Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Edit notice

I have reverted people adding peer reviewes to the WP:PR page twice in the past 10 days or so (and it happens several times a year, on average). In an effort to avoid this, I made Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Peer review - any tweaks or feedback is welcome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

Noticing the whole backlog issue above, i'm dropping my question on the 14 day rule, because it's clear you guys need less peer review nominations, not more. Instead, would it be better for me to personally contact reviewers from the list (excluding the top peer reviewers noted just above, they can use some rest, i'm sure) and have them raise things on the talk page of an article, as an alternative to a peer review? I just need some comments on how to make sure the recently Good Article approved article meets the FA criteria, before nominating it for FA. Silverseren^C 18:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry not to have replied sooner. A talk page review would be fine, but I would just go ahead and nominate for a PR - it is easier for people to find it that way (talk page comments often get lost in archives. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I will have to bring up the 14 day rule issue. The PR review was closed just a few days ago and then I nominated it for GA. Luckily, it was picked up almost immediately and passed within a day. So the issue is that it has not been even close to 14 days since the peer review was closed, so opening a new one would violate the 14 day rule. However, I guess I should note that the new one would be focusing on specific things, namely the FA criteria, which were not a focus in the prior PR, because that was aimed at getting the article to GA status. Silverseren^C 17:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the article in question? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. There's currently a heated discussion going on on the talk page about one of the subsections, but that should hopefully be cleared up soon. Silverseren^C 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WIth the backlog it will likely be 14 days before it is reviewed anyway, so I would say go ahead and open a PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An "oops" moment...

I accidentally nominated two articles for peer review within the 14-day period, after the new rule was in place. The second has received no feedback, and I'm wondering if it could be withdrawn. dci | TALK 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure - do you want me to delete it (please say which one you want withdrawn). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Invasions of the British Isles. dci | TALK 07:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - the alternative would be to archive the PR for Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor as I see it has received quite a few comments. The 14 day wait is for re-lisiting the same article at PR (so Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor would have to wait 2 weeks after closing to be listed here again, but any other article you want could be listed here once the PR for Francis closed). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't deleted the Invasions of the British Isles one, you could go ahead and archive the Francis II PR. Thanks!dci | TALK 18:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Francis II is archived and I never deleted the British Invasion (wasn't that the Beatles?) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Malmö FF seasons

The review of this has messed up the remainder of the PR page. I don't know why, nor can I fix it, but perhaps someone can. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that Cliftonian fixed the problem with this edit diff adding nowiki codes to some sample table entries. In any case, I do not see any problems with the display of the overall PR page now, and the Malmo FF PR does not have any of the common errors that mess up translcusion. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a pr with no comments

I would like to know if it's ok or possible if I choose not to want a PR (since I feel I don't want to work on that article at this time) and have someone delete its PR page? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, which PR is it? I can delete it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Help required @ WP:India

An assessment drive has been suggested to clear a backlog of more than 18,000 unassessed articles on WP:India. Reviewers can volunteer here. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A Free Ride

Please have a look at it, I filed a peer review after suggestion from a withdrawn FA. Here is the peer review page Wikipedia:Peer review/A Free Ride/archive1. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There are currently over 60 peer reviews in the queue, a few of which have been waiting nearly 3 weeks for comments - see Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Someone will review it, but no guarantees as to how quickly it will be reviewed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, note taken --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I might add that editors seeking peer reviews can bring their own articles closer to review by themselves reviewing one or more article in the backlog. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ball State University Psychology project

Seven project articles have landed at peer review, with maybe more to come. With the PR backlog approaching 30 again and reviewers an increasingly endangered species, there is little chance that these articles will get early attention, unless one or more editors with an interest in this area is willing to tackle them. It might be worth notifying the students concerned, who presumably don't know that PR is not an infinite resource. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented on the project's talk page - see Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors/Courses/Industrial Psychology37APSWI963 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Over-eager bot

The bot closed the Sri Lanka review after only four days - it hadn't even reached the backlog! It needs to be reopened, and the bot should be disciplined. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I checked and the bot closed it because the article is at FAC now, so it was a jutified archive of the PR. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sri Lanka/archive3 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies to the bot. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Russian inventions

I believe that this page should be deleted as…

This list is filled with Soviet era Communist propaganda claiming that the Russians invented everything. It brings to mind the “Star Trek” episodes where Chekov said “Scotch? It was invented by a little old lady from Leningrad”

Also, the much better Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records page already exist and appears to be far more accurate and Comprehensive as it contains supporting information. Therefore, I see no need to maintain both pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• The article to which you object is not listed for peer review. I suggest you open a discussion on the article's talkpage. Check out WP:DEL-REASON for deletion policy details, and WP:PROD for deletion procedures. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I posted your comment (which removed from the Peer review page itself) at Talk:List of Russian inventions already. Please comment there as this page has nothing to do with your concerns. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Triple listing

Louis Riel (comics) is listed three times under different categories. Once is enough. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this - I removed the last two cats and left a note at the nominator's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Question on 14 day rule

