per above, please tell me how to tackle this. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If I couldn't find a solution I would simply rip off the FAC banner... it's so helpless.Forbidden User (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

First off, it always helps to give links to what you are referring too - I assume you mean Wikipedia:Peer review/Walt Disney/archive4. Wait until the bot closes the FAC, then go into the peer review and undo the bot's edit closing the PR (you will also have to do this on the talk page). To be honest, at this point if it gets reviewed people are going to say what the FAC already told you - add references, etc. I see there is a third PR (yours is the fourth) which is pretty detailed - have you looked at that to see if everything has been fixed there? If you are not sure who to undo an edit, let me know once the bot closes the FAC and I will undo the bot edits and thus re-open the PR. Thanks and good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mralia has helped fix the stuff. Thanks everyone!Forbidden User (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I nominated the Timeline of plesiosaur research weeks ago, but apparently it didn't get listed. I thought it was supposed to happen automatically, was I supposed to list it manually? Can someone help me? Abyssal (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is listed and on the backlog. Not sure why you do not see it - have you tried WP:BYC? Look at WP:PR and search the string "plesiosaur". Unfortunatley not every request receives a review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines state:

The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in  Done /  Not done templates. Use the non-image templates,  Done / ✗ Not done, instead.

I'd like to change this to:

The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, except for small images such as as the tick/cross images in  Done /  Not done.

I do this because:

• These are very common templates in GA and FA, which are related review processes.
• This does not seem to be a guideline users actually follow
• Using small images not significantly impact on the page size
• This does not impact on bandwidth, as browsers use caches and these images will only be downloaded once

Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Worth a try, I guess. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Is an article allowed to have a peer review going on while it is a current GAN? I know it's not for FACs. Tezero (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is allowed under the PR rules - not sure if GAN allows it or not (used to be OK there too). The basic idea is that it may be a problem if you got feedback from both a PR and a GAN at the same time - which one would you follow? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_operator_needed_for_VeblenBot_and_PeerReviewBot to keep the conversation in one place.

CBM implemented and ran VeblenBot and PeerReviewBot, but is retiring from Wikipedia. I am in occasional email contact with CBM who wrote:

"It would be a good idea to find a different person to run the bot jobs. With the WMF Tools setup, I can actually just hand them the entire bot as a turnkey, they would not need to re-implement it. If you can find someone, please ask them to email me (and you email me) and I will be able to communicate with them that way."

VeblenBot updates Peer Review, Good Article Nominations, Featured List Candidates, and Featured Article Candidates, (see here) so I am asking at all those places. I already asked at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, but got no responses there.

If you are interested in taking over these bots please reply here. They are usually pretty trouble free. My email and CBM's email are both enabled.

I do the monthly PR bot maintenance (making the files and categories) and that includes adding the new PR category each month on the VeblenBot account - I would be glad to keep doing that (and give details on email).

Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ruhrfisch. Hawkeye7 took over, right? If so, would you mind updating Wikipedia:Peer review/Tools? --LT910001 (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

LT910001, I assume the bots have been transferred, but do not know for certain. I have emailed both CBM and Hawkeye7 to check on the status of the bots (both of which are working fine, as far as I know). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The bot has not yet been transferred, but they are working on it. I cannot make the archive for PRs now - my guess is that it is yet another tweak made by the folks who run wmflabs which has messed up things. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In my mind it would be quite useful to have a way of marking articles that are requesting a PR in preparation for GA or FA. I think this would be useful because:

• Editors with some experience in those areas could provide targeted feedback to these articles.
• Feedback can be tailored to match the relevant criteria
• Editors can provide feedback that is specific to the goal of GA or FA

I'm not sure how this could be done, but let's say it could be done without disrupting the category system. If that is the case, what would be thoughts from other users? --LT910001 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much effort, too little reward. ResMar 15:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Editors will often state in their request for a PR what their goal is (GAN, FAC, FLC, or general improvement). Would this be somehow more than that? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

