This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The oldest review at Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date is Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151 dated back to 9 June. I do know that PRbot is no longer active, but what's the status now? Do I go about closing them one by one? ‑ Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Ping to Relentlessly... hope you had a wonderful new year :). Any good news?? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Made here: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Peer_review_archive_bot -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The oldest reviews displayed are actually closed ones, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Craig Kieswetter/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jumping_Flash!/archive3. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 06:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
And by progress, I mean completed! My bot, BU RoBOT, is now approved to close peer reviews. The one downside to using AWB for this task is that I need to manually run AWB to complete the task every once in a while. It's approved to run weekly, but my memory can be shit. If a backlog ever piles up, message me at my talk page and I'll be happy to run the task. If someone could update the closing instructions to note that a bot handles the closes and to ping me if closes need to be done, that would be helpful. Starting the bot takes a couple minutes at most, so you'll never have a long wait for a response even if I'm busy. ~ Rob Talk 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
\{\{\s*peer review page[^\}]*\}\} --> {{subst:Peer review/archive}}
\{\{\s*(pr|peer\s?review)\s*\|\s*archive\s*\=\s*(\d*)\s*\}\} --> {{Old peer review|archive=$2}}
What happened to Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items ?
— Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I have hit a brick wall in removing my request for Peer review from the list.
I've followed Stage 1 successfully, but do not understand stage 2, which states: "On the peer review page, replace {{Peer review page|topic = X}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}."
I would not only welcome some advice, but also suggest that the Instructions be clarified in order to help others as I simply don't know what "peer review page" means.
The review relates to
Mont Blanc massif. Cheers,
Parkywiki (
talk)
00:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel we have answered the question whether this should be automated or manual. The month-long gaps in editing of the backlog tab attest to the fact we need an automated listing. The problem remains though, that the current automated listing is a simplistic method that misses a large amount of reviews that have received a minor edit. Any ideas for a better way of automating the listing? Here are some suggestions:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As Parkywiki noted, we have this volunteers list. I had a quite check through it and, as I suspected, about half the listed editors on it are inactive. I have a couple of questions / thoughts for you guys:
Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I've had a few editors express confusion or revert my bot's closure of peer reviews because they've received no responses yet. Should we rethink the timeline for auto-closing? It's currently set at 30 days, but I could move it back to 45 days or 60 days if necessary. We have to balance two things here - leaving unanswered reviews open and closing answered reviews in a timely manner. I'm unable to differentiate between a review that's been answered and one that hasn't using AWB, which is what the bot is based on. ~ Rob Talk 20:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93, BU Rob13, Ugog Nizdast, Parkywiki sorry, have been busy for the last two months. Pinging this discussion + other active users on the page. I'd support a change to 60 days for autoarchiving of unanswered reviews. Other thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
In the hope of getting my own nomination peer reviewed sometime, I decided to do some QPQ and started responding to other nominations. I found this an interesting and enjoyable experience which highlighted a few issues which I thought worth raising here.
Thanks for your responses. OK, so, rising to the challenge posed by
Tom (LT), I've attempted to create my first ever template - intended as a welcome message for new users. (See {{Peer review/welcome}}
) It would presuppose that a user has already added their name to the Volunteer list, and that one of the watchers will detect the change and act to place the template on the new volunteer's talk page.(does that sound right?)
I recommend that:
Welcome, and thank you for offering to help with
Peer Reviews, and for adding your name to our
volunteer list. You don't need to be an expert writer or subject specialist to help out. Just get stuck in and leave whatever constructive suggestions you can for the person requesting the review. Many people just want a second opinion, so you really don't need a detailed knowledge of
Featured Article criteria or even
Good article criteria to contribute constructively.
