Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 2

Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2.

Question

How long does a Peer Review last? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• It varies, but generally a request is archived after it is one month old or the associated article has been submitted to FAC. Other things that can cause an article to be archived early are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy. --Allen3 ^talk 22:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looking good

I remember not so long ago when many review requests here had no responce at all. Now, every single one has at least one comment. Finally it seems this page is getting enough attention to function :) Good, let's keep it up and review more :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This section does seem to attract a number of postings for pages that are clearly not of near-Featured-standard quality. Perhaps a template would be useful that could direct people to the right place? For example:

RJH 18:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe the primary issue is the quality of the articles that are being submitted. While some articles are clearly closer to Featured-status than others, any submitter that is truly looking for feedback on ways to improve their article should be supported. The problem I see is that some requests may be reasonably interpreted as requests for something other than feedback. The first bullet of Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy states "Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in containing vandalism, resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio, should be removed promptly, in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them here." I would suggest the template be aimed at these requests and not at articles that just need a little more TLC than others. --Allen3 ^talk 19:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with everything Allen3 just wrote, and we also get way too template happy around here. Instead of adding a template, why not just move the articles that the guidelines say to move and leave a note on the nominator's talk page. Now make sure you're doing it for the right ones, but just do the work, don't create meta talk. I also have to agree, peer review is a much more productive place now. The only thing we could do more of is warning nominators that haven't replied to and/or carried out comments that are made on their articles in a while, and then removing the ones with no response from the nominators. The articles that get the most comments and are the most productive are the ones where the nominators are active. I think removing even more of the inactive one's would make the rest more productive and they would all get more comments. - Taxman ^Talk 20:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well quite frankly the purpose of a template would be to save work. I'd rather just slap a template in place and let the person requesting the peer review do the move. The wording on the template is easy enough to fix. It was just a sample, after all. :) — RJH 28 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the wording, my point is the template is extra work, not saving it. It would need to be added and removed (2 extra edits), and someone still needs to remove the article from the peer review page. If you don't feel like doing the work to remove the listing, then don't worry, instead spend your wiki time doing something else you feel is productive. - Taxman ^Talk June 28, 2005 15:50 (UTC)

How about having two "levels" of peer review - one for articles that are considered close to FA standard and one for average articles where somebody would like some advice on how to improve them? It wouldn't be much hassle to move an article from one level to the other and leave a note when an article was clearly in the wrong one. That way, people who want to help would be able to find articles at their level more easily - eg professional copyeditors etc would be able to concentrate on the first group and those of us who have done a bit of editing but not got anything to FA standard might be able to help with the second group. CTOAGN 8 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with such a plan is how do we get the level of reviewer participation needed to make such a split useful. Look at the different levels of participation that currently exist between WP:FAC and peer review. It is not uncommon for an article to spend time on peer review with a small number of comments and then go to FAC before it is given a serious going over by multiple reviewers. I suspect that dividing peer review in half would create a similar split with fewer reviewers wishing to help the "lower" level. This lack of participation would then just cause all submissions to be forwarded to the location were the reviewer are located. --Allen3 ^talk July 8, 2005 12:46 (UTC)

I recently created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. RFF is for new editors to get feedback on their new articles/edits and use the feedback to improve the article and their editing skills. It could function similarly to the lower level. I created it because people directed me to Peer Review when I asked for feedback on two articles I wrote: Google Groups and Homerun. Could you please include a link to RFF from the Peer Review page? I added a link, but I could not get it into the box, and it was reverted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving revisited

With the increase in the number of new requests Peer review has been receiving over the last month, I believe it is time to discuss possible revisions to the existing request removal policy. Quite simply, archiving based primarily on requests being one month old or moving to FAC has not kept the list of active requests from growing at a rate of two or three additional requests per day. In the interest of keeping the list of active requests small enough to be useful, another archiving criteria appears to be needed.

I propose that any request that has not shown any activity for a period of 14 days (two weeks) be archived. All other existing criteria would remain unchanged.

This proposal is made primary on the observation that most requests receive all of their feedback within the first day or two after they are submitted. Some submitters have mastered the skill of keeping a dialog going for a period of time, but even these requests tend to die down after a week or so. After this period of initial activity most requests then just sit on the list waiting to age out. The few requests that remain active for a full month tend to have moved to tangents that would be better placed on the articles talk page.

Comments or alternatives to this proposal are welcomed. --Allen3 ^talk 13:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with archiving anything that has been stagnant for 2 weeks.--nixie 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes that seems fair enough. - Taxman ^Talk 13:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. I support it. — mark ✎ 13:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That works for me. But I'd like to see every article get some type of review before being archived. Perhaps articles that have reached an archive check without being reviewed could be moved to a separate section near the top of the PR page to satisfy a quorum? For example, these articles need a minimum of one review before they are archived. Thanks. — RJH 28 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

• As there have been no objections to this change, I have updated the request removal policy page with the new criteria modified to require at least one response. --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 11:41 (UTC)
  • Thanks Allen3. — RJH 1 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Subpages

Is it feasible to divide this list by topic into subpages? As it is, it's exceptionally long, and not easy to look through to find pages that one can review. It needn't be narrow - Wikipedia:Peer review/Science and Wikipedia:Peer review/History would be plenty narrow enough (as examples) to make this manageable. Users would also be able to selectively watch the subpages to keep track of requests in disciplines they are familiar with. siafu 23:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How about not. If you're looking for everyone trying to get an article up to "featured" status, it's easier if everything is in one place. --Carnildo 03:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be easier, except that this is a place where people who are supposedly experts on one subject or another comment, and yet it's not sorted by subject. Having them all in one place is what WP:FAC is for. siafu 04:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would be prepared to maintain a system. Besides, most of the reviewing generated on Peer Review isn't on content.--nixie 04:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it would take much of a stretch to use topic subpages. Regardless, this pages has 62 items in no particular order on it right at this moment; some sort of sorting needs to be done. siafu 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

At present entries are sorted by submission time. While this ordering does not assist a reviewer searching for specific topics, it does make maintenance practical. Chronological ordering is also used at WP:FAC for the same reason.