personally, my experience with peer review, is that it's usually a waste of time, as you rarely get feedback from multiple editors, and it's faster to just nominate it for the next step, unless that silly thing about not being a major contributor comes into play. people usually just say that you should do a peer review, but peer reviews usually get far less feedback than the other methods. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, maybe this is a stupid question, but is the "Nominations are limited to one open request per editor" rule to be interpreted as as if I can only post one article for peer review ever? Or just not two at the time? Yakikaki (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It is the latter case - "users are limited to requesting one review at any one time" - to stop a backlog becoming an avalanche. Green Giant (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, so sorry if it's in the inappropriate spot. WP:CA has a year-long backlog of articles that need assessment; the list can be found here. A week ago I notified the discussion page of the project asking for help, but so far nobody has come to the rescue. Why are all these WikiProjects floundering? :( - Sweet Nightmares 17:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Peer reviews are not assessments (although editors use them to improve the assessed level of the article, i.e. to GA Or FA). I am not sure why projects are floundering, but many requests for peer review are closed without comments, so it is happening here too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are floundering because generally Wikipedia has been losing more editors than it is gaining (since at least 2007). They were mean't to be informal groupings of people and there is no compulsion that anyone has to act on requests because at the end of the day we're mostly volunteers (apart from the Wikimedia staff and the "paid contributors"). There will be backlogs until and unless there is a Wikimedia-wide effort to retain volunteers, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Just my tuppence worth of opinions. Green Giant (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As a general question, why is assessment such a big deal? Not an attack, but what's wrong with people who edit the articles just doing it themselves? That's what I do (not because I'm such a master reviewer, but because it just takes a basic understanding of the classes), and it's pretty common in the projects I'm in. For ratings below GA, I don't see why it matters that much anyway; it's not like anything's riding on the article being, say, C-class rather than Start-class. Tezero (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Movies, music, and TV all seemed to be lumped into the "General" category. Why not give them their own category, a la WP:GAC?  Noahcs  (Talk) 02:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• I filed mine under "Arts", but it wound up in "General". Might be a bot issue. Teemu08 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To add categories would mean a lot of bot work and currently there is no one able to do this (transfer of bot ownership is supposed to be a work in progress). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Peer review/Hadsund/archive1, but it has not come to Wikipedia:Peer review. Is there anyone who can help? --Søren1997 ^{(talk // contributions)} 16:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you do not see it, but it is listed in PR - please see Wikipedia:Peer_review#Hadsund. I will also tell you that PR is not really the place for translation requests. You might try Wikipedia:Translators available though none of the Danish translators there are still active :( Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. As some of you may recall, I used spend some time doing peer reviews, and had hoped that the system continued to provide useful feedback, particularly to those trying to push articles towards higher class assessments like WP:FA. I have to say, having tried to put two of my own articles through here in the past few months (The Boat Race 2012 and The Boat Race 1993), I'm incredibly disappointed by the results. It may be that I'm requesting a niche article be reviewed, but if this is the best the process can offer after one month, it's not really helpful, is it? The 2012 article was actually archived before it received any attention. Thankfully, User:Mike Christie was kind enough to acknowledge that this wasn't adequate for the process and really helped me on the road to FA. I suppose, in summary, is it just the kind of article I'm nominating here which means I get no comments for a month, or is it something else? I had hoped that PR would cover any topic, any subject matter and would review it in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Is this no longer the case? Is it that PR is now down to so few editors that it's not a useful resource? Not making a point, just asking the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TRM. As someone who used to spend time doing peer reviews too, I agree that the current system is much less useful. It used to be that many PRs closed without feedback. Then for several years there was a group of editors that were committed to making sure every article submitted for PR received some sort of review - you were a great help there, as were Brianboulton and Finetooth and several others. We tried several things to lessen the load on the regular reviewers (the backlog list, a list of volunteers, limiting the number of open PR's per editor to one each). Over time though, most of the core of regular reviewers stopped doing PRs (Brianbulton being one of the few exceptions) and a few years ago the system finally broke and now there is no guarantee that an article submitted here actually receives a review. Now whether or not a given article receives a review seems to be random, though asking for reviews can still be helpful.

An idea that has been raised before is to sort PR requests - so all articles ready for FA vs those ready for GA vs general improvement (and I note there are still some PR requests which are just not asking the right questions - often disputing an importance rating or stub/start/C/B class ranking, or asking for translation or subject experts). I am not sure if this would help (my fear is if all FAC prep requests got reviews, then some editors would say their new stubs were ready for FA and ask for a PR).

