User talk:AndyZ/peerreviewer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request added for mantis shrimp. Please post results to WP:PR/A. 69.140.164.142 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for helping clean up my article on Gesu Parish. Hmwith 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misleading/erroneous comment

The text of this auto-generated comment is factually inaccurate:

You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.

WP:WIAFA 1(c) does not highly recommend use of footnote-style for references; it recommends it for footnotes and endnotes. This is an important distinction. If an article has need to add a Notes section separate from its References section, then the footnote style is indeed recommended. Otherwise, it is very clearly described as a personal preference.

I believe you should rewrite the text to accurately reflect the content of WP:WIAFA. Thanks! Ling.Nut 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors?

I noticed someone using this tool on Abortion, and a few errors showed up. First of all, Abortion is the parent category for Category:Abortion, and therefore the category was piped to show as the parent cat. The JS edited the category to remove the piping. Also, bracketted words inside of a direct quotation were converted into wikilinks (redlinks at that). See the diff and the diff of my fix. -Andrew c [talk] 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I've seen it wikilink dates when they're part of the page title for another link, too, though I don't remember where at the moment. It was only a few weeks ago at the most. -Bbik★ 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bug with HTML comments

Look at this diff, near the bottom. The script put one HTML comment inside another (existing) one, which doesn't work: text after the inside comment is displayed ( like this -->). —Keenan Pepper 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indiscriminate changes to single-bracketed words

The script seems to replace all single-bracketed words with double-brackets for wikilinks, even when the single brackets are used within quotation marks to indicate minor word substitution. Pronouns and other words are sometimes modified within quotes to fit within a paragraph's sentence structure. —Adavidb 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree This is a nuisance. It would be great to be able to selectively accept or reject suggested edits - like WP:AWB. Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

The bot says that days and months should not be wikilinked. This doesn't seem to be in line with WP:DATE. Lurker (said · done) 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree -- wikilinking dates is not really about linking to dates, it's more about autoformatting dates according to user preferences Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two issues

First of all- the bot points out uses of abbreviations in userboxes (for example, "ha" for "hectares") as needing expansion. Is it possble to get it to leave abbreviations in userboxes alone.

Secondly, is it possible to get the bot to ignore comment text that uses <!-- ? Lurker (said · done) 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I've added the script to my monobook.js but nothings happened, I've bypassed my cache and I can't think of anything alse to do? Can you help me please! Harland1 (t/c) 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Andy, a couple of days ago (somewhere start of this year), my peerreviewer link in the top row disappeared. Last time I used it was Year's Eve. Any idea what happened? Could be Harlands problem above, and it could be something else? Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] autoformatting issues

The autoformatter tries to expand contractions inside quotes (and sometimes even expands them incorrectly). --Sgt. Salt (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'd like to add that this error slipped through because you cannot realistically walk through this kind of huge diff: perhaps a better way to organise the autoformatting process would be to make a first pass to fix whitespace/basic punctuation errors -- if there are any then submit the diff and add a warning to the user such as "I have only fixed whitespace errors, please run the autoformatter again to look for more errors"; if there are none, proceed to more involved changes -- because there will be much less clutter, the user can actually verify if the more "tricky" transformations like contraction expansion are performed correctly.
And in case this is too much work, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a simple warning like "the transformations used by this script are not entirely safe, please review the diff carefully"? --Sgt. Salt (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uploads

Please change the script Special:Upload to Wikipedia:Upload and Commons:Upload, which are the user-friendly upload pages. That way we can minimize the risk of the user uploading incorrectly licensed images. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turn[ing] words in single brackets into wikilinks

...can sometimes be counterproductive. In fact, given that I've never seen a broken wikilink with a missing set of brackets in the wild, I'd even consider it harmful and would like to suggest that the feature be disabled entirely. (The opposite problem, i.e. extra brackets around an URL link, is quite common, though.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ability to highlight.

Is there a way for the peer review to be able to tell the user where the problem is, as opposed to searching for the kink. Otherwise, it is a great script. PGPirate 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switch off wikilinks

Many false conversions(about 75% of articles so far) with switching single brackets into wikilinks. [insert word] naturally occur often inside and other manual "quotes", also with book references and various other things.

One minor error, converted URL which contained xxxxx5kg.htm into xxxxx5 Kg.htm which meant link would no longer worked. Otherwise very impressive. ChessCreator (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Percent %

Seems WP:MOS says "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % may be more common in scientific or technical articles, or in complex listings." So conversion of 'percent' to '%' is often incorrect. ChessCreator (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peacocks and weasels

I suggest adding a search for peacock, weasel, and NPOV words. Perhaps create a page such as /badwords and flag occurrences of any word or phrase on that page. You might start with the list below:

  • excellent
  • highly
  • very
  • many people
  • some people
  • it has been said/claimed/alleged
  • well-known
  • [un]fortunately
  • notable/-bly
  • Wikipedia (see WP:SRTA)

Matchups 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why does your box occasionally appear at the top of my pages?

I'm not sure why, but sometimes a text box will appear at the top of an article (a lot of the time, the Main page). It will have text in it like this:

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|March 29|~~~~}}</onlyinclude>The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|javascript program]], and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Any idea why this is happening? Rawr (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error message

Somewhere between April 3 at around 7:00 PM EDT and April 4 5:00 AM EDT, I started to get popup errors with a message "Replaced by addPortletLink()". I went thru my User:Yngvarr/monobook.js and one-by-one disabled all the scripts and purged the cache, seeing if it was related to any scripts.

I narrowed it to the peerreview script. When enabled, I get the error box; when disabled (commented out, or deleted), it's Ok.

I took a screenshot, just so you can see, it is at here. Thanks! Yngvarr (c) 09:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting the same message, had to remove it. has been happening since 9am BST --Nate1481(t/c) 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just one more confirmation. Couldn't get rid of the message until I uninstalled this script. --Dhartung | Talk 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creates Problems

I just corrected several minor problems created by peerreviewer here [1]. Here are some suggestions I have:

  • Ignore everything within <nonwiki>
  • Ignore titles of citations
  • Ignore quotations

Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing "percent" to "%" is not backed up by WP:MOS

Your script changed a few instances of of "percent" to "%" here. WP:MOS says "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % may be more common in scientific or technical articles, or in complex listings." In this case, "percent" was better. This seems like a judgment that should be made by human editors. Can you remove this from the script? Thank you. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see this was discussed above on 22 March. Can we get a response, please? Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erromeously changed abbreviation

peerreviewer incorrectly changes M.P.H. (Master of Public Health) to mph (miles per hour)—G716 <T·C> 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)