If you'd like assistance or support from another reviewer, just leave a question on our Discussion page Hint: One good way to begin contributing is to look at the list of Unanswered reviews and see if any interest you; another is to look through one of the reviews already started on the Main List and see if you can add anything further that other reviewers might have missed.Maybe now or later on you will feel able to add your name to subject areas on our volunteer list. This helps those who want a review to contact individual volunteers directly to ask for their input. Good luck - the peer review team |
How does that look? (for some reason I can't get the wikilink to 'discussion page' to function correctly) Parkywiki ( talk) 00:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Peer_Review_Reform_Proposal by another editor. It's a more broader proposal actually but still does concern us. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't have quite the 95 thesis of martin luther, but my proposition is this, remove FA and GA things entirely, while this may sound radical, I believe it will allow the PR to function better, that rather than the PR checking things against a criteria checklist, we give suggestions to or improve the article itself. The second part of this is obviously that another body will need to be formed, perhaps the CR, the criteria review. The two being seperate entirely, the PR giving suggestions on improving it, the CR given suggestions on how to make it fit the criteria of either GA or FA. The PR would likely be the first step, after it is improved by the PR, it can be sent to the CR to be check for criteria, after which it can be nominated. By splitting the two, you not only lessen the backlog, but you allow people who only want to give suggestions to help it meet the criteria to do just that at the CR, and people who just want to give suggestions for improving the article to be able to just that at the PR, people who want to do both may do both. This change would allow for streamlining of cases, as the PR would no longer be involved in criteria, as i which would split the workload, and likely the backlog in half. This reform is obviously open to change, and will likely be denied, but I thought it might help. TL;DR: split the peer review process and the criteria review process. Iazyges ( talk) 17:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion: Make a PR bot that acts like the bot for RFC, if you've signed up for a category, like history, have the bot give you a link every time something of that category is added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Peer Review request for Madeline was falsely closed and archived due to a misunderstanding. I wanted to make a note to potential GA reviewers to not review just yet. But in order to do that I had to create a GAN review page. It was interpreted as the article undergoing a GAN while being listed for a PR, so it was closed. This is incorrect. Therefore I ask that the review request is reinstated where it was, rather than being listed at the bottom of the queue. Thank you.-- Coin945 ( talk) 07:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
VeblenBot has not run since November 4 and I am not sure what the problem is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I am also not in a position to run or maintain the bot - I took it over from User:CBM only in the hope that I could hand it off to someone else. Any takers? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created a peer review for Russell family (Passions), but for some reason, it is not being listed on the main page. I was wondering if it was because I did something incorrectly when setting up the peer review, if the bot was down, or something else happened. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If a review has received no feedback, are the instructions for closing still the same? They appear to only apply to reviews where there is a discussion to archive? Also, if there has been no feedback, am I still required to wait fourteen days before nominating another article? Thanks-- Ykraps ( talk) 08:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, recently I listed Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War for a review but it's not appearing in the main page? Any idea what I did wrong? Bertdrunk ( talk) 18:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Having VeblenBot down for over a month seems like quite a disaster to me. Can we not revert to manually adding and removing requests while a better solution is found? Seems crazy not to have a functioning peer review system on en-wiki! -- Shudde talk 10:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a request for peer review of the International Justice Mission article, but it appears the request was archived and did not make it onto WP:PR's list of open requests. Can someone assist?
I am requesting a peer review because Elmidae recommended I do so for the Criticism section of International Justice Mission. In my efforts to update and expand this page, other editors have agreed that details from Criticism would be better incorporated throughout the article. We have not come up with specific ways to do this. I am specifically looking for feedback and assistance around how to move some of the Criticism detail into other sections, such as History. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission ( talk) 21:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've managed to list the above in the Arts section of the Peer Review pages. This is clearly a mistake, for which apologies, as it would fit much more sensibly in the Geography and places section. Unfortunately, I've no idea how to move it. I wonder if someone could do so. Thanks and regards. KJP1 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for GA status; as such, I'm requesting that the PR be closed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 06:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Under 'Philosophy and religion', you still have the peer reviews for Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok and Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok. These articles do not exist, and the nominee User:Avataron was banned for sockpuppetry. Is there any way to close and delete those reviews? Werónika ( talk) 18:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have written a short summary of the history of this hallowed place in the signpost:
Peer review was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 12 February 2017. |
Welcome to any new editors :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The article "Nader El-Bizri" that is about an academic philosopher and architect has been proposed for deletion by EdwardX who seems to specialize in businessmen and billionaires. The article "Nader El-Bizri" exists since 2008 and received over 100 edits by a vast number of diverse editors over the years. This article has on average 35 visits daily, which since 2008 might have accumulated to over 100,000 visit. Numerous wikipedia articles in the dozens make reference to the "Nader El-Bizri" article in various forms. The living person in question is a Full Professor, and a Director of three programs at the American University of Beirut; received many awards, including the one for the Advancement of Sciences from Kuwait, and has been ranked 59 as Thought Leader in the Arab world (3rd on top of all living Arab philosophers), with a vast array of publications with prestigious presses such as Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, SUNY. The indicators of his CV, awards, rankings in the Arab world are accessible via the official external links at the bottom of the article. It is utterly arbitrary and damaging to the integrity of wikipedia that all of this is ignored by a single user who does not even seem to have a connection to academia. Such randomness is very harmful to the professor in question and it should not be left unmonitored and could even be motivated by malicious intents. It is essential that it receives immediate attention by responsible knowledgable editors, and such sensitive decisions should not be made with haste ( AcademeEditorial ( talk) 12:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
I see some requests have not yet been picked up. Are more volunteers needed? Is time extension needed to prevent archiving? If neither, what else to do about it? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
A fellow editor points out that the above is still showing in the Peer Review list, although I thought I had closed it, and it is showing as archived on the article's Talkpage. Am I missing something? It certainly should be closed as it is on to FAC. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I submitted Sitakunda Upazila for review here. But, it's not showing up. What did I do wrong? Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Not once is Sports or any type of Sport is mentioned for Sport articles on PR main page, is it possible to fix this? Govvy ( talk) 23:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I seem to recall a script used in PR that writes its output to the PR page... could someone point it out, or its author, to me? Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Peer review instructions state that an article must be free of major maintenance templates. Then where does one go in order to discuss whether a maintenance template should be removed? -- Alison (Crazytales) ( talk; edits) 02:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The David Meade peer review can be closed since I think there's enough feedback and it's a GA nominee, and I'm prepared for comments on the GA nominee review page when it gets created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyGirl7 ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason that AnomieBOT's PeerReviewArchiver isn't archiving requests that have been open (commented on or not) for three months? I went on an archiving spree a while back per the instructions (1+ week for answered, 1+ month for unanswered) because I didn't realize the bot even existed as the main page was so cluttered. I can see the argument that because PR isn't incredibly active that it's beneficial to leave requests open for longer, but when the main page gets as long as it is now I think that negates the benefit.
