Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Extra links in header

I was trying to find Wikipedia:Editor review but couldn't find it. I found this page and Wikipedia:Mentorship. So I'm wondering whether WP:Editor review and WP:Mentorship should be linked to in some way. I would have done this myself but I can't work out how.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a 'see also'. Better late than never?  Chzz  ►  06:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Some questions

Okay, a few things:

• Can I archive this talk page? That is to say, can we agree that it should now be archived? It doesn't appear to have an automatic archiving thingy set up, and lots of stuff on talk pages makes things feel messy to me.

• Oh, and can we take down the merge proposal at the top? It seems to have been from like 6 months ago, and the discussion is above. It seems lengthy, and I don't feel in the mood to read it all. I skimmed it a little bit. Judging from the fact that the merge was never done, I think it is safe to say that we can take the tag down. Right?

• Since a lot of posts to WP:FEED seem to be "first article" type stuff, should we include links to pages like WP:Your first article, WP:BETTER, etc? There is a line that states, "For guidance about writing good articles, see Article Development, The Perfect Article, and the Manual of Style." Should we make this more apparent to users? I just don't like giving the same exact advise over and over again (like "See WP:NOTABLE", WP:CITE, etc.). It kind of gets monotonous. I think sprucing up the header of the page will get a lot of that stuff cleared up. By making it more apparent that people should read those policy/help pages first, it might eliminate some of the redundancy.

Regards, Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Any comments? If you don't understand what I'm asking, let me know and I'll try to clarify. For now, I'm going to take down the merge proposal since it seems dead, and I'm going to archive the page since it is long. But I'd still like to know what people think about sprucing up the header on the Feedback Page. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Killiondude, if you're still watching this page, I agree that the header could use some changes like you described. I say go ahead and make the changes. cmadler (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just made the changes. You can see here what I've done. Feel free to tweak or change anything (be bold, and all). :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanzio

Article text

"Raphael mixed easily in the highest circles throughout his life, one of the factors that tended to give a misleading impression of effortlessness to his career. He did not receive a full humanistic education however; it is unclear how easily he read Latin.[9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanzio "Bona Sforza was born in 1494 (Italian sources give the date 1493) into the princely family of Milan. The family name "Sforza" means "force" and was originally the nickname of the mercenary soldier, Jacopo Attendolo. Coming from the lesser gentry, the family gained the principality of Milan through their own efforts. Bona was the daughter of Gian Galeazzo Sforza and Isabella of Aragon. After her father's untimely death, the Milan principality was taken over by her paternal uncle, Ludovico Moro. Isabella took Bona to the principality of Ban [Bari], which had been given to her the year before, and gave her daughter a good education. The curriculum included the study of Vergil, Cicero, Petrarca, history, music, dance, horseback riding and hunting. More importantly, Isabella, mindful of her daughter's future prospects, taught her the art of ruling. Bona immediately put the lessons into practice, for she had her own court at Bari." http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/Bona/Bona.html http://www.wga.hu/html/p/perugino/christ/galitzin.html Bona Sforza is Raphael Santi Sanzio da Urbino Sforza - Romano's sister. Left to right: Gian Galeazzo Sforza, Isabella di Aragon, Francesco I, Raphael and Bona Sforza. http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/SDRs/SDRs_04_02_029.html http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/came/ho_17.190.869.htm http://www.wga.hu/html/f/foppa/y_cicero.html She could have read the very first Latin edition of Aesop's fables. You say, "It is unclear how easily he [sic] read Latin." She paints a Greek Canon Table X in the lower left hand corner of "The School of Athens" and a sermon. (Those who have eyes to see.) Do u want to talk to me? Is a WGA forum the right place for this? Do u want to know? I promise I won't get into the politics, religion and philosophy. She does. I won't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant I am just the man looking under the tale. printcollector2@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Printcollector2 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here, so I just collapsed it. Killiondude (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamaica Society of Energy Engineers Article

Good article

Mddwilliams (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC) September 18, 2009

New unreviewed article

{{New unreviewed article}} was just put into the Article wizard 2.0 this weekend, and so we're getting tons of requests. Please see WT:WIZ2#New template and User talk:Rd232#Template:New unreviewed article if you're a "regular" reviewer or if you care about this template being added to hundreds of new pages. I might also start a village pump thread about this. The template is also putting the articles that it is on, into Category:Unreviewed new articles. Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please let's not spread this discussion over lots of places! Please discuss at WT:WIZ2#New template. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 10:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice WP:FEED didn't have an editnotice, so I created one (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback). Rd232 ^talk 14:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to start threads all over the place; I was trying to let people know where they could get involved in a discussion about this. Sorry if my intentions weren't clear. And thanks for creating that editnotice. I hadn't thought of that before, and I like it! Killiondude (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't doubt your intentions, I was just wary of a possible outcome. And yes, editnotices are something I've come across quite recently and they are rather useful! Feel free to improve it by the way... Rd232 ^talk 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Incubator

The Wikipedia:Article Incubator might be a destination for some of those promising articles that aren't quite ready for the prime time. Articles are moved there to be worked on outside articlespace, as an alternative to deletion or userification. Fences&Windows 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Search engine indexing

I noticed today that Google is indexing this page. I don't think it should, so I have added the __NOINDEX__ magic word. – ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you don't think it should? Just curious. -- œ^™ 10:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article. I don't see why someone would want to find this page with an external search engine. Wikipedia has its own search engine that could located this page by kewords. It should not be indexed by external search engines. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I have just done a manual archive of WP:RFF, moving October entries to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 16. As Werdnabot seems to be no longer active, does anyone know how the archiving process can be automated again ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cluebot III should work for archives. It can also archive anything marked with the DONE template (mentioned below). I don't know how to integrate it with the previousley archived pages. If someone knows how that would be sweet.Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how to get ClueBot to archive things marked with the done template? I read the page and couldn't find anything, though that seems like the best thing to do. I think that if we just set it up, it should start where we left off and integrate fairly seamlessly. Annalise (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Cluebot III has a parameter "archivenow={{done}}" (I've seen it work). I just don't know where to point it for archives and to automatically update the archive box. If someone more familiar with the process knows how to set up it up we are good.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviving WP:FEED

I'd like to work on getting this page together and functioning. It provides a service that is useful and hard to find anywhere else; the main problem seems to be that there are few people responding, and that the page itself has fallen into a state of disrepair.

Right now, I think we need to address a few main concerns.

