![]() | 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 |
I was trying to find Wikipedia:Editor review but couldn't find it. I found this page and Wikipedia:Mentorship. So I'm wondering whether WP:Editor review and WP:Mentorship should be linked to in some way. I would have done this myself but I can't work out how.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, a few things:
Regards, Killiondude ( talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Article text
|
---|
"Raphael mixed easily in the highest circles throughout his life, one of the factors that tended to give a misleading impression of effortlessness to his career. He did not receive a full humanistic education however; it is unclear how easily he read Latin.[9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanzio "Bona Sforza was born in 1494 (Italian sources give the date 1493) into the princely family of Milan. The family name "Sforza" means "force" and was originally the nickname of the mercenary soldier, Jacopo Attendolo. Coming from the lesser gentry, the family gained the principality of Milan through their own efforts. Bona was the daughter of Gian Galeazzo Sforza and Isabella of Aragon. After her father's untimely death, the Milan principality was taken over by her paternal uncle, Ludovico Moro. Isabella took Bona to the principality of Ban [Bari], which had been given to her the year before, and gave her daughter a good education. The curriculum included the study of Vergil, Cicero, Petrarca, history, music, dance, horseback riding and hunting. More importantly, Isabella, mindful of her daughter's future prospects, taught her the art of ruling. Bona immediately put the lessons into practice, for she had her own court at Bari." http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/Bona/Bona.html
Bona Sforza is Raphael Santi Sanzio da Urbino Sforza - Romano's sister. Left to right: Gian Galeazzo Sforza, Isabella di Aragon, Francesco I, Raphael and Bona Sforza. http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/SDRs/SDRs_04_02_029.html http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/came/ho_17.190.869.htm http://www.wga.hu/html/f/foppa/y_cicero.html She could have read the very first Latin edition of Aesop's fables. You say, "It is unclear how easily he [sic] read Latin." She paints a Greek Canon Table X in the lower left hand corner of "The School of Athens" and a sermon. (Those who have eyes to see.) Do u want to talk to me? Is a WGA forum the right place for this? Do u want to know? I promise I won't get into the politics, religion and philosophy. She does. I won't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant I am just the man looking under the tale. printcollector2@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Printcollector2 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
Not sure what you're saying here, so I just collapsed it. Killiondude ( talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Good article
Mddwilliams ( talk) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC) September 18, 2009
{{
New unreviewed article}}
was just put into the
Article wizard 2.0 this weekend, and so we're getting tons of requests. Please see
WT:WIZ2#New template and
User talk:Rd232#Template:New unreviewed article if you're a "regular" reviewer or if you care about this template being added to hundreds of new pages. I might also start a village pump thread about this. The template is also putting the articles that it is on, into
Category:Unreviewed new articles.
Killiondude (
talk)
04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Article Incubator might be a destination for some of those promising articles that aren't quite ready for the prime time. Articles are moved there to be worked on outside articlespace, as an alternative to deletion or userification. Fences& Windows 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed today that Google is indexing this page. I don't think it should, so I have added the __NOINDEX__ magic word. – ukexpat ( talk) 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have just done a manual archive of WP:RFF, moving October entries to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 16. As Werdnabot seems to be no longer active, does anyone know how the archiving process can be automated again ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 12:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to work on getting this page together and functioning. It provides a service that is useful and hard to find anywhere else; the main problem seems to be that there are few people responding, and that the page itself has fallen into a state of disrepair.
Right now, I think we need to address a few main concerns.
Thanks, and hopefully this will start some discussion. Annalise ( talk) 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
done}}
threads, I found one (maybe mizsa's?) but it said it archived would archive the thread the next time the bot did its rounds. It would be nice to have an option where we could archive a thread only once it is marked as done and after a certain amount of time (to give them time come back to this page to view the response).
Killiondude (
talk)
00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please figure out how to collapse the archive list at the top of the page? I tried the usual tricks, but none seem to work. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
done}}
on them. :-(
Killiondude (
talk)
19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Some new users does not see the feedback for various reasons. It would be helpful if we could tag drafts in the user-spaces with templates to indicate issues with the drafts. I propose that we create special templates customized for the user-space drafts with the most common issues, like notability and sources issues (and may be with a link to the talk page of the draft for additional comments), it will only be used if the user requested feedback. Sole Soul ( talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that in addition to the three points listed in the first paragraph on the main page, the following also be added: "If you are requesting outside input or dispute resolution with respect to article's contents, user conduct, or Wikipedia policy and guidelines, please see Requests for comment "
You might also want to mention the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard.
Maybe also a similar type of box to this should be put at the top of the Requests for comment page ? The Yeti ( talk) 07:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Back in 2008 there was a discussion which seemed to result in consensus that Wikipedia:Requests for feedback and Wikipedia:Drawing board should be merged. (There were various suggestions for the name of the new combined page.) I still think this would be a good idea, so if there is still support for this, I suggest we do it. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Any progress on archiving the mainpage? It's incredibly long, as you already know. We could archive entries after a fixed time period of last updating--even a full year span would help reduce the list. I agree its not ideal to abandon "un-done" threads, per WP:Paper and all that, but it's pretty hard to navigate right now. We could even separate "done threads" from "backlogged ones" which could wait for someone to come along... 71.224.206.164 ( talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | New Article Creation: |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Distributed operating system talk page redirects to User_talk:JLSjr/Distributed operating system |
![]() | There are several improvements in process (daily)
|
Folks, I have been thinking about this for a while. Often new editors make their request, we answer it (sooner or later) and we never hear from them again. I suspect that some, maybe most, requesters don't know how to get back to WP:FEED, so I usually leave a {{ Talkback}} template on their talk page - at least then they will see the "new message" indicator next time they log in. I recently came across the little used {{ Helpdeskreply}} which looks pretty neat, so I have "borrowed" the code and drafted a Feedbackreply template in my user space at User:Ukexpat/Feedbackreply. It is coded with two optional parameters, the first for the section title and the second for the signature of the templater, so the syntax (when it is moved to template space) would be, e.g. {{Subst:Feedbackreply|draft article on dibubblypeptide| – ~~~~}} . A shortcut could also be created at {{ FBR}}/{{ fbr}} to reduce typing, and perhaps we could ask the owner of Friendly to add it to the selection of talkback options available in Friendly. Thoughts, suggestions please.
P.S., also in the works is a template similar to {{ Ear}} to simplify and speed up responses. More details to follow. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to the above, the template is now in templatespace at {{ Feedbackreply}} with shortcuts at {{ FBR}} and {{ fbr}}. Please go ahead and give it a try. I have also quickly cobbled together a documentation sub page. Obviously no pride of authorship for either code or doc - I just borrowed them from elsewhere, so please make suggestions on the template talk page. – ukexpat ( talk) 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Folks, somehow the page has a lot of repeated entries - looks like someone did a bad copy and paste (hope it wasn't me in a drunken stupor!). Anyway, I have removed a number of them, but there are still quite a few left. I don't have time to finish the job at the moment. The dupes start, I think, at the second "Anna Margaret from Starstruck" entry, but not sure how many more there are. Anyone want to volunter to finish the job? I think this should shorten the page a little. Thanks in advance. – ukexpat ( talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that the settings for archiving the page should be changed. At the moment there are 200+ threads and it is becoming difficult to manage. I would like to propose a change to the archiving settings for this page be shortened. I think there should be a minimum of 30 threads on the page at any one time, and reduce the amount of time that threads get archived from 1000 hours to about a week, leaving around 50 threads that are less than a week old. Thanks to Chzz for the suggestions but I think that the page's archiving settings need to be looked at. What are everyone's thoughts on this and what should be do? Chevymontecarlo. 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
How about something a bit smarter? How about if it;
Obviously, this'd need a bit of bot work, but I'm sure it could be done. Thoughts? Chzz ► 20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(in response to Chzz) I think that sounds good - or maybe we could make it so that unreviewed ones never leave the page, but reviewed ones move into a similiar week saving system after a certain amount of time after being reviewed on the main page. The current thing is very unefficent - and too long! Until something can be set up, I've set it to keep only 25 on the page (archive rest) ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Talk_· _Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Following the above discussions, I've made a start on trying to clear things down a bit.