I want to make sure I'm complying with the 14-day rule ("Nominations are limited to one open request per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since any previous peer review"). I opened a PR for article A which was completed and archived on March 29. I then opened a PR on a different article B, and that was completed yesterday and archived today. Today I opened second PR on article A, based on my interpretation that 14 days must elapse since A's first PR. But, I just realized that the rule could also be interpreted that I must wait 14 days after the close of B's PR. I'm happy to conform to the rules, I just need a bit more clarity. (By the way, this is a rare situation for me: normally I work on one article at a time, but article A fell behind schedule, and article B went pretty fast). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The rule is, I am sure, intended to mean that 14 days must have passed since any previous peer review of the article in question. So as far as you are concerned, all is well (unless Ruhrfisch has a different interpretation). Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the reply. BTW, if you want to review the article, it is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/archive3 ... the topic is a very exciting event that seems to elicit strong political responses. --Noleander (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Brian's interpretation is the one that has always been followed. Until earlier this year an editor could have up to 4 simultaneous peer reviews nominated. I will try to clarify the rules, and thanks for pointing that out. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

PS I tweaked the directions at the top of the PR page very slightly. I thought that Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy was already pretty clear, so I did not change it. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I find it oddly recursive to be suggesting prose improvements for the text of a Project page that is dedicated to prose improvements :-) --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It used to be that an article had to wait 14 days after a PR or after an unsuccessful FAC (the assumption being there would be sufficient comments in either that it would take up to 2 weeks to go through and address them all). Lately more articles have been coming to FAC without a previous PR and are closed fairly quickly with a reccomendation to go to PR first, so the 14 days rule was relaxed to "Please address issues raised in an unsuccessful FAC before opening a PR." but I think the wording for PRs was not as clear as a result, so thanks again for pointing this out. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much crud at the top

I think there is way too much low priority crud at the top of the page. The reader has to drop half way down the page before they get to the meat of the introduction. All that distracting fluff should really be moved out of the way (off to the side?) per the Clarity principle of user interface design. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to specify what is the excessive crud and distracting fluff that you wish to see repositioned or removed. The page design is to some extent governed by WP page layout conventions; although it could no doubt be improved, your inspecfic condemnations are not a great deal of use. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Would making a sandbox mockup of the suggested changes help? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

PR archived with no activity — what to do next?

I attempted to get a peer review of Afroyim v. Rusk, but no one offered any comments at all, and the PR was closed and archived after two weeks. I still want feedback on this article. What should I do? Can the empty PR be unarchived and reopened? If not, then is it possible to completely expunge the existing archived PR (since it does not in fact contain any feedback whatsoever, and it seems misleading for the article's talk page to contain a note saying the article received a peer review when in fact it did not)? And do I need to wait two weeks before asking again for a review of this article? — Richwales 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The bot archived it as it went 2 weeks without any edits, but I just undid those edits (I usually check each morning, but missed it this morning). It is on the backlog list, so someone will get to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

I often contribute to Wikipedia with a COI, using Talk pages, request edits, AfCs, etc.

In order to improve my contributions, I'm interested in getting detailed feedback on areas where I have made substantial contributions.[1][2][3][4]

My question is if there is a more basic way to get feedback, without necessarily preparing an article for FA status, but merely to get feedback to improve my writing in general. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what you want is Wikipedia:Editor review Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversing archival?

Would it be acceptable for my peer review request for Istanbul to be unarchived? It received very little attention -- only one person responded, and it wasn't really in response to what I requested a review on. If desired, I can try contacting some of the people on the volunteers list to get more substantive feedback. -- tariqabjotu 04:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be simpler to open a new peer review page, then seek more substantial and specific feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

But then I'd have to wait fourteen days. -- tariqabjotu 08:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

All archiving a PR does is remove it from transclusion on WP:PR - anyone can still edit it. It was archived by the bot as it had not been edited in 14 days (so no one commented on it in the past two weeks). I just looked at the article and made some comments on the PR (needs more refs, no sandwiching of text between images, prose needs to be tightened). That should give you some things to work on for a few days at least. If you want to ask someone else to comment on it, they can also comment on the current PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also be OK with reversing the archiving, though there has been no reply here OR on the PR page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, am I expected to continuously reply to comments on the peer review? I saw your comment when you originally posted. Now that you've commented, though, I'm not so concerned with unarchiving the page. I just wanted a few tips that I can work on; I'm not expecting substantially more. As I said in the opening statement for the review, I was planning to slowly address issues, and that is even now more pertinent, as I need to focus on finishing my studies for the year over the next week and a half or so. If, after doing the aforementioned tightening, and other cleanup, I have a desire for another review before FAC, I'll just create a new peer review page. -- tariqabjotu 15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

it is not a big deal. That said, for whatever reason many PRs are archived with no replies to the reviewer's comments. Replies are not required, but a simple acknowledgment that the comments were seen and are (hopefully) helpful is appreciated. When someone raises an issue here, I usually expect that they will acknowledge replies in some way - does not have to be a novel, but letting people who comment and review know that you have seen their feedback is always appreciated. Good luck improving the article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Formula One season

Hi,

I was hoping someone might be able to take a look at the 2012 Formula One season page. I'd like to one day nominate it for featured article status, but the article is already fairly sizeable. Now that there is a fair bit of content in there, I think it is fairly representative of where the article will be going over the next few months. However, if there are any major issues - particularly in the prose of it - I'd rather know about them now so that I can get on top of them and incorporate a fix into the process of writing it and save a lot of work come December. Most of the other editors are fairly happy with the page as it is, but I was hoping someone a little more removed from the sport could take a look at it.

Right now, there are perhaps two things missing from the article: firstly, a quote to go in a certain part of the report section (I know what I'm looking for and I'm endeavouring to find it); and secondly, I'm toying with the idea of a table in the report section (if I can convince other regular editors of it) showing the championship leader after every race, but that's for the future.

