Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion on addition to peer review request 2 Discussion on peer review request 3 How to handle overlap with Wikipedia:Peer review? 4 Linking username subsections within a review 5 50 Cent 6 Sarah Trimmer 7 WP:BIOPR vs WP:PR 8 Hayley Westenra 9 If I request a peer review, will it be ignored?

[edit] Discussion on addition to peer review request

In requesting a Biography peer review, should the person requesting the peer review additionally be required to at least state that they have attempted to complete the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article to the best of their ability?

• Here's my thoughts. Use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Biography WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewer's time. By requiring the person requesting the peer review essentially to make a statement that they at least attempted to the best of their ability to achieve a B-Class article, we can make better use of reviewer's time. In addition, although the 11 steps may not fit ever situation, the person requesting the peer review need only state that they attempted the eleven easy steps and thus need only implement those steps that they believe apply to their situation. At present, editors requesting peer review are required only to state their reason for nominating the article. Had editors additionally been required to make the statement that is the subject of this discussion, the editors themselves already could have elevated many of the present 6,334 Start-grade Biography articles and 40,235 Stub-grade Biography articles to B-grade articles, making these articles more ready for peer review. -- Jreferee 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are things that come up in peer review over and over, and are wasting reviewers' time to repeat, I have no problem with putting a note at the top of the page that asks people to do those things. Seems like a good idea.

I would have no particular problem with including a link to the 11 steps at the top of the page, either, although as currently written they don't seem very closely related to making an article ready for peer review. Things like submitting an article for "Did you Know?" or putting it on the List of People may be good in themselves, but they don't have much to do with article assessment or peer review; things that do, like copyediting and making sure that sources are cited, go unmentioned.

What I really have a problem with is being asked to promise that I have followed a list of specific steps that include, for example, the use of the {{Biography}} outline template. I find it inappropriate for the project to ask people to work according to a particular procedure -- as opposed to asking for particular elements in the result. I find it downright insulting to ask people to promise in writing that they've followed those steps.

Yes, I could follow as many steps as I feel are really helpful and just say I've followed them all. What I would *actually* do is abandon Wikiproject Biography peer review in favor of Wikipedia:Peer review because I find the requirement insulting to my intelligence. —Celithemis 02:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should ask people to confirm that they've read it, but I don't see any harm in saying something like "See 11 Steps (etc) for useful tips" or something like that, as we do usually have to note if they haven't added persondata template, etc. I think the biggest problem is Start and Stubs being requested, which should be strongly discouraged. --plange 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the nominator confirms that he followed these steps, but I do not think that we should make it a prerequisite or ask for confirmation. Let's have a bit more lax rules here in the peer-review sections! We have enough of them in GAC, FAC etc.--Yannismarou 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it a prerequisite either. Some of the latter nominations have been Start articles where you can only give "general" suggestions, but the page already reads "the use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Biography WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewer's time." Nat91 07:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I defer to Plange's and Yannismarou's experience in this area. Sandy (Talk) 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently came through the peer review process with my article on Glynn Lunney and was a bit bemused to encounter the 11 steps. So I thought I'd offer my thoughts. Firstly, if the article is already at least B-class when it comes for peer review (it was GA class), then some of the steps may not be relevant. For example, it's perfectly possible to write a good article without using a Biography template to outline it. Secondly, some of the steps listed are of questionable or tenuous importance in creating a good article: adding an article to the List of people and to Did you know may be valuable for other reasons, but I can't see that they create that much publicity or are really that central to the goals of writing a quality article. Thirdly, it's not clear whether these are strong suggestions or whether you will get refused a peer review for not entering your article in Did You Know. (Some articles coming up for peer review wouldn't even be eligible for that, as I understand it, because they wouldn't be new.) As it turns out, I didn't follow all of the steps, but I felt bad about it, and it did seem a little draconian to me.

There is actually some valuable advice in the eleven steps, but not all of it is relevant to everyone, and more importantly, not all of it is relevant to peer review. I suggest that two lists actually might be more appropriate: one with advice on how to start a biography article from scratch and make it at least a B-class, and one on things that someone ought to do before submitting an article for peer review. The latter really should focus on the steps that make an article good enough to be worthy of peer review, and less on basic mechanical details (unless these details are fairly obscure and sure to be mentioned by reviewers). MLilburne 08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's always up to the user. Not so long ago, I finished writing an article from scratch. I never followed anything similar to the "11 steps" (they didn't exist when I started anyway) and it went from stub to A-class. I know it's possible to write a good article without using a Biography template to outline it (you can find other articles to use as a guide), but having some sort of guidance can be good for others who are not that familiar with Wikipedia.

