This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The nomination and archiving process for peer reviews has been changed. The main reason for this change is to fix a problem with the previous process: when an article received more than one peer review, the previous peer review page needed to be moved, and all of the links to the previous peer review had to be fixed. In the new process, every peer review will be placed on a new unique page, so that peer reviews never need to be moved. In order to do this, the nomination process has changed.
The templates which make this possible are new, and quite complicated. Please report any issues here. Geometry guy 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand this issue with the changes, and I largely agree: before introducing this system at PR, I introduced it at Good article reassessment, and there I used /1, /2, /3 ... exactly as mav suggests above. GAR has no history of storing each discussion in a separate page so I could start afresh with the "ideal solution".
On the other hand, PR has a long history of using such pages, and the format "/archiveN" for the permanently linkable discussion has been the standard for some time. It is also the standard used at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, where GimmeBot maintains the archives. So, it was a compromise, and we simply settled for maximum consistency with the past. The legacy of peer reviews at really quite random locations is only now being sorted out.
I hope this is largely a transitional issue caused by me actually having to move some current peer reviews to the new location. In future, and it is already happening, all peer reviews will start on the /archiveN page, which should make it more than obvious to everyone that they are active. Anyway, it is clearly worth adding a couple of notes to the PR instructions to clarify this issue, so thank you all for commenting on this.
I'm not sure if I understand mav's comment that "It would also be nice if the bot edited the archived PR and said that the PR is archived." There is no bot editing archived peer reviews: however, I think this concern might be addressed if I changed the archiving template ((PR/archive)) so that it adds the text "This peer review has now been archived." to the peer review when someone archives it. Is that what you have in mind? If so, do others agree that this is a good idea? It works for me. Geometry guy 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1865773 out of 2048000 bytes (182227 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Further to several discussions on this page, I've now set-up a demonstration of a peer review page with peer reviews organised by topic. The possible topics are:
At the moment the mock-up only lists the current peer reviews for which a topic is specified. To add your peer review to the demo, just fill in the topic parameter in the ((Peer review page|topic=)) template on the review page for the article. Short names for the topics are:
(Or "math", as an alternative in the last case.) Peer reviews without a specified topic will be listed in a separate section for "General" peer reviews.
If editors are in favour of this change, it will now be extremely easy to implement. Most, if not all, previous comments on this idea have been in favour. So take a look at the demo, and comment below on whether we should go ahead. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Additional comment: there is now also a page Wikipedia:Peer review list (with shortcut WP:PRL) which lists current peer reviews without transcluding them. Some reviewers may find that page easier to browse. However, it only supplies the automatically generated dates, which, for articles not in the "general" section are the dates when the topic parameter was added, so it will be a little while before these dates are a good reflection of the date when then peer review was started. (Stabilizing most of these dates is another reason why I waited a while before trying sorting by topic.) Geometry guy 14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so you understand how AZPR works, I always have to open each article and cut and paste the semiautomated peer review into a word processor, then paste a bunch of those into the current WP:PR/A. As for the notices in the individual peer reviews, it used to be that I could add up to 20 notices in the peer reviews themselves at a time, with essentially one click. This broke when the page went to transclusion from the Veblenbot list, so then it became opening each separate peer review, adding the notice (that is still automatic once that peer review is opened) and then navigating back to the next peer review (going back takes 3-4 clicks, so for 20 requests I went from 1-2 clicks to about 80-100). Since they were in chronological order, I always knew where the last one I added was and worked to there and stopped. Now I have to check each category. Each incremental change has not been that much extra work, but together they are a lot of extra work. Would it be possible to still make the chronological list and put it in some lonely page not widely advertised? Just curious, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(←) I haven't forgotten this! The script is at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js: I've checked I can edit this (I think any admin can), so we don't necessarily need AndyZ to reply (although it would help): DrKiernan has some experience with editing this script, so he may be able to check we don't make a mistake. Concerning the notice, at the moment it is not in ((PR/subst)), but is placed in the "onlyinclude" section of the SAPR itself. (Open edit previews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jane Zhang/archive2 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008#Jane Zhang to see how it is done.) I agree with you that most of the notice could be placed in ((PR/subst)), but not all of it, for two reasons.
