Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Peer review statistics August 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in August 2010. (July figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 110 (92)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 147 (126)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 60 (55)

Main reviewers for August:-

• Finetooth: 27
• Ruhrfisch: 21
• Brianboulton: 18
• (2 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 2 contributed 3, 8 contributed 2 and 44 contributed 1)

Although not apparent from these figures, a new force has established itself within PR. Its effect will be evident here next month. Meantime, note the current state of the backlog, and rejoice! Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, as always, for taking the time to compile these. Very interesting, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks. Yes, I am rejoicing. Finetooth (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Peer Review

I recently made a Peer Review and its missing some things over PRs has (Example). Is there a problem with the Template? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I added the missing code by hand - did not know what category you wanted it in, so left that blank. Just curious, how did you open the PR? Assume it was the normal way (add code to the article talk page) but wanted to check for sure. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the code on the talk page and choosed the arts link. I'm confused about why that happened. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ask CBM who runs the bot to check it out. SOrry for the inconvenience, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot archives old peer reviews, but it doesn't affect how they are opened. The problem seems to be this edit [1] which broke the template. It should be fixed now; let me know if you see any more issues with the page not being created correctly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so mcuh for finding the problem, and for all the help you provide with your bots, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I had been busy on other articles, and did not notice that my peer review request for Ex parte Crow Dog apparently got caught by the same problem. The actual review page is there, but no listing on the PR page. I don't have a clue how to fix this - if anyone could help I would appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a topic to it. It may take up to an hour for the bot to list it on PR. If it does not, I will ask Carl (CBM) to see if he can solve the problem. Thanks for the heads up and sorry for the problem. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • OK< I see it is listed on PR now so it worked. I made it a general topic, but you can add a different one if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 04:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Setting up for peer review-help

Resolved

Hello! Having a hard time setting up List of defunct colleges and universities in Kansas for peer review... attempting to follow instructions, but it's not looking right. Can someone help?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it and it is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of defunct colleges and universities in Kansas/archive1. Not sure how this was made into a redirect to Template:Peer review/preload11, but I deleted that. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, something weird is going on. I checked and Template:Peer review/preload10 is a redirect from Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive4, so list articles seem to be somehow turned into redirects to PR prelaod templates. I fixed the redirect for Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive4, but left the Template alone for now. Will ask Geometry guy and CBM for help with this problem. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm not completely stupid!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl (CBM) has kindly found and fixed the problem - it was a result of edits made to the PR templates earlier this month. Thanks to Carl! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The current peer review for List of extreme weather records in Pakistan is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive2, and will be listed here on the next VeblenBot update. Peer review comments from earlier this month can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive1. Also affected was Talk:List_of_conventional_hydroelectric_power_stations, a peer review which needs to be restarted by the nominator. Geometry guy 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geometry guy! I left a note on the List of conventional hydroelectric power stations talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review archived before taking place

Wikipedia:Peer review/Somalis in the United Kingdom/archive1 has just been archived, despite the fact that it hasn't really received a review. Only one editor, who has been involved in writing the article, has commented and I had hoped to get third-party input. Any advice on what I should do? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the comments. The only reviewer was myself, and I am involved in writing the article. Looking back, I shouldn't have made any comments in the review. I think the review should be re-opened so that uninvolved editors can comment on the article. The article itself has been much expanded in recent months, is a tad controversial, and has few editors so further eyes there would be particularly helpful. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reopened the PR and will make some comments, though it may take me a few days. The backlog list is maintained by hand and if an article has comments, it is not added to the backlog, which is reserved for PRs with no comments or only very sparse comments (as reviewers are scarce and most PRs get one set of reviewer's comments). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Don't feel that you have to review it yourself, or, if you want to, that you have to do it soon. I was just concerned to get a review at some point. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this PR be closed?

Wikipedia:Peer review/Michelle Branch/archive1 was opened by a user now blocked as a sockpuppet of the main contributor, who is banned from Wikipedia. Should the PR be closed? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Reviewer time would be better spent on other articles. Finetooth (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I closed it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Maya (M.I.A. album)/archive2

I thought it was a bit strange that nobody had reviewed this at all in five weeks - can anyone see why it hasn't transcluded correctly to this page......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The top parts were not there, so I added them diff. If they are missing the bot does not see the PR to transclude it here. There have been some problems stemming from some template edits that broke things. I will let Geometry guy and Carl know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics September 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in September 2010. (August figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 114 (110)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 141 (147)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 50 (60)

Main reviewers for September:-

• Jappalang: 22
• Brianboulton: 22
• Finetooth: 16
• Ruhrfisch: 16
• Sandman888: 9

• (2 reviewers contributed 3 reviews, 7 contributed 2 and 36 contributed 1)

The old order changeth. Great to have Jappalang's input here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Biran, as always, for compiling these statistics, and special thanks to Jappalang and Sandman888 for their contributions here (as well as to Brian and Finetooth). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Many hands make light work (sort of). :-) Finetooth (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Review of a userspace sandbox

I was wondering if an article being prepared in userspace could be PR'd before moving to mainspace -- I'm kind of hesitant on totally reworking a huge topic, like one I'm doing now. Glad for any comments. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles need to be in main space, and in a reasonably well-developed state, before they are submitted for peer review. See the rubric of the WP:PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog hits 0

All reviewers hereby awarded six hours off with pay and an ice cream treat. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! or is it spelled W00-h00? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Change initials "PR"

In the greater world outside Wikipedia, for those who venture there, peridically, the abbreviation "PR" stands for "public relations." I have successfully used this on my summary line Lord knows how many times (instead of "WP SPAM") and gotten away with it! Someone pointed out my error the other day. You already have WP:REVIEW. Why not replace WP:PR with "WP PEER." Wikipedia abbreviations need to be user-friendly and "obvious." This one is not. There are hundreds of these things out there. And the ones that aren't being used Wikipedia high level admin, is being used by Projects. Way too many to memorize. Here's an opportunity to help out. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So do you want to convince Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage to give up the WP:PEER shortcut? ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shortcuts are often a political, who-got-there-first kind of thing, and if we bent over backwards to accommodate non-wiki shorthand we'd never decide on anything :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not quite sure I'm willing to take on the "Peerage" Project. Alone, apparently! :) But policy has higher claim.

