Wikipedia talk:Peer review

See also the Peer review maintenance page

Problem with Peer Review

I recently made a Peer Review and its missing some things over PRs has (Example). Is there a problem with the Template? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I added the missing code by hand - did not know what category you wanted it in, so left that blank. Just curious, how did you open the PR? Assume it was the normal way (add code to the article talk page) but wanted to check for sure. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the code on the talk page and choosed the arts link. I'm confused about why that happened. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ask CBM who runs the bot to check it out. SOrry for the inconvenience, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot archives old peer reviews, but it doesn't affect how they are opened. The problem seems to be this edit [1] which broke the template. It should be fixed now; let me know if you see any more issues with the page not being created correctly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so mcuh for finding the problem, and for all the help you provide with your bots, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I had been busy on other articles, and did not notice that my peer review request for Ex parte Crow Dog apparently got caught by the same problem. The actual review page is there, but no listing on the PR page. I don't have a clue how to fix this - if anyone could help I would appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a topic to it. It may take up to an hour for the bot to list it on PR. If it does not, I will ask Carl (CBM) to see if he can solve the problem. Thanks for the heads up and sorry for the problem. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • OK< I see it is listed on PR now so it worked. I made it a general topic, but you can add a different one if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 04:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Setting up for peer review-help

Resolved

Hello! Having a hard time setting up List of defunct colleges and universities in Kansas for peer review... attempting to follow instructions, but it's not looking right. Can someone help?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it and it is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of defunct colleges and universities in Kansas/archive1. Not sure how this was made into a redirect to Template:Peer review/preload11, but I deleted that. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, something weird is going on. I checked and Template:Peer review/preload10 is a redirect from Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive4, so list articles seem to be somehow turned into redirects to PR prelaod templates. I fixed the redirect for Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive4, but left the Template alone for now. Will ask Geometry guy and CBM for help with this problem. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm not completely stupid!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl (CBM) has kindly found and fixed the problem - it was a result of edits made to the PR templates earlier this month. Thanks to Carl! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The current peer review for List of extreme weather records in Pakistan is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive2, and will be listed here on the next VeblenBot update. Peer review comments from earlier this month can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive1. Also affected was Talk:List_of_conventional_hydroelectric_power_stations, a peer review which needs to be restarted by the nominator. Geometry guy 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geometry guy! I left a note on the List of conventional hydroelectric power stations talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review archived before taking place

Wikipedia:Peer review/Somalis in the United Kingdom/archive1 has just been archived, despite the fact that it hasn't really received a review. Only one editor, who has been involved in writing the article, has commented and I had hoped to get third-party input. Any advice on what I should do? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the comments. The only reviewer was myself, and I am involved in writing the article. Looking back, I shouldn't have made any comments in the review. I think the review should be re-opened so that uninvolved editors can comment on the article. The article itself has been much expanded in recent months, is a tad controversial, and has few editors so further eyes there would be particularly helpful. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reopened the PR and will make some comments, though it may take me a few days. The backlog list is maintained by hand and if an article has comments, it is not added to the backlog, which is reserved for PRs with no comments or only very sparse comments (as reviewers are scarce and most PRs get one set of reviewer's comments). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Don't feel that you have to review it yourself, or, if you want to, that you have to do it soon. I was just concerned to get a review at some point. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this PR be closed?

Wikipedia:Peer review/Michelle Branch/archive1 was opened by a user now blocked as a sockpuppet of the main contributor, who is banned from Wikipedia. Should the PR be closed? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Reviewer time would be better spent on other articles. Finetooth (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I closed it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Maya (M.I.A. album)/archive2

I thought it was a bit strange that nobody had reviewed this at all in five weeks - can anyone see why it hasn't transcluded correctly to this page......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The top parts were not there, so I added them diff. If they are missing the bot does not see the PR to transclude it here. There have been some problems stemming from some template edits that broke things. I will let Geometry guy and Carl know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics September 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in September 2010. (August figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 114 (110)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 141 (147)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 50 (60)

