431:
always work under pressure, but a PR can be more lesiurely. I used to worry time spent on PR was taking away from my other contributions, but I don't see it that way anymore. I am much better at seeing problems on a quick read, so if I don't look at an article I am working on for several days, I find things to fix, clarify or improve when I come back to it. The big picture helps – I could never write more than a stub on many of the topics I review, but many articles I have reviewed are now GA and FA, and I played a small part in improving them. I run across really interesting articles and editors doing PR. I will see new editing and template tricks or clever ideas on how to structure an article. When I need a peer review myself, I can ask a lot of editors to return the favor.
800:
772:
365:
786:
758:
814:
832:
73:
93:
296:
416:
557:
53:
83:
103:
63:
241:, who had faithfully archived peer reviews for about two years, stopped at this point, so I took over. Between adding the SAPRs and archiving, I saw how many requests got no real response. This bothered me – at least 40 percent of peer reviews were archived with no or very minimal comments beyond the SAPR, frustrating editors trying to improve articles.
327:. People need to be aware that if they have an article being reviewed, they owe the process at least another review, and usually more. If an FAC gets six editors weighing in, that nominator should weigh in on six other FACs at some point; free riders who do nothing in return make the load even heavier on those who do their part.
113:
448:. If the readership of the Signpost is in the thousands, and everyone did that at PR (or GAN or FAC or FLC), it would help a lot with all the backlogs. I want to close by thanking all the editors who already do peer reviews for their hard work and time, especially those who review items from the backlog.
342:
Expertise can be a problem for both PR requesters and PR reviewers. Some requesters ask for very specific items (a made up example – "Will all particle physicists fluent in
Latvian, Urdu, and Cantonese check the translations please?"). Some off-the-wall requests get very specific answers, but perhaps
192:
As for what drew me, I had done some things on the internet before and found interesting websites, but many of those efforts had disappeared – the fact that
Knowledge (XXG) was here to stay was attractive to me, even if my edits were changed or removed over time. I remember making a map fairly early
990:
While I do a lot of PRs, there are many other editors who also help a lot with the backlog - should they be thanked in some way? The
Rambling Man did as many as I did or more for the first several months and still helps out some, Giggy, Finetooth, Dabomb87 - I do worry about forgetting someone if I
402:
The most effective thing is dialog – peer review should be a conversation about improving an article. Unfortunately, when PRs are archived with no replies to the reviewer's comments, it discourages reviewers. It may look like the review was done in vain, but often the suggestions have been used to
290:
in the whole PR process, we have tried some tweaks to help relieve pressure on them: no more than one peer review request per user per day (a user once made ten requests in one day); no more than four open PR requests per user; and a two-week waiting period between peer review requests for a given
378:
problems, not necessarily fix them, so "I know this has comma splice issues, and the references need to be converted to cite templates ..." is less likely to get a response than "I have tried to fix the comma splices, but could someone check for those, and could someone convert one of the refs to
430:
The most obvious is an appreciation of the whole review process – not just Peer review, but also the Good article, Featured article and
Featured list candidates. It helps to get more eyes looking at an article and suggesting things to improve or fix. At PR, there is no deadline – GAN and FAC are
215:
ran the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) on it and then there was nothing. I made a plea for a review and AndyZ kindly came back and reviewed it too. The process was very helpful and when AndyZ took two wikibreaks I did the SAPRs for him by hand (I have the script). This was tedious, so AndyZ
377:
Listing several things the requester already knows are wrong with the article can also put off potential reviewers (who might think "Why should I weigh in, they already know the problems with the article?"). Try to fix the known problems first, then ask for a review. PR is a place to identify
332:
Let's talk about peer review more. You touched on what you think can be done about improving peer review above. What, if anything, do you think puts people off of peer review (aside from the "work" aspect), and what could be done to cause some sort of positive
338:
Many new editors worry they are not experienced enough to do a peer review, or about making a mistake. Peer Review is a place where it is easy to start small: any constructive comments are helpful and you can literally leave one sentence and help improve an
281:
Yes, as long as I have been involved in Peer review there has always been a lack of reviewers. In August 2007, a thread on the PR talk page called the process dead for just such reasons. Things have gotten better since the
December 2007 introduction of the
275:
and known by anyone who participates in peer review, the process (like many others on
Knowledge (XXG)) is somewhat limited by a lack of active participants (in this case reviewers.) From your experience, has this always been the
398:
Concrete examples of problems help – if an article needs references, I point out a paragraph or section that has none. One problem here is that people sometimes fix only the cited examples and ignore the other
347:
are better suited for that. Many reviewers won't comment on articles outside of their areas of interest and/or expertise either. I think reviewers can comment on any article as an article – does it meet the
143:
606:
508:
864:
I also took out the "How does PR help writing FAs?" question, but if you think it is needed, I could answer some sort of "How does doing PR help you with your own contributions?" or something similar.
