User talk:AndyZ/peerreviewer

Thank you

Thank you for helping clean up my article on Gesu Parish. Hmwith 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misleading/erroneous comment

The text of this auto-generated comment is factually inaccurate:

You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.

WP:WIAFA 1(c) does not highly recommend use of footnote-style for references; it recommends it for footnotes and endnotes. This is an important distinction. If an article has need to add a Notes section separate from its References section, then the footnote style is indeed recommended. Otherwise, it is very clearly described as a personal preference.

I believe you should rewrite the text to accurately reflect the content of WP:WIAFA. Thanks! Ling.Nut 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors?

I noticed someone using this tool on Abortion, and a few errors showed up. First of all, Abortion is the parent category for Category:Abortion, and therefore the category was piped to show as the parent cat. The JS edited the category to remove the piping. Also, bracketted words inside of a direct quotation were converted into wikilinks (redlinks at that). See the diff and the diff of my fix. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, I've seen it wikilink dates when they're part of the page title for another link, too, though I don't remember where at the moment. It was only a few weeks ago at the most. -Bbik^★ 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug with HTML comments

Look at this diff, near the bottom. The script put one HTML comment inside another (existing) one, which doesn't work: text after the inside comment is displayed ( like this -->). —Keenan Pepper 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate changes to single-bracketed words

The script seems to replace all single-bracketed words with double-brackets for wikilinks, even when the single brackets are used within quotation marks to indicate minor word substitution. Pronouns and other words are sometimes modified within quotes to fit within a paragraph's sentence structure. —Adavidb 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This is a nuisance. It would be great to be able to selectively accept or reject suggested edits - like WP:AWB. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

The bot says that days and months should not be wikilinked. This doesn't seem to be in line with WP:DATE. Lurker (said · done) 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- wikilinking dates is not really about linking to dates, it's more about autoformatting dates according to user preferences Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues

First of all- the bot points out uses of abbreviations in userboxes (for example, "ha" for "hectares") as needing expansion. Is it possble to get it to leave abbreviations in userboxes alone.

Secondly, is it possible to get the bot to ignore comment text that uses <!-- ? Lurker (said · done) 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I've added the script to my monobook.js but nothings happened, I've bypassed my cache and I can't think of anything alse to do? Can you help me please! Harland1 (^t/_c) 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, a couple of days ago (somewhere start of this year), my peerreviewer link in the top row disappeared. Last time I used it was Year's Eve. Any idea what happened? Could be Harlands problem above, and it could be something else? Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

autoformatting issues

The autoformatter tries to expand contractions inside quotes (and sometimes even expands them incorrectly). --Sgt. Salt (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I'd like to add that this error slipped through because you cannot realistically walk through this kind of huge diff: perhaps a better way to organise the autoformatting process would be to make a first pass to fix whitespace/basic punctuation errors -- if there are any then submit the diff and add a warning to the user such as "I have only fixed whitespace errors, please run the autoformatter again to look for more errors"; if there are none, proceed to more involved changes -- because there will be much less clutter, the user can actually verify if the more "tricky" transformations like contraction expansion are performed correctly.

And in case this is too much work, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a simple warning like "the transformations used by this script are not entirely safe, please review the diff carefully"? --Sgt. Salt (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads

Please change the script Special:Upload to Wikipedia:Upload and Commons:Upload, which are the user-friendly upload pages. That way we can minimize the risk of the user uploading incorrectly licensed images. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn[ing] words in single brackets into wikilinks

...can sometimes be counterproductive. In fact, given that I've never seen a broken wikilink with a missing set of brackets in the wild, I'd even consider it harmful and would like to suggest that the feature be disabled entirely. (The opposite problem, i.e. extra brackets around an URL link, is quite common, though.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ability to highlight.

Is there a way for the peer review to be able to tell the user where the problem is, as opposed to searching for the kink. Otherwise, it is a great script. PG Pirate 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switch off wikilinks

Many false conversions(about 75% of articles so far) with switching single brackets into wikilinks. [insert word] naturally occur often inside

and other manual "quotes", also with book references and various other things.

