Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 4

message: 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.
* Instead of adding the  template to the talk page, you need to add . This finds the next available peer review page. (It only works if there have been fewer than five previous peer reviews, but I don't know of any cases where this is not true.)
* The process for resubmitting peer reviews is identical to the process for requesting peer reviews, which should make it easier to do correctly.
* The process for archiving peer reviews is simpler: it only requires two edits, and no page moves.
The templates which make this possible are new, and quite complicated. Please report any issues here. Geometry guy 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new page names confused me at first; seeing a PR I was working on get moved to an archive subpage made me think that the PR was archived. Instead of having the word archive, I suggest simply having /1, /2, /3... It would also be nice if the bot edited the archived PR and said that the PR is archived. The way things are done now is non-intuitive, at least for me. But those two small changes would fix that. Just my 2 cents. --mav (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...by placing archive, many users may feel like the peer review is closed and they will not contribute to the review.  I started a peer review for Heroes (TV series) and when I saw the title changed to archive, I at first thought someone had closed the peer review and it had ended...this will surely confuse people who are new to the process of contributing to peer reviews.  Please make a note of this for future updates.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I told someone I would do a peer review and they said not to bother as it had been archived for some reason - I knew what was going on, but it can be confusing. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In the case I cited, the question was directly caused by the move to the ".../archive1" naming format. It makes sense that once people are used to making the archive from day one, this may be less confusing. I do think some sort of message that the page is archived would be very useful - before you knew it from the page move, and the archive notice on the article's talk page still works, but just looking at the peer review page now does not tell you it is no longer active. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2008 change in nomination and archiving process 

message: 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)
replies: text: Back down to 1600KB now, thanks VB. Geometry guy 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, you did fine: I predict it will appear at about 20:36 UTC, assuming VeblenBot approves of your request :-) :-) Geometry guy 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Prediction wrong. There may be a temporary problem with the servers. If it doesn't appear in the next hour, I'll investigate. Geometry guy 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I had a look, and I think the problem is that VeblenBot is on a temporary mission. VeblenBot is an "it", not a "she", so isn't so great at multitasking. Please be patient, your peer review will be listed in due course :-) Geometry guy 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't the special mission; there's no reason why the categories should stop being updated while those edits are made. The real problem is that something went wrong on the toolserver. I moved the code to my home computer, where the rest of VeblenBot's functions run, and everything seems better. I'm expecting it to run again at 1:20 UTC and I'll check it then to  make sure. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's working now: apologies to VeblenBot for doubting its abilities! Geometry guy 09:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't appear under "requests"? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Anyway, we're back to 1.6MB now, so lets see how soon action is needed again. I'm willing to do the untranscluding every 3-4 days, if you are willing to do the archiving! Sympathetic sigh, but more hopeful cheers, Geometry guy 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I worry about instruction creep, but perhaps something on it being a good idea to have a single model article up for PR, and solve the problems there first, then go on to other similar articles? Thanks for transcluding - I have been fairly involved in PRs for two of those (Fanny Imlay and List of National Historic Landmarks in New York). I am used to doing the PR script every two or three days, but perhaps I should pick a time of day and just archive every day then. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion pointer 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't understand the question. If you nominated an article for peer review and want to take it to FAC, then you are free to archive the PR discussion yourself. Geometry guy 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've tried to make this more explicit in the guidelines, by adding that nominators can withdraw their own requests. However, in accordance with the spirit of the existing guidelines, I've suggested that this is not recommended for active discussions. Does that seem to be the right balance? Geometry guy 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK to me Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 15:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There seems to be a backlog

