See See WP:PRG#Step 4: Closing a review, which includes "If a request is unanswered for more than one month", so the closeure was not exactly "incorrect". I"m not sure that reopening to sit there will help much, if it didn't attract attention for 6 months. You may be better off calling in favors, posting on WikiProject pages, etc. Aza24 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed a criterion from § Step 4: Closing a review which previously read "If a request is unanswered for more than one month." Because of how understaffed the peer review process tends to be, I regularly find that reviews can go unnoticed for months before an interested editor comes along and provides comments. I don't think it's a net positive to summarily throw out month-old requests and tell the nominator, in essence, that they're out of luck. Feel free to revert me if you disagree with the change and we can discuss it further if necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, as those discussions were closed validly at the time. It would be easier to have the nominators simply open a new review page if they're still interested in comments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, great to see your discussion above. As you probably can see from this histories I've been quite involved in the PR processes previously. Happy to respect the consensus here but I'd suggest that there is some threshold (E.g. 3 months, 6 months) that is included in the criteria. Previously, I felt that ends up being a very, very long backlog of unanswered reviews and I feel if a review hasn't attracted interest in some period, it's better off to be closed to direct reviewers to newer reviews. The reviews that are that old are stale and, unfortunately, that often means the contributes might not be so active either.Tom (LT) (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with extending the deadline to three months. It might also be useful to have AnomieBOT take over closing unanswered reviews (which it already does for reviews that have been answered and inactive for a month). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Would you be happy to post a request for it? I'm always in favour of automating repetitive manual tasks. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, it's been busy off-wiki. Sure, I can reach out and see if the task can be expanded to cover this case as well. Speaking of automating repetitive tasks, it might be worth workshopping a more efficient way to update the {{Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} and {{FAC peer review sidebar}}, which is currently a rather tedious task of checking whether reviews have been closed and going through the main list to see if any other reviews qualify to be listed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the request for change to the bot is to start archiving reviews with only one contributor (i.e. the nominator) after three months of inactivity? But still excluding PRs listed on {{Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} and {{FAC peer review sidebar}}? Anything else for the existing task? Anomie⚔ 12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: Sorry about the delay; I've had a very busy week over here. I think in this case we would want to close the discussion whether it's listed in the sidebars or not — this bot task is intended to clear out the extremely old backlog when it's clear no editors will be leaving further comments. The part of the existing task that closes answered reviews after a month can also be retained. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The bot will now close valid PRs (i.e. the PR and the corresponding article talk page both exist and are non-redirects) if (1) It's on the FAC sidebar and is inactive for 3 months, (2) It's on the unanswered sidebar and is inactive for 3 months, (3) it has only one contributor and is inactive for 3 months, or (4) it's not on either sidebar, has more than one contributor, and is inactive for 1 month. Anomie⚔ 20:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the comment about {{Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} and {{FAC peer review sidebar}}, it seems like it would be fairly straightforward for a bot to remove properly-formatted links to closed PRs. Adding entries on {{Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} for PRs with no feedback (i.e. only one contributor) that wouldn't show up on the normal list wouldn't be too bad either. Determining if feedback is "minimal" or whether it's related to a FAC seems beyond what AnomieBOT could handle though, humans would still have to do that part. Anomie⚔ 12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get back to you on this one. It might be better to place the pages in appropriate tracking categories so the bot doesn't have to do the heavy lifting of deciding whether or not the discussion is "minimal feedback" or "pre-FAC". Tom, what do you think of adding a couple of parameters to {{Peer review page}} to control these? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and wrote code for removing PRs from the two sidebar templates if they're not in Category:Current peer reviews (and, to be safe, the associated date isn't within the past month). I didn't enable that code yet though, pending consensus. I didn't try writing anything for adding to either sidebar, that would still be done by humans. Anomie⚔ 20:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add "nomination at FAC/FLC/GAN" to notes in Step 1
In the PR instructions, Step 4, it states that a PR can be closed if the article is nominated for good article, featured article or featured list status. When answering PRs, I came across a situation where an article was first nominated at GAN, then nominated at PR. I would like to add the following text to the "Please note:" section of Step 1:
Sounds good to me. I also saw a situation like this recently and was a bit confused about the editor's decision to do that, as it unnecessarily splits reviewer energy between two discussion venues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer
I have just finished translating the article Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer from the recommended Hebrew version and would appreciate assistance from fellow contributors. With your assistance, we could potentially elevate this article to featured status. Thank you very much. טל ומטר (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there טל ומטר, thanks for your interest in improving this article! I've just added a few cleanup tags calling out things that need to be addressed before it can be brought to peer review, including amending the structure and improving citations. Feel free to ping me on the article's talk page or ask at the Teahouse if you have questions. Once those issues have been fixed, the tags can be removed and you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines § Step 2: Requesting a review to open a review of the article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is it possible to reach out to experts in this field, specifically in Midrash and Aggadah, to help improve the entry? Thanks.טל ומטר (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not typically the place to go to find subject experts. You can try looking through Wikipedia:Expert help for guidance, but you may be better off contacting an educational institution if you want to discuss the topic with professionals. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Perhaps I did not express myself precisely. I meant assistance with linguistic phrasing and improving the structure of the article. Ideally, the editor who will polish the article should also understand its content. However, the main focus is on linguistic and structural adaptation to Wikipedia standards. Thank you.טל ומטר (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discouraging minor comments
The way that peer review is currently set up, I feel that helpful comments are disincentivized if they're not part of a full review. Personally, I never respond to anything listed as "unanswered" unless I'm willing to commit to a full review, because I feel it's unfair to the person requesting a review to move their request out of the unanswered section. Is there a good reason why the unanswered section works the way that it does? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should ask, because this is another one of the reasons I'm proposing this be controlled with the template. Adding a couple of parameters would give editors manual control to decide whether or not a nomination is "unanswered". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
