how to do it. Could someone tell me exactly how to do it? It says edit the peer review page and 'remove redirect' but there is no such redirect to remove etc. This is confusing. Here is the previous peer review page for this article (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ilaiyaraaja). Could someone help do Step 2 for me? Thanks... AppleJuggler 05:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you managed it, though I see that the article is currently on featured article candidates. Generally speaking, articles should not go on both peer review and FAC at the same time. Oldelpaso 11:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really get to do it right, Oldelpaso. But I decided not to peer review it again and went for a FAC instead. AppleJuggler 11:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposing changes to request removal policy

I request the following changes to the request removal policy:

  • Requests that have attracted comments from other people, and where the original poster has not responded to these comments within a week, should also be removed. Requesting and then ignoring comments tends to discourage potentially valuable input, and peer review needs to attract more, not less, comments from reviewers. However, please be careful when you decide to remove a listing for this reason! Requesters are encouraged to respond on the peer review page, so as to keep everyone informed of the progress of the article; nevertheless, before removing an apparently unresponsive poster, please check first whether they have perhaps responded somewhere else: on the article's talk page, on the reviewer's talk page, or by editing the article appropriately.
  • Such situations are very likely to happen; there are many peer review requesters which are purposing to leave the review to run its full course before beginning work on article, or become busy whilst the review is still open. The practice of ignoring comments might be seen as bad in the eyes of many, but it shouldn't be a reason for delisting or archiving a review, especially if this may prevent further constructive feedback from editors.
  • New criteria: Articles which have been deleted, through a deletion debate or otherwise, should be delisted. In case an article has been undeleted, the request may reopen at any time.
While I dislike seeing an article put up for peer review by someone who then has little to do with the article, if other editors respond to criticisms in the review, then it should not be removed.-gadfium 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In case you're misunderstanding, I would like to remove that criteria, not add it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Since no objections have been made, I went ahead and made the changes myself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Boldness

I was thinking of being bold and adding a polite suggestion that each user do two thoughtful peer reviews on articles already posted (preferably ones with little feedback) whenever posting an article here for peer reviews. Two is an arbitrary number its just what I always do when I post an article. Thought I would post it here first at risk of being too bold.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As an additional note, it can be an easy sell for us nerdy Wikipedian types. Myself, I can always find some interesting article about a subject I know little about to do a peer review on. It helps me (by adding to my overall knowledge base) and helps the user who posted that article for peer review. For instance, today I can say I learned about Tungsten and the Reagan assassination attempt.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I just can't seem to shut up, but the policy seems to work fairly well over at WP:GAC, I believe they ask for each poster to do one review, but with the sheer amount of material here I would say two is better.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? If no one responds I will just go ahead and do it tonight.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% - I would also say to give preference to reviewing articles that have been here longest without any comment (besides semi automated), hopefully this would spread the reviews around. Thanks for doing this, Ruhrfisch 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Voila!A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I did just end up going with one, thought it better. It might make people more likely to go ahead and do one.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I also put a note up on the Community Portal calling for new participants, it will be up for a week.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully

Hopefully this works:

See User:Qxz/Ads for more details. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No responses

What do you do if you get no responses? Should you even bother to archive it? Quadzilla99 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Quadzilla99 17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow the 60 percent of people asking for reviews.

After years and years of 60 percent of PR requests being composed of the "bad article, give me advice on how to improve it" request we really should get a big disclaimer or some enforcement. Honestly if the article is bad, then it has one of the several issues:

  • Barely provides information on the subject. Then if someone wants to improve it maybe they should start with "researching". Do they want an outline of every aspect of information the article should provide? Well they probably will never get that.
  • poor/no references and citation. Well then get some...
  • Issues like grammar, spelling, MoS issues, are also a no brainer. Fix it or ask someone.

I'm dumbstruck on what advice this people are looking for, do they want a diagram of every step they should take to improve the article? Do they need someone to give them directions to the library and tell them what books to get, what pages to read, what information to summarize? Geez. How hard is it to read the first sentence on this page that states that this process is intended for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Flooding it with shit articles that compose 90 percent of the yet unfinished wikipedia articles will just backlog this process and make everyone reluctant to participate. STOP asking for people's advice on how to improve a barely existent article. Use your logical thinking on how to improve it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.107.4 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

If they are seeking general advice on how to improve a bad article (as opposed to advice on how to polish a good article), they should file a request for feedback instead. As I created the RFF process, I'd appreciate it if you pointed them in the right direction. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

peer review is not a peer review

In the header of the article it reads, "It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other." This is a negative definition (what is not, instead of what it is) and is inconsistent with what a peer review is. My problem isn't the wording, its malappropriating a phrase for another meaning. The reason this is a problem is that while it may in the long run expand the way the language is used, in the short run it confuses. I'd suggest a title like, "broad community review." and reserve "peer review" for reviews performed by experts in the field in question. Pdbailey 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disputed statement sends people here

Did anyone here even realize that Wikipedia:Disputed statement sends people to peer review to deal with content problems? That's the page that the {{dubious}} template links to. If followed literally, it will lead people to "Request peer review to obtain correct information" every time they find a statement that seems inaccurate but can't fix it right away. —Celithemis 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As part of my admin coaching with The Transhumanist, I've written User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates. I'm looking for help with copyediting. Please do take a look. Thanks, --Dweller 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Removing a peer review

Someone please tell me how to get rid of a peer review and move it to an archive. I've tried moving it to the archive but that just dumped it onto another peer review's page. Please drop a note on my talk page (click "words" on my sig). The bizarre syntax "remove to" is confusing especially. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Undeveloped articles, how to remove?

