Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 4

Categorizing PR

As mentioned a couple of threads up, changes to reinvigorate Peer review have been under discussion at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop, especially on its talk page. As the discussion there is stalling, I thought it worthwhile to bring ideas here for implementation (though I see this is far from an active talk page). The simplest and hardest to argue with change is introducing categories on this page, thus making it more browsable. (Indeed, given that this regularly approaches 200 reviews, I am surprised it hasn't been done before.) The majority was in favour WP 1.0 hierarchy:

Arts · Language and literature · Philosophy and religion · Everyday life · Society and social sciences · Geography · History · Applied sciences and technology · Mathematics · Natural sciences

A minority favoured the FA categories:

Art, architecture and archaeology · Awards, decorations and vexillology · Biology and medicine · Business, economics and finance · Chemistry and mineralogy · Computing · Culture and society · Education · Engineering and technology · Food and drink · Geography and places · Geology, geophysics and meteorology · History · Language and linguistics · Law · Literature and theatre · Mathematics · Media · Music · Philosophy and psychology · Physics and astronomy · Politics and government · Religion, mysticism and mythology · Royalty, nobility and heraldry · Sport and recreation · Transport · Video games · Warfare

New votes (or any objections) are welcome. It can be done quite easily and, I think, without any extraneous problems created. I don't think it would affect the bot that does automated reviews, though someone should confirm that. Marskell 08:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the mock-up: Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop/Peer Review mockup Marskell 08:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support And favor the WP1.0 categories over the more complex FA categories. I think this is the best way to increase expert participation in the peer review process. It will also be easier to see which categories have a larger backlog so that we can direct review requests and participation drives in areas that are needed more. Dr. Cash 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This seems like a step in the right direction. Perhaps we could also figure out a way to notify editors and Wikiprojects when an article in their area of expertise is up for peer review. --JayHenry 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support But this needs to be done by a bot based on the categories already in the articles being reviewed. --mav (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific peer review tagged inactive

I've tagged WP:SPR as inactive. As much as I'd love to see a scientific peer review on Wikipedia, it appears that page is defunct. The last conversations on the talk page occurred in July, and the last scientific peer review posted there which received actual feedback was Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis (and the actual review came from the Peer Review page anyway; the page wasn't linked to SPR until after the single, automated comment was made).

There's no point in having people wait months on end to have articles reviewed, and it would be better to keep the few active peer review volunteers on the same page. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with this, folding it into gen PR seems the best way to go. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's been reverted, and by someone who hasn't been actively reviewing the articles... *sigh* Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was the editor who reverted this. First, I review scientific review articles only if they are about subjects that,as a scientist, I am familiar with. Unfortunately, no such articles have been put to scientific peer review for some time. I have been maintaining the scientific peer review for a long while, but I have been unable to do so recently due to a wikibreak as I went overseas and then being busy and ill since my return. I have tried to remove all old reviews and to also transclude new requests for review to WP:PR. I reverted the "inactive tag" because I do not think it is appropriate. Yes, this review process has problems and in fact it always has had. The initial discussions discussed such things as an elected board of reviewers and the appointment of other expert reviewers. In the end no agreement was reached, except that we agreed to try a low key version. That is what we have. It does attract some articles for review, but they are often inappropriate for a real review. You can have requests for review but that does not always attract reviewers, even on WP:PR itself. I am going to do the following:

1. Cleanup the current reviews, archiving old ones and also transcluding new ones to WP:PR.
2. Suggest on the WP:SPR page that new requests for review should also be transcluded to WP:PR.
3. Set out the difficulties on the talk page of WP:SPR and then ask all the science Wikiprojects to go over there and join the debate. (Note that the list of articles for review at WP:SPR is transcluded into many of the Science WikiProject pages.)
4. If this does lead to more good activity, then I will propose that WP:SPR should be deleted.

However, give me a bit of time to this. I am still busy.--Bduke 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure having a separate 'scientific peer review' page is really what we want. Participation is down across all three of the major review areas (WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR). The best way to increase participation in the three core programs is not to dilute potential reviewers into a whole different process. Plus, there's likely to be a proposal coming through very soon to institute categories at WP:PR, much like the category listing at WP:GAN. If this goes through, scientific articles will be grouped together, making them easier for experts to locate. This seems like a much better solution than a whole separate process for 'scientific peer review'. Dr. Cash 08:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. However the first sentence suggests that the scientific peer review is a new suggestion. The reality is that it is an old suggestion that has never really worked. I am trying to sort that out. The important point you make is that interest in reviewing things has declined. That is depressing, but interesting and a point we have to address.. Reviewing what we do has to be the way forward. The scientific review process was a discussion about how to get experts to review things. As always, we on WP have never been able to progress that point. It is one of our key tensions. We want to be completely democratic, yet we want to get our articles right. As an professional scientist and a keen wikipedean I am torn on this issue. We are not going to resolve it easily. --Bduke 11:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now completed steps (1) to (3) of the process I set out above by adding something like the paragraph below to Wikipedia Talk:Scientific peer review and to nine Science WikiProject talk pages. Please feel free to copy it elsewhere

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Peer Review has now been declared inactive and reviews on scientific articles will be directed here. --Bduke (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review volunteer list

A new page has been created to list users who have volunteered to be contacted on their talk page to do peer reviews: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. The page was created after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop, a page devoted to trying to improve review processes such as peer review. The page now has quite a few volunteers who have signed up, and I think it would be good to add a link to it from the PR instructions.

The instructions live in Template:PR-instructions. How about changing the first paragraph under "Nomination procedure" to say "Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. You may also contact a volunteer peer reviewer directly; see the list of volunteers"?

-- Mike Christie (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Youngstown Ohio Works

I tried to cleanup the nomination for User:Twelsht but for some reason the header won't appear above the comments. Any ideas? Thanks --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disregard. I see I accidentally deleted the header on the PR page. Cheers, Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment

Is is fine to nominate an article for PEER REVIEW even though a POV tag is still attached? BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the peer review rules and guidelines preventing such an article from being submitted. That being said, peer review is not designed to resolve POV issues in an article and a POV tag may also serve to scare off potential reviewers. If the article's primary problem is POV related then resources such as Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may better serve your needs. --Allen3 ^talk 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Automation of this page

Some editors working on Peer Review will be aware that there is an idea in the works to automate the generation of the PR page. At the moment the Peer Review process requires nominators to (1) add a template to the talk page, (2) create a Peer Review subpage for the article, and then (3) "transclude" the subpage onto the PR page by pasting "{{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}}" to the top of the nominees list.

One of the goals of automation is to eliminate this final step (3), and ensure that the first two steps are completed correctly. A secondary goal is to remove one step from the archiving of Peer Reviews, by automating the removal of the transcluded subpage from the PR page.

OK, enough technobabble. Take a look at User:Geometry guy/Peer review. You will find it is extremely similar to the current Peer Review list. There are some very minor differences. First, there are differences towards the beginning of the list: this is because PR nominators have not carried out the three steps correctly, by omitting step (1) or step (3) (e.g., someone has attempted to reopen the Peer Review of Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing). I believe some editors here have already been using User:Geometry guy/Peer review to identify such errors. Second, there are one or two minor changes or ordering, because User:Geometry guy/Peer review lists the articles in the order in which step (1) is carried out, while this page (provided editors follow the instructions) lists articles in order of step (3). Finally, User:Geometry guy/Peer review only lists Peer Reviews, not WikiProject Peer Reviews, which are sometimes (but not reliably) added here: I can't find any examples at the moment. However, the same mechanism could also list such Peer Reviews (reliably!) on the PR page in a separate section.