Beyond the question of maintenance, sub pages also present two other concerns. The first is how to attract enough reviewers to the individual subpages? You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review to see how things are working for a topic area that has a good size population of wikipedians interested in the topic. Not all fields will have the level of support enjoyed by an active Wikiproject, how will subpages work for these? The second issue is how to handle topics that are not easily placed into a simple categorization scheme. Where do we place an article that spans multiple categories , or subjects that do not qualify for any defined category? --Allen3 ^talk 11:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the reference desk. The maintenance effort there has quadrupled. Unless you want to handle all the extra effort, I don't think we should change to subtopics. Also I agree with Allen3 that subtopics wouldn't really help increase participation, it would actually make it harder. Thanks for offering suggestions, but I really jsut feel your suggestion won't help much. - Taxman ^Talk 20:16, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while (how sad!) and agree that subpages wouldn't be a good idea, but what about categories (a la the new AFD system)? The general reviewers could continue to look at the whole list, while the reviewers interested in specific subjects, or from associated wikiprojects, could just watch the category lists. It would probably mean having to strip the category when archived, but with the occasional run through by an editor to place the uncategorised requests in the appropriate categories it wouldn't create a whole lot more work, plus it would combine the benefits of both the full list and the subpage proposal. Yomangani^talk 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Marayoor

I hope I am doing right, with the peer review page. --Cyril Thomas 21:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article/Peer review advice

Since I'm going on a Wikibreak (temporary, I promise), I've written a page up detailing the most common failings that pages nominated to FAC have and a little expansion on the featured article criteria that I think is important for people to be aware of before nominating an article at FAC and especially for reviewers to read before giving advice. That makes it particularly important for peer reviewers to know when giving advice on what articles need. I've put the advice together based on my more than a year of experience with a good portion of the FAC nominations over that time and from many discussions about the criteria. Like I explain there, if more editors were familiar with how articles should be written to pass the FA criteria, not only would more articles pass, but I think more would be nominated too. If we have more consistency about what advice is given less time would be wasted and more effort would be going in the right direction. So if others substantially agree with the advice or a version of it that can be agreed on, I suggest all potential FAC and Peer reviewers be directed towards it before reviewing articles, and that every FAC and PR nom get the advice contained there. Thanks all, it's certainly been fun so far. - Taxman ^Talk 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured lists

Is peer review for potential featured lists as well? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, peer review may be used for potential featured list candidates. Shortly after WP:FLC was created there was a flurry of lists nominated for peer review, so this is not new ground. To avoid reviewer confusion you should probably mention that you wish to be compared to the feature list criteria in the text of your review request. --Allen3 ^talk 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added my request. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd propose that we limit people to one peer review every two weeks. This way we could avoid the PR-flooding and really get people to think about what they put here. As you can see from the current way a lot of people just put a bunch of articles here for the purpose of "hey, have a look at this!", and its really flooding the system. Maybe its intruction creep though? What do you guys think? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• One a fortnight sounds a little too strict, but something like two a week could be a good idea. I have a feeling that when the flooding is coming from a wikiproject, they'll just nominate one article each though. CTOAGN 22:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

another proposal

Does anyone object to the addition of something like the following sentence beneath Point 5 (or a new Point 6: 'Finally, ...':

'Nominators are urged to identify and politely request feedback from several Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a closely related field.'

A number of FAC nominators have written that they received little feedback during the PR process (e.g., 'I wish they'd told me this during the PR process; hardly anyone gave feedback.'). I think that a more active approach to seeking reviews is better than posting an article here and expecting the right people to somehow know about it.

Tony 01:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Version 0.5/1.0

Hi, There is a proposal at "Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team" to declare articles which have passed Peer review "Wikipedia Version 0.5" articles and Featured Articles to be "Wikipedia Version 1.0" articles. There is also a proposal to protect peer reviewed articles from edits by IP users and Featured article from non-admin edits. For each FA a "suggested changes" copy would be created which would be open to all edits. Please voice your opinion of these proposals at the above talk page. Seabhcán 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Article rating

Wikipedia:Article rating is a new proposal with some similarities to peer review. Please take a look and see what you think about it - constructive criticism is always welcome. violet/riga (t) 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected?

Why is the page protected? Also, what happened to the instructions for adding a new entry? Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, turns out some routine maintenance screwed the instructions over. Also, it turns out this page is only protected from being moved, not edited. In short: My bad. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A thing

I just had a weird thing happen in my head. Some may find this conversation interesting, relevant, both, or neither: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#IP users. -Silence 10:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review Archives

The Peer Review archives are HUGE. Take a look at the current (November) archive. The archive pages just take too long to load. I suggest converting them into links, such as those present in the computer and video games Peer Review. This will reduce the pages' loading time. Also, if the suggestion is accepted, I will be more than happy to convert them all myself. LordViD 18:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation issues

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. Part of it is whether it is acceptable to ever replace URL-only references. This could somewhat affect peer review edits. I also got blocked for adding citation details, which could somewhat affect peer review edits also. What could also somewhat affect peer review edits is the recent deletion of suggested citations from peer reviewed articles Stonehenge, Colonization of the Moon, Golden Gate Bridge, Military budget in the United States, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Royal Air Force. (SEWilco 08:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Citation conversion