I just noticed that there are a lot of undeveloped articles up for peer review, although at the to it says that such articles are just reviewed from the talk page. Is there a procedure for removing these? Wrad 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging more reviewers

An idea was raised at FAC talk on how to encourage more reviewers, by having a bot count PR contributions and generate a "league table", along the lines of Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations. It would work by finding all PR noms, which it can get from this page's history, and then scanning those for contributions. The idea would be to encourage people to participate by seeing their rank increase. There's a risk that it would cause people to try to fake scores by doing pointless edits, but I doubt anyone would bother; and if there's a chance it would help then I think it's worth the risk.

It's being considered for FAC too, but there's no consensus it's worth it there yet. However, it was suggested it could help more at PR which has a bigger backlog. Any comments? If nobody objects, I can post a note to WP:BOTREQ to ask if anyone could create such a bot. Mike Christie (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said at WT:FAC, I support the idea of trying this out here, to hopefully kickstart PR, resolve some of the backlog here, and help articles come to FAC better prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisting peer reviews which were archived without receiving comments

Singapore Dreaming's peer review was archived after receiving no reviews (except an automated one) for a couple of weeks. Should I "un-archive" and relist the archived peer review, or file a new one? The former would save me the trouble of moving the archived peer review (which requires admin intervention if there are multiple archived reviews) and typing a new review request. Whether I relist the peer review or file a new peer review, could you comment at the peer review? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

What has happened to the automated peer review feature? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

Hi, I want to know why is there people listing "Topic-specific" articles for peer-review here since there is a "Topic-specific peer reviews" links section below this page's header. --Andersmusician VOTE 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can an article be on PR and GAC simultaneously?

Unlike FACs, GACs are passed, failed or put on hold by a single reviewer after several days to a month (depending on the size of the backlog). Although contributors may improve an article while it is on GAC, they are not given any feedback until a reviewer determines the outcome of the nomination.

I understand that an article may not be on PR and FAC simultaneously. However, can an article be on PR and GAC simultaneously? In 4 hours' time, I will nominate I Not Stupid for GA, so I'd like to know whether I should close its ongoing peer review.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Listed at WikiProjects and here

I thought that all peer reviews listed at various WikiProjects (such as Novels and Biography) were supposed to be cross-listed here. Is there something extra that needs to be done for that to happen? I don't think it is happening, currently. Awadewit | talk 14:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This activity was handled by User:MartinBotII and appears to have last occurred on June 27, 2007. Inquiries should probably go to the bot's owner. --Allen3 talk 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I have contacted the owner. Awadewit | talk 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/Peer review

Can anyone figure out why there are peer review boxes for Peer review after "Water supply and sanitation in Bolivia" and "Water supply and sanitation in Indonesia"? DrKiernan 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Three of the "water supply and sanitation" requests (Ethiopia, India, and Paraguay) had the contents of the transclusion page swapped with the associated article's talk page contents. This problem has been corrected. --Allen3 talk 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead?

Is peer review dead? I hadn't used it for awhile when I posted Pettit Memorial Chapel, an important Frank Lloyd Wright building, for peer review on July 8. The only response I received was 8 days later asking if I queried WikiProject Architecture, which I did that day. Over a week later and nothing has been said in its review. Considering I have raised almost 20 articles to GA by myself and am on the cusp of my first FA I suppose I don't need to use this feature but peer reviews have oft pointed out things that I, as a main author, have overlooked. It is sad to see that peer review has died. IvoShandor 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, dead. : ( IvoShandor 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a few ideas to enliven it. Namely, a wikiproject overwatching it, and enforcing stricter rules... Wrad 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
A response! Hooray! That would be good, I wonder how others feel, as is I am less prone to contribute to reviews because mine are summarily ignored, even when I do. If I get reviews, my policy has always been to review an article or two, often for those who do my review. I used to come in and do a slew of 'em but became really frustrated by the lack of response. This part of the project is far too valuable to lose. I would join any WikiProject aimed at saving it. IvoShandor 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that peer review would greatly benefit if it was sorted by subjects. That way a editor can review articles that they are interested in. (similar the AFD sorting). Jon513 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I was also thinking of having different degrees of reviews. One for those just trying to get started, one for those aiming for GA, one for those aiming for FA... Wrad 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A past attempt to divide peer review into several groupings showed that the only "benefits" received were additional confusion by request submitters on how to add an entry and a significant increase in the effort required to perform archiving and other maintenance. This is because most reviewers concentrate on the top few requests at the top of the page when looking for an article to review while entries further down the page have great difficulty receiving an initial comment. Due to my memory of dealing with and then cleaning up this past attempt, I will not support a repeat of this experiment. This means that anyone wishing to implement the type of reorganization being proposed is also volunteering to take over the daily maintenance work required to implement archiving and cleanup of improperly submitted requests. --Allen3 talk 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Ivo's original comment, I sometimes have more luck with reviewing other's articles first and then politely asking them to review mine. Mind you, some editors never seem to look at their peer review requests again (not aimed at anyone recently!) so it doesn't always work. :) 4u1e 12:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Not sure if additional instruction creep is what we need (i.e. sorting peer reviews) but I still think that a project could be helpful, it would give the people who enjoy doing peer reviews a place to congregate and somewhere to coordinate backlog elimination drives (A recent one I noticed at WP:GAC really cleaned up the backlog there, and they do have a affiliated WikiProject. This seems like a logical step to me, any thoughts? Any one willing to do the construction and proposal and such? IvoShandor 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is an excellent idea to divide the peer reviews by topic like they have done at GAC (although I would suggest broader topics than they have - the recent change was detrimental, I think). I tend to review history and literature articles, so I am continually scrolling to see if I missed something interesting on this page. I review much more at GAC since it is easier to identify articles that I would be good at reviewing. Awadewit | talk 06:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