Where the top of the main page says "Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles" it may be worthwhile to include a suggestion that if PR's activity is low the editor of an unanswered request comments on other open requests and then asks for feedback on their own. Rhinopias ( talk) 16:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is Quek157.
1.Peer review I did an error in editing it through it is not supposed to do so. So please ignore the previous peer review. I will sincerely hope for ideas to improve and thanks so much for all the time spent. Withdrawn peer review as auto peer review seems a lot to be done. will do these before peer review as will be better not to clog up backlog. sorry --
Quek157 (
talk)
19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much in advance -- Quek157 ( talk) 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion here suggests we should clear some names from the list. Here's how I'd go at it:
Send a mass message to everyone on the list. If you don't confirm you want to be there within a week given period of time, you get removed. Quick and easy. If you think that's too extreme, here's an alternative suggestion:
The following users have been inactive for at least a year, and I think they should be removed:
M.Mario,
TRLIJC19,
Wikipedian Penguin,
893jf8943hgkd893,
David FLXD,
Pax85,
Kilnburn,
Mav,
SGGH,
Tango,
Malljaja,
Raysujoy8,
Sasata,
Josemiotto,
LisaLorraine,
LJMcMenemy,
Vantine84,
Bejinhan,
Mephistophelian
The following users have been inactive for at least three months, and I think they should be removed as well:
Bobf, Groupuscule, H1nkles, Shudde, Fuhghettaboutit, Seegoon, Woody, Cdtew, Dittoslash, Shirik
The following users are unused alts of active users, and I think they should be replaced with their main account for convenience:
Parkywiki (of
Nick Moyes),
Amadscientist (of
Mark Miller),
Thewiseapple (of
AlucardX),
GrahamColm (of
Graham Beards),
Mcghiever (of
McGhiever),
Truthkeeper88 (of
Victoriaearle)
Then, as Tom (LT) suggested there, send a mass message to all remaining ones asking them to remove themselves if they aren't volunteering for WP:PR. I'm not sure how to check the WikiProjects on the list, but removing those of them that weren't added recently shouldn't cause a ruckus.
These are my two cents. If nobody responds I guess I'll just go ahead and do it. Pinging Tom (LT), Ugog Nizdast and Laser brain because they participated in that discussion.
One more thing: as Tom (LT) said, we should advertise PR a bit. Given that the list wasn't cleaned up since then, I assume the advertising hasn't been done either. PR needs some PR! Professor Proof ( talk) 09:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
adopting}}
template have NOT been active since 2015, with quite a few not editing since 2008 or 2009! I do indeed intend to do a cleanup there sometime as part of a plan I'm considering of reviving and refocussing the adoption process.Tom (LT), Nick Moyes, here it is. Sorry it took me so long, please tell me what you think. Professor Proof ( talk) 10:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
That's great. I'll wait until we can get a bot up and running before I send the message (so that I can invite the inactive editors to resubscribe to periodic inactive review updates if they're interested) -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Also a good idea, I admit this fell off my radar. Ideas for this include:
Any other ideas? Am pressed for time at the moment but will help as best I can -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 15:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I've created two shortcuts to the unanswered review page: WP:PR/UA and WP:PRWAITING for ease of use. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 18:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that WP:PR is currently at Redirects for Discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
We could create a list of interested editors and send them a bot-compiled list of unanswered peer reviews, very month (or let them nominate their time period). This happens for other things like RfCs. Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 18:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought I'd closed the PR, on the article's Talkpage and on its PR page but it's still appearing here. Have I missed something? Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 19:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's time for some advertising. Potential venues:
Plan will be ad 1 first, then follow-up with the second one in a week or two. Will post first set shortly. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia ads | file info – #14 |
Wikipedia peer review needs more reviewers. Please join us and contribute some reviews, or add yourself to our volunteers list to get regular updates of unanswered reviews.
Peer review provides a way for new and experienced editors alike to ask for and provide input into an article that is being developed. It's often a stepping stone for new editors, or for articles on their way to featured article status. It's a great way to help new editors become experienced with our wiki ways, improve articles, and learn about completely new subject areas.
We usually have between 10 - 20 unanswered reviews, often waiting for months, that only require a pair of eyes and some kind advice. We look forward to seeing you around!
