Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Suggestion
I've noticed that many people who request reviews here do so, but don't review other articles at the same time. I've also noticed that the people who take the time to review are the same one or two people... I would propose a change to the policy here. If you post a request for peer review then you agree to perform a peer review on at least 3 other articles. This would ensure that more eyes see the nominated articles.Balloonman 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who is guilty of this (although, in my defense, I've only submitted one article for review), I think that would be a good policy, but maybe make it 2 instead of 3. Or maybe just one for one...--Nobunaga24 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it needs to be more than 1:1 or even 2:1... the problem with this page is that people don't contribute and articles go forever without having people make comments. When I ask for a PR, I always try to look at 3 or 4 articles as thanks to those who take time to review my articles. At 3:1 you are ensuring that most articles will get at least 1 or 2 more reviews than they are currently getting. If it's 2:1 or 1:1 then you are going to have only the shorter/more interesting articles get reviewed. I would also include A-Class review in this criteria (but not FAC as we do not want to be perceived as [wp:meat].)Balloonman 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, keep in mind that, in a volunteer project, requiring certain levels of participation isn't the most useful thing to do. ;-)
- On a more practical level: while we do need more reviewers, keep in mind that a significant portion of review requests comes from newer editors, who may not feel comfortable doing a review themselves (and who may not have the experience with Wikipedia article work to provide a substantial one, for that matter). I could certainly agree with encouraging people to review some articles when they submit their own, but I don't want that to become a hard requirement. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Quite. I don't think there is any benefit to attempting to require editors to review articles when they submit one for review - Kirill's comments aside, what do we do if they don't review any articles? Or if they review only two instead of three? Do we refuse to review the article they submitted? Carom 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it needs to be more than 1:1 or even 2:1... the problem with this page is that people don't contribute and articles go forever without having people make comments. When I ask for a PR, I always try to look at 3 or 4 articles as thanks to those who take time to review my articles. At 3:1 you are ensuring that most articles will get at least 1 or 2 more reviews than they are currently getting. If it's 2:1 or 1:1 then you are going to have only the shorter/more interesting articles get reviewed. I would also include A-Class review in this criteria (but not FAC as we do not want to be perceived as [wp:meat].)Balloonman 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I focus my Wikipedia efforts on expanding contents. Honestly, I'm neither very interested in reviewing something I don't find engaging nor comfortable commenting on quality of material I'm not familiar with (I do try to contribute to aircraft-related reviews, however). If this requirement goes into effect, I will simply stop submitting articles for A-class review and go straight to FA nomination bypassing this WikiProject altogether. Or I can just as happily tag everything as "B-class" even if the quality is higher and not deal with the whole review issue at all. I know this sounds very crabby but the reality is that there are few editors on WP who really expand contents (and a very small handful of those do aircraft work) -- not to say that endlessly tweaking grammar or RC patrolling are unimportant, but WP is not going to grow on grammar changes alone. Everyone on WP has their own niche. Sounds like Milhist has a couple of people who are willing to do feedback and reviews -- great for them and their efforts are appreciated! But please leave me alone and let me do my writing. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good case in point of why trying to add requirements would be counterproductive. ;-)
- (Having said that, would you find having a note in the instructions encouraging—but not requiring—people to help out with reviewing when they submit their own articles to be objectionable as well?) Kirill Lokshin 11:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be a good thing... that we ask people to review 3 articles when they make a request... I agree, there isn't anything we can do for people who refuse to do so... or won't review and article (if they did they might just say "Good Article" and call that a review.) But I think we need, at bare minimum, a reminder to people that when they ask for something to be reviewed that others are looking for help in a similar manner and thus they should consider helping somebody else out.Balloonman 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sure, encouragement to contribute is always good, particularly with Peer Reviews which tend to be more labor-intensive and usually represent a far less-polished product (more grind, less enjoyable reading). Perhaps to expedite the Peer Review, someone should make a template that pastes the text "Good start but please read WP:LEAD, WP:FOOT, and WP:CITE and make the appropriate corrections." That's what the first post ends up being anyway. - Emt147 Burninate! 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Seeking advice about peer review request
I want to request a peer review of an article I have been working on but I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do. The problem is that I have very little time to address the comments that will arise (let alone reciprocate with a peer review contribution of my own), so it is not fair to ask for this effort from others, especially as the article is quite long. Should I submit now (with this caveat) and fix it up as and when (it could be a month before I have the time again) or should I hold off until I can devote more time to it? Thanks. --FactotEm 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please feel free to submit it now. The peer review process is not designed to be very fast-paced; there's certainly nothing unusual about having a review open for a month before the comments are addressed. Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. --FactotEm 16:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Symbol a class.svg
There is a nice image we could incorporate into A-Class reviews.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Trade
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Correction and Detention Facilities
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for assistance
Dear sirs / madams, I have requested a peer review for Cyprus Navy and Marine Police article, but the request has not appeared below the instruction box, on the project page for submitting peer reviews. Could someone help me resollve this please? Many thanks
Copperhead331 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was still there; it seems you blanked the review page with this edit. Was that your intention? Regards. Woody (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fact or fiction?
The Battle of Mazandaran FPC depicts a fictional battle. I thought that was outside MILHIST scope. DurovaCharge! 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- It may or may not be in the general case, depending on how divorced from real historical influence the topic is; but, yes, this one looks like it's not in scope. Kirill 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:54, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