So some edit needs to be made, either to User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js or to User:AZPR/monobook.js. Does that clarify? Geometry guy 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
~~~~
to be a seed to see if the suggestions were already opened, and then when Geometry Guy added the new initial message it contained ~~~~
). #2 is going to be considerably more difficult. Perhaps we could go back to doing the SAPRs in chronological order thru the VeblenBot subpage, but that doesn't give the archive number I believe. I don't know if ampersands are fixable or not, due to regular expression limitations. AZ t 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)(unindent) Thanks Andy, runs as myself and AZPR found no trace of bug #1. I can work around #2 for now (I did yesterday without too much trouble with a second anonymous window open to check). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I requested a peer review for McFly (band) but it doesn't seem to be under "requests". Did I do something wrong? -- Stacey talk to me 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1848023 out of 2048000 bytes (199977 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A discussion on a unified reviewing system may be found at Wikipedia:Grand Unified Reviewing Discussion. — Thomas H. Larsen 08:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
in peer review archives. I have two articles I would like to nominate for FA but can't because they've spent the last two weeks with their peer reviews still active, even though no additions have been made in that time. Is this something to do with MelonBot's conversions? Serendipodous 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to request a peer review on Peyton Manning so that I can get the article up to Featured Article standards. Given that my previous request for a peer review was completely ignored, and given that the peer reviews I requested for two other articles were also completely ignored, it appears that this whole process is a bit of a joke. When articles are being reviewed consistently, will some one please notify me on my talk page so that I can re-request a peer review and actually get some feedback for once? Thank you. Dlong (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 147 yards, use 147 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 147 yards.[?]I know this can be frustrating, but have you tried asking one or two people from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers to look at it? I recently submitted a peer review, asked two volunteers, and got helpful comments from each. Oh, I see you have this at FAC already - good luck. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dlong (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to support Dlong's frustration with the peer review I also requested a peer review of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority and it was closed without a human review. I actually contacted one person on the volunteer's list (which BTW does not have an engineering/technology section of volunteers, making my choice difficult) and three different wikiprojects, as well as another rail article editor. I guess my frustration with this peer review project is that even unreviewed articles are archived after two weeks. This isn't the case with GA or FA nominations where they wait until someone reviews them. But it seems that wikipedia touts the peer review process as being an important part in the article improvement process, so maybe they shouldn't be archived until at least one person makes comments. I understand that this is an all-volunteer system, but the lack of feedback leaves me discouraged and unsure of how to proceed with the article I was working on. I am torn between giving up on this article and just going ahead and submitting it for FA review just to get some comments even if it isn't ready. Biomedeng (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1851895 out of 2048000 bytes (196105 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just listed this article for Peer review. It appears in the "General" category when it should be in the "Language and literature" category. Can someone explain why this happened? This needs to be corrected.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The article Ilaiyaraaja (a biography of a musician) was nominated twice in the past for Featured-Article status. Perhaps someone can take a quick, cursory look at this article, and provide brief points (in its talk page here) about what is needed further to make this article FA-quality. The group of editors working on this article are a bit dazed and confused about what more needs be done and would appreciate any of your input very much. Thank you. Regards, AppleJuggler (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. AppleJuggler (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if two things could be done to help get more reviews for requests that have none. The first would be to add a suggestion to the instructions to review one or two other requests and then ask those whose requests you commented on to comment on yours. The second would be to add some sort of requests needing feedback section. Since requests are archived after 2 weeks, perhaps those that have had no responses in a week could be listed? There are similar notices at or for WP:FAC, WP:FLC, and WP:GAN and they seem to help there. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of comments on ordering. First, it has been traditional at PR to add new requests to the top: this is the opposite to the tradition at WP:GAN. One argument for this is that peer reviews do not have a definite outcome, and so it is more helpful to highlight new requests. In particular, there is no tradition that "oldest requests should be reviewed first", and I think such an approach would be counterproductive for peer reviews. We want to encourage anyone to review any peer review request at any time!!