The main difference between the PR page and User:Geometry guy/Peer review, of course, is that the latter is created automatically, rather than by hand. In fact, the page has only been edited once since I got it working a month ago, yet it has been tracking the Peer Review list since then. The page gets its data from a bot, called VeblenBot, which (thanks to Carl(CBM)) examines the content of Category:Requests for peer review every hour. If there are any new articles there (because {{peer review}} has been added to a new talk page), they are added to the Peer Review list.

I would like to propose using this technique to automatically generate the PR page. It would save a great deal of effort: nominators would have one less step to do; there would be less potential to make nomination errors (saving time on fixing these errors); and archiving a Peer Review would require one less edit. I welcome discussion and questions about the proposal. Geometry guy 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, there is an example of the third difference now, as American Top 40 has been listed here as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Peer Review. As I said above, such WikiProject Reviews could be tracked in a separate section. Geometry guy 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of automation. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tracked and tested the automated page against the peer review page for a while now, and think it is ready to try. I have updated the peer review guidelines at User:Geometry guy/Peer review to reflect this potential change. As with any change, there will be teething problems, and it is important that the guidelines minimize the problems, so I need other editors to comment on the revised instructions and improve them.

The revised guidelines also explain archiving more carefully and suggest a more robust archiving procedure. Ideally, archived articles should be moved to an archive subpage immediately, to provide a permanent link. For regular archivists this is extra work, and is not essential, as it can be fixed by GimmeBot later anyway. But I think it is important clarify these issues, because I've noticed mistakes being made when peer review nominations have previous peer reviews. Geometry guy 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Automated

I've now implemented the automation of the PR list. As promised above, there will surely be teething problems, but I've tried to add guidelines and source code comments to minimize these. One potential problem concerns page moves: if a page is moved during a peer review, then the peer review subpage needs to be moved too. Fortunately this is a fairly rare occurence. A bigger issue concerns the idea of a permanent link. Unfortunately some newsletters, posted on multiple talk pages, link to peer reviews. Fixing these links when a peer review is archived is a pain, so until such fixes are automated, we have to live with an imperfect system. Geometry guy 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Recruiting more reviewers

I am surprised the PR (and FAC) nomination process does not include this key element: the nominator could be expected to provide a list of pages on which the nominator (or a bot) will announce the nomination and invite readers to respond. Proposals for new Usenet newsgroups have worked that way for over a decade; the proposer is expected to develop a list of newsgroups and e-mail discussion groups where it would be appropriate to post a notice of the proposal. --Una Smith (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} deprecates other templates?

Editors may be interested in the discussion that is starting here. Happy‑melon 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Issue with editing peer reviews

Presumably this problem is related to the recent changes. Whenever I try to click the edit link for a given peer review I get the following message:

You tried to edit a section that does not exist. Since there is no section 1, there is no place to save your edit. Sections may have been removed after you loaded the page; try purge and bypass your browser cache.

Return to Template:CF/Requests for peer review.

Neither purging nor bypassing cache have had any effect. I can get around this by clicking the direct link on the {{peerreview}} template on an article's talk page, but it is hardly ideal. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for drawing attention to this. This wasn't caused by the recent changes directly, but by an edit I made yesterday to the template that displays the peer review entries. I think I've fixed it now: let me know if there are still problems. Apologies for the temporary inconvenience, and thanks again. Geometry guy 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is working now. Thanks. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. My excuse for fiddling with the template is in the next section. Geometry guy 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking advantage of the automation

The automated listing of peer reviews presents the opportunity to provide the peer review information in several different formats at no extra cost. The system is quite flexible, so I've tested out a couple of uses. The first is a peer review list, which provides links to peer reviews and articles under peer review. The second is an automatic list of recent peer reviews, which can be transcluded anywhere. Both of these can be modified to suit editors needs. Are these potentially useful? If so, how might they be improved? Are there any further suggestions? Geometry guy 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that I should respond to a peer review request by reviewing "one of the articles below". Why are there no more peer reviews on Wikipedia:Peer review that I can respond to? – Ilse@ 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Comment on this page if there are further problems. Geometry guy 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Anything happening? DrKiernan (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

New Peer Review system

Is anyone else uninspired by the new system? It now takes three clicks to get to an individual review and you can't easily glance through any other reviews. Peanut4 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is related to the previous thread on archiving. Basically, this page has depended on the generous efforts of Allen3 to archive old peer reviews, but he hasn't done this since 18 December. Consequently there are now too many peer reviews to list on the peer review page and the software is replacing the transclusions by links. (Technically, the post-expand include limit has been exceeded.) What you are currently seeing is not how the page is meant to look. In fact it is meant to look identical to the old peer review page, and did until yesterday. I'll see if I can fix it, but I expect the only solution is to archive some old peer reviews. Geometry guy 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a temporary problem, which we will be able to resolve. One option is to move peer reviews to a subpage when they grow too long for transclusion here (the same thing happens on RFA and other pages that transclude a lot of subpages - very long RFAs are not transcluded on the main RFA page). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to a great archiving effort by Dr. Kiernan, the PR page is now back under control (and no longer takes 10 seconds to load). Please would all nominators and reviewers help to keep it this way by contributing to the archiving process. Thanks! Geometry guy 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cross-listing peer reviews

Can I cross list a peer review here. I think you use to be able to just transclude the discussion page in two places. Now, I don't know if that can be done. I want to also list Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Crown Fountain here. Is that possible?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, put it in the "WikiProject peer reviews" section. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the place to post entire specialized peer reviews not x-list a single article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to cross list a single article, but it is not clear whether this is the best way to proceed: see below. Geometry guy 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What to do with WikiProject peer reviews?

The above post raises the general question of the relation between this page and WikiProject peer reviews. There are a number of ways to answer this. Here are some.

1. Expand on the current "WikiProject peer reviews" section: in other words, interested WikiProjects can have their peer reviews linked, but not transcluded, here. The WikiProject could either generate the list manually (as WikiProject Films and WikiProject Biography do on their "announce" pages), or VeblenBot could do it automatically from the WikiProject peer review categories.
2. Allow individual WikiProject peer reviews to be listed by hand as peer reviews: this can be done by adding the {{peer review}} template to the article talk page, and redirecting Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME to Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME. The problem with this solution is that extra work is needed to add the template and redirect, and it creates additional complexity (and hence opportunity for errors to be made) when the peer review is archived.
3. Interested WikiProjects could have their peer reviews systematically cross-listed here in a separate section. This could easily be done automatically, but the peer review page could become unmanageably long.
4. Interested WikiProjects could have their peer reviews systematically cross-listed here as peer reviews. The WikiProject peer review template would place articles into the general peer review category. There are two ways to work this.
   • Nominators would be required to redirect Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME to Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME.
   • WikiProjects would no longer have separate subpages (Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME): instead, Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT/Peer review would transclude the reviews from selected Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME subpages.

Both options again may run into the problem that the peer review page could become unmanageably long.

In deciding between these and similar options, one might like to ask: what is the purpose of WikiProject peer reviews? Are they just peer reviews which get advertised to WikiProjects? If so, then they should be listed here, and linked or cross-listed at the WikiProject. Or are they specialist reviews? If so, then they should not be listed here, but could be linked. Geometry guy 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Readability tool

I created readability tool for a bot request made for peer review. As the original author hasn't replied back I'm posting the link here in hopes that someone will find it useful. —Dispenser (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What?