One minor error, converted URL which contained xxxxx5kg.htm into xxxxx5 Kg.htm which meant link would no longer worked. Otherwise very impressive. ChessCreator (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percent %

Seems WP:MOS says "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % may be more common in scientific or technical articles, or in complex listings." So conversion of 'percent' to '%' is often incorrect. ChessCreator (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacocks and weasels

I suggest adding a search for peacock, weasel, and NPOV words. Perhaps create a page such as /badwords and flag occurrences of any word or phrase on that page. You might start with the list below:

excellent
highly
very
many people
some people
it has been said/claimed/alleged
well-known
[un]fortunately
notable/-bly
Wikipedia (see WP:SRTA)

Ma^t_chups 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your box occasionally appear at the top of my pages?

I'm not sure why, but sometimes a text box will appear at the top of an article (a lot of the time, the Main page). It will have text in it like this:

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|March 29|~~~~}}</onlyinclude>The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|javascript program]], and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Any idea why this is happening? Rawr (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error message

Somewhere between April 3 at around 7:00 PM EDT and April 4 5:00 AM EDT, I started to get popup errors with a message "Replaced by addPortletLink()". I went thru my User:Yngvarr/monobook.js and one-by-one disabled all the scripts and purged the cache, seeing if it was related to any scripts.

I narrowed it to the peerreview script. When enabled, I get the error box; when disabled (commented out, or deleted), it's Ok.

I took a screenshot, just so you can see, it is at here. Thanks! Yngvarr (c) 09:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the same message, had to remove it. has been happening since 9am BST --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more confirmation. Couldn't get rid of the message until I uninstalled this script. --Dhartung | Talk 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creates Problems

I just corrected several minor problems created by peerreviewer here [1]. Here are some suggestions I have:

Ignore everything within <nonwiki>
Ignore titles of citations
Ignore quotations

Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing "percent" to "%" is not backed up by WP:MOS

Your script changed a few instances of of "percent" to "%" here. WP:MOS says "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % may be more common in scientific or technical articles, or in complex listings." In this case, "percent" was better. This seems like a judgment that should be made by human editors. Can you remove this from the script? Thank you. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was discussed above on 22 March. Can we get a response, please? Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erromeously changed abbreviation

peerreviewer incorrectly changes M.P.H. (Master of Public Health) to mph (miles per hour)—G716 <^T·_C> 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new request

Please check Heath v. Alabama and Street v. New York and post results to WP:PR/A. Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking dates

It is no longer mandatory to wikilink all dates. In fact, it is sometimes discouraged. MOS:SYL: Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text. See my recent FAC for an example. Also, WP:CONTEXT. You may want to update your bot accordingly. Plasticup ^T/C 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver Port

I'm looking to consolidate my tools, with the goal of providing more relevant information to writers. I see this script as complimentary to my tools. Is it possible to utilize the code in my future tool? — Dispenser 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant

Hi, can I get another automated peer review of Acid dissociation constant? EagleFalconn (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated request

Could you please re-review the article Jeff White. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusty8 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancies

My automated review included a suggestion that I check the article for redundancies, which is certainly good advice. However, I couldn't find it in the list of specific suggestions in your guide, so I'm wondering what it is about articles that leads to that suggestion being made? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts

Great bot. Was wondering if you had any suggestions for text duplication within an article?[2] The first paragraph was duplicated half-way through, repeating, "as well as a Roman Catholic lay fraternal organization..." Otherwise a great bot. MrBell ^(talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking articles for images

The bot just did an automated review of U2 3D and the first comment was that the "article has no or few images". There were at least 5 images in the article when the review was done and I wondered why the bot marked it as such, but then I realized that all my images are embedded as [[File:xxxxx]], as opposed to [[Image:xxxxx]]. I'm guessing that the bot looks for the latter code when searching for images and has not been updated to the new MediaWiki code, so I thought I would give a heads up here. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of brackets bug

