Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1

Process discussion

discussion moved here from Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1

This article has been on-wiki for the grand total of 2 days (actually a bit less than that: [1]). The only extensive work as required for peer review, was done by a singular editor off-wiki, and only now made available for scrutinity, NPOV, and sourcing checks. Come back in a few months. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? All articles are initially written by a single editor. Time is not a factor. If there is anything specific you think needs fixing please say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather long article, that you wrote on your own and has not benefited (yet) from the participation of other editors, so what is the rush for a peer review at this stage? There is an ongoing debate about the article that just started, so again what is the rush? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You're complaining that there hasn't been enough input from other editors, yet you don't want it listed here to ask for input from other editors. This page is not for discusing process or complaining about editing behavior. Such comments appear off-topic. Please reserve this space for suggestions for improving the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the hours (71 killobytes) of solo editing that Will has put into this article but it is literally Will's POV. It needs a lot of work to achieve NPOV .Momento (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean that it's 'my POV'. You've mostly complained about the well-sourced pronunciation of a name. I don't know what POV that involves. If that's the main problem with the article then that's pretty minor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So these sorts of edits and activities like this are not in line with our principles and ideas? These are all GAs, one is up for GA, and one is "thisclose" to going for FA next. On some articles, some people prefer to draw up a full version in private--maybe they're worried about AFD/CSD overaggression. Having been just lightly bit myself by that here on the Bruce Gilden article 4 minutes after it's creation, I don't think I'll readily do this kind of development again out of a sandbox as freely. Maybe they want to get down a semi-coherent version first. Maybe they want to make it AFD-proof with adequate sourcing first (this is my own personal concern, as my interests are borderline obscure). Is there any policy, guideline, or essay that discourages sandboxing and then putting live, here or on a private wiki, notepad.exe, or in my head? I want to AGF, but this seems to be a bit of ownership. rootology (C)(T) 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a was working on an article about the train station at Simi Valley, sure, I would agree with you. But trying to do that on a subject that has experienced contention for years, including a long and protracted ArbCom case, informal mediation and a formal mediation which was declined due to a user's reluctance to participate in it, I would argue that this approach does not help. In any case, the article is now on-wiki, and will be worked on and developed by other editors rather than the first contributor, and hopefully WP:OWN issues will not surface because of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "first contributor" will continue to work on it as well. It's still a work in progress, like all WP articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]