Short of a magical clone army of reviewers, I am not sure what to do. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and before I'd hit "save page", all I could think was "lack of volunteers" which, of course, is a Wikipedia-wide issue. I don't really buy the "ordering" of PRs, a new author writing a stub should get the same priority as a veteran preparing for his (or her) 17th FA. I suppose it's just desperately disappointing to see a PR closed with a handful of minor, mostly technical issues. That (as far as I know) is not the reason for the existence of PR. Anyhow, I guess this mini-whinge of mine is pointless, and I apologise if it appears that I'm ungrateful for the support I've received from this project in the past. I sincerely hope it can rise back to the prominence I used to see; an expectation for most quality articles here to progress was that it would pass by PR and their expertise. It's no longer the case I think, and that's terribly depressing. If it continues to exist, good luck in whatever this project becomes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've cleared all the backlogs at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. If anyone has time, comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/R U Professional/archive1. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to let PR regulars know, there is a discussion and straw poll going on here as to whether or not PRs should be included in the WikiCup next year. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible for a peer review to result in a To-do list? --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you ask the person doing the review to make such a list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tools in the peer review toolbox are down for good now. If anyone is interested in maintaining Template:peer review tools, active links to exchange the broken ones can be found in Template:featured article tools. I am not that experienced with PR-specific details, so someone more knowledgeable should change those links. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I have swapped in the working links from the FA toolbox. I added a few - feel free to discuss them if you think they are not useful to PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Has something gone awry in the WP system? Try as I may I can't get Francis Poulenc's PR nomination into the Arts section and it appears in "General". Not helpful. Tim riley talk 02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem is and am not a skilled enough programmer to fix it. I will see if I can find someone who can lend a hand - sorry. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How come Wikipedia:Peer review/R U Professional/archive1 is not showing up under Arts sect on WP:PR?

Come to think of it, nothing is listed under there.

Is it not working properly?

— Cirt (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem is and am not a skilled enough programmer to fix it. I will see if I can find someone who can lend a hand - sorry. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I can explain this one. In 2013, GA changed their topic scheme, and in early 2014 I updated the subtemplate {{GA/Topic}} to reflect this. I remember pointing out at the time that the PR template {{Peer review page}} also employs T:GA/Topic (by transclusion through {{Peer review/Topic}}), but I have to say I don't recall where that part of the discussion led. In any event, it should be a fairly easy fix to put the old T:GA/Topic code right into T:Peer review/Topic, thereby restoring the old topic scheme for PR. I'll take a look. Maralia (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This will take a little more work than anticipated because it appears the GA topic scheme and the PR topic scheme diverged quite a bit over time, since at least 2012. I'm on it, though. Ruhrfisch, have I got the general scheme of things correct below?

1. Arts: art, architecture, music, tv, film, theater, dance
2. Everyday life: includes sport, recreation, games, agriculture, food, drink
3. Engineering and technology: also includes computing, video games, transport
4. General: default setting if none chosen
5. Geography and places
6. History: also includes archaeology, warfare, military, royalty, nobility, heraldry
7. Lists
8. Natural sciences and mathematics
9. Language and literature
10. Philosophy and religion
11. Social sciences and society: also includes culture, media, journalism, law, politics, government, psychology

I will retain all the old variant keywords (i.e. sport and sports) as well; just trying to make sure I have the subtopics in the intended parent topics before I get any further. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much Maralia,

There are 11 possible topics. I started a peer review as a test and got the following 11 (General and List are in one cell of the table):

"To start Peer Review choose an appropriate topic from the list below and click on the link to create the review page.

If you look at the organization o WP:PR itself (or just the TOC) the order there is

1. Arts
2. Everyday life
3. Engineering and technology
4. General
5. Geography and places
6. History
7. Natural sciences and mathematics
8. Language and literature
9. Philosophy and religion
10. Social sciences and society
11. Lists
12. WIkiProject peer-reviews

