Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Archive 3

Remove review request?
Hi, I wish to remove my editor review request. Is this possible?  .: Alex  :.  15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead :)  delldot   talk  18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done and archived. Feel free to re-request if you change your mind.   delldot on a public computer   talk  10:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Littleteddy is an indef blocked user. Should his review request be deleted?-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Postponed my editor review
I assume that's ok? I had filed it, but I decided to hold off on it until next week, so I took the bar down from my userpage, corrected my signature, and took it off the page. I intend to repost it on the page next week.  Enigma  msg 08:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with RfC?
I have proposed merging editor review with RfC. Comments and opinions are welcome. Vassyana (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to archive. I oppose this idea, and it has not garnered much discussion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My review name diaplay
My review is showing as *Username instead of *Mjroots. I think I followed the instructions given, but is there anyone able to sort this please? Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ This has now been done, thank you.

Editor review of indefinitely blocked user?
Should the editor review of indefinitely-blocked sock-puppeteer be removed/deleted? It has had no reviews and there appears to be no benefit to it remaining on the editor review page. EJF (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Be Bold and remove it! -- S M S  Talk 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I just have. I also tagged it for speedy deletion, although strictly speaking it doesn't meet any of the criteria. May as well be bold and ignore all rules! EJF (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. By the way, the user has been unblocked. So, if the user, now StewieGriffin!, requests another one, there's no need to remove it. He got exactly one chance, and has been unblocked recently. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive backlog yet again
This is what happens when I leave my pet project for six months. :) Somebody needs to remove old cases from the main editor review page and archive them.  I'll see if a bot can be programmed to do the archiving. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See request here: . Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My review
Hi. I listed myself for an editor review in January but I only have one review so far. As I would like an opinion from another user on how Im doing, to get a community wide view, I would be very grateful if any user can take a bit of time to review me at Editor review/Tbo 157 2. Thanks very much. Tbo 157  (talk)  16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How about you do a review of another user and drop me a note on my talk linking to it when you're done. I'll use it as a guideline for how much depth you'd like and what areas to focus on.   delldot   talk  19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Other Editors
Before I post my own request for review I feel I want to earn the chance by reviewing at least a couple of other editors. The only problem is I have a slight issue with being bold and just doing it because I have only really been an active editor for a few weeks now. I guess what I need is the reassurance that anyone can give reviews as well as any advice outside of the things that are listed on the project page as far as what one might want to look at when reviewing a fellow editor :) any help would be much appreciated %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, should I start in the archives or out on the main page? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks much for being willing to help out with the backlog Sykko. You can certainly give reviews as a new editor.  Sure, as a new editor you're not going to be able to evaluate the intricacies of people's policy knowledge ("I see you're unfamiliar with the use of criterion 12 of the fair use policy as it applies to images of statues of reptiles taken at night...") but to me, that's not really the important thing.  When I evaluate people, I look at two major things: the quality of the work they're putting in, and how well they get along with other editors. Look through their talk page and its archives for evidence of nastiness, and look through their contributions in the article talk namespace (selecting some at random, rather than reading every one, of course).  Have they been in any disputes?  Do they handle potential disputes maturely, or do they create drama where they could have avoided it?  With the quality of the work, again you may not be able to tell them if they've been violating WP:MOSNUM or whatever, but from this post it looks like you have a good grasp of English, so you can evaluate their writing more generally.  You may be able to suggest other areas of the project  they might be interested in helping out with.  You can also state your hesitancy in the review and let them know they're free to ask others for more reviews if they want more.


 * Work on the requests on the main ER page; the archives are closed. You might want to start at the bottom with the oldest ones that haven't gotten any reviews yet.  Another hint is to ask them on their talk page if they still want the review if the request is very old.  Don't hesitate to ask me for help.  Give me a heads up on my talk page if, after you do the review, you don't get one yourself after a while.   delldot   talk  04:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is some great advice, and pretty much what I wanted to hear. I love the extras of Wikipedia so ever since I learned about the Editor Review process I thought it would be a fun thing to do, but I really wanted to get a hang of the place first before jumping in. Thanks for your help! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Along with your advice about asking if they still want reviews
I have created a template for asking users with old requests for review if they still want one