The "newest first" order still holds within each section. However, the dates are not completely reliable during the transition. But if any reviewer would prefer to review oldest articles first, they should go to the bottom of the lists, not the top.
There are no definite criteria for reviewing here, since peer review is not something to "pass" or "fail": all comments aimed at improving the article are welcome. Geometry guy 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Participants in peer review may be interested in Wikipedia:Factual review and associated discussions. Best and friendly regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 08:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
IP addresses can't create the new page needed for the peer review process. Please leave suggestions for improvement at Talk:Eva_Cassidy. Thanks.--165.21.154.93 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
When was Literature not treated as one of the arts? Why is the Holywood film not listed as Arts although McFly the band and Shady records. Screenplays are screen... Arts. Again Enya is in General and Shady Records is in Arts. Yep there is a List of county routes in Rockland County, New York but its not in the Geography and places section it is in the General section. And there is an Everyday Life section therefore the table of contents is not only a guide to the list of peer reviews but is also a heap of shit. Maybe it's vandalised but 9 times of ten i'd have not looked at Everyday Life to find sport entries but for Old Trafford caught my eye. And now i see that its not a useful guide. Maybe whoever put in the categories to the contents had no suitable style guide with instructions how to list the categories or maybe the one there is up for review.
Suggestion _
Peer Review : Peer Review Style guide (if such exists or creation)
And after a quick check I don't think that individual pages of a wikipedian fundamental nature have style guides or check lists ? Do they ? What are they called ?
ThisMunkey (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The instructions don't say how to add a topic parameter, and there are still several PRs listed here that are at FAC and where the article talk page says the PR is archived. I can no longer understand the instructions, so I don't know how to remove them or who is doing this, but for example, Ganymeded moon is at FAC, has been for days, and its talk page says the PR is archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the instructions, and others don't either; I'm having to correct them. Also, when a PR is closed, it seems there is no link left back to the article (that is, the PR title isn't wikilinked), so I have to go through extra steps to get back to the talk page to correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if I start adding a line like this, it will encourage them to stay longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
1) Could someone please look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregory R. Ball/archive1? It had two article headers in it and I took one out and tried to fix the subheader on the comment, but now it does not show the comments at all when I edit it. Oh, I see, looking at my contributions I was editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Gregory R. Ball, which is somehow displayed with the first one. I am confused. Could someone please fix this (Geometry guy?). Thanks
2) I have noticed that a few PR requests keep changing their date - the most recent one is Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form/archive1 which was added Feb. 22, but is now showing up in order as if added on Feb. 29. The request for List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games did this too (as did the Winter Games one). I thought at first perhaps someone was removing the PR template and readding it to keep the request below the 2 week archive window, but the edit histories show no such thing. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made a change to the templates so that peer reviews of articles which have had a previous peer review will automatically link to the previous peer review. This applies to new peer review requests only, not the current ones. This has been made possible thanks to the efforts of User:Happy-melon: however, the linked peer review may not be the immediately preceding one in rare cases. Please report such cases here.