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that I can not "convert" a "citation".[1] This is being used to warn other users against converting citations.[2] This has implications for some common peer review and featured article advice. (SEWilco 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Perhaps you should provide some background why the ArbCom has given this ruling. My impression was that the bot was doing a fine job. Which policy is being discussed here? JFW | T@lk 10:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There were several policies discussed in my ArbCom "case", but as to the meaning of the above ruling and the above change to Wikipedia:Footnotes you'll have to ask the ArbCom for clarification. [3] As I got blocked for a single change edit, I can not make changes such as these to Gettysburg Address. (SEWilco 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

Image on Template:Peerreview and Template:Oldpeerreview

I'm surprised about the fact that Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png was removed from these templates, in order to be replaced by Image:Exquisite-kfind.png. Exquisite-kfind.png, although it's a nice piece of photo-editting, looks horrible when scaled down to 48x48 pixels. The shadow, which is anti-aliased, makes the glass look ovalshaped. Nuvola apps xmag.png hasn't got that problem, so does anyone object if I'm going to put that one back in? -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No response, so I figure I can go ahead. Though I'm not gonna put Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png in; I found a better image on Commons the other day (Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png), so I'll put that one in. Any comments can be left here (if there are any at all..). SoothingR 11:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any problem with Image:Exquisite-kfind.png, its a lot more professional than the older image used. I object to changing it back the old one which looks like a horrible piece of amateur icon creation from a cheap Linux distribution. — Wackymacs 11:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• And what about Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png? SoothingR 11:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Same really, I think it's amateur compared to the previous image used. It would be good if Image:Exquisite-kfind.png can be placed back on the templates - Thanks. — Wackymacs 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, that surprises me. I personally don't think that Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png looks amateur. Image:Exquisite-kfind.png is a also a great piece of art, but it looks really weird on this yellowish background and a smaller dimension.SoothingR 13:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

{{peerreview}} tag after article is featured

Once an article reaches Featured Article status, does the {{peerreview}} tag stay up on the talk page, or is it retired? TIA. RadioKirk talk to me 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Best to leave something up to link to the peer review, as a convenient archive link. No need to use any particular template, though, if it's taking up a lot of space. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, also, if it's already become an FA, it should be {{oldpeerreview}}, not {{peerreview}}, if you are using a template. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project

I'd like to announce the opening of the Featured Music Project, an attempt to encourage and facilitate successful featured article candidacies and peer reviews for articles on musicians and bands. You can help by evaluating articles, or by working on the articles that are already close to being ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

Article assessment has opened and is currently accepting submissions about natural disasters. Please take a look. violet/riga (t) 17:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A Scientific peer review

I have made a suggestion at WikiProject Science and wonder what the users of this page think. --Oldak Quill 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review not for arbitration

I wonder whether the top of the page should state more clearly that peer review is not the place to settle disputes between editors of an article. Two currently listed articles seem to have been nominated based on this false premise. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. If nobody minds, I think I will edit this page (if it's not protected?) to make this clearer. No, now that I think of it, it will be useless without the threat of some kind of consequences. Shouldn't these artciles be removed for violating some policy or other??--Lacatosias 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate policy is already in place at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, and as such anyone may archive requests to arbitrate disputes, expansion requests, and the like. As a matter of practice interpretations of what is or is not an innappropriate request can vary greatly between contributors. Because of this, I recommend reponding to such a request with an indication that the equest appears to be inappropriate and a listing of other places on Wikipeida that are better suited for the request followed by archiving after one or two days. This will allow for multiple people to examine the request to insure that it actually is an inappropriate request, and will also inform the requestor of how to better pursue resolving their problem. --Allen3 ^talk 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

A scientific peer review has been started and we're looking for Wikipedians who are members of the scientific academic community to run for the board. If you want to give it a shot come over and post a little about yourself. New nominations are being accepted until the 00:00 on the 17th March.

The project aims to combine existing peer review mechanisms (Wikipedia peer review, featured article candidate discussion, article assessment, &c.) which focus on compliance to manual of style and referencing policy with a more conventional peer review by members of the scientific academic community. It is hoped that this will raise science-based articles to their highest possible standards. Article quality and factual validity is now Wikipedia's most important goal. Having as many errors as Britannica is not good–we must raise our standards above this. --Oldak Quill 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review a dumping ground for failing FAC's?

Further discussion of this issue is taking place here.

User:Cedars just removed a couple of PR nominations with the comment "Peer review is not a dumping ground for failing FAC's." I agree on the whole, but OTOH these articles were "referred" here from WP:FAC. How about we try to agree on a few guidelines for such cases? I suggest:

1. Please consider nominating your work on PR before FAC in the first place, as that works better for a) PR, b) FAC, c) you.
2. If you're referred back to PR from FAC, you will be most welcome to list work here once you've worked through the comments you've already gotten on FAC.
3. Please place a link to any previous FAC discussion prominently in your PR nomination. You're kindly asked to not copypaste the whole FAC discussion here, as the PR page is long enough already.

Any thoughts? Incidentally, if we can agree on some guidelines, please let's have then on a separate page linked to from PR, not directly at the top of the PR page. Those instructions are looking dauntingly overgrown already. Bishonen | ノート 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

Merge WP:PR with WP:GA

Please see Wikipedia talk:Good articles for a current discussion about adding the "carrot" of WP:GA status as the reward for successfully implementing comments given in peer review. this will help PR get more "eyeballs" as people will not want the "GA" flag to be devalued, in the same way that people dont want FA status to be devalued so carefully examine all FAC articles for flaws. it will also help legitimise the GA policy proposal, and make GA less lax. Zzzzz 20:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrible idea. I'll see you over there. Kafziel 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Help with listing for Idit Harel Caperton

On the main Peer Review page, there is a comment under the request I just put for Idit Harel Caperton that is from before I even posted the request. I cannot figure out how to edit it out and move it to whereever it belongs. When I try to edit, the comment doesn't show up: it only appears on the main page. Any help would be apppreciated. youngamerican (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem resolved. Another request had been added without the appropriate header. --Allen3 ^talk 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Gracias. youngamerican (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page top seems to have been vandalized with a lot of letters and numbers, but I can't find the good version in order to revert it. Afonso Silva 10:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems like some kind of glitch or bug as the template has not been changed. It's very strange, but, for example, instead of the "Place {{ - the usual template - }} at the top of the article" it appears "Place UNIQ5ccced6e4fa7d995-nowiki14acd7e425074fe00000001 at the top of the article's". Afonso Silva 10:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That happened on the FAC page earlier. Apparently it's because one of the transcluded pages put in <ref> tags without putting <nowiki></nowiki> tags around it. I'll see if it's still broken. Makemi 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I caused the trouble. Please forgive my carelessness and ignorance. Thanks to User:Fuzzie for finding out the problem and fixing it right. I used ref tags on the subpage Wikipedia:Peer review/K. R. Narayanan/archive1. Apologies to all.-Pournami 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we need "How to respond to a request"

Or is this just self-evident? Kaisershatner 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve responses to peer reviews

It seems a generally held view that peer review is not working as well as it should, and many editors are discouraged from seeking peer review by the fact that many requests never get any responses, while taking an article to FAC pretty much guarantees responses. Personally, I'm discouraged from reviewing articles by the sheer number of them listed at any one time - I'm likely to be interested and qualified to review only a few, but it's difficult to spot them in the TOC.

At Wikipedia:Good articles, nominations are split into four broad categories. This helps to channel efforts and ensure that articles are reviewed in a reasonably timely fashion, and I think a similar thing could help here. If nominations were listed under these broad categories, reviewers could easily find the articles that interest them.

What does anyone else think? Worldtraveller 09:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Jon513 10:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. It's worked at WP:GA, why not here? --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. I tend to only read those in which I may have some knowledge or interest in. --Midnighttonight 08:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To me the topic isn't as important as whether the person listing the PR is willing and able to do the work to impliment suggestions. The reason FAC gets more comments is people have a motivation to impliment them. Other than that, it doesn't matter what the topic is, you can still tell them what it needs to meet the FA criteria. But I'm not opposed to a topic breakdown if people think it would help. Mind giving it a few days to let opinions come in before doing it though? - Taxman ^Talk 13:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly happy to wait for further input. In the meantime I just put together a temp page so you can see one idea for how to break it down by topic: Wikipedia:Peer review/temp.

I think also FAC works better than PR because it's tied to an output. I'm trying to think of ways in which a definite outcome could arise from a peer review, that might help to encourage much more widespread reviewing. Worldtraveller 19:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A question- are the peer reviews still directly on the WP:PR page, or are there only links to them on the table? I would support simply replacing the ToC with the peer review table. AndyZ _t 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the temp page I made, I only included links to discussions rather than transcluding the discussions. I like this idea because having such a colossal mass of discussion on one page is also a bit off-putting to a would-be reviewer, in my opinion. I've just done another page with just the TOC though: Wikipedia:Peer review/temp2. Worldtraveller 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Redesign needs to consider complete process

While making it easier to find requests for articles that a reviewer is interested in is a noble goal, the complete life cycle of a review request needs to be considered if a workable redesign is to be implemented. It does not matter how well organized the page might be if submitting new requests is too difficult for a significant number of people to do correctly or finding inactive and abandoned requests needing archiving becomes too cumbersome to perform. Too this end I would request that before we start deciding on the best design we first ask ourselves "What should the design do?" --Allen3 ^talk 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• While I like the category idea, I have to agree with Allen3, it makes submitting and archiving more difficult. The biggest issue that I see with peer review is that there are too few active reviwers, and in general this is a problem that I don't see an easy solution for. Mabye a peer review bot, like the suggestbot that could notify people about peer reviews they might be interested in would be a good idea? It'd probably involve tagging with reviews with some sort of hidden category but it wouldn't affect the overall process.--Peta 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to make the code very simple so that listing new articles would still be easy. Archiving inactive discussions would certainly be easier to do manually with discussions all on one page, but it occurs to me it would be pretty easy to write a bot to automatically archive discussions that haven't had any edits for a week, or two weeks.

As far as what the design should fundamentally do, I would like to see a design that simply encourages more reviewing. The fundamental problem with PR is that it's often the case that a request for review will get little or no response. I think that at least part of the problem is that for a reviewer, it's difficult to find articles you're interested in reviewing. Splitting by subject ought to help with that. I think another part of it is the look of the page at present, which is something of an avalanche of text and does not exactly invite reviewers to plough through. This led me to see what a page would look like with just links to discussions instead of transcluded discussions - the first temp page linked above. Worldtraveller 09:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So, categorising seemed to find support above - should I go ahead and change the page? What about whether to show discussions or just link to them, any preferences on that? Worldtraveller 09:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer to show the discussions, in chronological order rather than categorical order. However, replacing the ToC with the category table is a good idea, granted that the instructions are updated and that the process is not too difficult for newcomers. I like the discussions to be shown because I'm one of those few editors that actually goes down the PR list and make suggestions for the newest entries that plan on going to WP:FAC. Thanks, AndyZ _t 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, thinking about it I'm not sure I like it, because it assumes topic is the biggest issue holding reviews back. I don't think it is, it's lack of reviewers as already mentioned. I try to prioritize my review time based on whether my suggestions will be used and by those that haven't gotten much review. The topic doesn't have too much effect on whether I review an article. Also, you've got just way too many categories. Why not four main ones like the reference desk? But as AndyZ mentioned, as long as the categorization replaced the TOC and was in addition to the chrono order we have now, I don't see a problem. - Taxman ^Talk 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How to get more (any) reviews