I have manually moved some stuff that I'm pretty sure is 'done' as far as feedback goes, putting it into Arch 26; see this edit.
I also notified each person that their feedback was now in the archive - e.g. here.
In notifying them, I asked if they might provide feedback to other users - dunno if that'll work, but...that's the idea. Which makes me think...
-After users get feedback, we could notify them on their talk page. And in doing so, we could ask 'em to provide feedback for the next lot of users, and so on.
That's how I think things should work.
From the above discussion and this one...I think we really need a bot - so we could deliver notifications to users, and archive done stuff more professionally - probably similar to the way AFC works.
For now though....I think we can continue trying to clear this down. I will try and do more myself...I suggest that we only archive things that are pretty much done, and we let users know.
There are some pretty old threads on the page that haven't received feedback yet...so we could get on to that too.
Cheers, Chzz ► 05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a couple of points from me about the archiving:
Regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello All! There are two templates that one can use to inform users that they have a message on request for feedback (due to me creating a second before realising the first existed...)
{{ Feedbackreply-sm}} and {{ Feedbackreply}}
Examples | |||
---|---|---|---|
{{
Feedbackreply-sm}} ({{WP:FEED/reply}} also redirects here)
Your message at Requests for feedbackYou can find live help on Wikipedia's help chat ![]() Best regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC). and {{ Feedbackreply}}==Your message at Requests for feedback==
|
Feel free to use either or provide feedback. Captain n00dle \ Talk 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, given that a lot of users are posting their Userspace drafts here, I thought that this template might be a good idea: {{ MovedtoMainspace}} there are a few parameters but it looks like this without any: {{MovedtoMainspace}} Please feel free to contribute and give feedback. Captain n00dle \ Talk 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe entries should be archived more quickly - the top third are always untouched - just a suggestion. ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Talk_· _Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we eliminate this difficulty by rearranging this page into separate pages for submissions on each day, with the most recent week (or something) transcluded onto one page.
The addition of a bot to check for the oldest threads that had no response would be a nice add-on, but not essential; things have disappeared into the archives before now without being seen - could also be done manually (and maybe that's best, for now) - see how they do it for GA Reviews, where they transclude Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog.
Main advantage over other forms of archiving - no need to ever archive, avoiding the additional complexity explaining this to new users; the links given to them (saying "your feedback is HERE") would never change.
In discussion, I'd though a week might be appropriate - around 50 or so. However, having reviewed the data a little, I see two things; 1, there are peaks and troughs - so 200/month could easily result in 80 in a week on occasion, and we'd be back to a very long page. 2, if we go for daily, we're reasonably 'future-proof' - because if for e.g. we transclude 7 days' worth onto the main page initially, then it becomes too much, just change it to transclude the past 3 days, or vice-versa.
So, that is what I think needs to be done, and I welcome any and all comments.
As to how we do it, well, that is another question. A combination of some template code and possibly bots, whatever; I think the most contstructive next-step is to make a mock-up of the proposed transcluded/daily structure, using some past data. Whatever happens, I hope some people will help address this, before it becomes backlogged again. Chzz ► 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
My reading of the instructions for WP:feedback is that the subject should be only the article name and that the first text in the body should be a wikilink. I've noticed that quite a few requests don't adhere to that, which raises the question of whether I've misunderstood the format that I'm supposed to follow. So I'd appreciate answers to these questions:
Is it proper to include additional text in the subject, e.g., Request for feedback on?
When the article is in user space, should the subject include the User:foo/ portion of the article name?
Is it proper to have any text in the body prior to the wikilink to the article?
Is it proper to have any text on the same line as the wikilink to the article? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
== William Windsor (goat) ==
. Having links within section headings creates difficulties with linking to them, etc.[[User:Chzz/Cuthbert Cholmondeley-Goosecreature temp]]
, which would appear as:
User:Chzz/Cuthbert Cholmondeley-Goosecreature temp. It is clearest if this is on a line on its own at the top of the section.
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
- the above template message (( {{Sofixit}}) applies just as well to wikipedia internal pages, Chatul (=Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz). If you need help with the coding, ask - put a {{helpme}} on your own user talk page, or ask me on mine. Chzz ► 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Following all of the above, I am working on a proof-of-concept new structure - having each days requests on a separate subpage, automatically transcluding the previous 5 days on the main page, and providing navigation and clearer instructions.
Several people are working on it right now, and it is not yet ready to go live - but in anticipation, I would very much welcome comments, suggestions, etc.
So please see the mock-up, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Note that it auto-transcludes the days, and please see User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation.
I hope to get this 'demo' into shape over the next few days, and then if nobody objects strongly, I will boldly introduce it to the live area. Chzz ► 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've archived some older discussions from this page, which I am confident were no longer useful here; I've set up the page for auto-archiving, with pretty conservative settings - 90 days, leaving at least 10 threads. From the previous comments on the subject, I believed this would not be controversial; change things if you disagree. Chzz ► 06:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to suggest an edit to editnotice. I don't think most people really read through everything that's there so I might recommend adding an example beneath what is already there. Something like...
Suggested Addition
|
---|
Link To Your Article
A short summary describing the article or what parts you have been having trouble with. ~~~~
Make sure to include...
|}
..., but if you like it, I can make a better version - it might be good because this kind of quick visual might help some people understand what is the correct format. Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Contact Me_· _Talkback_· 03:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, sincere thanks to everyone who helped clear the backlog. A few days ago, we had over 200 outstanding feedback requests, and most were unanswered. Now, there are only a handful left which await feedback; many have been archived, and the users informed.
Of course, that isn't the end though; we have spoken about ways of keeping the page size more reasonable, and archival, etc.
After working through things, I now believe that the best approach would be a separate page for every (sometimeframe) e.g. 1 page per week, some clever work to transclude the current week to the main page, and possibly a bot to show the 'oldest unanswered requests' at the top, a bit like over on WP:GAN.
If we did structure it like that, we would eliminate the problems of archival. Yes, things could still go unanswered, but the only solution to that is, people working on them.
It would save us having to tell users that their feedback had been archived, and would cause these new users less confusion.
It may also be worth considering that the bot could auto inform users when feedback has been received.
These ideas are a little embryonic, and also quite hard to visualise, so I propose we;
a) get some data about how many requests we get, to choose an appropriate value for the 'timeframe' b) make a 'mock-up' of the proposal, using data from any old feed page - from a few weeks ago or something.
I intend to try and progress this, as soon as possible. Do let me know your thoughts on it.
Phil, I did note your concerns over whether new users should provide feedback to others. I think it could work perhaps, if at the top of the page, it said something along the lines of, After leaving your request, please provide feedback to other users; just edit the section, and post your own thoughts on the article below, indented with a colon (:) - remember to sign your name with ~~~~. see the detailed guide on giving feedback - the latter explaining in as much details as we like about the type of feedback that helps. This is only a very vague idea, and may not work -perhaps something we can fiddle in mockup, and possibly try for a bit.