If you do get around to taking a look at the page and have some feedback to provide, could you please post it on my talk page? I'm unlikely to check this page too often, particularly as more time passes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

PM: If you want another editor to give you input, the best process is to post a "nomination" on the Wikipedia:Peer_review page. This Talk page here is for discussing the peer review process in general. At the top of the Wikipedia:Peer_review page is a section titled "Nomination procedure" - just follow the instructions there and someone will be along shortly to help out. I would create the nomination for you, but "give a man a fish, blah, blah ...".  :-) --Noleander (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Outdated support link?

The help box template used at the top of this page contains a link that isn't helpful and looks outdated: "For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback." But the WP:RFF page is a soft redirect stating that the service is no longer active and points users to the Help Desk which isn't the place to send people looking for feedback on less developed articles. I don't want to edit this and am requesting someone knowledgeable to put in the best procedure. --Frugen (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also in need. I want to take over a multiple-tagged article about a huge subject, and need some feedback on how to balance and restructure it. Are there no available options? Dementia13 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the link to WP:RFF and added a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Dispatches. I am not sure where else to direct editors except the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lomography article

I was wondering if a Peer review would be the appropriate place to ask for feedback on User:Amalalle/Draft Lomography article. It has been put together by a new user, Amalalle, who works for Lomography and wanted to improve the related Wikipedia article. The user has been open and honest about who they are since the start, and their objective isn't to promote the company, but to get a decent quality neutral article about it on Wikipedia. I've given some feedback and helped out wikifying it, and they're going to go away and add some missing citations, but they are keen not to cause any problems by uploading this over the existing article due to the relationship with the company. They instead would like to ensure neutrality of the article first. So, would it be appropriate to request a peer review for the article, or would somewhere else be more appropriate? Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Accidental miscategorization

I accidentally miscategorized Otto Graham as social sciences and society, when it appears it should be in the "general" category. Will things go awry if I go in and change the category name? By the way, it might be wise to have a sports and rec category in the peer reviews, as there is the GA reviews.--Batard0 (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there are some sports articles in the society category, so never mind. But some of them are also in "general". Anybody agree with creating a Sports and rec category?--Batard0 (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The categories are populated by the bot, so it is not a trivial matter to add a new cat (as the bot needs to be re-programmed). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Prarticle

{{Prarticle}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm new at Peer review - need some help!

Hi,

I listed Dissociative identity disorder but I'm not sure it's in the right place. There's no category for medical articles.

Do I watch that page, Wikipedia:Peer review/Dissociative identity disorder/archive1, and see if I get comments? How do I select an article to review?

Thanks,

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Premature closure

I've just noticed that the peer review for Eye-gouging (rugby union) has been closed and archived by a bot before it had even recieved a review. Is this a glitch or was there a reason for it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot archives any PR that goes over 14 days with no major edits - I undid the closure - sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

currdent

Anyone whose PR is closed by the bot (there are a lot at present) can renominate them. The shortage of peer reviers is chronic; it would greatly help if nominators, particularly experienced editors, would review one or more articles as a quid pro quo (or as a disinterested act of goodwill). I hope that I will be able to get back to regular peer reviewing before too long. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rodrigues Rail

Why was this archived?[5] No review ever appeared. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I see there is precedence. I'll renominate this one, and see if I can help on some other requests where I might be knowledgeable enough. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, see above. Mind reviewing it? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I don't know much about the topic, but I can do an image review, as well as look at the language, and perhaps point out if there is something I don't understand. FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Accidental miscategorization

The 2008 Mumbai attacks have been put under lists, whereas they ought to be put under general. Can anyone fix that? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed it - it will take an hour or two for the bot to move it to the General section of WP:PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team

The stupid peer review bot just archived this, even though I got no responses. Seriously guys? How often does this happen? I reversed the bot, but could someone please review it? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a big problem. Thanks for noting it here. Over at WT:FAC we've been discussion about how to get the peer reviews flowing again. Biosthmors (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review about Africa--highlighted on WikiProject Africa page

Hi all, thanks for any time you can give me: what I want to know is whether there is any way to highlight Africa articles up for peer review on the Wikiproject Africa page. For instance Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review has the nice "Current Requests" space so that it can easily be seen. But this is because History has a category heading on Peer Review. Africa doesn't have such a heading (and probably doesn't to avoid creating different categories for each space). So what I'm asking is: does anyone knows any way we could create a box for "Current Requests" that relies upon Africa template in the talk page? Simply: A box to put article names IF the article 1. is having a peer review, 2. has an Africa template. I looked at 50+ other wikiprojects and can't find one (most have dead Peer Review pages), so any help could be appreciated. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Bajkam

Hi! A peer review for the article Bajkam is currently open; anyone interested in reviewing is welcome to contribute. Here's the link: WP:Peer review/Bajkam/archive1. dci | TALK 23:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd get more help by trying to write someone a personal persuasive message at a user talk page, FYI. =) Biosthmors (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Reworded introduction

After seeing a discussion at WT:FAC, I decided to be bold.[6] Biosthmors (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers page

Any idea on how accurate the volunteers page is (Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers)? Biosthmors (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/volunteers#Inactive_editors_should_just_be_removed. Biosthmors (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I've withdrawn the peer review for Bajkam in order to nominate it for GA. dci | TALK 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the note. Biosthmors (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review - bots and automation

I have created a page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automation to describe the way that the Peer review main page, and some other pages, are generated by a bot that uploads lists of category contents to the wiki. I have been talking with some other programmers about replacing this with a Mediawiki extension that would generate the lists instead of the bot. The way that users create and close peer reviews would be the same; but instead of a bot generating the lists, they would be made by Mediawiki itself. One concrete benefit is that the lists would be updated much faster. Please feel free to use Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Automation to discuss the possible change, if you are interested in the automation that happens behind the scenes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion sometime soon?

