Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject

Section for language?
I believe adding a new language section to the reviewers by subject and rename it to "List of reviewers by expertise". This is because language also plays an integral part in determining reliability of sources. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to place it somewhere in a subpage of the "Participants" page. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Do you mean like which reviewers speak non-English languages? Because I think that's a great idea. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, and I remember talking about it some time ago. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , perhaps putting an “active time” section might be useful? Thanks, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 11:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That means the time in UTC this user is commonly active at or around. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 11:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Eh personally I think it would convolute it more than is necessary. Lots of people, including myself, don't edit at set hours, or even generally regular ones. Plus, considering the review process can take weeks to months, a day or two wait for someone to respond to a ping isn't that big of a deal. Sulfurboy (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks but how about the language part? Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah that's fine if you want to incorporate it in and put a note at the top. I'm about to be offline for a few hours. Otherwise I can just do it when I get back Sulfurboy (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , would you like to incorporate that language part in? Also, is making a table for readability better? Thx Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 04:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I encourage anyone to edit it as they see fit. I keep forgetting to come back and add a language section. I'm terrible with tables (and page formatting in general), so if you have something in mind, then go for it. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tie in to userboxes?
I wonder if it'd be possible to partially automate the maintenance of this list using userboxes. For instance, I have a userbox on my page that indicates I'm a member of WikiProject District of Columbia, so if a new D.C.-related article comes through the queue, there ought to be a search someone could do that would turn up me and any other AfC reviewers who are a member of that project. I fear that, without such automation, this list will only ever be able to achieve limited comprehensiveness and will fall out of date quickly. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm thinking about this. I'll give a coherent reply in a day or so. On the surface, it looks like a good idea though. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and, perhaps one possible solution would be to provide a "defer" option for AFC reviewers prompting users to input a subject and a language (if applicable). For example, if a reviewer inputs "maths" and "Russian", it should yield users with a good match, in this case . I can imagine this being readily automatable with code. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Are you talking about tying into the AFCH system? That's actually a pretty cool idea, although I would label it as "get feedback" instead of "defer" to not encourage laziness. It could potentially be tied into the new editor experience. For instance, if you're writing a maths article, you could get feedback, and it would link to, for instance, you. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , The more I think about this, the more I really like this idea. My thoughts on the implementation of this would be that the bot (I assume) looks for the templates in this category (Category:WikiProject user templates) on the userpages of editors listed as "active reviewers." This could, upon extension, tie into 's idea of having a get feedback option. If we are in agreement over this idea, I offer to write it (although it would be my first write so might take a bit). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also should probably be brought to the main AFC talk page once we come to an agreement here. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Feel free to take it to the AfC page and/or WP:BOTREQ. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the more I think about it I start seeing a problem. There are simply too many topics for there to be a perfect match. For example, considering languages, there are way too many languages, and also considering restrictions on topics, it is safe to say that there is no way a perfect match can be done.
 * But there is a way around this. If we limit the number of subtopics, for example in line with ORES, we can get a reasonable classification and at the same time increase the probability of a match. Similarly for language classes, as there are simply too many languages, we can use linguistic distance to sort out similar languages so that a speaker of language A can reasonably use Google Translate to obtain a good translation of a language B text (closer languages yield closer translations). This process of editing languages can be automated.
 * As there are 60 different ORES topics, it shouldn't be too hard to reorganize this, for example corresponding "Chemistry" preferences to "STEM/Chemistry" as in ORES. Alternatively, I can design a Google Form that automatically captures this outcome. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes that's true. The ORES topics are a good model for organization going forward. Just so we're on the same page here, would these topics be on a page. So for instance, if a reviewer is looking for someone to give feedback on an astronomy article, they would go to a page and under the subheading "astronomy" they could find names of reviewers willing to review their article? Or is this a more custom system?