But I concede your points. Student7 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rare Books and Manuscript Section

Above has been listed for peer review, but I am doubtful whether this is appropriate. Apart from the article having an "orphan" tag, it sounds like we are being asked to take the project over and develop it. My instinct is towards a polite note to the nominator - any other thoughts? Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I guess I see PR as a place to point out what needs to be fixed, and (although I have not read the article yet) I assume there are things in it that can be identified as things that need to be fixed. Assume the PR could say here's what needs to be fixed, and sorry but the PR reviewers aren't able to take over the project. I don't see an "orphan" tag as a major clean up banner, just the fact that it has not been linked to much (yet). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Something weird

Something strange is going on on the peer review page if you look under the "social sciences and society" section in the table of contents. Perhaps this is why the page is "getting full"? No idea where the actual problem is though.--BelovedFreak 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone has transcluded the peer review page in two reviews, but I can't see the problem otherwise. Will ask Carl and Geometry guy for help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This problem has occurred more than once. It happens when an editor wants to list a peer review under more than one topic. To do this they add the second topic as a category to the peer review page. This is actually possible to do, but if the second category is not surrounded by "noincludes" it will cause the entire peer review page (and the peer review list) to be included into the subsection for that category.

If that sounds like gobbledigook, then the message is simply "don't do that"! I have an excellent supply of very cold and wet trout, which I am ready to dish out. However, the instructions should probably be clarified, so that if this happens again, a trout-whack is fair play. Perhaps also more experienced editors should be made aware that it is possible to list a peer review in more than one section: don't forget the "noincludes" if you do so, and if you don't know what "noincludes" are, then don't do it at all! Geometry guy 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the fix and for the explanation, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Finding the "culprit" is a simple matter of going to the VeblenBot page for the topic causing the problem: in this diff, the top two entries are the peer review page and peer reviews by date page, and the next entry (with a timestamp less than an hour earlier) is the source of the problem. I can add this information to the maintenance page. Geometry guy 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I got that far, but did not realize the culprit was the third item listed (though it makes sense now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Markus Näslund

Does anyone know why PeerReviewBot would close the peer review for this article? I was about to review it to get it out of the backlog and I saw that the bot had closed it seemingly without prompting. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's to do with automatic closure of "listings inactive for two weeks" (see WP:PR page). Though that doesn't explain why European Union, which has apparently been inactive even longer, has not been closed. You can of course leave your review of the Markus article on its talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian is right - it had been 14 days without any edits to the PR, so the bot closed it. I just reopened the Markus Näslund PR and hope Andy can still review it. European Union's PR was reopened by the nominator, after the bot closed it. It sill needs a review. The PR for Enugu is still open because I added the {{doing}} template before 14 days with no edits had passed. I should review it today. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Shouldn't peer reviews be closed and added to article milestones once finished? I reference Bill Clinton http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bill_Clinton/archive4

Thanks--Iankap99 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily finished since other editors may still add comments. A bot will eventually close it after, I think, 14 days of no further comments. Alternatively, if you wish to close it sooner than that, you'll find instructions at the top of the main PR page (WP:PR). Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The most recent edit was on November 5, so the bot would normally close it on November 19 (14 days later). The bot does not count minor edits. However, once a PR is over 30 days old, it is closed after 2 days of inactivity (no edits). Since the PR was opened on October 15, it will be 30 days old aorund the 14th, so the bot will close it about the 16th. If the bot closes a PR, it does not edit the Aricle History. Hope this clears things up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors can also close their own requests for peer review: see the instructions. Geometry guy 01:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh ok sorry, I had made edits for my own reference and that of another editor that I am working with on the article with. Now I understand, regards.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is no problem - if you want the PR closed but are not sure how to do it, please ask and I would be glad to close it if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it will close itself. If you think it in anyway clutters or negatively affects the page, by all means. I do not know how to do it, but it is completely up to you. I am letting you know that it is done for all its purposes. When the bot closes it, will it be added to article milestones?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma in mathematical economics

I asked for peer-review for the Shapley-Folkman lemma under both mathematics and social-science groupings, because the Shapley-Folkman lemma is a mathematical lemma that is central to modern economic theory. I apologize for notifying this talk page after having listed the article, and I thank the editor Geometry guy for kindly asking me to notify you all. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The PR community provided many helpful comments. I'm hoping that the good article (GA) nomination process shall be similarly constructive. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen (brand)

The PR nominator of this has been blocked indefinitely. Does the article still get a review, or should we wait to see if the block is rescinded? Brianboulton (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting. I can see that the article isn't ready for FAC, despite the nominator's assertion. The article was created in early October, and the nominator is almost the only contributor. If no one but the nominator is interested, who will read the review and act on it? Finetooth (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also say to wait, though from reading the main contributor's talk page, it sounds like s/he's doing his or her best to keep the indefinite block. If we do close the PR, we should leave a note on the nominator's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang's industry continues to inspire shock and awe. It should be noted that the great majority of these are full-length, detailed reviews, of immeasurable help to editors seeking GA or FA pathways. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Would that we could clone you four... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brian - always useful. Thanks to everyone for their reviews and I agree that Jappalang's output is amazing. Hopefully I'll do better this month, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from these quarters as well. Jappalang's help is much appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please advise on which article I should try to get into a GA?

I want to take an article to GA. Have a few different ones, I've been involved in. I don't think any of them are close in terms of current state, but can you please advise on which article to try to edit into a GA (I think subject of the article may be more important than state in terms of what is more amenable to GAing?) See here for more info: [2].

TCO (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the top 2 or 3 articles that you are thinking of here? The other thing is that the article will need good sources to use as refs - not every topic has enough source material to allow it to reach GA (and FA is even more difficult). An outsider looking at the article may not know that the sources are lacking, but you (presumably) would. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, your comment, regarding sources being the biggest deal. I guess I kinda realized that. Hmmm.

Sorry, that was a messed up diff. My userpage list all the articles. Basically at this point, I would be happy picking any of them, since I just want to run the process.