Also, this kind of change is difficult to thoroughly test. Please report any errors or glitches here. Geometry guy 22:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I sense that editors are divided on whether organising peer reviews by topic is a good thing, so I've set up an alternative page, WP:Peer reviews by date which lists all peer reviews together in chronological order. I hope this will also be useful the many editors :) who close PR discussions and provide semi-automated peer reviews. Geometry guy 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- <!--
- NewPP limit report
- Preprocessor node count: 25106/1000000
- Post-expand include size: 1536103/2048000 bytes
- Template argument size: 126888/2048000 bytes
- #ifexist count: 1/500
-->
- The key issue for this page is the "Post-expand include size": this is the limit which we regularly are in danger of breaking. The above is current information for this page: as you can see, at 1.5MB, we are comfortably within the 2MB limit, but not very comfortably. If we get close to the limit, we need to archive very strictly, but as long as we are clear of the limit, we can be a bit more relaxed and give peer review requests a chance to receive responses. I mention this because it has been noted at FAC that there has been an increase in nominations with an empty peer review. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I have noticed the pink "PR Requests over a week old without a response" box seems to have helped, mostly thanks to User:Biomedeng, but I still archive one or two blank PR requests a day on average. I have also thought about adding a notice to the blank ones when they turn a week old to ask for a review from the volunteers. I must admit I use (oh, the shame. the shame) IE. How do I do the size trick there? Also when you have the only partial transclusion trick, I just archive those with the code intact - is that OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need for shame: you are very brave to use IE! I had a quick look and I believe there should be a "Page" menu immediately above the web page and on the right. Inside this menu you should find "View source": that's what you want. As for the partial transclusion trick, yes, just archive with the code intact: it reduces the chance that the monthly archive will break (February broke, sadly). Geometry guy 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for IE, I think it is a case of fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Thanks for the tip. Archiving and SAPRs should be less time consuming from a chronological list. I discovered yesterday I had accidentally put all the SAPRs I ran on Feb 18 in the January 2008 SAPR page (which is why a bunch of people asked where the SAPR for their request was). I moved them from Jan to Feb - hope this did not break things. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- There were some glitches this am, but I fixed them :-) Geometry guy 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(←) Updating the urgent pink box, archiving, and SAPR went much faster this time with the chronological list. I added it to the instructions too. I am happy to report that I did not have to archive any "no responses" this time, although I did discover two requests that were much older than I thought (one from Feb. 7 I already had listed as Feb. 22 from searching the "Added on..." at the bottom before caching. Ruhrfisch
><>°° 04:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've shaved 300-400KB off the page size with some template tweaks, and the current size is about 1.5MB. Geometry guy 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had three "no repsonses" from Feb. 22nd to let them go a little longer. Is that OK spacewise - I am not able to check this in IE. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Currently very comfortable at under 1.4MB. Geometry guy 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Template won't work
I made this edit but nothing appeared on the talk page. I would appreciate any help. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've started you off on the right track. Please read the instructions. I'd be grateful to know why you were led to believe that placing the ((peer review page)) template on the article talk page was the right thing to do. If the instructions are unclear, we need to clarify them. Geometry guy 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I went here: Then I followed the instructions here:
- Nomination procedure
- Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and :encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
- To add a nomination:
- 1. Add ((subst:PR)) to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
- What went wrong? Dr.K. (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think I know what happened. I copied the wrong template, three lines down: (((Peer review page|topic= X))). Dr.K. (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Moral of the story: Don't fight vandals at the same time as you nominate articles. Sorry for putting you through the added work. Dr.K. (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Government of Kerala
Government of Kerala - I added "{subst:PR}" link in the talk pg. But I didn't see the peer riview discussion page. Please assist.
- I think its working now. Is there any additional steps? --Avinesh Jose T 05:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can an article be on PR and GAN simultaneously?
I understand that an article cannot be on PR and FAC simultaneously, or on FAC and GAN simultaneously. However, can an article be on PR and GAN simultaneously? If I nominate an article at GAN, given the current backlog, I would have to wait at least a month for it to be reviewed. The average peer review lasts about two weeks; by placing an article on PR and GAN simultaneously, it will take me less time to get articles to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- See the discussion at WT:GAN. Short answer (in my view): yes. Geometry guy 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there something wrong?
I have put up Sitakunda Upazila for a second peer review. But, the link on the talk page isn't leading to the right page. I am pretty sure that I have botched up the process somewhere. Can someone help? Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is my best guess at what you did: you edited the article talk page to add ((subst:PR)) and then clicked on "Show preview". You then followed the link to create Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive2 without saving the article talk page. You then created the peer review page and saved it. Then you returned to the article talk page and saved that. Is that right?
