Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review proposal discussion

Some other Wikiprojects have established their own internal Peer review process. Running a peer review process within the wikiproject has a number of advantages:-

Articles would first be reviewed by people with a knowledge of the subject, so content as well as prose, typos, referencing etc. would also be scrutinised.
The wikipedia peer review process is not always very productive. Some recent Wikipedia peer reviews have resulted in little more than automated bot responses. See This Example.
Articles will eventually be presented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates in a more polished form. Unpolished articles submitted to the FAC appear to antagonise the reviewers there and illicit some quite terse responses.

Can we build a consensus for this proposal? Would you be willing to review articles submitted to the peer review?

Please comment below.--Mcginnly | Chinwag 12:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This seems like a worthwhile proposal. The autobot review trend is very discouraging and hopefully will be reversed. Yes, I am willing to participate in the peer review process. Pinkville 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking of the mechanics, it seems the way to do this would be to have a wikiproject architecture peer review page similar to the Wikipedia:Peer_review page that explains the process, has links to history and help, and also the lists of current and archived nominations. Does that sound right? Maybe this is obvious but I'm new here and process details matter to me. M0llusk 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That's exactly the idea - we'll create a subpage of the portal, say - Wikipedia:Wikiproject Architecture/Peer review and run it there just like the standard peer review. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to participate, but may not be so active KRS 11:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea, and I would be happy to participate, although it would be at a lower level of activity. The responses here suggest that there may not be enough interest to sustain it, but why not set it up and see? Warofdreams talk 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again sounds like a great idea but I agree with Warofdreams that there may not be enough interest to sustain. However it is worth a try. --Dubud 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given a prominent link on Portal:Architecture, Peer review can generate contributions from a wide audience. — dogears (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the following comment left on my talk page from User:Bok269:-

Sorry for the late reply I have been on vacation and got home two days ago. I'm still unfamiliar with the pier review process, but I will help out as best I can. Bok269 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)