Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Volunteers

message: Kudos to whoever came up with this idea.  I've already been connected with one article at peer review that I never would have sought out on my own.  --Laser brain (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking good 

message: Would it be OK to add an "other" catchall section. I have interests that don't really tally with the sections listed here, namely "biographies" and "disasters" and "images", and would like to flag up those interests for others to find if it helps them. Carcharoth (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is this follows the WP 1.0 hierarchy and it follows the way the peer reviews themselves are categorized. People often list themselves in more than one area of interest and will follow with what their special interests are. I think Biographies and disasters would probably fit into Everyday life. Images might be a place for an extra section. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about an "other" section? 

message: Hmmm...Where would I sign up to help with Sports Articles...Especially Tennis?  Was it truly left out of the WP1.0?!?!? Mjquin_id (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It falls under the "Everyday life" section - many of the reviewers there list the sport(s) they are interested in reviewing. Thanks for volunteering, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 01:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports? 

message: Should inactive and retired editors be removed from the list if spotted? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would at least add a note that says something like "As of January 1009, this editor is inactive". If the name is removed I would also leave a note on the user's talk page - people sometimes go inactive and return. Thanks for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty, think I'll do some noting then to save some others the frustration of looking for a CE and hitting 10 inactive editors in a row :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  InActive 

message: I saw on another page a request for volunteers to do peer reviews of science fiction related articles, but I don't see where to sign up for that. If anyone wants to respond, please do so on my talk page. Thanks! --Lensman003 (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction 

message: Would a "See also" section be appropriate for links to: Category:Wikipedia peer review contributors ; Template:External_peer_review ; Template:User_peer_reviews ; Wikipedia:External_peer_review ; Wikipedia:Peer_review ; Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review ?  Seems like it would help, e.g., this talk page section Science Fiction--CM2G0005 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: If they want to put their name back on the list, that's very easy. We risk frustrating new editors. There's too much downside and not enough upside with leaving old names. Biosthmors (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree.  I've pulled names from the copy editing list a couple times now. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 02:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Biosthmors (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos for your efforts.  I know from experience what a hassle that type of cleanup is. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate it! Biosthmors (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive editors should just be removed 

message: I think when this list is cleared we should contact everyone, and if someone thinks they might be convinced into providing comments on any type of article, to have a little picture or whatever by their name signifying that. Biosthmors (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A symbol for a willingness to review any article 

message: I think it would be better if each person didn't have a description of what they especially like (or don't like). The primary goal of this page should be to get people who want peer reviews onto the talk page of potential reviewers as fast as possible, in my opinion. Aside from the time spent to read these blurbs, we have to consider the potential for these lines harm Wikipedia by discouraging more than they encourage. If a person who wants a review doesn't find a good match, they might wonder if anyone would review for them. (And I doubt this page will be the place where two editors who have very similar mutual interests make their first connection.) Biosthmors (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptors 

message: When I want/ need advice and reviews, I look at who has made helpful edits in related topics and ask them. Several of my interests don't even show up on this list, and my comment is the first in ¿years? (so why am I bothering?)  thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  helpful reviews (my source)