Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 7

Peer review statistics July 2009 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in July. (June figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 127 (115)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 150 (130)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 48 (60)

Main reviewers:-

• Ruhrfisch: 35
• Finetooth: 29
• Brianboulton: 20
• RedtigerXYZ: 8
• Jafeluv: 4

Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as always - if I read this correctly (and can still do math) then the 5 main reviewers did 96 of the 150 review contributions, or 64%. So 5 of 48 (10.4% or about 1/10th) of the reviewers did almost 2/3 of the reviews. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Need some help

Resolved

User:Liquidluck accidentally added {{Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Song (film)/archive1}} here, and I'm looking to correct the placement. How do I do this manually? —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is OK now - no need to do anything else. The bot transcludes the Peer Reviews, but it looks like Liquidluck was trying to add it manually to another PR instead of waiting for the bot to list it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure about the proper step and didn't know how to find the instructions that are provided with the setup of a PR (which I didn't want to do just to get instructions). —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review statistics August 2009 (archived)

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

Number of reviews archived: 140 (127)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 179 (150)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 62 (48)

Main reviewers:-

• Finetooth: 54
• Ruhrfisch: 31
• Brianboulton: 14
• S Marshall: 10
• (2 reviewers contributed 3 reviews, 10 contributed 2 and 44 contributed 1)

Finetooth's effort shows remarkable dedication to the system (and they were proper reviews, too) Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. If this were a cycling race, I'd say I'd finally won a stage, though it's clear that Ruhrfisch is about 50 miles (80 km) ahead of the pack. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I also applaud Finetooth's continued good work - as Brian noted, these are substantial and very well done reviews. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing peer review: help me find it?

See Talk:Multisystem developmental disorder: a banner template states that there was a peer review, but it is redlinked. Assistance appreciated. Whatever404 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• The only thing I can find is this from PR Archive 1, where it is listed as one of thirteen (!) articles that the requester asks for feedback on. Not sure if the fact that the date of the request was April Fools 2004 is significant or not. There was no response. I am not sure this is even worth linking to on the talk page as a peer review, but if you think it is, I think I can fix the old peer review template. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A few questions

I was wondering about the First Nations PR; there's a GAN open for the article, and the PR isn't mentioned on the article talkpage. Should it be archived/deleted (deleted since there are no comments and it's not even filled out -- it looks like a test). Secondly, I was wondering about usefulness for requesting a PR for a page like United States; I think it needs not one review but a lot of different ones, since FAC would attract many reviews for an article like that. Finally, I'm really interested in the PR process and I really think it can provide very useful feedback without the pressure of F(A/L)C, so would it be possible for a more experienced reviewer to look over my recent reviews and see how I'm doing? I've actually never reviewed that much outside of a few GAs and some passing F(A/L)C comments. Thanks a lot, Maxim_(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• First, there isn't at present a rule preventing articles from being nominated at GAN and PR simultaneously. My personal view is that there should be a rule - see my comment in the discussion higher up on this page. I have written to the First Nations nominator asking him/her to clarify the position
• As to United States, that should not be on PR at present because it seems to be undergoing extensive editing at present. The nominator is a drive-by. I have written to the major editors suggesting the nom is withdrawn for the moment.
• Finally, we would very much welcome your regular help at PR. I am sure your reviewing skills are as good or better than mine were when I sailed into peer reviewing a year or so ago, so why not pick an article from the backlog and take it from there? I usually review with the FA criteria broadly in mind, more specifically so if the article looks a definite featured article candidate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think with the common waiting periods at GAN, some people think they can get a PR done before the GA review starts.
  • Although United States is a long article, many of the problems with it are present throughout. So a review that points out that the article needs many more references (for example) applies to pretty much the whole thing
  • If you really want, please let me know a peer review or two that you have done and I will be glad to look at them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point about the GA, the backlog there is approaching the half-thousand mark. I posted the list of my PRs done to your talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Change in the way semi-automated peer reviews are handled

As a result of a Bot request, the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) script is now on the tool server. Interested users can simply click a link and get a SAPR. See the discussion here. Here is the link for the article on Japan as an example. Carl can make the bot add the link to this instead of my running the SAPR (as User:AZPR) and pasting it into an archive). Besides the advantage of saving a lot of edits by myself, this would allow interested users to run the SAPR as many times as wanted. I would like to try and stopp the current method of SAPRs at the end of this month. Are there any objections? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds brilliant to me. Finetooth (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the "wedge" after reading a request at FAC a week earlier. — Dispenser 05:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

testing the new SAPR tool

The header for new PR pages has been changed to include a link to the new toolserver-based SAPR program. There may be a few transitional difficulties as we get the linking system set up; watch this thread for updates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Few questions on limits

I've got a few simple questions. I'm sure they're addressed somewhere, but I can't find that spot. Regarding the 14 day clause,

1. When is a review considered archived? Obviously FAC's aren't archived until they close... But Peer Reviews automatically start out archived do they not? Must I wait 14 days since I opened the review.
2. If I withdraw an FAC because it needs a peer review, do I have to wait 14 days?
3. Given these limits, how can I get a second person to peer review on an open review? One set of eyes misses a lot. Two catches it most, but three really gets the grime out of the tight spots. In other words I've fixed up everything from the last review and need a second opinion before I nominate for featured list.

- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The name archive is historic - the PR is archived when it is marked "This peer review discussion has been closed." See this diff for example.

The idea is that the FAC has suggestions to follow and the 14 days is time to implement those. If an FAC was nothing more than "This needs a PR, please withdraw it" and you did, I suppose it could come straight to PR.