• That said, I think Shawn Johnson has a lot of sources and such that are on the net. She is currently still a competing athlete so there is an issue of the topic being in flux. Not a late-breaking news story. But not a finished story, either. Not sure how that is handled wrt GA. Also, the topic is pretty notable so attracts a lot of vandals. That said, another good reason to make a good article out of it.
• I just finished working up Amanar to the point it could be thrown in mainspace. I think it will be tough to get sources for some facts (have to weed through hard copy versions of very specialized periodicals, or buy and watch some specialty videos, perhaps).
• Someone advised me Stover at Yale would be a good choice. It needs a fair amount of work and I would need to dig through some real library stuff. That said, not as tricky as Amanar since it is a piece of general American literature, which was once rather notable.
• Similar in type would be Burn Rate, with the difference that more web sources would be available.

What's the general thinking on running a booke through GA?

TCO (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review is for fairly well developed articles. Of the four listed, Shawn Johnson is the most developed, though it would still need a fair amount of work. There are mnay books that have made GA. I would be more concerned about Amanar, as it is mostly a list of people who have done the move (lists do not qualify for GA, they can become a WP:FL). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will make the list of people who did the move, be a "click to expand" or something. I don't want to lose the content, it was a bear to get all those references, but I agree it overwhelms the article, which just describes a trick. TCO (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the issue of Johnson being a still competing athlete (i.e. the main part of the story is ongoing)? I'm kinda leaning to that one or one of the books, but then I need to develop more content for them.TCO (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed your reply earlier. If it were up to me, I would work on Shawn Johnson - there are many GA and FA articles on living persons who are still active in their careers. The SJ article is the most developed and would be the least amount of additional work to get to GA. The books would be next, but both need much more about the history of the book (how it came to be written and published) and critical reaction, and not just plot summaries. The gymnastic move seems to me to have the least potential for gewtting to GA. The choice is, of ocurse, yours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated nomination

Median Nerve Palsy needs to be deleted - the correct nom is Median nerve palsy. Brianboulton (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I deleted Wikipedia:Peer review/Median Nerve Palsy/archive1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review statistics November 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in November 2010. (October figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 97 (106)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 114 (138)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 32 (47)

Main reviewers for November:-

• Ruhrfisch: 25
• Finetooth: 19
• Jappalang: 15
• Brianboulton: 15
• (1 reveiwer contributed 4 reviews, 4 contributed 3, 2 contributed 2 and 20 contributed 1)

A markedly smaller number of reviewers entered the PR jungle in November; two-thirds of the reviews were conducted by the four main reviewers. Ruhrfisch takes the month's laurels but thanks to all reviewers, and please call again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to our usual quadrumvirate... sadly, I won't be able to help out much anymore now that I've shackled my time elsewhere onwiki. Without you guys nothing would get done! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Brian for compiling and publishing the stats, and congrats to Ruhrfisch for leading the way. Finetooth (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to Brian and all the reviewers - I am pretty sure Finetooth will be in the lead when the December stats are compiled. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Kiev. By renaming to Kyiv!

The official name of Ukraine's capital is Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ). Look here: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine — The city of Kyiv.

Kiev is an obsolete spelling of the city, which was used in the USSR (from Russian: Киев).

--Pavlo1 (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss names of articles. I see you have also posted this on Talk:Kiev/naming, so please continue your discussion there. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero again, or thank you Santa Finetooth!

The PR backlog is at zero again, thanks mostly to the efforts of Finetooth. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a Santa clause in my contract. Finetooth (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again - it hit zero again yesterday and is there now. Will there be 12 such days of Christmas ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

your efforts are greatly appreciated, but please do not take the 12 days joke as anything but a joke. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Not to worry. I may switch to slacker mode at any moment. :-) Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

London Underground A60 and A62 stock

Can the peer review be linked to this new title? It is redlinked to the old title (capitalised Stock) at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy has fixed the problem - thanks to him and for the heads up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Are PR pages open for general comments?

The SAQ peer review is about a contentious topic, and obviously this is not the place to discuss the various points-of-view. I'm hoping that someone experienced with PR will look at the current comments and decide whether they are all appropriate. There are some collapsed sections of dubious value, but I'm really thinking about these two edits. Should that text be removed? I'm hoping someone independent will handle the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. PR pages are for improving the article. I will make a comment on the SAQ PR page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics December 2010 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in December 2010. (November figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 89 (97)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 113 (114)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 47 (32)

Main reviewers for December:-

• Finetooth: 35
• Jappalang: 10
• Ruhrfisch: 9
• Brianboulton: 5
• (4 reviewers contributed 3, 4 contributed 2 and 34 contributed 1)

A bravura performance from Finetooth - where would we have been without him? Can't say much else except sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind words and for doing the stats. I think Ruhrfisch still holds the world record for most reviews in a month. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My sincere thanks and congratulations to Finetooth too. (While I think still hold the record, that is one record I never want to come close to again.) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior

It's been up for a while. I'd like to try and get it to FA status in time for its 25th anniversary (this May) as one of most influential video games ever.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It got a pretty comprehensive review from Finetooth and I made a few more comments just now. I think it still needs some work before it would pass at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated nomination

Ballarat is listed twice. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the second PR listing - thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics January 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in January 2011 (December figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 111 (89)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 145 (114)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 57 (47)

Main reviewers for January:-

• Finetooth: 62
• Brianboulton: 15
• Ruhrfisch: 10

6 reviewers contributed 2 reviews, 46 contributed 1

In a heavier-than-usual month, Finetooth's effort surely surpassed any other single month's individual total. The rest of us can only stand in awe. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All hail Finetooth!!!! (and many, many thanks) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC) (by the way, the Number of reviewers submitting at least one review stat seems like it may be an error - 7??). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the stats and for your kind words. My pace has slowed a bit, which is probably for the best. If 62 is the single-month record, I have no plans to break it. Finetooth (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should change your username to "Finetooth62" as a permanent memorial to this mighty feat. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Shapley–Folkman lemma review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Shapley–Folkman lemma/archive1 was closed in November. Shouldn't it have been archived? I can't figure out what's wrong. --BelovedFreak 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It is archived. Click on the link in the "Article Milestones" box on the talkpage, and you'll find it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

When I posted the above, it was still showing on the peer review page for some reason, along with the current one. Have no idea why but it's been resolved somewhere along the way, so no problem! --BelovedFreak 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics February 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in February 2011 (January figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 72 (111)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 88 (145)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 39 (57)