• We need to figure out who's still active and interested in this page.
• We need to clear out the backlog of requests. Since the backlog is so great and the number of editors so small, I'm going to propose that
  • We consider a request resolved if it has had one response.
  • We try to add  Done to the top or bottom of resolved requests, so that people don't need to worry about whether a request still needs work.
  • We work from the newest requests to the oldest requests, and ask people who have gotten feedback to pay it forward.
• Once the backlog has been at least partially resolved, we need to do another archive and come up with a system for keeping this page archived at regular intervals.
• In general, we need to put together a plan for how we're going to manage this page.

Thanks, and hopefully this will start some discussion. Annalise (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear who the regular feedbackers are! I agree that it needs more careful management and archiving. I also agree that we should add a {{done}} to requests with at least one response, and suggest that it be added below the section heading, as we do with {{Resolved}} and {{Ear}} templates at the Help Desk and EAR - if we can set up a bot to archive the "done" requests automatically, even better. – ukexpat (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on Mizsa13's talk page, asking if there was a way to only archive threads that are done. Years ago, werndabot had a setting where it would only archive if two (or more) signatures were found in a thread after a specified amount of time, but that bot isn't maintained. When I was looking for a bot that would archive {{done}} threads, I found one (maybe mizsa's?) but it said it archived would archive the thread the next time the bot did its rounds. It would be nice to have an option where we could archive a thread only once it is marked as done and after a certain amount of time (to give them time come back to this page to view the response). Killiondude (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see above subsection (sorry they got split).Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive list...

Can someone please figure out how to collapse the archive list at the top of the page? I tried the usual tricks, but none seem to work. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks like shit. I'm also disappointed since it is not archiving the done templates. Maybe I was wrong to recommend it?Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: So I removed the box. I am so sorry, guys. I made an inquiry at the talk page and someone went for it. I think it still might be good but there is not a link to the future archives 19+ the way it is settup now. We could also use the other bot or do it by hand also. Hopefully it will be easy to fix, ff anyone is good with making the bots work.Cptnono (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate setting up archiving bots (I've never been able to do it right, and it makes me feel like a loser for not knowing how!). Maybe we should do it by hand until we can get a sure-fire way of archiving automatically down. I just noticed that it is archiving sections that don't have {{done}} on them. :-( Killiondude (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sums it up perfectly, Killiondude. I love the "done" feature. To prevent it from archiving to fast we should be able to extend that parameter. Right now, it isn't indexing properly and there looks to be some hassle. Maybe the solution is simply doing it by hand as you suggested. If something looks resolved a simple cut and paste into an archive page could work. Automated should be easier but if it causes more problems it isn't worth it. I am so bummed. Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging drafts with templates

Some new users does not see the feedback for various reasons. It would be helpful if we could tag drafts in the user-spaces with templates to indicate issues with the drafts. I propose that we create special templates customized for the user-space drafts with the most common issues, like notability and sources issues (and may be with a link to the talk page of the draft for additional comments), it will only be used if the user requested feedback. Sole Soul (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a better solution is to add a {{Talkback}} template, with a link back to the appropriate section, to the requesting editor's talk page (there is a script that does it effortlessly - will post details when I find it again). Then they will see a new message bar when they log in and come back here to see the comments. I am also planning to develop a switched template similar to {{Ear}} which will add standard comments about notability (BIO, CORP, BAND, MUSICBIO, POLITIICAN etc), sources, spam, BLP etc depending on the switch used. I have just embarked on this, but will post back when I have something for folks to look at. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it - Friendly adds a tb tab for adding {{Talkback}} templates to user talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition to 'Request for Feedback' box?

Can I suggest that in addition to the three points listed in the first paragraph on the main page, the following also be added: "If you are requesting outside input or dispute resolution with respect to article's contents, user conduct, or Wikipedia policy and guidelines, please see Requests for comment "

You might also want to mention the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard.

Maybe also a similar type of box to this should be put at the top of the Requests for comment page ? The Yeti (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Drawing board

Back in 2008 there was a discussion which seemed to result in consensus that Wikipedia:Requests for feedback and Wikipedia:Drawing board should be merged. (There were various suggestions for the name of the new combined page.) I still think this would be a good idea, so if there is still support for this, I suggest we do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review notes this as a place to go first to make sure the article is quality before spending time on it. Most of the feedback requested here is for new articles. I think that is unfortunate since almost every answer is "Go find sources". I have seen a couple articles come out of here but I have seen more requests for deletions. Most reviews aren't even responded to. I have seen mentioning it on the requesters talk page within a day all the way to nothing but a response 1 month later. Most editors requesting feedback did it on impulse it seems and are never to return to Wikipedia.

Any change would be on what the scope of the page is. This might be something to take up at the village pump since it intersects with the help desk, article incubator, drawing board, and peer review. I don't even know what the purpose of it is. Is it peer review lite? letuscatchyourconflictofinterest@wikipedia.? Something else? Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, we have peer review. We have a drawing board. We have a request for new articles. This page is mainly used for people who have an idea for an article but don't want to make it themselves, there are conflict of interests, or they SYNTH/OR laden essays. If this page is to give feedback to lower class articles before going on to higher assessment we should make it so. We should have a standard template that states "This article cannot be reviewed because it does not include inline citations. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information." Maybe another referring to a lack of sources asserting notability. Archive it or delete it immediately after that. We could also simply close it down altogether and make it and the drawingboard the same thing.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is right up there at the top of the header: This page is intended to provide comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have created or substantially changed. ie mainly for users seeking to have new articles or drafts reviewed, it is not for "how about this idea for an article" questions. Another user who was involved in creating the {{Ear}} template is working on a similar switched template that we can use to add replies to this page. It's not ready for roll out yet, but when it is I will post details here for review. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving?

Any progress on archiving the mainpage? It's incredibly long, as you already know. We could archive entries after a fixed time period of last updating--even a full year span would help reduce the list. I agree its not ideal to abandon "un-done" threads, per WP:Paper and all that, but it's pretty hard to navigate right now. We could even separate "done threads" from "backlogged ones" which could wait for someone to come along... 71.224.206.164 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am slowly working through the old requests, {{done}}ing the ones that have been dealt with elsewhere or doing a quick review of those which have not. I agree that it's not ideal. I guess the best solution would be for more experienced editors to pich in an assis... – ukexpat (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How much help is to be offered? I wonder when the {{done}} part kicks in? Are we the ones to pull the article reviewed tag? I think some more guidance as to what commitment we expect of ourselves to offer these newby editors would make sense. Likewise i would feel more confident closing some out and we could potentially advertise for more help. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The best way for you to learn how to give feedback is probably from viewing ukexpat's edits to the page. He does a pretty good job. There's Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/How to answer, but it is somewhat vague, and was created quite awhile ago with no improvements. If you feel that the articles meet our notability requirements and the like, feel free to pull the article reviewed tag. If not, you could add a CSD tag or send it to AFD. If it is borderline, I usually leave it alone. In fact, I haven't done too much reviewing since that newfangled tag came out, so I might not be the best person to ask. Killiondude (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Under Construction: Distributed operating system

