Wikipedia talk:Peer review

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

Review closed without the page being reviewed[edit]

The bot closed Ebla peer review request without an actual review.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the bot closes it eventually if no one responds. You could put it for PR later and/or invite editors personally to comment on it from the volunteer list. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I just had this happen with Wikipedia:Peer review/Gateway Protection Programme/archive2. Am I able to reopen the review, so that I can invite specific editors to contribute, or do I need to start a new peer review? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd recommend you invite editors from the volunteer list to comment there despite it being 'officially' closed by the bot. I don't see the point of immediately starting another over this unanswered one. That, or you could open a new one later. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can an article go up for Peer Review concurrent with a DYK nomination?[edit]

I recently created an article and have nominated it at DYK. However, I would also like to have it peer reviewed. Is there any limitation on doing both at the same time? --Jpcase (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I wasn't sure how active this talk page is, I asked the same question at the Help Desk and haven't received an answer there. So I've gone ahead and listed my article for peer review. I hope this is okay! :) --Jpcase (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is allowed - an article cannot be at FAC or FLC at the same time as it is as PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

Does anyone know why Wikipedia:Peer_review/Archive seems to have been abandoned a few months ago? The last listed month is January 2015, but that link actually leads to the January 2014 archive, and February and March 2015 are completely absent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It seems that the editor in charge of it has been busy since the beginning of the year, will notify. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, Ugog Nizdast. Actually, the archived peer reviews are available here: Category:January 2014 peer reviews etc. I've updated the most recent archive pages. Is that OK? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As an update, I've provided links to categories of peer reviews, which are automatically updated by the bot which does it. This is a lot less labour intensive than the old method, which involves manually transcluding and parsing reviews. I voiced concerns a while ago about the old system as it is quite labour intensive and seems to have had a bus factor of 1, which is not ideal. If there are no objections I think the new way of providing category links is fine for archival purposes, and a lot less labour intensive. In addition (I feel at least) it is easier to navigate than a full transclusion. I am happy if other editors want to use/propose an alternate system or dedicate themselves to maintaining the old way, which is one I never fully understood and seemed quite complicated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the old method and didn't want to do it myself, so I posted at User talk:Ruhrfisch#Peer review archiving who has been maintaining it all this while. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Updated the archive and updated the instructions on Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 10, 04:30 UTC)[edit]

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1983768 out of 2097152 bytes (113384 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this looks bad. @Ruhrfisch, Brianboulton, and LT910001: help? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the ping, I'm looking into it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. This message is because of how much is transcluded onto the main Peer review page. If any more is transcluded, it'll be over the limit and anything after the limit won't get transcluded any more (we've had this problem before). In a way it's a good problem because it means PR is getting used a lot. Still working... --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. There are too many reviews. It seems the way to deal with this is to transclude less reviews. I think the best way to do this while still showing prominently most reviews is to separate the longest reviews. These are generally 'pre-FA' reviews, which also generally already have reviewers. Dr. Blofeld, Brianboulton, Curly Turkey (users I see in many areas of the page at this moment) if you are online, what would you feel about a separate category of peer reviews for articles looking to become featured? These can be provided in list form on this page and in full all together on another, thus saving the PR process from annihalation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
To update, I will have implemented a solution within an hour. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Although generally that's the idea of a peer review, I'd support a separate category for those which are intended to go directly to FAC afterwards. Only if the others support it though of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't show up at PR nearly often enough to have a strong opinion, but I wonder if having too many review-type places will just kill the amount of reviewing that gets done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I have had a death in my immediate family and have been very busy in real life. I apologize that I have not been more active on WP recently. The PR for Irtaba was listed in two places and was not properly archived. I have archived it and, given its size, that should buy as some time. I can devote some more time to fixing things in about 4 hours. The bot is working except for the creation of new categories within the bot - I am unable to fix that but with everything else in my life, well. I just let it slide. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I found four improperly closed PRs and have archived all of them - this should help (fingers crossed). There is also the partial transclusion trick, which I tired on one PR, but seem to have messed up - will try more later. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hurray! And also if you can add me to the maintainers list I'd be very grateful Ruhrfisch (I won't rush into making any changes!) --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
IThanks - I did the partial transclusion trick too. Tom (LT) - are you a bot operator, by chance? I will be back in a few hours (Lord willing and the creek don't rise...) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Not a bot operator but I have some past experience with programming and am pretty technically savvy. I'd just like to have a look at the code and maybe (in the future) create a new 'pre-FA' category so we can section-off pre FA requests and selectively transclude them according to need. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Additionally Ruhrfisch I've also changed the archive process. I think we should just point to the category with the dated reviews every month. That saves a whole lot of trouble and is just as accessible. I'll update the "Tools" page if you're happy with that plan. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Lastly when I feel confident I may consider changing some of the code so that we can consolidate some of our many, many duplicate templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I'm also calling it a day. I will update the "Tools" page tomorrow with (1) instructions on what to do if page is getting full (2) a more full documentation of how reviews are closed and (3) update the monthly archive instructions. Good night to all and many thanks to Ruhrfish for his/her timely intervention! --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good to see Ruhrfisch back and I missed all the action. Try to give us some of the work if needed, I think you're already overburdened with a lot. Oh and thanks Tom for your interest in maintaining this. -Joel Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you considered noincluding the article link template {{Peer review/heading}} on individual noms (I think this would mean at {{Peer review/subst}})? It causes a very slight inconvenience—one would have to click through to an individual nom page to access article/talk links—but it reduces the transclusion burden on the main listing page, and we made this change years ago at FAC and FAR without any significant fuss.
The References section (and accompanying reflist) could also be removed. It looks like it was added in early 2013 as a quick fix to resolve an error caused by an individual PR containing citations but no reflist; the right fix for that, should it happen again, is adding a reflist to the specific PR. Maralia (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to remove the reflist, Maralia. Also as far as I understand the code for WP has changed so that one will be automatically added anyway if none is present. I personally find the heading on each review quite useful but am not sure what other users think about it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