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, I would not say it was completely ignored as it received a semi-automated peer review (SAPR), which might not be what you wanted, but had some useful suggestions. It appears that you ignored the suggestions as I just reran the SAPR script and several of them are still valid (and will need to be acted on to get it FA status). These were all in the original SAPR, and are still coming up now: 
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   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.[?]
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, can't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
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)
replies: text: I will look over the list again, but the entries I have looked at did not apply. For instance, regarding the links - All dates linked are provided in the format Month date, Year; exactly what Wikipedia:Context#Dates says to do. Regarding the contractions, a ctrl+f search for common contractions (shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, didn't, can't, isn't, I'll, I'd, let's, it's, we've, and we'd) only finds such words in the titles of referenced works or in exact quotations.
Dlong (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to request a peer review 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe it'd be nice for the bot to add the date to the section heading when posting these, just to stop table of contents clashes. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am archiving Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion to add a date to the section title is good. I'll implement that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full 

message: 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)
replies: text: The original request did not specify a topic, so it was added to the "General" category. I fixed it just now, but it may take an hour or so to show up in the right place, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One more issue. This article's talk page which has the peer review tag still says "Follow this link"... where as, it should be "A request has been made for this article ..." from where the reviewer could click on the request link to add comments.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at the article's talk page and it did not say that for me - maybe it is a case of WP:BYC? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Took two full days for my talk page to look ok. Never had this problem before. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kannada literature]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What hinders this twice-nominated article from attaining Featured-Article status? Comments sought. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I like the idea of reviewing exchanges.  One problem I had as a new visitor to the peer review area is that it is unclear what guidelines I should follow to review other articles.  Articles nominated for Good Article status have a clear guideline on what to review the article on.  So it was easy for me to review several articles there when I nominated an article.  When I came here there are only general article formatting links, but no formal guideline on the areas to review an article.  Thefore I did not review any other articles because I didn't know what criteria to review them on.  Another issue I have with this setup is that at Good Article Nominations there is a numbered list of nominees.  So there exists a clear order of reviewing.  Here the list is not numbered and it seems articles are reviewd in an arbitrary order.  There is no direction to give preference to the oldest requests.  Also it seems page space is a continued issue at this project.  Has there been any discussion of not trascluding the entire peer review onto the page?  Maybe instead there could be simly a list here, along with a way to indicate peer reviews for which there are no comments, active discussions, and inactive discussions.  Biomedeng (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I know User:Geometry guy will fix long peer reviews so that only part of them is transcluded on the page. I am not sure how easy this would be to do automatically. The problem with guidelines for peer review is that articles come in all stages of the writing process and on their way to different goals - some articles want a polish before WP:FAC, others are getting ready for WP:GAN and others are just looking for general improvement. I have also seen people expecting dispute resolution (not what PR is for) or reference desk help (I need more info / sources on this topic for the article...), neither of which is usually found here. I think for a Peer Review response, a quick read through of the article and some comments is best - if it is still pretty rough, point out major areas for improvement. If it is aiming for a particular goal, looking at the GA or FA or FL criteria and pointing out what the article still needs to do is helpful. It is often the case that you can make a few comments on several articles and see what the responses are - oddly, some PR requests never seem to acknowledge or respond to any feedback, so forget those. If they reply and make changes and you see more things to work on, jump in. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 15:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At present the technology isn't available to do automatically what I do by hand. I hope it will be available soon, for my sake :-) Geometry guy 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I was bold and added a requests needing feedback section. It lists only those with no responses in a week. I hate archiving peer reviews with no responses, maybe this will help. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more ideas for PR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Factual review 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. I fixed the problems. It's now listed at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Music--Onesixfivedottwoone (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting informal review for [[Eva Cassidy]]. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Previous PR 

message: Government of Kerala - I added "{subst:PR}" link in the talk pg. But I didn't see the peer riview discussion page. Please assist.
 
--Avinesh Jose   T   05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its working now. Is there any additional steps? --Avinesh Jose   T   05:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government of Kerala 

message: 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)
replies: text: See the discussion at WT:GAN. Short answer (in my view): yes. Geometry guy 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can an article be on PR and GAN simultaneously? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 13, 19:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 15, 15:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm in.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A new proposal: all PR requests get a response 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "all peer reviews get a response" idea #2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 16, 19:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 16, 23:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keywords 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Education section volunteer list

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ruhrfisch replies

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 28, 18:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 29, 21:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I ran a second one, which is higher in the page so it is linked now. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3|Tel Aviv]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Mar 31, 23:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 01, 23:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 02, 07:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 02, 21:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 04, 10:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 05, 20:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick reply! Wow! Service! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: 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)
thread_title:  Space warnings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 07, 20:49 UTC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 08, 16:49 UTC)