Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peer review
 | This page is for discussions about Wikiproject Peer Review. For discussions about the peer review process itself, please see Wikipedia talk:Peer review. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
no archives yet (create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Empty
[edit]At the risk if being flippant, that lovely building looks very empty of workers. Don't you want http://www.mvtimes.com/mvt/uploads/2015/11/Barnraising.jpg instead? GeeBee60 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GeeBee60 have moved your comment here, the newsletter is transcluded :). And wouldn't you think of joining the volunteers list or WP? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tom (LT) but "the newsletter is transcluded" is jargon that eludes me. That being said, I take my work as an editor seriously (mostly, the above flippancy being noted) and am trying to not go too far astray, am already devoting a lot of volunteer time to Wikipedia articles. There is an informal small network of editors I correspond with on a few topics where I can make a difference, and am not sure what you seek in your request. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GeeBee60. See WP:TRANSCLUDE. It means your comment would have appeared on a hundred or so pages. The volunteers list for peer review is here: WP:PR/V. It means people can contact you for reviews and you can receive regular updates about unanswered reviews.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tom (LT) but "the newsletter is transcluded" is jargon that eludes me. That being said, I take my work as an editor seriously (mostly, the above flippancy being noted) and am trying to not go too far astray, am already devoting a lot of volunteer time to Wikipedia articles. There is an informal small network of editors I correspond with on a few topics where I can make a difference, and am not sure what you seek in your request. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Peer review just repeat the infrastructure at Wikipedia:Peer review? If someone wants to join the project, they can list their names in the aforementioned volunteer list, or even better, just review articles. Either way, as alluded above, new WikiProject pages are rarely the solution for drumming up editor support, in my experience. (not watching, please
{{ping}}) czar 23:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)- One is a venue for people to actually do the peer reviews. One is a venue for people who want to tinker with the peer review process. We have been improving that process over time as I detailed last year in the signpost (here). I tried to make that clear in on the WP page and also in the first newsletter (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peer_review/newsletter_1), I 100% agree that there is no point having a huge architecture around this WP. The main reason for creating this WP is so that we can have a list of editors who are interested in improving the overall process that can participate in future discussions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Update to our WikiProject Template
[edit]I've updated our template: {{WikiProject Peer review}} by removing the ability to provide more detailed information about pages. I'm not sure why I included it when it was created, but it hasn't been used since. I think they are just an additional encumbrance that is likely to contribute to maintenance burden and not provide any benefit to the project, so I've simplified them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Some active projects at the moment
[edit]Hi all, an update. I have a few active peer review projects at the moment and would be keen for more eyes. These are:
- The surprisingly successful recently deployment of an FA specific peer review sidebar
- Fixing broken peer review links with bot and template repair
- Requesting a bot to run through and integrate peer reviews with the article history template
- Improving categories of the Wikipedia peer review process (grouping with a parent category and using a heading template to standardise wording and make future changes easier).
Some longer term projects / goals are:
- Working towards running through WikiProjects that have peer review processes and updating the ones with minimal to low activity to point here, using a template to reflect the WikiProject's wishes.
- Simplifying Template:Peer review code with modern syntax, making it easier to maintain.
- The longer term goal of getting an active bot again that can help simplify or automate some tasks
- Discussing with others about the utility of {{Peer review tools}}, and making it more useful or, if it's not actually used, considering hiding / deleting it - it's currently included on all peer review pages.
Would love to have more collaborators and extra hands or eyes. Seeing as I'm often on my lonesome here, ping to CapnZapp, Thatoneweirdwikier, Outriggr, Premeditated Chaos, Professor Proof, Nick Moyes who I've interacted with regarding peer review (please feel free to watch this page or join the project if this interests you) and project members Eddie891, Kadane, Serial Number 54129, Jeromeenriquez and Jr8825.
If any areas interest you, please ask and I can supply some more details to get you up to speed. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, consider me intrigued. I'll sign myself up for this. User:Thatone
weirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 09:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I am in, I would like to sign up for this. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Let us know if you have any ideas about how to improve things. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I've been seeing your updates and scratching my head over what the best way is to get involved, as I don't have much technical expertise. From reading below, it looks like you're mostly wrapped up with sorting out the old wikiprojects? Can you think of any aspects of these tasks where someone with limited technical know-how can give a hand? (I can't promise much as it's a busy time, but I'm happy to chip in!) Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 13:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jr8825: Yes, for sure there are some ways you can contribute! Firstly by participating, we can try and bring the backlog down to October (WP:PRWAITING). Secondly... I am really scratching my head about this one... do you have any ideas about how we can actually increase the number of reviewers at peer review? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad your first suggestion is to work on the backlog, because I'm guilty of having having promised to give a PR and sitting on it for over two weeks, so this is definitely something I can work on. I'll have a think on ways to encourage reviewers. Jr8825 • Talk 00:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Assisting Peer reviews on Wikiprojects
[edit]Thanks for your interest! On the top of my list for things to improve here is the fact that there are 92 WikiProjects with specific and unique peer review processes that are basically inactive (and one wikiproject that isn't: WP:MILHIST). Most I have been to have reviews that have been waiting for years unattended, and many haven't been used at all. The list is here: Category:WikiProject_peer_reviews.
My idea is to clean up those WikiProject peer review pages (the ones that aren't active, that is). I am thinking of updating the page instructions with something like the following templates (from my sandbox):
WP peer review that redirects to WP:PR - for a very inactive or unused page
|
|---|
 WikiProject peer reviews To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
|
WP peer review that has a custom wikiproject name
|
|---|
|
WikiProject Virginia peer reviews To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
|
WP peer review that displays transcluded reviews locally, and has a list of old reviews locally - for a page that might have been used a couple or times
|
|---|
|
WikiProject peer reviews You can keep track of new reviews by watching this page; do that by clicking here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list too. To list your review below:
When the review is finished:
To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
|
WP peer review that displays transcluded reviews locally, and uses a category for old reviews - for a page that has been used quite a bit
|
|---|
|
WikiProject peer reviews You can keep track of new reviews by watching this page; do that by clicking here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list too. To list your review below:
When the review is finished:
To view old reviews, click here: Category:Old requests for peer review To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
|
This is just an idea, and the examples above are in my sandbox. What does everyone think about this? (including the wording and formatting and things, which could be improved). I am thinking of deploying this gradually and of course will notify WikiProjects as we go. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Update
[edit]Wow, that was surprisingly complex. The first difficulty was compiling a list of wikiproject peer reviews. In general that can be done by:
- Category:Requests for peer review ( 84 ) (the categories that are linked)
- Category:Old requests for peer review ( 14,694 )
- Category:WikiProject peer reviews ( 107 )
- Templates that transclude Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/peerreview
- Templates that transclude Template:WPBannerDoc/peerreview
I've:
- Updated all the wikiproject pages
- Updated Wikiproject templates for Wikiprojects that have never actually used the project specific peer reviews
- updated a specific setting for inactive Wikiprojects: {{Peer review via Wikiproject|mode=inactive}}
- Tried to make all those categories above consistent in terms of what links where
- Tried to update all the appropriate pages with the appropriate template
I'll wait a little while and make another pass through these in a few weeks when the dust has settled. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)