TOC

Would anyone have a problem with making the TOC float on the right side of the page, next to all the reviews (something similar to editor review)? I would be bold and do it, but it seems a little big to be bold about, so I've brought it here. All comments appreciated. Sebi [talk] 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You do know you can modify your personal style sheet to accomplish the same thing, correct? Gentgeen 11:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I posted this thread what seems like ages ago. Yes, I do know I can muck around with it, but it's not much of a problem now anyway. Sebi [talk] 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

UrgentPR

I created a template ({{UrgentPR}}) to help assist in listing some peer reviews that have stuck around for awhile and have received no reply. I have seen a few of these for FACs and FAR and they were placed in the user space. I'm not sure if there is something against these templates being used in the template space so they were moved to the user space. Sebi [talk] 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing a PR

I have never closed a peer reveiw. However, I know that Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago/archive1 has not been closed properly. I was cleaning up its talk page and noticed. Could someone please close it or leave a note on my talk page how to do so. There is no procedure at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy and I don't want to leave out any steps.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Review workshop

All reviewers taking part in WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR, are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. While there's no specific proposals on changing anything currently, we're trying to initiate a friendly discussion regarding the review processes on wikipedia as a whole, and how to improve all of them. Dr. Cash 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Reform of peer review is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop. DrKiernan 08:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop transcluding WikiProject Biography peer reviews

I have been transluding the WikiProject Biography peer reviews to this page by hand since the bot that used to do it shut down. Would anyone object to me editing the bottom of the Peer review instructions as below? It would enable me to stop transcluding the WikiProject Biographies to this page, as they would show up in the announcement list at the bottom of the instructions template instead. DrKiernan 08:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Related pages:

Topic-specific peer reviews (full list):

Biography peer reviews: Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •


I would recommend holding off on making major modifications to the page, pending outcome of the above-mentioned discussion on reforming the PR system overall. One of the discussions being talked about is a category-based listing of articles at PR, similar to WP:GAN, which would improve on this. And we're talking about increased bot maintenance for this as well. So please hold off pending the outcome of these discussions. Thanks! Dr. Cash 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing PR

As mentioned a couple of threads up, changes to reinvigorate Peer review have been under discussion at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop, especially on its talk page. As the discussion there is stalling, I thought it worthwhile to bring ideas here for implementation (though I see this is far from an active talk page). The simplest and hardest to argue with change is introducing categories on this page, thus making it more browsable. (Indeed, given that this regularly approaches 200 reviews, I am surprised it hasn't been done before.) The majority was in favour WP 1.0 hierarchy:

Arts · Language and literature · Philosophy and religion · Everyday life · Society and social sciences · Geography · History · Applied sciences and technology · Mathematics · Natural sciences

A minority favoured the FA categories:

Art, architecture and archaeology · Awards, decorations and vexillology · Biology and medicine · Business, economics and finance · Chemistry and mineralogy · Computing · Culture and society · Education · Engineering and technology · Food and drink · Geography and places · Geology, geophysics and meteorology · History · Language and linguistics · Law · Literature and theatre · Mathematics · Media · Music · Philosophy and psychology · Physics and astronomy · Politics and government · Religion, mysticism and mythology · Royalty, nobility and heraldry · Sport and recreation · Transport · Video games · Warfare

New votes (or any objections) are welcome. It can be done quite easily and, I think, without any extraneous problems created. I don't think it would affect the bot that does automated reviews, though someone should confirm that. Marskell 08:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the mock-up: Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop/Peer Review mockup Marskell 08:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support And favor the WP1.0 categories over the more complex FA categories. I think this is the best way to increase expert participation in the peer review process. It will also be easier to see which categories have a larger backlog so that we can direct review requests and participation drives in areas that are needed more. Dr. Cash 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems like a step in the right direction. Perhaps we could also figure out a way to notify editors and Wikiprojects when an article in their area of expertise is up for peer review. --JayHenry 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific peer review tagged inactive

I've tagged WP:SPR as inactive. As much as I'd love to see a scientific peer review on Wikipedia, it appears that page is defunct. The last conversations on the talk page occurred in July, and the last scientific peer review posted there which received actual feedback was Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis (and the actual review came from the Peer Review page anyway; the page wasn't linked to SPR until after the single, automated comment was made).

