12/31/2023 0 Comments Signpost reviews 2017I started by creating a tabbed header of commonly used pages, similar to good and featured articles and by branding the peer review pages with a colour scheme. My goal has been to make it easier to use, and therefore more widely used, as part of Wikipedia's growing infrastructure for supporting new editors, and another way of helping users non-confrontationally gather feedback about their articles. This made it confusing to work out the "definitive" version of any set of instructions and also made it harder to improve and discuss change.įinding the actual peer reviews very useful, I have since striven to gradually improve the process, with discussion and consensus. There was significant duplication among pages.Processes had been intermittently stalled because of a bus factor of 1 (Emphasised by the poetic interludes of Ruhrfisch, styled on Geometry guy (inactive): "Still getting darker in the north, lighter in the south, such is the time of year".Repetitive, mind-numbing processes existed which could be eased or automated.These had changed with time peer review appeared mostly unaltered for many years. These had developed friendlier interfaces, clearer instructions, had split into several pages for ease of use and load times (a crippling issue for me, using wireless internet in a rural area at the time), had a greater degree of automation, and more active users. In comparison to processes such as "good articles" and "featured articles" I found it messy and disorganised. In 2012 an "alert" template cautioning editors from directly posting reviews on the main peer review page was created by Ruhrfisch. From 2008, Ruhrfisch began a backlog of unanswered reviews. A list of volunteers by topic area was created in 2007 by Marskell (inactive). Ta bu shi da yu (inactive) began to archive old reviews from 2005. A "policy" page formalising review closure criteria had developed by 2005, created first by Bishonen. Editors had to manually add and remove articles until 2008, when the processes for adding articles to the list and for closing old reviews were automated by VeblenBot (inactive), created by CBM (inactive), and reviews were split into categories.Īfter creation, peer review rapidly developed a set of instructions and advice. Reviews were manually added to a list, until a 2005 redesign based on transclusion. The peer-review venue was created in 2003 by Wapcaplet (now inactive) the first article reviewed was States of the United States. Editors who submit their work for review range from novices with their first article to those seeking feedback before nomination to the good article or featured article forums. Peer review runs similarly to other processes such as good articles and featured articles: an editor may post a request, and one or more editors answer that request, critiquing the article. Here, I outline the history of peer review and my contributions to it, and detail future plans and a request for more reviewers. Editors can request a review of an article, regardless of its stage of development, in general form or highlighting specific areas they are looking to improve. He discovered peer review in 2013 and has become very active in the process since.Įnglish Wikipedia's peer review process is a relatively unknown yet fairly active venue for feedback. He is an active anatomy editor who also dabbles in good article reviewing, template discussions, and occasional edits to medical articles. Tom ( LT910001) has been a Wikipedia editor since 2013.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |