User talk:Farmacol

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk  21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProjects
You might be interested in joining WP:MED or WP:PHARM, our contributors' forums for medicine and pharmacology, respectively. JFW | T@lk  21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Concussion
Hey, welcome to WP, glad to have you on the project! Now then. I need a favor. ;-) I noticed you're the only person on peer review/volunteers with a background in medicine. I've just submitted a peer review for the concussion article, which I've been working on.  I'm not an expert, and it's possible that I've accidentally introduced some factual distortions.  I wondered if you could look it over and make sure the facts are correct and accurately represent the prevailing medical views?  I would appreciate it immensely if you could comment on the peer review.  Thanks much,  delldot   talk  14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea
Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal from PR Volunteer List
Due to inactivity in the project for more than six months, your name has been removed from the list at Peer review/volunteers. If you decide to return to editing Wikipedia, feel free to readd your name to this list. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)