This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If you wish to place a request for feedback, please click here. This page is for discussion about the RFF project and how to improve it. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope that my idea of Requests for Feedback will soon become an integral part of Wikipedia. I have three suggestions on how to help users find and identify with Requests for Feedback:
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (creator of Requests for Feedback)
I made a message box for adding to a talk page (like a peer review box). It looks like this:
the link above relates to a current (13th Sep 2007) feedback request.
Ideally this should be a template but I haven't looked at making templates yet... DMcMPO11AAUK 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many ways to contribute: adding facts, correcting typos, reverting vandalism, etc. There's now another way: read and give feedback on new articles!
For a start, why not give feedback about the Requests for Feedback project? Feedback on my idea and how to improvise it?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My two articles about Google Groups and Homerun were the first two articles to be posted for getting feedback, obviously because I started Requests for Feedback. However, they have failed to get any feedback, despite many articles below it getting good feedback. I have moved my two articles to the bottom to help them get feedback. Is this considered acceptable under Wikipedia policy?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Requests for Feedback, as a new Wikipedia idea, is still not well known. How can we advertise it, to increase traffic, so more users will seek and give feedback here?
Are there any other ways by which we can get feedback on articles we write? Someone suggested that I go to the talk pages of articles on topics related to my article and post seeking feedback. I have done so for Google Groups [1], and have requested they answer at Requests for Feedback. Although this strategy has been mostly unsuccessful, I see it as a potential means of promoting Requests for Feedback, and will soon do this for Homerun.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Requests for Feedback was previously known as the Article Feedback Desk. The name was changed after a discussion which is retained below for prosterity. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am aware that the acronym AFD for Article Feedback Desk clashes with the more well-known Articles For Deletion. If someone is going to list his article on AfD, Wikipedians won't know which one he means! Could anyone suggest a better name?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but I don't think I'd like to hear someone saying "I'll list your article on AFD". It'll give me quite a shock ;) How about Requests for Feedback (RfF)? WP:RfF and WP:RFF are not taken yet. Tangot a ngo 08:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since many people seem to be confusing this page with the help desk and/or the New contributors' help page, I propose the changing of the introduction (the header) of the Requests for feedback page to make it clearer. My proposal can be seen here. I would appreciate feedback on the proposal here. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 09:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've created the archive page for April 2006, and a general Archives page that lists all the archives. Also, this page appears to be getting dormant—many queries have gone unanswered for nearly a month. Can we have more people watching this page? — Tangot a ngo 08:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Peer Review and Requests for feedback are both Wikipedia processes to provide feedback on articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of providing feedback on articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Requests for feedback is growing in traffic. We are currently receiving up to 2 requests for feedback daily.
I plan to make RFF grow into an established, integral Wikipedia process, just like Peer Review or Good Articles.
However, there are only 4 Wikipedians who regularly respond to requests for feedback posted here: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng.
Therefore, we need more users to respond to requests: preferably experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and are friendly to new users.
If you have ideas for attracting regular respondents, particularly experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and friendly to newcomers, please reply posting your ideas. If you're an experienced Wikipedian who is familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, and you wish to become a regular participant in this project, please get to responding to requests as soon as you reply!
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, so perhaps the problem isn't archival but something else.
IMHO, the page is too much work to scan on a frequent basis especially since I don't intend to give feedback to the vast majority of requests. I would only respond if the article was about something that interested me and that I knew something about.
For these reasons, I would like a way to quickly see what requests are open, what requests are new and whether I think I might actually want to consider responding to one of the requests. The current mess is too much work and I'm not likely to spend much time on this page in its current state.
Of course, I should comment that I also consider WP:AfD to be too much work and also don't spend much time there. My favorite pages of this general category are: WP:GA and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. Please study the structure and format of these pages and consider altering the structure and format of this page along similar lines.
-- Richard 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have just finished providing a response to an RFC on the Marvin Heemeyer article.
The process was easy. I saw the RFC on [ [2]] which was on my watchlist. From there, I jumped to the talk page, saw what the dispute was about, jumped to the article, made some edits, jumped back to the talk page and commented on the dispute. Bing, bang, bong - I'm done and outta there.