I'm also thinking in terms of better integration of help systems, to get more involvement. For example, we already have a bot which reports when users place a {{helpme}}, in the IRC help channel; it would be possible to alert on feedback requests too - perhaps not often, to avoid 'spam' in the channel, perhaps batched up and no more than e.g. once per hour;
<Helpmebot> 1 user is requesting help: [[User:ExampleUser]] . <Helpmebot> 4 new feedback requests: "Beijing Capital Airlines" (User:129.78.64.101), "Sausages" (User:Chzz), "Rescue Chocolate" (User:Bookisha), "Josh Smith (Musician)" (User:RikaJakobs) http://enwp.org/feed/currentweek
...or something.
A quick note here about the bigger picture: I got involved in trying to help with this after reading User:Sphilbrick/Feedback Patrol - and as a result of that I am also considering this in context; I intend to write my own ideas, both there, and perhaps on strategy.wikimedia.org or elsewhere.
Again, thanks to everyone for the outstanding work clearing things. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Chzz ► 03:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This table shows, approximately, the number of feedback requests per month, since 2009. It is calculated based on edits to the page where the edit summary contains 'new section'. It may not be completely accurate, but I believe it will be accurate enough to serve the purposes of discussion, re. the idea of splitting up requests by a timeframe e.g. week, whatever.
Month | Count |
---|---|
200901 | 30 |
200902 | 16 |
200903 | 26 |
200904 | 23 |
200905 | 25 |
200906 | 32 |
200907 | 50 |
200908 | 49 |
200909 | 101 |
200910 | 126 |
200911 | 202 |
200912 | 237 |
201001 | 235 |
201002 | 240 |
201003 | 255 |
201004 | 191 |
201005 | 204 |
Source:
select left(rev_timestamp,6) as date, count(*) from revision join page on rev_page = page_id where page_title = 'Requests_for_feedback' and page_namespace = 4 and rev_comment like '%new section%' and rev_timestamp > 20090000000000 group by left(rev_timestamp,6) ;
Chzz ► 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought this would maybe help out the reviewers, but I figured that it might mess up the organisation of the page. Chevy monte carlo - alt 12:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, just wanted to let everyone know that I plan to tag entries without feedback in a while with this.
{{
Nofeed}}
({{
Nofeed}}) it has two attributes - Art=EXACTARTICLENAME Sct=EXACTSECTIONNAME
I plan to soon add conditional formatting that will cause it to disappear when feedback is given automatically. It also lists this page for wikibacklog when there are a certain number of old unreviewed ones. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Contact Me_· Get Adopted! 04:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I thing it's a great idea but would be against having it removed automatically. It is simple enough for the person giving the feedback to remove it (or not). I recently felt unable to give someone feedback on an article but left him a suggestion as to where he might be able to get it. In this situation I thought it appropriate to leave the tag in situ.-- Ykraps ( talk) 17:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a note on some improvements which I believe would be good here;
1. creating new days - links to prev/next can be done in template, perhaps - if not, bot can do it
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navday|prev=2010 June 20|next=2010 June 22}}</noinclude>
2. seeking 'oldest with no feedback'
3. updating links to last and current month on FEED page, and preferably using parser funcs to only show days for current month UP TO AND INC today
Note I believe The Earwig ( talk · contribs) is going to look into this. It's non-urgent. Chzz ► 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
So, to clarify the current status;
1. Is in testing 2. Is being thought about by me 3. Is done, via some smart templatey code stuff.
Chzz ► 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I am new to this page and was wondering if many of the articles listed here get nominated for deletion and whether people come here specifically to look for articles to delete? For example, is it discouraged for editors to nominate articles found here for deletion? Christopher Connor ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
What do people think of the idea of linking to feedback given here from an article talk page? It is a bit odd to have comments about an article that are not on that articles talk page. I have noticed that this has caused some problems, for example an article might get deleted even though the editor has just been told how to improve it.
I have posted something at User talk:Morgankevinj/Blood Money (documentary). What do people think of that? Is it worth making into a proper template?
Yaris678 ( talk) 13:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | The creator has requested feedback from other editors to help improve this article. You are welcome to contribute to this article's feedback discussion. If you add any tags to the article while this notice is displayed, please consider noting the fact at the feedback discussion. This notice will be removed when the feedback request is archived. |
May not be entirely accurate; old figures as previous chart; new figures by counting for "/n==" in each daily page, as of today.
Massive increase, since the new system of keeping feedback on daily pages; I suspect because, now, people have seen results here, so more people have posted their requests. We seem to be a bit snowed-under though; lots of requests are going unanswered. As the main page only shows the past few days, these potential opportunities get missed - but I guess we can only do so much.
If 20 people did one per day, we'd never have a backlog. I don't know if that could happen, but that would be a nice solution. Chzz ► 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Would it help if we tried to channel more editors to Wikipedia:Drawing board before they even create their first article? It would probably be easier to provide feedback on a couple of paragraphs, rather than a whole article. On the minus side it is even less effort for someone to submit something there so even more work could be generated. I think it would be positive over all because it would catch the non-notable and COI cases early. Yaris678 ( talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There could be a number of reasons why so few editors get involved with giving feedback. One reason might simply be a lack of awareness. Could it be that Wikipedia has a large amount of casual editors who just add small amounts of information to existing articles? If this was the case, these editors would never come into contact with review process. Even those who post articles might not fully understand how it works. When I first requested feedback on an article, I thought those giving feedback were 'uber' editors with some sort of special authority. It wasn't until I saw someone giving feedback while they still had a request posted that I understood. Even after that I was reluctant to give feedback because I felt I was too new, too inexperienced and that my comments were worthless. Truth be told, I still feel like that now and tend to pick and choose which articles I feedback on. These issues can all be solved through improved communication. For example, at 'peer review' it is made quite clear that you're expected to provide feedback on another article. Another idea might be to send out a plea to all editors when there is a backlog to clear.-- Ykraps ( talk) 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. It was nice to get an invite to this discussion, I hope my comments are worth something.
Before you request feedback |
There are certain things which come up again and again so it may help if you deal with them before requesting feedback:
If you would like a beginner's guide to these sorts of issues, take a look at the article wizard. If you are unsure about how to edit Wikipedia articles, take a look at this tutorial. For a more general discussion of writing your first article, see "Your first article". |
I have added the "Before you request feedback" section to the header. Do people think anything else should go in there? Something on WP:Puffery? WP:Puffery is actually an essay, but it WP:Words to watch does have a section on puffery... Yaris678 ( talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Requirements for feedback |
1. Notability. The subject of your article must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. 2. Verifiability. All content in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source to show that it is not original research. Please make sure that questionable information and quotations in your article are supported by reliable sources in the form of an inline citation. 3. Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia articles must be written fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Please review our Conflict of Interest policy before requesting feedback to ensure that your article is written from a neutral point of view. |
@Cindamuse, your suggested text starts each line with a piece of Wikipedia jargon. I think it is important that we don't do that. We should start with what we want from the author of the article. I know that reliable sources are not a sufficient condition for notability, but they are a necesary condition and an easier one to explain (
Wikipedia:Independent sources is just an essay, whereas
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a well established guideline)
@Karenjc, I would just start editing Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines if I were you. Use a hat note to explain it is just a draft. Better still, use {{ Proposed}}.
