Wikipedia talk:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive

Horizontal scrolling[edit]

  • 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)

Two months, no review[edit]

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)

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

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

  • 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)

Modernisation of WP:PR[edit]

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[edit]

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.


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)

Link to monthly Maintenance[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)

Not transcluded[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Bot issues[edit]

CBM, who kindly runs the Veblenbot and PeerReviewBot accounts that do much of the maintenance for peer reviews, is retiring from Wikipedia. He is looking for someone to take over the bot accounts and I think I have found someone to do so. I normally update the categories for Veblenbot at the start of each month, but I am unable to access the account for Veblenbot, so I cannot and the PRs archived for April will not have a category. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Ruhrfisch, do you think it would be possible to have Velenbot automatically create the monthly categories? --LT910001 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
LT910001, I am not a bot person, so I really do not know. I (or Geometry Guy when he helped here) have been making the categories once a month for several years and it has not been a problem until now. Ucucha has tentatively agreed to run the bots for CBM. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I have been considering (if possible) automating that process. It seems like something that could easily be done by a bot, and if it could be programmed easily, it might save you time and energy. --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you a bot operator? Would you be interested in taking over Veblenbot and Peerreviewbot? Ucucha is not very active lately and it might be better if someone more active took over the bots. With the migration from toolserver to wmflabs the bots can just be handed over to another user (though this is CBM's call). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Ruhrfisch, but I wouldn't know head from tail of a bot and I can't guarantee that I would be suitably responsive if there was a problem. --LT910001 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Understood - CBM has fixed the link issue, so I set up the April category and that is working. I will ask at the bot operators' noticeboard as I have not from Ucucha in a little over a week. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review/Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography/archive1[edit]

"This peer review discussion has been closed" was recently added to Wikipedia:Peer review/Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography/archive1 and an "oldpeerreview" template to the article talk page. Is this correct? (it appears that there have been some Bot issues recently). I recently reviewed Wikipedia:Peer review/Survivor (Elena Paparizou song)/archive1, but I don't see a review for the Hendrix discography. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)