Oh where, oh where have all the little peer review listings gone? :) Seriously, where is the list? Awadewit | talk 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is full because no one has been archiving it. Someone needs to archive old peer reviews or the page will break: this is explained two threads above. For now, I have switched the bot into list-only mode (so the reviews don't transclude). When enough old peer reviews have been archived, I'll switch the transclusion of reviews back on. Thanks. Geometry guy 09:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I archived my two. :) Awadewit | talk 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I did three, chosen from the longest ones. Geometry guy 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, User:Allen3 used to archive any requests over a month old and any that had received no comments in two weeks. I notice all the current requests are less than one month old. Do you want me to work on those with no new comments in the past two weeks? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. That is what the archiving guidelines now state, I think. Geometry guy 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem, none are older than a month (as mentioned) and the oldest received semi-automated peer reviews (which I ran as AZPR) on January 5, 2008. Is it OK to archive those with no contributions older than two weeks except for the semi-automated peer review? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so: these are only guidelines, so use your discretion. Geometry guy 09:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived another 5 long PRs, and it appears that Ruhrfisch is archiving PRs which have only semi-automatic reviews in the last two weeks. Once that is done, I think we will have enough margin to restore full transclusion of reviews. Geometry guy 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived 22 requests and removed three broken listings (I had asked them to fix the PR requests 2 days ago). I think 18 of the 22 had received no feedback except for the semi-automated peer review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I've switched transclusion back on: the page now has just under 400 KB spare room before it hits the 2 MB limit for transclusions and breaks again. Please, all editors keep up with the archiving. Many hands, and all that... Geometry guy 13:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try to archive at least every other day. I feel bad that so many had had no responses, but am not sure what else to do. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should feel bad: peer review currently has 128 articles listed, all (or nearly all) of which are either new, or have comments in the last two weeks. As Jayron suggests below, this is rather a success! Geometry guy 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have written a script to post to this page if it notices that the Peer review page is close to the limit. The actual archiving needs to be done by hand, but the reminder may give some warning before anything breaks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, LOVE how PR has changed...

The new changes at Peer Review are awsome. Under the old system, I would check in here once in a while, and maybe pick up a new article to peer review. This new system, with the volunteers list, is working GREAT. I probably now review a MINIMUM of one article a week, and have enjoyed every one of them. With the new volunteer page, I am able to list myself by area of preference, and article custodians come to me to request a review. I always get an article I am interested in, which is helping me review a LOT more article. My only suggestion is that we make the volunteers list MORE prominent on the main page. We probably don't want to transclude the whole thing, but it should be easier for editors to find it. Just an idea, but I thought I would come and throw some kudos around for doing a great job fixing up what was a broken system... Well done! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse what Jayron32 says. The new system is excellent and has put really PR on the map. Kudos to all those involved in the overhaul. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reported these positive comments to the Content review workshop, organsised by Mike Christie, which was the origin of these changes. In my view, the best way to say thanks is to comment on the idea below (I hope I do it justice). Geometry guy 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had editors dropping by for help, as well. When I started it, I was hoping it would become a meme, although it's hard to directly test how many reviews are getting extra comments because of it. And it's still not as exposed as it could be. Are there other places we might link to it? Marskell (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Organising the PR page

One of the other ideas raised by the Content review workshop is closely related to the above. Note that the volunteers at WP:Peer review/volunteers are listed under 10 topics and general copyediting. The other idea is to organise (voluntarily) the articles on the peer review page under the same 10 topics. This idea was dropped because it was opposed by a key PR editor, Allen3. However, Allen3 seems to have left the project anyway. Furthermore, the automation of the peer review page means that this would be easy to implement: peer review nominators would simply use {{peer review|topic=topic name}} if they wanted to list their review under a particular section. Peer reviews without such a designation would be listed in a general section, either at the beginning or the end of the list of peer reviews.

So, is this worth doing? Is it helpful to structure the PR page, or unhelpful to fragment it? I have the feeling that those who have been encouraged by the recent changes will have a clear idea as to whether this is a useful further change or not, so please comment. Geometry guy 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is definately a good idea (since I supported it the first time around). Such an implementation would mean that editors who wished to be involved, but don't want to be listed as a volunteer, would still be able to find an article that interested them. I support this organization for those reasons. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Allen3 is still alive and well on Wiki. He deserves great credit for looking after this page for so long. The main complaint was the manual archiving, but now that that's not needed we can proceed with this, if there are no other objections. Marskell (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I meant that he had left the PR project after much valuable service. Geometry guy 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Erk, I see below the archiving isn't fully automated. Let's get that done first. Marskell (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my plan. Although the proposal below is not quite full automation, archiving should be just as easy for a subdivided page as for an undivided page. Geometry guy 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing the page is an excellent idea, and I think would greatly help to sort out the list. I tend to review mostly at WP:GAN, because I can quickly go to the categories that I have strengths in and find articles seeking review quickly; if this were done at WP:PR, I'd probably participate more over here, too. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now "pre-implemented" this idea (with help from Carl and VeblenBot, as always): it is now possible to categorize a peer review by adding a WP1.0 topic to the {{Peer review page}} template on the peer review discussion page for the article. At the moment all this does is place the article in a category (such as Category:Arts peer reviews), but everything is in place to list peer reviews by topic on the main PR page. I will set up a demo fairly soon. Geometry guy 09:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2042508 out of 2048000 bytes (5492 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Down to around 1750000 now. Right now the bot will leave a note if there are less than 20000 bytes left; very few peer reviews are that long. But many are over 6000 byes, so the message above implies that the page might have been broken.

I am working with the developers to add the ability to mediawiki to solve this problem for us, but it will take time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning VeblenBot :-) and to Carl for fixing it.

I was shocked when I saw this notice, though, because there has just been a huge archiving effort by Ruhrfisch, DrKiernan and others: there are no Peer reviews over a month old, and nearly all have comments in the last few days! If the current Peer reviews amount to 2MB of text, then Peer review really is a victim of its own success! Had 400KB of text been added in less than 24 hours?

Well, no, in fact. Instead a seemingly innocent addition of the list of WP:MILHIST peer reviews added over 500KB to the size of the page, because of non-displaying material in the template source. I have commented out this template until it is redesigned. This page is now a much more comfortable size of 1280000 bytes, so there is plenty of room for more reviews!

Note that Carl's fix involved replacing the transclusion of the two longest reviews, namely Reactive attachment disorder and Emily Dickinson, by links. This is done

1. by partially archiving the review (i.e., moving Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE to the next available Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE/archiveN subpage), then
2. replacing the resulting redirect by a level 3 section heading ===[[ARTICLE]]===, and a link to the /archiveN subpage.

However, now that true culprit has been identified :-), it should be okay to restore the Reactive attachment disorder and Emily Dickinson transclusions if editors wish to do so. (Just convert the links to /archive1 pages back to redirects.) Happy reviewing! Geometry guy 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Note that this last step is also what needs to be done (instead of a page move) to archive these two peer reviews. Geometry guy 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving question

So I went to archive old requests just now and looking at Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2008, and found that 23 reviews were added without the move to "/archive1" (diff). Do these all need to be fixed? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. It is better if archive pages are permanent, but it is not essential. Geometry guy 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons I say this is not essential is because it is too much hard work to do the page move, especially as the links should really be fixed, not just double redirects (this is because the next peer review would replace the redirect with a new peer review page). To deal with this I outline another automation proposal below. Geometry guy 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Automating the archives

The peer review archives (from February 2008) could be automated using exactly the same method which automates the peer review page itself. This would not completely automate the archiving process, but, in the absense of a bot to do this, it is all we have available for now. Combined with an idea due to Gimmetrow, however, it would eliminate the awkward page move and link fixes from the archiving process. Gimmetrow calls this "archiving from the get go". The idea is that, with a small change to {{peer review}}, the peer review page for an article could be at the next free Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE/archiveN page from the very beginning, and so would never need to be moved.