Main reviewers for February:-

• Finetooth: 20
• Brianboulton: 13
• Ruhrfisch: 10

2 reviewers contributed 3 reviews, 5 contributed 2, 29 contributed 1

A much quieter month, but Finetooth continues to reign supreme. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for update. Let's hope for continuing quiet or eager new reviewers. Finetooth (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Brian as always, and to Finetooth for all your efforts! I share your hopes, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom Driberg

I have moved the article from "Tom Driberg, Baron Bradwell" to plain "Tom Driberg". This has broken the link from the talk page to the peer review, and I'm not sure how to fix this. Would someone oblige, please? Sorry about that. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dominic Cork/archive1

Due to the way this PR was set up, the page is not listed here; would someone be able to correct that please, I don't want to break anything! Harrias ^talk 20:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it - may take up to half an hour for the bot to translcude it at PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is now listed on PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vacation

Reviewing is hard. My booking agent says I should take a break from hard things and instead write about streams, parks, islands, and villages, or just go ride my bicycle for a while. Rather than disappearing from PR without notice, I thought I should post a note here. Finetooth (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and looking forward to the articles you plan to write. Enjoy! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for the work you have put in, over several years. Many articles have been raised to the ranks of GA and FA with the help of your thoughtful reviews. I think your record 60+ in a month will stand for all time. I hope you might still be tempted to do the odd review, if somebody asks nicely... I, too, look forward to your forthcoming articles. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cary Academy improperly closed

Can someone fix this? An attempt was made to close the nomination, but the PR closure procedure was not followed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Delicate situation

Background

The following is a series of exchanges I have had with Racepacket, which I said I would bring to the larger Peer Review community for input. The original post on my talk page was as follows (I converted a URL to a diff link here):

Please take a look at diff. I am horrified by the edit summary, because I have repeatedly told her that I never made "accusations of plagiarism" and I know of no "attempts to get me reprimanded at my job". It seems to me that a person requesting a peer review can suspect a peer reviewer of bias, which is understandable. In that case, the person can say "I have read the above comments and disagree with the approach suggested because the comments show a bias in favor or against X view point." Or, "The above comments are very similar to the ones left in the Good Article Review for this article. I disagreed with them at the time and still do not view them as valid" But, I cannot understand how the comments can simply be deleted from the peer review page.

I do not wish LauraHale harm, and I hope that every article she writes reaches GA and/or FA. But I have real differences with her approach toward encyclopedia writing. WP:BOOSTERISM Could you please take a look at the edit. If you believe the concerns outlined are invalid, just drop it, but if there is some reason for these to be considered in the future development of the article, could you please reinstate them with an explanatory note saying they were permissible. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My response on Racepacket's talk page was as follows (Please note that I added links to the RfC/U and GAN when I copied it here):

If the revert in question were an isolated incident, I would have no problem restoring the comments to the peer review. Since a quick look reveals there is an RFC on your behavior and a pretty contentious GA review on this article involving you and the other editor, I am not going to do anything right now (don't have time to look into everything carefully at the moment). I will try to look into this in the next day or so. My advice to you is to let the article and editor in question alone - I am not sure how your continued involvement with theis editor and article will improve the encyclopedia. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket deleted my post on his or her talk page, so I posted the following:

I am going to take your removing my earlier comment as an indication that I do not need to spend any more time on this issue. If you want me to look into it more, or to raise the question to a broader audience on the PR talk page, please ask on my talk page. If you do not respond or remove this comment, I will understand that to mean you do not want me to deal with this issue further. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket also deleted this from his or her talk page (and did not re-post it or the previous post anywhere else). However, Racepacket did make the following post on my talk page.

I think that you misinterpreted my deletion. I was trying to keep all discussion on this talk page and or the PR talk page. Please proceed as you had discussed. Thank you for your assistance. Racepacket (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded there too.

Thanks for clarifying, I did misunderstand your deletion. I will look into this and post something on the PR talk page within the next 24 hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

I have thought about this a lot and am OK with not restoring the deleted comments. My thought is that the peer review for the Netball in the Cook Islands article has already had feedback from Brianboulton and that the main author (who removed Racepackt's PR comments) is certainly aware of Racepacket's opinions on the article from both the GAN and the PR comments. Given the contentious nature of the two GANs for this article which Racepacket was involved in (see Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 too), and the current RfC/U on Racepacket's behavior, which includes the GANs in question, I am not sure how reinstating this in the PR would help improve the article (and might drive the other editor away, if s/he has not already left). I am very interested in other opinions. I also wonder if this should be somehow mentioned at the RfC/U? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have followed matters closely here, and concur with your thoughts. I am willing to add comments to the peer review myself to encourage further improvement of the article before an FAC nomination. Geometry guy 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do comment - I will try to as well, though I am pretty busy at the moment. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Active zone improperly opened

I can't work out how this PR got opened - no link on the article talkpage. And it got opened twice! Remedial action required when possible. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that you can add the PR template to the article talk page, preview it, and from the previewed version open the PR. If the version of the article talk page with the PR template is not saved, the PR is opened and the talk page has no record of the PR. I see this one or two times a month in the bot-archived PRs. I deleted the second PR and added the template to the talk page. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive2

This second peer review never seems to have been listed on the main peer review page, I am not sure why, maybe something I did wrong. It languished for two months without comment, but a review is now under way. Is there anything that can be done, or that I should do? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - for some reason it was missing the {{Peer review page|topic=}} template, so I just added it. That should cause the bot to list it at PR within the hour. Despite the fact that it is over two months old, the bot will treat it as new today for archiving at PR (after 2 weeks with no activity). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics March 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in March 2011 (February figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 78 (72)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 104 (88)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 49 (39)

Main reviewers for March:-

• Finetooth: 27
• Brianboulton: 11
• Ruhrfisch: 11
• Chipmunkdavis 5

1 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 2 contributed 2, 42 contributed 1

Another fairly quiet month, and (maybe) Finetooth's last hurrah, at least for now. Who will step into the breach? Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Brian for the statistics and to Finetooth, Brian and everyone for all reviews. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah, someone new in the top four. The usual thanks to all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the stats, Brian. I'm still in a state of relative repose. Feels good. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Searching archvies (of the reviews, not this talk page)

The Archives section (on the project page) lists archives chronologically. And there's a search box here on the talk page. Am I missing the inclusion of a search box for the archives of reviews themselves on the project page? Perhaps it's somewhere else. I think it'd be useful to be able to easily search the reviews. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, but do not know exactly how to implement it. I will check into it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics April 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in April 2011 (March figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 87 (78)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 120 (104)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 52 (49)

