Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Analysis

Some analysis conducted on February 12th, 2021 using the search [1].

[2] I would consider this a successful edit request. Although the edit request is gigantic, ERW helped the user delineate their points
[3] Fail. Incorrect use of template.
[4] A successful example. Helps user explain their request
[5] Mixed results. The editor mistakenly put the request on their user talk page, but at least they provided an explanation using that field of the wizard
[6] Request is vague, but at least they provide explanations
[7] Did not use suggested fields
[8] Did not use suggested fields, but to their credit, the request was pretty trivial
[9] Successful edit request
[10] Successful edit request (I also think this shows errors in the reviewing process)
[11] Not using suggested fields but the request itself looks to be solid
[12] Successful edit request (was suggesting promotional change, but at least it was formatted and explained adequately)
[13] Successful use of form
[14] Successful in use of form
[15] Successful use of form
[16] Erroneously requested a page move
[17] Failed to use suggested fields
[18] Actually implemented. Successful use of template.
[19] Vague request, but correct use of template
[20] Way too promotional, but at least they added citations
[21] Erronously requesting page move
[22] Basically requesting removal of advert-esque sections. Was accepted, but could have easily been denied
[23] Incorrect use of template
[24] Incorrect use of template
[25] Correct use of template.
[26] Incorrect use of template. Way too vague.
[27] Kind of ok request even though the template wasn't followed exactly.
[28] Successful use of template, incorrect use of request in general
[29] Successful edit request. Implemented
[30] Successful use of template.