Would someone give whatever bot is in charge of transclusion a poke so it transcludes Wikipedia:Peer review/Biscayne National Park/archive1? Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1 and probably some others. BollyJeff | talk 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked CBM, who runs the bot, to look into it - thanks for the heads up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The toolserver host where the bot runs, willow, stopped running the script automatically. I moved the script to a different toolserver host, nightshade, where it seems to be working. I sent an email to the toolserver mailing list to see if someone can diagnose the problem with willow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:Requests_for_comment/Article_feedback#PR, FAC and GAN

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

COI Peer Review

I do a lot of work as a PR pro helping companies follow Wikipedia's rules. I've been encouraging companies to take their articles to GA and I thought Peer Review would be an excellent way for them to get feedback on their first draft from an impartial editor. I was curious though - I see there is at least some sensitivity to those that abuse Peer Review and I wonder if it might be a problem if people feel I would be draining the community's resources to serve my clients. Sort of like how marking your client's article as High Priority is discouraged. If using Peer Review with a COI might lead to Wiki-drama or otherwise make people a little discontent... I thought it would be a good way to get feedback that sets a higher standard than AfC or Request Edit.

How would editors here that contribute to PR feel about peer review requests by a COI? CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In my mind, just disclose the COI in the peer review request, then let the reviewers make up their own mind. Thanks for asking. Biosthmors (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I'll do something like that for GAs as well, by leaving a comment in the nomination. Companies that are easy to work with will go straight to GA, while those that need help pushing over corporate boundaries, Peer Review will help. CorporateM (Talk) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Premature closure

The Wikipedia:Peer review/Bat'leth/archive2 has been closed despite not recieving a review. Can an admin undo the closure please? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I reopened this back when you asked and even reviewed the article (first PR I've done in months). Sorry not to have commented here before. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Would a peer review be appropriate?

Botik of Peter the Great is currently waiting to be assessed for a GA nom, but I'd like to take it to FA once that's done. Should I get a peer review now or wait until the GA process is finished? Ryan Vesey 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's being reviewed now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:BOZ/Articles for Review proposal

See the above for a new proposal on reviewing articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

where to put a book about science and computing

I put a book article (How to Create a Mind) under engtech without thinking about it too much. It's a book about neuroscience and artificial intelligence (computing). Now I'm wondering if all books, even non-fiction science-y ones are supposed to go under langlit? If it's in the wrong place, should I move it myself? Thanks, it is my first article and my first time with peer review. Silas Ropac (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say either category is OK but since the book is pretty technical I think your initial choice was correct. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

There is no heading to choose Sports in the template, maybe someone can add that for the PR template? Govvy (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Use "Everyday Life" for Sports. Much of the PR process is done by a bot, so changes to headings are not trivial. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

...What

This PR was archived without a single review. ResMar 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what the bot does when it has been posted for long enough - many of the people who used to make sure every PR got a review have burned out, so this happens now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Well, geez. ResMar 05:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Premature closure

Can Wikipedia:Peer review/John Hemmingham/archive1 be reopened as it had not received a review? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one seems interested in reviewing it, I'll just wing it at GA and deal with issues as and when they arise. I'll therefore ask that the review can be close so I can do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Another one

It's happened again. Wikipedia:Peer review/2000 UEFA Cup Final riots/archive2 has been closed before it received a review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

See Ruhrfisch's note, above. The peer review process is dependent on volunteer reviewers; unless a group of editors are prepared to commit time to reviewing the articles nominated here, the system will not work; more and more reviews will be closed without comment. Editors who nominate their articles for review but don't think to review articles themselves are likely to find themselves permanently disappointed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It happened also with me. I understand your point, but it would help to make it more clear how to do a review. I've checked some reviews and I'm not sure I'm able to do it. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that if you are capable of writing an article (as most peer review nominators generally are), then you are capable of reviewing an article at least to a certain level. Obviously, you can't do a content review if you're not familiar with the subject material, but you can help by checking out a number of areas:

1. Is the article organised properly, i.e. with a lead and appropriate sections and subsections?
2. Compared with similar articles, does the treatment of the subject appear to be comprehensive?
3. Carry out a few basic MOS checks. See that the section headings do not contain inappropriate capitals (e.g "Congressional career" not "Congressional Career"); see that each section is written in natural prose, not bullet-point lists; check the use of dashes as against hyphens, etc
4. Identify any obvious grammar, spelling or punctuation errors in the text
5. Check whether the article is appropriately wikilinked. That includes looking out for over-linking (multiple linking of the same term, or unnecessary linking of common knowledge terms).
6. See if the article appears to be properly referenced. Look out for "citation needed" tags, or for paragraphs that seem to be lacking in-line citations
7. If the article uses online references (most do; in some case all or nearly all), check the links to the sources to see that they are not dead.