Resolved

 – Editor referred to WP:WikiProject Computing especially to reconcile with current FA article parallel computing where distributed operating system currently redirects. -- Banjeboi 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)]]

Draft feedback reply template

Folks, I have been thinking about this for a while. Often new editors make their request, we answer it (sooner or later) and we never hear from them again. I suspect that some, maybe most, requesters don't know how to get back to WP:FEED, so I usually leave a {{Talkback}} template on their talk page - at least then they will see the "new message" indicator next time they log in. I recently came across the little used {{Helpdeskreply}} which looks pretty neat, so I have "borrowed" the code and drafted a Feedbackreply template in my user space at User:Ukexpat/Feedbackreply. It is coded with two optional parameters, the first for the section title and the second for the signature of the templater, so the syntax (when it is moved to template space) would be, e.g. {{Subst:Feedbackreply|draft article on dibubblypeptide| – ~~~~}} . A shortcut could also be created at {{FBR}}/{{fbr}} to reduce typing, and perhaps we could ask the owner of Friendly to add it to the selection of talkback options available in Friendly. Thoughts, suggestions please.

P.S., also in the works is a template similar to {{Ear}} to simplify and speed up responses. More details to follow. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a really good idea to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am going to move it to template space and begin using it. Let's see how it goes.--ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good (though I'm not totally enthusiastic about the color - lol). one minor suggestion, since the template is aimed at new editors. change the last line to read: "You can remove this notice at any time. Click the edit link for this section and delete {{feedbackreply}} template." --Ludwigs2 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Open to suggestions about the color - I wanted to make it look different from the {{talkback}} and {{helpdeskreply}} templates.

Thanks for the wording suggestion -- it's  Done. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template now "live"

Further to the above, the template is now in templatespace at {{Feedbackreply}} with shortcuts at {{FBR}} and {{fbr}}. Please go ahead and give it a try. I have also quickly cobbled together a documentation sub page. Obviously no pride of authorship for either code or doc - I just borrowed them from elsewhere, so please make suggestions on the template talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Page mangled

Folks, somehow the page has a lot of repeated entries - looks like someone did a bad copy and paste (hope it wasn't me in a drunken stupor!). Anyway, I have removed a number of them, but there are still quite a few left. I don't have time to finish the job at the moment. The dupes start, I think, at the second "Anna Margaret from Starstruck" entry, but not sure how many more there are. Anyone want to volunter to finish the job? I think this should shorten the page a little. Thanks in advance. – ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got some time, will see what I can do. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think it got it finished, I don't _think_ I lost any content. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. At least the page is a little shorter without the dupes! – ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving the forum page

I think that the settings for archiving the page should be changed. At the moment there are 200+ threads and it is becoming difficult to manage. I would like to propose a change to the archiving settings for this page be shortened. I think there should be a minimum of 30 threads on the page at any one time, and reduce the amount of time that threads get archived from 1000 hours to about a week, leaving around 50 threads that are less than a week old. Thanks to Chzz for the suggestions but I think that the page's archiving settings need to be looked at. What are everyone's thoughts on this and what should be do? Chevymontecarlo. 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I support changing |age=1000 to |age=168 so that threads over a week old can be auto-archived; it will still keep a min of 35 on the page. 200+ is way too many, but keeping some is good, pour encourager les autres. I'd also support a bit less, actually - while we're at it, shall we make it a bit more parsed down? 20 threads min, but not archived if less than a week?  Chzz  ►  17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support any change that makes the page less bulky. However, a drawback might be that some of the threads might slip through unreviewed. I haven't kept up with the page recently but in the era when dinosaurs roamed the world wiki, some threads wouldn't be answered after several weeks. It seems things have picked up since then though. Killiondude (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's still a shortage of volunteers on here compared to requests, if that's what you mean :) Chevymontecarlo (Talk page) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to cut this down and keep it to a manageable size, but we also need to make sure that the articles get looked at prior to archiving. Another way to shrink the size of the page it is to give the editor about a week to read the feedback and respond then tell Cluebot to archive it by marking the section with {{done}} or {{resolved}}. If a section is marked with either of those Clue bot comes along and archives it right away. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 10:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion? Chevymontecarlo 08:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can support a reduction - the number of threads is a bit long. I think a week is too short, and would prefer 10 days. At the moment, that would mean about 50 threads on the page, and notably, there are some ten days ago that have not been addressed. I'd be happy with the last week plus those that have not been addressed, but I doubt there is an easy way to manage that. (I would support archiving any thread marked resolved, but that construct doesn't work well here - in help, if someone asks a question, it is common that "the" answer is given, and the question is resolved. With rare exceptions, if someone is asking for feedback here, there's no reason why someone else couldn't add more feedback, so "resolved" is a very rare outcome.)--SPhilbrickT 12:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

50 is a lot; whilst it might help if users read through past feedback offered to others - a *few* of them - they're not gonna read through 50. Instead, they are likely to be put off bothering with the page. It needs to be much shorter.  Chzz  ►  18:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's my concern - I don't expect that ordinary Wikipedia editors are monitoring this place 24/7. Imagine an editor who has a busy week-day job, and tries to work on WP on weekends. They complete a draft on Saturday morning, post a request for feedback and no one looks at it until Monday, or maybe one person looks at it earlier, but a second person adds comments on Monday or Tuesday. The come back Saturday afternoon, check this forum and their request is no longer visible. They are new, they don't know to search the archives. So maybe ten days is too long, but I'd like eight to cover the person who asks on Saturday and checks back the following Sunday.

There is a potential compromise, which I informally follow. If I can respond to a user question the same day it is posed, I assume they will be checking this forum. If I find one a few days old, which is common, I post a response and add a trackback. I assume a trackback will bring them to the archive, (just checked and confirmed, as expected, it works) if the question and answer have been archived (I always use the section heading in the trackback, not just the forum). If we adopt a process rule that responses added on a different calendar date (details to be resolved later) should be accompanied by a trackback, I'm less concerned about the possibility the response will cycle off the page before they can see it.--SPhilbrickT 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

what about removing our 'request for feedback' ? I have one still appearing on the request for feedback page; I expect no more feedback. Being new here, I figure if I don't know what I am doing, do not do it. Should I delete it or move it or ? AlanDewey (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan, if you want to remove a specific section and put it into Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Archive/26 (which is the current archive), that'd be fine. Historically, we leave old requests on the page for a long time - I think the rationale is, it helps other users to see feedback on what are often similar issues. However, what this thread right here is discussing is, how to get a more reasonable volume on the page. The problem is a) keeping the page manageable in size, v. b) the problem of requests not being answered before archived and c) leaving some to help other users. That's what we are discussing here.  Chzz  ►  20:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How about something a bit smarter? How about if it;

• Archived only requests with some response (ie more than 2 sigs in the section or something) when more than x days old
• It did not archive if there were less than y threads on the page
• It put a note on the talk page of the user posting the request saying something like Your request for feedback (and any responses) has now been archived, and is in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive/nn#SECTION-NAME - please do not edit that archive; instead, if you have further questions, post a new request at WP:FEED.