Just to clarify the time limits - a PR stays open for 14 days after the last (non-minor) edit is made, until it reaches 30 days old. After 30 days it will be closed after 2 days of inactivity. Most archiving (closing) is done by a bot. The best way to get reviews is to ask people. Try WIkiProjects or WP:PR/V or someone who has worked on a similar article. The PR backlog exists to try and make sure every PR gets at least one review - beyond that your'e on your own. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Montrose Academy missing link

This article is listed for review at WP:PR (and I have reviewed it). There is no link on the article's discussion page. If I put one there, will I be opening a second review request for the article? (these technicalities defeat me every time!!!) Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the problem by adding the PR template to the article's talk page, saving, then changing the archive number in the PR template to 1 since this seems to be the first PR the article has had. Finetooth (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it - in general if the peer review is the first for the article "Foo" at "Wikipedia:Peer review/Foo/archive1" then the "Talk:Foo" page should have {{Peer review|archive=1}} on it (and if it were PR 2, then the only change would be to make it {{Peer review|archive=2}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Appears twice on the PR requests. Can one of them be painlessly removed? I'd do it, but... Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this - I deleted the second one. I think the bot will remove it from the listings within the hour, if not I will clean that up too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

I followed the instructions on this page to post an article for PR. Looking at the results here I see that it has "archive1" in the URL. Is that correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - for historic reasons all peer review names end with "archiveN" where N is a positive integer. That way the article does not have to be moved or renamed when it is closed / archived. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan double trouble

The Clinton problem has struck again. Fix required. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I deleted the second PR request and merged the text with the first one. I also left a note on the user's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Three proposals

I have some ideas that might make Peer review better and raise them here for discussion and to see if there is consensus to adopt them.

First, I think it would be very helpful to add the tools currently in all FAC entries to PR as well. I think that this would involve adding <noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Columbia River}}</noinclude> to each PR (with the correct title of the article, I used Columbia River as an example here). If all the PRs had this from the start, then the nominator could work on the points raised while waiting for reviewers' comments.

Second, I also note that the PRs still include the following text: <!--semi-automated peer review placeholder -- please do not edit or delete this comment--> which should be removed. If the tools are added, they could take the place of this to take roughly the same amount of text.

Third, I wonder if it would be useful to limit peer reviews to nominators who had made some substantial contribution to the article in question. I note that FAC already essentially bans "drive by nominations" and the idea is that if an article is to be reviewed, it should have someone nominating it for PR who has shown that they are committed to investing the time and effort to implement any changes suggested. I think that this would also cut down on the PR requests that say things like "This article is assessed as X, but should be Y" or "This is a cool article and should be improved". The question is how do you define a substantial contribution?

I also note that each of these three could be implemented (or not) separate from the others, though having the tools would make checking the number of edits by user much easier. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I note that the text at FAC is Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. with a link to an edit counter. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These three strike me as good ideas. (1) Lately I've been using the dabfinder and dead-link tools on articles at PR, and in most cases the tools find problems, which I've been noting in reviews. Adding the tools at the outset of a PR would be more efficient. (2) I can't imagine an argument against replacing the old text with the tool text. (3) Drive-bys bother me because the drive-by nominator, I think, is less likely than a main contributor to read, respond to, or act on a reviewer's suggestions, may never review another article, and is likely to drive by again. In an ideal setting, reviewers interact with nominators who are fully engaged, and the conversations are two-way. I think it would be helpful to add the same language as the FAC text quoted above, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article... " to the PR instructions and to use the edit count tool as a cross-check at the outset of a PR. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with idea #1. The second issue would require discussion with Carl(CBM) as I believe this comment line is used by PeerReviewBot to process the peer review. I have mixed feelings about the third issue. It seems to me that a common sense position would be that when nominators are reluctant to respond, reviewers should be reluctant to review, but that does not necessarily mean that a nomination for peer review was worthless in the first place. However, the third issue is really a matter for those who contribute so much good work here. Geometry guy 21:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I support Ruhrfisch's three proposals (though the second one is too technical for me, but I'm sure the great man knows what he's talking about). I would also like to make a fourth suggestion: that articles should not be on GAN and PR at the same time. I have had considerable trouble in the past with this sort of two-pronged review. It's a recipe for confusion and frustration; different advice might be proffered by the GA and PR reviewers. It can all end in a messy muddle and mutual hostility. So let's follow FAC again, and say that articles may not be on PR and GAN at the same time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of the template of course should be {{Wikipedia:Peer review tools}} and should be possible to move the AutoPR link there (unlike the hack we currently have). However, I had thought that perhaps the links should be integrated into the script, but had decided against it since it would mostly be my own tools. Cooler is that Dablinks can be integrated as a test since it provides a JSON interface.

Additionally, it seems that Gary King does not wish to work on the script at this time. I could improve the script and finish some feature request, but I'm already strained on maintaining my current tools and wouldn't like another. I could run an "Ad" on the tool asking for maintainers. — Dispenser 06:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Some replies from the bot operator:

1. Adding links to tools will not cause any technical problem for the bot. Just add them to the template that is used to create peer reviews, for example to Template:PR/header
2. Removing the commented line about semi-auto peer reviews should not cause any problem, because the bot is no longer linking them (this task was superseded by a toolserver tool). But I do not remember what template it is in.
3. If a separate section for lists is desired (or for any other topic), all that has to happen is:
   1. The pages that belong in that section should have some special category added to their peer review page, similar to Category:General peer reviews. It is possible to put this in addition to the other categories, to put the article in two sections.
   2. VeblenBot should be told to make a page like User:VeblenBot/C/General peer reviews to track the category. Either Geometry guy or I can do this.
   3. A section should be added to Wikipedia:Peer review.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Ruhrfisch's first proposal, and comments by Dispenser and Carl, I've created {{Peer review tools}}, which combines automated suggestions with Dispenser's other tools. However, as suggested by Ruhrfisch, we probably don't want to clutter (or fill) the PR page with all these Toolboxes, so for new peer reviews, {{subst:PR/subst}} provides a link to {{Peer review tools}} wrapped in "noinclude"s, and uses {{PR/heading}} instead of {{PR/header}}. The latter template needs to be maintained to provide the automated peer review link for current and previous PRs, but I propose to deprecate it for new ones. Geometry guy 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks G-guy! Could the edits tool from FAC also be added to Peer reviews - see here for the tool for the Virginia article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many links one could add to the tool box: we should focus on those which are most useful for peer review - otherwise the toolbox could grow without end. Edit counts are not in the spirit of peer review, where the focus should be on the article and not the editors. While I understand that it might occasionally be useful to see who the main editors are, I don't believe it is in the interests of the encyclopedia for peer review to contribute further to the promotion of edit-count-itis. Geometry guy 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists section

Could u please create a section for lists so that list reviewers could go directly to it instead of skimming through the Review page for lists? This would really help...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A bot lists the peer reviews here. I will ask Carl if this can be done easily, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If a separate section for lists is desired (or for any other topic), all that has to happen is:

1. The pages that belong in that section should have some special category added to their peer review page, similar to Category:General peer reviews. It is possible to put this in addition to the other categories, to put the article in two sections.
2. VeblenBot should be told to make a page like User:VeblenBot/C/General peer reviews to track the category. Either Geometry guy or I can do this.
3. A section should be added to Wikipedia:Peer review.