The peer review page of the article would need to have a template on it for this to work, but this would be done by the {{peer review}} template in the same way as it currently provides the section heading. This is not an archiving panacea, as archiving would still involve two steps:

• Changing {{peer review}} template on the talk page to {{oldpeerreview}} (or article history);
• Changing a template on the peer review page for the article.

However, these would both be straightforward edits. An additional benefit would be that there would no longer be separate instructions for "resubmitting a peer review": the submission and resubmission processes would be identical.

I have implemented a similar system at WP:GAR, and it seems to be working quite well.

Do others think this is worth doing? It is particularly important that those who generously archive peer reviews on a regular basis would find such an approach easier to use, even if it is only a marginal improvement. Geometry guy 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The current page move system of archiving PR requests is something of a pain. I would appreciate any changes that made it less cumbersome / required fewer steps. (aka yes please) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's also implicit support from Marskell above, so on Sunday (probably) I'll try to get this ready to roll out for February 2008, unless there are any objections. (Here it would be helpful to know DrKiernan's view.) Geometry guy 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In preparation for doing this, I'm now moving current PR pages to /archive pages, leaving a redirect. This should not affect normal operations, but means this does not need to be done when archiving. Geometry guy 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)  Done (But please don't use the "done" template in peer reviews :-) Geometry guy 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks very much - assume you are planning to do this anyway, but could you please update the removing a request section of the PR instructions? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will, but it's going to take a few days to complete the automation. In particular, I haven't fixed all links to the page moves, only double redirects. I also need to template the archiveN pages of current peer reviews and start tracking them. In this transitional period, I will try to troubleshoot: please report any issues here. Meanwhile, we are desperately close to the page limits, so it is time to start archiving! Geometry guy 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will archive some in the next 8 hours - how do I do it now (with the changes)? Just change to "oldpeerreview|archive=N" on the talk page and add the file to the archive? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right: I've just done a bunch, so what's left may require judgement calls (e.g., automated reviews on 18 January). It may be worth checking links too, but I haven't done that with the ones I've archived this evening. If you want to troubleshoot, check my contribs. Geometry guy 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just archived three more - got busy yesterday trying to finish an article to meet the DYK 5 day clock, sorry. I am glad to see that it looks like more articles are getting peer reviews. I will try to archive every other day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This has now been done. I hope everyone finds the two-edit archiving process much easier to use than the previous approach. Geometry guy 09:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving problem?

I archived Saskatchewan Highway 1, Pied noir, Le Paradis massacre, Scotland, and Reactive attachment disorder in the past day, but all are still isted here. Am I forgetting something simple or is there a problem? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The peer review on Reactive attachment disorder is still open and receiving contributions. Somebody moved the content to an archive page because they felt it was too long, but they left a note. I reverted your previous "archive". I haven't reverted your latest. Is there a reason why you think RAD should be archived/closed? Colin°^Talk 08:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that RAD should remain open because it is still very active. It is over a month old, but the archiving guidelines suggest waiting until the discussion falls silent for a couple of days before archiving it.

As for the general query, yes, there is a problem: the toolserver which provides the data to generate this page, is down. It should be back online again soon, but in the meanwhile we may implement a back-up system which does not rely on the toolserver. Geometry guy 10:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This has now been fixed: thanks to Carl(CBM), this page no longer relies on the toolserver. Note that RAD has gone to the top of the list because it was taken out of the peer review category for a while, so the system thinks it is a new review: this can be fixed if it bothers anyone.(This has been fixed.)

Please report any further problems here. Geometry guy 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewspam

In the past 24 hours, I've gotten two form-letter requests for peer reviews. Checking into users' contributions, I see that the requester has posted the same message to many many other users. I've added a comment on the volunteers page to head this off. It reads: please do not send "review spam" to each individual listed below. Find 2-3 editors most interested in the article's subject area and give them time to respond. – Scartol • Tok 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1908529 out of 2048000 bytes (139471 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I switched some longer pages to not transclude. I'm not sure if other changes were made, but now it's down to 1,500,000 or so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1919280 out of 2048000 bytes (128720 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks VeblenBot! This sudden growth in page size was caused by WikiProject Films transcluding a large template. I've fixed it and the page size is back down to 1788KB.

(To all.) Please only transclude WikiProject peer reviews as plain wikitexts lists. Thanks - Geometry guy 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest from VeblenBot

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1875239 out of 2048000 bytes (172761 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived a few, but I don't think anything is older than 2 weeks without a review now (and nothing but reactive whatsit order is older than a month). The number of peer reviews is growing - do we want to start archiving sooner (all after 3 weeks, inactive after 10 days)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch! We're down to 1834KB now. We seem to be staying 200KB clear of the limits with current guidelines. Shall we see how it goes over the next few days (when I will be completing the partial automation of the archiving process)? Geometry guy 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1866309 out of 2048000 bytes (181691 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seemed as if there were a LOT more requests this month, so I checked the Semi-automated Peer review totals - for October there were 158, November had 166, December had 156, and January has 179 so far (counts 2 I need to run the script on). Each month there are a few that either request no semi-automated or say they have already run the script or that slip through the cracks, so the actual totals are almost certainly slightly higher. Anyway, it is a good trend, but I agree it is not cause for changing the wait times before archiving yet. I do think lately more reviews are getting replies, which is great. I always feel bad when something is archived with only a semi-automated PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is very encouraging: the participation increase has overwhelmed the seasonal December lull, and surged forth in January. We are going to have to make use of the pre-archiving technique for long reviews, which is rather complicated at the moment. Meanwhile, everything is in place now to switch to the new easy-archive automation procedure, so I will do that. Geometry guy 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the peer reviews are on archive pages by default, it's very easy to switch from transcluding particular reviews to linking but not transcluding them. Perhaps the bot could do that switch automatically, starting with the largest peer reviews, when it notices the page is getting full? It will be a little while before I can implement that, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. At the moment I am making this switch with a bit of onlyinclude magic. If a peer review gets too long, add <onlyinclude> to the very beginning of the peer review discussion page for the article (before even the ===level 3 header===) then go down to the end of the nominators request statement and add

<includeonly>:Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]].</includeonly></onlyinclude>

substituting for the article name and the archive number. This ensures that the nominator's request is still transcluded, but the rest of the peer review is not: instead a little notice is added at the end of the request.

This is a pain to use, so the bot option is much better. Meanwhile, at least it doesn't have to be done very often (i.e., I am willing to do it if no one else does!). When archiving a peer review which has been "pre-archived" like this, it is best to remove {{Peer review page}} from inside the onlyinclude, and add {{subst:PR/archive}} somewhere outside of the onlyinclude, although that isn't essential if my error trapping code works. Geometry guy 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done this with the five longest, and the page is back under 1500KB. Geometry guy 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008 change in nomination and archiving process

The nomination and archiving process for peer reviews has been changed. The main reason for this change is to fix a problem with the previous process: when an article received more than one peer review, the previous peer review page needed to be moved, and all of the links to the previous peer review had to be fixed. In the new process, every peer review will be placed on a new unique page, so that peer reviews never need to be moved. In order to do this, the nomination process has changed.

