566:, yes that's true. The ORES topics are a good model for organization going forward. Just so we're on the same page here, would these topics be on a page. So for instance, if a reviewer is looking for someone to give feedback on an astronomy article, they would go to a page and under the subheading "astronomy" they could find names of reviewers willing to review their article? Or is this a more custom system?
32:
123:
81:
63:
442:, Are you talking about tying into the AFCH system? That's actually a pretty cool idea, although I would label it as "get feedback" instead of "defer" to not encourage laziness. It could potentially be tied into the new editor experience. For instance, if you're writing a maths article, you could get feedback, and it would link to, for instance, you.
850:
My idea for implementing the page for searching for reviewers by subject was for other reviewers to seek out input or help. I worry that allowing drafters to easily see a list of reviewers by subject will lead to people's talk pages getting spammed and would create a chilling effect of people wanting
772:
That's fast, thanks.That makes sense, to further clarify: when you ask me (and many other people) to mention "Foreign languages" we know, the first answer is "English", but that's not the answer we are looking for there, I presume, Let's wait little to see if anyone has any comment. Next we may need
529:, the more I think about it I start seeing a problem. There are simply too many topics for there to be a perfect match. For example, considering languages, there are way too many languages, and also considering restrictions on topics, it is safe to say that there is no way a perfect match can be done.
257:, Eh personally I think it would convolute it more than is necessary. Lots of people, including myself, don't edit at set hours, or even generally regular ones. Plus, considering the review process can take weeks to months, a day or two wait for someone to respond to a ping isn't that big of a deal.
571:
I don't know if this is what you're saying and I'm just repeating you, but it would be nice if there was just one button that said "get feedback" and the article would be sent to someone, based off of the ORES classification of the topic (I don't know how the linguistic classification would be tied
859:
My original enthusiasm for this list was with the thought that drafters would be welcome to approach reviewers. I think a reviewer recognizing a borderline draft problem, and inviting a better-matched reviewer to have a look, is possible, but probably an infrequent event to occur. If a submitted
687:
we could set up an "Article Alerts"-type system, whereby when a draft is indicated by ORES the interested editors get a ping or something. However, I find that to be rather problematic and would not want to be spammed potentially dozens of times (for example, it was mentioned on WT:AFC that there
367:
I wonder if it'd be possible to partially automate the maintenance of this list using userboxes. For instance, I have a userbox on my page that indicates I'm a member of WikiProject
District of Columbia, so if a new D.C.-related article comes through the queue, there ought to be a search someone
863:
I think much more value for this list comes with newcomers with pre-submission questions being able to ask someone likely to care about their topic. I think this is an experiment with a good chance of producing a better welcome to newcomers; with the encouragement to ask a question to a single
932:
Perhaps just have the list available in the AfC helper script? Then it would be available to reviewers, and if it seemed to the reviewer that a subject expert could help in the article, they could be requested. I trust reviewers to be responsible and conservative in asking for expert help.
534:
But there is a way around this. If we limit the number of subtopics, for example in line with ORES, we can get a reasonable classification and at the same time increase the probability of a match. Similarly for language classes, as there are simply too many languages, we can use
416:, perhaps one possible solution would be to provide a "defer" option for AFC reviewers prompting users to input a subject and a language (if applicable). For example, if a reviewer inputs "maths" and "Russian", it should yield users with a good match, in this case
709:
when a draft comes in. I'm talking about a bot that turns out (ideally) a few reviewers appropriate for the job. It runs at the spot (like the
Citation Bot) and singles out a few reviewers. Also see previous discussion about using a CSV for standardization.
545:
As there are 60 different ORES topics, it shouldn't be too hard to reorganize this, for example corresponding "Chemistry" preferences to "STEM/Chemistry" as in ORES. Alternatively, I can design a Google Form that automatically captures this outcome. Cheers,
737:
The column "Foreign languages", should it be renamed to "Non-English languages"? I can see some of us have added en-X, many others have not. The term "Foreign language" is problematic for them who are not from
English-speaking countries, I think. Opinion?