By comparison, the RFF process is much harder. As stated earlier, it's hard to determine if I want to even determine which articles I might want to provide feedback on. Secondly, the idea of having comments provided on the RFF page makes it difficult to look at the article and provide comments due to issues of navigating back and forth. Of course, this would be easier with two browser windows but it's still a bit of a pain. I much prefer bouncing back and forth between the "article" and "discussion" tabs of the article itself.
On the other hand, processes like the WP:FA process create a separate page for the FAC discussion on each article. This is an alternate approach. The real point here is that there should be a separate place for feedback on RFF articles. It could be on the article talk page (like RFC) or on a separate discussion page (like FA). Doing it on the RFF page makes for a messy page that is hard to navigate and tedious to plow through.
-- Richard 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is bit hasty moving any request with feedback to the fulfilled section, as it will discourage anybody else from leaving feedback - maybe rename the sections to "New requests" and "Active requests" or somesuch? Truly fulfilled requests should really be archived to keep the page clean. Yomangani talk 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't archive too quickly. Give those requesting feedback some time to check back for feedback. And sometimes, the second Wikipedian responding to a request for feedback may spot something the first didn't. Of course, if three people have given extensive feedback, most will be smart enough to not respond to that request, although we should still give those who request time to check back. And remember that this page is supposed to be newcomer-friendly. Adding lots of red tape and complicated wiki markup will make it more difficult for newcomers to navigate. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've fixed the headings back now, as users of this page were posting requests in different sections. As Hildanknight said, please remember that the primary audience for this page is the newcomer, who will most likely abide by our instructions to "click here to post your request" when they see such a link. (P.S. The level 3 headings were also not being detected by the IRC bot in the Bootcamp channel). Cheers, Tangot a ngo 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this process is a great idea. It fills a need not met by the other tracks. It certainly helped the article I brought forward, although this page obviously needs more visibility. I also agree we should structure this after WP:RfC, that is, just include a link to the talk page, and a one line summary of the request. New requests on top, actual feedback on the article talk page (in fact in my case, I transcribed the feedback to the talk page anyway. I also notice some people reply by saying "I left comments on the talk page"). 192.75.48.150 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering how (if?) this process is any different from Request for Third Opinion, Request for Comment and Request for Peer Review. >Radiant< 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a new proposal for how we can get this page working more efficiently for all involved:
We split it into section like this, so the link will still work, and move requests to the other section when answered. We leave a message for users when we have given them feedback, so they don't forget for a month and come back to find it archived. We archive sections once they have had both of these: a) at least one reply, and b) it has been 10 days since the last reply. If a request is in the wrong place and better suited to another page it should be moved there and a message left on the user's talk page to tell them where they can find it. Another thing to look into is getting more experienced edtors here to help out.
So, what do you all think? Any thoughts? Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Feedback is being provided on this page but there is often no response from the original poster. This can be a discouragement for contributors to keep providing feedback. — RJH ( talk) 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The section "Human Eye Color" on the rff page, which looks like it belonged at the Reference Desk to begin with, looks like it's older than some requests I saw already in the archives -- including requests that were archived without ever getting a response! Why is it still there? & how active is this page anyway? Should folks be looking elsewhere for comment on still young-ish articles? thx -- Turangalila ( talk) 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Lately I've been the only one responding to posts on the Drawing board. I'm taking a wikibreak until August 1 and I'd not want queries to go waiting, so I'm hoping some other editors will be willing to lend a hand there. It would be good to have other perspectives besides my own for those editors seeking help even after I'm back. Thanks! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Shadowbot3 has not archived RFF for the last two weeks, despite still being active. Will this just catch up with itself or should someone (I'd be happy to do it) make a manual archive? Also, the archives are out of order (not sure if that matters enough to warrant any action). Adrian M. H. 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As you have probably seen by now, in the spirit of WP:BB, I redesigned the header to make it more compact, more useful, and much clearer to read. Hopefully, I succeeded. Feedback welcome. Adrian M. H. 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section from said editor. See this diff. As it was significantly off-topic and appeared to be a WP:OR essay. I've commented on the editors talkpage also. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This page doesn't appear to be getting feedback at any kind of reasonable rate where it would be useful to those requesting it. I was thinking of tagging this page as {{ historical}}, or putting it up for WP:MFD at least to get broader input. Then recommend to future individuals to either put the article up for peer review or contact associated wikiprojects. - Optigan13 ( talk) 02:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you would like feedback on an article you have recently created or expanded try contacting any related Wikiprojects. If this is your first article, please read the guide on how to write your first article for basic suggestions on how to proceed. - Optigan13 ( talk) 08:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This topic has also been brought up/discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 11#Request for feedback page inactive? and Wikipedia talk:Editor review - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
Over at WT:ER we are discussing renaming it to WP:Requests for editor feedback, I'd suggest either renaming this to WP:Requests for article feedback or merging it to PR (since it is mostly inactive and then using this as a disambig page to those two things. MBisanz talk 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
When I was a newbie, I was looking for a place to get feedback on an article I had written, but found none. As a result, I created Requests for feedback (RFF) with the help of several experienced editors, who responded to feedback requests during its early days. Unfortunately, they eventually lost interest, while I moved on and have since written two GAs. Now there is a huge backlog.