• Instead of adding the {{peer review}} template to the talk page, you need to add {{subst:PR}}. This finds the next available peer review page. (It only works if there have been fewer than five previous peer reviews, but I don't know of any cases where this is not true.)
• The process for resubmitting peer reviews is identical to the process for requesting peer reviews, which should make it easier to do correctly.
• The process for archiving peer reviews is simpler: it only requires two edits, and no page moves.

The templates which make this possible are new, and quite complicated. Please report any issues here. Geometry guy 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The new page names confused me at first; seeing a PR I was working on get moved to an archive subpage made me think that the PR was archived. Instead of having the word archive, I suggest simply having /1, /2, /3... It would also be nice if the bot edited the archived PR and said that the PR is archived. The way things are done now is non-intuitive, at least for me. But those two small changes would fix that. Just my 2 cents. --mav (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree...by placing archive, many users may feel like the peer review is closed and they will not contribute to the review. I started a peer review for Heroes (TV series) and when I saw the title changed to archive, I at first thought someone had closed the peer review and it had ended...this will surely confuse people who are new to the process of contributing to peer reviews. Please make a note of this for future updates.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I told someone I would do a peer review and they said not to bother as it had been archived for some reason - I knew what was going on, but it can be confusing. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand this issue with the changes, and I largely agree: before introducing this system at PR, I introduced it at Good article reassessment, and there I used /1, /2, /3 ... exactly as mav suggests above. GAR has no history of storing each discussion in a separate page so I could start afresh with the "ideal solution".

On the other hand, PR has a long history of using such pages, and the format "/archiveN" for the permanently linkable discussion has been the standard for some time. It is also the standard used at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, where GimmeBot maintains the archives. So, it was a compromise, and we simply settled for maximum consistency with the past. The legacy of peer reviews at really quite random locations is only now being sorted out.

I hope this is largely a transitional issue caused by me actually having to move some current peer reviews to the new location. In future, and it is already happening, all peer reviews will start on the /archiveN page, which should make it more than obvious to everyone that they are active. Anyway, it is clearly worth adding a couple of notes to the PR instructions to clarify this issue, so thank you all for commenting on this.

I'm not sure if I understand mav's comment that "It would also be nice if the bot edited the archived PR and said that the PR is archived." There is no bot editing archived peer reviews: however, I think this concern might be addressed if I changed the archiving template {{PR/archive}} so that it adds the text "This peer review has now been archived." to the peer review when someone archives it. Is that what you have in mind? If so, do others agree that this is a good idea? It works for me. Geometry guy 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case I cited, the question was directly caused by the move to the ".../archive1" naming format. It makes sense that once people are used to making the archive from day one, this may be less confusing. I do think some sort of message that the page is archived would be very useful - before you knew it from the page move, and the archive notice on the article's talk page still works, but just looking at the peer review page now does not tell you it is no longer active. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1865773 out of 2048000 bytes (182227 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Back down to 1600KB now, thanks VB. Geometry guy 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews by topic

Further to several discussions on this page, I've now set-up a demonstration of a peer review page with peer reviews organised by topic. The possible topics are:

Arts · Language and literature · Philosophy and religion · Everyday life · Social sciences and society · Geography and places · History · Engineering and technology · Natural sciences and mathematics

At the moment the mock-up only lists the current peer reviews for which a topic is specified. To add your peer review to the demo, just fill in the topic parameter in the {{Peer review page|topic=}} template on the review page for the article. Short names for the topics are:

arts · langlit · philrelig · everydaylife · socsci · geography · history · engtech · natsci

(Or "math", as an alternative in the last case.) Peer reviews without a specified topic will be listed in a separate section for "General" peer reviews.

If editors are in favour of this change, it will now be extremely easy to implement. Most, if not all, previous comments on this idea have been in favour. So take a look at the demo, and comment below on whether we should go ahead. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lets try it. Comments welcome. Geometry guy 13:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who does all the semiautomated peer reviews (as AZPR) and helps a lot with archiving, I see some potential problems with this. When the peer reviews were chronological, I would start at the top and work my way down for semi-automated peer reviews. Similarly I would start at the bottom and work my way up for archiving. Now I will have to work my way through each section - not impossible, just more work. I wonder if people looking for new peer review requests will ignore those towards the bottom (the General category)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an argument for more fully automating the archiving process, if that's possible. Mike Christie (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see that happen, and am hoping that HappyMelon or Gimmetrow will be willing to help. At the moment HappyMelon is very generously sorting out the existing PR archives. Geometry guy 14:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand those concerns, which were issues when sorting by topic was tried in the past, and was partly why I waited a full week for comments before trying it! Sorting by topic has only been made feasible now by streamlining the archiving process. The articles are still sorted by date in each section, and there are still the same number of pages to add SAPRs to or archive, so the difference in the work involved should not be too large. Also several sections have very few articles in them, so that one can see at a glance whether they need SAPRs or archiving. If it really proves to be a lot more work, then we can revert to the old system.

For the second concern, it will be interesting to see what happens. The hope is that nominators will be encouraged to add topic names to their PR requests to make them more visible to interested reviewers. Geometry guy 14:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: there is now also a page Wikipedia:Peer review list (with shortcut WP:PRL) which lists current peer reviews without transcluding them. Some reviewers may find that page easier to browse. However, it only supplies the automatically generated dates, which, for articles not in the "general" section are the dates when the topic parameter was added, so it will be a little while before these dates are a good reflection of the date when then peer review was started. (Stabilizing most of these dates is another reason why I waited a while before trying sorting by topic.) Geometry guy 14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated discussion

Just so you understand how AZPR works, I always have to open each article and cut and paste the semiautomated peer review into a word processor, then paste a bunch of those into the current WP:PR/A. As for the notices in the individual peer reviews, it used to be that I could add up to 20 notices in the peer reviews themselves at a time, with essentially one click. This broke when the page went to transclusion from the Veblenbot list, so then it became opening each separate peer review, adding the notice (that is still automatic once that peer review is opened) and then navigating back to the next peer review (going back takes 3-4 clicks, so for 20 requests I went from 1-2 clicks to about 80-100). Since they were in chronological order, I always knew where the last one I added was and worked to there and stopped. Now I have to check each category. Each incremental change has not been that much extra work, but together they are a lot of extra work. Would it be possible to still make the chronological list and put it in some lonely page not widely advertised? Just curious, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this information is useful, although it is a pity we were not having this discussion a week ago! :-) At the moment, there is not a chronological list of all the current peer review pages, but there is a chronological list of all article talk pages of current peer reviews: it can be found at User:VeblenBot/C/Requests for peer review, and I can use this to generate a chronological list in whatever format you would like.

However, such a list would not "know" which "archive" page the peer review is on, so it probably wouldn't be much use to you. If I move fairly swiftly, I may be able to recreate a chronological list of current peer review pages from Category:General peer reviews by taking advantage of VeblenBot's caching feature: if I re-add all current PRs to the category, VeblenBot should still have a record of when they were originally added. I think this cache lasts 48 hours. I can't guarantee that this would work and will need Carl's help, but I'm happy to give it a go.

