Wikipedia talk:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives
See also the Peer review maintenance page

Contents

[edit] Change in the way semi-automated peer reviews are handled

As a result of a Bot request, the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) script is now on the tool server. Interested users can simply click a link and get a SAPR. See the discussion here. Here is the link for the article on Japan as an example. Carl can make the bot add the link to this instead of my running the SAPR (as User:AZPR) and pasting it into an archive). Besides the advantage of saving a lot of edits by myself, this would allow interested users to run the SAPR as many times as wanted. I would like to try and stopp the current method of SAPRs at the end of this month. Are there any objections? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds brilliant to me. Finetooth (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the "wedge" after reading a request at FAC a week earlier. — Dispenser 05:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] testing the new SAPR tool

The header for new PR pages has been changed to include a link to the new toolserver-based SAPR program. There may be a few transitional difficulties as we get the linking system set up; watch this thread for updates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need some help

Yes check.svg Resolved.

User:Liquidluck accidentally added {{Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Song (film)/archive1}} here, and I'm looking to correct the placement. How do I do this manually? —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is OK now - no need to do anything else. The bot transcludes the Peer Reviews, but it looks like Liquidluck was trying to add it manually to another PR instead of waiting for the bot to list it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't sure about the proper step and didn't know how to find the instructions that are provided with the setup of a PR (which I didn't want to do just to get instructions). —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review statistics August 2009 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in August. (July figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 140 (127)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 179 (150)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 62 (48)

Main reviewers:-

  • Finetooth: 54
  • Ruhrfisch: 31
  • Brianboulton: 14
  • S Marshall: 10
  • (2 reviewers contributed 3 reviews, 10 contributed 2 and 44 contributed 1)

Finetooth's effort shows remarkable dedication to the system (and they were proper reviews, too) Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. If this were a cycling race, I'd say I'd finally won a stage, though it's clear that Ruhrfisch is about 50 miles (80 km) ahead of the pack. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I also applaud Finetooth's continued good work - as Brian noted, these are substantial and very well done reviews. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Three proposals

I have some ideas that might make Peer review better and raise them here for discussion and to see if there is consensus to adopt them.

First, I think it would be very helpful to add the tools currently in all FAC entries to PR as well. I think that this would involve adding <noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Columbia River}}</noinclude> to each PR (with the correct title of the article, I used Columbia River as an example here). If all the PRs had this from the start, then the nominator could work on the points raised while waiting for reviewers' comments.

Second, I also note that the PRs still include the following text: <!--semi-automated peer review placeholder -- please do not edit or delete this comment--> which should be removed. If the tools are added, they could take the place of this to take roughly the same amount of text.

Third, I wonder if it would be useful to limit peer reviews to nominators who had made some substantial contribution to the article in question. I note that FAC already essentially bans "drive by nominations" and the idea is that if an article is to be reviewed, it should have someone nominating it for PR who has shown that they are committed to investing the time and effort to implement any changes suggested. I think that this would also cut down on the PR requests that say things like "This article is assessed as X, but should be Y" or "This is a cool article and should be improved". The question is how do you define a substantial contribution?

I also note that each of these three could be implemented (or not) separate from the others, though having the tools would make checking the number of edits by user much easier. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I note that the text at FAC is Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. with a link to an edit counter. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These three strike me as good ideas. (1) Lately I've been using the dabfinder and dead-link tools on articles at PR, and in most cases the tools find problems, which I've been noting in reviews. Adding the tools at the outset of a PR would be more efficient. (2) I can't imagine an argument against replacing the old text with the tool text. (3) Drive-bys bother me because the drive-by nominator, I think, is less likely than a main contributor to read, respond to, or act on a reviewer's suggestions, may never review another article, and is likely to drive by again. In an ideal setting, reviewers interact with nominators who are fully engaged, and the conversations are two-way. I think it would be helpful to add the same language as the FAC text quoted above, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article... " to the PR instructions and to use the edit count tool as a cross-check at the outset of a PR. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with idea #1. The second issue would require discussion with Carl(CBM) as I believe this comment line is used by PeerReviewBot to process the peer review. I have mixed feelings about the third issue. It seems to me that a common sense position would be that when nominators are reluctant to respond, reviewers should be reluctant to review, but that does not necessarily mean that a nomination for peer review was worthless in the first place. However, the third issue is really a matter for those who contribute so much good work here. Geometry guy 21:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I support Ruhrfisch's three proposals (though the second one is too technical for me, but I'm sure the great man knows what he's talking about). I would also like to make a fourth suggestion: that articles should not be on GAN and PR at the same time. I have had considerable trouble in the past with this sort of two-pronged review. It's a recipe for confusion and frustration; different advice might be proffered by the GA and PR reviewers. It can all end in a messy muddle and mutual hostility. So let's follow FAC again, and say that articles may not be on PR and GAN at the same time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Name of the template of course should be {{Wikipedia:Peer review tools}} and should be possible to move the AutoPR link there (unlike the hack we currently have). However, I had thought that perhaps the links should be integrated into the script, but had decided against it since it would mostly be my own tools. Cooler is that Dablinks can be integrated as a test since it provides a JSON interface.
Additionally, it seems that Gary King does not wish to work on the script at this time. I could improve the script and finish some feature request, but I'm already strained on maintaining my current tools and wouldn't like another. I could run an "Ad" on the tool asking for maintainers. — Dispenser 06:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Some replies from the bot operator:

  1. Adding links to tools will not cause any technical problem for the bot. Just add them to the template that is used to create peer reviews, for example to Template:PR/header
  2. Removing the commented line about semi-auto peer reviews should not cause any problem, because the bot is no longer linking them (this task was superseded by a toolserver tool). But I do not remember what template it is in.
  3. If a separate section for lists is desired (or for any other topic), all that has to happen is:
    1. The pages that belong in that section should have some special category added to their peer review page, similar to Category:General peer reviews. It is possible to put this in addition to the other categories, to put the article in two sections.
    2. VeblenBot should be told to make a page like User:VeblenBot/C/General peer reviews to track the category. Either Geometry guy or I can do this.
    3. A section should be added to Wikipedia:Peer review.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Ruhrfisch's first proposal, and comments by Dispenser and Carl, I've created {{Peer review tools}}, which combines automated suggestions with Dispenser's other tools. However, as suggested by Ruhrfisch, we probably don't want to clutter (or fill) the PR page with all these Toolboxes, so for new peer reviews, {{subst:PR/subst}} provides a link to {{Peer review tools}} wrapped in "noinclude"s, and uses {{PR/heading}} instead of {{PR/header}}. The latter template needs to be maintained to provide the automated peer review link for current and previous PRs, but I propose to deprecate it for new ones. Geometry guy 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks G-guy! Could the edits tool from FAC also be added to Peer reviews - see here for the tool for the Virginia article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many links one could add to the tool box: we should focus on those which are most useful for peer review - otherwise the toolbox could grow without end. Edit counts are not in the spirit of peer review, where the focus should be on the article and not the editors. While I understand that it might occasionally be useful to see who the main editors are, I don't believe it is in the interests of the encyclopedia for peer review to contribute further to the promotion of edit-count-itis. Geometry guy 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missing peer review: help me find it?

See Talk:Multisystem developmental disorder: a banner template states that there was a peer review, but it is redlinked. Assistance appreciated. Whatever404 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The only thing I can find is this from PR Archive 1, where it is listed as one of thirteen (!) articles that the requester asks for feedback on. Not sure if the fact that the date of the request was April Fools 2004 is significant or not. There was no response. I am not sure this is even worth linking to on the talk page as a peer review, but if you think it is, I think I can fix the old peer review template. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions

I was wondering about the First Nations PR; there's a GAN open for the article, and the PR isn't mentioned on the article talkpage. Should it be archived/deleted (deleted since there are no comments and it's not even filled out -- it looks like a test). Secondly, I was wondering about usefulness for requesting a PR for a page like United States; I think it needs not one review but a lot of different ones, since FAC would attract many reviews for an article like that. Finally, I'm really interested in the PR process and I really think it can provide very useful feedback without the pressure of F(A/L)C, so would it be possible for a more experienced reviewer to look over my recent reviews and see how I'm doing? I've actually never reviewed that much outside of a few GAs and some passing F(A/L)C comments. Thanks a lot, Maxim(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • First, there isn't at present a rule preventing articles from being nominated at GAN and PR simultaneously. My personal view is that there should be a rule - see my comment in the discussion higher up on this page. I have written to the First Nations nominator asking him/her to clarify the position
  • As to United States, that should not be on PR at present because it seems to be undergoing extensive editing at present. The nominator is a drive-by. I have written to the major editors suggesting the nom is withdrawn for the moment.
  • Finally, we would very much welcome your regular help at PR. I am sure your reviewing skills are as good or better than mine were when I sailed into peer reviewing a year or so ago, so why not pick an article from the backlog and take it from there? I usually review with the FA criteria broadly in mind, more specifically so if the article looks a definite featured article candidate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think with the common waiting periods at GAN, some people think they can get a PR done before the GA review starts.
    • Although United States is a long article, many of the problems with it are present throughout. So a review that points out that the article needs many more references (for example) applies to pretty much the whole thing
    • If you really want, please let me know a peer review or two that you have done and I will be glad to look at them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Good point about the GA, the backlog there is approaching the half-thousand mark. I posted the list of my PRs done to your talkpage. Maxim(talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Few questions on limits