There's no point in having people wait months on end to have articles reviewed, and it would be better to keep the few active peer review volunteers on the same page. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with this, folding it into gen PR seems the best way to go. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, it's been reverted, and by someone who hasn't been actively reviewing the articles... *sigh* Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I was the editor who reverted this. First, I review scientific review articles only if they are about subjects that,as a scientist, I am familiar with. Unfortunately, no such articles have been put to scientific peer review for some time. I have been maintaining the scientific peer review for a long while, but I have been unable to do so recently due to a wikibreak as I went overseas and then being busy and ill since my return. I have tried to remove all old reviews and to also transclude new requests for review to WP:PR. I reverted the "inactive tag" because I do not think it is appropriate. Yes, this review process has problems and in fact it always has had. The initial discussions discussed such things as an elected board of reviewers and the appointment of other expert reviewers. In the end no agreement was reached, except that we agreed to try a low key version. That is what we have. It does attract some articles for review, but they are often inappropriate for a real review. You can have requests for review but that does not always attract reviewers, even on WP:PR itself. I am going to do the following:
  1. Cleanup the current reviews, archiving old ones and also transcluding new ones to WP:PR.
  2. Suggest on the WP:SPR page that new requests for review should also be transcluded to WP:PR.
  3. Set out the difficulties on the talk page of WP:SPR and then ask all the science Wikiprojects to go over there and join the debate. (Note that the list of articles for review at WP:SPR is transcluded into many of the Science WikiProject pages.)
  4. If this does lead to more good activity, then I will propose that WP:SPR should be deleted.
However, give me a bit of time to this. I am still busy.--Bduke 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure having a separate 'scientific peer review' page is really what we want. Participation is down across all three of the major review areas (WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR). The best way to increase participation in the three core programs is not to dilute potential reviewers into a whole different process. Plus, there's likely to be a proposal coming through very soon to institute categories at WP:PR, much like the category listing at WP:GAN. If this goes through, scientific articles will be grouped together, making them easier for experts to locate. This seems like a much better solution than a whole separate process for 'scientific peer review'. Dr. Cash 08:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. However the first sentence suggests that the scientific peer review is a new suggestion. The reality is that it is an old suggestion that has never really worked. I am trying to sort that out. The important point you make is that interest in reviewing things has declined. That is depressing, but interesting and a point we have to address.. Reviewing what we do has to be the way forward. The scientific review process was a discussion about how to get experts to review things. As always, we on WP have never been able to progress that point. It is one of our key tensions. We want to be completely democratic, yet we want to get our articles right. As an professional scientist and a keen wikipedean I am torn on this issue. We are not going to resolve it easily. --Bduke 11:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now completed steps (1) to (3) of the process I set out above by adding something like the paragraph below to Wikipedia Talk:Scientific peer review and to nine Science WikiProject talk pages. Please feel free to copy it elsewhere

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Peer Review has now been declared inactive and reviews on scientific articles will be directed here. --Bduke (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review volunteer list

A new page has been created to list users who have volunteered to be contacted on their talk page to do peer reviews: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. The page was created after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop, a page devoted to trying to improve review processes such as peer review. The page now has quite a few volunteers who have signed up, and I think it would be good to add a link to it from the PR instructions.

The instructions live in Template:PR-instructions. How about changing the first paragraph under "Nomination procedure" to say "Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. You may also contact a volunteer peer reviewer directly; see the list of volunteers"?

-- Mike Christie (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Youngstown Ohio Works

I tried to cleanup the nomination for User:Twelsht but for some reason the header won't appear above the comments. Any ideas? Thanks --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disregard. I see I accidentally deleted the header on the PR page. Cheers, Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment

Is is fine to nominate an article for PEER REVIEW even though a POV tag is still attached? BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the peer review rules and guidelines preventing such an article from being submitted. That being said, peer review is not designed to resolve POV issues in an article and a POV tag may also serve to scare off potential reviewers. If the article's primary problem is POV related then resources such as Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may better serve your needs. --Allen3 talk 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Automation of this page

Some editors working on Peer Review will be aware that there is an idea in the works to automate the generation of the PR page. At the moment the Peer Review process requires nominators to (1) add a template to the talk page, (2) create a Peer Review subpage for the article, and then (3) "transclude" the subpage onto the PR page by pasting "{{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}}" to the top of the nominees list.

One of the goals of automation is to eliminate this final step (3), and ensure that the first two steps are completed correctly. A secondary goal is to remove one step from the archiving of Peer Reviews, by automating the removal of the transcluded subpage from the PR page.

OK, enough technobabble. Take a look at User:Geometry guy/Peer review. You will find it is extremely similar to the current Peer Review list. There are some very minor differences. First, there are differences towards the beginning of the list: this is because PR nominators have not carried out the three steps correctly, by omitting step (1) or step (3) (e.g., someone has attempted to reopen the Peer Review of Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing). I believe some editors here have already been using User:Geometry guy/Peer review to identify such errors. Second, there are one or two minor changes or ordering, because User:Geometry guy/Peer review lists the articles in the order in which step (1) is carried out, while this page (provided editors follow the instructions) lists articles in order of step (3). Finally, User:Geometry guy/Peer review only lists Peer Reviews, not WikiProject Peer Reviews, which are sometimes (but not reliably) added here: I can't find any examples at the moment. However, the same mechanism could also list such Peer Reviews (reliably!) on the PR page in a separate section.

The main difference between the PR page and User:Geometry guy/Peer review, of course, is that the latter is created automatically, rather than by hand. In fact, the page has only been edited once since I got it working a month ago, yet it has been tracking the Peer Review list since then. The page gets its data from a bot, called VeblenBot, which (thanks to Carl(CBM)) examines the content of Category:Requests for peer review every hour. If there are any new articles there (because {{peer review}} has been added to a new talk page), they are added to the Peer Review list.

