Wikipedia talk:Peer review: Difference between revisions
→About a change to Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines: reply to Tom (LT) |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:::::Good idea! Would you be happy to post a request for it? I'm always in favour of automating repetitive manual tasks. [[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 00:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::Good idea! Would you be happy to post a request for it? I'm always in favour of automating repetitive manual tasks. [[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 00:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::Sorry for the delay, it's been busy off-wiki. Sure, I can reach out and see if the task can be expanded to cover this case as well. Speaking of automating repetitive tasks, it might be worth workshopping a more efficient way to update the {{tl|Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} and {{tl|FAC peer review sidebar}}, which is currently a rather tedious task of checking whether reviews have been closed and going through the main list to see if any other reviews qualify to be listed. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''TechnoSquirrel69'''</span>]]</span> <small>([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''sigh'''</span>]])</small> 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
::::::Sorry for the delay, it's been busy off-wiki. Sure, I can reach out and see if the task can be expanded to cover this case as well. Speaking of automating repetitive tasks, it might be worth workshopping a more efficient way to update the {{tl|Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} and {{tl|FAC peer review sidebar}}, which is currently a rather tedious task of checking whether reviews have been closed and going through the main list to see if any other reviews qualify to be listed. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''TechnoSquirrel69'''</span>]]</span> <small>([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''sigh'''</span>]])</small> 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::: Just to be clear, the request for change to the bot is to start archiving reviews with only one contributor (i.e. the nominator) after three months of inactivity? But still excluding PRs listed on {{tl|Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} and {{tl|FAC peer review sidebar}}? Anything else for the existing task? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: As for the comment about {{tl|Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} and {{tl|FAC peer review sidebar}}, it seems like it would be fairly straightforward for a bot to remove properly-formatted links to closed PRs. Adding entries on {{tl|Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} for PRs with no feedback (i.e. only one contributor) that wouldn't show up on the normal list wouldn't be too bad either. Determining if feedback is "minimal" or whether it's related to a FAC seems beyond what AnomieBOT could handle though, humans would still have to do that part. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Add "nomination at FAC/FLC/GAN" to notes in Step 1 == |
== Add "nomination at FAC/FLC/GAN" to notes in Step 1 == |
Revision as of 12:16, 11 June 2024
Incorrect closureWikipedia:Peer review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 got closed without review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
About a change to Wikipedia:Peer review/GuidelinesI've just removed a criterion from § Step 4: Closing a review which previously read "If a request is unanswered for more than one month." Because of how understaffed the peer review process tends to be, I regularly find that reviews can go unnoticed for months before an interested editor comes along and provides comments. I don't think it's a net positive to summarily throw out month-old requests and tell the nominator, in essence, that they're out of luck. Feel free to revert me if you disagree with the change and we can discuss it further if necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Add "nomination at FAC/FLC/GAN" to notes in Step 1In the PR instructions, Step 4, it states that a PR can be closed if the article is nominated for good article, featured article or featured list status. When answering PRs, I came across a situation where an article was first nominated at GAN, then nominated at PR. I would like to add the following text to the "Please note:" section of Step 1:
Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
|