572:
in here though), who is knowledgable in that subject area. Of course, there would be some areas (i.e. random youtube personalities) where no one would be willing to give a review, in which case they would be directed to the AfC help desk.
368:
could do that would turn up me and any other AfC reviewers who are a member of that project. I fear that, without such automation, this list will only ever be able to achieve limited comprehensiveness and will fall out of date quickly.
539:
to sort out similar languages so that a speaker of language A can reasonably use Google
Translate to obtain a good translation of a language B text (closer languages yield closer translations). This process of editing languages can be
144:
I believe adding a new language section to the reviewers by subject and rename it to "List of reviewers by expertise". This is because language also plays an integral part in determining reliability of sources. Cheers,
331:, I encourage anyone to edit it as they see fit. I keep forgetting to come back and add a language section. I'm terrible with tables (and page formatting in general), so if you have something in mind, then go for it.
900:
concern which is why I did not list myself on this page when receiving the invite but rather set a reminder to come back to this to see if anyone else had that concern and how others were listing themselves. Best,
586:
As for the classification of the userboxes into ORES topics, I'm working on that now, actually. I'm going to, for starters, try to align the userboxes in the category above into ORES topics.
666:
from previous discussion: I believe that this process is not to be fully automated, but a script can turn out a list of good reviewers. Is that feasible for a bot? Thanks for your input,
636:-style tool should be able to retrieve this CSV or Excel and use the data to rate each reviewer according to their filled-in preferences. This seems like something that can be done.
463:, The more I think about this, the more I really like this idea. My thoughts on the implementation of this would be that the bot (I assume) looks for the templates in this category (
918:, Yeah, I likely would remove myself from the list if this was easily seen by submitter's. I already have to filter through a couple hundred TP messages a month as it is.
968:, but they don't explicitly invite user_talk contact. Personally, I would prefer to receive requests from people who think that I am interested in their interest. --
101:
17:
632:
reviewers to comply with the standards used in ORES, by using a Google Form to standardize results and route it to a CSV/Excel file. Then when a draft comes in, a
294:, Yeah that's fine if you want to incorporate it in and put a note at the top. I'm about to be offline for a few hours. Otherwise I can just do it when I get back
876:
471:'s idea of having a get feedback option. If we are in agreement over this idea, I offer to write it (although it would be my first write so might take a bit).
872:
96:
68:
1002:
977:
959:
942:
927:
910:
891:
824:
796:
782:
765:
747:
722:
697:
678:
648:
595:
581:
558:
521:
494:
480:
451:
434:
404:
386:
340:
323:
303:
286:
266:
249:
232:
212:
192:
175:
157:
964:
Thanks. I see that if there is to be a list of people inviting draftees to contact them, then it should be a different list. There is
464:
844:
87:
812:
395:, I'm thinking about this. I'll give a coherent reply in a day or so. On the surface, it looks like a good idea though.
43:
773:
to work on those entries where en-X has been added. This is inconsistent, at this moment, and can be fixed. Regards. --
91:
965:
311:, would you like to incorporate that language part in? Also, is making a table for readability better? Thx
49:
600:
Edit: That category is way too large. What I'm thinking about now is compiling more common userboxes.
183:, Do you mean like which reviewers speak non-English languages? Because I think that's a great idea.
973:
923:
906:
887:
838:
820:
792:
778:
743:
536:
336:
299:
262:
188:
955:
938:
865:
761:
718:
693:
674:
644:
605:
591:
577:
554:
490:
476:
467:) on the userpages of editors listed as "active reviewers." This could, upon extension, tie into
447:
430:
400:
319:
282:
245:
228:
208:
171:
153:
624:
Okay. We have encountered a problem. People fill in all sorts of interests that make it really,
787:
Another option might be: Languages (like babels): covers all languages (including
English). --
485:
Also should probably be brought to the main AFC talk page once we come to an agreement here.
