Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 6 January 2006

• Archive 1 (July 2003 — April 2005)

Question

How long does a Peer Review last? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• It varies, but generally a request is archived after it is one month old or the associated article has been submitted to FAC. Other things that can cause an article to be archived early are listed at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Request removal policy. --Allen3  22:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looking good

I remember not so long ago when many review requests here had no responce at all. Now, every single one has at least one comment. Finally it seems this page is getting enough attention to function :) Good, let's keep it up and review more :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This section does seem to attract a number of postings for pages that are clearly not of near-Featured-standard quality. Perhaps a template would be useful that could direct people to the right place? For example:

Unfortunately this article does not appear to meet the quality criteria of near-Feature-standard needed for a peer review. Please see the relevant information concerning peer review, as well as the options for page maintenance and improvement.

RJH 18:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe the primary issue is the quality of the articles that are being submitted. While some articles are clearly closer to Featured-status than others, any submitter that is truly looking for feedback on ways to improve their article should be supported. The problem I see is that some requests may be reasonably interpreted as requests for something other than feedback. The first bullet of Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Request removal policy states "Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in containing vandalism, resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio, should be removed promptly, in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them here." I would suggest the template be aimed at these requests and not at articles that just need a little more TLC than others. --Allen3  19:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with everything Allen3 just wrote, and we also get way too template happy around here. Instead of adding a template, why not just move the articles that the guidelines say to move and leave a note on the nominator's talk page. Now make sure you're doing it for the right ones, but just do the work, don't create meta talk. I also have to agree, peer review is a much more productive place now. The only thing we could do more of is warning nominators that haven't replied to and/or carried out comments that are made on their articles in a while, and then removing the ones with no response from the nominators. The articles that get the most comments and are the most productive are the ones where the nominators are active. I think removing even more of the inactive one's would make the rest more productive and they would all get more comments. - Taxman 20:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well quite frankly the purpose of a template would be to save work. I'd rather just slap a template in place and let the person requesting the peer review do the move. The wording on the template is easy enough to fix. It was just a sample, after all. :) — RJH 28 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the wording, my point is the template is extra work, not saving it. It would need to be added and removed (2 extra edits), and someone still needs to remove the article from the peer review page. If you don't feel like doing the work to remove the listing, then don't worry, instead spend your wiki time doing something else you feel is productive. - Taxman June 28, 2005 15:50 (UTC)

How about having two "levels" of peer review - one for articles that are considered close to FA standard and one for average articles where somebody would like some advice on how to improve them? It wouldn't be much hassle to move an article from one level to the other and leave a note when an article was clearly in the wrong one. That way, people who want to help would be able to find articles at their level more easily - eg professional copyeditors etc would be able to concentrate on the first group and those of us who have done a bit of editing but not got anything to FA standard might be able to help with the second group. CTOAGN 8 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with such a plan is how do we get the level of reviewer participation needed to make such a split useful. Look at the different levels of participation that currently exist between WP:FAC and peer review. It is not uncommon for an article to spend time on peer review with a small number of comments and then go to FAC before it is given a serious going over by multiple reviewers. I suspect that dividing peer review in half would create a similar split with fewer reviewers wishing to help the "lower" level. This lack of participation would then just cause all submissions to be forwarded to the location were the reviewer are located. --Allen3  July 8, 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Archiving revisited

With the increase in the number of new requests Peer review has been receiving over the last month, I believe it is time to discuss possible revisions to the existing request removal policy. Quite simply, archiving based primarily on requests being one month old or moving to FAC has not kept the list of active requests from growing at a rate of two or three additional requests per day. In the interest of keeping the list of active requests small enough to be useful, another archiving criteria appears to be needed.

I propose that any request that has not shown any activity for a period of 14 days (two weeks) be archived. All other existing criteria would remain unchanged.

This proposal is made primary on the observation that most requests receive all of their feedback within the first day or two after they are submitted. Some submitters have mastered the skill of keeping a dialog going for a period of time, but even these requests tend to die down after a week or so. After this period of initial activity most requests then just sit on the list waiting to age out. The few requests that remain active for a full month tend to have moved to tangents that would be better placed on the articles talk page.