- The problem is that ((subst:PR)) is programmed to look for the next free peer review page, and when you saved it, Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive2 was no longer free! :-) So it wanted you to start another peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive3 :-)
- I've fixed it now anyway and will see if I can clarify the instructions. Geometry guy 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 13, 19:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1860714 out of 2048000 bytes (187286 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I archived through March 1, except for no responses (want to get something for those) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 15, 15:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1851964 out of 2048000 bytes (196036 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I archived as of March 3rd. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
A new proposal: all PR requests get a response
I would like to propose that no peer review request go unanswered. In the past many requests have been archived with no response (except for a semi-automated peer review (SAPR)). There is now a list of peer review requests which are at least one week old that have had no response beyond a SAPR at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. This has averaged two to three unanswered requests each day over the past few weeks.
The good news is that, starting with requests from February 22, no PR request has been archived without at least some response. I have also started to leave a note on the talk page of each editor who made an unanswered request when that request is added to the week-old list. The note suggests they ask a PR volunteer for feedback or review another article and ask for a review in return.
More help reviewing the PR requests without a response is needed - so far Biomedeng and I have reviewed the bulk of the requests on the no replies list, along with others. I next plan to leave a note on the talk page of each PR volunteer asking each to do one or two reviews from the no replies list each month. Other reviews and ideas are always welcome. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- An excellent idea, I know from experience that getting a requested peer review going unanswered beyond the automated can be very disheartening. SGGH speak! 11:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, good idea. I'll try to do what I can and I am sure others will as well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'll try to do one or two every once in a while. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 12:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can help with this. Thanks for taking it on. Let's also remember that there are many PRs for various WikiProjects. But I suppose they are the responsibility of those projects? – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. A personal experience: I reviewed an archived peer-review some days ago, and the nominator was still watching it. Of course, the proposal here will not resolve the backlog problem.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a great idea in principal but those editors on the participants list are already adding reviews. Some of those articles wouldn't get reviews if we didn't add them. But I applaud your efforts and idea. If more volunteers are added then I'm sure there is far more chance to ensure no request goes unanswered. Peanut4 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
{unindent)Thanks for all the responses and reviews to date. Peer Review will be featured in the Dispatches section of the next Wikipedia Weekly, so I am hoping we will get some more volunteer reviewers that way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will try to participate as well. Can a bot remind me please? :) Awadewit (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Awadewit, FYI, Krator has proposed a bot below. If I see a PR request that fits your interests I'll let you know for now. :-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who has helped out - the backlog is down to only three articles. I have taken the liberty of also reviewing (or just now adding one) requests which only had a very brief response. For example, I just added Aliens (film) to the list as it had a one sentence PR. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"all peer reviews get a response" idea #2
Thanks to Ruhrfisch's note on my talk page (ty), I remember to post this old idea here. What would really help with getting responses is a more individually tailored request to Peer Review volunteers. So, the idea is as follows, stated simply:
- When a new peer review is posted, a bot looks for some clues as to categories the page belongs to (by following category trees on the page, or by looking at WikiProject tags, or maybe a category assigned by the requester). Perhaps some fancy algorithm that could combine the three.
- All users who are volunteering in the corresponding category get a talk page notice from the bot with a link to the review.
Preventing talk page spam can be done easily by narrowing down categories and not volunteering everywhere.
