Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
The post-expand size of [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] is 1944338 out of 2048000 bytes (103662 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
The post-expand size of [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] is 1944338 out of 2048000 bytes (103662 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Aug 16, 22:35 UTC) == |
|||
The post-expand size of [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] is 1935277 out of 2048000 bytes (112723 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 22:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:35, 16 August 2011
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
See also the Peer review maintenance page |
Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
---|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, add it . |
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 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)
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)
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)
Artcle history?
I noticed that when an FAC is closed, a bot auto-updates the article history template. Is this true with PR? --Nathan2055talk - 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? --Nathan2055talk - review 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Aug 16, 20:35 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1942499 out of 2048000 bytes (105501 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Aug 16, 21:35 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1944338 out of 2048000 bytes (103662 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Aug 16, 22:35 UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 1935277 out of 2048000 bytes (112723 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)