Wikipedia talk:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive

Maintenance templates[edit]

Peer review instructions state that an article must be free of major maintenance templates. Then where does one go in order to discuss whether a maintenance template should be removed? --Alison (Crazytales) (talkedits) 02:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That article's talk page, of course. There a judgment call involved in how you handle it. If the maintenace tag is old and no one has been arguing about it, it's probably OK to fix the relevant problem, remove the maintenance tag, and leave a message on article talk explaining that you removed the tag and why. If the tag is relatively new, and especially if anyone has been arguing about, you may have to hash things out on that talk page before removing the tag. Either way, the first thing to do is thoroughly fix the problem... the worst tag of all IMHO is POV; that one is harder to fix and involves more arguing. If it's something like "not enough references" or whatever then you're in much better shape to be WP:BOLD and just fix the problem. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My review on David Meade[edit]

The David Meade peer review can be closed since I think there's enough feedback and it's a GA nominee, and I'm prepared for comments on the GA nominee review page when it gets created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyGirl7 (talkcontribs) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Rhinopias (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Bot archiving time[edit]

Is there a particular reason that AnomieBOT's PeerReviewArchiver isn't archiving requests that have been open (commented on or not) for three months? I went on an archiving spree a while back per the instructions (1+ week for answered, 1+ month for unanswered) because I didn't realize the bot even existed as the main page was so cluttered. I can see the argument that because PR isn't incredibly active that it's beneficial to leave requests open for longer, but when the main page gets as long as it is now I think that negates the benefit.

Where the top of the main page says "Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles" it may be worthwhile to include a suggestion that if PR's activity is low the editor of an unanswered request comments on other open requests and then asks for feedback on their own. Rhinopias (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the list, Rhinopias. Usually I try and post something small based on a skim instead of just archiving the reviewers, so the poster doesn't feel completely ignored. Lack of reviewer engagement has been a constant problem, I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe we could form a list of interested reviewers and every 3-6 months have a backlog drive? We could use our Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers as a starting point. Any other ideas? Have been scratching my head for this point for several years. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
With the rate of reviews requested and so few regulars who review outside of when they have an open request themselves, I'm not sure if having lengthy open periods and a backlog would help? I think the majority of people who request reviews are hoping to nominate the article for GA or FA, so they may need to recognize that, to get a detailed review on their article, they need to put time into other requests and ask for feedback on their own. I mean… I've done this literally one time so I'm by no means an expert, but I've reviewed a few and a full review of prose, formatting, organization, etc. takes a while. Sort of like an informal (as in "not required") QPQ like how DYK operates. I assumed this was how PR worked since I didn't see many repeated reviewers across many requests, so I reviewed three and got one in-depth review in return. Rhinopias (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for error for peer review[edit]

Hi, this is Quek157.

1.Peer review I did an error in editing it through it is not supposed to do so. So please ignore the previous peer review. I will sincerely hope for ideas to improve and thanks so much for all the time spent. Withdrawn peer review as auto peer review seems a lot to be done. will do these before peer review as will be better not to clog up backlog. sorry --Quek157 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much in advance --Quek157 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)