Wikipedia talk:Peer review

See also the Peer review maintenance page

Peer reviews needing feedback view list •

January 24 • Poppy Meadow • Rae Wilson • Canadian comics • Egyptian mythology January 23 • Cyclone Rewa* January 21 • Selena videography January 20 • Days Gone Bye • SRI International January 19 • Rajinikanth January 17 • Bachata Rosa • Death panel January 14 • Rihanna 2006 Tour January 9 • Darren Osborne January 8 • 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season January 7 • Blackford County, Indiana January 6 • Couldn't Stand the Weather Tour • Chrisye January 4 • Atlantis: The Lost Empire January 2 • The Secret of Monkey Island December 27 • Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 12) December 17 • If I Were a Boy* Entries marked with an asterisk * have a review pending.

Bot having a bit of fun with Joe Danger

Seems to be archiving this PR because Gimmiebot is being tardy with archiving the FAC. Any thoughts? Or is this a case of rollback-and-hope? ;) — Joseph Fox 10:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Since articles cannot be listed at both PR and FAC, the bot archives all PRs that are also listed at FAC (it does not check to see if the FAC has been closed or withdrawn). It also closes PRs that have had no comments in 14 days or are over 30 days old. Technically articles are not supposed to be nominated at PR until 14 days after the close of an unsuccessful FAC, but this rule is being waived here. The PR can be reopened - I will do so next if you have not already. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to remove this as part of the 14-day limit. I had started the page already, but deleted it; I'll head back to restore. Thanks for the effort :) — Joseph Fox 14:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics October 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in October 2011 (September figures shown in parentheses)

Number of articles reviewed: 93 (83)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 124 (113)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 52 (48)

Main reviewers for October:-

   * Ruhrfisch: 20
   * Brianboulton: 18
   * Jappalang: 11
   * Finetooth: 11
   * Nikkimaria: 7
   

10 reviewers contributed 2 reviews and 37 contributed 1

Mainly down to the Old Gang this month. We need new blood here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My peer review request

It says the review will be listed within the hour, but mine (for Dylan and Cole Sprouse) still isn't on the list. I don't know if it's because it hasn't been patrolled or what, but this seemed like a problem, so I thought I'd post it. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The listing is done by a bot, so I suspect there is a glitch of some sort - thanks for the heads up. I will ask the bot owner to look into this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is fixed and the PR is listed now - thanks to CBM Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

From the list folks (well, one of them...)

Hello PR folks. Having just completed a few PRs (been a while, I know, but I'm trying to get back in the zone!), I noticed that the instructions are heavily biased towards preparing a featured article. I also noticed that out of the current listed PRs, a number relate to list-based articles. So (and in light of FLs making the main page once a week these days) it would be nice to have the PR instructions acknowledge that the process should benefit those going for FLs (and even GAs) as well as FAs.

Secondly, I'd like to volunteer myself to help PR any list-based articles that appear here. The problem is with me actually knowing that a list is waiting at PR for review. Anyone have any good ideas how I (or indeed other members of the FLC community) could get such a notification?

Thirdly, keep up the good work. PR is an almost thankless task (no-one gets a bronze star for doing a great PR) but I know how hard reviewers work here, and it's a testament to the power of Wikipedia that people want to keep coming back for more....! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TRM - there is a section for lists on the WP:PR page - see Wikipedia:Peer_review#Lists. More later, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Silly me. But List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes is clearly miscategorised! And we do sometimes get the odd list masquerading as an article (i.e. without the word "list" in the title!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quoll

This article has managed to get itself listed twice. I am uneasy about trying to correct errors like this, for fear I would knock both out. Ruhrfisch knows the drill. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I deleted PR 3 (G6) and the bot should remove the red link shortly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

PR limits change proposal

I just had to undo the bot's archiving of 9 articles on the backlog list - they were older than 14 days and had received no (or very few) PR comments. I propose we drop the limit from 4 open PRs per editor to 2, at least until the backlog improves. I now copy pertinent conversations from my and Brianboulton's talk pages. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As you will have seen, the backlog keeps growing. Currently, articles are being added to it at roughly twice the rate they are leaving it, hence the total has risen from 15 on 1 Jan to 34 on 15 Jan.