New peer review topic for future FA noms[edit]

As a proof of concept I've created a page which just lists the future FA noms: User:LT910001/sandbox/FAC peer reviews. To reiterate the benefits here are:

  1. Separates these articles into a new category. FAC are generally already of high quality and (generally) only editors already familiar with the FA process review, hence having them on the main page may distract from lower-quality peer reviews from newer editors
  2. FA editors and nominees get a distinct and convenient list.
  3. These reviews, often the longest and most active, can be transcluded in title form only only onto the main page if necessary
  4. Specific instructions can be put on the review page for FAC if needed or desired.

I am just proposing creating a new 'topic' for the review (similar to the 'arts', 'literature and language'), not an entirely new process. If other editors are supportive I think this will be helpful to implement. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The article "I Could Fall in Love" is in its second PR not first. jona(talk) 23:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've fixed that. I manually created the list to see what other users will think about it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So sorry, the article is on its third PR. jona(talk) 00:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, previously I used to just check the requesting editor's comment whether they want to do a FA or no. But just a quick question, I may have missed something, is it worth creating an entirely new topic for this and won't the problem of managing reviews which are in both, say "arts", as well as Future FA noms? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The new topic would be 'FA nominations' or something like that. The topics at the moment (arts, literature, etc.) are so that interested users can choose a topic and contribute to a review in that area. However FA noms have been very well attended to and by separating them we may help FA nominators by providing a separate topic, and other reviews by giving more prominence to the larger volume of less well-attended reviews. Still just an idea at the moment though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Related question: Future FA noms are probably the hardest ones to get comments in and mostly all unanswered ones belong to this category. I'm confused as to how we deal with them when they go unanswered, do we recommend the requesters to get it FA nominated since they'll get it either passed or are sure to atleast get issues to address if it fails? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. When I skim through the reviews, it seems that most of the FA nom peer reviews are very well attended, and in fact are most of our longest reviews. The 5 or so editors who do the reviewing might contribute more if the reviews were grouped, as they'd then see which reviews need their attention. With regard to future FA success, I think we shouldn't tinker with the peer review process -- ie editors are free to comment with the hope of improving the article's chances, but a PR doesn't count as anything @ FA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Added the notice[edit]

After glancing through Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 9, it seemed clear that this issue was frequently brought up here and instead of giving the same reply every time, this notice seemed like a good idea. I just hope it's worded properly and everyone is fine with it. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I am a little lost here. What notice? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
OK at the top of this page. I really would like to remove it again. I cleaned up this page about 1 year ago and removed or moved a number of notices. I do not think this a problem that needs solving... having looked at the archive I can find only 1 example of a review. Does this really require a notice? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Only one example? See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...that's just half the archive I think + see also the most recent one at the top of this page. I've started monitoring this for barely a month but I think this seems to happen frequently. Are you sure this isn't needed? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow, yes I see what you mean! OK yes I agree it is needed.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Review for Glomerulus (kidney)[edit]

I invite editors to have a read of Glomerulus (kidney), which is a small structure in the kidney, and comment on the review page here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Glomerulus (kidney)/archive1. Non-medical opinions are most welcome, as this article does not seem very inviting at the moment, and I'd very much like to improve the readability of this page. Many thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)