Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peer review/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Peer review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Empty
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
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)