Comments or alternatives to this proposal are welcomed. --Allen3  13:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with archiving anything that has been stagnant for 2 weeks.--nixie 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes that seems fair enough. - Taxman 13:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. I support it. — mark ✎ 13:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That works for me. But I'd like to see every article get some type of review before being archived. Perhaps articles that have reached an archive check without being reviewed could be moved to a separate section near the top of the PR page to satisfy a quorum? For example, these articles need a minimum of one review before they are archived. Thanks. — RJH 28 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

• As there have been no objections to this change, I have updated the request removal policy page with the new criteria modified to require at least one response. --Allen3  July 1, 2005 11:41 (UTC)
  • Thanks Allen3. — RJH 1 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Subpages

Is it feasible to divide this list by topic into subpages? As it is, it's exceptionally long, and not easy to look through to find pages that one can review. It needn't be narrow - Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Science and Misplaced Pages:Peer review/History would be plenty narrow enough (as examples) to make this manageable. Users would also be able to selectively watch the subpages to keep track of requests in disciplines they are familiar with. siafu 23:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How about not. If you're looking for everyone trying to get an article up to "featured" status, it's easier if everything is in one place. --Carnildo 03:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be easier, except that this is a place where people who are supposedly experts on one subject or another comment, and yet it's not sorted by subject. Having them all in one place is what WP:FAC is for. siafu 04:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would be prepared to maintain a system. Besides, most of the reviewing generated on Peer Review isn't on content.--nixie 04:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it would take much of a stretch to use topic subpages. Regardless, this pages has 62 items in no particular order on it right at this moment; some sort of sorting needs to be done. siafu 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

At present entries are sorted by submission time. While this ordering does not assist a reviewer searching for specific topics, it does make maintenance practical. Chronological ordering is also used at WP:FAC for the same reason.

Beyond the question of maintenance, sub pages also present two other concerns. The first is how to attract enough reviewers to the individual subpages? You may wish to take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review to see how things are working for a topic area that has a good size population of wikipedians interested in the topic. Not all fields will have the level of support enjoyed by an active Wikiproject, how will subpages work for these? The second issue is how to handle topics that are not easily placed into a simple categorization scheme. Where do we place an article that spans multiple categories , or subjects that do not qualify for any defined category? --Allen3  11:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the reference desk. The maintenance effort there has quadrupled. Unless you want to handle all the extra effort, I don't think we should change to subtopics. Also I agree with Allen3 that subtopics wouldn't really help increase participation, it would actually make it harder. Thanks for offering suggestions, but I really jsut feel your suggestion won't help much. - Taxman 20:16, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Marayoor

I hope I am doing right, with the peer review page. --Cyril Thomas 21:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article/Peer review advice

Since I'm going on a Wikibreak (temporary, I promise), I've written a page up detailing the most common failings that pages nominated to FAC have and a little expansion on the featured article criteria that I think is important for people to be aware of before nominating an article at FAC and especially for reviewers to read before giving advice. That makes it particularly important for peer reviewers to know when giving advice on what articles need. I've put the advice together based on my more than a year of experience with a good portion of the FAC nominations over that time and from many discussions about the criteria. Like I explain there, if more editors were familiar with how articles should be written to pass the FA criteria, not only would more articles pass, but I think more would be nominated too. If we have more consistency about what advice is given less time would be wasted and more effort would be going in the right direction. So if others substantially agree with the advice or a version of it that can be agreed on, I suggest all potential FAC and Peer reviewers be directed towards it before reviewing articles, and that every FAC and PR nom get the advice contained there. Thanks all, it's certainly been fun so far. - Taxman 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured lists

Is peer review for potential featured lists as well? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, peer review may be used for potential featured list candidates. Shortly after WP:FLC was created there was a flurry of lists nominated for peer review, so this is not new ground. To avoid reviewer confusion you should probably mention that you wish to be compared to the feature list criteria in the text of your review request. --Allen3  20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added my request. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd propose that we limit people to one peer review every two weeks. This way we could avoid the PR-flooding and really get people to think about what they put here. As you can see from the current way a lot of people just put a bunch of articles here for the purpose of "hey, have a look at this!", and its really flooding the system. Maybe its intruction creep though? What do you guys think? Ryan Norton 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• One a fortnight sounds a little too strict, but something like two a week could be a good idea. I have a feeling that when the flooding is coming from a wikiproject, they'll just nominate one article each though. CTOAGN 22:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

another proposal

Does anyone object to the addition of something like the following sentence beneath Point 5 (or a new Point 6: 'Finally, ...':

'Nominators are urged to identify and politely request feedback from several Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a closely related field.'