Main reviewers for September:-

• Jappalang: 22
• Brianboulton: 22
• Finetooth: 16
• Ruhrfisch: 16
• Sandman888: 9

• (2 reviewers contributed 3 reviews, 7 contributed 2 and 36 contributed 1)

The old order changeth. Great to have Jappalang's input here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Biran, as always, for compiling these statistics, and special thanks to Jappalang and Sandman888 for their contributions here (as well as to Brian and Finetooth). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Many hands make light work (sort of). :-) Finetooth (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Review of a userspace sandbox

I was wondering if an article being prepared in userspace could be PR'd before moving to mainspace -- I'm kind of hesitant on totally reworking a huge topic, like one I'm doing now. Glad for any comments. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles need to be in main space, and in a reasonably well-developed state, before they are submitted for peer review. See the rubric of the WP:PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog hits 0

All reviewers hereby awarded six hours off with pay and an ice cream treat. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! or is it spelled W00-h00? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Change initials "PR"

In the greater world outside Wikipedia, for those who venture there, peridically, the abbreviation "PR" stands for "public relations." I have successfully used this on my summary line Lord knows how many times (instead of "WP SPAM") and gotten away with it! Someone pointed out my error the other day. You already have WP:REVIEW. Why not replace WP:PR with "WP PEER." Wikipedia abbreviations need to be user-friendly and "obvious." This one is not. There are hundreds of these things out there. And the ones that aren't being used Wikipedia high level admin, is being used by Projects. Way too many to memorize. Here's an opportunity to help out. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So do you want to convince Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage to give up the WP:PEER shortcut? ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shortcuts are often a political, who-got-there-first kind of thing, and if we bent over backwards to accommodate non-wiki shorthand we'd never decide on anything :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not quite sure I'm willing to take on the "Peerage" Project. Alone, apparently! :) But policy has higher claim.

But I concede your points. Student7 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rare Books and Manuscript Section

Above has been listed for peer review, but I am doubtful whether this is appropriate. Apart from the article having an "orphan" tag, it sounds like we are being asked to take the project over and develop it. My instinct is towards a polite note to the nominator - any other thoughts? Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I guess I see PR as a place to point out what needs to be fixed, and (although I have not read the article yet) I assume there are things in it that can be identified as things that need to be fixed. Assume the PR could say here's what needs to be fixed, and sorry but the PR reviewers aren't able to take over the project. I don't see an "orphan" tag as a major clean up banner, just the fact that it has not been linked to much (yet). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Something weird

Something strange is going on on the peer review page if you look under the "social sciences and society" section in the table of contents. Perhaps this is why the page is "getting full"? No idea where the actual problem is though.--BelovedFreak 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone has transcluded the peer review page in two reviews, but I can't see the problem otherwise. Will ask Carl and Geometry guy for help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This problem has occurred more than once. It happens when an editor wants to list a peer review under more than one topic. To do this they add the second topic as a category to the peer review page. This is actually possible to do, but if the second category is not surrounded by "noincludes" it will cause the entire peer review page (and the peer review list) to be included into the subsection for that category.

If that sounds like gobbledigook, then the message is simply "don't do that"! I have an excellent supply of very cold and wet trout, which I am ready to dish out. However, the instructions should probably be clarified, so that if this happens again, a trout-whack is fair play. Perhaps also more experienced editors should be made aware that it is possible to list a peer review in more than one section: don't forget the "noincludes" if you do so, and if you don't know what "noincludes" are, then don't do it at all! Geometry guy 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the fix and for the explanation, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Finding the "culprit" is a simple matter of going to the VeblenBot page for the topic causing the problem: in this diff, the top two entries are the peer review page and peer reviews by date page, and the next entry (with a timestamp less than an hour earlier) is the source of the problem. I can add this information to the maintenance page. Geometry guy 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I got that far, but did not realize the culprit was the third item listed (though it makes sense now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma in mathematical economics