Yaris678 ( talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading over some of the suggestions here and in the spirit of working with other editors and trying to tie something together rather than working with cross purposes, I'd like to suggest that at least a few people take a look at this suggestion I made on the policy section of the Village Pump:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Page Patroller Academy
What I'm trying to do is to set up a training group that would help to come up with "best practices" that reviewers and other folks who are involved with monitoring new content coming into Wikipedia could share with potentially new contributors to Wikipedia and to help grow new reviewers to help out with the crushing load of content that comes into the project on a daily basis. So far the support for the idea is lukewarm, but perhaps some of the regulars who are interested in giving feedback to new users might be interested in at least looking over the debate that has been happening over the past week or so regarding new user contributions on this Village Pump section.
My objective here is to increase the number of people who are monitoring the new content coming in, and to not simply "throw them to the wolves" with no experience whey they have to make judgement calls on content. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to say that I have created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines and made a hurried and sketchy start. Assistance welcomed. Ka renjc 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear friends, There was copyright violation suspects for two of there article and i re wrote few times and avoid all of Copyrights on This is a temporary pages Talk:Lionel Wendt/Temp, Talk:Dayananda Gunawardena/Temp. I believe these Articles should be publish . could you please assist me to solve this problem and Fix these articles. In addition to ,if there is Copyrights problems any body can assist me to re write . Thanks-- Wipeouting ( talk) 10:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors involved here might be interested in the redesign I've just implemented at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Questions are relegated to a separate subpage, which makes it easier to separate out "should you be asking here" from "OK, you should be here, and this is how you should ask (oh, and do this first...)". So a similar approach might be helpful here. Rd232 talk 12:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've moved {{ RFF}} (while keeping the shortcut redirect) to {{ Requests for feedback}} after it was mistagged as a CSD G2. I've reworked it significantly from User:QwerpQwertus' initial version and there is also now a {{ Requests for feedback/testcases}} subpage. It still needs documentation though. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Regular reviewers might like to bookmark http://toolserver.org/~earwig/cgi-bin/copyvio.py
It's a tool that takes the page name and gives you a fairly quick reply about whether the page needs a closer look for copyright issues. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Everyone!
I wanted to let you know about a study that we are getting together to start next month. As I’m sure many of you are aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years.
As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.
We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.
The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally! Jalexander--WMF 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I had write a article on PERSAURA. This is a village inside Bhinga city, distict Shrawasti, U.P. I have provided brief details about it but in future I will continue to edit and provide more information about article.
Please review the article named "Persaura", and let me know your valuable feedback.
Regards,
Sageer Ahmed 09:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Please find link for the article Persaura. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persaura
Thanks, Sageer Ahmed 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageerahmed1983 ( talk • contribs)
I've "learned" that user talk comments are close to sacrosanct. While article prose is subject to merciless editing, we don't edit the talk page comments of others, with rare exceptions.
I've tried to follow that rule; the very few times I've found a desire to edit a users comments, I've left a note at the users talk page informing them. I think the broad rule makes sense, but I've noticed that new editors have a devil of a time getting the article name in the section heading when they ask for feedback.
I'm making the decision now that no new editor really wants a mess that doesn't even properly link as a section heading. In short, I'm going to grant an exception that when an editor posts a request at this forum, and fails to properly link the article, they will not be offended but grateful that someone fixed it for them. If anyone disagrees, let me know.-- SPhilbrick T 02:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
We should consider modifying the opening sentence: This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed., in particular the "substantially changed" phrase.
As I said in Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_July_18#Steffen_Thomas_Request_clean_up
the facts are that this forum is woefully understaffed, and those that do drop in are usually in a mindset to review very new or draft articles. If you glance at other entries on this page, you'll see that 98% or so are brand-new. My usual advice is to say that improvements such as the ones you requests are better handled by the relevant project. ... I'll leave the request here; if someone wants to respond, that would be great, but as you can see, responses are lagging, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I'll separately look into modifying the advice on the Requests for feedback page, in case others agree that this is not the right forum for a request such as yours.
We should simply drop the last phrase, or possibly expand the point and urge editors with substantial rewrite to go to the relevant project. What do others think?-- SPhilbrick T 16:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about Peer review
My proposal:
Existing wording:
- This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed.
- This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions.
- If you are requesting feedback on yourself and your editing in general, see Wikipedia:Editor review.
- If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
- Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.
Proposed wording (the new wording will all be in bold; the bold here is merely to identify changed wording:
- This page provides comments and constructive criticism about relatively new articles that you have drafted or created.
- This page is not suitable for feedback requests if you have substantially rewritten an existing article. To seek such assistance, go to Peer review or a relevant WikiProject
- This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions.
- If you are requesting feedback on yourself and your editing in general, see Wikipedia:Editor review.
- If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
- Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.
-- SPhilbrick T 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Phil, do what you think best. WP:BRD. You know *I* get it...but, I suspect not many people bother. To be honest w. you, you may as well do what you feel best for FEED 'coz no other bugger will. *I* do care tho, so keep me informed. Stay bold. I think the instructions are getting too long, so I encourage KISS but... yeah. Go for it. Chzz ► 03:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been wondering about this for a while. Why isn't the RFF page structured like the Help Desk? i.e. We don't get alerted when a new request has been made even if the page is in our watchlists? I get notifications but only for the specific subpage I posted a reply to, any new pages for new dates are ignored.
That probably explains why this page has little traffic when it comes to helpers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
While trying out the RFF page for the first time, I came on one element of the page I think could be improved. The editor who provided feedback to my original request clarified for me how to meet the request for response in the "After Receiving Feedback" introductory section of the main RFF page. In order to respond, one has to click on the date of the original posting, in "The previous few days of requests are transcluded below" section at the bottom of the introductory sections. Then and only then are "edit" buttons made available. I would suggest that the "After Receiving ..." section have added to it, to point #2, something like "Click on the date of the original request below to initiate a response." I think it could save future editors some time and/or perhaps improve response rates. Thanks. Swliv ( talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sky Jessica Powell
Sky Jessica Powell (born June 12, 1993) is an British model. Sky Jessica Powell is best known for her amazing photo's that can be found all over the web. In 2010 Sky began her Modeling career by signing a contract with the "Eden Haven's Modeling Agency" in the lovely Cayman Islands, but it wasnt working out for her at all. Sky left gladly, "This Agency wasn't, and isnt doing anything for me, i need jobs!" She twittered. Sky is now working with the Model and Talent Management of John Casablancain Miami florida. John Casablancas is the founder of Elite Model Management International, the largest and most prestigious modeling agency in the world. Sky has walked many runways, and has done a lot of promotions for popular places. This chick is definitely living the life of a celebrity; she has the best of both worlds. In 2011, Sky walked the Red Carpet in the Cayman Islands at Island Air. This young super-star has made it in music videos such as 'KMNITE - MY FAVORITE' and many more. Sky Jessica Powell Also plays the piano, writes songs and sings. She is very popular on YouTube. Before Sky was in music videos, she started to get many hits on her first single "Chase After Me" that was released on YouTube and Radio Stations. "One day i will release my first album and its going to be a BIG hit" she said LIVE. She is looking forward into doing Movies with Lionsgate, and commercials for other places.