A number of FAC nominators have written that they received little feedback during the PR process (e.g., 'I wish they'd told me this during the PR process; hardly anyone gave feedback.'). I think that a more active approach to seeking reviews is better than posting an article here and expecting the right people to somehow know about it.

Tony 01:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Version 0.5/1.0

Hi, There is a proposal at "Misplaced Pages talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team" to declare articles which have passed Peer review "Misplaced Pages Version 0.5" articles and Featured Articles to be "Misplaced Pages Version 1.0" articles. There is also a proposal to protect peer reviewed articles from edits by IP users and Featured article from non-admin edits. For each FA a "suggested changes" copy would be created which would be open to all edits. Please voice your opinion of these proposals at the above talk page. Seabhcán 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Article rating

Misplaced Pages:Article rating is a new proposal with some similarities to peer review. Please take a look and see what you think about it - constructive criticism is always welcome. violet/riga (t) 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected?

Why is the page protected? Also, what happened to the instructions for adding a new entry? Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, turns out some routine maintenance screwed the instructions over. Also, it turns out this page is only protected from being moved, not edited. In short: My bad. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A thing

I just had a weird thing happen in my head. Some may find this conversation interesting, relevant, both, or neither: Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates#IP users. -Silence 10:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review Archives

The Peer Review archives are HUGE. Take a look at the current (November) archive. The archive pages just take too long to load. I suggest converting them into links, such as those present in the computer and video games Peer Review. This will reduce the pages' loading time. Also, if the suggestion is accepted, I will be more than happy to convert them all myself. LordViD 18:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation issues

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. Part of it is whether it is acceptable to ever replace URL-only references. This could somewhat affect peer review edits. I also got blocked for adding citation details, which could somewhat affect peer review edits also. What could also somewhat affect peer review edits is the recent deletion of suggested citations from peer reviewed articles Stonehenge, Colonization of the Moon, Golden Gate Bridge, Military budget in the United States, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Royal Air Force. (SEWilco 08:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Citation conversion

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that I can not "convert" a "citation". This is being used to warn other users against converting citations. This has implications for some common peer review and featured article advice. (SEWilco 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Perhaps you should provide some background why the ArbCom has given this ruling. My impression was that the bot was doing a fine job. Which policy is being discussed here? JFW | T@lk 10:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There were several policies discussed in my ArbCom "case", but as to the meaning of the above ruling and the above change to Misplaced Pages:Footnotes you'll have to ask the ArbCom for clarification. As I got blocked for a single change edit, I can not make changes such as these to Gettysburg Address. (SEWilco 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

Image on Template:Peerreview and Template:Oldpeerreview

I'm surprised about the fact that Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png was removed from these templates, in order to be replaced by Image:Exquisite-kfind.png. Exquisite-kfind.png, although it's a nice piece of photo-editting, looks horrible when scaled down to 48x48 pixels. The shadow, which is anti-aliased, makes the glass look ovalshaped. Nuvola apps xmag.png hasn't got that problem, so does anyone object if I'm going to put that one back in? -- SoothingR 12:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No response, so I figure I can go ahead. Though I'm not gonna put Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png in; I found a better image on Commons the other day (Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png), so I'll put that one in. Any comments can be left here (if there are any at all..). SoothingR 11:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any problem with Image:Exquisite-kfind.png, its a lot more professional than the older image used. I object to changing it back the old one which looks like a horrible piece of amateur icon creation from a cheap Linux distribution. — Wackymacs 11:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• And what about Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png? SoothingR 11:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Same really, I think it's amateur compared to the previous image used. It would be good if Image:Exquisite-kfind.png can be placed back on the templates - Thanks. — Wackymacs 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, that surprises me. I personally don't think that Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png looks amateur. Image:Exquisite-kfind.png is a also a great piece of art, but it looks really weird on this yellowish background and a smaller dimension.SoothingR 13:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just remove both images. 64.231.72.45 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)