Archives

July 2003 – April 2005 May 2005 - December 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I know it's a practice only done at WikiProject specific peer reviews. Example being the Military history and Biography WikiProject's. My guess it is for better organization since those participating reviewers usually do a throughout review. Your seeing this done here because User:MartinBotII began copying an pasting peer review pages from Military WikiProject here. — Tutmosis 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my specific question came through: I think the subsections are good for organization too, it's just that wikilinking the username makes it look like the username (now in blue) is another article—on my screen anyway, there's not much font size difference. Thanks, –Outriggr § 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add my name to the list of people being slightly irritated about the wikilinking of username headers. My esteemed fellow Wikipedians: there is no reason to do it; it just confuses the reader scrolling through the PR page. If someone wants to access your user page, they can always click on your signatures. Please consider dewikifying your tags. Thank you. --Plek 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. I spent a few minutes reading one username that could have been an article, with its short paragraph that could have been a peer review request, rather than feedback. I am boldy adjusting the Peer Review response section to include directions not to link the username header. The current format is NOT intuitive (being unindented), user-friendly, or accessible to those with poorer eyesight. –Outriggr § 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Urgh, just seen this. Sorry, I didn't realise it was confusing, it was just laziness on my part (three tildes being marginally quicker to type than 6 letters). I won't do it from now on. Trebor 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I never thought of the three-tilde thing; at least now I understand why the linking is so predominant. But, I just realized that these peer reviews go back to various wikiprojects, so I should probably broach my "bold move" with Biography first. –Outriggr § 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• I would agree with Dev920's sense of wonderment. I put up two articles I'd like to prepare for and FAC, both Joyce Kilmer and Rutgers University, and I only got commentary from people one or two people, and only because I asked them to take a look. I was disappointed with the turn out these two PR requests got, and am saddened to see I'm not the only one whose wondering where everyone seems to have disappeared to. —ExplorerCDT 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are just a lot more people wanting reviews than are giving them. If everyone who left a review could review a couple of other articles themselves, it would help immensely. I try to get through a fair amount, but it's ridiculously swamped. At the moment it seems that people prefer to hammer it on FAC than help it here. That said, I'll have a look at your articles. Trebor 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If possible, you should list the reviews through one (or more) of the associated WikiProjects instead. Most of them now have the bot set up to replicate listings onto this page, so you won't be losing anything; and WikiProjects tend to be more conscientious about actually providing reviews for anything that shows up at their doorstep, so to speak. Kirill Lokshin 12:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I try to provide reviews after I have received my own (unless I'm distracted by an FAC) - but I can't do that unless I receive reviews! I have started using the WikiProjects' peer reviews, and I'm going to start one at WP:LGBT, but there isn't one for my article, so I was getting a bit worried. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems important not simply to list an article here, but to seek reviewers proactively. Often an article's strongest opponent makes a good reviewer. The Village Pump is a good source, as are direct invitations to prior active editors who have stopped editing. Relying on "passing trade" is not the best way. You have to advertise. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a common issue on the 2nd archive of this page (here and here, for example; the response to the latter is very relevant). One way to get more reviews is to invite (politely) editors from related WikiProjects or who have shown a large amount of interest with the article in question or related topics; VP also works as mentioned above. I usually spend some time on articles which have passed through PR one time w/o any comments and then are renominated, as well as other articles at random. It's also the reason that I thought up of the concept of the script. AZ _t 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok I finally figured this out. So you come to this page and see something you wouldn't mind helping out on. So then you click on the topic header, but that takes you to the actual page. From that point you have to click on the Discussion tab to see the talk page, and then you have to find the peer review template tag and click on the correct one of the two links there. THEN you can edit it.

No wonder no-one's filling reviews! If there was a link right here to the editor I think the number would go up. Maury 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, you would click on the section edit button on the PR page. If you have turned off section editing in your preferences, then I agree finding the page would be difficult.-gadfium 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I have always thought one way would be to have some sort of system where anyone requesting peer review agreed to look at three other articles. It could be an honors system or it could be links required (here are the three articles I have looked at and added comments to) before anyone reviews your article. Just an idea Ruhrfisch 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As a rule I have been editing two for each one posted. But it doesn't matter, I still usually only get the automated review, but they do help.A mcmurray 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhhaha! I added two 200 point questions to the WP:HOLICTEST regarding peer review; we should be getting help. :-) · AO ^Talk 10:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some relevant discussions here, here, and here. By the way, thanks AO for 450 more points on WP:HOLICTEST (though I really don’t plan on taking it any time soon). AZ _t 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I request the following changes to the request removal policy:

• Requests that have attracted comments from other people, and where the original poster has not responded to these comments within a week, should also be removed. Requesting and then ignoring comments tends to discourage potentially valuable input, and peer review needs to attract more, not less, comments from reviewers. However, please be careful when you decide to remove a listing for this reason! Requesters are encouraged to respond on the peer review page, so as to keep everyone informed of the progress of the article; nevertheless, before removing an apparently unresponsive poster, please check first whether they have perhaps responded somewhere else: on the article's talk page, on the reviewer's talk page, or by editing the article appropriately.

• Such situations are very likely to happen; there are many peer review requesters which are purposing to leave the review to run its full course before beginning work on article, or become busy whilst the review is still open. The practice of ignoring comments might be seen as bad in the eyes of many, but it shouldn't be a reason for delisting or archiving a review, especially if this may prevent further constructive feedback from editors.

• New criteria: Articles which have been deleted, through a deletion debate or otherwise, should be delisted. In case an article has been undeleted, the request may reopen at any time.

• This seems quite an uncontroversial addition. I've seen a few deleted article requests before which were subjects to speedy delisting. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While I dislike seeing an article put up for peer review by someone who then has little to do with the article, if other editors respond to criticisms in the review, then it should not be removed.-gadfium 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you're misunderstanding, I would like to remove that criteria, not add it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Since no objections have been made, I went ahead and made the changes myself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

As an additional note, it can be an easy sell for us nerdy Wikipedian types. Myself, I can always find some interesting article about a subject I know little about to do a peer review on. It helps me (by adding to my overall knowledge base) and helps the user who posted that article for peer review. For instance, today I can say I learned about Tungsten and the Reagan assassination attempt.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just can't seem to shut up, but the policy seems to work fairly well over at WP:GAC, I believe they ask for each poster to do one review, but with the sheer amount of material here I would say two is better.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? If no one responds I will just go ahead and do it tonight.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% - I would also say to give preference to reviewing articles that have been here longest without any comment (besides semi automated), hopefully this would spread the reviews around. Thanks for doing this, Ruhrfisch 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Voila!A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did just end up going with one, thought it better. It might make people more likely to go ahead and do one.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also put a note up on the Community Portal calling for new participants, it will be up for a week.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this works:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The peer review is still there, you just remove the name from the page, see this diff. I will also leave this on your talk page, Ruhrfisch 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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