The same process could be used, for example, to split one of the existing sections in half. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I did 3 I don't know what's next... could u proceed with the change?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If only it were that simple! I think I've done everything else that needs to be done: new category, new CF template, new option at {{Peer review}}, new preload for this option, new {{PR/Topic}}, update {{Peer review page}} documentation... :-) Geometry guy 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus I've tested it on one of the current List PRs. To move the others, just change the topic parameter on the review page for the List. Geometry guy 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review statistics September 2009 (archived)

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

Number of reviews archived: 104 (140)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 130 (179)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 51 (62)

Main reviewers:-

• Finetooth: 23
• Ruhrfisch: 23
• Brianboulton: 22
• Maxim: 5
• (1 reviewer contributed 3 reviews, 8 contributed 2 and 38 contributed 1)

Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Confederation of Madya-as

A peer review has been requested for this article. It has a clean-up banner relating to possible plagiarism. I have identified four cases of uncited verbatim quotes - see here. I believe the violation is probably innocent, but the peer review should I think be closed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - to stay here on WIkipedia, the article has to be rewritten, which makes reviewing it now moot (as presumably much of it will change in the rewrite). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeat offender

When I see someone list two or more peer reviews in a day, I leave a standard message on their talk page:

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

For the first time since I have been tracking this, someone has done this a second time, namely Pedro thy master (talk · contribs) (Pedro J). Is everyone OK with me delisting one of the PRs now? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have archived Wikipedia:Peer review/Maggie Simpson/archive1 and left a note on the nominator's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple of problems

• A failed attempt has been made to close the Charlie Chaplin filmography list. The name has disappeared from the article's review page. Can someone complete the closing?
• The "list" section of the Peer Review page has somehow reversed itself, so that additions go to the bottom rather than the top of the list. This means that an old list from 10 October wasn't spotted by me and didn't reach the backlog. I have put it there now, but can the list order be fixed?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have closed the Chaplin filmography PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• I always look at WP:pr/d, which lists all of the PRs chronologically from newest at the top to oldest at the bottom. I will ask Carl, who runs the bot about the chronological order problem, to fix this as I can't see what the problem is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the issue with the lists reviews. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical number

Two PR requests were posted for this article by the same editor within minutes, on 22 October. I have tried to close the second but I am not sure I have succeeded. Can someone check it out? Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the second PR for the article. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PR listing

I listed 30 Rock (season 4) for a PR about half an hour ago and the bot hasn't listed it under lists yet. Admittedly not the hour suggested on the main PR page, but it seems like every other PR was listed within a minute of the original posting. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is listed there now - my guess is the others were created shortly before the bot ran and yours was created shortly after the bot ran, so theirs had to wait a short time and yours had to wait nearly the whole hour. Patience is a virtue. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Patience? Wut's that? :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:AndyZ/peerreviewer script needs adoption

The very useful User:AndyZ/peerreviewer seems orphaned as AndyZ left Wikipedia a year ago. Perhaps an active editor or a WikiProject could adopt it? The same holds true for the useful User:AndyZ/Suggestions. That page doesn't have its own discussion page, as it is redirected to AndyZ's talk page, which is obviously not the right place for reporting issues or suggesting improvements with it anymore... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Below are some things that the new maintainer should look into addressing.

• Update the image syntax. The tool should be able to understand both Image: and File:, and warn if alt text is missing.
• Readability statistics, suggest integration of User talk:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js
• API call to get the HTML rendering of the page
• Toolserver tools integration, I’m willing to help here especially with Dablinks.
• Add reference checking, scripts are already written to do some of this.
• Add programming hooks for additional scripts.
• Code refactoring, indenting, and add a pass/fail table of tests.

The maintainer should be knowledgeable or willing to learning JavaScript and regular expressions. Be able address concerns brought up to them. I will a notice to this section on to my tools. — Dispenser 03:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have used the script and am active at PR, but do not have the ability to maintain the script. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You can create a branch (copy) of the scripts in your users space and work on it their. I'd suggestion continuing work from Gary King's branch. — Dispenser 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not have the time or desire to teach myself how to maintain this code / script. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Archives for this talkpage

The box at the top of this page indicates that the last archive for the page covers the period April 2008 to date. In fact, that archive covers only the period from April to October 2008. Where is the archive covering the period from November 2008 to the start of this current talkpage? Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for ctaching this - the bot was saving old items to Archive 6, so I added that to the Archive box above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review statistics October 2009 (archived)

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

Number of reviews archived: 107 (104)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 146 (130)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 57 (51)

Main reviewers:-

• Finetooth: 25
• Brianboulton: 21
• Ruhrfisch: 18
• Ealdgyth: 11
• Diaa abdelmoneim: 9
• (2 reviewer contributed 3 reviews, 5 contributed 2 and 46 contributed 1)

Thanks for doing this - always interesting to see these stats. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul Bako

Review closed incorrectly by nominator. Can someone check that it is now correctly closed? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the header consistent with the other archived PRs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lock-in (decision-making)

I dont think this article should be on peer review. Please check out and if necesary close. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree it does not meet the criteria for PR, but I can do a review that is mostly copy and paste in 5 minutes, then it will not be on the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Lassie (1954 TV series)/archive1

I had to delete this page as the peer review was started by a banned user in violation of her ban. I'm not versed on how to remove the entry from the PR list, however. Can someone here handle this? MuZemike 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I checked this at the time and the bot (which is pretty good at these things) had already delisted it. Forgot to reply though until now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Three noms in one day

I have written a note to the editor who made three noms on 4 December, pointing out the one nom a day rule. On this occasion, for backlog purposes I will treat the noms as having been made on successive days 4, 5, and 6 December. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting the nominator know and for letting us know too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect archive link