601:
503:
861:
who makes sure every peer review gets some input". I am not trying to toot my own horn, but it seems if that is the reason I was interviewed in the first place, perhaps it should be in the piece.
632:
591:
493:
39:
1012:
The problem is always what to do if you leave someone out :-) If you want to work them in, certainly we can, but I think the risk of offending someone by leaving them out is problematic.
581:
537:
483:
458:
272:
586:
488:
286:, which allows editors to ask for help from someone in their broad topic. These volunteers are a credit to Knowledge (XXG) (and I cannot thank them enough). Since reviewers are the
568:
853:
I originally thought this would be a "Focus on Peer Review" article for the
Signpost. I am OK with it being an interview with me, but should it say somewhere (quoting
934:
Today's the publication deadline (although the
Signpost usually publishes a few days late); are you going to get to that additional question, or should I delete it?
406:
Requesters who list any special concerns are helpful too. I look for a certain set of things initially, and might miss other concerns if they are not in the request.
1160:
1029:
I just put in a general statement thanking everone who does PRs - feel free to tweak or remove it if needed. Also caught a few rough spots and fixed them earlier.
266:
took over archiving peer reviews (thanks again to Carl), and has done a great job. Neither the bot nor I have archived a "no response" PR request since March 15.
21:
1136:
1131:
1126:
528:
344:
56:
574:
522:
813:
312:
208:
1121:
831:
799:
734:
Here are two each of a creek, a park and a bridge - pick what you like (the Cogan House CB is a twofer - also get FA Larrys Creek in the picture)
259:
352:, does it flow well, is it understandable, is it referenced? A person unfamiliar with a topic may be the best reviewer to make sure the article
854:
320:
316:
885:
It probably won't publish until the 17th or 18th (maybe later), so we have more time if you have more to say. Shall I add that question?
785:
771:
1056:
757:
176:
1116:
777:
556:
17:
147:
441:
247:
254:(GAN). This helped, but most backlog items were still archived without a response, which was worse in a way. So on the
805:
436:
My plea to anyone who has read this is to get involved in Peer review. Sign up to review in your areas of interest at
369:
819:
791:
299:
837:
419:
1085:
1064:
1044:
1024:
1006:
978:
946:
921:
897:
879:
749:
716:
705:
688:
670:
1142:
311:
The ultimate solution is to convince more users who request a review of any kind to also do reviews in return.
364:
199:
139:
179:
I came across via "Random article". Although the article was eventually deleted and I was accused of being a
158:
as well as other topics. Ruhrfisch is an example of an editor who not only contributes to
Knowledge (XXG)'s
1060:
1020:
942:
893:
701:
684:
666:
175:, intrigued by the fact that I actually could edit. After a few months, I registered to participate in an
763:
262:, which was met with positive feedback. Many editors have pitched in to do reviews, and on May 14, 2008
250:
for peer reviews that were at least a week old and had no responses beyond a SAPR – an idea stolen from
180:
1055:
lol. Nothing has changed, i assure you. People are being driven away by this sort of stuff every day.
963:
Thanks, I somehow thought I had to the 18th. I just answered the last question. Feel free to tweak,
1075:
1034:
996:
968:
911:
869:
739:
357:
411:
How does your participation at Peer review help you with your own contributions to Wiki articles?
324:
263:
193:
on and being told to make sure it was correct, as it was as close to immortality as I would know.
676:
Ruhrfisch, can you give me some images from your FAs that might go well here? Two or three ...
66:
1013:
935:
886:
694:
677:
659:
628:
382:
295:
226:
184:
86:
445:
711:
287:
126:
437:
415:
353:
349:
283:
251:
96:
841:
423:
159:
116:
303:
1071:
1030:
992:
964:
907:
865:
858:
735:
234:
155:
135:
440:. Pick a day each month to review something that has not yet gotten a response at the
1154:
255:
162:, but has also worked to help other editors produce better articles via Peer review.
1053:
Although the article was eventually deleted and I was accused of being a sockpuppet
823:
166:
You first edited under your username on July 8, 2005; what drew you to the project?
106:
142:(PR) and helps make sure every peer review gets some input. He has also nominated
469:
238:
76:
212:
217:
230:
1104:
1070:
I am sorry this has happened to you - I hope you sign up and try again,
220:
account, and I have done almost all of the SAPRs since
September 2007.
187:
during all this – I doubt I would have stayed had it not been for him.
