Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guide  → Essays Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Assessment department talk  → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk Contest department talk Logistics department talk Outreach department talk  → Stress hotline talk Review department talk New! Special projects department talk Showcase  → Featured picture gallery Portals talk
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active  → Inactive Awards talk Project banner talk Project category Project history
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge infobox talk  → Military award infobox talk  → Military conflict infobox talk  → Military memorial infobox talk  → Military person infobox talk  → Military structure infobox talk  → Military test site infobox talk  → Military unit infobox talk  → National military infobox talk  → War faction infobox talk  → Weapon infobox talk  → Command structure box talk  → Operational plan box talk  → Service record box talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk
edit · changes

[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 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)