Should we (1) warn nominators that they may have to wait a month for a review, and (2) restrict nominators to one active nomination, per FAC, except in special circumstances? The real problem is of course the lack of reviewer interest. I agree I'm not being much help here at the moment, but I'm also trying to plug gaps at FAC, which is also heavily backlogged. And there are offstage noises... I've hardly any time now for working on my own articles, and am keen to get back to that (as I dare say you are; time for a bridge). If you have any other ideas in the crisis management area, please drop me a line! Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a warning would be fine. I would rather try dropping the limit to 2 PRs per editor than 1 (it would still be a 50% reduction). I am very busy in real life and likely will be for some time to come. I just have not had much time to do anything here. If we change the limit we should discuss it at the PR talk page first. Another problem I see is that there are more middle quality articles coming along - in a way this is a good thing, but it was easy to pound out a quick review of something that was B or C class. Now it seems we have a lot of recent GAs looking to FA - which is good, but more time consuming to review too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dropping the limit is a good start. My inclination, as someone new to PR/GAN/FAC, is to adopt a standard process for each of these three queues (tailored to each of the three, of course). Why reinvent the wheel over and over? The standard process would include proven techniques for keeping the flow moving:

• Limit nominators to 1 or 2 max at a time
• Mandatory pause before next nomination if fail
• Standardized checklist for review process (pics, sources, prose, MOS, spell-check, etc)
• Quid pro quo: must give a review to get a review (for FAC: perhaps "Comments only")

Include some kind of feedback for reviewers that are just going through the motions. If shirking: stern reproval

• Periodic backlog elimination drives
• Rewards (barnstars, etc) for active/high-quality reviewers
• Reviewer recruitment efforts
• Recognition that, as WP matures and new articles become rarer, promotion to GA then FA is now the lifeblood of WP

Anyway, just an idea. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I support the limitation and Noleander's ideas. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to Noelander for trying. PR is different from GA and FAC in that reviewing is not judgemental; there is no "pass" or fail". Articles can effectively remain here as long as the nominator wishes. Checklist reviewing is inappropriate, since an important part of the PR process is article building rather than checking; in any event, how would the checklist approach help the backlog problem? Quid pro quo has been suggested many times before, and has been informally applied, but a lot of the reviews thus provided were too superficial to be of much use. "Include some kind of feedback for reviewers that are just going through the motions. If shirking: stern reproval" is somewhat unrealistic: who will provide this feedback, and what would "stern reproval" do other than give offence? Elimination drives can be effective—The Rambling Man late last year, through his own prodigious reviewing got the backlog down to virtually nil—but they require hours of commitment. Regrettably, PR competes with FAC for reviewers' time, and many would prefer to use their time there, where there is more chance that their advice will be heeded. But FAC has a reviewer shortage too. PR was sustained for years because Ruhrfisch, Finetooth and I were regularly turning out 15 to 20+ reviews a month each. For various reasons none of us are able to do that at the moment. Even one editor prepared to make that level of commitment on a regular basis would make a real difference. Any volunteers? Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be helpful to drop the limit to 1 PR per editor and to set a queue limit of 30 PRs. The 30-PR queue limit would eliminate feelings of futility that may arise among reviewers who cannot maintain a frenetic reviewing pace forever. Unlike "quid quo pro" arrangements or "stern reproval", a 30-item limit would not single out any editor for special praise or blame, would require little in the way of scorekeeping, and would encourage editors to review, if only to make room for their own requests. Editors who tried to game the system by posting careless reviews would find themselves to be in a tit-for-tat world in which serious reviews beget serious reviews and vice versa; i.e., you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. No one would need to enforce the tit-for-tat; it would just happen, as it does in other human endeavors. The 1 PR-at-a-time per editor limit would be a necessary companion to the 30-PR queue limit, I think. Otherwise, some editors would game the system by always having two in the hopper. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think these are good suggestions for holding the line, and could work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I also like the idea of a limit to the size of the page, but am trying to figure out the practical details. Currently anyone can add their article to PR by putting a template on the article talk page - a bot takes care of the rest. At the least the bot would have to be rewritten, but would there be a waiting list / queue / holding area for PR requests beyond 30? Also, one of the nice things about PR is that we let reviews hang around for up to 30 days (or longer if they are being actively worked on). If the 30 limit is put into effect, should there be some sort of rule on how to remove an article from the magic 30? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My intention is to limit the backlog to 30, not the overall size of the page; once an article has attracted significant review comments it leaves the backlog, but can stay in PR as long as is necessary. Theoretically, the system would work like this: when an editor nominates to PR, a bot will check the backlog. If it is below 30 the article will be admitted to PR, if not it will be placed in a waiting list until a place becomes available as an article leaves the backlog. The trouble as I see it is that, apart from possible complications arising from the reprogramming of the bot, we would be heavily reliant on manual checking of the backlog, to assess whether "significant review comments" have been made. I do this at the moment, but not every day, which means that the displayed backlog is sometimes overstated. I don't see how this part of the operation could be done automatically, since it is a matter of judgement as to what constitutes "significant review comment". Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to do the backlog checking. This is something I could do almost every day, though there will be times when for one reason or another—travel, lack of Internet access, illness—I will have to miss a day or two and sometimes several days in a row. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can also check the backlog, or at least be the backlog checker backup. One trick I use with it is to go to Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items and click on recent changes in the Toolbox - can see all edits to all PRs currently on the backlog in the recent past that way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering about peer review for an article in my sandbox. Would that be possible? I'm currently working to improve Irish Stepdance. I have done all my work in my sandbox but haven't been able to get much feedback on it. Even if I can't list it here, would someone be able to look at it and comment on my talkpage? Thanx. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 18:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above, reviewers are struggling to keep up with review requests. Please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance for general advice about dance articles. Glancing at the article in your sandbox, I see that most of the claims in the article are not attributed to any source. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a member of WP:DANCE but I think it is almost inactive. And I just saw in discussion above. Thanks for the help anyway. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 23:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The way the PR page is set up, an article has to be in article space (not user space) to be listed here (the bot cannot transclude it otherwise, and the guidleines say the same). I will amke a few comments on Talk:Irish stepdance Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please reinstate

