Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Analysis

Some analysis conducted on February 12th, 2021 using the search.


 * I would consider this a successful edit request. Although the edit request is gigantic, ERW helped the user delineate their points
 * Fail. Incorrect use of template.
 * A successful example. Helps user explain their request
 * Mixed results. The editor mistakenly put the request on their user talk page, but at least they provided an explanation using that field of the wizard
 * Request is vague, but at least they provide explanations
 * Did not use suggested fields
 * Did not use suggested fields, but to their credit, the request was pretty trivial
 * Successful edit request
 * Successful edit request (I also think this shows errors in the reviewing process)
 * Not using suggested fields but the request itself looks to be solid
 * Successful edit request (was suggesting promotional change, but at least it was formatted and explained adequately)
 * Successful use of form
 * Successful in use of form
 * Successful use of form
 * Erroneously requested a page move
 * Failed to use suggested fields
 * Actually implemented. Successful use of template.
 * Vague request, but correct use of template
 * Way too promotional, but at least they added citations
 * Erronously requesting page move
 * Basically requesting removal of advert-esque sections. Was accepted, but could have easily been denied
 * Incorrect use of template
 * Incorrect use of template
 * Correct use of template.
 * Incorrect use of template. Way too vague.
 * Kind of ok request even though the template wasn't followed exactly.
 * Successful use of template, incorrect use of request in general
 * Successful edit request. Implemented
 * Successful use of template.