Wikipedia:Peer review/Crater Illusion/archive1

Crater Illusion
This is a request for assessment. I have been editing for a while now. I am now trying to better follow the standards and practices expected as I edit. Asking for an assessment of this article is part of that effort. Alas, my search for a step-by-step guide to requesting an assessment did not bear fruit.

My hope is that


 * 1) the peer review process is the correct method to obtain an assessment.
 * 2) I've set it up right.

Thanks so much for taking the time to read this, InformationvsInjustice (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few suggestions. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd eliminate some of the external links and sources you're using at the moment; blogs and forums aren't reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense, and I think you have enough reliable sources for the article without them.
 * I think there are too many examples. How about just taking one example and showing the two pictures, one of them flipped, side by side?  That would be clearer than having them on opposite sides of the page.
 * I haven't looked for sources, but I'd guess there's not much more to say about this than you've already said in the article. Since there's only a paragraph or two that can be written, would it make sense to move this material into one of the pages on optical illusions?  I think this could only be done if you can find sources that discuss this illusion as a subclass of another illusion.

Thanks so much for the comments!


 * I'd eliminate some of the external links and sources you're using at the moment; blogs and forums aren't reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense, and I think you have enough reliable sources for the article without them.


 * Are you referring to the Slate and the Paul Doherty sources? I could them to the "External links" section.
 * The this and this are forums; I think both should be cut completely -- the citation is just a forum post and I don't think passes our reliable source rules. This appears to be a personal website and this is a blog; again, I don't think either qualifies.  I don't think you need them; your other sources seem fine.


 * You know what, "Universe Today" totally had me fooled. I see now that it is a blog masquerading as a publication.  That's my bad.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there are too many examples. How about just taking one example and showing the two pictures, one of them flipped, side by side?  That would be clearer than having them on opposite sides of the page.


 * I totally agree about the positions of the photos, unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to put them side by side. Please do so, if you can, or help show me how.  The reason I include more images is that some people don't readily see the illusion.  Having more than a couple choices assists them (imho).
 * Sure; let me know which ones you want put together and I can do it easily. I use a program called Photoscape to do it; it's free, if you want to try doing it yourself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you could do it, I'd would deeply appreciate it. Submitting this article is part of my recent commitment to be a better member of the Wikipedia community.  This area, while one in which I feel comfortable contributing, is not where I can best spend my time currently.  I've undertaken about as much as I can handle for now.  OMG, there are just too many things to be done!(pardon the rant/digression)InformationvsInjustice (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked for sources, but I'd guess there's not much more to say about this than you've already said in the article. Since there's only a paragraph or two that can be written, would it make sense to move this material into one of the pages on optical illusions?  I think this could only be done if you can find sources that discuss this illusion as a subclass of another illusion.


 * No opposition to this, suggestions?
 * Haven't found a suitable article so for now I think it should stay here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, one last thing: Do I correctly understand that this article has now been "peer reviewed"?  And, that is not the same thing as being "assessed"?  Assuming I'm correct, can you please tell me how I begin that process?  Again, thanks.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's been peer reviewed, but if you like you can leave the article here for a while longer to see if others would like to comment. Anyone can comment on any article at any time -- this peer review process is just a way to make it clear to people that you'd like to get feedback on the article in order to improve it.  What often happens is that people will bring an article here for others to comment, and then they'll comment on other articles -- that's what keeps the process going.
 * Assessment is different; assessment is when someone decides that the article fits one of these criteria. I just went ahead and assessed the article as Start, meaning that it has some good material in it but there's more to be added.  For any of the grades except FA, GA and A, any editor can assess any article; once you're familiar with the grading and have a good sense of when an article meets the various levels, you can go ahead and do it yourself.  For FA, GA and A, there are special assessment processes that look for specific criteria -- I can tell you more about those if you're interested.
 * I notice you say above that this isn't the area you would most like to be editing in. If you want any advice or have any questions about editing, or how to pick an article to work on, I'd be happy to help -- just leave a note on my talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the info. Your assistance and this interchange represents WP at its best, imho.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)