Forum:CT:Merge Peer Review & Good Articles

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Merge Peer Review & Good Articles


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was eliminate peer review altogether. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I was just scanning Peer Review, and I was surprised to see that someone had recently put up Gorm, just as I had done after a big rewrite 15 months ago. Needless to say, that was still my own entry. In fact, there have been less than five additions to the page in the last year. In the interest of simplification, and since everything beneficial that could be done there is already happening on the Good Articles page anyway - though with a much more substantial audience - I propose merging the two concepts and thus promoting GA as the means by which to have one's articles reviewed. Even if some of you don't feel this is necessary, you have to admit that as a practical matter it'd barely change anything, except for clearing out a barely-used PR page. CooperTFN 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting

Support

  1. CooperTFN 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. GA (& FA) provide peer review comments during review. Fnlayson 21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per Cooper. If the function of the page is being carried out elsewhere, there's not much point keeping it separate. jSarek 06:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Something needs to be done with PR. Good as anything, I suppose. - Lord Hydronium 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. The Inquisitorius already provides Peer Reviews. Yeah, that's right, we're not 100% evil. Only 60%, really. .... 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    What about articles which may be GA candidates, but are unlikely to be featurable? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but we review any articles that we're asked to, including non-FA material ones. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    If you're currently doing active Peer Reviews independent of the Peer Review page, doesn't that further prove my point? CooperTFN 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    One of the ideas behind the Inq was to replace peer review. Obviously that didn't exactly happen.
  2. Atarumaster88 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm gonna go have lunch now. CooperTFN 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No one recently put up Gorm, new articles up for Peer Review go on the top, so that was just still the entry that you had put up yourself 15 months ago. Cull Tremayne 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I know. Read the next sentence. CooperTFN 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eliminating Peer Review altogether

Support

  1. Because it has been superseded by the Inq anyway. - Sikon 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imp ATATatarismall.png 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Sikon. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yes.... .... 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Was a proposal back then, now redundant. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. It died a long time ago. It's time to acknowledge it. Havac 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per Sikon. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Chack Jadson 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  • I don't see how this fundamentally differs from the original proposal, other than whether or not there will be a redirect between PR and GA. jSarek 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This was functionally my intention - no redirects, just maybe the addition of something to the GA (or Inq, I guess) page saying something similar to what the PR page currently says - "The purpose of the peer review page is to subject articles to more thorough review than they would otherwise receive. It can also be used to gather feedback, general comments about accuracy and style and suggestions for improvement." CooperTFN 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I see nothing wrong with adding a statement similar to that. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK if this passes, I say keep the Peer Review page and add a sentence or two pointing to the GA and FA pages for review. Remove the articles for review as well. -Fnlayson 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • But then all of this will have done essentially nothing. Its existence is serving no further purpose, so we should lose it. CooperTFN 06:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I said clean off the current reviewing articles and point to the GA and FA pages for peer review. That IS losing it. Someone looking for peer review might not know to go to the other pages. -Fnlayson 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It's had one update in six months. Who's looking for it? =p CooperTFN 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • That's edits not views. ;) -Fnlayson 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
            • ...but if no one's adding any new articles for review, and if the ones that are there aren't getting any new reviews, what's it accomplishing? CooperTFN 18:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Only to point to the GA and FA pages, like I've said a couple times already. I've expained what I mean enough already. I'm done here.. -Fnlayson 19:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.