WP:CLOSEPR#Closing reviews contemplates reviews running for a few weeks, a month at the outside. Yet we're regularly running reviews for two, three, four months, or more. I closed one today which was pushing six months old. So what do we want to do?
One thought is that the timeline in CLOSEPR is just out of date. It goes back to 2006 when I suspect things were just very different than they are now. So perhaps we just want to update the published timeline to more closely represent today's reality? Or do we want to get more hardnosed about closing old reviews? Or maybe somewhere in between? RoySmith(talk)02:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: - Are you asking about PR requests that never recieved a review? Or PR requests that did receive a review (and requestor did not close it after the review)? I suppose we want a balance between "Lots of stale/unattended PR requests clogging the system" and "closing reviews too aggressively". My gut feeling is:
If a PR request has gone 2 months without a review, then it should be closed in the interests of tidiness and efficiency. The requestor can always re-start the PR if they want.
If a PR did receive a non-trivial review, and another month went by, and the the requestor did not write "A second review is desired", then it can be closed.
Perhaps PR requestors are not aware that they can simply ask other editors to do a PR? The requestor can look in the PR queue and find another requestor and suggest a review-swap. Or they can find an active editor who might be interested in the article's subject matter. Reminding requestors that they can proactively seek a reviewer would go a long way to keeping the PR queue moving. Noleander (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think one month is a good timeline. I wish a bot could add an automatic note after 3 weeks that says "this PR will be closed next week if no one posts anything. If you want to keep this open, please ask for reviews at the Wikiprojects attached to the article". I do not know how to program bots, so I will not be doing this and instead add manual notes. Z1720 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review isn't like GA or DYK nomination -- it's normal and expected that more than one editor will review a nomination, and that different editors will do so in different levels of depth. There's no need to close a review page once the first person has given their perspective, unless you think you've got all the input you need from the process. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: I would also recommend keeping the PR open if you want additional comments. If looking for more reviewers, I suggest posting on the Wikiprojects attached to the article. You can also review PRs from editors who have similar articles and ask them to take a look at your article in exchange. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've washed my hands of the process. The article is in a horrid state, but I will take it to GA anyway for a public execution. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎22:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, what does "If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week." mean for the review's closure? If there are many points in a partially completed peer review and I'm going through them, do I need to post updates to the peer review page? Is it not enough to actively work on the article itself? Rjjiii (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