Yours, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The Peer Review Barnstar | ||
This could be YOURS! Wikipedia peer review needs more reviewers. Please join us and contribute some reviews, or add yourself to our volunteers list to get regular updates of unanswered reviews. |
Peer review provides a way for new and experienced editors alike to ask for and provide input into an article that is being developed. It's often a stepping stone for new editors, or for articles on their way to featured article status. It's a great way to help new editors become experienced with our wiki ways, improve articles, and learn about completely new subject areas.
We usually have between 10 - 20 unanswered reviews, often waiting for months, that only require a pair of eyes and some kind advice. We look forward to seeing you around!
Yours, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to add as an explicit closure criterion that if the article is nominated at AFD and subsequently closed at AFD as a deletion/merge, then the peer review should be archived? I have just closed Wikipedia:Peer review/Psycho Killer (video game)/archive1 because of the merge result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Killer (video game) (2nd nomination). -- Izno ( talk) 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, Limits #1. I'm sure I'm missing something, but reading
"Editors are limited to one open peer review request at a time...Since PR is supposed to be an interactive process, having more than one open PR requests seems counterproductive. A PR request can always be archived if someone wanted to open another. If an editor is fully engaged in their PR request (responding to feedback promptly, making changes to the article based on suggestions, etc.) they may open another PR request
"
it sounds like the second (highlighted) sentence contradicts the first? And indeed the actual premise, viz, that only one PR can be open per editor at the time. Can anyone clarify? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any insight on why we suddenly have a large influx of review requests from accounts created in August? Is this a class assignment of some kind? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I have db'd every peer review that doesn't point to an article. 10-15 of them. I don't know how so many people could get the procedure so wrong; was a "friendly wizard" of some kind involved... Outriggr ( talk) 03:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
FYI I just went through and closed a swath of inactive reviews (all at least 2 weeks inactive, some more like a month). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, king of scripts, long may he reign, wrote a script for closing peer review pages ( User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js) quickly. It can be installed the usual way in your JS, and creates a link under the "more" tab on your top bar. It places the archive template on the PR subpage, and updates the article's talk page to show an archived peer review. Please feel free to install and test it out so we know it works :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I closed a bunch; there are probably 6-12 student PR requests left. The script is great except so many of the articles were renamed in the interim, and it didn't know what to do. I am going to shorten the notice I added at the top of WP:PR now to simply say "students, if you have been instructed to use this forum, don't", as I can see it being a persistent issue. Outriggr ( talk) 07:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm waiting for one peer review with list since 6th December. Could I add second request for short GA candidate to have something to do in the meanwhile? I have 2 lists yet to check and maybe something new yet so it really stops me from achieve with them the featured status. Eurohunter ( talk) 17:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I have no idea where to put this but can someone please review this page: /info/en/?search=Knife_Sotelo
I've checked this person out and their claim to be on Wikipedia is a couple of (truly appalling) cover songs that he's uploaded to YouTube that have about 500 combined views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.114.240 ( talk) 16:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Before asking for a peer review (or indeed before offering to help with the general backlog), I thought I should use Andy Z's tool to check for silly errors before wasting anybody else's time. I note that vector.js has been disabled but user:John Maynard Friedman/monobook.js looks credible (I know nothing about javascript so this is pure monkey see monkey do), so I have to assume that the feature is still live. But no matter how I try, I can't see the advertised "peer review" button. I have cleared cache, used two different browsers on two different platforms. I have turned on page-preview mode and even the monobook skin. Nada. I see that another user has asked for advice at Andy Z's talk page but not had a response. Is there anything else I can do? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Owing to my technical hamfistedness we had two copies of the PR page open briefly. I shut one down straight away, and the proper one has since run its course and been closed. But I can't find how to stop the rogue one appearing on the list of open peer reviews on the page to which this is the talk page. Can any kind editor come to my rescue? (Sorry about all this.) Tim riley talk 20:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello guys, recently I'm contributing to wikipedia by adding some missing Albanian public figures/artists. One problem I'm encountering is that for some reasons, my articles read as promotional ex: /info/en/?search=Draft:SIRIO. What can I do to improve them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilirtoska ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The article looks like it meets FA criteria as it has a lot of content and citations, but I need to double check. So could someone review it please? Thank you in advance. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 14:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From an FA/GA/PR point of view, this is a complementary system to provide review of existing content by external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications. It also acts as a route for high-quality new articles from people who would not have otherwise contributed to a wikimedia project.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm sorry I made a mistake when listing this review initially in January, and I tried to rename it from Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital dependencies and global mental health (previous name of the article). I thought I fixed it but it has definitely caused errors in closing because it still shows up in active peer reviews that I have noticed. Many apologies.
The current pages as far as I can tell are:
Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health
Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/archive2
Archive2 is linked from the articles talk page. Can someone help me with closing or deleting the wrong pages appropriately?