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. I did not see that T:PR takes button input, rather than typed text, to choose a topic. It never even occurred to me that it might, since all of the topic-interpreting code is designed to decipher user-typed text...what a strange disconnect. Okay, I'm going to poke around a bit more looking for unintended consequences; barring that, this should be even simpler to fix. Maralia (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, think I've done it. Veblenbot has just run. Arts is once again populated (I also had to recreate the category, as someone had deleted it in mid-2013). There was a little bobble with Language and literature (I typoed it to Languages), and consequently Laurence Olivier wasn't in the right category when Veblenbot came through, but I've fixed that at both ends now. Everything else looks okay so far. Let me know if anything seems off. Maralia (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Looks good to me and your help is very much appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The bot closed Ebla peer review request without an actual review.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the bot closes it eventually if no one responds. You could put it for PR later and/or invite editors personally to comment on it from the volunteer list. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I just had this happen with Wikipedia:Peer review/Gateway Protection Programme/archive2. Am I able to reopen the review, so that I can invite specific editors to contribute, or do I need to start a new peer review? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd recommend you invite editors from the volunteer list to comment there despite it being 'officially' closed by the bot. I don't see the point of immediately starting another over this unanswered one. That, or you could open a new one later. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I recently created an article and have nominated it at DYK. However, I would also like to have it peer reviewed. Is there any limitation on doing both at the same time? --Jpcase (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I wasn't sure how active this talk page is, I asked the same question at the Help Desk and haven't received an answer there. So I've gone ahead and listed my article for peer review. I hope this is okay! :) --Jpcase (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is allowed - an article cannot be at FAC or FLC at the same time as it is as PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1983768 out of 2097152 bytes (113384 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this looks bad. @Ruhrfisch, Brianboulton, and LT910001: help? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the ping, I'm looking into it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. This message is because of how much is transcluded onto the main Peer review page. If any more is transcluded, it'll be over the limit and anything after the limit won't get transcluded any more (we've had this problem before). In a way it's a good problem because it means PR is getting used a lot. Still working... --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. There are too many reviews. It seems the way to deal with this is to transclude less reviews. I think the best way to do this while still showing prominently most reviews is to separate the longest reviews. These are generally 'pre-FA' reviews, which also generally already have reviewers. Dr. Blofeld, Brianboulton, Curly Turkey (users I see in many areas of the page at this moment) if you are online, what would you feel about a separate category of peer reviews for articles looking to become featured? These can be provided in list form on this page and in full all together on another, thus saving the PR process from annihalation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To update, I will have implemented a solution within an hour. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Although generally that's the idea of a peer review, I'd support a separate category for those which are intended to go directly to FAC afterwards. Only if the others support it though of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't show up at PR nearly often enough to have a strong opinion, but I wonder if having too many review-type places will just kill the amount of reviewing that gets done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I have had a death in my immediate family and have been very busy in real life. I apologize that I have not been more active on WP recently. The PR for Irtaba was listed in two places and was not properly archived. I have archived it and, given its size, that should buy as some time. I can devote some more time to fixing things in about 4 hours. The bot is working except for the creation of new categories within the bot - I am unable to fix that but with everything else in my life, well. I just let it slide. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I found four improperly closed PRs and have archived all of them - this should help (fingers crossed). There is also the partial transclusion trick, which I tired on one PR, but seem to have messed up - will try more later. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hurray! And also if you can add me to the maintainers list I'd be very grateful Ruhrfisch (I won't rush into making any changes!) --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IThanks - I did the partial transclusion trick too. Tom (LT) - are you a bot operator, by chance? I will be back in a few hours (Lord willing and the creek don't rise...) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a bot operator but I have some past experience with programming and am pretty technically savvy. I'd just like to have a look at the code and maybe (in the future) create a new 'pre-FA' category so we can section-off pre FA requests and selectively transclude them according to need. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally Ruhrfisch I've also changed the archive process. I think we should just point to the category with the dated reviews every month. That saves a whole lot of trouble and is just as accessible. I'll update the "Tools" page if you're happy with that plan. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lastly when I feel confident I may consider changing some of the code so that we can consolidate some of our many, many duplicate templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I'm also calling it a day. I will update the "Tools" page tomorrow with (1) instructions on what to do if page is getting full (2) a more full documentation of how reviews are closed and (3) update the monthly archive instructions. Good night to all and many thanks to Ruhrfish for his/her timely intervention! --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good to see Ruhrfisch back and I missed all the action. Try to give us some of the work if needed, I think you're already overburdened with a lot. Oh and thanks Tom for your interest in maintaining this. -Joel Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you considered noincluding the article link template {{Peer review/heading}} on individual noms (I think this would mean at {{Peer review/subst}})? It causes a very slight inconvenience—one would have to click through to an individual nom page to access article/talk links—but it reduces the transclusion burden on the main listing page, and we made this change years ago at FAC and FAR without any significant fuss.
The References section (and accompanying reflist) could also be removed. It looks like it was added in early 2013 as a quick fix to resolve an error caused by an individual PR containing citations but no reflist; the right fix for that, should it happen again, is adding a reflist to the specific PR. Maralia (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to remove the reflist, Maralia. Also as far as I understand the code for WP has changed so that one will be automatically added anyway if none is present. I personally find the heading on each review quite useful but am not sure what other users think about it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Wikipedia:Peer_review/Archive seems to have been abandoned a few months ago? The last listed month is January 2015, but that link actually leads to the January 2014 archive, and February and March 2015 are completely absent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It seems that the editor in charge of it has been busy since the beginning of the year, will notify. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, Ugog Nizdast. Actually, the archived peer reviews are available here: Category:January 2014 peer reviews etc. I've updated the most recent archive pages. Is that OK? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As an update, I've provided links to categories of peer reviews, which are automatically updated by the bot which does it. This is a lot less labour intensive than the old method, which involves manually transcluding and parsing reviews. I voiced concerns a while ago about the old system as it is quite labour intensive and seems to have had a bus factor of 1, which is not ideal. If there are no objections I think the new way of providing category links is fine for archival purposes, and a lot less labour intensive. In addition (I feel at least) it is easier to navigate than a full transclusion. I am happy if other editors want to use/propose an alternate system or dedicate themselves to maintaining the old way, which is one I never fully understood and seemed quite complicated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the old method and didn't want to do it myself, so I posted at User talk:Ruhrfisch#Peer review archiving who has been maintaining it all this while. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated the archive and updated the instructions on Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