Chew Valley has now been on the list of articles asking for peer review for almost a month (since 23rd April) & not had any comments - any suggestions about how to overcome this? Rod 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's probably because its a very good article and really beyond improvement. At this sort of level, it could go to the featured article page for refinement (they're rather strict there so will probably find something wrong with it ;) ) --Robdurbar 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some topics just get missed because no one is familiar with the topic and there is a general shortage of reviewers. I also tend to select articles to review that I know the requestor will make a strong effort to impliment the suggestions. Otherwise my work is wasted. So for one, if someone really wants to improve an article and they've already done a lot of research and work on it, leave a message on my talk page and I will provide as thorough a review as desired and as is feasible for me. Topics I know nothing about I have to limit to general reviews. I'll go see what I can do now. Another way is after a week repeat a message that you're really looking for suggestions of what to work on. Next step is ask other people you see commonly reviewing other articles here or on FAC. - Taxman ^Talk 17:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I reviewed the other two articles you put on to WP:PR, and generally I only review articles with intentions of going on to WP:FAC. As for increasing response to peer review, see the above discussion section. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I just created a series of user subpages with a whole batch of templates that contain the usual objections on WP:FAC and the suggestions on WP:PR, from my experience with both. This could considerably shortern the time necessary to type in all of the comments; using these, I should be able to quickly get at least some comments to new PRs. See User:AndyZ/PR. Thanks, AndyZ _t 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Review

Could someone please resubmit my peer review for Tikal the Echidna? I'm sorry if I'm bothering anybody, but a user told me that without an account, I can't resubmit one (because it involves moving a page). So, I'm sorry again to be bother somebody. --71.105.15.11 16:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have archived the old peer review and started the new one here. AndyZ _t 13:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! So should I write the comments I would like to receive there? --71.105.12.115 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, exactly. AndyZ _t 22:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! And again, I'm sorry to bother you with it. --71.105.12.115 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Add link to WP:RFF

I am a relatively new editor. I created two articles, Google Groups and Homerun. When I posted helpme requests asking for more experienced editors to give feedback on the articles I wrote, I was directed here - to Peer review. However, Peer review is for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Therefore, I created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, for new editors to seek feedback on their articles/edits, and use the feedback to improve their article, as well as their general editing skills.

RFF was not meant to be "yet another new initiative". I hope to make it an integral part of Wikipedia. Therefore, we need more editors requesting feedback, and more editors responding to these requests. Doing so requires links to RFF from high-exposure Wikipedia pages.

Some new editors may come here seeking feedback on their articles, and it makes sense to direct them to RFF through a link. I added a paragraph and a link, but I don't know how to get it into the box. Could someone rephrase my paragraph (retaining the link, of course) and add it into the box? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article request

Could someone please help me submit Tikal the Echidna's featured article candidate into the right place? It's in the discussion page. I'm sorry if I'm bothering anyone, and I'm sorry if this isn't the right place. --71.105.14.68 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything has been moved into place. --Allen3 ^talk 19:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --71.104.176.175 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiple requests for peer review/FACs

Does anyone have any problems with/objections to one WikiProject having multiple peer reviews and/or FA candidacies running at the same time? At WP:KLF we have several articles with the Good Article badge which we feel are ready for peer review and ultimately FAC. Two of those are now on peer review, I may add a third later. I want to push forward and not lose momentum, but on the other hand I don't want to annoy people or get no responses. Comments? --kingboyk 17:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about PR, but FAC already has a prominent guideline asking users to not nominate more than one at a time. I imagine that might extend to some degree to a wikiproject as well, especially one with such a very narrow focus. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've not actually ever made an FAC nom, as The KLF was nominated by an interested 3rd party. We'll have to do them one at a time then, barring any more 3rd party noms. Thanks for quick reply. --kingboyk 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

It's definitely a per-user rather than per-project issue (although, in your case, the two might be the same, considering the fairly small number of active members of WP:KLF); certainly, some larger/broader WikiProjects have had multiple articles on FAC with no complaints. Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol! It's not just me Mr Lokshin. It's actually double that in terms of active editors, there's 2 of us you know! :) (and 4 signed up participants). Indeed it only became a WikiProject after we got the FA. We had so much discussion at Category talk:The KLF, and an FA under our belts, I figured why not? :) Erm, so, anyway, we can have one each at one time, something we might consider. Let's see how the 2 peer reviews we have go. If folks say the articles are crap it will be back to the drawing board! --kingboyk 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You know where it says on the FAC page that "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised", and also "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice"? To me, that means that each article should be nominated by a different person on FAC (and, common sense suggests, also on Peer Review) — somebody pepped and ready to take full responsibility for those good-faith efforts. As long as the nominators are all different individuals, I don't see why anybody would need to be annoyed at several noms coming from the same project. (Within reason — ten nominations or so might seem a tad pushy!) Bishonen | talk 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC).

As a (probably irrelevant) data point, WP:MILHIST had seven articles on FAC at one point; but we tend not to go above three or four most of the time. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Music noticeboard

Please link to music-related peer reviews at the new Music Noticeboard. You can also see current Featured Article, Good Article, and A-Class nominees in music-related areas there. Λυδαcιτγ 17:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Divide page

This page should be divided into more parts regarding topics. For example: Peer review/Medicine...etc. We could work much more easily because peer review is not perspicuous now. NCurse _work 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Has the division of the page had any positive effects?