I would like to propose using this technique to automatically generate the PR page. It would save a great deal of effort: nominators would have one less step to do; there would be less potential to make nomination errors (saving time on fixing these errors); and archiving a Peer Review would require one less edit. I welcome discussion and questions about the proposal. Geometry guy 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, there is an example of the third difference now, as American Top 40 has been listed here as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Peer Review. As I said above, such WikiProject Reviews could be tracked in a separate section. Geometry guy 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of automation. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tracked and tested the automated page against the peer review page for a while now, and think it is ready to try. I have updated the peer review guidelines at User:Geometry guy/Peer review to reflect this potential change. As with any change, there will be teething problems, and it is important that the guidelines minimize the problems, so I need other editors to comment on the revised instructions and improve them.
The revised guidelines also explain archiving more carefully and suggest a more robust archiving procedure. Ideally, archived articles should be moved to an archive subpage immediately, to provide a permanent link. For regular archivists this is extra work, and is not essential, as it can be fixed by GimmeBot later anyway. But I think it is important clarify these issues, because I've noticed mistakes being made when peer review nominations have previous peer reviews. Geometry guy 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Automated

I've now implemented the automation of the PR list. As promised above, there will surely be teething problems, but I've tried to add guidelines and source code comments to minimize these. One potential problem concerns page moves: if a page is moved during a peer review, then the peer review subpage needs to be moved too. Fortunately this is a fairly rare occurence. A bigger issue concerns the idea of a permanent link. Unfortunately some newsletters, posted on multiple talk pages, link to peer reviews. Fixing these links when a peer review is archived is a pain, so until such fixes are automated, we have to live with an imperfect system. Geometry guy 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Recruiting more reviewers

I am surprised the PR (and FAC) nomination process does not include this key element: the nominator could be expected to provide a list of pages on which the nominator (or a bot) will announce the nomination and invite readers to respond. Proposals for new Usenet newsgroups have worked that way for over a decade; the proposer is expected to develop a list of newsgroups and e-mail discussion groups where it would be appropriate to post a notice of the proposal. --Una Smith (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} deprecates other templates?

Editors may be interested in the discussion that is starting here. Happy‑melon 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Issue with editing peer reviews

Presumably this problem is related to the recent changes. Whenever I try to click the edit link for a given peer review I get the following message:

You tried to edit a section that does not exist. Since there is no section 1, there is no place to save your edit. Sections may have been removed after you loaded the page; try purge and bypass your browser cache.

Return to Template:CF/Requests for peer review.

Neither purging nor bypassing cache have had any effect. I can get around this by clicking the direct link on the {{peerreview}} template on an article's talk page, but it is hardly ideal. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for drawing attention to this. This wasn't caused by the recent changes directly, but by an edit I made yesterday to the template that displays the peer review entries. I think I've fixed it now: let me know if there are still problems. Apologies for the temporary inconvenience, and thanks again. Geometry guy 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It is working now. Thanks. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. My excuse for fiddling with the template is in the next section. Geometry guy 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking advantage of the automation

The automated listing of peer reviews presents the opportunity to provide the peer review information in several different formats at no extra cost. The system is quite flexible, so I've tested out a couple of uses. The first is a peer review list, which provides links to peer reviews and articles under peer review. The second is an automatic list of recent peer reviews, which can be transcluded anywhere. Both of these can be modified to suit editors needs. Are these potentially useful? If so, how might they be improved? Are there any further suggestions? Geometry guy 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that I should respond to a peer review request by reviewing "one of the articles below". Why are there no more peer reviews on Wikipedia:Peer review that I can respond to? – Ilse@ 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This has now been fixed. Comment on this page if there are further problems. Geometry guy 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Anything happening? DrKiernan (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

New Peer Review system

Is anyone else uninspired by the new system? It now takes three clicks to get to an individual review and you can't easily glance through any other reviews. Peanut4 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is related to the previous thread on archiving. Basically, this page has depended on the generous efforts of Allen3 to archive old peer reviews, but he hasn't done this since 18 December. Consequently there are now too many peer reviews to list on the peer review page and the software is replacing the transclusions by links. (Technically, the post-expand include limit has been exceeded.) What you are currently seeing is not how the page is meant to look. In fact it is meant to look identical to the old peer review page, and did until yesterday. I'll see if I can fix it, but I expect the only solution is to archive some old peer reviews. Geometry guy 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a temporary problem, which we will be able to resolve. One option is to move peer reviews to a subpage when they grow too long for transclusion here (the same thing happens on RFA and other pages that transclude a lot of subpages - very long RFAs are not transcluded on the main RFA page). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to a great archiving effort by Dr. Kiernan, the PR page is now back under control (and no longer takes 10 seconds to load). Please would all nominators and reviewers help to keep it this way by contributing to the archiving process. Thanks! Geometry guy 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cross-listing peer reviews

Can I cross list a peer review here. I think you use to be able to just transclude the discussion page in two places. Now, I don't know if that can be done. I want to also list Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Crown Fountain here. Is that possible?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, put it in the "WikiProject peer reviews" section. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be the place to post entire specialized peer reviews not x-list a single article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is possible to cross list a single article, but it is not clear whether this is the best way to proceed: see below. Geometry guy 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What to do with WikiProject peer reviews?

The above post raises the general question of the relation between this page and WikiProject peer reviews. There are a number of ways to answer this. Here are some.

