This looks very well though out. The only things I noticed are:
- Civility is the first key to getting a nomination taken seriously;
- Even an endorsed deletion is not a restriction against creating a better article;
- Deletion discussion closed against policy, This is a relatively new type of deletion review, with minimal activity prior to mid-December 2006. It is too soon to tell what types of arguments are most persuasive. — Not sure what this means.
Keep up the good work! ~ trialsanderrors 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've reworded #3. This was meant to be the cases of "closer followed the numbers, policy requires a different answer." My memory is that the number of such cases we got increased significantly in mid-late December. I'll get to the other pair eventually, unless someone beats me to it. GRBerry 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good start. I've made some tweaks. Oh, you may want to warn against verbosity or responding-to-everyone-who-disagrees-with-you, such rhetorics tend to backfire on WP. >Radiant< 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A review requestor's comments.
- Overall: informative and useable with minimal fluff.
- Overall: I recommend more whitespace.
- Overall: Could it be tightened up? It's a lengthy read as-is.
- I will critique the introduction to begin:
- First paragraph: could
- Wikipedia:Deletion review is intended to function as the final place to appeal problems and disputes about page deletions and deletion debate (XfD) closes.
- be shortened to
- Wikipedia:Deletion review is the final place to appeal page deletions.
- Second paragraph:
- This page lists some of the typical outcomes that occur at deletion review
- Doesn't it do more than this?
- Second paragraph: I'd remove the word 'perfectly'.
- Third paragraph:
- Remember, that while process is important, you shouldn't request a review just to have a process discussion about a page that you think should end up in the state it is already in
- I'm sure this can be tightened up.
- Third paragraph: no mention of pages that have been protected to prevent re-creation.
- Fourth paragraph: I suggest changing numbers of opiners to having a majority vote.
- Fourth paragraph: I'm not sure this makes sense -- at the appropriate deletion debate process. Perhaps page should replace process.
Vranak 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A non-regular's comments
Excellent guide. This is much clearer than the current instructions. The one thing that struck me as odd is the use of "we" and "us" in reference to the closing admins and the other regulars at DRV. It makes for clear instructions, but it also gives the impression that DRV is a board, rather than a discussion forum for the community. There are only a handful of these, e.g. "the review will be closed as soon as we realize this" -- this could be changed to "the review will be closed as soon as an administrator realizes this." Would it be OK if I reworded these? Kla'quot 07:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- On a Wiki, even a user page is subject to editing by others. Given that I intend this for more than my personal notes, it is encouraged. GRBerry 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So what should the key takeaways be? I'n thinking starting with a simple list would be useful:
- Check with the deleting admin first.
- Often it's more useful to write a new article than to challenge a prior decision.
- Civility is key.
- Be prepared to offer reliable sources to be heard.
- If in doubt about the quality of your sources, ask other editors for their opinion.
Any others? ~ trialsanderrors 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Know why the page was deleted, and address that reason. If in doubt, ask first. GRBerry 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Need to reflect this new method of protection. GRBerry 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think the drafting process is complete, so this ought to be ready for use by anyone. I've taken the "this is a draft" sentence off the top. This is a wiki, so this isn't final, of course. But feel free to refer people here wherever appropriate. Suggestions for making the page more friendly to DRV irregulars are still requested, as are suggestions for improving the formatting. GRBerry 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)