There are no doubt other areas that individual reviewers will feel able to tackle. Even if only some of the above are attempted in a rudimentary review, it will be of some help to the nominator. Better, anyway, than complete silence followed by automatic closure. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. However, there's something that I don't understand: if I could make a really helpful review, I mean not just grammar or style checks, then I wouldn't ask someone else to do it for me on my article, I would be able to solve the problems by myself. What I'm trying to say is that asking anyone who request a review to review other articles is not going to work, because usually (not always though) people ask for a review because they can not valuate the article themself... I'm sorry for my bad writing, hope you can understand my reasoning. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect, that is not the reason most people request a peer review. Editors ask for reviews because they value a fresh pair of eyes on articles on which they may have got too close to, so that they can't always see faults that may be clear to other editors. Many of the editors who post at peer review are indeed experienced editors, who are too idle to do their share of reviewing and expect to be waited on. Well, that isn't going to happen any more. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Article history

Articles which have had a PR no longer have their article history automatically included/updated by a bot. This can be updated manually, but I don't think anyone can keep up on their own. Is there a list anywhere of articles which have had PRs but do not have an article history, or which have not had the article history updated? And is there anyone who can push along the task of getting a bot to do all this? It is alreadt done for FACs. Some articles are starting to look a little untidy, particularly those with multiple PRs. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed this until now - as far as I know, there was never a bot that automatically did an Article History update for any / all articles with a PR. If an article already has an Article History template, I think a bot updated those to include the PR, and if an article had one or more PRs and then made GA or FA or FL, then the bot that added / updated the Article History took care of the PRs too.

I do know that the bot that currently closes PRs does not recognize PRs in an Article History template (so it will give an error message on its archive page if it tries to archive a PR and the talk page already has the PR in the article history template. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Premature closure, again. Admin request

The Wikipedia:Peer review/2000 UEFA Cup Final riots/archive3 has been closed without a review again. This is the second time that 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots has had a PR closed without anyone leaving any feedback so I would like to ask if an admin can reopen it so it can get a review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have re-opened it. Just to be clear, anyone can reopen a recently closed PR (I just used "undo" on the PR and article talk pages). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing Step in Checklist: Identify Variety of English

There is a missing step in the checklist for peer review, as was evidenced by edits and reverts to today's Featured Article, Battle of Quebec (1775). That article had never had the variety of English established. Since the battle was fought in the part of British North America that is now modern Canada, it should have been Canadian English. However, the more basic issue is that article got through peer review without ever being tagged for Canadian English (or some other variety). While many articles do not specify a variety of English, I would submit that the identification of the variety of English should be a criterion for Good Article status, let alone for Featured Article Candidate or Featured Article. Can the project page state that consensus should be worked out on the talk page during peer review for what variety of English is used? For articles on places and historical events (such as battles) in English-speaking countries, it should be obvious. Otherwise (for technical articles or articles on non-English-speaking countries, for instance), the choice isn't obvious, but consensus should apply. The real problem in this case is that the article didn't specify the spelling, and apparently hadn't been conformed to the appropriate spelling. (Also, some Americans are too willing to impose American English spelling on articles that should not be in American English.)

The identification of the variety of English is particularly important prior to an article being nominated for Featured Article, to prevent edit wars over spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to add text to the policy article that the peer review should not be closed until the regional variety of English has been specified. Sometimes it is obvious. Sometimes it is not. I would recommend that, in questionable cases, British English should be used, in honor of the country that developed the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's one major flaw in your reasoning - if you look at Talk:Battle of Quebec (1775), you will see that this article never went through the peer review process. If you want to propose this for FAs, then may I suggest doing so at WT:FAC? Sadly, peer reviews are closed nearly every day which have not received any comments at all, let alone your idea of requiring the variety of English. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN Peer review-related request

I have a question / request that is related to a closed peer review, and I'm having a hard time finding the help I need so I thought I'd try here. In April I requested a peer review of the C-SPAN article and received some very helpful feedback from two editors. However I have a COI with the topic, as I am a consultant to C-SPAN, so I think it would be a bad idea (and contrary to Jimbo's proposed policy) for me, with a financial COI, to incorporate the resulting changes back into the live article.

For now I have incorporated changes based on their suggestions into a draft in my userspace; over the past three weeks I have been looking for editors to review this draft and update the live article if they agree that the updates I've made will improve it. I've tried reaching out to the editors who helped with the Peer review and on several related WikiProjects, but haven't had any luck with a response.

If someone here is willing to look at those changes, I would be most appreciative. I don't expect it to be a difficult process, as the changes are really all quite simple, though it may take a bit of time to do thoroughly. If you can help, please see the message I left on the C-SPAN Talk page, which explains everything in more detail. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked the reviewers from the PR to look at the changes? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've asked each reviewer twice if they'd follow up, to no avail. Having tried a few places without luck, I figured I'd try here. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look at it - don't suppose there are any diffs (before PR to changes related to reviewer 1, then diff to changes related to reviewer 2)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

John C. Ewers

Can someone be so kind and see if the article above meets at least a good article status?--Mishae (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no peer review open on it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Section headings and accessibility

Why are we asked "Please do not use level 1-3 section headings..."? Using bold text in the place of properly marked up headings hinders accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. The basic reason is that the way peer reviews are transcluded at WP:PR (and at WP:PR/d) gets really messed up if level1, 2 or 3 section headers are used (all following PRs appear to be subsections of the PR with the upper level section headers). Please note that there is no problem with using level 4 headers, which I believe would be OK in terms of accessibility. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