http://www.wix.com/fashionmodelin/sky-jessica-powell
--Ebanks 17:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
If somebody is wondering why the rate of the requests were "minimalized" the last few days: I changed the {{ userspace draft}} so that the users automatically move there pages to WP:AFC. (request a review, a bot moves them) and thus we have ~50 - 100 submissions more a day. Feel free to help us. If somebody needs help/tools or whatever, ask at WT:AFC or come to the IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-afc connect. Regards, mabdul 15:21, 8 October 2011 (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 |
I was trying to find Wikipedia:Editor review but couldn't find it. I found this page and Wikipedia:Mentorship. So I'm wondering whether WP:Editor review and WP:Mentorship should be linked to in some way. I would have done this myself but I can't work out how.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, a few things:
Regards, Killiondude ( talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Article text
|
---|
"Raphael mixed easily in the highest circles throughout his life, one of the factors that tended to give a misleading impression of effortlessness to his career. He did not receive a full humanistic education however; it is unclear how easily he read Latin.[9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanzio "Bona Sforza was born in 1494 (Italian sources give the date 1493) into the princely family of Milan. The family name "Sforza" means "force" and was originally the nickname of the mercenary soldier, Jacopo Attendolo. Coming from the lesser gentry, the family gained the principality of Milan through their own efforts. Bona was the daughter of Gian Galeazzo Sforza and Isabella of Aragon. After her father's untimely death, the Milan principality was taken over by her paternal uncle, Ludovico Moro. Isabella took Bona to the principality of Ban [Bari], which had been given to her the year before, and gave her daughter a good education. The curriculum included the study of Vergil, Cicero, Petrarca, history, music, dance, horseback riding and hunting. More importantly, Isabella, mindful of her daughter's future prospects, taught her the art of ruling. Bona immediately put the lessons into practice, for she had her own court at Bari." http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/Bona/Bona.html
Bona Sforza is Raphael Santi Sanzio da Urbino Sforza - Romano's sister. Left to right: Gian Galeazzo Sforza, Isabella di Aragon, Francesco I, Raphael and Bona Sforza. http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/SDRs/SDRs_04_02_029.html http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/came/ho_17.190.869.htm http://www.wga.hu/html/f/foppa/y_cicero.html She could have read the very first Latin edition of Aesop's fables. You say, "It is unclear how easily he [sic] read Latin." She paints a Greek Canon Table X in the lower left hand corner of "The School of Athens" and a sermon. (Those who have eyes to see.) Do u want to talk to me? Is a WGA forum the right place for this? Do u want to know? I promise I won't get into the politics, religion and philosophy. She does. I won't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant I am just the man looking under the tale. printcollector2@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Printcollector2 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
Not sure what you're saying here, so I just collapsed it. Killiondude ( talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Good article
Mddwilliams ( talk) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC) September 18, 2009
{{
New unreviewed article}}
was just put into the
Article wizard 2.0 this weekend, and so we're getting tons of requests. Please see
WT:WIZ2#New template and
User talk:Rd232#Template:New unreviewed article if you're a "regular" reviewer or if you care about this template being added to hundreds of new pages. I might also start a village pump thread about this. The template is also putting the articles that it is on, into
Category:Unreviewed new articles.
Killiondude (
talk)
04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Article Incubator might be a destination for some of those promising articles that aren't quite ready for the prime time. Articles are moved there to be worked on outside articlespace, as an alternative to deletion or userification. Fences& Windows 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed today that Google is indexing this page. I don't think it should, so I have added the __NOINDEX__ magic word. – ukexpat ( talk) 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have just done a manual archive of WP:RFF, moving October entries to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 16. As Werdnabot seems to be no longer active, does anyone know how the archiving process can be automated again ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 12:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to work on getting this page together and functioning. It provides a service that is useful and hard to find anywhere else; the main problem seems to be that there are few people responding, and that the page itself has fallen into a state of disrepair.
Right now, I think we need to address a few main concerns.
Thanks, and hopefully this will start some discussion. Annalise ( talk) 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
done}}
threads, I found one (maybe mizsa's?) but it said it archived would archive the thread the next time the bot did its rounds. It would be nice to have an option where we could archive a thread only once it is marked as done and after a certain amount of time (to give them time come back to this page to view the response).
Killiondude (
talk)
00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please figure out how to collapse the archive list at the top of the page? I tried the usual tricks, but none seem to work. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
done}}
on them. :-(
Killiondude (
talk)
19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Some new users does not see the feedback for various reasons. It would be helpful if we could tag drafts in the user-spaces with templates to indicate issues with the drafts. I propose that we create special templates customized for the user-space drafts with the most common issues, like notability and sources issues (and may be with a link to the talk page of the draft for additional comments), it will only be used if the user requested feedback. Sole Soul ( talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that in addition to the three points listed in the first paragraph on the main page, the following also be added: "If you are requesting outside input or dispute resolution with respect to article's contents, user conduct, or Wikipedia policy and guidelines, please see Requests for comment "
You might also want to mention the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard.
Maybe also a similar type of box to this should be put at the top of the Requests for comment page ? The Yeti ( talk) 07:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Back in 2008 there was a discussion which seemed to result in consensus that Wikipedia:Requests for feedback and Wikipedia:Drawing board should be merged. (There were various suggestions for the name of the new combined page.) I still think this would be a good idea, so if there is still support for this, I suggest we do it. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Any progress on archiving the mainpage? It's incredibly long, as you already know. We could archive entries after a fixed time period of last updating--even a full year span would help reduce the list. I agree its not ideal to abandon "un-done" threads, per WP:Paper and all that, but it's pretty hard to navigate right now. We could even separate "done threads" from "backlogged ones" which could wait for someone to come along... 71.224.206.164 ( talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | New Article Creation: |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Distributed operating system talk page redirects to User_talk:JLSjr/Distributed operating system |
![]() | There are several improvements in process (daily)
|
Folks, I have been thinking about this for a while. Often new editors make their request, we answer it (sooner or later) and we never hear from them again. I suspect that some, maybe most, requesters don't know how to get back to WP:FEED, so I usually leave a {{ Talkback}} template on their talk page - at least then they will see the "new message" indicator next time they log in. I recently came across the little used {{ Helpdeskreply}} which looks pretty neat, so I have "borrowed" the code and drafted a Feedbackreply template in my user space at User:Ukexpat/Feedbackreply. It is coded with two optional parameters, the first for the section title and the second for the signature of the templater, so the syntax (when it is moved to template space) would be, e.g. {{Subst:Feedbackreply|draft article on dibubblypeptide| – ~~~~}} . A shortcut could also be created at {{ FBR}}/{{ fbr}} to reduce typing, and perhaps we could ask the owner of Friendly to add it to the selection of talkback options available in Friendly. Thoughts, suggestions please.
P.S., also in the works is a template similar to {{ Ear}} to simplify and speed up responses. More details to follow. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to the above, the template is now in templatespace at {{ Feedbackreply}} with shortcuts at {{ FBR}} and {{ fbr}}. Please go ahead and give it a try. I have also quickly cobbled together a documentation sub page. Obviously no pride of authorship for either code or doc - I just borrowed them from elsewhere, so please make suggestions on the template talk page. – ukexpat ( talk) 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Folks, somehow the page has a lot of repeated entries - looks like someone did a bad copy and paste (hope it wasn't me in a drunken stupor!). Anyway, I have removed a number of them, but there are still quite a few left. I don't have time to finish the job at the moment. The dupes start, I think, at the second "Anna Margaret from Starstruck" entry, but not sure how many more there are. Anyone want to volunter to finish the job? I think this should shorten the page a little. Thanks in advance. – ukexpat ( talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that the settings for archiving the page should be changed. At the moment there are 200+ threads and it is becoming difficult to manage. I would like to propose a change to the archiving settings for this page be shortened. I think there should be a minimum of 30 threads on the page at any one time, and reduce the amount of time that threads get archived from 1000 hours to about a week, leaving around 50 threads that are less than a week old. Thanks to Chzz for the suggestions but I think that the page's archiving settings need to be looked at. What are everyone's thoughts on this and what should be do? Chevymontecarlo. 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
How about something a bit smarter? How about if it;
Obviously, this'd need a bit of bot work, but I'm sure it could be done. Thoughts? Chzz ► 20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(in response to Chzz) I think that sounds good - or maybe we could make it so that unreviewed ones never leave the page, but reviewed ones move into a similiar week saving system after a certain amount of time after being reviewed on the main page. The current thing is very unefficent - and too long! Until something can be set up, I've set it to keep only 25 on the page (archive rest) ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Talk_· _Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Following the above discussions, I've made a start on trying to clear things down a bit.