Obviously, this'd need a bit of bot work, but I'm sure it could be done. Thoughts?  Chzz  ►  20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that you're expecting other users to provide an opinion other than me, but the idea of auto-archiving the requests with a couple of responses or so is great - it'd increase the amount of posts that get answered and the amount of posts that people actually end up answering. I think it's a lot more efficient that the system we currently have. Chevymontecarlo 18:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Having investigated further, my ideas re. archival have changed; I will explain in a fresh thread.  Chzz  ►  03:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative To Archiving

(in response to Chzz) I think that sounds good - or maybe we could make it so that unreviewed ones never leave the page, but reviewed ones move into a similiar week saving system after a certain amount of time after being reviewed on the main page. The current thing is very unefficent - and too long! Until something can be set up, I've set it to keep only 25 on the page (archive rest) ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearing this down a bit

Following the above discussions, I've made a start on trying to clear things down a bit.

I have manually moved some stuff that I'm pretty sure is 'done' as far as feedback goes, putting it into Arch 26; see this edit.

I also notified each person that their feedback was now in the archive - e.g. here.

In notifying them, I asked if they might provide feedback to other users - dunno if that'll work, but...that's the idea. Which makes me think...

-After users get feedback, we could notify them on their talk page. And in doing so, we could ask 'em to provide feedback for the next lot of users, and so on.

That's how I think things should work.

From the above discussion and this one...I think we really need a bot - so we could deliver notifications to users, and archive done stuff more professionally - probably similar to the way AFC works.

For now though....I think we can continue trying to clear this down. I will try and do more myself...I suggest that we only archive things that are pretty much done, and we let users know.

There are some pretty old threads on the page that haven't received feedback yet...so we could get on to that too.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, at the same time I am doing this, ClueBot is archiving older threads with no response at all [1] [2] - which I think pretty well demonstrates why we need to fix this.

I'm not suggesting we should bring them back; they're probably too stale to bother with. I'm just suggesting we hit the current outstanding ones ASAP, clear down the older stuff, and get things in some kind of order, before thinking how to fix the problems in the longer term. That's what I'm doing, anyway. If anyone can help by answering the unanswered, and possibly archiving old stuff and notifying users that it's been archived with a similar message to the ones I've used above, that'd be great.  Chzz  ►  17:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz. I think the idea of notifying users that they've got responses to their requests is great - it'll save having to keep requests on the active page for as long as they are currently. Chevymontecarlo 18:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks for soliciting some help to address some of the open items. While no page or forum belongs to any one editor, I've tried to spend a fair amount of time in here (when work isn't absolutely swamping me) so I feel a responsibility to keep this forum in decent shape—and it isn't yet there.

I'm lukewarm about asking those who post questions to contribute to answers for others. I like the concept of the idea, I'm a pay it forward fan. Just yesterday, I proposed a DYK, and saw the note there that "If you nominate an article, please consider reviewing another nomination". It makes sense there, as anyone proposing a DYK probably has been around long enough to know how to review a DYK.

However, someone asking for feedback is (usually) not yet ready to be giving feedback to others. Obviously, there can be exceptions, but as a rule they aren't yet ready. However, in the spirit of offering positive suggestions, not just criticism, I have a thought. We should trawl the archives, looking for editors who have asked a question some time ago, say, one year ago, check to see if they are active, and then politely suggest that they drop in and repay the favor.

In fact, I think I will do this, unless someone can tell me why it is a bad idea.--SPhilbrickT 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am seeming to agree with everyone, but it's everyone else with the great ideas. Often the people who are asking for feedback are inexperienced or just unsure with the procedure of creating articles and the criteria that people responding to feedback check articles against (structure, notability, references etc.). The people who have replied a couple of years ago or so will be aware of what they need to do to review an article. Chevymontecarlo 05:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of points from me about the archiving:

• Cluebot doesn't take into account signatures on a thread, but I believe User:MiszaBot II does.
• I would be a fan of having the archives in months not numbered, so that it is easier for a user to find their request.

Regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@Captain-n00dle: Noted; having investigated further, my ideas re. archival have changed; I will explain in a fresh thread.

@Phil: Looking at old users and asking them to 'payback' is a superb idea; I don't think it can be automated much, so you would prob have to trawl the archs. I'll discuss rest in a fresh thread.  Chzz  ►  03:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply Template

Hello All! There are two templates that one can use to inform users that they have a message on request for feedback (due to me creating a second before realising the first existed...)

{{Feedbackreply-sm}} and {{Feedbackreply}}

Examples

{{Feedbackreply-sm}} ({{WP:FEED/reply}} also redirects here) Your message at Requests for feedback You can find live help on Wikipedia's help chat Hello, Requests for feedback. Captain-n00dle replied to your request for feedback. Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC). and {{Feedbackreply}}==Your message at Requests for feedback== Hello Requests for feedback. Replies have been posted to your message at Requests for feedback. Please acknowledge the feedback and ask for additional assistance if you need it. If you do not respond to the feedback, your message and the replies thereto will be archived in a few days. Thank you! Captain n00dle\Talk 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC) You can remove this notice at any time - click on this section's [edit] link and remove the section.

Feel free to use either or provide feedback. Captain n00dle\^Talk 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Template: Moved to Mainspace

Hello all, given that a lot of users are posting their Userspace drafts here, I thought that this template might be a good idea: {{MovedtoMainspace}} there are a few parameters but it looks like this without any: {{MovedtoMainspace}} Please feel free to contribute and give feedback. Captain n00dle\^Talk 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving userspace draft does not require consensus, and we should not give the impression that it does. Sole Soul (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving More Often

Maybe entries should be archived more quickly - the top third are always untouched - just a suggestion. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution to archival issues / page size

I suggest that we eliminate this difficulty by rearranging this page into separate pages for submissions on each day, with the most recent week (or something) transcluded onto one page.

The addition of a bot to check for the oldest threads that had no response would be a nice add-on, but not essential; things have disappeared into the archives before now without being seen - could also be done manually (and maybe that's best, for now) - see how they do it for GA Reviews, where they transclude Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog.

Main advantage over other forms of archiving - no need to ever archive, avoiding the additional complexity explaining this to new users; the links given to them (saying "your feedback is HERE") would never change.

In discussion, I'd though a week might be appropriate - around 50 or so. However, having reviewed the data a little, I see two things; 1, there are peaks and troughs - so 200/month could easily result in 80 in a week on occasion, and we'd be back to a very long page. 2, if we go for daily, we're reasonably 'future-proof' - because if for e.g. we transclude 7 days' worth onto the main page initially, then it becomes too much, just change it to transclude the past 3 days, or vice-versa.

So, that is what I think needs to be done, and I welcome any and all comments.

As to how we do it, well, that is another question. A combination of some template code and possibly bots, whatever; I think the most contstructive next-step is to make a mock-up of the proposed transcluded/daily structure, using some past data. Whatever happens, I hope some people will help address this, before it becomes backlogged again.  Chzz  ►  00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want this conversation to get side-tracked, so, in the interests of improving this page, please respond below. However, I wanted to mention the bigger context, part of which is up for discussion on User:Sphilbrick/Feedback Patrol  Chzz  ►  23:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of leadin for feedback requests

My reading of the instructions for WP:feedback is that the subject should be only the article name and that the first text in the body should be a wikilink. I've noticed that quite a few requests don't adhere to that, which raises the question of whether I've misunderstood the format that I'm supposed to follow. So I'd appreciate answers to these questions:

Is it proper to include additional text in the subject, e.g., Request for feedback on?

When the article is in user space, should the subject include the User:foo/ portion of the article name?

Is it proper to have any text in the body prior to the wikilink to the article?

Is it proper to have any text on the same line as the wikilink to the article? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We are pretty tolerant, as many users of this service are quite new to Wikipedia. However, to answer - in an ideal world...

• The heading would be just the name of the subject - not lined - e.g. == William Windsor (goat) ==. Having links within section headings creates difficulties with linking to them, etc.

• At the start, the user should link to the article that they want us to look at - a wikilink. Therefore, if it is in userspace, it would be e.g. [[User:Chzz/Cuthbert Cholmondeley-Goosecreature temp]], which would appear as: User:Chzz/Cuthbert Cholmondeley-Goosecreature temp. It is clearest if this is on a line on its own at the top of the section.

I hope that this clarifies, but please note, we are careful to not bite new users; very often, they forget to link to the article - but we can often guess what they meant, by checking their contributions. If we do so, we'll add a link, so that other helpers can easily find it.

If you can think of a way to make the instructions more clear, without confusing new users, please do so.

Hope this helps,  Chzz  ►  03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The one suggestion that I have is to provide an example with notes, e.g.,

Subject:

User:foo/Care and feeding of bar

'Body:

{{User:foo/Care and feeding of bar}}

<new line>

<text of feedback request>

Note the absence of any leadin or other descriptive text in the subject and wikilink.

That's short enough that it shouldn't be confusing. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

- the above template message (({{Sofixit}}) applies just as well to wikipedia internal pages, Chatul (=Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz). If you need help with the coding, ask - put a {{helpme}} on your own user talk page, or ask me on mine.  Chzz  ►  19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Change we need

Following all of the above, I am working on a proof-of-concept new structure - having each days requests on a separate subpage, automatically transcluding the previous 5 days on the main page, and providing navigation and clearer instructions.

Several people are working on it right now, and it is not yet ready to go live - but in anticipation, I would very much welcome comments, suggestions, etc.

So please see the mock-up, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Note that it auto-transcludes the days, and please see User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation.

I hope to get this 'demo' into shape over the next few days, and then if nobody objects strongly, I will boldly introduce it to the live area.  Chzz  ►  04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of THIS page

I've archived some older discussions from this page, which I am confident were no longer useful here; I've set up the page for auto-archiving, with pretty conservative settings - 90 days, leaving at least 10 threads. From the previous comments on the subject, I believed this would not be controversial; change things if you disagree. Chzz  ►  06:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Sounds good--SPhilbrickT 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Editnotice

Hello, I just wanted to suggest an edit to editnotice. I don't think most people really read through everything that's there so I might recommend adding an example beneath what is already there. Something like...

Suggested Addition

Support- good idea. I think it'll help the less experienced users out and give them a few pointers about what to post and how they should post their request. Chevymontecarlo 04:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Article Name

Link To Your Article
A short summary describing the article or what parts you have been having trouble with. ~~~~

OR

Make sure to include...

• A link to your article
• Something describing it or what part you need help with
• Your signature (~~~~)

|}

..., but if you like it, I can make a better version - it might be good because this kind of quick visual might help some people understand what is the correct format. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 03:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I was wanting to archive every once in a while very old entries that I am confident are being put to no use anymore and would are resolved completely -is that okay? It would help reduce unnecessary page bulk. ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleardown aftermath

Firstly, sincere thanks to everyone who helped clear the backlog. A few days ago, we had over 200 outstanding feedback requests, and most were unanswered. Now, there are only a handful left which await feedback; many have been archived, and the users informed.

Tea all round.

Of course, that isn't the end though; we have spoken about ways of keeping the page size more reasonable, and archival, etc.

After working through things, I now believe that the best approach would be a separate page for every (sometimeframe) e.g. 1 page per week, some clever work to transclude the current week to the main page, and possibly a bot to show the 'oldest unanswered requests' at the top, a bit like over on WP:GAN.

If we did structure it like that, we would eliminate the problems of archival. Yes, things could still go unanswered, but the only solution to that is, people working on them.

It would save us having to tell users that their feedback had been archived, and would cause these new users less confusion.

It may also be worth considering that the bot could auto inform users when feedback has been received.

These ideas are a little embryonic, and also quite hard to visualise, so I propose we;

a) get some data about how many requests we get, to choose an appropriate value for the 'timeframe' b) make a 'mock-up' of the proposal, using data from any old feed page - from a few weeks ago or something.

I intend to try and progress this, as soon as possible. Do let me know your thoughts on it.

Phil, I did note your concerns over whether new users should provide feedback to others. I think it could work perhaps, if at the top of the page, it said something along the lines of, After leaving your request, please provide feedback to other users; just edit the section, and post your own thoughts on the article below, indented with a colon (:) - remember to sign your name with ~~~~. see the detailed guide on giving feedback - the latter explaining in as much details as we like about the type of feedback that helps. This is only a very vague idea, and may not work -perhaps something we can fiddle in mockup, and possibly try for a bit.

