Wikipedia talk:Peer reviewers

I think the tags ask for something different than what peer review is supposed to be. KimvdLinde 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply put Samsara's suggest in the tags. Please say what you would like the requesters to see and I can change the tags and categories. They were specializations of already existing tags. --Ancheta Wis 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for review by a biology expert.
Or improve this page yourself if you can.

Lets see, something along the line of:

This article is currently peer reviewed by biology experts.

See Wikipedia:Reviews in progress for the current status of the review process.

and when done:

This article has been peer reviewed by biology experts.

See Wikipedia:Finished reviews/Peer reviewers for the original reviews, and the talkpage for the discussion.

What you can see is that I am a bit more formal with things, but I think it is good to keep editors and reviewers separate to a degree, as it facilitates reviewing when the reviewers can keep thier outside view and do not become part of any dispute that could be going in at the age. KimvdLinde 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since those will be on talk pages they should follow the house style for those type of boxes. --mav 05:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mav, is this better? Regards, --Ancheta Wis 06:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. :) --mav

Same here. KimvdLinde 16:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 2nd generation template: Invoke it thus

{{Reviewer|[[Natural Science]]|~~~~~|

*[[User:Samsara]], review at [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Science]]

*[[User:Linas]], review at [[Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review]] ~~~~~

}}

It expands to