I just archived the peer review for List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross. The title of the article was changed midway through the peer review (per a discussion on the peer review page), and this name change is making the archived peer review show as a red link on the talk page, see Talk:List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross. Can anyone help fix this, please? I'm not sure where the formatting is being pulled from, so I'm not sure what needs to be changed. Thanks in advance!Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it - thanks for letting me know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Longevity

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1 was archived today after opening on September 28, for a run on PR of 66 days (assuming I can count correctly). Does anyone know of a longer uninterrupted PR? I know some get archived and reopened, and there is one such now on PR, but is anyone aware of a longer running PR? Just curious, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On the assumption that longevity of a PR would be correlated with its length, I generated User:Dr pda/List of peer reviews by length using one of my existing scripts. The longest PR on this list was Wikipedia:Peer review/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1 at 114 kB, but this lasted only 52 days. I haven't checked all the others. Jay Pritzker Pavilion comes in at number 11 on this list. Might be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the length of a PR and the ease of any subsequent FAC. Dr pda (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I checked the ten longest PRs and none lasted as long as HMS Pinafore (let along Jay Pritzker Pavilion). I also checked and seven are FA. Only Roman Catholic Church failed FAC after the PR. Horses in warfare and Harold Pinter are GAs and have not yet been to FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Andrew Sledd/archive1

Ealdgyth has drawn my attention to the above. The review was opened on 22 September, article reviewed 2 October, no subsequent discussion. The bot has attempted several times to archive the review but the nominator has each time reverted the bot and reopened the page. This seems purposeless; the review can still be accessed after it is archived. A note to the nomnator, perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note a week ago - diff. Should I just go ahead and archive it by hand? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your note to the nominator was sensitive. If he hasn't come back to you I would quietly archive it, inform him and repeat the offer of help when needed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since a bot does the archiving and I no longer do the semi-automated PRs by hand, and since you so kindly have taken over the backlog updates, I do not keep an eye on the overall PR list like I used to. It slipped through the cracks, as it were. I have archived it and left another note on the nominator's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review statistics November 2009 (archived)

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

Number of reviews archived: 115 (107)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 173 (146)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 79 (57)

Main reviewers:-

• Finetooth: 27
• Ruhrfisch: 27
• Brianboulton: 17
• Charles Edward 5
• (2 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 3 contributed 3, 10 contributed 2 and 60 contributed 1)

Brianboulton (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as always for doing this - always very interesting to see what these stats were. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Living Ethics (moved here from the Peer Review page)

I moved this here as it was placed in WP:PR itself. I am not sure what the post means - my best guess is that it is a request to review or fix / clean up Living Ethics, which is a mess. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an awful situation with articles devoted themes about Helena and Nicholas Roerich, Blavatsky etc. I'd like to pay attention to pseudoscientific ideas of this religious movement. Just look on categories of these articles and everething will be clear. Marhorr (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it does not look at all ready for a meaningful peer review. It is assertive, highly POV, entirely lacking in scholarly analysis, referenced largely if not entirely to internal literature, and is a structural mess. I'd say this might be a case for deletion rather than review. Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I was not going to review it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

I have included this in the backlog, but there is some confusion as to whether a peer review is actuallybeing sought. Should it stay here, bearing in mind that the page is getting overcrowded and reviewer time is in short supply? Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the article's talk page, will see what kind of response that gets. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove a peer review

I added Qwest Field but failed to realize it has to wait for 14 days before being eligible. Is it possible to delete Wikipedia:Peer review/Qwest Field/archive2?Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. WP:PR/V has people willing to do copyedits. I have closed this per your request - you can reopen this same PR in 2 weeks (rather than open PR 3). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IDiscoveri Education

Resolved

I don't know how this got listed for peer review. There is no link on the article's talkpage - in fact, there is no talkpage. The article is completely non-encyclopedic, written like a publicity flyer (the main editor calls himself IDiscoveri). I have added two cleanup banners, but I suspect that the nominator has misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. This should not be in the peer review system. Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Machine Tattoo Removal is another one that should not be here. I might nominate both at WP:AfD. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted both articles at WP:AN/I for discussion - diff. I see IDiscoveri Education has been deleted as a WP:COPYVIO and its creator blocked for an inappropriate user name. I closed the PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now the same has happened with Machine Tattoo Removal, I have also closed its PR. I think sometimes people copy PRs and replace the relevant parts with their own article, bypassing the talk page in the process. I think the bot lists them here if the PR page exists, regardless of the talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics December 2009 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in December 2009. (November figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 107 (112)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 146 (185)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 57 (69)

Main reviewers:-

• Finetooth: 36
• Ealdgyth: 28
• Ruhrfisch: 22
• Brianboulton: 14
• (1 reviewer contributed 4 reviews, 4 contributed 3, 9 contributed 2 and 51 contributed 1)

Another bravura performance from Finetooth (and you can see who's slipping down the list - more effort needed from BB!)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kudos and thanks to Finetooth and to Ealdgyth! Thanks to Brian for compiling this, always very interesting. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° (who is also slipping down the list) 05:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, like seeing these stats. Nobody is slipping, though, except on the snow. Finetooth (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell on Wheels (song)

This article was listed for peer review on 31 December. The link is still open on the talkpage, and the article's PR has a couple of brief comments on it. But the article is no longer listed on WP:PR. Anyone know where it's gone? Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it - the problem is that they pasted in the semi-automated peer review, which contains code that prevents the PR from transcluding on the WP:PR page (though you can still read it if you go directly to the PR page). I have a standard text I paste in in such cases diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll add it to the backlog (no real review yet) Brianboulton (talk)

OSScamp

This article should not have been nominated for peer review (three major cleanup banners, no reliable sources, questionable notability etc). Also it appears twice on the PR list, no links to PR process on the article talkpage. Suggest rapid removal. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the duplicate PR (under a different name), and archived the one for the current name. I also added a {{PROD}} tag to the article and will delete in a week unless it is cleaned up with sources added to establish notability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is now at WP:AfD as it seems to not meet notability Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Alertsides