Now that the page has been divided into multiple subgroups for a while it is time to ask if any positive benefits have been realized from the change? On the negative side the effort required to perform daily archiving was nearly quadrupled by the initial three-way split and further splits have only exasperated the issue. --Allen3 ^talk 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll stop. Maurreen 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC) We can put it back to three. Would that be OK? Maurreen 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Three groupings would be much easier to perform daily maintenance on than the current nine groups. It is also vital that the individual groups be chronologically ordered to make it practical to see what has changed from the previous day. --Allen3 ^talk 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so! First of all, for the people who like to go through and do each one, this makes it almost impossible. It looks like the articles in the bottom sections aren't getting as much attention as those in the top sections. BenB4 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that people were doing each one. I hadn't realized there would be any objection or I wouldn't have done it. Maurreen 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the chronological listing available? I preferred that. Fg2 04:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can not follow the list at all now. I think it was better in one long list. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The classifications seem somewhat arbitrary (what constitutes "everyday life"?) Some categorisation may have benefits, but would need to be simpler than this, and with a list of subgroups placed prominently at the top. Oldelpaso 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

New proposal

Peer Review and Requests for feedback are both Wikipedia processes to provide feedback on articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of providing feedback on articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks.

P.S. RFF is a new initiative I created several months ago. However, I aim to make it an integral Wikipedia process, and co-ordination and integration with Peer Review will be a huge boost. New editors will often wish to seek feedback on articles they write, or major edits they make, and RFF is for them to post their requests for feedback to receive responses. The feedback we give them will hopefully help them recognize their strengths and weaknesses as an editor, and improve their editing skills and their articles.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Q: Peer review for other pages than articles

How do I request peer review for a non-article page like this one?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 11:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From the technical side the procedure is the same for a page from the Wikipedia name space as it is for one from the main article name space. My biggest concern is what you expect peer review to be able to do for such a page. As a Wikiproject is well outside the type of material that has previously been reviewed, and is thus lacking any type of traditional criteria to base an evaluation, make sure to include the type of information and feedback you are looking for in any request you make. You may also wish to try Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as both of these pages are traditional places to discuss new proposals or policy/guideline changes. --Allen3 ^talk 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've proposed it as a MOS guideline here.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

I don't mean to bother anyone, but could someone please help me nominate this article for a peer review? --71.118.85.189 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've created the page -- Wikipedia:Peer review/Fulla (doll)/archive1 -- which I think perhaps you can't do without an account. The rest you could still do, and probably should so you get the kind of feedback you want on this article. The instructions for listing are on the front page. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please create an account. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Or don't. Whatever. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll think of it. And thanks for creating it for me! By the way, does anyone know if there is a different type of peer review for dolls and toys? --71.118.77.30 20:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland - Any explanations?

We put the Scotland article up for peer review here on 2 August. As the 38th most-referenced article on the English language Wikipedia; and the 350th most-visited article on the English language Wikipedia in February 2004 (the last available figures as far as I am aware) we thought that it may attract one or two helpful comments, at the very least. It has had no input whatsoever from this project.

To say the very least, this is hugely disappointing, and I personally will be very reluctant to recommend putting any articles up for peer review in the future. I assume that either:

• the topic is too boring or else you have too many other things to review; although a quick glance at surrounding entries suggests that they have not suffered the same fate
• or perhaps the article is just so damn perfect it could not possibly, conceivably be improved upon? Shall we assume that it is a shoo-in for WP:FA?

Any explanations? --Mais oui! 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the blunt, short answer is that peer review isn't a group of sprightly wikignomes waiting with impatience for someone to leave fresh copy to edit. I would guess that most Wikipedians are like me; they have their own articles to write and improve, and they try to make time when they can to contribute to peer reviews, good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured article reviews, requests for administratorship, requests for comment, village pumps, contributions of images and sound files to Wikicommons, etc., etc., etc., when they can. It only has been three days; in my limited experience, the peer review process takes about two weeks. I try to contribute to peer reviews when I can, but there are too many to focus on more than a few. Reviewing articles — especially articles with which you are not familiar — is a time-intensive, laborious process, and it's not realistic to expect immediate results from multiple editors. Your best bet is to post messages letting people know that your article is up for peer review. Contact regular contributors to Scottish-related articles and Wikipedians who have Scotland-related userboxes. Leave a note on the Scotland portal. Unfortunately, no, the article as it stands is not a shoo-in for FA status. I've left a few suggestions for copyediting and other FA-related obstacles, which I hope will help. Mar sin leibh! Peirigill 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. --Mais oui! 11:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The path to a featured article

Hello people.. I was just wondering a way to improve the Request For Feedback project. From the way I see it, its a place to get a feedback for a less-developed article, or a new article and mostly from newcomers. Moreover, it is also a place to get feedback before the peer review, althought it is not a compulsory path. Therefore, I'd like to ask how can I make a suggestion to change that box, the "The Path to a Featured Article" box? So that the "RFF" project could be included there. Cheers -- Imoeng 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Steps box

With regard to the steps box and the question above please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Rough_revised_steps where there are a number of proposals to change the PR/FAC process slightly including one to change the steps infobox to make it more helpful and less a list of the sure-fire way to get an FA in 10 minutes Yomangani 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Make requesting a review easy

We can do this by implementing the same tool they use at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Nomination. What do you think?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean like the boxes on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate? Yes, that would be a nice idea. What bothers me (only slightly, mind you) is the fact that some people would forget adding a PR template on the talk page. Or is there a way to automate that too??? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Glancing at Help:Inputbox I think the following works:

By the way, auto-submitting an article to PR is part of the peer reviewing script. AZ _t 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we be making it easy? It's not really difficult now, and if they are asking somebody to take the time to give a review, I think the requirement for a little effort on the part of the submitter may help weed out the casual nominators. After all, it's not like there are a queue of reviewers just waiting for the next submission. Yomangani^talk 21:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Besides, all the submission really takes is a heading, some article information, and the signature - submitting a PR is a lot easier than starting a RfA or a FPC nomination. AZ _t 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's easy for us. It's difficult for 99,9% of humans 'out there'. Making editing easier is one of the main goals our developers are working on (see meta:WYSIWYG).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Simultaneous GA & PR nomination

I just noticed that History of Solidarity is up for both PR and GA; see here and here. Is this frowned on, or a good idea? I think I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't know of a policy or argument against it. Mike Christie 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no policy against it (as far as I know), but it's generally not a good idea, as aside from the duplication of effort from reviewers, the two processes may throw up different requirements (as the requirements for FA and GA status are different). I've made a proposal for a new "Steps" infobox for the Peer Review page at: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/New_steps_to_FA#Infobox, which should make the suggested progression of an article through the review processes clearer. Yomangani^talk 09:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

4288

Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. --Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Where has the PR bot gone? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Second that question. It was one of our most active reviewers :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey I wanted to ask, what's the deal with peer review archiving? I've only seen one person doing it, and the project page doesn't really explain how. I have an article that just finished a peer review, but I don't know how to archive it. It's been a little while now and nothing is happened, and I don't really know what to do.--Clyde Miller 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See here. Basically, if an article had had at least a peer review and has been innactive for two weeks, or if the request is older than a month, they are archived. You can archive an article you have requested at anytime, in example, if you are sending the article for GA or FA. -- ReyBrujo 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay Thanks.--Clyde Miller 21:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi Automatic Peer Review returns (kind of)

I found the semi automatic peer review very useful when I went through the process, so I am going to try and do 10 or so of them a day until the backlog is cleared up and then try to keep up with new requests. I originally just pasted the semi automatic peer review into the peer review (current 10 oldest requests). The footnotes do not work that way, so I just tried 2 more where I put them in the proper place (Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated) and they worked (see Peer reviews for Denver, Colorado and Demosthenes). I do not have a bot to do this, so 10 a day is about all I can handle (if I want to do anything else on WP). If anyone wants to help, I can write out what I do in hopefully easy to follow directions. Ruhrfisch 15:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll help :). Unfortunately, I don't have a bot either to do this (since frankly I don't know how to write one), but I use a couple of short scripts to speed up the process greatly such that I can finish some 10+ articles in a couple of minutes.

By the way, now that WP:PR/A (457kb) is about 100kb larger than WP:PR, it takes quite a while longer to load and use- is there a possible solution to this?AZ _t 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks - I could do about one peer review every two minutes (I had three browser windows open and copied and pasted a lot), so you have me beat. Drop me a line on my talk page if you need my help with these again.
• I have a couple of possible ideas about the semi automated peer review size issue. Another factor to consider is archiving. The whole archiving process is tedious and it breaks the link from the rest of the peer review for the article. What if there were just a new Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated file created every week or perhaps every two weeks, and it became its own archive once all the requests in it were no longer active (just put an archive template on it then, but keep all the requests in there until then)? This would keep the size down, preserve the link from the rest of the peer review, and avoid the whole tedious process of moving these three out today and these two out tomorrow. There could even be some sort of systematic naming scheme - if it were done every two weeks they could just be Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated2006a, b c, d, etc. (as there are 26 fortnights in a year). This would also keep the footnotes (and make them more manageable).
• As long as there is a link to each semi automated peer review, I guess it could be anywhere. The semi automated peer reviews do not have to all be together in one file. It is not like people browse all of the automated peer reviews as they do with WP:PR. The other possible ideas I had were to put the automated peer reviews on each article's Talk page (with a link to the footnotes for those interested), or to put them into the rest of the transcluded peer review (but that makes the size issue much worse there). Hope this is helpful and welcome back, Ruhrfisch 00:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea; it'll simplify the process greatly. I'll work on it immediately. AZ _t 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the best solution is, put autopeerreview into articles peerreview page. --Ugur Basak 21:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I used to do that, that is until WP:PR became really large (if I had continued, WP:PR would be about ~800kb+, and would take forever to load). That's why I split my suggestions into WP:PR/A. By the way, similarily to the PR archives, I have arranged the semi-automated reviews by month: [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]] (for this month, WP:PRA/O06), which takes care of the issues of archiving as mentioned above by Ruhrfisch. AZ _t 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the update - sounds like a good solution. Ruhrfisch 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow

Someone should scroll down to the bottom of the page... we've got red error text all over. :( Titoxd^(?!?) 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to WP:PR/A - there are 138 sections, and most have at least one of those footnotes, and the <references/> doesn't have enough backlinks upwards to reach each of the individual footnotes. As a result, you get the big red text, and unfortunately I don't have a method to fix that. However, now that the semiautomated PRs are being divided into monthly pages (see WP:PRA/O06), it should no longer be a[s much as a] problem. AZ _t 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

peer reviewers

I think Wikipedia:Peer reviewers should be added to the article, but I don't know how to do it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