Thanks -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 14:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I've made a TfD nomination that concerns the project and input from active peer reviewers would be appreciated. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Template:Peer review/header. -- Trialpears ( talk) 23:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the Clinton Railroad Bridge peer review can now be archived. -- WikiHelper26 ( talk) 18:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Noted in article alerts. I may be somewhat behind the curve but - great to see! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The oldest review at Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date is Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151 dated back to 9 June. I do know that PRbot is no longer active, but what's the status now? Do I go about closing them one by one? ‑ Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Ping to Relentlessly... hope you had a wonderful new year :). Any good news?? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Made here: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Peer_review_archive_bot -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The oldest reviews displayed are actually closed ones, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Craig Kieswetter/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jumping_Flash!/archive3. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 06:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
And by progress, I mean completed! My bot, BU RoBOT, is now approved to close peer reviews. The one downside to using AWB for this task is that I need to manually run AWB to complete the task every once in a while. It's approved to run weekly, but my memory can be shit. If a backlog ever piles up, message me at my talk page and I'll be happy to run the task. If someone could update the closing instructions to note that a bot handles the closes and to ping me if closes need to be done, that would be helpful. Starting the bot takes a couple minutes at most, so you'll never have a long wait for a response even if I'm busy. ~ Rob Talk 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
\{\{\s*peer review page[^\}]*\}\} --> {{subst:Peer review/archive}}
\{\{\s*(pr|peer\s?review)\s*\|\s*archive\s*\=\s*(\d*)\s*\}\} --> {{Old peer review|archive=$2}}
What happened to Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items ?
— Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I have hit a brick wall in removing my request for Peer review from the list.
I've followed Stage 1 successfully, but do not understand stage 2, which states: "On the peer review page, replace {{Peer review page|topic = X}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}."
I would not only welcome some advice, but also suggest that the Instructions be clarified in order to help others as I simply don't know what "peer review page" means.
The review relates to
Mont Blanc massif. Cheers,
Parkywiki (
talk)
00:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel we have answered the question whether this should be automated or manual. The month-long gaps in editing of the backlog tab attest to the fact we need an automated listing. The problem remains though, that the current automated listing is a simplistic method that misses a large amount of reviews that have received a minor edit. Any ideas for a better way of automating the listing? Here are some suggestions:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As Parkywiki noted, we have this volunteers list. I had a quite check through it and, as I suspected, about half the listed editors on it are inactive. I have a couple of questions / thoughts for you guys:
Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I've had a few editors express confusion or revert my bot's closure of peer reviews because they've received no responses yet. Should we rethink the timeline for auto-closing? It's currently set at 30 days, but I could move it back to 45 days or 60 days if necessary. We have to balance two things here - leaving unanswered reviews open and closing answered reviews in a timely manner. I'm unable to differentiate between a review that's been answered and one that hasn't using AWB, which is what the bot is based on. ~ Rob Talk 20:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93, BU Rob13, Ugog Nizdast, Parkywiki sorry, have been busy for the last two months. Pinging this discussion + other active users on the page. I'd support a change to 60 days for autoarchiving of unanswered reviews. Other thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
In the hope of getting my own nomination peer reviewed sometime, I decided to do some QPQ and started responding to other nominations. I found this an interesting and enjoyable experience which highlighted a few issues which I thought worth raising here.
Thanks for your responses. OK, so, rising to the challenge posed by
Tom (LT), I've attempted to create my first ever template - intended as a welcome message for new users. (See {{Peer review/welcome}}
) It would presuppose that a user has already added their name to the Volunteer list, and that one of the watchers will detect the change and act to place the template on the new volunteer's talk page.(does that sound right?)
I recommend that:
Welcome, and thank you for offering to help with
Peer Reviews, and for adding your name to our
volunteer list. You don't need to be an expert writer or subject specialist to help out. Just get stuck in and leave whatever constructive suggestions you can for the person requesting the review. Many people just want a second opinion, so you really don't need a detailed knowledge of
Featured Article criteria or even
Good article criteria to contribute constructively.
