Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 2

message: How long does a Peer Review last? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I hope I am doing right, with the peer review page.
--Cyril Thomas 21:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Marayoor]]

message: Since I'm going on a Wikibreak (temporary, I promise), I've written a page up detailing the most common failings that pages nominated to FAC have and a little expansion on the featured article criteria that I think is important for people to be aware of before nominating an article at FAC and especially for reviewers to read before giving advice. That makes it particularly important for peer reviewers to know when giving advice on what articles need. I've put the advice together based on my more than a year of experience with a good portion of the FAC nominations over that time and from many discussions about the criteria. Like I explain there, if more editors were familiar with how articles should be written to pass the FA criteria, not only would more articles pass, but I think more would be nominated too. If we have more consistency about what advice is given less time would be wasted and more effort would be going in the right direction. So if others substantially agree with the advice or a version of it that can be agreed on, I suggest all potential FAC and Peer reviewers be directed towards it before reviewing articles, and that every FAC and PR nom get the advice contained there. Thanks all, it's certainly been fun so far. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article/Peer review advice 

message: Is peer review for potential featured lists as well? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, peer review may be used for potential featured list candidates.  Shortly after WP:FLC was created there was a flurry of lists nominated for peer review, so this is not new ground.  To avoid reviewer confusion you should probably mention that you wish to be compared to the feature list criteria in the text of your review request. --Allen3 talk 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've added my request. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured lists 

message: I'd propose that we limit people to one peer review every two weeks. This way we could avoid the PR-flooding and really get people to think about what they put here. As you can see from the current way a lot of people just put a bunch of articles here for the purpose of "hey, have a look at this!", and its really flooding the system. Maybe its intruction creep though? What do you guys think? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Does anyone object to the addition of something like the following sentence beneath Point 5 (or a new Point 6: 'Finally, ...':
'Nominators are urged to identify and politely request feedback from several Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a closely related field.'
A number of FAC nominators have written that they received little feedback during the PR process (e.g., 'I wish they'd told me this during the PR process; hardly anyone gave feedback.'). I think that a more active approach to seeking reviews is better than posting an article here and expecting the right people to somehow know about it.
Tony 01:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  another proposal 

message: Hi, There is a proposal at "Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team" to declare articles which have passed Peer review "Wikipedia Version 0.5" articles and Featured Articles to be "Wikipedia Version 1.0" articles. There is also a proposal to protect peer reviewed articles from edits by IP users and Featured article from non-admin edits. For each FA a "suggested changes" copy would be created which would be open to all edits. Please voice your opinion of these proposals at the above talk page. Seabhcán 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.5/1.0 

message: Wikipedia:Article rating is a new proposal with some similarities to peer review.  Please take a look and see what you think about it - constructive criticism is always welcome.  violet/riga (t) 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rating 

message: Why is the page protected? Also, what happened to the instructions for adding a new entry? Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, turns out some routine maintenance screwed the instructions over. Also, it turns out this page is only protected from being moved, not edited. In short: My bad. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: I just had a weird thing happen in my head. Some may find this conversation interesting, relevant, both, or neither: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#IP users. -Silence 10:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thing 

message: The Peer Review archives are HUGE. Take a look at the current (November) archive. The archive pages just take too long to load. I suggest converting them into links, such as those present in the computer and video games Peer Review. This will reduce the pages' loading time. Also, if the suggestion is accepted, I will be more than happy to convert them all myself. LordViD 18:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Archives 

message: You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V  examples, and WP:FN.  Part of it is whether it is acceptable to ever replace URL-only references.  This could somewhat affect peer review edits.  I also got blocked for adding citation details, which could somewhat affect peer review edits also.  What could also somewhat affect peer review edits is the recent deletion of suggested citations from peer reviewed articles Stonehenge, Colonization of the Moon, Golden Gate Bridge, Military budget in the United States, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Royal Air Force. (SEWilco 08:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation issues 