I'm also thinking in terms of better integration of help systems, to get more involvement. For example, we already have a bot which reports when users place a {{helpme}}, in the IRC help channel; it would be possible to alert on feedback requests too - perhaps not often, to avoid 'spam' in the channel, perhaps batched up and no more than e.g. once per hour;

<Helpmebot> 1 user is requesting help: [[User:ExampleUser]]
.
<Helpmebot> 4 new feedback requests: "Beijing Capital Airlines" (User:129.78.64.101), 
"Sausages" (User:Chzz), "Rescue Chocolate" (User:Bookisha), 
"Josh Smith (Musician)" (User:RikaJakobs) http://enwp.org/feed/currentweek

...or something.

A quick note here about the bigger picture: I got involved in trying to help with this after reading User:Sphilbrick/Feedback Patrol - and as a result of that I am also considering this in context; I intend to write my own ideas, both there, and perhaps on strategy.wikimedia.org or elsewhere.

Again, thanks to everyone for the outstanding work clearing things. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.  Chzz  ►  03:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got much time this morning, but a page per week/month that is transcluded on WP:FEED sounds a good idea to me. 82.8.152.207 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies forgot to log in, regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 11:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

This table shows, approximately, the number of feedback requests per month, since 2009. It is calculated based on edits to the page where the edit summary contains 'new section'. It may not be completely accurate, but I believe it will be accurate enough to serve the purposes of discussion, re. the idea of splitting up requests by a timeframe e.g. week, whatever.

Month	Count
200901	30
200902	16
200903	26
200904	23
200905	25
200906	32
200907	50
200908	49
200909	101
200910	126
200911	202
200912	237
201001	235
201002	240
201003	255
201004	191
201005	204

Source: select left(rev_timestamp,6) as date, count(*) from revision join page on rev_page = page_id where page_title = 'Requests_for_feedback' and page_namespace = 4 and rev_comment like '%new section%' and rev_timestamp > 20090000000000 group by left(rev_timestamp,6) ;

 Chzz  ►  21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with the history and wondering why the significant spike in requests—the feedback page is not very prominent - for example, it doesn't appear on the main Help:Contents page nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Questions page. Despite that, it was getting a trickle of requests. All that changed when the Wikipedia:Article wizard was revamped and encouraged. A new editor starting an article in the Wizard is explicitly encouraged to come to Requests for feedback, so the number of requests jumped around the time the Article Wizard was being rolled out. This suggests that the ramp up is complete, and barring initiatives to increase the use of the Article Wizard, or bring in new editors over and above normal influx, the number of requests will probably fluctuate around 200 per month.--SPhilbrickT 16:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, after the revamp - in June there were about 181 requests, and in July (to date) there have been 347 - a massive increase; perhaps FEED is a victim of its own success; the new system certainly seems to encourage people to ask.  Chzz  ►  19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would explain why there are a lot more requests going unanswered recently. Is this all down to the Wizard? I know this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... but if a lot more people are adding new content than are around to edit it then it starts to be a problem. Yaris678 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I add {{resolved}} to the completed requests?

I thought this would maybe help out the reviewers, but I figured that it might mess up the organisation of the page. Chevymontecarlo - alt 12:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it done before, but to be honest, I'm not sure it'd be worth the trouble. Most entries will just get one or two (sometimes three) comments near when they were first posted and not be touched again. ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted! 02:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a bit fan of "resolved" in this forum, because it rarely makes sense. Unlike the help forum, where someone specifically wants to do X and you tell them how to do X, in this forum, people want general feedback. Too often there's only one response, but it is a rare situation which couldn't be improved with more eyes looking at it—after all, that's practically the founding principle. I'm OK with arching posts after some time has passed if they have received feedback, but it is the rare situation where someone wants specific feedback and the template is appropriate. I don't think it helps enough to be useful.--SPhilbrickT 11:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I will leave it to the rest of you to try and improve the page's layout, as I suck :( Chevymontecarlo 21:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet Given Tmp

Hello, just wanted to let everyone know that I plan to tag entries without feedback in a while with this.

---

{{Nofeed}} ({{Nofeed}}) it has two attributes - Art=EXACTARTICLENAME Sct=EXACTSECTIONNAME

---

I plan to soon add conditional formatting that will cause it to disappear when feedback is given automatically. It also lists this page for wikibacklog when there are a certain number of old unreviewed ones. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted! 04:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think many requests still get buried at that tag is really eye-catching. I think Chzz's improvements to the forum has been great and this will improve it further. I think you should go ahead with it. Chevymontecarlo 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted! 04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm. Personally, it looks a bit scary! Like a user is not going to receive feedback. Although I like the idea, perhaps this image instead: File:Ambox warning blue.svg that might help kind regards Captain n00dle\^Talk 10:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC) (p.s. thank you for the message ^_^)

I might also reword it to read "once you've given some feedback remove this notice by deleting the {{nofeed}} template" Captain n00dle\^Talk 11:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, and the initiative, but as the Captain says, it may not be the best symbol. I think a subliminal message is - stay away, which is the exact opposite of the intended message.

I wonder if there is an image portraying the concept of "still waiting"?--SPhilbrickT 11:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Best bet for that would be one of the many twiddles used in computer OSes, such as an hour glass or the spinning wheel, although we don't need anything animated. I quite like this one. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I thing it's a great idea but would be against having it removed automatically. It is simple enough for the person giving the feedback to remove it (or not). I recently felt unable to give someone feedback on an article but left him a suggestion as to where he might be able to get it. In this situation I thought it appropriate to leave the tag in situ.--Ykraps (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right - it is kind of scary. I'll make it a bit more positive looking, and for entries where a response, but no real feedback is given, I'd just add a parameter like "|keep=yes\auto" which I, or others can put when they give this kind of response, it would be a bit of a hassle to remove it manually every time. Thanks for checking it out for me.

revamp - things needed

This is a note on some improvements which I believe would be good here;

1. creating new days - links to prev/next can be done in template, perhaps - if not, bot can do it

We should have a subpage 'standard day'. The header, presently, is <noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navday|prev=2010 June 20|next=2010 June 22}}</noinclude>

Possibly, links to prev/next can be done in template, perhaps - if not, bot can do it

2. seeking 'oldest with no feedback'

in Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/backlog but currently the transclusion of it is commented out

3. updating links to last and current month on FEED page, and preferably using parser funcs to only show days for current month UP TO AND INC today

currently coded into Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Header as

June [[Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 1|1]] {{middot}} [[Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 2|2]] {{middot}} ...etc

Note I believe The Earwig (talk · contribs) is going to look into this. It's non-urgent.  Chzz  ►  16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Working on this now. — The Earwig ^(talk) 16:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed. That's the first one; I'll work on the other two soon. — The Earwig ^(talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So, to clarify the current status;