After glancing through Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 9, it seemed clear that this issue was frequently brought up here and instead of giving the same reply every time, this notice seemed like a good idea. I just hope it's worded properly and everyone is fine with it. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I am a little lost here. What notice? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK at the top of this page. I really would like to remove it again. I cleaned up this page about 1 year ago and removed or moved a number of notices. I do not think this a problem that needs solving... having looked at the archive I can find only 1 example of a review. Does this really require a notice? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Only one example? See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...that's just half the archive I think + see also the most recent one at the top of this page. I've started monitoring this for barely a month but I think this seems to happen frequently. Are you sure this isn't needed? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, yes I see what you mean! OK yes I agree it is needed.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I invite editors to have a read of Glomerulus (kidney), which is a small structure in the kidney, and comment on the review page here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Glomerulus (kidney)/archive1. Non-medical opinions are most welcome, as this article does not seem very inviting at the moment, and I'd very much like to improve the readability of this page. Many thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As a proof of concept I've created a page which just lists the future FA noms: User:LT910001/sandbox/FAC peer reviews. To reiterate the benefits here are:

1. Separates these articles into a new category. FAC are generally already of high quality and (generally) only editors already familiar with the FA process review, hence having them on the main page may distract from lower-quality peer reviews from newer editors
2. FA editors and nominees get a distinct and convenient list.
3. These reviews, often the longest and most active, can be transcluded in title form only only onto the main page if necessary
4. Specific instructions can be put on the review page for FAC if needed or desired.

I am just proposing creating a new 'topic' for the review (similar to the 'arts', 'literature and language'), not an entirely new process. If other editors are supportive I think this will be helpful to implement. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The article "I Could Fall in Love" is in its second PR not first. jona^(talk) 23:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed that. I manually created the list to see what other users will think about it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So sorry, the article is on its third PR. jona^(talk) 00:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, previously I used to just check the requesting editor's comment whether they want to do a FA or no. But just a quick question, I may have missed something, is it worth creating an entirely new topic for this and won't the problem of managing reviews which are in both, say "arts", as well as Future FA noms? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The new topic would be 'FA nominations' or something like that. The topics at the moment (arts, literature, etc.) are so that interested users can choose a topic and contribute to a review in that area. However FA noms have been very well attended to and by separating them we may help FA nominators by providing a separate topic, and other reviews by giving more prominence to the larger volume of less well-attended reviews. Still just an idea at the moment though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Related question: Future FA noms are probably the hardest ones to get comments in and mostly all unanswered ones belong to this category. I'm confused as to how we deal with them when they go unanswered, do we recommend the requesters to get it FA nominated since they'll get it either passed or are sure to atleast get issues to address if it fails? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. When I skim through the reviews, it seems that most of the FA nom peer reviews are very well attended, and in fact are most of our longest reviews. The 5 or so editors who do the reviewing might contribute more if the reviews were grouped, as they'd then see which reviews need their attention. With regard to future FA success, I think we shouldn't tinker with the peer review process -- ie editors are free to comment with the hope of improving the article's chances, but a PR doesn't count as anything @ FA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a closure. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot automatically closes it after a period of inactivity. Of course, you can do it yourself if you can't wait...see the bot contributions on how it's done. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a peer review for Boys Don't Cry (film) in right now. But a bot just archived it and removed it from the list. Why has this happened, and is there any way that I can return it to the list? Thanks, BenLinus1214^talk 00:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but like in all other areas, we have a lack of volunteers here too and the bot will close reviews after a period of inactivity (per WP:PR/RP). If you wish, you can return it to the list by simply undoing the bot. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. :) BenLinus1214^talk 21:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I opened this peer review - Wikipedia:Peer review/Elmer Ernest Southard/archive1 - but I'm not seeing it listed under the Social Sciences nominations. What am I doing wrong? Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

EricEnfermero, you forgot to add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page. RO^(talk) 16:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Doh! I was thinking that was the step that pulled up the nomination page in the first place. Thanks for your reply. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Readded it, but it takes me back to the part where it asks for a subtopic. Since there is already a nom with the current peer reviews and soc sci nominations categories, is this going to create a duplicate? Thanks for your help! I try not to be this dense! EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I also opened a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Circus Juventas/archive1, almost a day ago) but it looks like it's yet to appear in the Arts section. As this is my first go at PR, I wanted to make sure I'm not missing a crucial step. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 14:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looked at it and I'm stumped, though I'm not so familiar with the actual process of nomination and housekeeping. @Ruhrfisch: have any clue? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the bot hasn't been operating in 7 days (see VeblenBot/contributions). Ruhrfish hasn't made an edit since the 14th June. Unfortunately I'm still waiting for permissions, otherwise I would just do this task and activate the bot / fix it on wikitools myself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've manually added it to the list, it appears now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, Tom. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