As for the "Did you know" point, personally, I think it's not relevant and it can lead to confusion regarding the peer review process. Again, since the peer review page reads "the use of a peer review for articles assessed below B-Class may not be a good use of reviewer's time," I think it's clear what makes an article good enough to be worthy of a peer review. Nat91 08:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on peer review request

At present, editors requesting peer review are required to state their reason for nominating the article. Isn't the reason self-evident in their request: they are nominating the article because they want a peer to review the article? Perhaps this requirement should be reworded. Thoughts? -- Jreferee 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know if the person is trying for a GA or an FA so that comments can be adjusted accordingly. --plange 02:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a useful question to me, although I agree that perhaps the wording could be made clearer. Could nominating editors perhaps instead be asked what they hope to gain out of a peer review, or what their goal for the article is? MLilburne 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have edited the main page to reflect this --plange 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MLibourne when he says that nominators sould say what their goal for the article is. My opinion is that, when the nominator gives some information about what his intentions are with the article or if he wishes a certain emphasis on a particular issue in the article, this is useful for the reviewer. I can give a comprehensive review even without a further clarification on behalf of the nominator, but any further explanation he gives me about what exactly he wants is useful to me.--Yannismarou 06:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to peer reviewing but I agree MLibourne and Yannismarou. I've found out it is better when the nominators say what they want from a peer review. Nat91 07:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, so do you think my change reflects these thoughts, or does it need more tweaking? If so, feel free to be bold and further clarify it on the main page. --plange 21:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds just about right to me, although I may think about tweaking the phrasing to improve it stylistically. MLilburne 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle overlap with Wikipedia:Peer review?

I've listed Jenna Jameson on Wikipedia:Peer review/Jenna Jameson/archive1 - if I also want feedback from the many excellent editors here at WikiProject Biography (which I do), should I also list it separately here? List here with a link there? Wait for one review to finish before starting another? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You could transclude your one from there to here so that we're working off the same page... --plange 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, done. (Rather, I think I did what you meant.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking username subsections within a review

As the most active wikiproject peer review, I want to duplicate here the issue I brought up on Wikipedia talk:Peer review#Username subsections—realizing now that much of what I see at Peer Review is arriving via Biography Peer Review.

Linking a username in a subsectioned response to a peer review request is confusing, as it appears very similar to another article subsection. It's not indented, not much different in font size, and blue-linked—which adds up to a significant user-interface and accessibility annoyance. On the above talk page, Trebor pointed out that this is done because ~~~ is easy to type. At least I understand why the username linking is so predominant now, but surely it's not that hard to type one's username instead. Thoughts? –Outriggr § 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It looks to me like it's the user who is getting reviewed. --kingboyk 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Cent

Can someone comment on this article? All we've got is the automated results so far. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Trimmer

Hi there WPBiography reviewers. Could someone please archive Sarah Trimmer, as the article is now at FAC? I'd do it myself, but don't want to step on any toes :) Thank you, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BIOPR vs WP:PR

I have posted Paul Cornell (Chicago) at WP:PR after three WP:GAC rejections. I just discovered this. Should I post here as well? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have transcluded as per query about 5 posts above mine. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hayley Westenra

Maby I didn't place my request correctly but no has made a new peer reiew upon the article. I think this may be because the peer review process directions do not state exactly what I am supposed to change on the peer review page (for a second review). The last rewiev was made a year ago and is not really relivent anymore. Anyway, someone has edited the talk page of the article to say that the peer review proccess is completed but no one re-reviewed it. Did I request the review wrongly? Andrew D White 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The old review is in an archive. I have moved the old review to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Hayley Westenra/Archive 1. I have created a new review page and moved it to the top of the peer review section. I have added a link to the old review on the new one as well. Woodym555 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Andrew D White 23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If I request a peer review, will it be ignored?

Simple question. Given the utter joke regular peer review is (0 for 3 so far), I would like to know if it would be worth my time requesting a peer review from this wikiproject. Thank you. Dlong (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to say: coverage is patchy. Compare for example two articles covering a brother and sister nominated at the same time: Wikipedia:Peer review/Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll/archive1 (three full and intensive reviews) and Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward VII of the United Kingdom/archive1 (nothing). DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)