I would suggest substing the template, Username %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

you can also use an optional parameter at the end for users with more than one review... for example Username2 would be entered as follows: Username %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I set mine up
you suggested that I mention when I set up for my own review so I have done so now, also I have a few people who I am waiting on replies from using the above template. Even after I have got my review I will still be happy to help other Editors out (especially if I can get better at it) because I have enjoyed the 3 I have done so far. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming
I've been thinking, this page doesn't fit very well into our processes, its not a formal clerked thing like SSP or an administrative thing like the noticeboards. How would people feel about a rename to WP:Requests for feedback? That seems to be more inline with our various requests pages and wouldn't confuse things like Peer Review.  MBisanz  talk 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like.
 * "Editor Review" could also sound like a "AN/I" thing... like an inquisition!
 * Perhaps a WP:Requests for editor feedback to be specific.
 * Makes me wonder if a WP:Requests for article feedback page might be good...
 * ..."Please take a look at the major page overhaul/rewrite I did" sort of thing.
 * Just a thought...     Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   [[Image:Emblem-very-evil.svg|15px]]  19:11, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I guess the latter could be split into "Requests for feedback (articles)" and "Requests for feedback (users)". Or maybe "(content)" and "(conduct)" would be more canonical? Or we could move it to WP:PRE-RFA ("preliminary requests for adminship") for a dose of Real **********ing Talk. Not sure many are fooled by the current label however. — CharlotteWebb 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't we already have Requestsfor article feedback?? :D Editor review &rarr; Requests for editor feedback or just &rarr; Requests for feedback sounds good though. Happy‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To summarize:
 * The current Editor review "is a way that users can have their contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers"
 * Peer review "exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work"
 * Requests for feedback (which already exists) " is intended to provide comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have created or substantially changed"


 * So renaming "Editor review" to "Requests for feedback" is very problematical. At minimum, the current "Requests for feedback" page would need to be renamed to Requests for article feedback and this page would need to be called something like Requests for editing feedback (or, as suggested earlier, WP:Requests for editor feedback).


 * I'd support these changes, but there needs to be a posting at Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback to expand the discussion, before anything happens. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What about renaming WP:ER -> to Requests for editor feedback and merging WP:Requests for feedback to WP:PR and then making WP:Requests for feedback a disambig.  MBisanz  talk 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not staunchly against it, but I guess I don't really see the point of a move. What's the problem we're trying to solve? I'm not convinced anyone's been intimidated by it sounding like an inquisition.  It seems like changing the name to anything with 'feedback' in it is going to create more confusion given that WP:Requests for feedback already exists.  If it's important that it begin with "Requests for", how about, uh, WP:requests for editor review?   delldot   talk  19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a comment, but to those who don't spend a lot of time getting to know all the processes here, all of the Rf-whatever stuff usually leads to something contentious - RfC, RfA. Editor Review sounds more like the other constructive criticism area - Peer Review. A new user looking at RfC or RfA might not want to put themselves in the line of fire for Rf anything.  Jim Miller  See me 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true.
 * Also, Peer Review is very "good article"/"featured article" -centric.
 * I would rarely put a request there.
 * I'd love feedback on Scottish Fold and Nomi Sunrider, but neither will likely ever be FA, and the latter at least never GA.
 * Thus, something aside from Peer Review would be good.
 * What about User Reviews Editor and User Reviews Article?
 * Something similar perhaps? Gets rid of the much-hated, oft-derided "Rf_"-ishness.
 * A thought. <small style="font:15px Matura MT Script Capitals">  Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  <small style="font:10px Arial Narrow">20:32, 5 Aug 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, not horrible, but I don't really see it as an improvement over the status quo.  delldot   talk  21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a change is necessary. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend agree with delldot in that I don't really see a clear advantage to a name change to Editor review to any of the names suggested so far. As far as Requests for feedback (WP:RFF) goes, that page is pretty much inactive, I've been trying to figure out how to effectively tag it as historical and to redirect people (See discussions on RFF talk and Village Pump(Assistance) ). So far a few issues have come up(at RFF talk).
 * Iridescent brought up, if RFF redirects people to Peer Review, the problem is that the material presented at RFF ranges from brand new articles to other material well below GA/FA nomination.
 * Also John Broughton had brought up another issue is if you redirect people to the individual projects the project may be inactive, difficult to locate, or without a real project. He also brought up the idea of merging RFF with Drawing board and WP:Redirects for discussion.
 * The problem is there are several different fractured article submission/development options at the lower levels that newbies might encounter, with
 * WP:Articles for creation (Unregistered user submissions)
 * WP:Requested articles (Suggest a topic for an article without giving any details or sources)
 * WP:Drawing board (Discussing ideas you have about new articles before you create them.)
 * WP:Requests for feedback (It gets various levels from requests, new submissions, to more experienced but humble users.)
 * WP:Redirects for discussion (what should be done with problematic redirects
 * Various WP:WikiProjects (tough to find for newbies, various activity levels)
 * The Recently revised tag, not sure if this is really useful.
 * WP:Did you know (Although probably only to very few bold newbies.)
 * I would think merging Drawing board and requests for feedback into something that runs parallel to AFC and RFD with something which has a somewhat forced timeline so that people know articles are going to be reviewed or not within x days. And to suggest people take it to related wikiprojects or a friendly editor if possible. After that then feel free to usurp RFF if you can sort out some sensible naming on all of it. The issue I have with renaming ER is I guess since there isn't(well shouldn't be) necessarily a linear path towards just adminship as the end all/be all of using Wikipedia. I mean how will a renamed ER fit into all the various ways a registered user can grow/develop on wikipedia? -Optigan13 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read (and respond to) my thoughts about RFF that I posted on its talkpage. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC) (creator of RFF)