1. Is in testing 2. Is being thought about by me 3. Is done, via some smart templatey code stuff.

 Chzz  ►  00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for 'deletion'

I am new to this page and was wondering if many of the articles listed here get nominated for deletion and whether people come here specifically to look for articles to delete? For example, is it discouraged for editors to nominate articles found here for deletion? Christopher Connor (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There aren't any real statistics on that, but in my opinion, most don't get deleted, though some have some serious issues (and a few do). I generally don't nominate articles I review for deletion unless they are so bad as they would qualify for speedy deletion - I just think it's kind of rude to nominate it when you found it because they willingly put it up for review here. I don't think anyone comes here looking for articles to delete either. You certainly can nominate any you find for deletion though - there's nothing wrong with doing so. ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 05:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page

What do people think of the idea of linking to feedback given here from an article talk page? It is a bit odd to have comments about an article that are not on that articles talk page. I have noticed that this has caused some problems, for example an article might get deleted even though the editor has just been told how to improve it.

I have posted something at User talk:Morgankevinj/Blood Money (documentary). What do people think of that? Is it worth making into a proper template?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks good - though you might want to add something like "please do not rush to nominate the article for deletion as its creator still be working to improve it" or something similiar? ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 03:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is useful to distinguish between articles posted as user subpages, and articles in article space. If it is a user subpages, it should not get nominated for deletion, simply because it is not yet ready for article space (although exceptions occur, if it is a blatant copyvio, or has BLP issues). In those cases, I think adding feedback here is fine, but it is also useful to add a talkback to the user's talk page, especially if the feedback is delayed. In the case of an article that has already been posted to article space, I agree it would be helpful to post feedback on the article talk page. I think I have done that on occasion, but I know I don't make a practice of doing that, and I plan to change unless I see a consensus that it is a bad idea. While strong criticism might actually invite a deletion proposal, in many case, feedback might convince a reader that the article is on the process of being improved and might head off a premature deletion request.--SPhilbrickT 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a very important distinction and the last point is a key one. RFC, for example, handles all article-related RFCs on talk pages to keep the discussion with the article. Where an article at RFF is already in the mainspace, my instinct is that the default position for the feedback should ideally be on the article's talk page. If not, perhaps a bot could be made to scan RFF regularly and tag any newly listed mainspace articles with a tag saying something along the lines of "The creator of this article has requested feedback in good faith by listing it at RFF. If you feel this article has specific problems that require attention, please consider visiting the article's entry at RFF and giving your feedback there, rather than simply adding maintenance tags. Thank you." Would that work? Karenjc 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Something along these lines, maybe?

Karenjc 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Statistics update - large increase in requests

May not be entirely accurate; old figures as previous chart; new figures by counting for "/n==" in each daily page, as of today.

Massive increase, since the new system of keeping feedback on daily pages; I suspect because, now, people have seen results here, so more people have posted their requests. We seem to be a bit snowed-under though; lots of requests are going unanswered. As the main page only shows the past few days, these potential opportunities get missed - but I guess we can only do so much.

If 20 people did one per day, we'd never have a backlog. I don't know if that could happen, but that would be a nice solution.  Chzz  ►  23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of OTTOMH comments:

Your post came at an interesting time, as I provided feedback on three articles in the last hour. However, I've tried, in the past, to provide fairly detailed feedback, with several suggestions for improvement. It is very discouraging to put some effort into feedback, then hear nothing from the editor. I noticed my last three responses are much more cryptic, and that concerns me. This is often the first substantive interaction between a new editor and the Wikipedia community, and we want to make sure it is a positive one.

That said, it is discouraging to see how may request are in abysmal shape. Does nobody read the big, bold notice? Even after telling people that "single most common answer here is that you need more reliable sources", editors still submit requests with no reliable sources. I'll grant that some may not know a reliable source form a hole in the ground, but surely, if you have NO references, you should have a clue that maybe you haven't provided enough reliable references.

Crazy idea that won't work, but I'll bring it up anyway. How hard would it be to build an automated first pass review? For example, if there are no references, you wouldn't be allowed to even post a request for feedback? I realize lack of notability is high on the list of problems, and that doesn't seem suited to automation, but surely we could count references?

I did take a stab at an initiative called Feedback Patrol. That dies because it was intended partially to address a backlog at Category:Requests to move a userspace draft, which no longer exists, thanks, to the work of Chzz and others. we could discuss revitalizing it, although the immediate need is more people willing to do reviews, and that imitative had no particular ideas on that subject.

However, another initiative, languishing for lack of attention, is Tour of Duty. That initiative covers far more than just Feedback, but if implemented, it is not unlikely that signing up for a few months monitoring Feedback requests might qualify as a high priority for the community.--SPhilbrickT 00:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it help if we tried to channel more editors to Wikipedia:Drawing board before they even create their first article? It would probably be easier to provide feedback on a couple of paragraphs, rather than a whole article. On the minus side it is even less effort for someone to submit something there so even more work could be generated. I think it would be positive over all because it would catch the non-notable and COI cases early. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would really like to see a Feedback Patrol started. If this is not done now, it will only serve to bite us in the end. I generally spend time on NPP. I was looking through the various projects and tags that have a backlog and found the Requests for Feedback. I began looking for a Feedback Patrol or WorkProject to ascertain the focus and process of eliminating the backlog and found nothing. Not to say there isn't some page out there in the vast land of Wikipedia. I just haven't found it yet. I worked on some requests last week, then became sick this week, but will continue working on requests. My focus at this point will include taking a look at the archived request and determining that they are cleaned up and/or tagged appropriately, then clearing the status in the RfD. I would really like to see this backlog addressed. In my opinion, it hurts the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia when new editors create an article, ask for help, and then are essentially ignored. Cindamuse (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do agree something needs to be done to address this massive backlog, but I don't really have any ideas. However, I will try and answer requests on here whenever I can. Chevymontecarlo 09:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There could be a number of reasons why so few editors get involved with giving feedback. One reason might simply be a lack of awareness. Could it be that Wikipedia has a large amount of casual editors who just add small amounts of information to existing articles? If this was the case, these editors would never come into contact with review process. Even those who post articles might not fully understand how it works. When I first requested feedback on an article, I thought those giving feedback were 'uber' editors with some sort of special authority. It wasn't until I saw someone giving feedback while they still had a request posted that I understood. Even after that I was reluctant to give feedback because I felt I was too new, too inexperienced and that my comments were worthless. Truth be told, I still feel like that now and tend to pick and choose which articles I feedback on. These issues can all be solved through improved communication. For example, at 'peer review' it is made quite clear that you're expected to provide feedback on another article. Another idea might be to send out a plea to all editors when there is a backlog to clear.--Ykraps (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. It was nice to get an invite to this discussion, I hope my comments are worth something.