Listed for review in the General section, but there doesn't seem to be an article, though associated material has found its way to the WP:PR page and has disrupted the list. Needs sorting out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - the article was deleted, so I closed the PR. It also appears that a large chunk of the article had been pasted into the PR, including level two headers and categories, which was messing up PR, so I removed almost all of that material. I left the lead sentence so there is a record of what the aricle was about. Once the bot removes it from PR translcusion it should go away. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

School Rumble PR

When I posted this I wasn't aware that a failed FAC required 2 weeks before posting (i thought that it was only for another PR) and so 4 days after (FAC closed on the 16th and i nominated this here on the 20th) without knowing this. Since the 14-day period expires today and I just realized this while browsing through to double-check on if there was any recourse for PRs that have received no input, I'm not sure what to do.陣内_Jinnai 08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Left some PR comments at the peer review page. I initially didn't review the article because of my inexperience with dealing with higher quality articles but after a read through I found some things. Hope they help. CrimsonFox ^talk 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind the waiting period is to allow time to make changes based on the FAC comments. If we catch it early, we have made people wait, but this has already been reviewed and is OK - thanks for letting us know, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics January 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in January 2010. (December figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 97 (107)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 153 (146)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 54 (57)

Main reviewers:-

• Finetooth: 28
• Brianboulton: 22
• Ealdgyth: 21
• Ruhrfisch: 16
• (3 reviewers contributed 3 reviews, 9 contributed 2 and 38 contributed 1)

Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining and posting these stats. I look forward to seeing them each month. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much - always very helpful and interesting (even if I was a slacker last month ;-) ) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review in 2009

Facts and figures: In 2009 a total of 1,478 articles received peer reviews. The total number of review contributions was 2,062 including 108 "sources" contributions from Ealdgyth, who was only active in PR for parts of the year. The three most active peer reviewers contributed 891 reviews between them (Ruhrfisch 343, Finetooth 332, Brianboulton 216), around 45% of the total. At least 300 editors contributed one or more reviews during the year. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow - thanks for compiling this. I am glad I didn't know what I would have to do at the beginning of the year (last year). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there it is. My own feeling is that, if I do three PRs a week I can give them each full, comprehensive attention. I am currently averaging just over four, which means I often do five or six; inevitably, this affects the quality of some reviews. You two guys are averaging six or seven, which means that some weeks you're in double figures! I don't honestly know how you do it, but I think honestly that we are all doing too many. If only a couple of other editors would pledge one, two reviews a week...if only. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys are amazing. I continue to be extremely thankful that this process is in place for people seeking excellence in their articles. Bravo! --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how Ruhrfisch managed to keep up before Brian and I became regulars. I'm pretty sure he was doing as many as three reviews a day a one point. I try to do decent reviews, though they can't all be comprehensive. I have spent as many as five hours (too much) on a single review and as little as a half-hour on others. Reviewing is rewarding in its own way and has taught me a lot about Wikipedia. (I can't just say "because I said so"; I have to be able to support my advice with reference to the Manual of Style, FAC requirements, core policies, or something else outside of myself). I try to recruit other reviewers via little notes appended to my reviews, and (mainly through shameless flattery) I try to encourage individual editors to become reviewers. We could sure use a Fourth Horse(man or woman) or Musketeer willing to do three reviews a week. Finetooth (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With my committments to GA Sweeps, FAC and (wikiproject + main) PR I can really only manage a "1 review per 1 I submit" method most of the time (once sweeps end, I'll probably go back to beating down video game GANs.) I really have no idea how you folks manage, but we're grateful! As to a fourth PR ubermensch, it would certainly be great, but I think the Musketeer comparison is a little more friendly than shopping for a fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And that's not the worst of it. The really good jobs are already taken, and the only apocalyptic spot left to be filled is Conquest. Finetooth (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Thanks for all the kind words. When the backlog first began, The Rambling Man was also quite active here and helped a great deal. I think I once did seven PRs in one day, but several of those were part of a set of multiple nominations and were by the same main editor and similar enough that I could make many of the same comments in each, then add a few specifics. I find myself either doing a fairly brief review or a fairly detailed one. Brief reviews often arise when the article needs a lot of work and so it helps to identify major areas of improvement, but not to go line by line (as this will hopefully all change anyway). More rarely brief reviews are cases where there is little to improve. I will often go through the backlog and try and find the articles that need a lot of work, as those are in some ways easy, brief reviews (make major points in broad strokes with a few examples and you are done). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispatch

An upcoming Dispatch in the Wikipedia Signpost will focus on the declining number of reviewers at FAC, FLC, GAN, and in PR. Interesting reading, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Merit badge

Per the ongoing discussion of User:Dr pda's Wikipedia:FCDW/Reviewers, I wonder if it might encourage more editors to do PR reviews if a PR review template like the one for GA reviews ({{User Good Articles reviewed}}) were available to post on user pages. Reviewers could use Brian's recent stats plus a self-generated approximate number for past years and add the template to their user box. Finetooth (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I might even try to write a script to count the number of PRs. (P.S. the article has now been published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-08/Dispatches.) Dr pda (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I also like this idea very much - thanks again to Dr pda for the article. I am not sure I want to know exactly how many PRs I have edited ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a template. (Maybe I should learn). But if you could make even a simple one, Dr. pda, that would be swell. Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Userbox created, largely by copy and paste from the GA one linked above. The result is at {{User peer reviews}}. Feel free to tweak if necessary. Dr pda (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. pda. This is very helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And I now have installed the template in my user box. The hot pink makes it stand out. Outstanding! Finetooth (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My thanks too - I have also installed it on my user page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

13 in one day!