  1. Expand on the current "WikiProject peer reviews" section: in other words, interested WikiProjects can have their peer reviews linked, but not transcluded, here. The WikiProject could either generate the list manually (as WikiProject Films and WikiProject Biography do on their "announce" pages), or VeblenBot could do it automatically from the WikiProject peer review categories.
  2. Allow individual WikiProject peer reviews to be listed by hand as peer reviews: this can be done by adding the {{peer review}} template to the article talk page, and redirecting Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME to Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME. The problem with this solution is that extra work is needed to add the template and redirect, and it creates additional complexity (and hence opportunity for errors to be made) when the peer review is archived.
  3. Interested WikiProjects could have their peer reviews systematically cross-listed here in a separate section. This could easily be done automatically, but the peer review page could become unmanageably long.
  4. Interested WikiProjects could have their peer reviews systematically cross-listed here as peer reviews. The WikiProject peer review template would place articles into the general peer review category. There are two ways to work this.
    • Nominators would be required to redirect Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME to Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME.
    • WikiProjects would no longer have separate subpages (Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME): instead, Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review would transclude the reviews from selected Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME subpages.
Both options again may run into the problem that the peer review page could become unmanageably long.

In deciding between these and similar options, one might like to ask: what is the purpose of WikiProject peer reviews? Are they just peer reviews which get advertised to WikiProjects? If so, then they should be listed here, and linked or cross-listed at the WikiProject. Or are they specialist reviews? If so, then they should not be listed here, but could be linked. Geometry guy 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Readability tool

I created readability tool for a bot request made for peer review. As the original author hasn't replied back I'm posting the link here in hopes that someone will find it useful. —Dispenser (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What?

Oh where, oh where have all the little peer review listings gone? :) Seriously, where is the list? Awadewit | talk 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is full because no one has been archiving it. Someone needs to archive old peer reviews or the page will break: this is explained two threads above. For now, I have switched the bot into list-only mode (so the reviews don't transclude). When enough old peer reviews have been archived, I'll switch the transclusion of reviews back on. Thanks. Geometry guy 09:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I archived my two. :) Awadewit | talk 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I did three, chosen from the longest ones. Geometry guy 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, User:Allen3 used to archive any requests over a month old and any that had received no comments in two weeks. I notice all the current requests are less than one month old. Do you want me to work on those with no new comments in the past two weeks? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please. That is what the archiving guidelines now state, I think. Geometry guy 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem, none are older than a month (as mentioned) and the oldest received semi-automated peer reviews (which I ran as AZPR) on January 5, 2008. Is it OK to archive those with no contributions older than two weeks except for the semi-automated peer review? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would say so: these are only guidelines, so use your discretion. Geometry guy 09:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived another 5 long PRs, and it appears that Ruhrfisch is archiving PRs which have only semi-automatic reviews in the last two weeks. Once that is done, I think we will have enough margin to restore full transclusion of reviews. Geometry guy 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived 22 requests and removed three broken listings (I had asked them to fix the PR requests 2 days ago). I think 18 of the 22 had received no feedback except for the semi-automated peer review. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Good work! I've switched transclusion back on: the page now has just under 400 KB spare room before it hits the 2 MB limit for transclusions and breaks again. Please, all editors keep up with the archiving. Many hands, and all that... Geometry guy 13:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I will try to archive at least every other day. I feel bad that so many had had no responses, but am not sure what else to do. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you should feel bad: peer review currently has 128 articles listed, all (or nearly all) of which are either new, or have comments in the last two weeks. As Jayron suggests below, this is rather a success! Geometry guy 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have written a script to post to this page if it notices that the Peer review page is close to the limit. The actual archiving needs to be done by hand, but the reminder may give some warning before anything breaks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, LOVE how PR has changed...

The new changes at Peer Review are awsome. Under the old system, I would check in here once in a while, and maybe pick up a new article to peer review. This new system, with the volunteers list, is working GREAT. I probably now review a MINIMUM of one article a week, and have enjoyed every one of them. With the new volunteer page, I am able to list myself by area of preference, and article custodians come to me to request a review. I always get an article I am interested in, which is helping me review a LOT more article. My only suggestion is that we make the volunteers list MORE prominent on the main page. We probably don't want to transclude the whole thing, but it should be easier for editors to find it. Just an idea, but I thought I would come and throw some kudos around for doing a great job fixing up what was a broken system... Well done! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse what Jayron32 says. The new system is excellent and has put really PR on the map. Kudos to all those involved in the overhaul. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reported these positive comments to the Content review workshop, organsised by Mike Christie, which was the origin of these changes. In my view, the best way to say thanks is to comment on the idea below (I hope I do it justice). Geometry guy 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have had editors dropping by for help, as well. When I started it, I was hoping it would become a meme, although it's hard to directly test how many reviews are getting extra comments because of it. And it's still not as exposed as it could be. Are there other places we might link to it? Marskell (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Organising the PR page

One of the other ideas raised by the Content review workshop is closely related to the above. Note that the volunteers at WP:Peer review/volunteers are listed under 10 topics and general copyediting. The other idea is to organise (voluntarily) the articles on the peer review page under the same 10 topics. This idea was dropped because it was opposed by a key PR editor, Allen3. However, Allen3 seems to have left the project anyway. Furthermore, the automation of the peer review page means that this would be easy to implement: peer review nominators would simply use {{peer review|topic=topic name}} if they wanted to list their review under a particular section. Peer reviews without such a designation would be listed in a general section, either at the beginning or the end of the list of peer reviews.