I am dismayed to see the above discussion, proposing that RFF be MFDed. RFF was created to meet a need and does have the potential to become an established content review process, like PR. That several feedback requests are posted every week shows that the demand is there. Instead of killing RFF, we should recruit friendly and experienced users to respond to feedback requests.
Next week, I have exams, but once they are over, I might have the time to answer a couple of feedback requests per week (I will also be writing my third GA). Perhaps we could post on the talk pages of content review processes (such as PR or GAN) and processes dedicated to helping new users (such as WC or ADOPT), inviting Wikipedians to respond to feedback requests posted here. Someone suggested merging other poorly-maintained processes targeting newcomers (such as WP:DRAW) into RFF. Such mergers might help get more Wikipedians on board, but I am concerned that they may cause RFF to lose its focus (giving newbies feedback about articles they write).
For the sake of the newbies, please do not let RFF die.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Support merge. Both pages do similar things, and i know i only check one, usually feed. Both WP:Feed and WP:Draw can be kept as redirects, yes? Therefore i don't really care about the official title. Yobmod ( talk) 09:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There are many Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, but how do we let them know about RFF so they can help out?
As I suggested above, perhaps we could post on the talk pages of content review processes and processes dedicated to helping newcomers. Wikipedians who help out with those processes might want to help out here as well. I have compiled a list of processes; feel free to suggest other processes we should contact.
Content review processes:
Processes for helping new users:
Spamming the same message across over ten talk pages will not work. Each message has to explain how RFF is similar to, and different from, the other process. For example, the average peer review or GA review may take over an hour, while responding to a feedback request here may take fifteen minutes (and is less stressful, since we are dealing with newcomers here).
Feel free to explore other ideas, such as Template:Wikipedia ads and posting on the user talk pages of Wikipedians who have previously helped out (or who have the RFF userbox on their user page), encouraging them to come back and help.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In the short run, a mass recruitment campaign will get some experienced Wikipedians to respond to requests. However, in the long run, will there be enough experienced Wikipedians responding to feedback requests? Building an RFF community will help attract a steady influx of new helpers and encourage new helpers to keep responding to feedback requests.
We could start by improving the guide for those responding to feedback requests. Besides the RFF userbox, we could create a list of helpers, as well as an RFF barnstar for outstanding contributions to the process. As a small, informal process, RFF probably does not need a dedicated WikiProject (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles).
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I broke up the archiving as it was quite strangely arranged. Archive 2 was approaching 700kb, which is just... ridiculous in length. It's currently split between 6 archives, but I may go back in and make it a couple more, as they currently range from about 100k to 200k in length, which is still pretty big.
Anyway, I think it would be best to set up an archive bot and any thread that sits idle for, say, 14 days or whatever, gets archived. Set the archive for a maximum size, like 100kb, and go from there.