PS I added that level 4 headers are OK in the directions (diff). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Is there no workaround for the transclusion issue? It seems a poor reason to use inaccessible pseudo-headings; and using level 4 headings after the default level 1, without levels 2 & 3, on individual PR pages is also a breach of standards and an accessibility barrier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome - I do not know of a workaround and assume that if there were one, it would already be implemented. This is an issue for all transcluded review pages - WP:FAC and WP:FLC have similar notices so perhaps this is a Village Pump:Technical issue. Finally, I note that the PR directions do not tell editors to use bold or "pseudo headings", and to be honest this is the first time I can recall anyone raising this as an issue. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth is peer review bot archiving new and empty peer review requests?

Why on earth is peer review bot archiving new and empty peer review requests? I have posted Law School of Beirut three times here already!!! -Eli+ 10:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Marhaba. I think the PR bot automatically closes PRs when a FAC is open, and your FAC nomination was not closed by the bot that is supposed to do so. I am manually closing the FAC now. Would appreciate if Ruhrfisch or some other admin hereabouts would delete Wikipedia:Peer review/Law School of Beirut/archive3 (there is no procedural or ArticleHistory reason to keep it) and let Elie know if it's okay to reopen the PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Law School of Beirut/archive2. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I deleted PR3 and reopened PR2 - anyone can reopen something the bot archives, just undo the edit. Sadly PR no longer gives every article a review. In your case Elie, you know the main problem (article needs copyediting), which is not what PR is for anyway (PR reviewers point out problems, but do not necessarily fix them). Have you tried WP:GOCE or other copyeditors? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action, and for reading enough to see the advice he needed; I was so caught up in botifying that I hadn't actually read the FAC. Missing Gimmebot. Maralia (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys, I took my request to WP:GOCE and there's a long waitining queue so I'll keep myself busy with other stuff for the moment. I won't be asking for a new PR anymore. Thanks for pointing out what I was suspecting Ruhrfish; it's been a while since I last had an article peer reviewed. -Eli+ 04:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Similar question: Unanswered PRs which get archived by mister PR bot are displayed the same way on the article talk page saying, "So and so has been Peer reviewed, the archive may contain useful information...". Isn't that a bit pointless? I've noticed another user removing such a one here so even I did it for this one. Isn't this a problem and shouldn't something be done about this? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

For several years a small group of editors worked very hard to make sure all PR requests were reviewed. I am pretty sure I did well over 1000 reviews and have burnt out, as have others who used to review here (my thanks to Brianboulton for his continued reviews). Sadly now many PR requests are not reviewed. Because of space limitations (PRs are transcluded) the PR page breaks if it gets too big, so PR requests have to be archived after so many days to keep the system from clogging up, even if they are not reviewed. I can only say I wish it were not so, and that "may contain" implies that it may also not contain useful information. I am not sure, but I think removing the PR link from the article talk page may screw up the automatic numbering for the next PR request (I could be wrong). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that before, how previously there wasn't any backlog here and I salute you guys. I better undo my edit then, just to be on the safe side. Hmmm another question: if you look at the previous version of it, only a link to Archive 2 was given (Nothing to Archive 1). Isn't there any way to make the talk page show all the PRs done so far, and not only the latest?

By the way, after reading this posted by you and BrianBoulton, I got inspired to do my First PR (first I was not so confident as I felt I was a newbie) and got really good feedback. I've done 3 so far and I thank you all :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing peer reviews! If you look at the talk page, the Article History box (where it says it is a Good Article) has a "Article milestones" line with a link saying [show]. If you click that link, the first PR is linked there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Milestones option is nice but it's not present in every article (see the first one), I guess I'll put it there myself and on any article which has more than one PR/event. Thanks for all your help, :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it is the {{Article History}} template. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple requests from Jinkinson

I'm not sure what the procedure is here, but there are currently four open requests from Jinkinson (talk · contribs): Wikipedia:Peer review/Fetal heartbeat bill/archive1, Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism omnibus trial/archive1, Wikipedia:Peer review/1,000 Years/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Soda tax/archive1. I've pointed the user to this thread. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up. I closed three of the four PRs (which is what is done in cases like this). They can be re-opened / re-started one at a time. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay guys, now the peer review for 1,000 Years is closed. Can we open up one of the others now? I would do it myself, but I don't know how. Jinkinson (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I reopened Fetal heartbeat bill - you can also just undo my edit on the PR and re-submit your sig (I just updated the time stamp). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now FHB's peer review is closed as well. I have reverted the talk page of Autism omnibus trial so that there is a peer review request at the top again, but the page still isn't listed at WP:PR. Jinkinson (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviews in the WikiCup?