Hi,

Thanks for peer-reviewer its handy for auto-fixing of reference style, and noting other issues too! Anyway I think I found a bug when working on the Transmission electron microscope article. Peer-reviwer attempts to insert a right square bracket ] into one of the image captions. The image caption contains the line "Convergent Beam Kikuchi lines from Silicon, near the [100] zone axis" , which peer reviewer tries to modify to "... [100]] zone axis" which is incorrect. So far I have just been deleting the extra bracket, as I know it is wrong, but I thought I would mention it anyway. Thanks User A1 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ampersands in subheadings and other things

Great script. However I've found a definite bug - autoformatting ===Here & there=== or ====Here & there==== produces ===Here and there==== or ====Here and there===== - it adds an extra "=" to the end in subheadings at the 3 or 4 level. It's fine on ==Here & there== though. Of course, I've been working on a ton of articles that show up this very bug! :-)
I'd also mention that sometimes the {{cite url}} generator sometimes spits out accessmonthday=|accessyear= parameters, which are now deprecated in favour of accessdate=. In that case it was "Retrieved July 22, 2007" that got converted that way, I've not looked closely enough to work out what sends it that way rather than using accessdate.
Another thing that really screws up that same bit of code is a certain type of reference along the lines of <ref>Jones (2009), p155</ref> - it turns one book reference into two {{cite url}}'s! I've not made a note of exactly what causes it, I'll note it down when it next happens.
Put me down as another who would rather single square brackets were not doubled - perhaps only when there's [[unbalanced] or [links]]? Or make it a "report" matter rather than an auto-format matter - I've not yet notice it fix a broken link, but I've seen dozens of "correct" single brackets twinned.
It would be nice if the "verbose" words were itemised - or perhaps better, marked with HTML comments or something, you often find that it's only say 4 out of 10 "somes" that are triggering a complaint. Ditto with some of the US/British English things, it can be hard to track those down sometimes. I'm sure there was something else I noticed, but that's enough for now. :-)) Cheers Le Deluge (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in categories

This edit is a mistake -- can you fix the program to not make changes to categories? Regards —G716 <^T·_C> 01:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I ran "Speed of light" through your tool, and it suggested to me:

"Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 17 metres, use 17 metres."
- Actually, the MOS only suggests this for unit symbols (e.g. 17 m); IIRC the discussions, the point is that unit names, if long enough, can cause un-evenness in line lengths if preceded by a hard space (which isn't the case for symbols which are always very short), and seeing symbols at the start of a line (e.g. a line starting with "m") is confusing (which is not the case for spelled-out names).
"meter (A) (British: metre); realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation)"
- "Meter" is the correct spelling in all varieties of English when it refers to the instrument, so you might write "(British: metre for the unit of measurement, meter for the instrument)". Also, both "-ize" and "-ise" are correct spelling in BrE, although the former is somewhat rarer.

___A. di M. 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption needed

This script needs adoption as AndyZ is inactive. Please see centralized discussion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

use of sq mi in convert template - should be mi2

I recently found out about the automated MOS tool & used it on List of civil parishes in Somerset‎ however it seems to make changes within the Template:Convert for square miles, inserting sq mi which no longer works. mi2 should be used instead. Is it possible to update the tool?— Rod ^talk 18:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

format for superscript in unit area template

I used this scrip to make this edit, which changed a Template:Unit area parameter from "sqkm" to "km²". It has been reverted here and similarly here, from where it will go on the Main Page tomorrow. Using the parameter "km²" makes the finished product say "The AONB is .", that is, the template output is completely suppressed. The Unit area template documentation specifies "sqkm". I don't know how an automated Manual of Style process would cause this result even if you didn't notice the "Unit area" template; AWB parameters for enforcing the Manual of Style change "²" to "<sup>2</sup>" because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Unit symbols and abbreviations, which says:

"Squared and cubic metric-symbols are always expressed with a superscript exponent (5 km², 2 cm³); squared imperial and US unit abbreviations may be rendered with sq, and cubic with cu (15 sq mi, 3 cu ft).

Could this be changed in the script?— Rod ^talk 09:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

k-distribution

I found this page looking for information on the "k-distribution method" in Radiative Transfer. At a minimum I think there should be a disambiguation page for these two; the k-distribution method in Radiative transfer is currently the technique of choice to _rapidly_ calculate a reasonably good approximation to the mean transmission through an inhomogeneous atmosphere (inhomogeneous in pressure and temperature, which thus change the absorption line spectroscopy) of a "spectral band" usually an absorption band of a species like H2O, CO2, O2 etc.