It sounds to me, from your description, that we need to automate, at least partially, the semiautomated review process. In particular, adding the notices is a repetetive task which should be done automatically, either using a bot, or some template magic. In the former case, we will have to ask one of our bot operating friends. In the latter case, we need some way for the peer review page of each article to "know" if a semi-automated peer review has been generated. Unfortunately, pages cannot read their own backlinks, so the only way I can think of doing this is to place SAPRs on separate pages and use "#ifexist" or a category, and that would mean that you couldn't add a bunch of them at a tim, which will probably add to the work rather than reduce it!! If anyone has any clever ideas, please comment here! Geometry guy 16:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking out loud here, there may be a way to do this. If each automated peer review had an "onlyinclude" section containing something like {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}=pagename of peer review|display the notice}} then the automated peer review page for the current month could be transcluded onto each peer review page. A template substitution could set this up on each peer review page, and another template substitution could be used to provide the required code on the automated peer review page. Thanks to the new preprocessor, this would probably add very little to the size of the transcluded peer reviews. Would that work? Geometry guy 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a programmer here - AndyZ wrote the script and shared the AZPR account with me when he became less active here (I had done the SAPRs by hand before when he was on wikibreaks). So I am not sure how the script works exactly and am not the best person to ask - I have AndyZ's email address and can contact him if you want (or his email address was enabled last I checked). Let me explain how the semi-automated peer review works in theory and painful detail. I will pick the article Jane Zhang at random. In the Jane Zhang peer review I pasted the following notice just by clicking the edit button as AZPR:

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) (I fixed the link, see below)

To save space, the actual SAPR is in Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008, specifically here. The new naming convention has brken this too as the script now links to Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008#Jane Zhang/archive1 but the actual file is Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008#Jane Zhang. Anyway, the idea I had was could a bot just check if there was a SAPR in the Automated file for that month? If not, add one there and the link to it in the PR itself. If so, skip it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've used this example to test my concept: I've replaced the link at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jane Zhang/archive2 by a transclusion of Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008. The idea is that every peer review page will automatically transclude the /Automated page of the current month at the time the peer review requested. (This will simply be added to {{PR/subst}}.) Then the peer review script needs to be modified so that the introductory sentence (in the variable initMsg_PR) is modified to include in addition the text

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Peer review/(article name)|*A script has been used to generate a semi-[[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|automated]] review of the article for issues relating to grammar and [[WP:MOS|house]] style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/(month name)#(article name)|here]]. Thanks, ~~~~}}</onlyinclude>

I don't know enough JavaScript to write the code that will produce the month name and article name, but it should be fairly straightforward to do. (The current month could also be passed as a parameter in the peer review page transclusion.)

With this in place, you would never have to edit individual peer review pages. Also, it would be possible to automatically put peer review pages without an SAPR into a category so that you can easily find them. This feature could be switched off by nominators who don't want an SAPR. Geometry guy 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, so only the SA peer reviews would have to be run and pasted into the correct folder and then they would show up. I have also thought of two things - one is the current SAPRs seem to get a bit lost, so do you think it would be useful to have a subheader or something to set them off more? The other is unrelated to this question - do you think it would be useful to add a notice to peer reviews that have no replies after a week reminding them of the volunteers etc? I will email AndyZ about this next - I do not even know where the code is for the script (monobook?) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Second thought - if the notification sentence is now part of what is generated by {{PR/subst}}, why does it have to be changed in the semi automated peer review script at all? The script would only be used to generate the SAPR itself, not the notice, right? Or am I missing something? I left a notice on AndyZ's talk page and emailed him. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) I haven't forgotten this! The script is at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js: I've checked I can edit this (I think any admin can), so we don't necessarily need AndyZ to reply (although it would help): DrKiernan has some experience with editing this script, so he may be able to check we don't make a mistake. Concerning the notice, at the moment it is not in {{PR/subst}}, but is placed in the "onlyinclude" section of the SAPR itself. (Open edit previews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jane Zhang/archive2 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008#Jane Zhang to see how it is done.) I agree with you that most of the notice could be placed in {{PR/subst}}, but not all of it, for two reasons.

1. The article's peer review page has no way to know if an SAPR has taken place: there needs to be some information on the SAPR which the article's peer review page can read: it could just be <onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Peer review/(article name)|yes}}</onlyinclude>, but there needs to be something.
2. The article's peer review page has no way to know when an SAPR has taken place, and who generated it. To fix this, the "onlyinclude" section needs to at least contain <onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Peer review/(article name)|~~~~}}</onlyinclude>. The rest could be put in {{PR/subst}}.

So some edit needs to be made, either to User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js or to User:AZPR/monobook.js. Does that clarify? Geometry guy 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I think I understand it and why the script needs to be modified too. I archived and ran the SAPRs earlier and just checked my email and there is no word from AndyZ yet. I would say go ahead and fix it. If for some reason you need access to the account, let me know. I have some other ideas to suggest, but will do that below. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made an edit which I think will add the above onlyinclude information to each SAPR. Could you check that SAPRs still work. Note I have not yet implemented the automation of the notice: I want to be sure the script change works okay first. Revert my edit to User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js in the event of any disasters! Thanks for moving the other ideas to a new thread. Geometry guy 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm here (sorry for being so slow) — but I'm having a bit of trouble following all of the naming changes etc that have occurred, so I'm reading through everything right now.

I'm fixing the Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008#Jane Zhang/archive1 link issue, but theres a bunch of other link changes that I have to chase through. Responding to the original topic; I should be able to get a batch 'add notice' button directly to User:VeblenBot/C/Requests_for_peer_review, but for some reason I can do everything but add the actual button itself (think it may have to do with changes I've missed from while I was away). AZ _t 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I ran some SAPRs as AZPR and it works except for a new bug - when you open the article there is an error message that says "There are already suggestions here. / Continuing will cause the old suggestions to be overwritten. / Do you wish to proceed? If you click the red X or cancel, the SAPR window shows up but it just says "undefined". Clicking OK gets the regular SAPR. I pasted two into Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008: Expo '88 and Francis B. Wai, but did not add notices to their requests. I did add some notices on others and that worked fine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The only change I made is this and it seems to have had the desired effect on the two peer reviews you mention. The /archive1 link issue doesn't need to be fixed, since the notice will soon be generated by {{PR/subst}}. Geometry guy 09:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I made another change to switch from "onlyinclude" to "noinclude": I'm not sure if this was necessary. Anyway, I've fixed up PR/subst to add the current month to PR/header, which tells the latter to look for an SAPR and display a message if there is one. This is working on the recent SAPRs. The automatic notices may fail if the article title has slashes or non-standard characters in it. Please report any problems here. Geometry guy 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Troubleshooting

1. The bug I described above is still present - when I open an article as AZPR or when I open the script as Ruhrfisch, there is the error message and I have to click OK to get the actual semi-automated peer review (so two clicks are needed now where one was before).
2. I also notice that when I open a request, I see the SAPR there, but it is not visible in the big list. The problem is I then have to open each request to see if it already has a SAPR or not.
3. Finally, I noticed that when I submitted a PR request recently it took a while for it to go to the final PR (still had the do this to finish the request, but when you clicked on the link, it was done and showing up). Now at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Kannada_literature a similar problem is being reported. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably needs someone who understands the full workings of the script to see why this is happening. In the meanwhile, the best I can do is try to isolate the issue. That is, I will undo AndyZ's edits (to fix the /archiven issue, which shouldn't be necessary), so that the only change is a single edit to the script by me. If the problem persists, we then will know that my edit has some unintended consequence, and can try to figure out what that is and fix it.

Concerning the PR request issue. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that the article talk page still shows "Follow this link" for a while, even though the peer review page has been created, and it should be showing "A request has been made"? I believe this is a cache issue, and it probably isn't enough to bypass your own local cache, as the article talk page doesn't change when the peer review page is created. So, you either need to make an edit to the article talk page, or purge the server cache (just go to the talk page history and replace "action=history" in the URL by "action=purge" and reload).