There is currently a discussion ongoing here regarding if peer reviews should be included in next years WikiCup. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Layout

Would like to solicit feedback on:

1. Moving the list of peer reviews to the 'current reviews' page
2.  Done Transferring the non instruction-related content from WP:PRG to the main page. That content is: (1) a description of what the peer review process is and the 'road to FA status' table; (2) the list of alternate PRs.
3.  Done Removing one of the two backlog tags (there is the one that states 'there is a backlog' and the second one that states the backlog)
4.  Done Moving the backlog tags also to the 'current reviews' page

Essentially, PR is in quite a messy state, possibly a result of accumulating many edits over the years without reorganisation, and the wiki-code is in a similar way. The lack of clear instructions and messy appearance may be one reason why peer review is so neglected, and I hope through incremental edits to change this. If possible would prefer if you could respond piecemeal rather than an overall 'yes' or 'no', and make any other suggestions that seem relevant. Ping to Ruhrfisch, who seems to be the only active editor of the page. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a wikibreak in January, so sorry to be slow in responding. I would make it clearer that the "Current" tab is just the old peer reviews sorted by date page (and the current "Main" tab is the old peer reviews sorted by category page (they are two ways of presenting the same material / same PRs). While I do not dispute that PR was in a messy state, I do not hold out much hope that a spiffy new layout will attract more editors to review here, which is the real problem as I see it. Many requests, few reviewers, so many PRs are still closed without comments. I used to be able to do a few PRs a day, but my PR abilities are mostly burned out now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Ruhrfisch, it was your poetic edit summaries, giving me the picture of a hermit walking through snow, which made me feel this page needs some attention. I am working step by step to get this done. What I plan to do, if there is consensus, is to keep a list of review summaries on the main page, and a full list of transcluded reviews on a new 'current' page. This has three benefits: (1) main page is more accessible, easier to edit, does not take so long to load, and users can quickly see what reviews are active (due to review lengths only the first few and last review will be seen by an impatient user scrolling through) (2) reduce number of 'rules' (eg no images, pr length) and (3) thereby reduce the burden of editing on PR editors. I will first create a functioning 'current' page and, if there are no objections, make changes to the main page. Would you have any objections to this plan? LT910001 (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Appearance

Is there a particular reason for the higgledy-piggeldy appearance of this page? I suggest we model this page around the good article pages (WP:GA), which are clear, visually appealing, and have the additional benefit of bringing a standardised appearance to what currently looks like a Geocities or Angelfire webpage. --LT910001 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, anyone can edit it. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. I've added a tabbed header, and wikified and renovated the instructions to give them a clearer structure, based off Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. If there are no objections, I will move the list of peer reviews to the new page, Wikipedia:Peer review/Current, where they may get more attention and be presented in a more appealing manner without so many tags. I hope this separation of content is making the peer review page more accessible and easier to use for future Wikipedians. --LT910001 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Will deprecate this thread in lieu of the one below (no sense having replies in two places). If reading this page - please view the thread below. --LT910001 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Search old Peer reviews?

The review structure seems odd, unless I'm missing something. This works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Pirate_Bay/archive1

but this doesn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Pirate_Bay (no such page)

And there's no easy search feature to just search all historical Peer reviews for a subject. Could somebody help construct a search box for this valuable resource? Would it be similar to the way Talk page archive search works? Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This same page structure is in place across most of the content assessment processes (FAC, GA, etc). It can be a little confusing, but it saves a lot of work behind the scenes (we used to have to move pages after a process closed), and it's transparent to most editors, since the nomination templates etc. take care of creating the right subpages for them.

The most definitive method to find all peer reviews for an article is to use Special:PrefixIndex to find all subpages of Wikipedia:Peer review/Article.

You can also typically find all historical peer reviews in the articlehistory box on the article's talk page (click show next to 'article milestones'). Maralia (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. ---Lexein (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also if you enter "Wikipedia:Peer review/The Pirate Bay" in the Search box in the top right corner, then it shows there is a peer review below (it autocompletes). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tried it with the Wikipedia search field, and it worked. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Communist Party of China/archive1

I want to nominate this article to peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Communist Party of China/archive1), but I don't know how to do it.... --TIAYN (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted {{subst:PR}} to the talk page to get the review started; the bots will take care of the rest. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinion: should reviews be transcluded in full on the main peer review page?

Would value some opinions on the above question. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note that the Good articles page, which is a fairly comparable service to this, doesn't, yet the featured article nominations page does.

• Thanks for raising the issue. What is the reason not to transclude the whole peer review? We are not having space issues that I am aware of (the bot will notify us on the talk page if space is an issue). I think GAN only transcludes part of the GA review to save space (and on occasion I have truncated long PRs by hand to save space here). So, my vote is to keep things the way they are, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise that I am not aware of. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two months, no review

This is getting ridiculous, I know the backlog is bad but Nevill Ground has been awaiting a review for 2 months now. That is not good. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is often a big backlog here. Plenty of requests and not enough reviewers! I'll try and give it a read in the next few days. If I still haven't done so by next week please ping me to remind me. You could do me a favour though -- Queen's Park Oval is also up for peer review (not by me, I only stumbled on it today), and considering it is also about a cricket ground, could I suggest you spend half an hour reading over it and commenting at the peer review? That would help reduce the backlog. Cheers. -- Shudde ^talk 10:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel particularly the articles which don't have massive outstanding problems, most notably the articles already at GA, may seem too imposing for the majority of peer reviewers to take up.--LT910001 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

For several years a small group of editors made sure every PR request got a review, but those days are sadly gone. Hope you got some comments. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Horizontal scrolling

• I'm a little confused myself by the layout. The biggest problem right now is that when on the "Main" tab I have to scroll horizontally. Victoria (tk) 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Appears to relate to one of the reviews, will look into it. LT910001 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Was a result of a quote from a peer review page. Resolved. --LT910001 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Modernisation of WP:PR