While we wait for the bot to work, please put any reviews that aren't appearing here, I'll add them as they come up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had very limited internet access of late, sorry. I emailed Tom about this just now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (LT), if there is any work I can help out with tell me. Right now while updating Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items, I see that the reviews are being listed again (don't know if the bot still works or whether you're behind it) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1972346 out of 2097152 bytes (124806 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2015927 out of 2097152 bytes (81225 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1972346 out of 2097152 bytes (124806 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools#Troubleshooting:_.22Wikipedia:Peer_review_is_getting_full.22 - give me some time--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: about 15 old peer reviews archived - should be better now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: And another 10 or so. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1980735 out of 2097152 bytes (116417 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1980735 out of 2097152 bytes (116417 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1985841 out of 2097152 bytes (111311 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1985841 out of 2097152 bytes (111311 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1990347 out of 2097152 bytes (106805 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1993431 out of 2097152 bytes (103721 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've closed about 15+ reviews. The problem however remains that this will occur in future, and relies on the vigilance of a few editors who know what to do when the message is posted, in part because more and more reviews are being opened (which is great!). I've implemented a fix today, whereby reviews on the main page are only transcluded in full if they are less than a certain size.

The point of this fix is to stop some of the really large reviews (also great, as it means the article is getting a lot of attention) from causing the entire page to exceed the post-transclusion size. See the "tools" page for an explanation of what the size is and what the problem is if the page exceeds the size. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the cutting down on large transclusions. So if I understood correctly, when it happens, we try to close the oldest and untransclude the lengthiest. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, you're right. Long reviews will no longer be transclude I've added an explanation of this for future users here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools#toolong. We still have to manually close the reviews, but I've changed the formatting on the list of active reviews so that the 'last edited date' is also displayed prominently. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay I get this but then where do we place it? Isn't PR bot not archiving anymore, I had to do some and found it difficult as those instructions weren't what I was looking for. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on the "instructions" page. The "tools" page is just technical documentation (and by the way thanks for your continuing help here, Ugog, it's really appreciated by me and other users :)). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well that was kind of obvious, my bad; must have overlooked that page. Thanks, main credit goes to you editors who are overburdened with managing this project. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone help with deleting the above PR please? It was recently created by me. Too many transclusions and linkages and I'm unfamiliar with how these work here; I don't want to break anything. Thanks! Rehman 15:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the page as G7 - author request speedy deletion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to list an article in the Draft space here, or, is there a better avenue for getting feedback about a draft article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A better venue for a draft space article may be Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I hope that helps. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

May I request for technical assistance in removing this PR from the main page. I have since closed the PR with a message as per guidelines, but somehow the main page still showed this old PR. (I may open a second PR in the near future, depending on circumstances.) Mr Tan (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Think It's fine now. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this peer review as it has not received any comments since September and I have since nominated the article for GA status. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close Wikipedia:Peer review/Misty Copeland/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I put Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration up nearly 19 days ago, and it hasn't been looked at, even though I reviewed three other articles. I'd like to get the article looked at because I'd like it to get to GA. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly it can take 2-3 weeks to get a review started. If you are looking at GA and have reviewed against the good article criteria, or have some experience with the process, I'd recommend you just nominate there and iron out any flaws in the nomination process... waiting for a GA can take some months! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have smashed through about 10 reviews. That does not leave many left. If there are some editors active and reading this, we may be able to get down, or even clear the backlog of reviews awaiting attention:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews

Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In this festive season, to help celebrate some of the editors which keep this process running, I've created a little barnstar which looks as follows:

		The Peer Review Barnstar
		For your excellent contributions to Wikipedia peer review, I present to you the peer review barnstar. Nice work! ~~~~

I'm open to suggestions about how it looks and what it says. You can use the template by copying:

• {{subst:Wikipedia:Peer review/Barnstar|Thanks for your help at [[WP:PR|Wikipedia peer review]]! --~~~~ }}

The text can also be customised. Happy festive season to all! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Something like:

Wikipedia peer review offers a great chance to help new and experienced editors improved their articles. We need more volunteers! Here at peer review we provide suggestions on how editors can improve a nominated page, with editors often aiming for "good article" or "featured" status. Unfortunately, we don't have enough volunteers and often have a huge backlog... so we are looking for some extra hands! Please come and join us.