User:Krator (t c) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- When requesting a peer review, a category can be specified (the ten WP 1.0 cats are used), so requests are already categorized and most are not in the "General" category. I am clueless as to writing bots - perhaps someone who knows how to could assess the feasibility of this idea? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 16, 19:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1918379 out of 2048000 bytes (129621 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- With more requests receiving reviews, I think we are getting fuller (law of unintended consequences). I will switch the archive limit to 10 days with no responses, instead of two weeks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 16, 23:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1860932 out of 2048000 bytes (187068 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what else to do - am archiving after one week of inactivity and changing directions to reflect this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- My only suggestion would be that maybe Peer Review should be split into its separate sections. It has its cons as well as pros though. Peanut4 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Geometry guy might have some ideas - can also do the partial transclusion trick on long PRs but I am not 100% sure how to do that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are less than 100 articles at peer review at the moment, and none of them are huge, so peer review shouldn't be full, which suggests something is accidentally inflating the page size. I think the culprit may be the semi-automated peer review notices. I've slightly reduced the overhead they cause, but this may need a rethink. Geometry guy 10:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- The other idea I had is just that doing all PR requuests will take more space as a PR with some comments will be larger than one without. On the 19th and 20th I will start to archive requests that were at least a week old before they got a PR - it may be there is a glut there (I have done a lot lately) and as these get more evenly distributed through the system with time they will be less of a problem. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keywords
Hi. The preloaded intro for creating peer review subpages gives a list of the following keywords: "arts, langlit, everydaylife, philrelig, socsci, geography, history, engtech, math, natsci". While it is possible to figure out what some of them mean, others are not so easy. Would it be possible to add an explanation of the keywords and their meanings? Also, and uncategorised option would be useful. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I added explanations to the non-obvious ones, as well as clarifying that uncategorized requests go into the "General" topic. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Automating archiving?
Since automation is going so well, I wondered about the next logical step. I have been archiving the Peer Review requests and it takes me anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour each day. I would rather spend this time doing actual peer reviews and the semi-automated peer reviews. I must also admit I do not always check WP:FAC or WP:FLC to see if any peer reviews need to be closed because they are also listed there. Would it be possible to automate the peer review process? It would need to both archive/close the peer review and change the notice on the article's talk page. It would have to check that the peer review request had had no responses in the current time limit (now the past week), and close requests more than a month old. The bot would also need to check FAC and FLC and close reviews of articles listed there too. Is this feasible? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Automatic archiving of peer reviews is certainly possible along the lines you suggest. If an interface with FAC and FLC is needed, then the obvious person to ask is Gimmetrow. Alternatively, we could put out a general bot request. I could help with specifying precisely what the bot needs to do, and there are one or two others I could ask, but there is no guarantee that we can find someone willing to oversee a bot automating some of the archiving, as it does require some work. Geometry guy 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bots are a bit of a mystery to me - I thought it might be more like Misza bot archiving talk pages (although someone has to run Misza bot too). Thinking about it, if all the bot did was archive the easy ones (over X days old with no repsonse - currently X = 8 days, but I am trying to work back to 10 days before archiving), then I could still do the over a month old requests and those at FAC and FLC by hand (there are relatively few of these). So could we try just the "easy" ones? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's no mystery: Bots can download the same information from WP that editors can. So a bot could download the edit history from a peer review page. It would be fairly easy to check from this whether the peer review page had been edited in the last X days. It would also be easy to check if the peer review page was more than a month old. Misza bot is more complicated because it checks how old is each thread! This means the bot needs to read the entire talk page and check each thread for signatures and dates: that is hard.