500:
864:
reviewer open to questions about particular topics, being a complementary option to the
969:
919:
915:
902:
897:
883:
834:
816:
788:
774:
753:
739:
332:
308:
295:
271:
258:
217:
197:
184:
996:
948:
934:
757:
711:
702:
689:
667:
659:
655:
637:
601:
587:
573:
563:
547:
526:
486:
472:
468:
443:
439:
423:
409:
396:
328:
312:
291:
275:
254:
238:
221:
201:
180:
164:
146:
163:
Also, you might want to place it somewhere in a subpage of the "Participants" page.
860:
draft is OK enough for a second reviewers review, it is probably OK for mainspace.
122:
663:
509:
460:
413:
392:
374:
851:
to add themselves to the list. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
237:
That means the time in UTC this user is commonly active at or around.
877:
WP:/AfC/List of reviewers who only want contact from other reviewers
220:, perhaps putting an “active time” section might be useful? Thanks,
80:
62:
628:
hard to feed into an AI. One way to standardize the result is to
873:
WP:/AfC/List of reviewers willing to help drafters presubmission
813:
Template_talk:AFC_submission#Add_a_line,_ask_a_reviewer_for_help
418:
499:
Sounds good to me. Feel free to take it to the AfC page and/or
25:
422:. I can imagine this being readily automatable with code.
200:, yes, and I remember talking about it some time ago.
658:
to perhaps sort out the feasibility of this. Pinging
113:Template:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)
86:This page is used for the administration of the
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
94:processes and is therefore within the scope of
8:
705:, I'm not talking about a system to notify
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation
274:, thanks but how about the language part?
57:
871:Should we duplicate this list to produce
688:were something like 56+ footy articles).
42:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
59:
807:Invite drafters to ask, presubmission.
947:Exactly what this list is meant for.
7:
31:
29:
465:Category:WikiProject user templates
100:. Please direct any queries to the
48:It is of interest to the following
24:
97:WikiProject Articles for Creation
121:
79:
61:
30:
1003:Project-Class AfC project pages
1:
833:Cross-posting back to here.
1019:
341:04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
324:04:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
304:12:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
287:12:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
267:12:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
250:11:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
233:11:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
213:03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
193:03:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
176:03:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
158:03:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
856:Is this a shared concern?
315:formerly The Lord of Math
278:formerly The Lord of Math
241:formerly The Lord of Math
224:formerly The Lord of Math
204:formerly The Lord of Math
167:formerly The Lord of Math
149:formerly The Lord of Math
74:
56:
978:08:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
966:Knowledge:Teahouse/Hosts
960:06:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
943:19:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
928:18:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
911:17:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
892:01:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
825:08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
797:21:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
783:21:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
766:21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
748:21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
723:04:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
698:23:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
679:04:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
649:03:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
596:21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
582:21:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
559:05:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
522:00:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
495:23:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
481:23:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
452:23:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
435:07:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
405:05:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
387:21:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
853:
756:, Sure. I changed it.
848:
654:Pinging bot operator
140:Section for language?
107:Articles for creation
88:Articles for Creation
69:Articles for creation
363:Tie in to userboxes?