I'm afraid this is a price we pay to prevent Wikipedia from grinding to a halt! Geometry guy 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I numbered the issues for clarity. In reverse order, I understand the cache issues with #3, thanks for clarifying. As noted, the peer review request worked despite appearing "unfinished", so I don't think it is a problem and, as you note, there is not much we can do about it. As for #2, I am not sure if it is a related problem to the cache issue or not - none of the reviews have shown up yet (a couple of days since the first SAPR only in WP:PR/A without the manual notice). Now that the reviews are sorted by topic, I rely on the SAPR showing up on the main page to know whether or not to add it. When I do it as AZPR, I can't easily check either as the script automatically adds the SAPR notice if the peer review for an article is opened. I suppose I could do the SAPRs and note the date and time and then just add them to articles listed after the time of the last SAPR run. As for #1, let me know when you have made the change(s) and I will test as AZPR and myself. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning #1, I've now undone Andy's two edits, so please check if this makes any difference. Concerning #2, it is possible that this is a side-effect of no longer posting a manual notice, but this will require further investigation (and probably help from Andy). Concerning #3, I think I can provide a partial fix by making the link to the article talk page on the peer review page automatically bypass the server cache. The cost to the servers will be tiny, and it would provide a reassuring check for nominators. Geometry guy 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 is still present when I run SAPRs as Ruhrfisch and as AZPR. As for #2, I also logged in anonymously and the SAPR shows up right away when you click on the review from the main WP:PR page, but still does not appear on the main page itself. I am not very worried about #3. On an earlier comment, I meant to say that the AZPR script does not work on ampersands and other special characters anyway, so I run them as Ruhrfisch and will manually add a notice on those few cases (Mirth & Girth is one currently up on PR). Thanks for all of your work on this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

#1 (I had randomly selected ~~~~ to be a seed to see if the suggestions were already opened, and then when Geometry Guy added the new initial message it contained ~~~~). #2 is going to be considerably more difficult. Perhaps we could go back to doing the SAPRs in chronological order thru the VeblenBot subpage, but that doesn't give the archive number I believe. I don't know if ampersands are fixable or not, due to regular expression limitations. AZ _t 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear under "requests"?

I requested a peer review for McFly (band) but it doesn't seem to be under "requests". Did I do something wrong? -- Stacey _{talk to me} 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you did fine: I predict it will appear at about 20:36 UTC, assuming VeblenBot approves of your request :-) :-) Geometry guy 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Prediction wrong. There may be a temporary problem with the servers. If it doesn't appear in the next hour, I'll investigate. Geometry guy 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I had a look, and I think the problem is that VeblenBot is on a temporary mission. VeblenBot is an "it", not a "she", so isn't so great at multitasking. Please be patient, your peer review will be listed in due course :-) Geometry guy 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't the special mission; there's no reason why the categories should stop being updated while those edits are made. The real problem is that something went wrong on the toolserver. I moved the code to my home computer, where the rest of VeblenBot's functions run, and everything seems better. I'm expecting it to run again at 1:20 UTC and I'll check it then to make sure. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's working now: apologies to VeblenBot for doubting its abilities! Geometry guy 09:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1848023 out of 2048000 bytes (199977 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I just archived several, really should do this every day, sorry. I also was wondering about limiting the number of requests a single user can make at one time. For example, last month there were 7 or 8 wrestling articles in a row nominated by the same user and all but 1 or 2 got no comments (and my guess is that the articles were similar enough that a good PR on one of them would have had useful tips for all of them). Something similar has happened recently with some indie wizard rock albums, except these are back in the pipeline again already (I don't normally nominate articles at AfD, but if these go back into PR right away this time... ;-) ). Would 3 or 4 active requests at a time be OK? I also think replying to a good PR takes time, so there is that issue. I also wonder about a time limit to renominate PRs, but can understand the frustration there if no one replies but the APR script. Sigh, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks! I just untranscluded two very long peer reviews: in terms of the pressure on this page, long reviews are probably more of an issue than many short requests (although that depends on how many short requests there are and how long are the reviews!). I'd be hesitant about saying "you cannot nominate more than 4 PRs at a time" per WP:BEANS: it will become an entitlement to nominate 4 at a time, rather than a restriction!

Anyway, we're back to 1.6MB now, so lets see how soon action is needed again. I'm willing to do the untranscluding every 3-4 days, if you are willing to do the archiving! Sympathetic sigh, but more hopeful cheers, Geometry guy 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I worry about instruction creep, but perhaps something on it being a good idea to have a single model article up for PR, and solve the problems there first, then go on to other similar articles? Thanks for transcluding - I have been fairly involved in PRs for two of those (Fanny Imlay and List of National Historic Landmarks in New York). I am used to doing the PR script every two or three days, but perhaps I should pick a time of day and just archive every day then. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pointer

A discussion on a unified reviewing system may be found at Wikipedia:Grand Unified Reviewing Discussion. — Thomas H. Larsen 08:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a backlog

in peer review archives. I have two articles I would like to nominate for FA but can't because they've spent the last two weeks with their peer reviews still active, even though no additions have been made in that time. Is this something to do with MelonBot's conversions? Serendi^podous 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. If you nominated an article for peer review and want to take it to FAC, then you are free to archive the PR discussion yourself. Geometry guy 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make this more explicit in the guidelines, by adding that nominators can withdraw their own requests. However, in accordance with the spirit of the existing guidelines, I've suggested that this is not recommended for active discussions. Does that seem to be the right balance? Geometry guy 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request a peer review

I would like to request a peer review on Peyton Manning so that I can get the article up to Featured Article standards. Given that my previous request for a peer review was completely ignored, and given that the peer reviews I requested for two other articles were also completely ignored, it appears that this whole process is a bit of a joke. When articles are being reviewed consistently, will some one please notify me on my talk page so that I can re-request a peer review and actually get some feedback for once? Thank you. Dlong (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would not say it was completely ignored as it received a semi-automated peer review (SAPR), which might not be what you wanted, but had some useful suggestions. It appears that you ignored the suggestions as I just reran the SAPR script and several of them are still valid (and will need to be acted on to get it FA status). These were all in the original SAPR, and are still coming up now:

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 147 yards, use 147 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 147&nbsp;yards.^[?]
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, can't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

I know this can be frustrating, but have you tried asking one or two people from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers to look at it? I recently submitted a peer review, asked two volunteers, and got helpful comments from each. Oh, I see you have this at FAC already - good luck. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will look over the list again, but the entries I have looked at did not apply. For instance, regarding the links - All dates linked are provided in the format [[Month date]], [[Year]]; exactly what Wikipedia:Context#Dates says to do. Regarding the contractions, a ctrl+f search for common contractions (shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, didn't, can't, isn't, I'll, I'd, let's, it's, we've, and we'd) only finds such words in the titles of referenced works or in exact quotations.