I asked for peer-review for the Shapley-Folkman lemma under both mathematics and social-science groupings, because the Shapley-Folkman lemma is a mathematical lemma that is central to modern economic theory. I apologize for notifying this talk page after having listed the article, and I thank the editor Geometry guy for kindly asking me to notify you all. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The PR community provided many helpful comments. I'm hoping that the good article (GA) nomination process shall be similarly constructive. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Markus Näslund

Does anyone know why PeerReviewBot would close the peer review for this article? I was about to review it to get it out of the backlog and I saw that the bot had closed it seemingly without prompting. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's to do with automatic closure of "listings inactive for two weeks" (see WP:PR page). Though that doesn't explain why European Union, which has apparently been inactive even longer, has not been closed. You can of course leave your review of the Markus article on its talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian is right - it had been 14 days without any edits to the PR, so the bot closed it. I just reopened the Markus Näslund PR and hope Andy can still review it. European Union's PR was reopened by the nominator, after the bot closed it. It sill needs a review. The PR for Enugu is still open because I added the {{doing}} template before 14 days with no edits had passed. I should review it today. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Shouldn't peer reviews be closed and added to article milestones once finished? I reference Bill Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bill_Clinton/archive4

Thanks--Iankap99 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily finished since other editors may still add comments. A bot will eventually close it after, I think, 14 days of no further comments. Alternatively, if you wish to close it sooner than that, you'll find instructions at the top of the main PR page (WP:PR). Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The most recent edit was on November 5, so the bot would normally close it on November 19 (14 days later). The bot does not count minor edits. However, once a PR is over 30 days old, it is closed after 2 days of inactivity (no edits). Since the PR was opened on October 15, it will be 30 days old aorund the 14th, so the bot will close it about the 16th. If the bot closes a PR, it does not edit the Aricle History. Hope this clears things up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors can also close their own requests for peer review: see the instructions. Geometry guy 01:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh ok sorry, I had made edits for my own reference and that of another editor that I am working with on the article with. Now I understand, regards.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is no problem - if you want the PR closed but are not sure how to do it, please ask and I would be glad to close it if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it will close itself. If you think it in anyway clutters or negatively affects the page, by all means. I do not know how to do it, but it is completely up to you. I am letting you know that it is done for all its purposes. When the bot closes it, will it be added to article milestones?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen (brand)

The PR nominator of this has been blocked indefinitely. Does the article still get a review, or should we wait to see if the block is rescinded? Brianboulton (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting. I can see that the article isn't ready for FAC, despite the nominator's assertion. The article was created in early October, and the nominator is almost the only contributor. If no one but the nominator is interested, who will read the review and act on it? Finetooth (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also say to wait, though from reading the main contributor's talk page, it sounds like s/he's doing his or her best to keep the indefinite block. If we do close the PR, we should leave a note on the nominator's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang's industry continues to inspire shock and awe. It should be noted that the great majority of these are full-length, detailed reviews, of immeasurable help to editors seeking GA or FA pathways. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Would that we could clone you four... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brian - always useful. Thanks to everyone for their reviews and I agree that Jappalang's output is amazing. Hopefully I'll do better this month, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from these quarters as well. Jappalang's help is much appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please advise on which article I should try to get into a GA?

I want to take an article to GA. Have a few different ones, I've been involved in. I don't think any of them are close in terms of current state, but can you please advise on which article to try to edit into a GA (I think subject of the article may be more important than state in terms of what is more amenable to GAing?) See here for more info: [2].

TCO (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the top 2 or 3 articles that you are thinking of here? The other thing is that the article will need good sources to use as refs - not every topic has enough source material to allow it to reach GA (and FA is even more difficult). An outsider looking at the article may not know that the sources are lacking, but you (presumably) would. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, your comment, regarding sources being the biggest deal. I guess I kinda realized that. Hmmm.

Sorry, that was a messed up diff. My userpage list all the articles. Basically at this point, I would be happy picking any of them, since I just want to run the process.