Have restructured the way that reviews are displayed, and I think completed a full census and modernisation of the peer review suite of pages. The structure as I understand it is described here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools. I have done my best to preserve all functionality of the peer review process whilst improving and simplifying the way it is delivered. If there are any problems, please contact me, and feel free to leave any comments below. LT910001 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of main changes

On the user side:

• For usability, added the tab heading and sidebar to all pages
• Created the sidebar, and used this to document existing pages
• Created the 'tools' page to explain the PR process for future edits, and list miscellaneous tools
• Added an introduction to the main page, and made the formatting on the 'instructions' page consistent between instructions
• Preserved full transclusion of reviews on the main page
• Formatted the 'backlog' template

On the back-end:

• Unified the templates used to format peer review entries, which were previously unique to each subject area (see the 'tools' page for an explanation of this)
• Simplified transclusion of reviews. All peer review lists can now be easily transcluded from a single list (this list: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of active reviews), using this formatting: {{Wikipedia:Peer review/List of active reviews|mode=transclude}} . If mode=list or mode=raw the formatting of the transcluded entries will change.
  • This change should help to identify and prevent users incorrectly manually transcluding reviews.
• These backend changes should not affect the way reviews are formatted on existing pages. If not preserved, please let me know.

Comments

Thank you for your help in improving the PR page. One change, however, is causing problems. Previously it was possible to break up reviews into individual reviewers' comments using level 4 subheadings. This no longer seems to work, and as a result the "Contents" list on the PR page is a complete mess. Can you please use your skills to restore this aspect of PR organisation? Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton, the level 4 headings were removed from the front page for readability. The full list, with these headings included, is here: WP:PRL. --LT910001 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand this answer. In what way have level 4 headings been "removed from the front page"? It seems to that they have been added into the list, making it unwieldly and difficult to scan through. Before your reconstruction, the list of reviews on the front page was a simple tabulation of open reviews. That, in my view, is as it should be. Was it your intention that the list should appear in this way, and if so, why? I would like to see the simple list restored. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I have fixed the TOC on the main page. The main page displays as it previously displayed, which is a TOC with level three subheadings with fully transcluded reviews.

I haven't changed the fact that reviews have been transcluded fully on the main page; in fact I agree this makes it very unwieldy (see my thread above), and feel the best layout would be fully transcluded reviews listed under the 'current' tab, with the main page displaying only a list of reviews and their names (as is currently displayed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of active reviews). However I made no changes to this layout as I am not sure if consensus exists; my main changes to PR have been adding the tabs, documenting already-existing pages on the sidebar, and making a few changes to the backend to simplify future editing. I have added an explanation of the changes I have made above.

If you want a more readable list of reviews, there are several pages listed on the sidebar that provide reviews in different formats. Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_active_reviews lists reviews by name and provides a set of a few tools; Wikipedia:Peer_reviews_by_date lists reviews in date order, and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Current lists fully-transcluded reviews with a full table of contents. All pages list reviews sorted by subject area. --LT910001 (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

Thanks for dealing with the TOC for the main list. My regular job on the PR page, which I have done for years, is to update the backlog. At present the instruction in the backlog box refers to requests being at least four days old, when the hidden instruction in the box refers to at least five days old. I use the five-day limit in displaying the backlog; the visible instruction should reflect this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed this. Please let me know if this is not the case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to monthly Maintenance

I am the only person who does the monthly PR updates. Without them the whole process will not work. I came here to do this after a wikibreak and found the tiny link before the Archive box had been removed. I have put it back. Please do not remove it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK< now I see there is a whole maintenance tab - sorry to be cranky. I do like the little link after the archive box, but it does not have to stay. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I'll remove it again in lieu of the 'tools' tab. --LT910001 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Messed up archive

I just stabilized Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2014 and it is messed up - any idea what the problem is? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Haven't touched that page. Will have a look. --LT910001 (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a bullet point in the template messing things up. Have removed it; archive page back to normal. --LT910001 (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I also appreciate all your work here on cleaning up the PR pages. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it took a fair amount of investigation, planning and effort and I hope I haven't left too much of a mess (no mess would be ideal!). --LT910001 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not transcluded

I listed Fanny Bullock Workman for PR yesterday but it hasn't transcluded yet. Any help? Wadewitz (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No topic was listed; I suspect you did not enter This template should be substituted on the article talk page. but copied the PR from another talk page (just a guess, here). I've attempted a fix, please wait 24 hours and it should be listed. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the bot and User:CBM is not active at the moment. I will see what I can do. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Still not listed. Thanks for looking into it! Wadewitz (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried this PR as a test case. Hopefully it should be transcluded before too long Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is listed now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot problems

Neither User:PeerReviewBot (which archives old PRs) nor User:VeblenBot (which lists / transcludes PRs) has run since March 17. I think I can do the tasks manually once a day. Archiving / closing old PRs was only a once a day task anyway, but listing new PRs was hourly.

I am going to undo the most recent edit to Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date because I need to have a listing of PRs in chronological order to be able to do these tasks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have now successfully added the Peer Reviews for the two articles mentioned on this talk page and they are showing up on both the general WP:PR page, as well as the PR by date page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bringing up Baby

Hi, I requested a PR for Bringing Up Baby a few days ago and thought that I did everything right but it still has not appeared on this page. I was just hoping for a little assistance.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The bots that do the work stopped running a few days ago. We are trying to get things working again. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is listed now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)