I have manually moved some stuff that I'm pretty sure is 'done' as far as feedback goes, putting it into Arch 26; see this edit.
I also notified each person that their feedback was now in the archive - e.g. here.
In notifying them, I asked if they might provide feedback to other users - dunno if that'll work, but...that's the idea. Which makes me think...
-After users get feedback, we could notify them on their talk page. And in doing so, we could ask 'em to provide feedback for the next lot of users, and so on.
That's how I think things should work.
From the above discussion and this one...I think we really need a bot - so we could deliver notifications to users, and archive done stuff more professionally - probably similar to the way AFC works.
For now though....I think we can continue trying to clear this down. I will try and do more myself...I suggest that we only archive things that are pretty much done, and we let users know.
There are some pretty old threads on the page that haven't received feedback yet...so we could get on to that too.
Cheers, Chzz ► 05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a couple of points from me about the archiving:
Regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello All! There are two templates that one can use to inform users that they have a message on request for feedback (due to me creating a second before realising the first existed...)
{{ Feedbackreply-sm}} and {{ Feedbackreply}}
Examples | |||
---|---|---|---|
{{
Feedbackreply-sm}} ({{WP:FEED/reply}} also redirects here)
Your message at Requests for feedbackYou can find live help on Wikipedia's help chat ![]() Best regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC). and {{ Feedbackreply}}==Your message at Requests for feedback==
|
Feel free to use either or provide feedback. Captain n00dle \ Talk 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, given that a lot of users are posting their Userspace drafts here, I thought that this template might be a good idea: {{ MovedtoMainspace}} there are a few parameters but it looks like this without any: {{MovedtoMainspace}} Please feel free to contribute and give feedback. Captain n00dle \ Talk 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe entries should be archived more quickly - the top third are always untouched - just a suggestion. ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Talk_· _Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we eliminate this difficulty by rearranging this page into separate pages for submissions on each day, with the most recent week (or something) transcluded onto one page.
The addition of a bot to check for the oldest threads that had no response would be a nice add-on, but not essential; things have disappeared into the archives before now without being seen - could also be done manually (and maybe that's best, for now) - see how they do it for GA Reviews, where they transclude Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog.
Main advantage over other forms of archiving - no need to ever archive, avoiding the additional complexity explaining this to new users; the links given to them (saying "your feedback is HERE") would never change.
In discussion, I'd though a week might be appropriate - around 50 or so. However, having reviewed the data a little, I see two things; 1, there are peaks and troughs - so 200/month could easily result in 80 in a week on occasion, and we'd be back to a very long page. 2, if we go for daily, we're reasonably 'future-proof' - because if for e.g. we transclude 7 days' worth onto the main page initially, then it becomes too much, just change it to transclude the past 3 days, or vice-versa.
So, that is what I think needs to be done, and I welcome any and all comments.
As to how we do it, well, that is another question. A combination of some template code and possibly bots, whatever; I think the most contstructive next-step is to make a mock-up of the proposed transcluded/daily structure, using some past data. Whatever happens, I hope some people will help address this, before it becomes backlogged again. Chzz ► 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
My reading of the instructions for WP:feedback is that the subject should be only the article name and that the first text in the body should be a wikilink. I've noticed that quite a few requests don't adhere to that, which raises the question of whether I've misunderstood the format that I'm supposed to follow. So I'd appreciate answers to these questions:
Is it proper to include additional text in the subject, e.g., Request for feedback on?
When the article is in user space, should the subject include the User:foo/ portion of the article name?
Is it proper to have any text in the body prior to the wikilink to the article?
Is it proper to have any text on the same line as the wikilink to the article? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
== William Windsor (goat) ==
. Having links within section headings creates difficulties with linking to them, etc.[[User:Chzz/Cuthbert Cholmondeley-Goosecreature temp]]
, which would appear as:
User:Chzz/Cuthbert Cholmondeley-Goosecreature temp. It is clearest if this is on a line on its own at the top of the section.
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
- the above template message (( {{Sofixit}}) applies just as well to wikipedia internal pages, Chatul (=Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz). If you need help with the coding, ask - put a {{helpme}} on your own user talk page, or ask me on mine. Chzz ► 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Following all of the above, I am working on a proof-of-concept new structure - having each days requests on a separate subpage, automatically transcluding the previous 5 days on the main page, and providing navigation and clearer instructions.
Several people are working on it right now, and it is not yet ready to go live - but in anticipation, I would very much welcome comments, suggestions, etc.
So please see the mock-up, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Note that it auto-transcludes the days, and please see User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation.
I hope to get this 'demo' into shape over the next few days, and then if nobody objects strongly, I will boldly introduce it to the live area. Chzz ► 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've archived some older discussions from this page, which I am confident were no longer useful here; I've set up the page for auto-archiving, with pretty conservative settings - 90 days, leaving at least 10 threads. From the previous comments on the subject, I believed this would not be controversial; change things if you disagree. Chzz ► 06:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to suggest an edit to editnotice. I don't think most people really read through everything that's there so I might recommend adding an example beneath what is already there. Something like...
Suggested Addition
|
---|
Link To Your Article
A short summary describing the article or what parts you have been having trouble with. ~~~~
Make sure to include...
|}
..., but if you like it, I can make a better version - it might be good because this kind of quick visual might help some people understand what is the correct format. Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Contact Me_· _Talkback_· 03:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, sincere thanks to everyone who helped clear the backlog. A few days ago, we had over 200 outstanding feedback requests, and most were unanswered. Now, there are only a handful left which await feedback; many have been archived, and the users informed.
Of course, that isn't the end though; we have spoken about ways of keeping the page size more reasonable, and archival, etc.
After working through things, I now believe that the best approach would be a separate page for every (sometimeframe) e.g. 1 page per week, some clever work to transclude the current week to the main page, and possibly a bot to show the 'oldest unanswered requests' at the top, a bit like over on WP:GAN.
If we did structure it like that, we would eliminate the problems of archival. Yes, things could still go unanswered, but the only solution to that is, people working on them.
It would save us having to tell users that their feedback had been archived, and would cause these new users less confusion.
It may also be worth considering that the bot could auto inform users when feedback has been received.
These ideas are a little embryonic, and also quite hard to visualise, so I propose we;
a) get some data about how many requests we get, to choose an appropriate value for the 'timeframe' b) make a 'mock-up' of the proposal, using data from any old feed page - from a few weeks ago or something.
I intend to try and progress this, as soon as possible. Do let me know your thoughts on it.
Phil, I did note your concerns over whether new users should provide feedback to others. I think it could work perhaps, if at the top of the page, it said something along the lines of, After leaving your request, please provide feedback to other users; just edit the section, and post your own thoughts on the article below, indented with a colon (:) - remember to sign your name with ~~~~. see the detailed guide on giving feedback - the latter explaining in as much details as we like about the type of feedback that helps. This is only a very vague idea, and may not work -perhaps something we can fiddle in mockup, and possibly try for a bit.