Eyreland has sety a new record in nominating 13 articles for peer review in one day. I have left a note asking Eyreland to pick one PR to keep open, and will close the rest. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All but one archived now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So glad. Thank you. Thirteen in one day sounds like something from the Brothers Grimm. Finetooth (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is A Dozen At a Blow (a variant of The Valiant Little Tailor), but I did not have to fight any giants, or even kill any flies. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

special request for multiple views

I just gave a short, partial review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nawa-I-Barakzayi District/archive1. This one seems different than most others coming in. You be the judge why. I think it is important to provide some different perspectives and careful review here. Could others please take a look at this one? --doncram (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this one, and, yes, I'll review it too. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and review - I will also take a look at it, and make some comments. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

English words first attested in Chaucer

This article has been peer reviewed, but under its earlier name of Chaucer's special manuscript words. It appears twice in the PR list, once under each name. The second entry (the one with the current name) needs to be removed, but I'm afraid I will remove the wrong one! Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the duplicate peer review since the only author requested its removal (WP:CSD G7, although G6 would apply as well). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics February 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in February 2010. (January figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 95 (97)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 138 (153)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 55 (54)

Main reviewers for February:-

• Finetooth: 22
• Brianboulton: 20
• Ruhrfisch: 18
• Crimsonfox: 15
• (1 reviewer contributed 4 reviewa, 2 contributed 3, 5 contributed 2 and 43 contributed 1)

There's a new kid on the block. Lets hope he/she sticks around. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Brian, for this new set of stats, and thanks Crimsonfox. Your help is most welcome. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Awesome stats Brian and great work everyone. I started doing one and then found out I really enjoyed doing them, actually managed to bring something up in conversation about what I learnt while doing one, was quite happy with that. Anyway, I do plan to stick around. =) CrimsonFox ^talk 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks to Brian for doing this, and thanks to Crimsonfox for catching the PR bug! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing double?

Unless I am seeing double, which is perfectly possible at the moment, The Angrez is listed for peer review twice. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I deleted the second PR which was opened 7 minutes after the first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifacation Of Proposal To Promote wp:quote

There is a proposal to promote wp:quote.

I do not know why candidates was notified, but they were so you should be notified as well.174.3.107.176 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for extension

I know the rules say that this has to be archived because it hasn't had any reviewing activity in two weeks. However, two editors have expressed a willingness to participate, so can I get an extension on my peer review? Benny the mascot (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A bot archives, but it goes by last non-minor edit. I just added a start of my review and so you are fine. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for being so understanding. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review Spring spike

In the last five days more than thirty articles have been listed for peer review. If the backlog is not to rise to awesome proportions we need volunteers prepared to review one or more of these. Please help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As a point of interest, about half a dozen seem to be related to Wikipedia:School and university projects/Shaping the Modern World SP2010/Paper template. Dr pda (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will be more active here now that a certain wild area article is written and most of the FAC comments have been or soon will be addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to reviewers

A big thank you to the many editors who have contributed reviews in the last few days, thereby negating the fear, expressed above, that the 23 article posted for review between 19th & 22nd March would really pump up the backlog. That didn't happen, and all is tranquil again, thanks to this combined effort. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of a Woman

Why is this listed as "added 2 April"? It's been on the PR page for a couple of weeks - since 21 March in fact. Glitch? Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil moved the article and moved the peer review on APril 2 diff, so the bot saw it is a "new" PR and changed the date. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly bot! Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Meet the Parents

I saw this article on the backlog page and planned to give it the once over. However, I noticed that its GAN is still in progress. Being more familiar with FAC processes, where such duplication is frowned upon, I thought it prudent to ask if that's normal here, or if the article should be removed from the PR or backlog page. Steve ^T • C 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule against an article being listed at both PR and GAN - some people, knowing that GAN frequently has a long wait time, will list an article in both places, hoping to get the PR first and use its suggestions to improve the article before a GA review starts. Thanks for asking and for being willing to review the article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll get on it. :-) Steve ^T • C 11:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

I think there may be two PR pages open for this article. The one to which the talkpage links was closed in error by a bot. I reverted the bot and re-opened the review, but the version on the PR page itself is a little different. So I may have screwed things up. Can someone check it out (don't ever make me an admin). Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This one was a bit complcated ;-), thanks for the heads up. The first PR was opened while the article was still listed at FAC, so the PR bot archived it as it does with anything at FAC. I deleted the duplicate second PR and cleaned up the talk page. The second PR was listed on the PR page because its PR was listed as open on the article talk page. The first PR was reopened, but the talk page still listed it as archived, so it was not listed on PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ellis Island

Listed twice on the PR page. The link from the talkpage goes to the slightly later of the two. The article itself does not look ready for PR (there is a cleanup banner and some obvious MOS violations apart from questionable prose). Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the second PR request, combined the new bits from the second PR with the first, and will do the review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

With apologies to Emma Lazarus and The New Colossus, I give the PR regulars this gift of doggerel:

"Give me your tired prose, your poor grammar,

Your huddled masses of words yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming sandboxes.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed articles to us,

We lift our lamps beside the golden door!"

Peer review statistics March 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in March 2010. (February figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 89 (95)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 131 (138)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 64 (55)

Main reviewers for March:-

• Finetooth: 23
• Brianboulton: 15
• Ruhrfisch: 14
• Philcha: 5
• (1 reviewer contributed 4 reviews, 3 contributed 3, 5 contributed 2 and 51 contributed 1)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. It's always interesting to see how things stack up. Finetooth (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much - I notice there are fewer peer reviews each month the past few months, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of archived peer reviews has fallen in recent months, but the number of participant reviewers is rising. The proportion of reviews contributed by the gang of three, which has often been above 50%, was below 40% in March. Incidentally, what has happened to the archive of this page for August 2009 - January 2010? Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FIxed - added Archive 7 to the archive box, thanks for noticing. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jordan River (Utah)

I inadvertently closed this peer review, confusing it with a similarly-named article on FAC. I think I have managed to reinstate it, but could someone check that all is well? Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The PR is open, no problem Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Medicine and molecular cellular biology Wikiprojects announce collaboration with Google.org

Announcement of the first stages of a project to peer-review, improve and translate medical and biology articles so that material can be transferred from the English Wikipedia to other Wikipedias that are written in languages used in developing world. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dayton, Ohio

I accidently put the Dayton, Ohio article up for peer review earlier. I didn't mean for this article to be put under the peer review and I would like it to be removed. Thanks. Texas141 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the peer review request. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

More detailed Instructions

Can somebody please write more detailed instructions on how to submit an article for peer review, I can't figure it out. If you can respond on my talk page that would also be helpful. User:Iankap99 Iankap99 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reply oin your talk page. You add the {{PR}} template to the article's talk page, not here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Temporary hiatus