What do you think about this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good and like the wording, I"ve seen the ad before; probably made when this place was more active. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. Let's clean up this venue first so any extra regulars can land easily. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• How do we remove William Sterndale Bennett and others that have been completed? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In the last few days, I've noticed some sub-standard peer reviews, and I suspected sockpuppetry after two with more than superficial similarities got posted to the same talk page (Talk:Perth railway station, Scotland) by different people whose user names both ended with the number 19 (Mland19 (talk · contribs) and RockyCoffee19 (talk · contribs)). This opinion was strengthened when I saw that they had registered on the same day (3 February 2016) at almost the same time (14:23 and 14:25 respectively), and had made few edits - so few in fact, that their "peer reviews" cannot be the work of experienced Wikipedians. Looking through their edits to talk pages, I quickly discovered that two of the pages edited by RockyCoffee19 (Talk:1987 NFL season and the aforementioned Talk:Perth railway station, Scotland) had also been edited by The terrydactyl (talk · contribs) (who also registered on 3 February 2016 at 14:23); and then I found that Talk:Craig Liddle had been edited by both Mland19 and The terrydactyl, so it became clear to me that we have several people working together, probably in the same room.

My sockpuppetry belief was challenged after I saw that the first edit of each had an edit summary "I am enrolled in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/James Madison University/Critical Reading and Writing (Spring 2016)", and the tag dashboard.wikiedu.org [1.2]. Is this WP:MEATPUPPETry, and what should we do about these "peer reviews"? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is meat puppetry. This may just be our perennial disinterested student problem. You refer here to peer reviews that haven't opened a special "peer review page" so my advice here is mostly editorial. I suggest post your dismay on the course's talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Ed/James_Madison_University/Critical_Reading_and_Writing_(Spring_2016). I hope that helps; cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been tinkering and trying to create a list of unedited reviews which can be successfully transcluded to the backlog page. See my sandbox edit; it didn't work. Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews cannot be transcluded because of its extra content; it's too lengthy and shows lot of extra stuff. We need to somehow get it only show the bare PR page links. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. I think I can whip something up this week where only the names will display. I wonder if we can just do away with the template and redirect editors to the page though. And I will remove the links currently on the "unanswered list" to reviews that are already answered.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Any luck? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you've made the "unanswered" tab, doesn't that make this redundant? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think so and agree with you that we can remove the backlog templates (or maybe move them to a sidepage in the case they're accessed directly). Should we go ahead and remove it in, say, a week, if no other users object? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yea we probably should. But what off the people who watch this and have the template transcluded? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

They are free to maintain it or watch the other page, but I think it's more visual clutter we can remove, or move to the 'tools' page. Plus as we've noticed there don't actually seem to be many reviewers, so people with said backlog page may not actually be reviewing? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right. It's more work getting rid of it. Let's keep it. If there are editors who frequently use it, they can update it. So now we've to think of some guideline for adding reviews there. The unanswered tab is always large, and I feel this only the oldest five reviews from there should be added to this backlog. is it fine? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made some changes till then encouraging editors who watch it to maintain it. I've also cleared the list as it contained more than a month old reviews, I'll do that frequently. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed my mind on this one, mainly because we are a week after your edit and still no-one has updated it. I have therefore boldly removed it from our prime real estate on the main page. I vote that we mark it as {{Historical}}. Even if it's not historical, I think we should keep it off the main page considering how little it's edited. Look at the most recent edits on the backlog list. For the last four months it has received edits about twice a month.

If there are no objections in 1-2 weeks, I'll mark it as historical and deprecate it. Like we've discussed, there is now an automated listing that fills this purpose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A word of caution. The list of unanswered doesn't show those which have minimal comments, sometimes even the nominator's multiple posts itself are treated as "answered". In addition to this, we do have a huge backlog and this can "summarise" the oldest (say five) reviews among those, thereby making it easier for volunteers to focus their attention. Hate to say this but this has some use though I can't think of anyway economical way of maintaining it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of this when I made the unanswered list :(. The main problem is that nobody maintains the backlog. What we can do is this: put the backlog list at the top of unanswered reviews. State if the review does not display on the unanswered list for some reason, then it can be manually added to the backlog template. How's that sound? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine then. I'll see what rewording I can do to those templates. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've added Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox to the unanswered tab and reworded. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please close Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm tired of seeing many blank reviews getting closed after months and months of inactivity. We clearly have a lack of volunteers here and I think it's high time we stopped editors from being continuously disappointed due to the waiting. I'm thinking of something like, opening PRs only if volunteers are present: or the volunteers themselves opening the PR page once the a request has been placed by the editor here. A stale request can be removed, thus quickly saving the editor's as well as the project member's time. Unlike the GA reviewing, there is no formal PR process and it doesn't have to lie there until someone eventually answers it. My point is, keeping stale requests for long even if someone eventually answers it has a higher chance that the original editor loses interest by that time; much better to attend to fresh requests I say.