- Anyway, the key point is that once a bot has decided to close a PR discussion, it needs to do it, i.e., make the edits to the peer review page and the article talk page. As a minimum we need someone who has experience with bots which make such edits. Geometry guy 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Education section volunteer list
Is there any problem with me adding an education section to the volunteer list? I would be willing to help and I am sure there would be others from WP:Universities. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- First off, we always need volunteers, so thanks very much. However, the volunteer list is now organized in the same ten categories as the Peer Review list itself, see Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Categorizing_PR above. Education is not one of the ten categories, so I would not add it as a new section. Where do you think it would fit best in the exissting scheme (which is based on the WP 1.0 hierarchy)? The idea is that someone comes to peer review, adds their request and categorizes it in a section, and then looks for volunteer reviewers in the same section of the volunteer list. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. I don't know. I guess I would have been in the minority that favored the FA categories. What is WP 1.0? I am sure this has been debated but it seems that it would be easier to get more people to participate with more specific categories. In my case I would have signed up for Education and I am sure I could have gotten others from the Wikiproject to do so as well. I looked through the categories you are using and I am not sure where I would fit, any suggestion? KnightLago (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am no expert, but Social sciences and society seems to be the closest fit for me - I would not have a problem with adding {includes Education) to the volunteer list heading. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good. It looks like there is already someone there for schools so education doesn't seem like a huge leap. If you would add to the heading, I will sign up and try and recruit some other people from WP:UNI. Also, what exactly is WP 1.0? Thanks for the help. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added myself and WP:UNI under social sciences. I think that should suffice. I will try and recruit some others. Still curious, WP 1.0? Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I added a note to WP:UNI here. I also answered the WP 1.0 question. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry - I was away from my computer for several hours, looks like you took care of everything fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Two week archival and changes that haven't yielded improvement
"Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived." Peer reviews historically ran for a month; it takes a month to get a decent peer review, and most peer reviews are showing up at FAC empty. This change was apparently instituted at the same time that the complexity of this page grew to accommodate the new sectioning, and as far as I can tell from what's appearing at FAC, none of it has resulted in change for the better (as in increased participation at PR). The page is cluttered, hard to negotiate, and because of the increased code needed to manage the more complex page, peer reviews are closed too quickly. This should be undone, and PRs should run for a month as they used to. These changes have not been for the better, one-month peer reviews should be allowed, and an evaluation of the changes resulting in shorter peer reviews is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- What ingratitude to all the work that Ruhrfisch does to look after the archiving of peer reviews. And impatience and ignorance too. Peer reviews still run for a month. They are only closed if they receive absolutely no comments for two weeks, and even then not always. I have already drawn attention to the issue of closing peer reviews too soon, and it has been taken on board by Ruhrfisch, who takes special care to let empty discussions run for longer in the hope of getting a response, even to the extent of reviewing them himself. Please wait for these generous efforts to filter through.
- Since you commissioned and presumably read a dispatch on peer review, you should know full well that the problem is caused by increased participation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sectioning of the page, which requires no complex code and adds hardly any overhead.
- And given that you are someone who even removes blank parameters from templates (how pointless is that? - someone might want to fill them in later!) I consider a statement from you that the page is cluttered to be a sign that it is serving the needs of Wikipedia very well. Use WP:Peer reviews by date if you don't like the sections. I can only speculate that your comment reflects stress or frustration on or off wiki. If so, I hope things get better for you. Geometry guy 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch replies
I think you both raise some valid points - while Sandy is correct that peer reviews are now archived sooner than they were in the past, Geometry guy is correct that I am now closing almost all of the peer review requests, and do allow "no response" reviews to go longer if needed. I will respectfully disagree with Sandy (and agree with G guy), in that I believe there have been a lot of improvements recently in the peer review process.
As recently as July 2007, peer review was declared "dead" on its talk page - see this. It has also long been the case that many requests received no reply at all, beyond the semi-automated peer reviews (SAPR) (which I have done all of for some months, taking over from AndyZ). My rationale for doing SAPRs was that everyone got something, but that was not a substitute for a real review.
Recently PR has had several changes which have improved it greatly. The sorting by topic, introduction of the peer review volunteer list (also sorted by topic), and a new template greatly increased participation. As noted, there is still a list of PR requests sorted by date (at wp:pr/d) for those who prefer the old style listing.
What has not been explicitly mentioned is that I have not archived a single peer review request made since since February 22nd with no response. Let me say this again: every peer review request started since Feb. 22nd that I have closed has received both a SAPR and a human response. At first I did this by myself, but others helped and on March 15th I made a new proposal: all PR requests get a response. it has been a success and thanks to it and a new backlog list and the help of many editors (especially The Rambling Man, Biomedeng, and SGGH) we currently are listing PR requests that have received no response in the backlog list after three days - so today those 6 PR requests only went three days without a human reply.