So, is this worth doing? Is it helpful to structure the PR page, or unhelpful to fragment it? I have the feeling that those who have been encouraged by the recent changes will have a clear idea as to whether this is a useful further change or not, so please comment. Geometry guy 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is definately a good idea (since I supported it the first time around). Such an implementation would mean that editors who wished to be involved, but don't want to be listed as a volunteer, would still be able to find an article that interested them. I support this organization for those reasons. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Allen3 is still alive and well on Wiki. He deserves great credit for looking after this page for so long. The main complaint was the manual archiving, but now that that's not needed we can proceed with this, if there are no other objections. Marskell (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I meant that he had left the PR project after much valuable service. Geometry guy 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Erk, I see below the archiving isn't fully automated. Let's get that done first. Marskell (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That was my plan. Although the proposal below is not quite full automation, archiving should be just as easy for a subdivided page as for an undivided page. Geometry guy 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing the page is an excellent idea, and I think would greatly help to sort out the list. I tend to review mostly at WP:GAN, because I can quickly go to the categories that I have strengths in and find articles seeking review quickly; if this were done at WP:PR, I'd probably participate more over here, too. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now "pre-implemented" this idea (with help from Carl and VeblenBot, as always): it is now possible to categorize a peer review by adding a WP1.0 topic to the {{Peer review page}} template on the peer review discussion page for the article. At the moment all this does is place the article in a category (such as Category:Arts peer reviews), but everything is in place to list peer reviews by topic on the main PR page. I will set up a demo fairly soon. Geometry guy 09:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2042508 out of 2048000 bytes (5492 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Down to around 1750000 now. Right now the bot will leave a note if there are less than 20000 bytes left; very few peer reviews are that long. But many are over 6000 byes, so the message above implies that the page might have been broken.
I am working with the developers to add the ability to mediawiki to solve this problem for us, but it will take time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning VeblenBot :-) and to Carl for fixing it.
I was shocked when I saw this notice, though, because there has just been a huge archiving effort by Ruhrfisch, DrKiernan and others: there are no Peer reviews over a month old, and nearly all have comments in the last few days! If the current Peer reviews amount to 2MB of text, then Peer review really is a victim of its own success! Had 400KB of text been added in less than 24 hours?
Well, no, in fact. Instead a seemingly innocent addition of the list of WP:MILHIST peer reviews added over 500KB to the size of the page, because of non-displaying material in the template source. I have commented out this template until it is redesigned. This page is now a much more comfortable size of 1280000 bytes, so there is plenty of room for more reviews!
Note that Carl's fix involved replacing the transclusion of the two longest reviews, namely Reactive attachment disorder and Emily Dickinson, by links. This is done
  1. by partially archiving the review (i.e., moving Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE to the next available Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE/archiveN subpage), then
  2. replacing the resulting redirect by a level 3 section heading ===[[ARTICLE]]===, and a link to the /archiveN subpage.
However, now that true culprit has been identified :-), it should be okay to restore the Reactive attachment disorder and Emily Dickinson transclusions if editors wish to do so. (Just convert the links to /archive1 pages back to redirects.) Happy reviewing! Geometry guy 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. Note that this last step is also what needs to be done (instead of a page move) to archive these two peer reviews. Geometry guy 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving question

So I went to archive old requests just now and looking at Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2008, and found that 23 reviews were added without the move to "/archive1" (diff). Do these all need to be fixed? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. It is better if archive pages are permanent, but it is not essential. Geometry guy 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the reasons I say this is not essential is because it is too much hard work to do the page move, especially as the links should really be fixed, not just double redirects (this is because the next peer review would replace the redirect with a new peer review page). To deal with this I outline another automation proposal below. Geometry guy 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Automating the archives

The peer review archives (from February 2008) could be automated using exactly the same method which automates the peer review page itself. This would not completely automate the archiving process, but, in the absense of a bot to do this, it is all we have available for now. Combined with an idea due to Gimmetrow, however, it would eliminate the awkward page move and link fixes from the archiving process. Gimmetrow calls this "archiving from the get go". The idea is that, with a small change to {{peer review}}, the peer review page for an article could be at the next free Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE/archiveN page from the very beginning, and so would never need to be moved.

The peer review page of the article would need to have a template on it for this to work, but this would be done by the {{peer review}} template in the same way as it currently provides the section heading. This is not an archiving panacea, as archiving would still involve two steps:

  • Changing {{peer review}} template on the talk page to {{oldpeerreview}} (or article history);
  • Changing a template on the peer review page for the article.

However, these would both be straightforward edits. An additional benefit would be that there would no longer be separate instructions for "resubmitting a peer review": the submission and resubmission processes would be identical.

I have implemented a similar system at WP:GAR, and it seems to be working quite well.