The bot recently close three PR nominees without comments:-

• One for the Road (Cheers)
• Valenzuela, Philippines
• Blackford County, Indiana

Despite our backloig woes, I believe these should be reinstated. I will try and review at least one of them in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will reinstate them next - sorry. I normally do this each morning, but today was an extra busy day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will return them into the backlog and choose one for attention. I'm afraid I have not found time to do the stats summaries recently but I will try and resume this service shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I just finished Valenzuela, and I'll move on to One for the Road. Since I did an earlier review of Blackford County, maybe you could find something new to say about that one. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen the construction banner on One for the Road. I'll choose something else. Finetooth (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't figure it out

WP:PR is huge because it is being copied into itself - I can't figure it out and have asked Geometry guy to take a look. See also User:VeblenBot/C/Arts peer reviews Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So if I remove the two offending lines from User:VeblenBot/C/Arts peer reviews, PR works again until the bot re-adds them to its list and tries to transclude whatever the problem PR is / PRs are. I am looking at all files that link to Template:Peer review to see if I can find the culprit(s). Grrrr. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Geometry guy

This is almost always caused by someone crosslisting a peer review, but not wrapping the extra category in "noincludes". The tricky part is finding who dunnit. Fortunately, in this case, the miscreant :) piped the name of the article (Canadian comics) so the peer review page got listed under C at Category:Arts peer reviews, and Wikipedia:Peer review/Canadian comics/archive1 was the first one listed under C there, so was easily found and fixed. The next VeblenBot run should now clear the problem.

This happens often enough that we should probably try to devise a fix, or suitable instructions for cross-listing. When experienced editors are involved, some wet fish might be in order :) Geometry guy 11:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much - you're the best! I could not recall the problem or find it myself. I am going to copy this to PR talk so I can find it next time in the archives. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Malformed PR requests

With the size issues I discovered that there were 32 or so places where the {{PR}} template was transcluded, but no formal PR had ever started or taken place. I am pretty sure I have removed them all now. In most cases this was from someone adding the template to an article talk page but never finishing the actual PR request - I checked the article history to make sure it was not a recent edit, but they were all over at least a week old, and most were months old. Here's one example diff, though in most cases I went in and removed the template (did not use undo normally). Several templates were on user talk pages or sandboxes or other odd places. I just thought I would mention it here in case there was any question. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)