User talk:Krator/Archive/2008/May

Peer review request:Anekantavada
Hi Krator, I see your are listed as a volunteer for Peer Review on Religion and Philosophy related articles and need your expertise. This is a request for additional peer-review of article Anekantavada. This article had been peer-reviewed by who suggested that someone with interest in religion and philosophy should also peer review the article. Besides peer review I would also appreciate active improvements on this article (like copy editing, tagging for citations/ NPOV, wikifying links etcs and other stylistic concerns) That is, if you have time. The problem is not a single article relating Jainism is a featured or A-class article and all the articles are in a pathetic state. Hence I would doubly appreciate your efforts.--Anish (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is outside of my area in philosophy. User:Krator (t c) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem...But Thanks--Anish (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Overlord (2007 video game)
Any chance of an assessment to see if this can be brought up to an FA article? If so then I'll submit it for peer review after (or fix what needs to be done first of course). Don't worry if you're busy, I'm working on multiple others aswell. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I've finished/slowed down on others so any feedback then I would work more on the article if required for a FA status. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you're busy most of the time but if you could mention whether you could or not, save me playing the waiting game lol? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ? Stabby Joe (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Reviews and FACs
Ping! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: WP VG SNES Games list
I'll try to add suggestions in future assessments, actually, i see almost nothing wrong with the List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games which is why i cant post anything specific..

The only thing I'd like to see would be box art shots.. which i think aint possible due fair use rules..

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out ;)  Y zm o  talk  19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG
I see. I left a short suggestion on the edit summary, but I'm sure I can come up with more to say in the article's talk page. I'm a little busy at the moment, so it might be delayed. Anyways, thanks for telling me! Cheers, haha169 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and since you are on the WP:PRV list for video game peer reviewers, could you leave a peer review here? Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Amsterdam
He, Zou je voortaan zo vriendelijk kunnen zijn om niet complete stukken uit een artikel te gooien zonder iemand hiervan op de hoogte te stellen? Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that this is a wiki, and that anyone is free to edit articles, including the removal of things others write. You are, in turn, free to revert my edits and removal if you deem the reason for it insufficient. We can then discuss what the best option is. I deemed the edit summary of my removal sufficient to indicate why I did this. In a way, the edit summary is the notification you ask for. User:Krator (t c) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hello, Krator. This certainly isn't the first time we've talked, and I've got a feeling it won't be the last. Anyway, after seeing your name at WP:PRV and reading up on the discussions about lists at the Video games project talk page (mostly about how you assess them), I was wondering if you'd be willing to do a peer review for me on a list I've been working on. The list is List of Sega 32X games and the review page is here, should you choose to accept. I'm going to start working on video game lists (especially ones relating to Sega, since it's part of another project I'm very active with). I decided to start small with the 32X list, but if I can get it past WP:FLC, I'm going to start working on other lists and improving them.

Oh, and thanks for your comments on the Crush 40 article, for the many times you were willing to give them. The article did make GA status, but it wouldn't have been possible without your help with the reviews and extra comments. Thanks again. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 18:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. User:Krator (t c) 22:25, 26 May 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; 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments. If someone seems unable to write I will not ask them to do a review. I also find many new editors are not comfortable reviewing and do not despite being asked, but some do review and I think some comments are more helpful than zero comments or just one comment (see Peer review/May 2007 for how things used to be - about 1/4 got no repsonse at all and another 1/4 got maybe a sentence or two). I also find that about half of the requests are for articles that are nowhere near ready even for GA, so just saying expand the lead, add refs and make them consistent, poiting out areas for expansion and problems with images is useful. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note
Request fulfilled. All the best in your future endevors! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)