Do others think this is worth doing? It is particularly important that those who generously archive peer reviews on a regular basis would find such an approach easier to use, even if it is only a marginal improvement. Geometry guy 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In preparation for doing this, I'm now moving current PR pages to /archive pages, leaving a redirect. This should not affect normal operations, but means this does not need to be done when archiving. Geometry guy 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)  Done (But please don't use the "done" template in peer reviews :-) Geometry guy 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks very much - assume you are planning to do this anyway, but could you please update the removing a request section of the PR instructions? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will, but it's going to take a few days to complete the automation. In particular, I haven't fixed all links to the page moves, only double redirects. I also need to template the archiveN pages of current peer reviews and start tracking them. In this transitional period, I will try to troubleshoot: please report any issues here. Meanwhile, we are desperately close to the page limits, so it is time to start archiving! Geometry guy 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will archive some in the next 8 hours - how do I do it now (with the changes)? Just change to "oldpeerreview|archive=N" on the talk page and add the file to the archive? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly right: I've just done a bunch, so what's left may require judgement calls (e.g., automated reviews on 18 January). It may be worth checking links too, but I haven't done that with the ones I've archived this evening. If you want to troubleshoot, check my contribs. Geometry guy 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I just archived three more - got busy yesterday trying to finish an article to meet the DYK 5 day clock, sorry. I am glad to see that it looks like more articles are getting peer reviews. I will try to archive every other day. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This has now been done. I hope everyone finds the two-edit archiving process much easier to use than the previous approach. Geometry guy 09:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving problem?

I archived Saskatchewan Highway 1, Pied noir, Le Paradis massacre, Scotland, and Reactive attachment disorder in the past day, but all are still isted here. Am I forgetting something simple or is there a problem? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The peer review on Reactive attachment disorder is still open and receiving contributions. Somebody moved the content to an archive page because they felt it was too long, but they left a note. I reverted your previous "archive". I haven't reverted your latest. Is there a reason why you think RAD should be archived/closed? Colin°Talk 08:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that RAD should remain open because it is still very active. It is over a month old, but the archiving guidelines suggest waiting until the discussion falls silent for a couple of days before archiving it.
As for the general query, yes, there is a problem: the toolserver which provides the data to generate this page, is down. It should be back online again soon, but in the meanwhile we may implement a back-up system which does not rely on the toolserver. Geometry guy 10:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This has now been fixed: thanks to Carl(CBM), this page no longer relies on the toolserver. Note that RAD has gone to the top of the list because it was taken out of the peer review category for a while, so the system thinks it is a new review: this can be fixed if it bothers anyone.(This has been fixed.)
Please report any further problems here. Geometry guy 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewspam

In the past 24 hours, I've gotten two form-letter requests for peer reviews. Checking into users' contributions, I see that the requester has posted the same message to many many other users. I've added a comment on the volunteers page to head this off. It reads: please do not send "review spam" to each individual listed below. Find 2-3 editors most interested in the article's subject area and give them time to respond. – Scartol • Tok 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1908529 out of 2048000 bytes (139471 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I switched some longer pages to not transclude. I'm not sure if other changes were made, but now it's down to 1,500,000 or so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1919280 out of 2048000 bytes (128720 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks VeblenBot! This sudden growth in page size was caused by WikiProject Films transcluding a large template. I've fixed it and the page size is back down to 1788KB.
(To all.) Please only transclude WikiProject peer reviews as plain wikitexts lists. Thanks - Geometry guy 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest from VeblenBot

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1875239 out of 2048000 bytes (172761 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived a few, but I don't think anything is older than 2 weeks without a review now (and nothing but reactive whatsit order is older than a month). The number of peer reviews is growing - do we want to start archiving sooner (all after 3 weeks, inactive after 10 days)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ruhrfisch! We're down to 1834KB now. We seem to be staying 200KB clear of the limits with current guidelines. Shall we see how it goes over the next few days (when I will be completing the partial automation of the archiving process)? Geometry guy 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1866309 out of 2048000 bytes (181691 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seemed as if there were a LOT more requests this month, so I checked the Semi-automated Peer review totals - for October there were 158, November had 166, December had 156, and January has 179 so far (counts 2 I need to run the script on). Each month there are a few that either request no semi-automated or say they have already run the script or that slip through the cracks, so the actual totals are almost certainly slightly higher. Anyway, it is a good trend, but I agree it is not cause for changing the wait times before archiving yet. I do think lately more reviews are getting replies, which is great. I always feel bad when something is archived with only a semi-automated PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It is very encouraging: the participation increase has overwhelmed the seasonal December lull, and surged forth in January. We are going to have to make use of the pre-archiving technique for long reviews, which is rather complicated at the moment. Meanwhile, everything is in place now to switch to the new easy-archive automation procedure, so I will do that. Geometry guy 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that the peer reviews are on archive pages by default, it's very easy to switch from transcluding particular reviews to linking but not transcluding them. Perhaps the bot could do that switch automatically, starting with the largest peer reviews, when it notices the page is getting full? It will be a little while before I can implement that, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be good. At the moment I am making this switch with a bit of onlyinclude magic. If a peer review gets too long, add <onlyinclude> to the very beginning of the peer review discussion page for the article (before even the ===level 3 header===) then go down to the end of the nominators request statement and add
<includeonly>:Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]].</includeonly></onlyinclude>
substituting for the article name and the archive number. This ensures that the nominator's request is still transcluded, but the rest of the peer review is not: instead a little notice is added at the end of the request.
This is a pain to use, so the bot option is much better. Meanwhile, at least it doesn't have to be done very often (i.e., I am willing to do it if no one else does!). When archiving a peer review which has been "pre-archived" like this, it is best to remove {{Peer review page}} from inside the onlyinclude, and add {{subst:PR/archive}} somewhere outside of the onlyinclude, although that isn't essential if my error trapping code works. Geometry guy 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done this with the five longest, and the page is back under 1500KB. Geometry guy 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/Archive_3&oldid=1140249780"