 * I don't know if this is what you're saying and I'm just repeating you, but it would be nice if there was just one button that said "get feedback" and the article would be sent to someone, based off of the ORES classification of the topic (I don't know how the linguistic classification would be tied in here though), who is knowledgable in that subject area. Of course, there would be some areas (i.e. random youtube personalities) where no one would be willing to give a review, in which case they would be directed to the AfC help desk. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the classification of the userboxes into ORES topics, I'm working on that now, actually. I'm going to, for starters, try to align the userboxes in the category above into ORES topics. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: That category is way too large. What I'm thinking about now is compiling more common userboxes. Sam-2727 (talk)
 * I don't know if this is what you're saying and I'm just repeating you, but it would be nice if there was just one button that said "get feedback" and the article would be sent to someone, based off of the ORES classification of the topic (I don't know how the linguistic classification would be tied in here though), who is knowledgable in that subject area. Of course, there would be some areas (i.e. random youtube personalities) where no one would be willing to give a review, in which case they would be directed to the AfC help desk. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the classification of the userboxes into ORES topics, I'm working on that now, actually. I'm going to, for starters, try to align the userboxes in the category above into ORES topics. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: That category is way too large. What I'm thinking about now is compiling more common userboxes. Sam-2727 (talk)

Okay. We have encountered a problem. People fill in all sorts of interests that make it really, really hard to feed into an AI. One way to standardize the result is to force reviewers to comply with the standards used in ORES, by using a Google Form to standardize results and route it to a CSV/Excel file. Then when a draft comes in, a citation bot-style tool should be able to retrieve this CSV or Excel and use the data to rate each reviewer according to their filled-in preferences. This seems like something that can be done. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging bot operator to perhaps sort out the feasibility of this. Pinging  and  from previous discussion: I believe that this process is not to be fully automated, but a script can turn out a list of good reviewers. Is that feasible for a bot? Thanks for your input, Eumat114 formerly TLOM  (Message) 04:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could set up an "Article Alerts"-type system, whereby when a draft is indicated by ORES the interested editors get a ping or something. However, I find that to be rather problematic and would not want to be spammed potentially dozens of times (for example, it was mentioned on WT:AFC that there were something like 56+ footy articles). Primefac (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not talking about a system to notify everyone when a draft comes in. I'm talking about a bot that turns out (ideally) a few reviewers appropriate for the job. It runs at the spot (like the Citation Bot) and singles out a few reviewers. Also see previous discussion about using a CSV for standardization. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Foreign languages
The column "Foreign languages", should it be renamed to "Non-English languages"? I can see some of us have added en-X, many others have not. The term "Foreign language" is problematic for them who are not from English-speaking countries, I think. Opinion? --Titodutta (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sure. I changed it. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fast, thanks.That makes sense, to further clarify: when you ask me (and many other people) to mention "Foreign languages" we know, the first answer is "English", but that's not the answer we are looking for there, I presume, Let's wait little to see if anyone has any comment. Next we may need to work on those entries where en-X has been added. This is inconsistent, at this moment, and can be fixed. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another option might be: Languages (like babels): covers all languages (including English). --Titodutta (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Invite drafters to ask, presubmission.
See Template_talk:AFC_submission. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Cross-posting back to here.  wrote: "My idea for implementing the page for searching for reviewers by subject was for other reviewers to seek out input or help. I worry that allowing drafters to easily see a list of reviewers by subject will lead to people's talk pages getting spammed and would create a chilling effect of people wanting to add themselves to the list. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)"
 * Is this a shared concern?
 * My original enthusiasm for this list was with the thought that drafters would be welcome to approach reviewers. I think a reviewer recognizing a borderline draft problem, and inviting a better-matched reviewer to have a look, is possible, but probably an infrequent event to occur.  If a submitted draft is OK enough for a second reviewers review, it is probably OK for mainspace.
 * I think much more value for this list comes with newcomers with pre-submission questions being able to ask someone likely to care about their topic. I think this is an experiment with a good chance of producing a better welcome to newcomers; with the encouragement to ask a question to a single reviewer open to questions about particular topics, being a complementary option to the WP:Teahouse.
 * Should we duplicate this list to produce WP:/AfC/List of reviewers willing to help drafters presubmission, as distinct from WP:/AfC/List of reviewers who only want contact from other reviewers?
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I share concern which is why I did not list myself on this page when receiving the invite but rather set a reminder to come back to this to see if anyone else had that concern and how others were listing themselves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I likely would remove myself from the list if this was easily seen by submitter's. I already have to filter through a couple hundred TP messages a month as it is. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just have the list available in the AfC helper script? Then it would be available to reviewers, and if it seemed to the reviewer that a subject expert could help in the article, they could be requested. I trust reviewers to be responsible and conservative in asking for expert help. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly what this list is meant for. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that if there is to be a list of people inviting draftees to contact them, then it should be a different list.  There is Teahouse/Hosts, but they don't explicitly invite user_talk contact.  Personally, I would prefer to receive requests from people who think that I am interested in their interest.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)