PR Bot

I dislike the automated Peer Review bot. This should be something requested specifically, not thrown at an individual. It also makes people less likely to peer review if they see something's been peer reviewed. Just a thought. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• First, it is not a bot, but rather a javascript run by a human. Second, by submitting an article to Peer Review, aren't people specifically requesting any and all feedback? Third, while you are free to dislike (and of course ignore) the semi automated peer review, I found it very useful when I went through peer review with an article. It checks many basic things all Good and Featured articles should have (some of which editors are often unaware or uncertain of). I think it also allows other reviewers to focus on other, more specific peer review concerns. In the interest of full disclosure, I added semi automated peer reviews to over 150 requests while AndyZ was on a Wikibreak. The feedback I got was all positive, except for one person who said they didn't understand what it meant (but another editor followed through on the semi automated PR suggestions). Fourth, some of those articles had been in PR for nearly a month with no comments until they got the semi automated peer review (there was a large backlog when I started). For whatever reasons, some requests simply do not get many replies. I do not think this is the fault of semi automated peer review, and for a few articles it was the only review they got, so at least they got some feedback. Finally, I have had two requests to run the script for articles not in Peer Review, so this is something I have had editors seek out to improve articles. Can you please be more specific about what you dislike about it? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ruhrfisch on this - I think it's useful at spotting things which human reviewers can miss. It seems the logical place for it; I can't see how it could be detrimental to the article. It might make people less likely to peer review but few people do anyway and even an automated response is better than nothing. Trebor 21:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have, which I mentioned to Bastique, is when I send articles to peer reviews, all I get is the javascript and nothing else. Then when I go to FAC, I will most likely get hammered. Plus, there is several things that if you mention to people, they will get confused. I still don't know what the "proper order" for the Interwiki links, and it would be helpful to show that list in the Javascript reply. But, I feel like if I get the same stuff in the javascript over and over again, I am just going to avoid peer review and go straight to FAC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that a proper review by a human is superior in many ways to the javascript output. Such a review depends on a qualified reviewer being available and willing to perform the review. Unfortunately the number of people requesting reviews is significantly larger than the supply of people performing reviews. As a result, the issue is whether having an automated review is better than having no review. To this I say that an automated review is better than nothing at all. --Allen3 ^talk 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree that the lack of reviewers is a problem, and I waited a long time when my article went through the process before I got any human review comments. I have a modest suggestion - if you submit an article for review, you should also read carefully and make some thoughtful comments on several other (three? five?) articles. I would say the next three of five in the queue ahead of your article so all articles get some comments and it would be random what you reviewed. While it would increase the number of comments everyone got, I also think it would be good for editors just to read others articles carefully and get ideas. I have no idea how to enforce this, it just seems like a good idea. Ruhrfisch 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if people did that, but as you say there's no way to enforce it. It would be great if some of the critics on FAC did peer review as well. At present what seems to happen is that it goes through PR and gets very few suggestions for improvement, then goes to FAC and gets hammered. But if you don't send it through PR, most of the FAC comments suggest that you do. So people start using FAC (even one where they're bound to fail) as a substitute, because it gets many more reads. Trebor 10:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if any of my suggestions were confusing (though User:AndyZ/PR/alpha says quite simply to "alphabetize" the interwiki links). My goal was exactly the opposite of making people less likely to peer review; since the editors that do commonly peer review articles often cannot take the time to review other articles (for example, see #How to get more (any) reviews), I was hoping that (semi)automated suggestions would give nominators certain problems to work on until a manual peer review could be provided. Also, it introduces less experienced editors to certain guidelines on WP, like WP:MOS and WP:GTL, and often times even show experienced editors less well-known WP pages (like WP:PDATA).

I have seen articles skip directly to WP:FAC (like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ah! My Goddess The Movie) complaining about the script, though I find it quite ironic that most of them needed fix issues presented in the review. I don't mind if the 1-line notices I place on all PRs are removed by the nominators if they feel that the issues brought up have already been completed or are not useful or if they think it might hurt their opportunities to gain real editors (at least it's not like before when I used to copy+paste the suggestions directly into the PRs rather than just give a link). Though I have to agree with User:Allen3 on this: a JS review is certainly better than nothing.

Though it would be great if nominators helped out by peer reviewing other articles (and I have seen quite a few editors do that), it probably would be even better to contact editors at related WikiProjects or editors of related articles which have more knowledge about the subject at hand and will be more interested with the topic. AZ _t 21:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely do like the automated Peer Review. It's pointed out several mechanical issues on some articles that i put up for PR. What I dislike is spending time on a fairly extensive manual review and then nobody bothers to reply or even implement any of the changes. That makes it feel like the process is a CWoT, and it also puts me in a sour mood when they attempt to take it through for FAC. =/ — RJH (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Peer Reviews

Hello - a while ago, User:MartinBotII, as part of testing a sysem requested here (toward the bottom of the thread) by the WikiProject council, placed a lot of peer reviews on the main page, which were, IMO, correctly reverted. I would like to belatedly apologise for this - it was my understanding that the proposed actions of the bot had alredy been approved at this end - my mistake for not checking! The bot is hoping to make it easier for wikiprojects to organise their peer reviews, but the obvious problem is the number of existing peer reviews which would be transcluded onto this page. To avoid this, a new proposal has been made, and I would like to put it formward here :) The new idea is that the bot will only place new peer review requests (say - produced in the last 48 hours) to this page. This will avoid an initial flood, and if wikiprojects use their centralised listings rather than the PR page initially, load on the page is likely to remain roughly constant. Could I have your opinions on this, and any questions? Thanks Martinp23 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's running now, on and off Martinp23 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Trancluding a PR from another project

Could I transclude Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Peer review/Satellite Instructional Television Experiment to the list? I started the peer-review on the Indian project because it would get more attention there. But some comments from the general wikipedia community would also help. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think that this is done often (esp. by the WP:MILHIST and BIO WikiProjects); in fact, I would encourage it. APR _t 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for archiving

Hoysala Empire is at present in FAC. However, the article also has a PR running. Can an admin please archive the PR? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does this action need an admin? Archiving a request involves three simple edits (remove transclusion line from the current requests, add the removed transclusion line to the current months archive, and switch the {{peerreview}} template on the article talk page to a {{oldpeerreview}} template) and none of the files are protected. This article was picked up during my normal daily archiving sweep. --Allen3 ^talk 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)