Lastly, there are requests on the page that are around 8 months old. Although unanswered, perhaps time to archive those, yes? Jennavecia (Talk) 04:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If you wish to place a request for feedback, please click here. This page is for discussion about the RFF project and how to improve it. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope that my idea of Requests for Feedback will soon become an integral part of Wikipedia. I have three suggestions on how to help users find and identify with Requests for Feedback:
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (creator of Requests for Feedback)
I made a message box for adding to a talk page (like a peer review box). It looks like this:
the link above relates to a current (13th Sep 2007) feedback request.
Ideally this should be a template but I haven't looked at making templates yet... DMcMPO11AAUK 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many ways to contribute: adding facts, correcting typos, reverting vandalism, etc. There's now another way: read and give feedback on new articles!
For a start, why not give feedback about the Requests for Feedback project? Feedback on my idea and how to improvise it?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My two articles about Google Groups and Homerun were the first two articles to be posted for getting feedback, obviously because I started Requests for Feedback. However, they have failed to get any feedback, despite many articles below it getting good feedback. I have moved my two articles to the bottom to help them get feedback. Is this considered acceptable under Wikipedia policy?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Requests for Feedback, as a new Wikipedia idea, is still not well known. How can we advertise it, to increase traffic, so more users will seek and give feedback here?
Are there any other ways by which we can get feedback on articles we write? Someone suggested that I go to the talk pages of articles on topics related to my article and post seeking feedback. I have done so for Google Groups [1], and have requested they answer at Requests for Feedback. Although this strategy has been mostly unsuccessful, I see it as a potential means of promoting Requests for Feedback, and will soon do this for Homerun.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Requests for Feedback was previously known as the Article Feedback Desk. The name was changed after a discussion which is retained below for prosterity. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am aware that the acronym AFD for Article Feedback Desk clashes with the more well-known Articles For Deletion. If someone is going to list his article on AfD, Wikipedians won't know which one he means! Could anyone suggest a better name?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but I don't think I'd like to hear someone saying "I'll list your article on AFD". It'll give me quite a shock ;) How about Requests for Feedback (RfF)? WP:RfF and WP:RFF are not taken yet. Tangot a ngo 08:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since many people seem to be confusing this page with the help desk and/or the New contributors' help page, I propose the changing of the introduction (the header) of the Requests for feedback page to make it clearer. My proposal can be seen here. I would appreciate feedback on the proposal here. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 09:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've created the archive page for April 2006, and a general Archives page that lists all the archives. Also, this page appears to be getting dormant—many queries have gone unanswered for nearly a month. Can we have more people watching this page? — Tangot a ngo 08:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Peer Review and Requests for feedback are both Wikipedia processes to provide feedback on articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of providing feedback on articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Requests for feedback is growing in traffic. We are currently receiving up to 2 requests for feedback daily.
I plan to make RFF grow into an established, integral Wikipedia process, just like Peer Review or Good Articles.
However, there are only 4 Wikipedians who regularly respond to requests for feedback posted here: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng.
Therefore, we need more users to respond to requests: preferably experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and are friendly to new users.
If you have ideas for attracting regular respondents, particularly experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and friendly to newcomers, please reply posting your ideas. If you're an experienced Wikipedian who is familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, and you wish to become a regular participant in this project, please get to responding to requests as soon as you reply!
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, so perhaps the problem isn't archival but something else.
IMHO, the page is too much work to scan on a frequent basis especially since I don't intend to give feedback to the vast majority of requests. I would only respond if the article was about something that interested me and that I knew something about.
For these reasons, I would like a way to quickly see what requests are open, what requests are new and whether I think I might actually want to consider responding to one of the requests. The current mess is too much work and I'm not likely to spend much time on this page in its current state.
Of course, I should comment that I also consider WP:AfD to be too much work and also don't spend much time there. My favorite pages of this general category are: WP:GA and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. Please study the structure and format of these pages and consider altering the structure and format of this page along similar lines.
-- Richard 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have just finished providing a response to an RFC on the Marvin Heemeyer article.
The process was easy. I saw the RFC on [ [2]] which was on my watchlist. From there, I jumped to the talk page, saw what the dispute was about, jumped to the article, made some edits, jumped back to the talk page and commented on the dispute. Bing, bang, bong - I'm done and outta there.