Dlong (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since this is at FAC, specifically Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peyton Manning I looked the article over and made some comments there. As you know, as soon as an article is at FAC, the FAC rules state its peer review must be closed. So if you are at FAC, you can't also request a peer review here simultaneously. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to support Dlong's frustration with the peer review I also requested a peer review of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority and it was closed without a human review. I actually contacted one person on the volunteer's list (which BTW does not have an engineering/technology section of volunteers, making my choice difficult) and three different wikiprojects, as well as another rail article editor. I guess my frustration with this peer review project is that even unreviewed articles are archived after two weeks. This isn't the case with GA or FA nominations where they wait until someone reviews them. But it seems that wikipedia touts the peer review process as being an important part in the article improvement process, so maybe they shouldn't be archived until at least one person makes comments. I understand that this is an all-volunteer system, but the lack of feedback leaves me discouraged and unsure of how to proceed with the article I was working on. I am torn between giving up on this article and just going ahead and submitting it for FA review just to get some comments even if it isn't ready. Biomedeng (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since you are not at FAC (see above) I reopened the peer review and left some comments. One problem we see everywhere is a lack of reviewers - WP:PR, WP:GAN, WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:FAR. As you see below this, there are so many requests on PR that unless we archive requests that have gotten no repsonses in the past two weeks, we run out of space and the PR becomes just a list (no details). This has happened this year. I know it is frustrating and try to help, but there are hundreds of requests and only so much any one person can do. I do think that if you pick an article you find interesting and make some comments there, then ask for comments in return it can't hurt and should help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1851895 out of 2048000 bytes (196105 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be nice for the bot to add the date to the section heading when posting these, just to stop table of contents clashes. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am archiving Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion to add a date to the section title is good. I'll implement that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

I just listed this article for Peer review. It appears in the "General" category when it should be in the "Language and literature" category. Can someone explain why this happened? This needs to be corrected.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The original request did not specify a topic, so it was added to the "General" category. I fixed it just now, but it may take an hour or so to show up in the right place, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One more issue. This article's talk page which has the peer review tag still says "Follow this link"... where as, it should be "A request has been made for this article ..." from where the reviewer could click on the request link to add comments.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the article's talk page and it did not say that for me - maybe it is a case of WP:BYC? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Took two full days for my talk page to look ok. Never had this problem before. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What hinders this twice-nominated article from attaining Featured-Article status? Comments sought.

The article Ilaiyaraaja (a biography of a musician) was nominated twice in the past for Featured-Article status. Perhaps someone can take a quick, cursory look at this article, and provide brief points (in its talk page here) about what is needed further to make this article FA-quality. The group of editors working on this article are a bit dazed and confused about what more needs be done and would appreciate any of your input very much. Thank you. Regards, AppleJuggler (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• With all due respect, please submit a peer request like everyone else. I would look at the FAC comments and see if you have met the changes they asked for. Finally, I would also ask the users who weighed in on the FACs before to look at it again and see what they think. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. AppleJuggler (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two more ideas for PR

I was wondering if two things could be done to help get more reviews for requests that have none. The first would be to add a suggestion to the instructions to review one or two other requests and then ask those whose requests you commented on to comment on yours. The second would be to add some sort of requests needing feedback section. Since requests are archived after 2 weeks, perhaps those that have had no responses in a week could be listed? There are similar notices at or for WP:FAC, WP:FLC, and WP:GAN and they seem to help there. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of reviewing exchanges. One problem I had as a new visitor to the peer review area is that it is unclear what guidelines I should follow to review other articles. Articles nominated for Good Article status have a clear guideline on what to review the article on. So it was easy for me to review several articles there when I nominated an article. When I came here there are only general article formatting links, but no formal guideline on the areas to review an article. Thefore I did not review any other articles because I didn't know what criteria to review them on. Another issue I have with this setup is that at Good Article Nominations there is a numbered list of nominees. So there exists a clear order of reviewing. Here the list is not numbered and it seems articles are reviewd in an arbitrary order. There is no direction to give preference to the oldest requests. Also it seems page space is a continued issue at this project. Has there been any discussion of not trascluding the entire peer review onto the page? Maybe instead there could be simly a list here, along with a way to indicate peer reviews for which there are no comments, active discussions, and inactive discussions. Biomedeng (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I know User:Geometry guy will fix long peer reviews so that only part of them is transcluded on the page. I am not sure how easy this would be to do automatically. The problem with guidelines for peer review is that articles come in all stages of the writing process and on their way to different goals - some articles want a polish before WP:FAC, others are getting ready for WP:GAN and others are just looking for general improvement. I have also seen people expecting dispute resolution (not what PR is for) or reference desk help (I need more info / sources on this topic for the article...), neither of which is usually found here. I think for a Peer Review response, a quick read through of the article and some comments is best - if it is still pretty rough, point out major areas for improvement. If it is aiming for a particular goal, looking at the GA or FA or FL criteria and pointing out what the article still needs to do is helpful. It is often the case that you can make a few comments on several articles and see what the responses are - oddly, some PR requests never seem to acknowledge or respond to any feedback, so forget those. If they reply and make changes and you see more things to work on, jump in. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

At present the technology isn't available to do automatically what I do by hand. I hope it will be available soon, for my sake :-) Geometry guy 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments on ordering. First, it has been traditional at PR to add new requests to the top: this is the opposite to the tradition at WP:GAN. One argument for this is that peer reviews do not have a definite outcome, and so it is more helpful to highlight new requests. In particular, there is no tradition that "oldest requests should be reviewed first", and I think such an approach would be counterproductive for peer reviews. We want to encourage anyone to review any peer review request at any time!!

The "newest first" order still holds within each section. However, the dates are not completely reliable during the transition. But if any reviewer would prefer to review oldest articles first, they should go to the bottom of the lists, not the top.

There are no definite criteria for reviewing here, since peer review is not something to "pass" or "fail": all comments aimed at improving the article are welcome. Geometry guy 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and added a requests needing feedback section. It lists only those with no responses in a week. I hate archiving peer reviews with no responses, maybe this will help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual review

Participants in peer review may be interested in Wikipedia:Factual review and associated discussions. Best and friendly regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 08:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting informal review for Eva Cassidy.

IP addresses can't create the new page needed for the peer review process. Please leave suggestions for improvement at Talk:Eva_Cassidy. Thanks.--165.21.154.93 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I ran the peer review script and left the review on the talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the problems. It's now listed at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Music--Onesixfivedottwoone (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories in table of contents example:Arts example:Everyday Life. Idea:contents categories style guide:peer reviews.

When was Literature not treated as one of the arts? Why is the Holywood film not listed as Arts although McFly the band and Shady records. Screenplays are screen... Arts. Again Enya is in General and Shady Records is in Arts. Yep there is a List of county routes in Rockland County, New York but its not in the Geography and places section it is in the General section. And there is an Everyday Life section there fore the table of contents is not only a guide to the list of peer reviews but is also a heap of shit. Maybe it's vandalised but 9 times of ten i'd have not looked at Everyday Life to find sport entries but for Old Trafford caught my eye. And now i see that its not a useful guide. Maybe whoever put in the categories to the contents had no suitable style guide with instructions how to list the categories or maybe the one there is up for review.

^Suggestion _

Peer Review : Peer Review Style guide (if such exists or creation)

And after a quick check I don't think that individual pages of a wikipedian fundamental nature have style guides or check lists ? Do they ? What are they called ?
ThisMunkey (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Literature is listed separately from Arts because otherwise the section would be too long. The classification follows closely the standard Wikipedia 1.0 classification.

Individual peer reviews are classified by their nominators, so if an article is in the General section it is because the nominator did not specify a topic. If it is the "wrong" place, it is because the nominator specified the "wrong" topic. If you took the time to read the instructions, before expressing your opinion, you would realise this. If you find a peer review in the wrong section, go to the peer review and edit it: look for {{Peer review page|topic=xxx}} and replace whatever xxx is with the correct topic.

I don't understand the last question, sorry. Geometry guy 10:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)