Forum:Peer reviews

I was just curious if there was a group of moderators or members who regularly check the Peer Review requests and Featured Article candidates pages. About 2 weeks ago, I requested peer review on an article, and never received any comments, good or bad. So I recommended it for FA, and the same - no comments, nothing. I noticed someone else posted a FA request almost 3 weeks ago, and never received any comments outside of mine. This other article had the same experience as me - requests for Peer Review didn't get any feedback either. I'm not pushing for my FA request to get attention, I'm more concerned about those articles that some may find of great quality, yet don't get the proper attention because of lack of user support (it looks as if only one article has gotten FA support in 2006!) Should a FA committee be formed that will regularly scour MA for FA candidates and give support where it is deserved? Is something like this already in place? Thoughts? -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well... Long story ;)
 * Years ago, we had a simple "majority vote" policy for FA candidates. Combined with the same lack of attention we still have, this led to articles being awarded this "MA Stamp of Quality" who truely didn't deserve it. Someone would write an article, sometimes just by himself, suggest the article, perhaps get a friend to vote in favor, then make it an FA and, a week later, "Article of the Week" (yes, I'm exaggerating somewhat, but really not much).
 * We (some will say it's just my fault, though) then added a "5 vote minimum" and a "peer review process" to that nomination policy. Considering that featured claims that "We" (the community) think this is a good article, 5 of several dozen contributors isn't really unreasonable.
 * However, that didn't change the activity surrounding FA candidates, just the outcome of those nominations... :)
 * To recapitulate, the committee you are suggesting is (and should be) the whole MA community. If the community as a whole isn't interested in making an article featured, then perhaps no article really stands out that much. -- Cid Highwind 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, here's a relevant suggestion I made over a year ago: User:Cid Highwind/Featured article procedure. I still think this could work. -- Cid Highwind 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the problems may be that neither of these pages are very obviously linked from the front page. Hmm.. all this makes me want to design my own User:Harry Doddema/Main Page :P -- Harry  talk 12:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that having yet another link on the main page would help. Seriously, I think the main page should be mainly focussed at visitors/readers, not editors/contributors. That's why my main page suggestion includes less of that, but that's another story... ;)
 * Anyway, I'd still like to see some comments regarding my suggestion above, and here's another one: The "DynamicPageList" extension allows us to display the content of a specific category. I created a provisional category for FA candidates and added a line to our "Recent Changes" template to have some of the current candidates appear there. Formatting isn't prefect at the moment, but I'm trying to get that sorted out. I had another layout of that in the works, but it was reverted for some reason the last time... -- Cid Highwind 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cid Highwind, I do like your suggestion above, but I fear that the underlying problem is that most editors simply don't know that they can (or should) be reviewing FA or AOTW candidates. That's why I absolutely love that you added FA candidates to the "Recent Changes" template - it brings attention to those people (editors) that it should. I think it perhaps we start by relaxing the 10-day rule for FA candidate voting for a while, but keep the 5-vote minimum, we could drum up some continued support and interest in FA candidates. Perhaps the same could be done for Peer Review requests? Just thinking out loud. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "10-day rule", that part on the nomination part itself wasn't even in agreement with current policy here. I rephrased the template to clarify our current policy - please check if I missed anything. I see that the addition of a short list of "FA candidates" already led to more new candidates and discussion than we had before. I hope this doesn't start a new trend of each and every article getting nominated, but at the moment it looks as if this might turn out to be a good thing... -- Cid Highwind 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)