• That said, I think Shawn Johnson has a lot of sources and such that are on the net. She is currently still a competing athlete so there is an issue of the topic being in flux. Not a late-breaking news story. But not a finished story, either. Not sure how that is handled wrt GA. Also, the topic is pretty notable so attracts a lot of vandals. That said, another good reason to make a good article out of it.
• I just finished working up Amanar to the point it could be thrown in mainspace. I think it will be tough to get sources for some facts (have to weed through hard copy versions of very specialized periodicals, or buy and watch some specialty videos, perhaps).
• Someone advised me Stover at Yale would be a good choice. It needs a fair amount of work and I would need to dig through some real library stuff. That said, not as tricky as Amanar since it is a piece of general American literature, which was once rather notable.
• Similar in type would be Burn Rate, with the difference that more web sources would be available.

What's the general thinking on running a booke through GA?

TCO (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review is for fairly well developed articles. Of the four listed, Shawn Johnson is the most developed, though it would still need a fair amount of work. There are mnay books that have made GA. I would be more concerned about Amanar, as it is mostly a list of people who have done the move (lists do not qualify for GA, they can become a WP:FL). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will make the list of people who did the move, be a "click to expand" or something. I don't want to lose the content, it was a bear to get all those references, but I agree it overwhelms the article, which just describes a trick. TCO (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the issue of Johnson being a still competing athlete (i.e. the main part of the story is ongoing)? I'm kinda leaning to that one or one of the books, but then I need to develop more content for them.TCO (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed your reply earlier. If it were up to me, I would work on Shawn Johnson - there are many GA and FA articles on living persons who are still active in their careers. The SJ article is the most developed and would be the least amount of additional work to get to GA. The books would be next, but both need much more about the history of the book (how it came to be written and published) and critical reaction, and not just plot summaries. The gymnastic move seems to me to have the least potential for gewtting to GA. The choice is, of ocurse, yours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated nomination

Median Nerve Palsy needs to be deleted - the correct nom is Median nerve palsy. Brianboulton (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I deleted Wikipedia:Peer review/Median Nerve Palsy/archive1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics November 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in November 2010. (October figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 97 (106)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 114 (138)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 32 (47)

Main reviewers for November:-

• Ruhrfisch: 25
• Finetooth: 19
• Jappalang: 15
• Brianboulton: 15
• (1 reveiwer contributed 4 reviews, 4 contributed 3, 2 contributed 2 and 20 contributed 1)

A markedly smaller number of reviewers entered the PR jungle in November; two-thirds of the reviews were conducted by the four main reviewers. Ruhrfisch takes the month's laurels but thanks to all reviewers, and please call again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to our usual quadrumvirate... sadly, I won't be able to help out much anymore now that I've shackled my time elsewhere onwiki. Without you guys nothing would get done! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Brian for compiling and publishing the stats, and congrats to Ruhrfisch for leading the way. Finetooth (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to Brian and all the reviewers - I am pretty sure Finetooth will be in the lead when the December stats are compiled. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Kiev. By renaming to Kyiv!

The official name of Ukraine's capital is Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ). Look here: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine — The city of Kyiv.

Kiev is an obsolete spelling of the city, which was used in the USSR (from Russian: Киев).

--Pavlo1 (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss names of articles. I see you have also posted this on Talk:Kiev/naming, so please continue your discussion there. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero again, or thank you Santa Finetooth!

The PR backlog is at zero again, thanks mostly to the efforts of Finetooth. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a Santa clause in my contract. Finetooth (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Dec 25, 23:35 UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1927705 out of 2048000 bytes (120295 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Dec 26, 00:35 UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1927705 out of 2048000 bytes (120295 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Dec 26, 07:35 UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1927897 out of 2048000 bytes (120103 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Dec 26, 08:35 UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1927897 out of 2048000 bytes (120103 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Dec 26, 09:35 UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1927582 out of 2048000 bytes (120418 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)