Now I believe that this has had some unintended consequences, mostly that the peer review page is getting bigger (it used to be there were 2 or 3 unanswered PR request each day on average - but they took little room). When PR gets too full, it breaks and looks like this (only a list of titles) or worse (only a link to the Veblenbot page). As a result I have started archiving sooner than we used to. Here I switched it to 10 days, and here to 1 week. I have been trying to let it get back to 10 days before archiving, but it is not there yet. PR is also very busy - there were 13 new PR requests made on Thursday March 27, 2008, 17 new requests on Wednesday March 26, and 9 new requests on Tuesday March 25 (if I counted right, that is 39 new requests in three days - for comparison, right now FAC has a total of 39 nominations).
I will also say that any editor can archive a PR request and some do so before getting a response (I know Navenby was archived after less than a week), so is it possible, Sandy, that what you are seeing is impatient editors who are closing their PR requests themselves much sooner than a month (or perhaps even a week)? Or are these requests which were closed with no response before the new drive to give every PR request an answer? Can you please provide some example links to FAC noms without a PR reply Sandy?
For whatever reason, a lot of PR requests never get a reply from the original nominator - not now when they are closed earlier or before when they were closed at most after a month.
Finally, I know that Sandy and Geometry guy both work extremely hard here for the good of the project. Perhaps there was too much focusing on each of their areas of concern (FAC and PR) without acknowledging the valid concerns of the other. I hope this clarifies my views here and that there are no hard feelings anywhere. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I checked and User:Allen3 used to do "Archive of peer review requests that have received no new responses in last two weeks" diff from Nov. 2007 and diff from March 2007. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The archiving after two weeks of inactivity actually began on 1 July 2005, with the discussion to add the archiving criteria located here. --Allen3 talk 11:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I nominated this article for peer review choosing the correct category (arts.langlit), yet the article appears in "general" category. Can someone point out how to move this to the "language and Literature" category of PR articles? thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has to be either arts or langlit, so I made it just langlit. It may take up to an hour for the bot to put it in the right category. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 28, 18:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1852400 out of 2048000 bytes (195600 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've "onlyincluded" the longest four peer reviews, and the post-expand size is back down to 1.66MB. Geometry guy 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 29, 21:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1866448 out of 2048000 bytes (181552 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to archive - I let it get to 10 days, but now it is too full. I tried to do the inlcude only trick that G guy does on Facebook's pr, but it did not work. Sorry Sandy. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- You missed out the "onlyinclude" at the very beginning. I'll do this with a few later today. Geometry guy 10:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive renominated Tel Aviv for PR and its gone to the archive page for the new review. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's normal and the review has been listed. See the instructions. The old semi-automated peer review has been included because there is only one semi-automated peer review per month. Geometry guy 10:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I ran a second one, which is higher in the page so it is linked now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 31, 23:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1855155 out of 2048000 bytes (192845 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am working on this Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 01, 23:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1895689 out of 2048000 bytes (152311 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 02, 07:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1895687 out of 2048000 bytes (152313 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- After partial translcusion trick it is back to 179kb Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 02, 21:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1848331 out of 2048000 bytes (199669 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have archived and will do the partial transclusion trick for one next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 04, 10:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1867576 out of 2048000 bytes (180424 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will do partial transclusion on some of the largest PR requests next Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 05, 20:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1861490 out of 2048000 bytes (186510 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Archived as of March 23, will do partial transclusion next if needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Query
I can't see this answered anywhere, but is it possible to have more than one article at PR at once? Obviously, I would in turn do more than one PR. It's not a big deal either way, I was more curious than anything. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no rule against it, and there are currently several editors with more than one PR request (one person recently nominated 10 in one day and has yet to reply to any of the PRs, let alone do any reviews - see free rider problem ;-) ). Thanks for your work and reviews and for asking, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply! Wow! Service! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Space warnings
I noticed VeblenBot has been making a lot of warnings here. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. Maybe the bot could automatically switch large pages to the partially-transcluded method?
I have been poking around to see if we can get mediawiki changes to simplify the process, but they don't look like they will happen soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 07, 20:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1853014 out of 2048000 bytes (194986 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I archived Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 08, 16:49 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1929598 out of 2048000 bytes (118402 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)