If you'd like assistance or support from another reviewer, just leave a question on our Discussion page Hint: One good way to begin contributing is to look at the list of Unanswered reviews and see if any interest you; another is to look through one of the reviews already started on the Main List and see if you can add anything further that other reviewers might have missed.Maybe now or later on you will feel able to add your name to subject areas on our volunteer list. This helps those who want a review to contact individual volunteers directly to ask for their input. Good luck - the peer review team |
How does that look? (for some reason I can't get the wikilink to 'discussion page' to function correctly) Parkywiki ( talk) 00:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Peer_Review_Reform_Proposal by another editor. It's a more broader proposal actually but still does concern us. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't have quite the 95 thesis of martin luther, but my proposition is this, remove FA and GA things entirely, while this may sound radical, I believe it will allow the PR to function better, that rather than the PR checking things against a criteria checklist, we give suggestions to or improve the article itself. The second part of this is obviously that another body will need to be formed, perhaps the CR, the criteria review. The two being seperate entirely, the PR giving suggestions on improving it, the CR given suggestions on how to make it fit the criteria of either GA or FA. The PR would likely be the first step, after it is improved by the PR, it can be sent to the CR to be check for criteria, after which it can be nominated. By splitting the two, you not only lessen the backlog, but you allow people who only want to give suggestions to help it meet the criteria to do just that at the CR, and people who just want to give suggestions for improving the article to be able to just that at the PR, people who want to do both may do both. This change would allow for streamlining of cases, as the PR would no longer be involved in criteria, as i which would split the workload, and likely the backlog in half. This reform is obviously open to change, and will likely be denied, but I thought it might help. TL;DR: split the peer review process and the criteria review process. Iazyges ( talk) 17:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion: Make a PR bot that acts like the bot for RFC, if you've signed up for a category, like history, have the bot give you a link every time something of that category is added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Peer Review request for Madeline was falsely closed and archived due to a misunderstanding. I wanted to make a note to potential GA reviewers to not review just yet. But in order to do that I had to create a GAN review page. It was interpreted as the article undergoing a GAN while being listed for a PR, so it was closed. This is incorrect. Therefore I ask that the review request is reinstated where it was, rather than being listed at the bottom of the queue. Thank you.-- Coin945 ( talk) 07:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
VeblenBot has not run since November 4 and I am not sure what the problem is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I am also not in a position to run or maintain the bot - I took it over from User:CBM only in the hope that I could hand it off to someone else. Any takers? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created a peer review for Russell family (Passions), but for some reason, it is not being listed on the main page. I was wondering if it was because I did something incorrectly when setting up the peer review, if the bot was down, or something else happened. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If a review has received no feedback, are the instructions for closing still the same? They appear to only apply to reviews where there is a discussion to archive? Also, if there has been no feedback, am I still required to wait fourteen days before nominating another article? Thanks-- Ykraps ( talk) 08:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, recently I listed Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War for a review but it's not appearing in the main page? Any idea what I did wrong? Bertdrunk ( talk) 18:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Having VeblenBot down for over a month seems like quite a disaster to me. Can we not revert to manually adding and removing requests while a better solution is found? Seems crazy not to have a functioning peer review system on en-wiki! -- Shudde talk 10:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a request for peer review of the International Justice Mission article, but it appears the request was archived and did not make it onto WP:PR's list of open requests. Can someone assist?
I am requesting a peer review because Elmidae recommended I do so for the Criticism section of International Justice Mission. In my efforts to update and expand this page, other editors have agreed that details from Criticism would be better incorporated throughout the article. We have not come up with specific ways to do this. I am specifically looking for feedback and assistance around how to move some of the Criticism detail into other sections, such as History. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission ( talk) 21:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've managed to list the above in the Arts section of the Peer Review pages. This is clearly a mistake, for which apologies, as it would fit much more sensibly in the Geography and places section. Unfortunately, I've no idea how to move it. I wonder if someone could do so. Thanks and regards. KJP1 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for GA status; as such, I'm requesting that the PR be closed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 06:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Under 'Philosophy and religion', you still have the peer reviews for Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok and Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok. These articles do not exist, and the nominee User:Avataron was banned for sockpuppetry. Is there any way to close and delete those reviews? Werónika ( talk) 18:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have written a short summary of the history of this hallowed place in the signpost:
Peer review was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 12 February 2017. |
Welcome to any new editors :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The article "Nader El-Bizri" that is about an academic philosopher and architect has been proposed for deletion by EdwardX who seems to specialize in businessmen and billionaires. The article "Nader El-Bizri" exists since 2008 and received over 100 edits by a vast number of diverse editors over the years. This article has on average 35 visits daily, which since 2008 might have accumulated to over 100,000 visit. Numerous wikipedia articles in the dozens make reference to the "Nader El-Bizri" article in various forms. The living person in question is a Full Professor, and a Director of three programs at the American University of Beirut; received many awards, including the one for the Advancement of Sciences from Kuwait, and has been ranked 59 as Thought Leader in the Arab world (3rd on top of all living Arab philosophers), with a vast array of publications with prestigious presses such as Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, SUNY. The indicators of his CV, awards, rankings in the Arab world are accessible via the official external links at the bottom of the article. It is utterly arbitrary and damaging to the integrity of wikipedia that all of this is ignored by a single user who does not even seem to have a connection to academia. Such randomness is very harmful to the professor in question and it should not be left unmonitored and could even be motivated by malicious intents. It is essential that it receives immediate attention by responsible knowledgable editors, and such sensitive decisions should not be made with haste ( AcademeEditorial ( talk) 12:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
I see some requests have not yet been picked up. Are more volunteers needed? Is time extension needed to prevent archiving? If neither, what else to do about it? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
A fellow editor points out that the above is still showing in the Peer Review list, although I thought I had closed it, and it is showing as archived on the article's Talkpage. Am I missing something? It certainly should be closed as it is on to FAC. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I submitted Sitakunda Upazila for review here. But, it's not showing up. What did I do wrong? Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Not once is Sports or any type of Sport is mentioned for Sport articles on PR main page, is it possible to fix this? Govvy ( talk) 23:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I seem to recall a script used in PR that writes its output to the PR page... could someone point it out, or its author, to me? Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Peer review instructions state that an article must be free of major maintenance templates. Then where does one go in order to discuss whether a maintenance template should be removed? -- Alison (Crazytales) ( talk; edits) 02:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The David Meade peer review can be closed since I think there's enough feedback and it's a GA nominee, and I'm prepared for comments on the GA nominee review page when it gets created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyGirl7 ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason that AnomieBOT's PeerReviewArchiver isn't archiving requests that have been open (commented on or not) for three months? I went on an archiving spree a while back per the instructions (1+ week for answered, 1+ month for unanswered) because I didn't realize the bot even existed as the main page was so cluttered. I can see the argument that because PR isn't incredibly active that it's beneficial to leave requests open for longer, but when the main page gets as long as it is now I think that negates the benefit.