Sorry to have flaked out a bit recently. I'm eager to complete the Rogue River article, which is a much shorter stream than the Columbia but much longer and more complicated than Balch Creek. Also, I confess to a bit of reviewer fatigue. It's the old problem of endless requests for help from a limited pool of reviewers. This is no knock on anybody in particular; I just need to operate in molasses mode for a while. I'm not disappearing, only fading down to my Cheshire cat grin for a bit. Mixing metaphors too, just for fun. Thanks to all the other reviewers. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and look forward to seeing the Rogue River article (does this make you a "Rogue Editor"?). Enjoy a well deserved break and thanks for all your past reviews! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: while we are short of regular reviewers, and the backlog remains in the high teeens or above, I think we should limit editors to two rather than four concurrent articles at PR, and an interval of at least a week between these nominations. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am OK with this idea - would feel better if others also weighed in on it. Sorry to have missed it before now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Just got back from taking photos along the Rogue River only to discover that my Internet connection had completely crashed. I've been having lots of trouble with it over the past few months. The problem turned out to be a damaged splitter external to the house. Once I get completely unpacked and organized later today, I may expand slightly from my Cheshire cat grin by adding one paw and a tail. Finetooth (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the backlog is under control again now, so I have stopped adding my warning banner on new requests. I suggest we watch the situation for a few weeks before we introduce any further restrictions such as I have suggested above. And now that Mahler is through FAC, I do have a bit more time. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox

A sandbox version of this article has been submitted for peer review. This is obviously irregular, and it looks as though PR is being co-opted for conflict resolution purposes. See the nom statement – should we let it stay here? Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• The peer review won't link to the sandbox version (why the article is a red link in the PR) and the semi-automated peer review won't work on it either (the script only works on things in article space, not subdirectories). The general precendent has been to review articles only - since there is a content dispute it makes little sense to review this when it is not even the article psace version. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Should "requests to review versions not in article space" be added to the list of PR requests that can be closed on sight (item number 1 under Removals at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have added it there. I think I might point out some issues with the sandbox version too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics April 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in April 2010. (March figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 103 (89)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 138 (131)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 53 (64)

Main reviewers for April:-

• Finetooth: 21
• Brianboulton: 19
• Ruhrfisch: 17
• H1inkles: 15
• (1 reviewer contributed 4 reviews, 3 contributed 3, 8 contributed 2 and 37 contributed 1)

Could the Gang of Three become a Gang of Four? Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It certainly was in April. Good to see. Finetooth (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as always to Brian for compiling the figures, and to Finetooth, Brian and H1nkles for their reviews! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Laterite

I have been unable to add this article to the backlog; it keeps showing up as a redlink. Somehing to do with an earlier PR, perhaps, which likewise shows red. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• It took me a while, but I think I have fixed the problem. The PR was archive number 10 (I think there was an attempt to open 10 PRs at once on the article's talk page). However PRs 1 to 9 did not exist. I moved 10 to 1, added this to the backlog, and think I have cleaned up the other problems. Thanks for the headsup. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom

I've peer-reviewed this, but I can't find a link to the PR page on the article's talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to be hidden inside an editorial comment. I think I've fixed it. Finetooth (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have - thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles waiting / being reviewed

I've just looked for the oldest requests and a few other ones, and found that they were already being reviewed. I suggest that reviewers should:

• note the review status of articles, as is done at WP:GAN. This should include requests for 2nd opinions if needed.
• remove from the "waiting" list articles that are being reviewed.
• when applicable, note the nominator's intention, e.g. hoping for GA or FA. I happily review articles that as going for GA, but would not be much use for FA as I don't nominate or review FA candidates.
• if a system like this is adopted, I suggest a banner at the top of the PR page should explain the system. --Philcha (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your ideas. PRs are archived by a bot after 14 days with no edits (I think minor edits do not count), or after 2 days of inactivity once the PR is 30 days old or older. That means we try to review everything in the first two weeks it is listed here, and that most PRs are still listed for up to 2 weeks after being reviewed (so the oldest items should all be reviewed). The place where we keep track of what needs to be reviewed is the backlog - see the top of the PR page or this talk page, or add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} to one of your pages if you want. There is a listing of PRs by date (not subject) at Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date which is useful for seeing newer PRs that have not yet been added to the backlog (they get put there after 4 days with no feedback).
  • As for your specific points, I agree 100% on having the PR nominator make the goal clearer (FA or FL, GA, or general improvement) and would put this in the directions or perhaps a banner (I do have WP:CREEP worries). However, I am not sure I understand the rest of the points you make. The only way review status is noted now is by listing on the backlog. If the backlog is the "waiting list", then PRs are removed once they have reviews, although often the {{doing}} template is added to a review in progress. Sometimes someone says they are doing a review than never get to it, so removing only once a review is posted seems best. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox

Since mid-2008 I've developed a set of tools and techniques that I've used in editing and reviewing articles - including stuff I've found hard to find from WP "official" sources. You might want to copy it from User:Philcha#Tools to somewhere in WP:PR: userboxes don't live for ever; and your project should update your copy from the experiances from its members. I hope you find this helpful. --Philcha (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much - everyone, any ideas where these should be put? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Double entry

Don Martin (Austin, Texas) has been entered twice, once under Everyday life and once under General. One needs to be deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the second PR and left the first - went by date, not sure which section the remaining one is listed at now (I go by dates at WP:Pr/d). Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics May 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in May 2010. (April figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 110 (103)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 137 (138)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 42 (53)

Main reviewers for April:-

• Finetooth: 24
• Ruhrfisch: 22
• Brianboulton: 17
• H1inkles: 15
• Maria: 6
• (2 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 1 contributed 3, 8 contributed 2 and 26 contributed 1)

More reviews, fewer reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, this is always fascinating and much appreciated, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I always find this interesting and look forward to seeing it. Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Extraneous stuff

Some text (in red) unrelated to PR has found its way under the "General" subheading. Maybe a bot running wild. I don't know how to get rid of it, job for a clever admin. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, someone added a {{FAC}} template from the top of Wikipedia:Peer review/Achilles tendon rupture/archive1 (which was listed at top in the General Peer reviews)), but I have now removed it (took me a while, I'm not really that clever). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics June 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in June 2010. (May figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 95 (110)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 133 (137)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 54 (42)