875:, as distinct from
537:linguistic distance
44:content assessment
952:
733:Foreign languages
715:
671:
641:
551:
519:
507:
427:
384:
372:
316:
279:
242:
225:
205:
168:
150:
137:
136:
133:
132:
129:
128:
116:AfC project pages
1010:
950:
713:
669:
639:
549:
520:
517:
516:
514:
505:
425:
421:
385:
382:
381:
379:
370:
314:
277:
240:
223:
203:
166:
148:
125:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
92:Files for Upload
83:
76:
75:
65:
58:
35:
34:
33:
26:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1009:
1008:
1007:
993:
992:
809:
735:
510:
508:
504:
417:
375:
373:
369:
365:
142:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:discussion page
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1016:
1014:
1006:
1005:
995:
994:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
880:
869:
861:
857:
854:
829:
808:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
785:
734:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
569:
567:
543:
541:
532:
530:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
178:
141:
138:
135:
134:
131:
130:
127:
126:
119:
84:
72:
71:
66:
54:
53:
47:
36:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1015:
1004:
1001:
1000:
998:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
951:formerly TLOM
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
931:
930:
929:
925:
921:
917:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
899:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
881:
878:
874:
870:
867:
862:
858:
855:
852:
846:
843:
840:
836:
832:
831:
830:
827:
826:
822:
818:
814:
806:
798:
794:
790:
786:
784:
780:
776:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
732:
724:
720:
716:
714:formerly TLOM
708:
704:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
686:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
670:formerly TLOM
665:
661:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
640:formerly TLOM
635:
631:
627:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
570:
568:
565:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
550:formerly TLOM
544:
542:
538:
533:
531:
528:
525:
524:
523:
515:
513:
502:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
426:formerly TLOM
420:
415:
411:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
389:
388:
380:
378:
362:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
310:
307:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
273:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
219:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
199:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
177:
173:
169:
162:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
139:
124:
120:
103:
99:
98:
93:
89:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
70:
67:
64:
60:
55:
51:
45:
41:
37:
28:
27:
19:
849:
841:
828:
810:
736:
706:
684:
634:citation bot
633:
629:
625:
623:
511:
376:
366:
143:
95:
50:WikiProjects
40:project page
39:
898:Sulfurboy's
866:WP:Teahouse
540:automated.
503:. Cheers,
970:SmokeyJoe
949:Eumat114
920:Sulfurboy
916:Barkeep49
903:Barkeep49
884:SmokeyJoe
847:) wrote:
835:Sulfurboy
817:SmokeyJoe
789:Titodutta
775:Titodutta
754:Titodutta
740:Titodutta
712:Eumat114
668:Eumat114
638:Eumat114
548:Eumat114
501:WP:BOTREQ
424:Eumat114
419:Hellknowz
333:Sulfurboy
313:Eumat114
309:Sulfurboy
296:Sulfurboy
276:Eumat114
272:Sulfurboy
259:Sulfurboy
239:Eumat114
222:Eumat114
218:Sulfurboy
202:Eumat114
198:Sulfurboy
185:Sulfurboy
165:Eumat114
147:Eumat114
997:Category
935:Sam-2727
896:I share
845:contribs
758:Sam-2727
707:everyone
703:Primefac
690:Primefac
660:Sam-2727
656:Primefac
602:Sam-2727
588:Sam-2727
574:Sam-2727
564:Eumat114
527:Sam-2727
487:Sam-2727
473:Sam-2727
469:Eumat114
444:Sam-2727
440:Eumat114
410:Sam-2727
397:Sam-2727
329:Eumat114
292:Eumat114
255:Eumat114
181:Eumat114
956:Message
719:Message
685:suppose
675:Message
645:Message
555:Message
431:Message
320:Message
283:Message
246:Message
229:Message
209:Message
172:Message
154:Message
626:really
46:scale.
630:force
38:This
16:<
974:talk
939:talk
924:talk
907:talk
888:talk
839:talk
821:talk
811:See
793:talk
779:talk
762:talk
744:talk
694:talk
664:Sdkb
662:and
606:talk
592:talk
578:talk
512:Sdkb
506:{{u|
491:talk
477:talk
461:Sdkb
448:talk
414:Sdkb
412:and
401:talk
393:Sdkb
377:Sdkb
371:{{u|
337:talk
300:talk
263:talk
189:talk
815:. —
90:or
999::
976:)
958:)
941:)
926:)
909:)
890:)
882:--
823:)
795:)
781:)
764:)
746:)
738:--
721:)
696:)
683:I
677:)
647:)
594:)
580:)
557:)
518:}}
493:)
479:)
450:)
433:)
403:)
383:}}
339:)
322:)
302:)
285:)
265:)
248:)
231:)
211:)
191:)
174:)
156:)
972:(
954:(
937:(
922:(
905:(
886:(
879:?
868:.
842:·
837:(
819:(
791:(
777:(
760:(
742:(
717:(
692:(
673:(
643:(
608:)
604:(
590:(
576:(
553:(
489:(
475:(
446:(
429:(
399:(
335:(
318:(
298:(
281:(
261:(
244:(
227:(
207:(
187:(
170:(
152:(
104:.
52::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