Where the top of the main page says "Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles" it may be worthwhile to include a suggestion that if PR's activity is low the editor of an unanswered request comments on other open requests and then asks for feedback on their own. Rhinopias ( talk) 16:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is Quek157.
1.Peer review I did an error in editing it through it is not supposed to do so. So please ignore the previous peer review. I will sincerely hope for ideas to improve and thanks so much for all the time spent. Withdrawn peer review as auto peer review seems a lot to be done. will do these before peer review as will be better not to clog up backlog. sorry --
Quek157 (
talk)
19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much in advance -- Quek157 ( talk) 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion here suggests we should clear some names from the list. Here's how I'd go at it:
Send a mass message to everyone on the list. If you don't confirm you want to be there within a week given period of time, you get removed. Quick and easy. If you think that's too extreme, here's an alternative suggestion:
The following users have been inactive for at least a year, and I think they should be removed:
M.Mario,
TRLIJC19,
Wikipedian Penguin,
893jf8943hgkd893,
David FLXD,
Pax85,
Kilnburn,
Mav,
SGGH,
Tango,
Malljaja,
Raysujoy8,
Sasata,
Josemiotto,
LisaLorraine,
LJMcMenemy,
Vantine84,
Bejinhan,
Mephistophelian
The following users have been inactive for at least three months, and I think they should be removed as well:
Bobf, Groupuscule, H1nkles, Shudde, Fuhghettaboutit, Seegoon, Woody, Cdtew, Dittoslash, Shirik
The following users are unused alts of active users, and I think they should be replaced with their main account for convenience:
Parkywiki (of
Nick Moyes),
Amadscientist (of
Mark Miller),
Thewiseapple (of
AlucardX),
GrahamColm (of
Graham Beards),
Mcghiever (of
McGhiever),
Truthkeeper88 (of
Victoriaearle)
Then, as Tom (LT) suggested there, send a mass message to all remaining ones asking them to remove themselves if they aren't volunteering for WP:PR. I'm not sure how to check the WikiProjects on the list, but removing those of them that weren't added recently shouldn't cause a ruckus.
These are my two cents. If nobody responds I guess I'll just go ahead and do it. Pinging Tom (LT), Ugog Nizdast and Laser brain because they participated in that discussion.
One more thing: as Tom (LT) said, we should advertise PR a bit. Given that the list wasn't cleaned up since then, I assume the advertising hasn't been done either. PR needs some PR! Professor Proof ( talk) 09:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
adopting}}
template have NOT been active since 2015, with quite a few not editing since 2008 or 2009! I do indeed intend to do a cleanup there sometime as part of a plan I'm considering of reviving and refocussing the adoption process.Tom (LT), Nick Moyes, here it is. Sorry it took me so long, please tell me what you think. Professor Proof ( talk) 10:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
That's great. I'll wait until we can get a bot up and running before I send the message (so that I can invite the inactive editors to resubscribe to periodic inactive review updates if they're interested) -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Also a good idea, I admit this fell off my radar. Ideas for this include:
Any other ideas? Am pressed for time at the moment but will help as best I can -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 15:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I've created two shortcuts to the unanswered review page: WP:PR/UA and WP:PRWAITING for ease of use. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 18:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that WP:PR is currently at Redirects for Discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
We could create a list of interested editors and send them a bot-compiled list of unanswered peer reviews, very month (or let them nominate their time period). This happens for other things like RfCs. Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 18:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought I'd closed the PR, on the article's Talkpage and on its PR page but it's still appearing here. Have I missed something? Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 19:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's time for some advertising. Potential venues:
Plan will be ad 1 first, then follow-up with the second one in a week or two. Will post first set shortly. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia ads | file info – #14 |
Wikipedia peer review needs more reviewers. Please join us and contribute some reviews, or add yourself to our volunteers list to get regular updates of unanswered reviews.
Peer review provides a way for new and experienced editors alike to ask for and provide input into an article that is being developed. It's often a stepping stone for new editors, or for articles on their way to featured article status. It's a great way to help new editors become experienced with our wiki ways, improve articles, and learn about completely new subject areas.
We usually have between 10 - 20 unanswered reviews, often waiting for months, that only require a pair of eyes and some kind advice. We look forward to seeing you around!