I've got a few simple questions. I'm sure they're addressed somewhere, but I can't find that spot. Regarding the 14 day clause,

  1. When is a review considered archived? Obviously FAC's aren't archived until they close... But Peer Reviews automatically start out archived do they not? Must I wait 14 days since I opened the review.
  2. If I withdraw an FAC because it needs a peer review, do I have to wait 14 days?
  3. Given these limits, how can I get a second person to peer review on an open review? One set of eyes misses a lot. Two catches it most, but three really gets the grime out of the tight spots. In other words I've fixed up everything from the last review and need a second opinion before I nominate for featured list.

- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The name archive is historic - the PR is archived when it is marked "This peer review discussion has been closed." See this diff for example.
The idea is that the FAC has suggestions to follow and the 14 days is time to implement those. If an FAC was nothing more than "This needs a PR, please withdraw it" and you did, I suppose it could come straight to PR.
Just to clarify the time limits - a PR stays open for 14 days after the last (non-minor) edit is made, until it reaches 30 days old. After 30 days it will be closed after 2 days of inactivity. Most archiving (closing) is done by a bot. The best way to get reviews is to ask people. Try WIkiProjects or WP:PR/V or someone who has worked on a similar article. The PR backlog exists to try and make sure every PR gets at least one review - beyond that your'e on your own. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Montrose Academy missing link

This article is listed for review at WP:PR (and I have reviewed it). There is no link on the article's discussion page. If I put one there, will I be opening a second review request for the article? (these technicalities defeat me every time!!!) Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the problem by adding the PR template to the article's talk page, saving, then changing the archive number in the PR template to 1 since this seems to be the first PR the article has had. Finetooth (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it - in general if the peer review is the first for the article "Foo" at "Wikipedia:Peer review/Foo/archive1" then the "Talk:Foo" page should have {{Peer review|archive=1}} on it (and if it were PR 2, then the only change would be to make it {{Peer review|archive=2}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton

Appears twice on the PR requests. Can one of them be painlessly removed? I'd do it, but... Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this - I deleted the second one. I think the bot will remove it from the listings within the hour, if not I will clean that up too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Did I do this right?

I followed the instructions on this page to post an article for PR. Looking at the results here I see that it has "archive1" in the URL. Is that correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - for historic reasons all peer review names end with "archiveN" where N is a positive integer. That way the article does not have to be moved or renamed when it is closed / archived. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lists section

Could u please create a section for lists so that list reviewers could go directly to it instead of skimming through the Review page for lists? This would really help...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A bot lists the peer reviews here. I will ask Carl if this can be done easily, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If a separate section for lists is desired (or for any other topic), all that has to happen is:

  1. The pages that belong in that section should have some special category added to their peer review page, similar to Category:General peer reviews. It is possible to put this in addition to the other categories, to put the article in two sections.
  2. VeblenBot should be told to make a page like User:VeblenBot/C/General peer reviews to track the category. Either Geometry guy or I can do this.
  3. A section should be added to Wikipedia:Peer review.

The same process could be used, for example, to split one of the existing sections in half. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I did 3 I don't know what's next... could u proceed with the change?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If only it were that simple! I think I've done everything else that needs to be done: new category, new CF template, new option at {{Peer review}}, new preload for this option, new {{PR/Topic}}, update {{Peer review page}} documentation... :-) Geometry guy 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Plus I've tested it on one of the current List PRs. To move the others, just change the topic parameter on the review page for the List. Geometry guy 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijan double trouble

The Clinton problem has struck again. Fix required. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I deleted the second PR request and merged the text with the first one. I also left a note on the user's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review statistics September 2009 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in September. (August figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 104 (140)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 130 (179)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 51 (62)

Main reviewers:-

  • Finetooth: 23
  • Ruhrfisch: 23
  • Brianboulton: 22
  • Maxim: 5
  • (1 reviewer contributed 3 reviews, 8 contributed 2 and 38 contributed 1)

Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Confederation of Madya-as

A peer review has been requested for this article. It has a clean-up banner relating to possible plagiarism. I have identified four cases of uncited verbatim quotes - see here. I believe the violation is probably innocent, but the peer review should I think be closed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - to stay here on WIkipedia, the article has to be rewritten, which makes reviewing it now moot (as presumably much of it will change in the rewrite). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat offender

When I see someone list two or more peer reviews in a day, I leave a standard message on their talk page:

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°°

For the first time since I have been tracking this, someone has done this a second time, namely Pedro thy master (talk · contribs) (Pedro J). Is everyone OK with me delisting one of the PRs now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have archived Wikipedia:Peer review/Maggie Simpson/archive1 and left a note on the nominator's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of problems

  • A failed attempt has been made to close the Charlie Chaplin filmography list. The name has disappeared from the article's review page. Can someone complete the closing?
  • The "list" section of the Peer Review page has somehow reversed itself, so that additions go to the bottom rather than the top of the list. This means that an old list from 10 October wasn't spotted by me and didn't reach the backlog. I have put it there now, but can the list order be fixed?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I have closed the Chaplin filmography PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I always look at WP:pr/d, which lists all of the PRs chronologically from newest at the top to oldest at the bottom. I will ask Carl, who runs the bot about the chronological order problem, to fix this as I can't see what the problem is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the issue with the lists reviews. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical number

Two PR requests were posted for this article by the same editor within minutes, on 22 October. I have tried to close the second but I am not sure I have succeeded. Can someone check it out? Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the second PR for the article. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PR listing

I listed 30 Rock (season 4) for a PR about half an hour ago and the bot hasn't listed it under lists yet. Admittedly not the hour suggested on the main PR page, but it seems like every other PR was listed within a minute of the original posting. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is listed there now - my guess is the others were created shortly before the bot ran and yours was created shortly after the bot ran, so theirs had to wait a short time and yours had to wait nearly the whole hour. Patience is a virtue. ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:AndyZ/peerreviewer script needs adoption

The very useful User:AndyZ/peerreviewer seems orphaned as AndyZ left Wikipedia a year ago. Perhaps an active editor or a WikiProject could adopt it? The same holds true for the useful User:AndyZ/Suggestions. That page doesn't have its own discussion page, as it is redirected to AndyZ's talk page, which is obviously not the right place for reporting issues or suggesting improvements with it anymore... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Below are some things that the new maintainer should look into addressing.
  • Update the image syntax. The tool should be able to understand both Image: and File:, and warn if alt text is missing.
  • Readability statistics, suggest integration of User talk:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js
  • API call to get the HTML rendering of the page
  • Toolserver tools integration, I’m willing to help here especially with Dablinks.
  • Add reference checking, scripts are already written to do some of this.
  • Add programming hooks for additional scripts.
  • Code refactoring, indenting, and add a pass/fail table of tests.
The maintainer should be knowledgeable or willing to learning JavaScript and regular expressions. Be able address concerns brought up to them. I will a notice to this section on to my tools. — Dispenser 03:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have used the script and am active at PR, but do not have the ability to maintain the script. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You can create a branch (copy) of the scripts in your users space and work on it their. I'd suggestion continuing work from Gary King's branch. — Dispenser 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not have the time or desire to teach myself how to maintain this code / script. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review statistics October 2009 (archived)

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

Number of reviews archived: 107 (104)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 146 (130)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 57 (51)

Main reviewers:-

  • Finetooth: 25
  • Brianboulton: 21
  • Ruhrfisch: 18
  • Ealdgyth: 11
  • Diaa abdelmoneim: 9
  • (2 reviewer contributed 3 reviews, 5 contributed 2 and 46 contributed 1)
Thanks for doing this - always interesting to see these stats. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archives for this talkpage

The box at the top of this page indicates that the last archive for the page covers the period April 2008 to date. In fact, that archive covers only the period from April to October 2008. Where is the archive covering the period from November 2008 to the start of this current talkpage? Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for ctaching this - the bot was saving old items to Archive 6, so I added that to the Archive box above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Bako

Review closed incorrectly by nominator. Can someone check that it is now correctly closed? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the header consistent with the other archived PRs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lock-in (decision-making)

I dont think this article should be on peer review. Please check out and if necesary close. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree it does not meet the criteria for PR, but I can do a review that is mostly copy and paste in 5 minutes, then it will not be on the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Lassie (1954 TV series)/archive1

I had to delete this page as the peer review was started by a banned user in violation of her ban. I'm not versed on how to remove the entry from the PR list, however. Can someone here handle this? MuZemike 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review"