message: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that I can not "convert" a "citation".  This is being used to warn other users against converting citations.  This has implications for some common peer review and featured article advice.  (SEWilco 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should provide some background why the ArbCom has given this ruling. My impression was that the bot was doing a fine job. Which policy is being discussed here? JFW | T@lk 10:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were several policies discussed in my ArbCom "case", but as to the meaning of the above ruling and the above change to Wikipedia:Footnotes you'll have to ask the ArbCom for clarification.   As I got blocked for a single change edit, I can not make changes such as these to Gettysburg Address. (SEWilco 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation conversion 

message: I'm surprised about the fact that :Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png was removed from these templates, in order to be replaced by :Image:Exquisite-kfind.png. Exquisite-kfind.png, although it's a nice piece of photo-editting, looks horrible when scaled down to 48x48 pixels. The shadow, which is anti-aliased, makes the glass look ovalshaped. Nuvola apps xmag.png hasn't got that problem, so does anyone object if I'm going to put that one back in? -- SoothingR(pour) 12:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, so I figure I can go ahead. Though I'm not gonna put :Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png in; I found a better image on Commons the other day (:Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png), so I'll put that one in. Any comments can be left here (if there are any at all..). SoothingR 11:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't see any problem with :Image:Exquisite-kfind.png, its a lot more professional than the older image used. I object to changing it back the old one which looks like a horrible piece of amateur icon creation from a cheap Linux distribution. — Wackymacs 11:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And what about :Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png? SoothingR 11:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Same really, I think it's amateur compared to the previous image used. It would be good if :Image:Exquisite-kfind.png can be placed back on the templates - Thanks. — Wackymacs 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmm, that surprises me. I personally don't think that :Image:Noia 64 apps kdict.png looks amateur. :Image:Exquisite-kfind.png is a also a great piece of art, but it looks really weird on this yellowish background and a smaller dimension.SoothingR 13:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image on [[Template:Peerreview]] and [[Template:Oldpeerreview]] 

message: Once an article reaches Featured Article status, does the  tag stay up on the talk page, or is it retired? TIA. RadioKirk talk to me 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {&#123;peerreview}} tag after article is featured 

message: I'd like to announce the opening of the Featured Music Project, an attempt to encourage and facilitate successful featured article candidacies and peer reviews for articles on musicians and bands.  You can help by evaluating articles, or by working on the articles that are already close to being ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Music Project 

message: Article assessment has opened and is currently accepting submissions about natural disasters.  Please take a look.  violet/riga (t) 17:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: I have made a suggestion at WikiProject Science and wonder what the users of this page think. --Oldak Quill 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Scientific peer review 

message: I wonder whether the top of the page should state more clearly that peer review is not the place to settle disputes between editors of an article. Two currently listed articles seem to have been nominated based on this false premise. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that too. If nobody minds, I think I will edit this page (if it's not protected?) to make this clearer. No, now that I think of it, it will be useless without the threat of some kind of consequences. Shouldn't these artciles be removed for violating some policy or other??--Lacatosias 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The appropriate policy is already in place at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, and as such anyone may archive requests to arbitrate disputes, expansion requests, and the like.  As a matter of practice interpretations of what is or is not an innappropriate request can vary greatly between contributors. Because of this, I recommend  reponding to such a request with an indication that the equest appears to be inappropriate and a listing of other places on Wikipeida that are better suited for the request followed by archiving after one or two days.  This will allow for multiple people to examine the request to insure that it actually is an inappropriate request, and will also inform the requestor of how to better pursue resolving their problem. --Allen3 talk 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review not for arbitration 

message: A scientific peer review has been started and we're looking for Wikipedians who are members of the scientific academic community to run for the board. If you want to give it a shot come over and post a little about yourself. New nominations are being accepted until the 00:00 on the 17th March.
The project aims to combine existing peer review mechanisms (Wikipedia peer review, featured article candidate discussion, article assessment, &c.) which focus on compliance to manual of style and referencing policy with a more conventional peer review by members of the scientific academic community. It is hoped that this will raise science-based articles to their highest possible standards. Article quality and factual validity is now Wikipedia's most important goal. Having as many errors as Britannica is not good–we must raise our standards above this. --Oldak Quill 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]] 