Main reviewers for April:-

• Ruhrfisch: 26
• Brianboulton: 20
• Finetooth: 8

3 reviewers contributed 3 revies, 11 contributed 2, 35 contributed 1

There we go. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for your reviews and these stats, which I always find very interesting. Thanks to all who reviewed (and even in a month when he was not reviewing, Finetooth still managed third place, which is a pretty neat trick.). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, the magical non-reviewer with credit for eight. I am getting a much-needed rest but was hoping that User:GardenHoe or User:DentalFloss or others disposed to intense reviewing would fill the breach. Finetooth (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Heads up, Milhist coming

We've got unanimous support so far at WT:MHC#Closing the review department for shutting down MILHIST's separate peer review department and recommending that our writers submit articles to and review for peer review/history. (It wasn't my idea, but I love it.) Of course, if at any time it seems like Milhist is becoming a drain on PR resources in any way, please let us know what you'd like to see us doing more (or less) of. I'm hoping that over time, people in our project will learn more about what's expected at PR and FAC, and active peer reviewers will get more familiar with our project. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Good news! It will be great if MilHist bring reviewers as well as articles for review. PR is suffering at the moment from a great shortage of regular reviewers, and needs some new blood. For myself, I will welcome the chance to review MilHist articles here, and I hope that MilHist people will come to feel the same about articles outside their own immediate areas of interest. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never been much a fan of wikiproject peer reviews (Milhist in particular) just because there's always the danger of honing articles that aren't accessible to outsiders. I think bringing everyone under the same tent and getting more exposure from more people is an excellent idea (WP:VG should prolly do the same thing, but that's just my opinion.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics May 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in May 2011 (April figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 105 (87)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 150 (120)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 66 (52)

Main reviewers for May:-

• Ruhrfisch: 38
• Brianboulton: 15
• H1inkles: 8
• Chipmunkdavis: 6
• Tim riley: 6

1 reviewer contributed 4 reviews, 2 contributed 3, 9 contributed 2 and 49 contributed 1

A bumper month: more articles reviewed, more review contributions, more participating reviewers. Among individuals, Ruhrfisch peerless, the rest of us distant, but some encouraging signs of more regular contributions. Anyone who will regularly do 5 or 6 reviews a month will be a godsend to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)

Thanks Brian, I always am interested to see these each month. Thanks to everyone who does peer reviews - I always hoped that we could somehow get everyone listed at WP:PR/V to peer review one or two articles a month. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics June 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in June 2011 (May figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 97 (105)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 127 (150)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 54 (66)

Main reviewers for June:-

• Ruhrfisch: 30
• Brianboulton: 16
• Finetooth: 8
• Bradley0110: 7
• Dana boomer: 5

3 reviewer contributed 3 reviews, 6 contributed 2 and 40 contributed 1

Some new faces, some welcome reappearances, and Old Man Ruhrfisch, he jes' keeps rollin' along. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian and thanks to everyone who reviews. I must confess that sometimes peer reviews feel more like I have to "sweat and strain, body all achin' and racked with pain" ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian, as always. A few bales is not so bad. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing a nomination

I would like to remove this nomination that I had submitted. Reason is on the page. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I archived it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone review this please?

I reviewed the article Wishology its first go round here. It is up for a peer review again and the nominator has requested that someone other than I review it (if only all nominators were so wise ;-) ). Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Wishology/archive2 for the current PR. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

S/he doesn't know how well you do them :) I enjoy your reviews on my articles bad or good, still very helpful. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words - the article has been peer reviewed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics July 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in July 2011 (June figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 91 (97)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 118 (127)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 46 (54)

Main reviewers for July:-

• Ruhrfisch: 24
• Brianboulton: 15
• Bradley0110: 11
• Finetooth: 7

4 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 1 contributed 3, 5 contributed 2 and 32 contributed 1

Summer months are often quieter (winter in the antipodes of course). Top bouquet to Ruhrfisch (again), thanks to all reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for the stats - I like to see these each month. Thanks to everyone for the reviews; welcome to Bradley (and welcome back to Finettooth). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I always look forward to them too, even though I've moved closer to the caboose. Finetooth (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Artcle history?

I noticed that when an FAC is closed, a bot auto-updates the article history template. Is this true with PR? --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No - the bot which closes most PRs does not update the article history (although if there has been a PR, the FAC bot does incorporate that into the article history). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the GA bot do that too? --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not know - sorry I missed this before. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

VeblenBot notices

Someone asked me to file a formal bot request for the notices VeblenBot posts about the template limits. I turned off the task temporarily until the request is approved. The request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VeblenBot 8 if you'd like to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just did the partial translusion trick - was not online earlier and so had missed the notices. I want to keep them here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The request was approved, and I have reset the messages to come to this page in the future. No problem in the end, just a little red tape. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review closed with no review

Hi, this is just a query. I put this article up for peer review two weeks ago. The peer review has since been closed by a bot. Does this mean the article was inappropriate for peer review? Should I list it again or leave it? I didn't review anything on the list here as I've no experience of getting an article to GA or FA and I've never put an article through peer review before. I thought I should at least experience the process of peer review before reviewing the work of someone else. This ain't really a complaint, however, as I know that there's just a handful of you doing the majority of these reviews, but it is a query as to whether I should have done something differently or submitted this for peer review at all. Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The bot closes PRs older than 14 days that have no comments. I check each morning and undo the closures if there have been no comments. The article PR is on the backlog list, so someone will get to it in a few days. Right now there is a backlog and almost half the articles on the backlog are older than 14 days on PR. The article looks pretty well developed and is appropriate for PR. Sorry for the wait, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and no need to apologise. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Any objections if an A-class review is opened?

A nominator of one of the military history peer reviews just asked that it be closed. I don't know, but I'm guessing he is thinking it would be confusing to have two reviews up at the same time, and he wants to take it to A-class review. Whether my guess is right or not ... suppose someone opens a Milhist A-class review when the peer review hasn't been archived yet. Does anyone here have a preference for what Milhist coordinators should say and do in response? - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an explicit ban on articles being listed at both FAC and PR, and at FLC and PR, and the bot will archive (close) any PR that is listed at both places. There is no other formal policy on double listing that I am aware of. Some GA reviewers will request that an article not be listed at both GAN and PR, though some editors will nominate at both and count on the backlog at GAN to take longer than the PR.