By comparison, the RFF process is much harder. As stated earlier, it's hard to determine if I want to even determine which articles I might want to provide feedback on. Secondly, the idea of having comments provided on the RFF page makes it difficult to look at the article and provide comments due to issues of navigating back and forth. Of course, this would be easier with two browser windows but it's still a bit of a pain. I much prefer bouncing back and forth between the "article" and "discussion" tabs of the article itself.
On the other hand, processes like the WP:FA process create a separate page for the FAC discussion on each article. This is an alternate approach. The real point here is that there should be a separate place for feedback on RFF articles. It could be on the article talk page (like RFC) or on a separate discussion page (like FA). Doing it on the RFF page makes for a messy page that is hard to navigate and tedious to plow through.
-- Richard 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is bit hasty moving any request with feedback to the fulfilled section, as it will discourage anybody else from leaving feedback - maybe rename the sections to "New requests" and "Active requests" or somesuch? Truly fulfilled requests should really be archived to keep the page clean. Yomangani talk 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't archive too quickly. Give those requesting feedback some time to check back for feedback. And sometimes, the second Wikipedian responding to a request for feedback may spot something the first didn't. Of course, if three people have given extensive feedback, most will be smart enough to not respond to that request, although we should still give those who request time to check back. And remember that this page is supposed to be newcomer-friendly. Adding lots of red tape and complicated wiki markup will make it more difficult for newcomers to navigate. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've fixed the headings back now, as users of this page were posting requests in different sections. As Hildanknight said, please remember that the primary audience for this page is the newcomer, who will most likely abide by our instructions to "click here to post your request" when they see such a link. (P.S. The level 3 headings were also not being detected by the IRC bot in the Bootcamp channel). Cheers, Tangot a ngo 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this process is a great idea. It fills a need not met by the other tracks. It certainly helped the article I brought forward, although this page obviously needs more visibility. I also agree we should structure this after WP:RfC, that is, just include a link to the talk page, and a one line summary of the request. New requests on top, actual feedback on the article talk page (in fact in my case, I transcribed the feedback to the talk page anyway. I also notice some people reply by saying "I left comments on the talk page"). 192.75.48.150 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering how (if?) this process is any different from Request for Third Opinion, Request for Comment and Request for Peer Review. >Radiant< 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a new proposal for how we can get this page working more efficiently for all involved:
We split it into section like this, so the link will still work, and move requests to the other section when answered. We leave a message for users when we have given them feedback, so they don't forget for a month and come back to find it archived. We archive sections once they have had both of these: a) at least one reply, and b) it has been 10 days since the last reply. If a request is in the wrong place and better suited to another page it should be moved there and a message left on the user's talk page to tell them where they can find it. Another thing to look into is getting more experienced edtors here to help out.
So, what do you all think? Any thoughts? Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Feedback is being provided on this page but there is often no response from the original poster. This can be a discouragement for contributors to keep providing feedback. — RJH ( talk) 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The section "Human Eye Color" on the rff page, which looks like it belonged at the Reference Desk to begin with, looks like it's older than some requests I saw already in the archives -- including requests that were archived without ever getting a response! Why is it still there? & how active is this page anyway? Should folks be looking elsewhere for comment on still young-ish articles? thx -- Turangalila ( talk) 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Lately I've been the only one responding to posts on the Drawing board. I'm taking a wikibreak until August 1 and I'd not want queries to go waiting, so I'm hoping some other editors will be willing to lend a hand there. It would be good to have other perspectives besides my own for those editors seeking help even after I'm back. Thanks! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Shadowbot3 has not archived RFF for the last two weeks, despite still being active. Will this just catch up with itself or should someone (I'd be happy to do it) make a manual archive? Also, the archives are out of order (not sure if that matters enough to warrant any action). Adrian M. H. 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As you have probably seen by now, in the spirit of WP:BB, I redesigned the header to make it more compact, more useful, and much clearer to read. Hopefully, I succeeded. Feedback welcome. Adrian M. H. 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section from said editor. See this diff. As it was significantly off-topic and appeared to be a WP:OR essay. I've commented on the editors talkpage also. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This page doesn't appear to be getting feedback at any kind of reasonable rate where it would be useful to those requesting it. I was thinking of tagging this page as {{ historical}}, or putting it up for WP:MFD at least to get broader input. Then recommend to future individuals to either put the article up for peer review or contact associated wikiprojects. - Optigan13 ( talk) 02:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you would like feedback on an article you have recently created or expanded try contacting any related Wikiprojects. If this is your first article, please read the guide on how to write your first article for basic suggestions on how to proceed. - Optigan13 ( talk) 08:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This topic has also been brought up/discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 11#Request for feedback page inactive? and Wikipedia talk:Editor review - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
Over at WT:ER we are discussing renaming it to WP:Requests for editor feedback, I'd suggest either renaming this to WP:Requests for article feedback or merging it to PR (since it is mostly inactive and then using this as a disambig page to those two things. MBisanz talk 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
When I was a newbie, I was looking for a place to get feedback on an article I had written, but found none. As a result, I created Requests for feedback (RFF) with the help of several experienced editors, who responded to feedback requests during its early days. Unfortunately, they eventually lost interest, while I moved on and have since written two GAs. Now there is a huge backlog.