message: Further discussion of this issue is taking place here.
User:Cedars just removed a couple of PR nominations with the comment "Peer review is not a dumping ground for failing FAC's." I agree on the whole, but OTOH these articles were "referred" here from WP:FAC. How about we try to agree on a few guidelines for such cases? I suggest:
#Please consider nominating your work on PR before FAC in the first place, as that works better for a) PR, b) FAC, c) you.
#If you're referred back to PR from FAC, you will be most welcome to list work here once you've worked through the comments you've already gotten on FAC. 
#Please place a link to any previous FAC discussion prominently in your PR nomination. You're kindly asked to not copypaste the whole FAC discussion here, as the PR page is long enough already.
Any thoughts? Incidentally, if we can agree on some guidelines, please let's have then on a separate page linked to from PR, not directly at the top of the PR page. Those instructions are looking dauntingly overgrown already. Bishonen | ノート 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review a dumping ground for failing FAC's?

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Good articles for a current discussion about adding the "carrot" of WP:GA status as the reward for successfully implementing comments given in peer review. this will help PR get more "eyeballs" as people will not want the "GA" flag to be devalued, in the same way that people dont want FA status to be devalued so carefully examine all FAC articles for flaws. it will also help legitimise the GA policy proposal, and make GA less lax. Zzzzz 20:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrible idea. I'll see you over there. Kafziel 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[WP:PR]] with [[WP:GA]]

message: On the main Peer Review page, there is a comment under the request I just put for Idit Harel Caperton that is from before I even posted the request. I cannot figure out how to edit it out and move it to whereever it belongs. When I try to edit, the comment doesn't show up: it only appears on the main page. Any help would be apppreciated.  youngamerican (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem resolved. Another request had been added without the appropriate header.  --Allen3 talk 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gracias.  youngamerican (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with listing for [[Idit Harel Caperton]] 

message: The page top seems to have been vandalized with a lot of letters and numbers, but I can't find the good version in order to revert it. Afonso Silva 10:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That happened on the FAC page earlier. Apparently it's because one of the transcluded pages put in <ref> tags without putting  tags around it. I'll see if it's still broken. Makemi 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I caused the trouble. Please forgive my carelessness and ignorance. Thanks to User:Fuzzie for finding out the problem and fixing it right. I used ref tags on the subpage Wikipedia:Peer review/K. R. Narayanan/archive1. Apologies to all.-Pournami 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Or is this just self-evident? Kaisershatner 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need "How to respond to a request"

message: Chew Valley has now been on the list of articles asking for peer review for almost a month (since 23rd April) & not had any comments - any suggestions about how to overcome this? Rod 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some topics just get missed because no one is familiar with the topic and there is a general shortage of reviewers. I also tend to select articles to review that I know the requestor will make a strong effort to impliment the suggestions. Otherwise my work is wasted. So for one, if someone really wants to improve an article and they've already done a lot of research and work on it, leave a message on my talk page and I will provide as thorough a review as desired and as is feasible for me. Topics I know nothing about I have to limit to general reviews. I'll go see what I can do now. Another way is after a week repeat a message that you're really looking for suggestions of what to work on. Next step is ask other people you see commonly reviewing other articles here or on FAC. - Taxman Talk 17:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I reviewed the other two articles you put on to WP:PR, and generally I only review articles with intentions of going on to WP:FAC. As for increasing response to peer review, see the above discussion section. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just created a series of user subpages with a whole batch of templates that contain the usual objections on WP:FAC and the suggestions on WP:PR, from my experience with both. This could considerably shortern the time necessary to type in all of the comments; using these, I should be able to quickly get at least some comments to new PRs. See User:AndyZ/PR. Thanks, AndyZ t 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to get more (any) reviews 