I can see two related arguments against double listings (PR and any other review process). The first is that two simultaneous reviews can be confusing and may even result in contradictory advice on what to do with the article. I can see that happening here, as the MilHist reviewer will almost certainly be more knowledgable about what is needed for A-class than any random PR reviewer. The second argument against is that it is in some ways a waste of PR reviewer resources - we are always stretched thin here, and so doing a review which is then largely ignored because it has been superceded by another simultaneous (GA or A-Class) review is not a good use of limited reviewer resources.

All that said, I have always been reluctant to keep anyone from double listing - it usually is faster and good timing for GAN (start a PR while waiting on GAN, so the PR is done before the GAN review starts). A-class is pretty rare. In any case, I think PR should defer to the other review process - if a GAN or A-class reviewer says close the PR, I am fine with that. All PR provides is suggestions, but these lead to a yes or no decision on GA or A status. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Speaking of the drain on reviewers, are there any easily definable parts of the PR review process that any of you would like us to encourage military history writers to handle? - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can always use more reviewers... ;-) We used to encourage people to make one peer review a month. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Can a peer review happen simultaneously with a GAN?

I nominated Death of Selena for another review. However, can it also be at WP:GAN simultaneously? Note that it is not currently nominated at GAN. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion - Any objections if an A-class review is opened? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrifisch :) AJona1992 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oldest on backlog list

The PR bot will archive any PR request which has not had any comments after 14 days. Since we wait 4 days before putting PRs with little or no comments on the backlog list, that means anything which has been on the backlog longer than 10 days with no comments gets archived. Now I check each day and re-open the ones that get closed this way, but I also try not to let it get that bad. Unfortunately for over a month we have had some PRs in this situation every day. Right now anything from Sept 12 or older is in trouble this way (4 PRs currently, with another added in a little less than 12 hours when the bot checks again). Today I am embarassed to say that the Rihanna PR was archived for being over 30 days old and was still on the backlog (I will review it next). Sometimes it feels like the I Love Lucy episode in the chocolate factory - they just never stop coming.

Anyway, if you can, please try to look at the oldest PRs on the backlist too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics August 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in August 2011 (July figures shown in parentheses)

Number of reviews archived: 105 (97)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 151 (127)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 64 (54)

Main reviewers for August:-

   * Ruhrfisch: 18
   * Brianboulton: 11
   * Finetooth: 11
   * Bradley0110: 10
   * NikkiMaria: 10
   * H1nkles: 9
   

3 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 3 contributed 3, 9 contributed 2 and 43 contributed 1

More reviewers than usual, and a better spread. The top three shared just 26 percent of the reviews; in the past, this proportion has generally been over 40 percent. So thanks to everyone. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting as always. Thanks for sharing. Review seekers seem to be piling on, though. Rugby anyone? Finetooth (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much to Brian for compiling this and to everyone who reviewed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed without a review

The peer review for Golding Bird has been archived without a review taking place. What next, should I just list it again? Also, the banner inserted on the talk page erroneously states the article ahs been reviewed. SpinningSpark 10:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reopened the review. The PR bot will archive any PR request which has not had any comments after 14 days. Since we wait 4 days before putting PRs with little or no comments on thebacklog list, that means anything which has been on the backlog longer than 10 days with no comments gets archived. We currently have over 30 articles on the backlog (that have been waiting at least 4 days for a review), so it is taking even longer than usual. Someonw will review it, and any help reviewing other articles is greatly appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I now see that the article was inadvertantly removed from the backlog some time ago diff. I will add it back to the backlog and will try to review it in the next few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics September 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in September 2011 (August figures shown in parentheses)

Number of articles reviewed: 83 (105)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 113 (151)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 48 (64)

Main reviewers for September:-

   * Ruhrfisch: 25
   * Jappalang: 11
   * Finetooth: 8
   * Brianboulton: 6
   

2 reviewers contributed 4 reviews, 1 contributed 3, 7 contributed 2 and 34 contributed 1

My meagre contributions reflects my absence from WP for much of the month, but Jappalang stepped up. And as usual, Ruhrfisch (aka Horatio on the Bridge) delivered. Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian - these stats are always appreciated and I find them very interesting. When I read about Horatius Cocles and came to this passage Finally wounded all over and having received a spear in the buttocks..., I understood why he was the model. PR can be such a pain in the backside ;-). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot having a bit of fun with Joe Danger

Seems to be archiving this PR because Gimmiebot is being tardy with archiving the FAC. Any thoughts? Or is this a case of rollback-and-hope? ;) — Joseph Fox 10:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Since articles cannot be listed at both PR and FAC, the bot archives all PRs that are also listed at FAC (it does not check to see if the FAC has been closed or withdrawn). It also closes PRs that have had no comments in 14 days or are over 30 days old. Technically articles are not supposed to be nominated at PR until 14 days after the close of an unsuccessful FAC, but this rule is being waived here. The PR can be reopened - I will do so next if you have not already. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to remove this as part of the 14-day limit. I had started the page already, but deleted it; I'll head back to restore. Thanks for the effort :) — Joseph Fox 14:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review statistics October 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in October 2011 (September figures shown in parentheses)

Number of articles reviewed: 93 (83)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 124 (113)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 52 (48)

Main reviewers for October:-

   * Ruhrfisch: 20
   * Brianboulton: 18
   * Jappalang: 11
   * Finetooth: 11
   * Nikkimaria: 7
   

10 reviewers contributed 2 reviews and 37 contributed 1

Mainly down to the Old Gang this month. We need new blood here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My peer review request

It says the review will be listed within the hour, but mine (for Dylan and Cole Sprouse) still isn't on the list. I don't know if it's because it hasn't been patrolled or what, but this seemed like a problem, so I thought I'd post it. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The listing is done by a bot, so I suspect there is a glitch of some sort - thanks for the heads up. I will ask the bot owner to look into this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is fixed and the PR is listed now - thanks to CBM Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

From the list folks (well, one of them...)