Yours, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The Peer Review Barnstar | ||
This could be YOURS! Wikipedia peer review needs more reviewers. Please join us and contribute some reviews, or add yourself to our volunteers list to get regular updates of unanswered reviews. |
Peer review provides a way for new and experienced editors alike to ask for and provide input into an article that is being developed. It's often a stepping stone for new editors, or for articles on their way to featured article status. It's a great way to help new editors become experienced with our wiki ways, improve articles, and learn about completely new subject areas.
We usually have between 10 - 20 unanswered reviews, often waiting for months, that only require a pair of eyes and some kind advice. We look forward to seeing you around!
Yours, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to add as an explicit closure criterion that if the article is nominated at AFD and subsequently closed at AFD as a deletion/merge, then the peer review should be archived? I have just closed Wikipedia:Peer review/Psycho Killer (video game)/archive1 because of the merge result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Killer (video game) (2nd nomination). -- Izno ( talk) 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, Limits #1. I'm sure I'm missing something, but reading
"Editors are limited to one open peer review request at a time...Since PR is supposed to be an interactive process, having more than one open PR requests seems counterproductive. A PR request can always be archived if someone wanted to open another. If an editor is fully engaged in their PR request (responding to feedback promptly, making changes to the article based on suggestions, etc.) they may open another PR request
"
it sounds like the second (highlighted) sentence contradicts the first? And indeed the actual premise, viz, that only one PR can be open per editor at the time. Can anyone clarify? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any insight on why we suddenly have a large influx of review requests from accounts created in August? Is this a class assignment of some kind? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I have db'd every peer review that doesn't point to an article. 10-15 of them. I don't know how so many people could get the procedure so wrong; was a "friendly wizard" of some kind involved... Outriggr ( talk) 03:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
FYI I just went through and closed a swath of inactive reviews (all at least 2 weeks inactive, some more like a month). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, king of scripts, long may he reign, wrote a script for closing peer review pages ( User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js) quickly. It can be installed the usual way in your JS, and creates a link under the "more" tab on your top bar. It places the archive template on the PR subpage, and updates the article's talk page to show an archived peer review. Please feel free to install and test it out so we know it works :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I closed a bunch; there are probably 6-12 student PR requests left. The script is great except so many of the articles were renamed in the interim, and it didn't know what to do. I am going to shorten the notice I added at the top of WP:PR now to simply say "students, if you have been instructed to use this forum, don't", as I can see it being a persistent issue. Outriggr ( talk) 07:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm waiting for one peer review with list since 6th December. Could I add second request for short GA candidate to have something to do in the meanwhile? I have 2 lists yet to check and maybe something new yet so it really stops me from achieve with them the featured status. Eurohunter ( talk) 17:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I have no idea where to put this but can someone please review this page: /info/en/?search=Knife_Sotelo
I've checked this person out and their claim to be on Wikipedia is a couple of (truly appalling) cover songs that he's uploaded to YouTube that have about 500 combined views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.114.240 ( talk) 16:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Before asking for a peer review (or indeed before offering to help with the general backlog), I thought I should use Andy Z's tool to check for silly errors before wasting anybody else's time. I note that vector.js has been disabled but user:John Maynard Friedman/monobook.js looks credible (I know nothing about javascript so this is pure monkey see monkey do), so I have to assume that the feature is still live. But no matter how I try, I can't see the advertised "peer review" button. I have cleared cache, used two different browsers on two different platforms. I have turned on page-preview mode and even the monobook skin. Nada. I see that another user has asked for advice at Andy Z's talk page but not had a response. Is there anything else I can do? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Owing to my technical hamfistedness we had two copies of the PR page open briefly. I shut one down straight away, and the proper one has since run its course and been closed. But I can't find how to stop the rogue one appearing on the list of open peer reviews on the page to which this is the talk page. Can any kind editor come to my rescue? (Sorry about all this.) Tim riley talk 20:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello guys, recently I'm contributing to wikipedia by adding some missing Albanian public figures/artists. One problem I'm encountering is that for some reasons, my articles read as promotional ex: /info/en/?search=Draft:SIRIO. What can I do to improve them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilirtoska ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The article looks like it meets FA criteria as it has a lot of content and citations, but I need to double check. So could someone review it please? Thank you in advance. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 14:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From an FA/GA/PR point of view, this is a complementary system to provide review of existing content by external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications. It also acts as a route for high-quality new articles from people who would not have otherwise contributed to a wikimedia project.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm sorry I made a mistake when listing this review initially in January, and I tried to rename it from Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital dependencies and global mental health (previous name of the article). I thought I fixed it but it has definitely caused errors in closing because it still shows up in active peer reviews that I have noticed. Many apologies.
The current pages as far as I can tell are:
Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health
Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/archive2
Archive2 is linked from the articles talk page. Can someone help me with closing or deleting the wrong pages appropriately?
Thanks -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 14:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I've made a TfD nomination that concerns the project and input from active peer reviewers would be appreciated. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Template:Peer review/header. -- Trialpears ( talk) 23:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the Clinton Railroad Bridge peer review can now be archived. -- WikiHelper26 ( talk) 18:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Noted in article alerts. I may be somewhat behind the curve but - great to see! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)