151:
1108:
183:, I was hooked. More importantly, I am thankful for the kindness of
1100:
225:
In December 2007, Peer review went to a different system thanks to
906:
Yes please - if it is too much, it can always be cut out. Thanks,
414:
710:
Sorry, I'm used to cutting and pasting rather than moving :P
693:
Free images, how about a Park, a bridge and a third choice?
233:. Before this requests were listed by hand on one page, now
555:
306:: taken by Ruhrfisch and illustrating both Featured articles
172:
34:
Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
855:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured content dispatch workshop
655:
644:
637:
617:
527:
477:
372:, a Ruhrfisch image illustrating the Featured article
211:(FAC) the first time, I submitted it to peer review.
535:
393:
What factors help make a Peer review more effective?
642:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
520:
654:I've been working on the old version, since David
138:has been responsible for many positive changes at
388:so I have an example to follow for the rest ..."
207:When I was preparing to nominate an article at
403:improve the article, just not noted in the PR.
237:does it and sorts them by one of ten topics.
146:(FA) as of September 2008, many dealing with
8:
658:Give me a minute to merge the old and new.
323:, and Peer review all face versions of the
209:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
1161:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2008-09
730:Possible images from FAs I have nominated
544:
515:
472:
363:
294:
216:graciously allowed me to use the faster
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
753:
656:cut and pasted here rather than moving.
645:
621:
354:puts things into context for the reader
33:
171:Like many users, I first edited as an
7:
459:Dispatches: Changes at peer review
246:On February 24, 2008, I started a
28:
627:These comments are automatically
830:
812:
798:
784:
770:
756:
111:
101:
91:
81:
71:
61:
51:
991:thank specific editors though.
1086:17:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
1065:15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
1045:15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
1025:15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
1007:15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
979:16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
947:15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
922:04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
898:04:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
880:04:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
750:16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
717:13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
706:04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
689:03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
671:03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
638:add the page to your watchlist
260:all PR requests get a response
1:
198:How did you get involved in
806:Leonard Harrison State Park
370:Leonard Harrison State Park
1177:
820:Cogan House Covered Bridge
792:Black Moshannon State Park
300:Cogan House Covered Bridge
284:list of reviewers by topic
838:Forksville Covered Bridge
713:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
420:Forksville Covered Bridge
368:A view of Pine Creek in
252:Good article nominations
148:Pennsylvania State Parks
635:. To follow comments,
560:
438:Peer review/Volunteers
426:
373:
307:
764:White Deer Hole Creek
559:
523:← Previous Dispatches
418:
367:
298:
258:2008 I proposed that
631:from this article's
144:12 Featured articles
857:) something like "
622:Discuss this story
607:Arbitration report
561:
509:Arbitration report
427:
374:
325:free rider problem
308:
1082:
1041:
1003:
975:
918:
876:
746:
652:== Well, heck ==
646:purging the cache
602:Technology report
569:15 September 2008
549:
548:
504:Technology report
1168:
1145:
1080:
1039:
1017:
1001:
973:
939:
916:
890:
874:
834:
816:
802:
788:
774:
760:
744:
714:
698:
681:
663:
649:
647:
641:
620:
579:
571:
564:
538:Next Dispatches→
470:
387:
381:
288:limiting reagent
129:
115:
114:
105:
104:
95:
94:
85:
84:
75:
74:
65:
64:
55:
54:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1112:
1092:
1091:
1079:
1038:
1015:
1000:
972:
937:
915:
888:
873:
851:
844:
842:Loyalsock Creek
835:
826:
817:
808:
803:
794:
789:
780:
778:Plunketts Creek
775:
766:
761:
743:
732:
712:
696:
679:
661:
651:
643:
636:
625:
624:
618:+ Add a comment
616:
612:
611:
610:
572:
567:
565:
562:
550:
479:Also this week:
455:
424:Loyalsock Creek
385:
379:
350:manual of style
156:covered bridges
131:
130:
124:
123:
122:
121:
112:
102:
92:
82:
72:
62:
52:
46:
43:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1174:
1172:
1164:
1163:
1153:
1152:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1076:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1035:
997:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
969:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
927:
926:
925:
924:
912:
901:
900:
870:
859:User:Ruhrfisch
850:
847:
846:
845:
836:
829:
827:
818:
811:
809:
804:
797:
795:
790:
783:
781:
776:
769:
767:
762:
755:
740:
731:
728:
726:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
626:
623:
615:
614:
613:
609:
604:
599:
594:
592:News and notes
589:
584:
578:
566:
554:
553:
552:
551:
547:
546:
545:
542:
541:
534:
526:
518:
517:
516:
513:
512:
511:
506:
501:
496:
494:News and notes
491:
486:
481:
475:
474:
473:
467:
464:
462:
461:
454:
451:
450:
449:
433:
432:
408:
407:
404:
400:
390:
389:
362:
361:
340:
329:
328:
293:
292:
268:
267:
243:
242:
222:
221:
195:
194:
189:
188:
132:
120:
119:
109:
99:
89:
79:
69:
59:
48:
47:
44:
38:
37:
36:
35:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1173:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1144:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1095:Keep up with
1087:
1084:
1083:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1004:
994:
980:
977:
976:
966:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
948:
944:
940:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
923:
920:
919:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
899:
895:
891:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
877:
867:
862:
860:
856:
848:
843:
839:
833:
828:
825:
821:
815:
810:
807:
801:
796:
793:
787:
782:
779:
773:
768:
765:
759:
754:
752:
751:
748:
747:
737:
729:
727:
718:
715:
709:
708:
707:
703:
699:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
675:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
657:
648:
639:
634:
630:
619:
608:
605:
603:
600:
598:
595:
593:
590:
588:
585:
583:
580:
576:
570:
563:In this issue
558:
543:
539:
533:
531:
524:
519:
514:
510:
507:
505:
502:
500:
497:
495:
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
476:
471:
468:
465:
460:
457:
456:
452:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
405:
401:
397:
396:
395:
394:
384:
376:
375:
371:
366:
359:
355:
351:
346:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
305:
304:Larry's Creek
301:
297:
289:
285:
280:
279:
278:
277:
274:
265:
264:PeerReviewBot
261:
257:
256:Ides of March
253:
249:
245:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
219:
214:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
201:
191:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
167:
163:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
128:
118:
110:
108:
100:
98:
90:
88:
80:
78:
70:
68:
60:
58:
50:
49:
41:
23:
19:
1097:The Signpost
1096:
1074:
1057:86.44.27.254
1052:
1051:
1033:
995:
989:
967:
910:
868:
863:
852:
824:Larrys Creek
738:
733:
725:
653:
596:
575:all comments
529:
498:
478:
466:
463:
446:new requests
410:
409:
392:
391:
345:WikiProjects
331:
330:
270:
269:
248:backlog list
227:Geometry guy
197:
196:
185:Jwrosenzweig
165:
164:
133:
57:PDF download
1143:Suggestions
629:transcluded
356:and avoids
200:Peer review
160:top content
140:Peer review
134:Wikipedian
127:David Fuchs
107:X (Twitter)
597:Dispatches
582:Poetlister
499:Dispatches
484:Poetlister
442:PR backlog
231:Carl (CBM)
181:sockpuppet
45:Share this
40:Contribute
31:Dispatches
22:2008-09-15
1137:Subscribe
1078:<: -->
1072:Ruhrfisch
1037:<: -->
1031:Ruhrfisch
999:<: -->
993:Ruhrfisch
971:<: -->
965:Ruhrfisch
914:<: -->
908:Ruhrfisch
872:<: -->
866:Ruhrfisch
742:<: -->
736:Ruhrfisch
633:talk page
587:WikiWorld
489:WikiWorld
399:problems.
271:As noted
235:VeblenBot
136:Ruhrfisch
1155:Category
1132:Newsroom
1127:Archives
1109:Mastodon
1105:Facebook
532:archives
530:Signpost
453:See also
383:cite web
339:article.
291:article.
97:Facebook
87:LinkedIn
77:Mastodon
20: |
1101:Twitter
1016:Georgia
938:Georgia
889:Georgia
697:Georgia
680:Georgia
662:Georgia
333:change?
358:jargon
239:Allen3
152:creeks
117:Reddit
67:E-mail
1122:About
1077:: -->
1036:: -->
1014:Sandy
998:: -->
970:: -->
936:Sandy
913:: -->
887:Sandy
871:: -->
849:More?
840:over
822:over
741:: -->
695:Sandy
678:Sandy
660:Sandy
422:over
302:over
276:case?
213:AndyZ
202:(PR)?
16:<
1117:Home
1061:talk
1021:Talk
943:Talk
894:Talk
702:Talk
685:Talk
667:Talk
273:here
229:and
218:AZPR
154:and
1107:or
1099:on
444:or
321:GAN
317:FLC
313:FAC
177:AfD
125:By
42:—
1157::
1103:,
1063:)
1023:)
945:)
896:)
704:)
687:)
669:)
540:)
386:}}
380:{{
319:,
315:,
173:IP
150:,
1111:.
1081:°
1059:(
1040:°
1019:(
1002:°
974:°
941:(
917:°
892:(
875:°
745:°
700:(
683:(
665:(
650:.
640:.
577:)
573:(
536:(
525:)
521:(
360:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.