Hello PR folks. Having just completed a few PRs (been a while, I know, but I'm trying to get back in the zone!), I noticed that the instructions are heavily biased towards preparing a featured article. I also noticed that out of the current listed PRs, a number relate to list-based articles. So (and in light of FLs making the main page once a week these days) it would be nice to have the PR instructions acknowledge that the process should benefit those going for FLs (and even GAs) as well as FAs.

Secondly, I'd like to volunteer myself to help PR any list-based articles that appear here. The problem is with me actually knowing that a list is waiting at PR for review. Anyone have any good ideas how I (or indeed other members of the FLC community) could get such a notification?

Thirdly, keep up the good work. PR is an almost thankless task (no-one gets a bronze star for doing a great PR) but I know how hard reviewers work here, and it's a testament to the power of Wikipedia that people want to keep coming back for more....! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TRM - there is a section for lists on the WP:PR page - see Wikipedia:Peer_review#Lists. More later, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Silly me. But List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes is clearly miscategorised! And we do sometimes get the odd list masquerading as an article (i.e. without the word "list" in the title!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quoll

This article has managed to get itself listed twice. I am uneasy about trying to correct errors like this, for fear I would knock both out. Ruhrfisch knows the drill. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I deleted PR 3 (G6) and the bot should remove the red link shortly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering about peer review for an article in my sandbox. Would that be possible? I'm currently working to improve Irish Stepdance. I have done all my work in my sandbox but haven't been able to get much feedback on it. Even if I can't list it here, would someone be able to look at it and comment on my talkpage? Thanx. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 18:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above, reviewers are struggling to keep up with review requests. Please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance for general advice about dance articles. Glancing at the article in your sandbox, I see that most of the claims in the article are not attributed to any source. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a member of WP:DANCE but I think it is almost inactive. And I just saw in discussion above. Thanks for the help anyway. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 23:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The way the PR page is set up, an article has to be in article space (not user space) to be listed here (the bot cannot transclude it otherwise, and the guidleines say the same). I will amke a few comments on Talk:Irish stepdance Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please reinstate

The bot recently close three PR nominees without comments:-

• One for the Road (Cheers)
• Valenzuela, Philippines
• Blackford County, Indiana

Despite our backloig woes, I believe these should be reinstated. I will try and review at least one of them in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will reinstate them next - sorry. I normally do this each morning, but today was an extra busy day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will return them into the backlog and choose one for attention. I'm afraid I have not found time to do the stats summaries recently but I will try and resume this service shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I just finished Valenzuela, and I'll move on to One for the Road. Since I did an earlier review of Blackford County, maybe you could find something new to say about that one. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen the construction banner on One for the Road. I'll choose something else. Finetooth (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't figure it out

WP:PR is huge because it is being copied into itself - I can't figure it out and have asked Geometry guy to take a look. See also User:VeblenBot/C/Arts peer reviews Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So if I remove the two offending lines from User:VeblenBot/C/Arts peer reviews, PR works again until the bot re-adds them to its list and tries to transclude whatever the problem PR is / PRs are. I am looking at all files that link to Template:Peer review to see if I can find the culprit(s). Grrrr. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Geometry guy

This is almost always caused by someone crosslisting a peer review, but not wrapping the extra category in "noincludes". The tricky part is finding who dunnit. Fortunately, in this case, the miscreant :) piped the name of the article (Canadian comics) so the peer review page got listed under C at Category:Arts peer reviews, and Wikipedia:Peer review/Canadian comics/archive1 was the first one listed under C there, so was easily found and fixed. The next VeblenBot run should now clear the problem.

This happens often enough that we should probably try to devise a fix, or suitable instructions for cross-listing. When experienced editors are involved, some wet fish might be in order :) Geometry guy 11:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much - you're the best! I could not recall the problem or find it myself. I am going to copy this to PR talk so I can find it next time in the archives. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Malformed PR requests

With the size issues I discovered that there were 32 or so places where the {{PR}} template was transcluded, but no formal PR had ever started or taken place. I am pretty sure I have removed them all now. In most cases this was from someone adding the template to an article talk page but never finishing the actual PR request - I checked the article history to make sure it was not a recent edit, but they were all over at least a week old, and most were months old. Here's one example diff, though in most cases I went in and removed the template (did not use undo normally). Several templates were on user talk pages or sandboxes or other odd places. I just thought I would mention it here in case there was any question. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review statistics November 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in November 2011 (October figures shown in parentheses)

Number of articles reviewed: 77 (93)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 99 (124)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 45 (52)

Main reviewers for November:-

   * Ruhrfisch: 16
   * Brianboulton: 12
   * Finetooth: 10
   * Jappalang: 5
   * Bradley0110: 5
   
   

1 reviewer contributed 4 reviews; 2 conributed 3, 4 contributed 2 and 33 contributed 1

Apologies for late reporting. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Brian, and thanks to all whoi review. I miss Jappalang :( Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review statistics December 2011 (archived)

These figures relate to reviews closed in December 2011 (November figures shown in parentheses)

Number of articles reviewed: 106 (77)

Number of review contributions excluding brief comments: 142 (99)

Number of reviewers submitting at least one review: 57 (45)

Main reviewers for December:-

   * Ruhrfisch: 20
   * Brianboulton: 19
   * Jappalang: 15
   * The Rambling Man: 13
   * Noleander: 7
   * Finetooth: 6
   

1 reviewers contributed 3 reviews, 9 contributed 2 and 41 contributed 1

Again, sorry for the delay. A great and most welcome contribution from The Rambling Man amid other sterling efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No apologies necessary - thanks so much for doing these and thanks to all who review, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PR limits change proposal

I just had to undo the bot's archiving of 9 articles on the backlog list - they were older than 14 days and had received no (or very few) PR comments. I propose we drop the limit from 4 open PRs per editor to 2, at least until the backlog improves. I now copy pertinent conversations from my and Brianboulton's talk pages. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As you will have seen, the backlog keeps growing. Currently, articles are being added to it at roughly twice the rate they are leaving it, hence the total has risen from 15 on 1 Jan to 34 on 15 Jan.