Remove malformed entries?
I started into the "backlog", and started at the S's.

There are two users whose names start with S, but whose E-R pages are very poorly formed ... titles still say "Username" and their answers are either non-existent, or are in the wrong place.

Can we:
 * delete
 * archive
 * fix the page forming
 * any/all of the above

I have stopped until I get a reply ... or, I'll assume I can fix them, BMW  (drive)  21:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: User:Xp54321 was reviewed and archived, but the to be reviewed category still exists on their entry, and I'm still tracking down why ... BMW (drive)


 * No, I wouldn't remove them, I'd leave a personal note for the contributor asking if they're still interested. If they are, you can help them fix the errors.  You're always free to ignore a request, of course.  Sorry for the delayed response!  delldot   &nabla;.  04:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Submit Query button
The submit Query button is misleading and doesn't work properly. The text box you can type into leads a person to believe that it'll create the section for you. It doesn't. I tried to use it and it created a new page rather than a new section on this page. Unfortunately, I didn't catch it until after the new page was created, resulting in a mess of trying to get the darn thing deleted. Unless it is fixed, it should probably be removed. --Lendorien (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You should answer the questions on that page, then transclude that page onto the main page, by adding to the top of the main page list, per the instructions directly below the "submit query" button, which I've copied for you below. Hope this helps!

Instructions:


 * 1) If you have had a previous editor review, don't overwrite it. Instead, repost it (if it was recent and received little feedback), or create a new one appending a number after your username (usually, 2 if it is your second review, 3 if it is the third, etc).
 * 2) Do not save the new page yet! Replace "STATEMENT" in the edit box at the bottom of the page with a brief message about yourself and why you want to be reviewed. Please note, you must change "USERNAME" TO YOUR OWN USERNAME
 * 3) Save the page.
 * 4) Next, answer the questions. Please be specific in your answers.
 * 5) Add  to the top of the list on the Editor Review page.
 * 6) Then you will be reviewed. Once you are happy with the feedback received, remove your section and archive it.
 * 7) Optional: you can put the  template or the  template on your user page to advertise the review page.
 * 8) Optional: Please add your editor review page to the archive before you are reviewed. You will still be reviewed, but doing this makes it easier for us.

– Toon (talk)  14:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Split?
This page tends to get very large, but very few reviewers. Would it help to split the people who need a review from the people who have had a review, so reviewers can easily see where the backlog is? Or even better, move them to a "done" page once they've had a proper review? – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw review request
Could my review request be deleted? Thanks,  Graymornings (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.-- TRU  CO   19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)