Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 1

message: Proposed Guideline
# If you are listing a newly created page, leave a comment on the user talk page of the contributor so that he can participate in the discussion or atleast see that the page is being discussed.
Hemanshu 09:24, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: I had an idea to encourage more people to particpate, and have quicker turnover.  What if we ask that people give one or two peer reviews to others before listing a page of their own for review?  Nothing that needs to be enforced heavily or create more bureaucracy, just a different application of w:WikiLove.
You'd just add another bullet point to your request for review, mentioning the articles you had commented on, to help motivate others to return the favor.
Thoughts?  Catherine 19:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work, provided people remember ones that they've given feedback on in the past. It may be best if it's strictly voluntary and informal. Perhaps just a simple suggestion towards the top of the page to "please consider giving some feedback on existing requests before posting a request of your own." I think I'll do that right now, in fact... -- Wapcaplet 20:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reciprocal Reviews?

message: Is there a policy regarding cleaning up the Peer Review page?  The removal sections says posts can be removed "after they've been here a while."  How long is "a while"?  The page is getting lengthy and there's stuff dating to September.  --zandperl 18:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, though I know some of this stuff is still here because the desired feedback has not been received yet. Perhaps it'd be a good idea to check with the person who posted something before removing it from this page. An archive is probably not necessary, since past requests aren't likely to be of much interest. -- Wapcaplet 00:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I've left messages for the posters of several of the oldest (pre-December) requests on their talk pages, asking them to come by and remove old requests if they have enough feedback. I think I'll make some alterations to the "Using this page" section for future cleanup, since the process of cleaning this page is going to be somewhat different than it is for others. -- Wapcaplet 23:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup?

message: What's the difference between this and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention?  --zandperl 14:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: vs. Pages needing attention

message: The list of requests for peer review is rather long, and visitors may not take the time to  read the full list to find an article they can contribute to. A classification of those requests (using sub-heading) would greatly help. Why not use the list of topics on the wikipedia main page as the classification principle ? (I'm not directly interested to update the page myself, but I guess anybody could; an "Other" category would capture all the requests that are not classified yet).
Pcarbonn 20:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go futher and suggest sub-pages for different disciplines, that way users would be more likely to add Peer review to their watchlists, for example, I'd watch "WP:Peer reviews/Biology", and "Peer review/United Kingdom", but not the whole peet review page.. --Steinsky 00:15, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactor by topic ?

message: I have reviewed the Removing requests from this list policy, and I find it too weak: it fails when the requestor has left the wikipedia community (which I hope does not happen often...).  As a result, the list of requests starts with what seems like dead requests, not an engaging thing for potential reviewers (like me) (on top of that, the list is very long, see topic above). 
So, we would need a way to detect dead requests.  I think that only a time limit would do it.  It could work like this:
* any entry without a time stamp would be moved to the "dead request" area, with the time stamp of today
* anybody could move an entry older than the stated time limit to the "dead request" section
* the requestor would have to repost his entry to extend the time limit (he can do so before it is moved out, of course)
The advantage is that a reviewer would have some kind of assurance that the requestor is still listening...
Do you agree that there are some dead requests ? How should they be handled ? Do you agree that there should be a time limit ? What should it be ? One month ? Do you see a problem if I change the description of the peer review process accordingly ?
Pcarbonn 21:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Time limit to detect dead requests ?

message: I've been scolded for not properly formatting my entry on this page, and I have a problem with that because:
*The current entries are formatted in different ways
*Virtually none of them conform to what it says at the top of the page:
**It says to add a topic like this:  "== Topic ===".  When I did this (though without the extra equals sign), my entry got converted to a different format ("== Topic ==" then "Item:Topic - Talk:Topic"
**There is no mention of the practice of using the terms "Item:", "Discussion on:", "Description:", but these are (inconsistently) applied.
etc.
 — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: The Add a new request link is quite useless.  As the section it links to contains all the following sections, nearly the entire article must be edited to add a request.  Currently the article is 79k.  Not only does this make editing tedious over slow connections, but it's also in violation of the 32k guideline.  The previous layout was much more usable.  --η[ υωρ] 12:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, since that section and its [edit] link are immediately below Add a new request anyway, the extra link is extremely silly.  --η[ υωρ] 12:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly designed 

message: In order to keep track of peer review better, and in order to maintain the page more easily, I have converted the page to a transclude mechanism, similar to WP:FAC. Please use this mechanism for peer review! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I think it's a big improvement. I have a few questions though. What should be done to remove a listing? If you only remove the line from Peer Review page, the subpage still exists. That's not always OK I think — I can imagine an article brought up a second time, in that case its subpage is already taken. Oh well, then it can be reused of course (I don't know how they do that on WP:FAC). But what if I just want to remove a clearly wrong listing (like someone's IP, listed to ask the peer reviewers to check his contributions)? The subpage is of no use in that case as I don't see the need for archiving that sort of listings. Regarding archiving entries: is that done by simply moving the line  to the archive page?  — mark ✎ 09:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way of archiving entries is to move that one line to the archive page (do we have one?). To relist an entry, I'd suggest doing a page move to a subpage that hangs off the Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of article/Peer review n and change the links that point to it. Then replace the redirect and put in your request for peer review, with a link to the old page. With useless pages, ask for it to be removed on WP:AN and an admin will delete it if need be. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further: I've transcluded 2 of the archive pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcluding has been done 

message: The oldpeerreview tag didn't fully cover the new policy, so I've edited it to read: 
:This article's peer review request has been archived.  Either the original submitter withdrew it, or it was classed as an inactive request. [ Edit this article] in any way you see fit to make it better, as the reviewers may still be watching. Bishonen | Talk 16:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: P.S. Trimming the oldpeerreview tag

message: As a long time maintainer of this page, it's taken me a while to track down who got rid of the peer review instructions template! But, it appears that it was 119. See . I'm putting our instructions back. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not your page and I am not a vandal. You have given no justification for maintaining 'your' version. Why? Simply saying "I'm putting our instructions back" as though you were gatekeeper and any change is bad is ridiculous. 119 08:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Your"? Why don't you read what I wrote? It's our. SEVERAL editors have been working out the instructions. If you want to know where the justification is for maintain this version, why don't you read the rest of the talk page? Rant out. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You are not a vandal, that's for sure. But Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Did you consider announcing your plans here first and talking them through with other editors? If you read the Talk page, you will find that it has cost quite some thought and energy to make the instructions into what they were before you pruned them.  — mark ✎ 09:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That's my point. You'll have to excuse my annoyance, but both Bishonen and myself have spent quite a bit of time on this page, and to have 119 come and just take away the peer review instructions like he did is quite a) insulting and b) rude. You'll notice this talk page had lots of discussion about the instructions. It took us a long time to get to where we were on this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: I've added this sentence to the "How to make a request" section in the template: The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to the comments you do get. Apologies for the instruction creep, but all posters want lots of reviews, and this simple tip does work. Some have figured it out (User:Worldtraveller comes to mind) and nearly always get good response, others haven't, and are left sadly wondering why comment on their listing peters out so soon. All we need now is a tip for posters who never get that crucial first response. --Bishonen | talk 10:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added: a little instruction creep