At the present virtually all climate and weather models use "k-distribution" methods to do the radiative transfer to obtain heating/cooling rates, it also finds application in planetary and stellar atmospheres more generally, a variety of engineering and physics problems in radiative heat transfer, and in nuclear medicine and reactor design. Thus I suspect the radiative transfer use of this phrase is much larger than the radar use ... but I might be wrong.

I'm not qualified to write about the "k-distribution" in Radar ... I think I am qualified to write about the radiation one.

I don't mind if I'm known here; I'm Lee Harrison and my email is [email removed] I'm not experienced as a wikipedia editor or the formatting etc, and would need some help from someone who knew how to whip the content into form.

169.226.180.249 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an automated review tool, so I'm not sure how you got here... Anyway, the page you're probably looking for (and more watched) is Wikipedia:Articles for creation. — Dispenser 04:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new maintainer

hi

what exactly would this entail ? Chaosdruid (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not responding sooner. We're looking for somebody to either

Update and maintain the existing wikitext parser. This quite an undertaking as four source trees are mixed together (format checker, format corrector, InstaView, and automatic editing).
Probably easier, better, and just more fun to rewrite as simple regex against the HTML. Checker code is already implemented for WP:MOSDAB. It is easy to read, modular, uses HTML rather then wikitext, shows context to the issues. Moreover, you'd be spending more time reviewing to look for new issues than working kinks in a wikitext parser.

I hope you're still interested. — Dispenser 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I am interested to be a maintainer of peer reviewer, if the offer still stands.
tausif(talk) 12:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would be interested in maintaining. Lewissall (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWMS Article

There are at least two major errors in the article "WWMS"

The article claims WWMS as Mississippi's only full-power FM signal broadcasting a country format. At least two other 100KW FM Country signals immedietly come to mind. WMSI-FM is a 100KW FM signal in the Jackson, MS market and WZKX-FM (ironically same owner as WWMS) is a 100KW Country FM station on the Mississippi Gulf Coast (Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula market).

The article's claim that the station delivers a signal to Memphis (TN), Columbus (MS) and the Mississippi Delta is wishful thinking at best as Memphis is completely outside the WWMS fringe signal area while the other two locations fall in the unlistenable area between the station's distant and fringe signal areas. (Check the official FCC coverage map for the facility which is linked on this articles page and can be accessed at:

http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WWMS&service=FM&status=L&hours=U —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.78.234 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviewer

I'm interested in maintaining your peer review system... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cit helper (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Grant

Joan Grants' Web Page indicates she never published under the name of Joan M. Grant or Joam Marshall Grant. YOur article references that she published under these two names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.249.36 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ateeq hussain khan bandanawazi deyon of classical qawwali

Ateeq Hussain Khan Bandanawazi He is the doyen of Classical & Sufiana style of Qawwali

His early training started as the age of 5 years under the guidance of his Padmashiri Nominated & Sangeet Prabhakar Awarded father Late Ustad Iqbal Hussain Khan Bandanawazi Qawwal. He had given numerous programms in India. He is very much famous at International level & received lot of appreciation from the eminent personalities of India. Recently he performed abroad in several countries with his group. He got most of his training from his respected father, all the time that they spend together. He is the maternal grandson of Padmashri Ustad Aziz Ahmed Khan Warsi.www.qawwal.in

REDIRECT www.qawwal.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.105.151 (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New maintainer

HI,

Saw you need help. What can I do? Recently have a lot more free time on my hands and am happy to assist. ReginaldTQ (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gives incorrect results sometimes

Hi, having problems with the script giving incorrect results. Unsure what the trigger is for the problem but narrowed it down by use of a small article Roos that demonstrates the error. It gives an incorrect version by including reports of -

This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant [[Category:Categories]].
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]

Both the online version and toolserver version alternate between results including these problems and omitting them. The incorrect problems reported do vary for the same article.

Anyone any idea what is going on? Keith D (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]