I'm also thinking in terms of better integration of help systems, to get more involvement. For example, we already have a bot which reports when users place a {{helpme}}, in the IRC help channel; it would be possible to alert on feedback requests too - perhaps not often, to avoid 'spam' in the channel, perhaps batched up and no more than e.g. once per hour;
<Helpmebot> 1 user is requesting help: [[User:ExampleUser]] . <Helpmebot> 4 new feedback requests: "Beijing Capital Airlines" (User:129.78.64.101), "Sausages" (User:Chzz), "Rescue Chocolate" (User:Bookisha), "Josh Smith (Musician)" (User:RikaJakobs) http://enwp.org/feed/currentweek
...or something.
A quick note here about the bigger picture: I got involved in trying to help with this after reading User:Sphilbrick/Feedback Patrol - and as a result of that I am also considering this in context; I intend to write my own ideas, both there, and perhaps on strategy.wikimedia.org or elsewhere.
Again, thanks to everyone for the outstanding work clearing things. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Chzz ► 03:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This table shows, approximately, the number of feedback requests per month, since 2009. It is calculated based on edits to the page where the edit summary contains 'new section'. It may not be completely accurate, but I believe it will be accurate enough to serve the purposes of discussion, re. the idea of splitting up requests by a timeframe e.g. week, whatever.
Month | Count |
---|---|
200901 | 30 |
200902 | 16 |
200903 | 26 |
200904 | 23 |
200905 | 25 |
200906 | 32 |
200907 | 50 |
200908 | 49 |
200909 | 101 |
200910 | 126 |
200911 | 202 |
200912 | 237 |
201001 | 235 |
201002 | 240 |
201003 | 255 |
201004 | 191 |
201005 | 204 |
Source:
select left(rev_timestamp,6) as date, count(*) from revision join page on rev_page = page_id where page_title = 'Requests_for_feedback' and page_namespace = 4 and rev_comment like '%new section%' and rev_timestamp > 20090000000000 group by left(rev_timestamp,6) ;
Chzz ► 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought this would maybe help out the reviewers, but I figured that it might mess up the organisation of the page. Chevy monte carlo - alt 12:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, just wanted to let everyone know that I plan to tag entries without feedback in a while with this.
{{
Nofeed}}
({{
Nofeed}}) it has two attributes - Art=EXACTARTICLENAME Sct=EXACTSECTIONNAME
I plan to soon add conditional formatting that will cause it to disappear when feedback is given automatically. It also lists this page for wikibacklog when there are a certain number of old unreviewed ones. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Contact Me_· Get Adopted! 04:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I thing it's a great idea but would be against having it removed automatically. It is simple enough for the person giving the feedback to remove it (or not). I recently felt unable to give someone feedback on an article but left him a suggestion as to where he might be able to get it. In this situation I thought it appropriate to leave the tag in situ.-- Ykraps ( talk) 17:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a note on some improvements which I believe would be good here;
1. creating new days - links to prev/next can be done in template, perhaps - if not, bot can do it
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navday|prev=2010 June 20|next=2010 June 22}}</noinclude>
2. seeking 'oldest with no feedback'
3. updating links to last and current month on FEED page, and preferably using parser funcs to only show days for current month UP TO AND INC today
Note I believe The Earwig ( talk · contribs) is going to look into this. It's non-urgent. Chzz ► 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
So, to clarify the current status;
1. Is in testing 2. Is being thought about by me 3. Is done, via some smart templatey code stuff.
Chzz ► 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I am new to this page and was wondering if many of the articles listed here get nominated for deletion and whether people come here specifically to look for articles to delete? For example, is it discouraged for editors to nominate articles found here for deletion? Christopher Connor ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
What do people think of the idea of linking to feedback given here from an article talk page? It is a bit odd to have comments about an article that are not on that articles talk page. I have noticed that this has caused some problems, for example an article might get deleted even though the editor has just been told how to improve it.
I have posted something at User talk:Morgankevinj/Blood Money (documentary). What do people think of that? Is it worth making into a proper template?
Yaris678 ( talk) 13:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | The creator has requested feedback from other editors to help improve this article. You are welcome to contribute to this article's feedback discussion. If you add any tags to the article while this notice is displayed, please consider noting the fact at the feedback discussion. This notice will be removed when the feedback request is archived. |
May not be entirely accurate; old figures as previous chart; new figures by counting for "/n==" in each daily page, as of today.
Massive increase, since the new system of keeping feedback on daily pages; I suspect because, now, people have seen results here, so more people have posted their requests. We seem to be a bit snowed-under though; lots of requests are going unanswered. As the main page only shows the past few days, these potential opportunities get missed - but I guess we can only do so much.
If 20 people did one per day, we'd never have a backlog. I don't know if that could happen, but that would be a nice solution. Chzz ► 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Would it help if we tried to channel more editors to Wikipedia:Drawing board before they even create their first article? It would probably be easier to provide feedback on a couple of paragraphs, rather than a whole article. On the minus side it is even less effort for someone to submit something there so even more work could be generated. I think it would be positive over all because it would catch the non-notable and COI cases early. Yaris678 ( talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There could be a number of reasons why so few editors get involved with giving feedback. One reason might simply be a lack of awareness. Could it be that Wikipedia has a large amount of casual editors who just add small amounts of information to existing articles? If this was the case, these editors would never come into contact with review process. Even those who post articles might not fully understand how it works. When I first requested feedback on an article, I thought those giving feedback were 'uber' editors with some sort of special authority. It wasn't until I saw someone giving feedback while they still had a request posted that I understood. Even after that I was reluctant to give feedback because I felt I was too new, too inexperienced and that my comments were worthless. Truth be told, I still feel like that now and tend to pick and choose which articles I feedback on. These issues can all be solved through improved communication. For example, at 'peer review' it is made quite clear that you're expected to provide feedback on another article. Another idea might be to send out a plea to all editors when there is a backlog to clear.-- Ykraps ( talk) 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. It was nice to get an invite to this discussion, I hope my comments are worth something.
Before you request feedback |
There are certain things which come up again and again so it may help if you deal with them before requesting feedback:
If you would like a beginner's guide to these sorts of issues, take a look at the article wizard. If you are unsure about how to edit Wikipedia articles, take a look at this tutorial. For a more general discussion of writing your first article, see "Your first article". |
I have added the "Before you request feedback" section to the header. Do people think anything else should go in there? Something on WP:Puffery? WP:Puffery is actually an essay, but it WP:Words to watch does have a section on puffery... Yaris678 ( talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Requirements for feedback |
1. Notability. The subject of your article must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. 2. Verifiability. All content in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source to show that it is not original research. Please make sure that questionable information and quotations in your article are supported by reliable sources in the form of an inline citation. 3. Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia articles must be written fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Please review our Conflict of Interest policy before requesting feedback to ensure that your article is written from a neutral point of view. |
@Cindamuse, your suggested text starts each line with a piece of Wikipedia jargon. I think it is important that we don't do that. We should start with what we want from the author of the article. I know that reliable sources are not a sufficient condition for notability, but they are a necesary condition and an easier one to explain (
Wikipedia:Independent sources is just an essay, whereas
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a well established guideline)
@Karenjc, I would just start editing Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines if I were you. Use a hat note to explain it is just a draft. Better still, use {{ Proposed}}.