message: Could someone please resubmit my peer review for Tikal the Echidna?  I'm sorry if I'm bothering anybody, but a user told me that without an account, I can't resubmit one (because it involves moving a page).  So, I'm sorry again to be bother somebody. --71.105.15.11 16:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: I am a relatively new editor. I created two articles, Google Groups and Homerun. When I posted helpme requests asking for more experienced editors to give feedback on the articles I wrote, I was directed here - to Peer review. However, Peer review is for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Therefore, I created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, for new editors to seek feedback on their articles/edits, and use the feedback to improve their article, as well as their general editing skills.
RFF was not meant to be "yet another new initiative". I hope to make it an integral part of Wikipedia. Therefore, we need more editors requesting feedback, and more editors responding to these requests. Doing so requires links to RFF from high-exposure Wikipedia pages.
Some new editors may come here seeking feedback on their articles, and it makes sense to direct them to RFF through a link. I added a paragraph and a link, but I don't know how to get it into the box. Could someone rephrase my paragraph (retaining the link, of course) and add it into the box? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add link to [[WP:RFF]] 

message: Could someone please help me submit Tikal the Echidna's featured article candidate into the right place?  It's in the discussion page.  I'm sorry if I'm bothering anyone, and I'm sorry if this isn't the right place. --71.105.14.68 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything has been moved into place. --Allen3 talk 19:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article request

message: Does anyone have any problems with/objections to one WikiProject having multiple peer reviews and/or FA candidacies running at the same time? At WP:KLF we have several articles with the Good Article badge which we feel are ready for peer review and ultimately FAC. Two of those are now on peer review, I may add a third later. I want to push forward and not lose momentum, but on the other hand I don't want to annoy people or get no responses. Comments? --kingboyk 17:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about PR, but FAC already has a prominent guideline asking users to not nominate more than one at a time. I imagine that might extend to some degree to a wikiproject as well, especially one with such a very narrow focus. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've not actually ever made an FAC nom, as The KLF was nominated by an interested 3rd party. We'll have to do them one at a time then, barring any more 3rd party noms. Thanks for quick reply. --kingboyk 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's definitely a per-user rather than per-project issue (although, in your case, the two might be the same, considering the fairly small number of active members of WP:KLF); certainly, some larger/broader WikiProjects have had multiple articles on FAC with no complaints. Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol! It's not just me Mr Lokshin. It's actually double that in terms of active editors, there's 2 of us you know! :) (and 4 signed up participants). Indeed it only became a WikiProject after we got the FA. We had so much discussion at Category talk:The KLF, and an FA under our belts, I figured why not? :) Erm, so, anyway, we can have one each at one time, something we might consider. Let's see how the 2 peer reviews we have go. If folks say the articles are crap it will be back to the drawing board! --kingboyk 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) You know where it says on the FAC page that "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised", and also "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice"? To me, that means that each article should be nominated by a different person on FAC (and, common sense suggests, also on Peer Review) — somebody pepped and ready to take full responsibility for those good-faith efforts. As long as the nominators are all different individuals, I don't see why anybody would need to be annoyed at several noms coming from the same project. (Within reason — ten nominations or so might seem a tad pushy!) Bishonen | talk 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a (probably irrelevant) data point, WP:MILHIST had seven articles on FAC at one point; but we tend not to go above three or four most of the time. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple requests for peer review/FACs 

message: Please link to music-related peer reviews at the new Music Noticeboard. You can also see current Featured Article, Good Article, and A-Class nominees in music-related areas there. Λυδαcιτγ 17:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music noticeboard 

message: This page should be divided into more parts regarding topics. For example: Peer review/Medicine...etc. We could work much more easily because peer review is not perspicuous now. NCurse work 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll stop. Maurreen 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three groupings would be much easier to perform daily maintenance on than the current nine groups.  It is also vital that the individual groups be chronologically ordered to make it practical to see what has changed from the previous day. --Allen3 talk 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so! First of all, for the people who like to go through and do each one, this makes it almost impossible. It looks like the articles in the bottom sections aren't getting as much attention as those in the top sections. BenB4 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea that people were doing each one. I hadn't realized there would be any objection or I wouldn't have done it. Maurreen 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can not follow the list at all now. I think it was better in one long list. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The classifications seem somewhat arbitrary (what constitutes "everyday life"?) Some categorisation may have benefits, but would need to be simpler than this, and with a list of subgroups placed prominently at the top. Oldelpaso 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divide page 

