| Revision as of 23:58, 4 March 2011 editGimmetoo (talk | contribs)14,302 edits →March 5 & 6: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:57, 9 March 2011 edit undoGimmetoo (talk | contribs)14,302 edits Undid revision 417171657 interestingNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :::: As I see it, the answer is to try and concentrate some better reviewing at PR. But everywhere is suffering in terms of quality reviewers: I'll hold my hands up and admit that I tend to avoid it where I can, although I tend to pop my head in at FL and GA every now and again. Anyway, I probably rambled far too much, but that's my two cents: feel free to move it elsewhere if it's not appropriate for here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | :::: As I see it, the answer is to try and concentrate some better reviewing at PR. But everywhere is suffering in terms of quality reviewers: I'll hold my hands up and admit that I tend to avoid it where I can, although I tend to pop my head in at FL and GA every now and again. Anyway, I probably rambled far too much, but that's my two cents: feel free to move it elsewhere if it's not appropriate for here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: Thanks for your feedback, Harrias. You are quite correct that, like at GA, an editor's experience at PR will vary depending on the reviewer. There is a strong core of excellent reviewers at PR but they are as overworked as reviewers everywhere else. I think we're moving to an atmosphere where a content nominator needs to more proactively seek reviews to get the best results. --] ] 18:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | ::::: Thanks for your feedback, Harrias. You are quite correct that, like at GA, an editor's experience at PR will vary depending on the reviewer. There is a strong core of excellent reviewers at PR but they are as overworked as reviewers everywhere else. I think we're moving to an atmosphere where a content nominator needs to more proactively seek reviews to get the best results. --] ] 18:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == March 5 & 6 == | |||
| I probably won't get WP:GO or do any archiving for March 5 or 6. ] (]) 23:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:57, 9 March 2011
|
Archives |
|
(moved from front page) It's getting bad again like it did over the holidays. When I look at many of them, I am finding really obvious issues that no one is looking for. The thorough reviewers we have are way overworked. My fear is that we're going to have to go back to the community to ask for feedback on even more aggressive archiving (like archiving if there is no activity or movement for n days, even if supports have been received). It seems they've consistently been against letting the backlog grow. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I won't be around-- sorry to leave you such a mess. I'm additionally concerned about ever-increasing lengthy (peer?) reviews and the absence of simple opposes on those that just aren't there yet. Ping Karanacs? I try to avoid aggressive archiving until we pass 50 noms, but something has to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. You'll have to cover for me when I take my ironbutt ride up to Alaska this summer. :) I think increased mentoring of reviewers will help matters and possibly prevent burnout. Maybe if Karanacs doesn't want to dive directly back into FAC, she'll be into taking on some light mentoring tasks. If we have to scroll to see all of someone's review, it might have been better suited to peer review. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if this is intended as a 'private' forum for conversation, but I came across it, and it's a point I've been thinking about lately: though I can offer no solutions. To quote Andy Walsh above: "If we have to scroll to see all of someone's review, it might have been better suited to peer review." – I completely agree with this statement, with one rather big problem. Peer review doesn't seem to have enough of an effect, at least not in my experience. Take the article I recently brought to FA:
- Herbie Hewett – Passed GA on 1 December without too many issues raised, and then later in the month received a peer review, similarly with only minor points. In theory then, this article is ready for FA, and shouldn't have too many issues. But instead, it fills nine of my screens (and I have quite a large monitor). By your strategy above – which I stress once more, I agree with in principle – this article would be a pretty quick fail. But I don't think the support is in place at PR to make this viable. If this article had failed, and I'd taken it back to PR, is there any guarantee the review that time around would be any better?
- Sorry if this is intended as a 'private' forum for conversation, but I came across it, and it's a point I've been thinking about lately: though I can offer no solutions. To quote Andy Walsh above: "If we have to scroll to see all of someone's review, it might have been better suited to peer review." – I completely agree with this statement, with one rather big problem. Peer review doesn't seem to have enough of an effect, at least not in my experience. Take the article I recently brought to FA:
- No worries. You'll have to cover for me when I take my ironbutt ride up to Alaska this summer. :) I think increased mentoring of reviewers will help matters and possibly prevent burnout. Maybe if Karanacs doesn't want to dive directly back into FAC, she'll be into taking on some light mentoring tasks. If we have to scroll to see all of someone's review, it might have been better suited to peer review. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I won't be around-- sorry to leave you such a mess. I'm additionally concerned about ever-increasing lengthy (peer?) reviews and the absence of simple opposes on those that just aren't there yet. Ping Karanacs? I try to avoid aggressive archiving until we pass 50 noms, but something has to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I see it, the answer is to try and concentrate some better reviewing at PR. But everywhere is suffering in terms of quality reviewers: I'll hold my hands up and admit that I tend to avoid it where I can, although I tend to pop my head in at FL and GA every now and again. Anyway, I probably rambled far too much, but that's my two cents: feel free to move it elsewhere if it's not appropriate for here. Harrias 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback, Harrias. You are quite correct that, like at GA, an editor's experience at PR will vary depending on the reviewer. There is a strong core of excellent reviewers at PR but they are as overworked as reviewers everywhere else. I think we're moving to an atmosphere where a content nominator needs to more proactively seek reviews to get the best results. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I see it, the answer is to try and concentrate some better reviewing at PR. But everywhere is suffering in terms of quality reviewers: I'll hold my hands up and admit that I tend to avoid it where I can, although I tend to pop my head in at FL and GA every now and again. Anyway, I probably rambled far too much, but that's my two cents: feel free to move it elsewhere if it's not appropriate for here. Harrias 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)