Yaris678 ( talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading over some of the suggestions here and in the spirit of working with other editors and trying to tie something together rather than working with cross purposes, I'd like to suggest that at least a few people take a look at this suggestion I made on the policy section of the Village Pump:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Page Patroller Academy
What I'm trying to do is to set up a training group that would help to come up with "best practices" that reviewers and other folks who are involved with monitoring new content coming into Wikipedia could share with potentially new contributors to Wikipedia and to help grow new reviewers to help out with the crushing load of content that comes into the project on a daily basis. So far the support for the idea is lukewarm, but perhaps some of the regulars who are interested in giving feedback to new users might be interested in at least looking over the debate that has been happening over the past week or so regarding new user contributions on this Village Pump section.
My objective here is to increase the number of people who are monitoring the new content coming in, and to not simply "throw them to the wolves" with no experience whey they have to make judgement calls on content. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to say that I have created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines and made a hurried and sketchy start. Assistance welcomed. Ka renjc 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear friends, There was copyright violation suspects for two of there article and i re wrote few times and avoid all of Copyrights on This is a temporary pages Talk:Lionel Wendt/Temp, Talk:Dayananda Gunawardena/Temp. I believe these Articles should be publish . could you please assist me to solve this problem and Fix these articles. In addition to ,if there is Copyrights problems any body can assist me to re write . Thanks-- Wipeouting ( talk) 10:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors involved here might be interested in the redesign I've just implemented at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Questions are relegated to a separate subpage, which makes it easier to separate out "should you be asking here" from "OK, you should be here, and this is how you should ask (oh, and do this first...)". So a similar approach might be helpful here. Rd232 talk 12:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've moved {{ RFF}} (while keeping the shortcut redirect) to {{ Requests for feedback}} after it was mistagged as a CSD G2. I've reworked it significantly from User:QwerpQwertus' initial version and there is also now a {{ Requests for feedback/testcases}} subpage. It still needs documentation though. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Regular reviewers might like to bookmark http://toolserver.org/~earwig/cgi-bin/copyvio.py
It's a tool that takes the page name and gives you a fairly quick reply about whether the page needs a closer look for copyright issues. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Everyone!
I wanted to let you know about a study that we are getting together to start next month. As I’m sure many of you are aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years.
As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.
We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.
The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally! Jalexander--WMF 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I had write a article on PERSAURA. This is a village inside Bhinga city, distict Shrawasti, U.P. I have provided brief details about it but in future I will continue to edit and provide more information about article.
Please review the article named "Persaura", and let me know your valuable feedback.
Regards,
Sageer Ahmed 09:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Please find link for the article Persaura. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persaura
Thanks, Sageer Ahmed 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageerahmed1983 ( talk • contribs)
I've "learned" that user talk comments are close to sacrosanct. While article prose is subject to merciless editing, we don't edit the talk page comments of others, with rare exceptions.
I've tried to follow that rule; the very few times I've found a desire to edit a users comments, I've left a note at the users talk page informing them. I think the broad rule makes sense, but I've noticed that new editors have a devil of a time getting the article name in the section heading when they ask for feedback.
I'm making the decision now that no new editor really wants a mess that doesn't even properly link as a section heading. In short, I'm going to grant an exception that when an editor posts a request at this forum, and fails to properly link the article, they will not be offended but grateful that someone fixed it for them. If anyone disagrees, let me know.-- SPhilbrick T 02:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
We should consider modifying the opening sentence: This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed., in particular the "substantially changed" phrase.
As I said in Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_July_18#Steffen_Thomas_Request_clean_up
the facts are that this forum is woefully understaffed, and those that do drop in are usually in a mindset to review very new or draft articles. If you glance at other entries on this page, you'll see that 98% or so are brand-new. My usual advice is to say that improvements such as the ones you requests are better handled by the relevant project. ... I'll leave the request here; if someone wants to respond, that would be great, but as you can see, responses are lagging, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I'll separately look into modifying the advice on the Requests for feedback page, in case others agree that this is not the right forum for a request such as yours.
We should simply drop the last phrase, or possibly expand the point and urge editors with substantial rewrite to go to the relevant project. What do others think?-- SPhilbrick T 16:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about Peer review
My proposal:
Existing wording:
- This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed.
- This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions.
- If you are requesting feedback on yourself and your editing in general, see Wikipedia:Editor review.
- If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
- Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.
Proposed wording (the new wording will all be in bold; the bold here is merely to identify changed wording:
- This page provides comments and constructive criticism about relatively new articles that you have drafted or created.
- This page is not suitable for feedback requests if you have substantially rewritten an existing article. To seek such assistance, go to Peer review or a relevant WikiProject
- This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions.
- If you are requesting feedback on yourself and your editing in general, see Wikipedia:Editor review.
- If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
- Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.
-- SPhilbrick T 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Phil, do what you think best. WP:BRD. You know *I* get it...but, I suspect not many people bother. To be honest w. you, you may as well do what you feel best for FEED 'coz no other bugger will. *I* do care tho, so keep me informed. Stay bold. I think the instructions are getting too long, so I encourage KISS but... yeah. Go for it. Chzz ► 03:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been wondering about this for a while. Why isn't the RFF page structured like the Help Desk? i.e. We don't get alerted when a new request has been made even if the page is in our watchlists? I get notifications but only for the specific subpage I posted a reply to, any new pages for new dates are ignored.
That probably explains why this page has little traffic when it comes to helpers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
While trying out the RFF page for the first time, I came on one element of the page I think could be improved. The editor who provided feedback to my original request clarified for me how to meet the request for response in the "After Receiving Feedback" introductory section of the main RFF page. In order to respond, one has to click on the date of the original posting, in "The previous few days of requests are transcluded below" section at the bottom of the introductory sections. Then and only then are "edit" buttons made available. I would suggest that the "After Receiving ..." section have added to it, to point #2, something like "Click on the date of the original request below to initiate a response." I think it could save future editors some time and/or perhaps improve response rates. Thanks. Swliv ( talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sky Jessica Powell
Sky Jessica Powell (born June 12, 1993) is an British model. Sky Jessica Powell is best known for her amazing photo's that can be found all over the web. In 2010 Sky began her Modeling career by signing a contract with the "Eden Haven's Modeling Agency" in the lovely Cayman Islands, but it wasnt working out for her at all. Sky left gladly, "This Agency wasn't, and isnt doing anything for me, i need jobs!" She twittered. Sky is now working with the Model and Talent Management of John Casablancain Miami florida. John Casablancas is the founder of Elite Model Management International, the largest and most prestigious modeling agency in the world. Sky has walked many runways, and has done a lot of promotions for popular places. This chick is definitely living the life of a celebrity; she has the best of both worlds. In 2011, Sky walked the Red Carpet in the Cayman Islands at Island Air. This young super-star has made it in music videos such as 'KMNITE - MY FAVORITE' and many more. Sky Jessica Powell Also plays the piano, writes songs and sings. She is very popular on YouTube. Before Sky was in music videos, she started to get many hits on her first single "Chase After Me" that was released on YouTube and Radio Stations. "One day i will release my first album and its going to be a BIG hit" she said LIVE. She is looking forward into doing Movies with Lionsgate, and commercials for other places.
http://www.wix.com/fashionmodelin/sky-jessica-powell
--Ebanks 17:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
If somebody is wondering why the rate of the requests were "minimalized" the last few days: I changed the {{ userspace draft}} so that the users automatically move there pages to WP:AFC. (request a review, a bot moves them) and thus we have ~50 - 100 submissions more a day. Feel free to help us. If somebody needs help/tools or whatever, ask at WT:AFC or come to the IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-afc connect. Regards, mabdul 15:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)