message: Now that the page has been divided into multiple subgroups for a while it is time to ask if any positive benefits have been realized from the change?  On the negative side the effort required to perform daily archiving was nearly quadrupled by the initial three-way split and further splits have only exasperated the issue. --Allen3 talk 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll stop. Maurreen 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three groupings would be much easier to perform daily maintenance on than the current nine groups.  It is also vital that the individual groups be chronologically ordered to make it practical to see what has changed from the previous day. --Allen3 talk 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so! First of all, for the people who like to go through and do each one, this makes it almost impossible. It looks like the articles in the bottom sections aren't getting as much attention as those in the top sections. BenB4 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea that people were doing each one. I hadn't realized there would be any objection or I wouldn't have done it. Maurreen 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can not follow the list at all now. I think it was better in one long list. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The classifications seem somewhat arbitrary (what constitutes "everyday life"?) Some categorisation may have benefits, but would need to be simpler than this, and with a list of subgroups placed prominently at the top. Oldelpaso 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Has the division of the page had any positive effects?

message: Peer Review and Requests for feedback are both Wikipedia processes to provide feedback on articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of providing feedback on articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks. 
P.S. RFF is a new initiative I created several months ago. However, I aim to make it an integral Wikipedia process, and co-ordination and integration with Peer Review will be a huge boost. New editors will often wish to seek feedback on articles they write, or major edits they make, and RFF is for them to post their requests for feedback to receive responses. The feedback we give them will hopefully help them recognize their strengths and weaknesses as an editor, and improve their editing skills and their articles.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: How do I request peer review for a non-article page like this one?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 11:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the technical side the procedure is the same for a page from the Wikipedia name space as it is for one from the main article name space.  My biggest concern is what you expect peer review to be able to do for such a page.  As a Wikiproject is well outside the type of material that has previously been reviewed, and is thus lacking any type of traditional criteria to base an evaluation, make sure to include the type of information and feedback you are looking for in any request you make. You may also wish to try Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as both of these pages are traditional places to discuss new proposals or policy/guideline changes.  --Allen3 talk 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've proposed it as a MOS guideline here.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q: Peer review for other pages than articles 

message: I don't mean to bother anyone, but could someone please help me nominate this article for a peer review? --71.118.85.189 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please create an account. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or don't. Whatever. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review request

message: We put the Scotland article up for peer review here on 2 August. As the 38th most-referenced article on the English language Wikipedia; and the 350th most-visited article on the English language Wikipedia in February 2004 (the last available figures as far as I am aware) we thought that it may attract one or two helpful comments, at the very least. It has had no input whatsoever from this project.
To say the very least, this is hugely disappointing, and I personally will be very reluctant to recommend putting any articles up for peer review in the future. I assume that either:
*the topic is too boring or else you have too many other things to review; although a quick glance at surrounding entries suggests that they have not suffered the same fate
*or perhaps the article is just so damn perfect it could not possibly, conceivably be improved upon? Shall we assume that it is a shoo-in for WP:FA?
Any explanations? --Mais oui! 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the blunt, short answer is that peer review isn't a group of sprightly wikignomes waiting with impatience for someone to leave fresh copy to edit.  I would guess that most Wikipedians are like me; they have their own articles to write and improve, and they try to make time when they can to contribute to peer reviews, good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured article reviews, requests for administratorship, requests for comment, village pumps, contributions of images and sound files to Wikicommons, etc., etc., etc., when they can.  It only has been three days; in my limited experience, the peer review process takes about two weeks.  I try to contribute to peer reviews when I can, but there are too many to focus on more than a few.  Reviewing articles — especially articles with which you are not familiar — is a time-intensive, laborious process, and it's not realistic to expect immediate results from multiple editors.  Your best bet is to post messages letting people know that your article is up for peer review.  Contact regular contributors to Scottish-related articles and Wikipedians who have Scotland-related userboxes.  Leave a note on the Scotland portal.  Unfortunately, no, the article as it stands is not a shoo-in for FA status.  I've left a few suggestions for copyediting and other FA-related obstacles, which I hope will help.  Mar sin leibh! Peirigill 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many, many thanks. --Mais oui! 11:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland - Any explanations?  

