Wikipedia talk:Peer review

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

New peer review topic for future FA noms[edit]

As a proof of concept I've created a page which just lists the future FA noms: User:LT910001/sandbox/FAC peer reviews. To reiterate the benefits here are:

  1. Separates these articles into a new category. FAC are generally already of high quality and (generally) only editors already familiar with the FA process review, hence having them on the main page may distract from lower-quality peer reviews from newer editors
  2. FA editors and nominees get a distinct and convenient list.
  3. These reviews, often the longest and most active, can be transcluded in title form only only onto the main page if necessary
  4. Specific instructions can be put on the review page for FAC if needed or desired.

I am just proposing creating a new 'topic' for the review (similar to the 'arts', 'literature and language'), not an entirely new process. If other editors are supportive I think this will be helpful to implement. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The article "I Could Fall in Love" is in its second PR not first. jona(talk) 23:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've fixed that. I manually created the list to see what other users will think about it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So sorry, the article is on its third PR. jona(talk) 00:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, previously I used to just check the requesting editor's comment whether they want to do a FA or no. But just a quick question, I may have missed something, is it worth creating an entirely new topic for this and won't the problem of managing reviews which are in both, say "arts", as well as Future FA noms? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The new topic would be 'FA nominations' or something like that. The topics at the moment (arts, literature, etc.) are so that interested users can choose a topic and contribute to a review in that area. However FA noms have been very well attended to and by separating them we may help FA nominators by providing a separate topic, and other reviews by giving more prominence to the larger volume of less well-attended reviews. Still just an idea at the moment though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Related question: Future FA noms are probably the hardest ones to get comments in and mostly all unanswered ones belong to this category. I'm confused as to how we deal with them when they go unanswered, do we recommend the requesters to get it FA nominated since they'll get it either passed or are sure to atleast get issues to address if it fails? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. When I skim through the reviews, it seems that most of the FA nom peer reviews are very well attended, and in fact are most of our longest reviews. The 5 or so editors who do the reviewing might contribute more if the reviews were grouped, as they'd then see which reviews need their attention. With regard to future FA success, I think we shouldn't tinker with the peer review process -- ie editors are free to comment with the hope of improving the article's chances, but a PR doesn't count as anything @ FA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review for Glomerulus (kidney)[edit]

I invite editors to have a read of Glomerulus (kidney), which is a small structure in the kidney, and comment on the review page here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Glomerulus (kidney)/archive1. Non-medical opinions are most welcome, as this article does not seem very inviting at the moment, and I'd very much like to improve the readability of this page. Many thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Panta bhat/archive1[edit]

Requesting a closure. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot automatically closes it after a period of inactivity. Of course, you can do it yourself if you can't wait...see the bot contributions on how it's done. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What?[edit]

I have a peer review for Boys Don't Cry (film) in right now. But a bot just archived it and removed it from the list. Why has this happened, and is there any way that I can return it to the list? Thanks, BenLinus1214talk 00:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but like in all other areas, we have a lack of volunteers here too and the bot will close reviews after a period of inactivity (per WP:PR/RP). If you wish, you can return it to the list by simply undoing the bot. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. :) BenLinus1214talk 21:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer review not listed?[edit]

I opened this peer review - Wikipedia:Peer review/Elmer Ernest Southard/archive1 - but I'm not seeing it listed under the Social Sciences nominations. What am I doing wrong? Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

EricEnfermero, you forgot to add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page. RO(talk) 16:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Doh! I was thinking that was the step that pulled up the nomination page in the first place. Thanks for your reply. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Readded it, but it takes me back to the part where it asks for a subtopic. Since there is already a nom with the current peer reviews and soc sci nominations categories, is this going to create a duplicate? Thanks for your help! I try not to be this dense! EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Related problem[edit]

Hello! I also opened a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Circus Juventas/archive1, almost a day ago) but it looks like it's yet to appear in the Arts section. As this is my first go at PR, I wanted to make sure I'm not missing a crucial step. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 14:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looked at it and I'm stumped, though I'm not so familiar with the actual process of nomination and housekeeping. @Ruhrfisch: have any clue? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the bot hasn't been operating in 7 days (see VeblenBot/contributions). Ruhrfish hasn't made an edit since the 14th June. Unfortunately I'm still waiting for permissions, otherwise I would just do this task and activate the bot / fix it on wikitools myself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've manually added it to the list, it appears now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your help, Tom. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Listed reviews not appearing[edit]

While we wait for the bot to work, please put any reviews that aren't appearing here, I'll add them as they come up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had very limited internet access of late, sorry. I emailed Tom about this just now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (LT), if there is any work I can help out with tell me. Right now while updating Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items, I see that the reviews are being listed again (don't know if the bot still works or whether you're behind it) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)