Main reviewers for June:-

• Finetooth: 25
• Brianboulton: 19
• Ruhrfisch: 14
• David Fuchs: 8
• H1inkles: 6

• (1 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 1 contributed 3, 7 contributed 2 and 40 contributed 1)

My own contribution during July will fall considerably, due to my current involvement at FAC as main sources reviewer. Maybe in August I'll be able to review more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, as always, for doing this - always very interesting. Thanks also to everyone who reviewed! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Brian for compiling and publishing the stats, and thanks to all the reviewers. Keeping this going would be impossible without collaboration. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Stone Temple Pilots (album)

Resolved

 – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

***I moved this question to this location: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Stone_Temple_Pilots_.28album.29.*** – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Hello. I hope I'm posting this in the right place, because I need some peer advice. At a near point in the future, I would like to nominate this article for GA, but I think I'm going to be held up by at least one major flaw: A good amount of information in the "Song history" section was based on this source, a now-dead article called "track-by-track". The author of the article isn't responding to my emails (since two weeks) and the editor-in-chief "promised" to get back to me and a slight nudge from me has resulted in zero responses, though I'm waiting until next week to contact them one more time. According to WP:Linkrot, the reference shouldn't be removed, and in the meantime, alternate sources should be found. Well, I've been looking. The problem is that the "track-by-track" article stemmed from a unique interview with a band member, and (so far) I'm not finding any reliable sources that have quoted it. A second, follow-up article (by the same author) was released. This second article has been archived and I incorporated it into the Wiki article yesterday. With this second article, I was able to mitigate some of the "track-by-track" citations, but there are still 17 citations to replace. Finally, I have found verbatim copies of this track-by-track article, but so far only on actual blogs (meaning very definitely random Stone Temple Pilots fans) and one copy on a messageboard (again, posted by a fan). Technically, my quotes, contributed at an earlier date than these blogs, match the copies perfectly. But are these sources good enough to provide supporting/backup citations for the article? How dead in the water is this article because of this issue? I would really rather not lose all the information I contributed, but my goal was a GA, and if this will kill the GAN, then I gotta do what I gotta do. Thank you so much to anyone who can provide some advice. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can sympathize. This is really a sourcing question and as such it might be better asked at WT:RS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thank you very much for the reply. Wasn't sure where to go on this one. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Internet Archive may be able to revive the page. See User:Philcha#Tools for how to use Internet Archive. Hope this helps. --Philcha (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing a peer request vs. closing a peer request

I have just submitted an article for FA consideration, and was asked to "close" the Peer Review request (which is referenced on the FA nom. page.) Thing is, there is no "Closing a peer request" section, and it took me a while to realize that "How to remove a request" was the same thing as "closing" a request. The results may be the same but to my mind they do not equate. Any objections to making it a compound heading? (such as "How to remove or close a request")? Captmondo (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was BOLD and changed it to "How to remove (or close) a request" just now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I would normally be bold as well, but I have learned to tread lightly in parts of WP I am not that familiar with. Far better those who know first. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Joe_Diffie/archive1. The reviewer is talking very cryptically, and when I ask him to elaborate, he refuses — he says that the two sections don't integrate well, but when I ask for him to suggest a way to fix it, he just says "you're the one who asked for the review, you do it." Can I please have a second opinion here? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nansen: 2 noms

As a result of endemic problems with my server, Nansen gets two nominations to PR. I'm not being greedy for comments, as Yomangani believes. Would a kindly soul please remove the surplus? Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the second nom per G6 and moved its description to the 1st PR page (which I de-archived). If there are two PRs opened on the same day, I usually delete the second. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Apocalypse

This nom is disrupting the Arts section list. I imagine that someone has tried to close it and failed; can this be tidied up? Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was because you added your comments twice (as a result of your server problems?) — history. I just deleted the duplicated comments. :) --BelovedFreak 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. Some of my comments never reached their intended destinations, others went to the wrong places, some duplicated themselves. Thanks for dealing with it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review removal

Can someone remove InfoSpace (Dot Com crash)'s PR? I looked at the Peer Review and it showed that the article was speedy deleted? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

SInce the PR request had no comments, I deleted it too. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Philcha no longer doing Peer Reviews

For the last few days I've had another illness. In the longer term, I don't enjoy reviewing and only do it as a duty to limit the number articles waiting of GA review. As I don't expect to work on articles, I no longer expect GA reviews. At the back of all of this is some WP politics with which I won't bore you - hell, it bores me.

If you don't already have a copy of User:Philcha#Tools, I suggest you get a copy so you can use them and then given the nominator a copy. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway, for your past contributions to the PR page which have been thorough and conscientious. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much! Do we want to link the tools page somewhere in the Peer review pages (not on each individual PR, but one of the main pages - like here)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics July 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in July 2010. (June figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 92 (95)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 126 (133)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 55 (54)

Main reviewers for July:-

• Finetooth: 22
• Ruhrfisch: 21
• Brianboulton: 11
• (2 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 3 contributed 3, 8 contributed 2 and 39 contributed 1)

Sorry for the delay in presenting these figures, not due entirely to shame for my own reduced output. The mighty two march on. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as always for doing this, which I always find very interesting and useful. I note your "reduced output" here coincided with checking refs for virtually every FAC candidate, thanks for that and your work here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for maintaining and posting the stats. I don't see how you maintain the pace as a researcher and writer as well as a reviewer, stats keeper, and ref checker. Have you given up sleeping? Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Two problem PRs

I just closed two problem PRs and am letting people know (please feel free to undo my archives if you feel they were in error):

1. I closed Wikipedia:Peer review/La Masia/archive3 as it was opened one day after Wikipedia:Peer review/La Masia/archive2 was archived (and that was opened only 5 days after Wikipedia:Peer review/La Masia/archive1 closed).
2. I also closed Wikipedia:Peer review/Russell hantz/archive1 as it was the entire draft of a fancruft article on TV show contestnt with no refs (I moved the draft to User:RandJshow/Hantz for now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)