Should we (1) warn nominators that they may have to wait a month for a review, and (2) restrict nominators to one active nomination, per FAC, except in special circumstances? The real problem is of course the lack of reviewer interest. I agree I'm not being much help here at the moment, but I'm also trying to plug gaps at FAC, which is also heavily backlogged. And there are offstage noises... I've hardly any time now for working on my own articles, and am keen to get back to that (as I dare say you are; time for a bridge). If you have any other ideas in the crisis management area, please drop me a line! Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a warning would be fine. I would rather try dropping the limit to 2 PRs per editor than 1 (it would still be a 50% reduction). I am very busy in real life and likely will be for some time to come. I just have not had much time to do anything here. If we change the limit we should discuss it at the PR talk page first. Another problem I see is that there are more middle quality articles coming along - in a way this is a good thing, but it was easy to pound out a quick review of something that was B or C class. Now it seems we have a lot of recent GAs looking to FA - which is good, but more time consuming to review too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dropping the limit is a good start. My inclination, as someone new to PR/GAN/FAC, is to adopt a standard process for each of these three queues (tailored to each of the three, of course). Why reinvent the wheel over and over? The standard process would include proven techniques for keeping the flow moving:

• Limit nominators to 1 or 2 max at a time
• Mandatory pause before next nomination if fail
• Standardized checklist for review process (pics, sources, prose, MOS, spell-check, etc)
• Quid pro quo: must give a review to get a review (for FAC: perhaps "Comments only")

Include some kind of feedback for reviewers that are just going through the motions. If shirking: stern reproval

• Periodic backlog elimination drives
• Rewards (barnstars, etc) for active/high-quality reviewers
• Reviewer recruitment efforts
• Recognition that, as WP matures and new articles become rarer, promotion to GA then FA is now the lifeblood of WP

Anyway, just an idea. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the limitation and Noleander's ideas. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to Noelander for trying. PR is different from GA and FAC in that reviewing is not judgemental; there is no "pass" or fail". Articles can effectively remain here as long as the nominator wishes. Checklist reviewing is inappropriate, since an important part of the PR process is article building rather than checking; in any event, how would the checklist approach help the backlog problem? Quid pro quo has been suggested many times before, and has been informally applied, but a lot of the reviews thus provided were too superficial to be of much use. "Include some kind of feedback for reviewers that are just going through the motions. If shirking: stern reproval" is somewhat unrealistic: who will provide this feedback, and what would "stern reproval" do other than give offence? Elimination drives can be effective—The Rambling Man late last year, through his own prodigious reviewing got the backlog down to virtually nil—but they require hours of commitment. Regrettably, PR competes with FAC for reviewers' time, and many would prefer to use their time there, where there is more chance that their advice will be heeded. But FAC has a reviewer shortage too. PR was sustained for years because Ruhrfisch, Finetooth and I were regularly turning out 15 to 20+ reviews a month each. For various reasons none of us are able to do that at the moment. Even one editor prepared to make that level of commitment on a regular basis would make a real difference. Any volunteers? Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be helpful to drop the limit to 1 PR per editor and to set a queue limit of 30 PRs. The 30-PR queue limit would eliminate feelings of futility that may arise among reviewers who cannot maintain a frenetic reviewing pace forever. Unlike "quid quo pro" arrangements or "stern reproval", a 30-item limit would not single out any editor for special praise or blame, would require little in the way of scorekeeping, and would encourage editors to review, if only to make room for their own requests. Editors who tried to game the system by posting careless reviews would find themselves to be in a tit-for-tat world in which serious reviews beget serious reviews and vice versa; i.e., you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. No one would need to enforce the tit-for-tat; it would just happen, as it does in other human endeavors. The 1 PR-at-a-time per editor limit would be a necessary companion to the 30-PR queue limit, I think. Otherwise, some editors would game the system by always having two in the hopper. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think these are good suggestions for holding the line, and could work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I also like the idea of a limit to the size of the page, but am trying to figure out the practical details. Currently anyone can add their article to PR by putting a template on the article talk page - a bot takes care of the rest. At the least the bot would have to be rewritten, but would there be a waiting list / queue / holding area for PR requests beyond 30? Also, one of the nice things about PR is that we let reviews hang around for up to 30 days (or longer if they are being actively worked on). If the 30 limit is put into effect, should there be some sort of rule on how to remove an article from the magic 30? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My intention is to limit the backlog to 30, not the overall size of the page; once an article has attracted significant review comments it leaves the backlog, but can stay in PR as long as is necessary. Theoretically, the system would work like this: when an editor nominates to PR, a bot will check the backlog. If it is below 30 the article will be admitted to PR, if not it will be placed in a waiting list until a place becomes available as an article leaves the backlog. The trouble as I see it is that, apart from possible complications arising from the reprogramming of the bot, we would be heavily reliant on manual checking of the backlog, to assess whether "significant review comments" have been made. I do this at the moment, but not every day, which means that the displayed backlog is sometimes overstated. I don't see how this part of the operation could be done automatically, since it is a matter of judgement as to what constitutes "significant review comment". Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to do the backlog checking. This is something I could do almost every day, though there will be times when for one reason or another—travel, lack of Internet access, illness—I will have to miss a day or two and sometimes several days in a row. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can also check the backlog, or at least be the backlog checker backup. One trick I use with it is to go to Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items and click on recent changes in the Toolbox - can see all edits to all PRs currently on the backlog in the recent past that way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Did we change anything as a result of this discussion? Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not yet - there is clear consensus for dropping the limit to 1 PR per nominator at a time, and I will make that change to the rules. Would it make sense to notify everyone who has a PR right now of the change? Or to add a note to the message when people open a PR?

As for the 30 in the queue limit, I am not sure what changes to the bot this would require (if any). Should we see what the limit change does first - an incremental change? Also we would need to ask CBM (Carl) who runs the bot and Geometry guy about the feasibility (sp?) of this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I made the change on the PR page diff and on Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy. Do we want to allow an editor two PRs if one is joint (with an another editor)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I also added a notice to the window people see when they open a PR - see here diff Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, should we post a notice on the talk page of everyone with a currently open PR? Let them know they do not have to close any open PRs they have now, but are limited from now on. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If this can be done easily, fine. Maybe outline the reason for doing it, too. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to make a message and paste it in the talk page of everyone with an open PR (work through the list). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice posted

Peer review limits changed

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the notice to the talk page of every editor who had nominated an article at WP:PR. There were 10 editors who had 2 or 3 open PRs (AJona1992 (x3), Allens, ResidentMario, Clarkcj12, Disavian, Babakathy, George Ho (x3), Ealdgyth, Calvin999, DAP388), so if they were limited to one each, there would be 12 fewer reviews in the queue (13.8% of the current total). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)