I am dismayed to see the above discussion, proposing that RFF be MFDed. RFF was created to meet a need and does have the potential to become an established content review process, like PR. That several feedback requests are posted every week shows that the demand is there. Instead of killing RFF, we should recruit friendly and experienced users to respond to feedback requests.
Next week, I have exams, but once they are over, I might have the time to answer a couple of feedback requests per week (I will also be writing my third GA). Perhaps we could post on the talk pages of content review processes (such as PR or GAN) and processes dedicated to helping new users (such as WC or ADOPT), inviting Wikipedians to respond to feedback requests posted here. Someone suggested merging other poorly-maintained processes targeting newcomers (such as WP:DRAW) into RFF. Such mergers might help get more Wikipedians on board, but I am concerned that they may cause RFF to lose its focus (giving newbies feedback about articles they write).
For the sake of the newbies, please do not let RFF die.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Support merge. Both pages do similar things, and i know i only check one, usually feed. Both WP:Feed and WP:Draw can be kept as redirects, yes? Therefore i don't really care about the official title. Yobmod ( talk) 09:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There are many Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, but how do we let them know about RFF so they can help out?
As I suggested above, perhaps we could post on the talk pages of content review processes and processes dedicated to helping newcomers. Wikipedians who help out with those processes might want to help out here as well. I have compiled a list of processes; feel free to suggest other processes we should contact.
Content review processes:
Processes for helping new users:
Spamming the same message across over ten talk pages will not work. Each message has to explain how RFF is similar to, and different from, the other process. For example, the average peer review or GA review may take over an hour, while responding to a feedback request here may take fifteen minutes (and is less stressful, since we are dealing with newcomers here).
Feel free to explore other ideas, such as Template:Wikipedia ads and posting on the user talk pages of Wikipedians who have previously helped out (or who have the RFF userbox on their user page), encouraging them to come back and help.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In the short run, a mass recruitment campaign will get some experienced Wikipedians to respond to requests. However, in the long run, will there be enough experienced Wikipedians responding to feedback requests? Building an RFF community will help attract a steady influx of new helpers and encourage new helpers to keep responding to feedback requests.
We could start by improving the guide for those responding to feedback requests. Besides the RFF userbox, we could create a list of helpers, as well as an RFF barnstar for outstanding contributions to the process. As a small, informal process, RFF probably does not need a dedicated WikiProject (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles).
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I broke up the archiving as it was quite strangely arranged. Archive 2 was approaching 700kb, which is just... ridiculous in length. It's currently split between 6 archives, but I may go back in and make it a couple more, as they currently range from about 100k to 200k in length, which is still pretty big.
Anyway, I think it would be best to set up an archive bot and any thread that sits idle for, say, 14 days or whatever, gets archived. Set the archive for a maximum size, like 100kb, and go from there.
Lastly, there are requests on the page that are around 8 months old. Although unanswered, perhaps time to archive those, yes? Jennavecia (Talk) 04:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)