message: Hello people.. I was just wondering a way to improve the Request For Feedback project. From the way I see it, its a place to get a feedback for a less-developed article, or a new article and mostly from newcomers. Moreover, it is also a place to get feedback before the peer review, althought it is not a compulsory path. Therefore, I'd like to ask how can I make a suggestion to change that box, the "The Path to a Featured Article" box? So that the "RFF" project could be included there. Cheers -- Imoeng 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The path to a featured article 

message: With regard to the steps box and the question above please take a look  at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Rough_revised_steps where there are a number of proposals to change the PR/FAC process slightly including one to change the steps infobox to make it more helpful and less a list of the sure-fire way to get an FA in 10 minutes Yomangani 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steps box

message: I just noticed that History of Solidarity is up for both PR and GA; see here and here.  Is this frowned on, or a good idea?  I think I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't know of a policy or argument against it. Mike Christie 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no policy against it (as far as I know), but it's generally not a good idea, as aside from the duplication of effort from reviewers, the two processes may throw up different requirements (as the requirements for FA and GA status are different). I've made a proposal for a new "Steps" infobox for the Peer Review page at: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/New_steps_to_FA#Infobox, which should make the suggested progression of an article through the review processes clearer. Yomanganitalk 09:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simultaneous GA & PR nomination 

message: Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. --Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4288 

message: Where has the PR bot gone? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that question. It was one of our most active reviewers :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot

message: Hey I wanted to ask, what's the deal with peer review archiving? I've only seen one person doing it, and the project page doesn't really explain how. I have an article that just finished a peer review, but I don't know how to archive it. It's been a little while now and nothing is happened, and I don't really know what to do.--Clyde Miller 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. Basically, if an article had had at least a peer review and has been innactive for two weeks, or if the request is older than a month, they are archived. You can archive an article you have requested at anytime, in example, if you are sending the article for GA or FA. -- ReyBrujo 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay Thanks.--Clyde Miller 21:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Someone should scroll down to the bottom of the page... we've got red error text all over. :( Titoxd(?!?) 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're referring to WP:PR/A - there are 138 sections, and most have at least one of those footnotes, and the  doesn't have enough backlinks upwards to reach each of the individual footnotes. As a result, you get the big red text, and unfortunately I don't have a method to fix that. However, now that the semiautomated PRs are being divided into monthly pages (see WP:PRA/O06), it should no longer be a[s much as a] problem. AZ t 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy cow 

message: I think Wikipedia:Peer reviewers should be added to the article, but I don't know how to do it.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer reviewers 

message: Hello - a while ago, User:MartinBotII, as part of testing a sysem requested here (toward the bottom of the thread) by the WikiProject council, placed a lot of peer reviews on the main page, which were, IMO, correctly reverted.  I would like to belatedly apologise for this - it was my understanding that the proposed actions of the bot had alredy been approved at this end - my mistake for not checking!  The bot is hoping to make it easier for wikiprojects to organise their peer reviews, but the obvious problem is the number of existing peer reviews which would be transcluded onto this page.  To avoid this, a new proposal has been made, and I would like to put it formward here :)  The new idea is that the bot will only place new peer review requests (say - produced in the last 48 hours) to this page.  This will avoid an initial flood, and if wikiprojects use their centralised listings rather than the PR page initially, load on the page is likely to remain roughly constant.  Could I have your opinions on this, and any questions?  Thanks  Martinp23 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's running now, on and off Martinp23 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Peer Reviews 

message: Could I transclude Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Peer review/Satellite Instructional Television Experiment to the list? I started the peer-review on the Indian project because it would get more attention there. But some comments from the general wikipedia community would also help. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trancluding a PR from another project  

message: Hoysala Empire is at present in FAC. However, the article also has a PR running. Can an admin please archive the PR? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does this action need an admin?  Archiving a request involves three simple edits (remove transclusion line from the current requests, add the removed transclusion line to the current months archive, and switch the  template on the article talk page to a  template) and none of the files are protected.  This article was picked up during my normal daily archiving sweep. --Allen3 talk 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for archiving