If keeping it the way it is seems fine, then something as to be done about the template wording. Right now we also have the old PR template stating "this has been peer reviewed and may contain ideas about improving the article" even for blank reviews. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we need something to get more volunteers. I can (I think) use some wikicode to make a list of reviews that haven't been edited. I wonder if we can consider a recruitment drive or something like that? EG post at the teahouse, village pump, ask for a small article on the signpost and so on. Maybe we can design something so that new reviewers feel more welcome? OR EG have two streams of reviews, one for pre-FA reviews (targeted at regulars) and one for others (more graphics and more inviting, targeted at newer users). That's my thoughts... what are yours? We can work to make some of this happen in the next few months so as to remind the wiki-community we exist. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to chip in a little sometimes, but I do not always have free time. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I have created a template that I think may be quite useful:

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Direct nomination| --~~~~}}

This produces

The point here being that lots of FA nominations wait for reviews that are unanswered when they could go straight to FA. Feel free to change / discuss the wording. This weekend I'll create a list that loads only untouched nominations to make it easier to keep a lid on them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done a demo list is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Like the list, probably can be used to maintain the backlog though those who edit their own reviews/reviews with little input will get omitted. The backlog is another issue and we'll discuss that later. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep I agree. The backlog drains a lot of volunteer time and I am not sure it would benefit the reviews more than just a page like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have created and deployed the list, now available from the "Unanswered" tab. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am honestly stumped as to how we get more volunteers, I feel that this area is a...what you say..a niche which attracts only a minority; I like your suggestions though, no harm in trying. Splitting the reviews sounds good, but won't it be a tedious process to do? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we are also quite unnoticed as far as venues though. I wonder if we can attract some "teahouse" regulars who are interested in helping out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We are definitely. TH volunteers should do for newbie reviews. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the direct nomination template, how does it work? One of us has to review the said article and recommend that it goes to the GAN/FAN if there aren't any obvious issues? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I think we can document on the "Instructions" page something like:

Suitability for GA/FA

Sometimes an editor wants to know if an article is suitable for GA/FA. If this is the case, and a reviewer who is familiar with the good article review criteria or [[[WP:FA|featured article criteria]] thinks that your article stands a reasonable chance of passing, then they may close your review and suggest you nominate directly. That way you don't wait needlessly for your review, and the limited number of active reviewers can focus on other peer reviews.

Reviewers -- please be careful that the review is not asking for feedback to improve the article in general; and that you genuinely believe an article to have a reasonable chance of meeting the above criteria

To make a review as a direct nomination, transclude (and then the substituted information)

What do you think? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Direct noms for GAs seems doable but (I personally don't have any xp with FA) don't FAs require are more in depth review? I can't imagine someone just ticking it and saying "Yup this will survive a FAC". FAs require more background knowledge etc right?

Regarding FA

Agree. That's why I wrote "reasonable chance" (I've italicised it now, too). So the reviewer is not guaranteeing that the article will pass, but simply checking to make sure nothing major stands out and then advising a direct nomination so the details can be worked out at the review. That said, if we can separate FAs to a separate category, then we don't need to worry about this as much because FA regulars can make that decision.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

One possible way to do this (the easiest for me to implement, certainly!) is to hijack an existing category and recast it as for featured article candidates. Are there any categories which are consistently barely used in your eyes? If that's the case I can go about setting it up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. What categories are you looking for and for what? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Categories of review (see the subheadings on the main page or the list on the "tools" page). There are 9 categories I think, so if 8 are used and 1 isn't (much), then we can hijack and recast the last category as an FA-based one. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't added it yet to the instructions page? I've suggest you add something like this to the wording: "however if you still want a PR beyond the GA/FA review, be sure to explicitly state it" You know? something like that... Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoops :). Sorry, I wasn't sure whether anyone else agreed with me or not. I try not to do things that could be possibly contentious without some sort of consensus. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added this to Wikipedia:Peer_review/Request_removal_policy#Suitability for GA/FA --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What about what I asked above? Right now when selecting PRs, I'm in two minds whether the editor wants me to just tick it off for FA/GA or give a more in-depth review or both. I think some editors would want the latter. Do I make sense? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Where there's some ambiguity the nominator can point that out and the reviewer can do a review - so far in my use the nominators have been happy to go straight to GA. I think that saves about 2 months of their time and reduces the amount of duplicated reviewing needed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)