I also appreciate the invitation. I was one of the users who "found" RFF thanks to SPhilbrick's helpdesk appeal. (I think the latter could be usefully repeated on a regular basis on the helpdesk and refdesks.) Two main questions seem to be crucial here:

• How to get more people involved with giving feedback? As Ykraps points out, judging yourself ready to critique the work of others is a big step. Doing a decent job requires a sound knowledge of a number of policies and guidelines, fair language skills, tact, and sympathy with the concept of encouraging and supporting potentially valuable new contributors rather than going for the jugular. The majority of requests get feedback from only one person, so you're sticking your neck out when you take on a feedback request and I think that daunts potential helpers. I think we need clear guidance to help and encourage potential givers of feedback, linked from the top of the RFF page so potential reviewers can see what's expected of them. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines for the refdesk equivalent. There's also the question of incentive. SPhilbrick's Tour of Duty idea is an interesting one here, as is the Feedback Patrol proposal with a nice shiny userbox. I also think DYK review regulars might be a good potential pool of recruits. I've nominated an article for DYK after spotting it here and giving feedback, and DYK nominators do get a credit along with the creator, so if they care about keeping score it might be an encouragement to nurture and nominate promising articles via RFF. Perhaps monitoring DYK and approaching contributors who regularly nominate new articles they haven't created, or an appeal on the DYK talk page? IMO, RFF is one area of WP where the quality of the response is crucial. Poor or misleading feedback - and we do see it here - can be worse than no feedback at all, although I strongly agree with Cindamuse that it hurts Wikipedia when new editors ask for help and get no reply.

• How to keep the number of RFFs manageable? I like the idea of a first pass review, automated or otherwise, as part of a triage system. No, people do not (and never will) read the big instructions before they post, so we need to ensure articles are at a certain level of readiness before review. Either automatically or manually, requests should be checked to ensure the article has at least one source. If not, why not tag the request as suggestions are tagged in the suggestions queue at DYK? For example:

The article contains no sources as yet. At least one reliable source is needed in an article before feedback can be given. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidance on how to add references to your article. Thank you.

At least then they would have an answer of sorts.

These are just some rushed Sunday evening thoughts. Hope they're useful. Karenjc 18:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support for Karenjc's idea of Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines similar to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines. Who's up for writing some? Yaris678 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I for one would appreciate some guidance. Incidently the message left by Chevymontecarlo for Thelema12 seems to have yeilded results. Perhaps a similar message could be sent to other editors?--Ykraps (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to work with others to see if we can put some guidelines together. And I like Chevymontecarlo's personal approach to potential feedback providers - shows targeted requests can work. Karenjc 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't spend much time at AFC and have never run across their reviewer guidelines before now. Some of the content seems to be very relevant to RFF reviewing and could provide a good starting point. Karenjc 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support' for Karenjc's points:

• I'm happy to hear that my occasional pleas to the helpdesk were viewed positively – I didn't want to overdo it, but I haven't done it recently, so I may do it on occasion, if we don’t find a better solution.
• I like the idea of a triage, where we use a DYK-like tag system, especially for the no references
• I like the idea of guidelines. I do understand they won't be read as often as we like, but if the tag system said something like " The article contains no sources as yet. Perhaps you missed the Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines? Then include something in the guidelines along the line of "if you posted a request for feedback, but were directed here, it is because we request that you address some of the basic issues before asking for feedback. If you feel you have substantially complied with the guidelines, please feel free to repost a request.--SPhilbrickT 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was thinking of the guidelines being for those who give feedback, rather than those who request it. In terms of requester guidelines, perhaps we could add a box to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Header that looks something like this. Yaris678 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Before you request feedback

There are certain things which come up again and again so it may help if you deal with them before requesting feedback: Does your article have reliable sources? These are important in terms of both verifiability and notability. Do you have a conflict of interest that may harm your ability to produce a neutral article? If you would like a beginner's guide to these sorts of issues, take a look at the article wizard. If you are unsure about how to edit Wikipedia articles, take a look at this tutorial. For a more general discussion of writing your first article, see "Your first article".

• Yes, my suggestion was for guidelines for reviewers, to try to improve the quality of feedback we give and to encourage would-be reviewers to have the confidence to give it a go. When I first found the refdesks I wanted to help but felt unsure whether just anyone could pitch in and answer. Looking for guidance, I found the link to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines at the top of the page. Following it gave me the confidence to contribute and an understanding of what was expected of helpers. If we had such guidelines, we could provide the link in any general or individual appeals for extra reviewers - an easy way to explain what we're asking them to do.
• I like Yaris678's template. I still maintain that most people on Wikipedia do not read instructions before posting, and probably also fetch a screwdriver and pitch in rather than spend one precious minute studying the leaflet that came with the flat-pack furniture. (I don't know whether this has anything to do with the fact that the typical Wikipedian is male - sorry, grossly unfair sexist stereotyping there freely admitted, but in my defence I have been married for 21 years and have quite a collection of mystery components left over from Ikea purchases assembled by my husband, plus some pretty wonky furniture.) But anything that might just persuade a contributor to stop and improve a hopelessly inappropriate submission before posting it can only make the workload more manageable. Karenjc 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Encouraging new reviewers is key to solving the feedback crisis and I'm convinced a set of guidelines will help with that. In defence of new editors; there is quite a lot to read and I suspect that even those who bother, don't take it all in at first. That's one of the reasons many manufacturers include a 'quick start guide' with their equipment. But I digress; yes, I believe a set of guidelines would be beneficial to new reviewers.--Ykraps (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the "Before you request feedback" section to the header. Do people think anything else should go in there? Something on WP:Puffery? WP:Puffery is actually an essay, but it WP:Words to watch does have a section on puffery... Yaris678 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be mindful of giving them too much to read as they may not bother to read any of it (which was the point I was trying to make earlier, in a convoluted way). While I support the idea, I think it should be kept to a minimum. Puffery should definitely be included in the guidelines/advice for new reviewers though.--Ykraps (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just my two cents. I would go with something more along these lines. Cindamuse (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Requirements for feedback

1. Notability. The subject of your article must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. 2. Verifiability. All content in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source to show that it is not original research. Please make sure that questionable information and quotations in your article are supported by reliable sources in the form of an inline citation. 3. Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia articles must be written fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Please review our Conflict of Interest policy before requesting feedback to ensure that your article is written from a neutral point of view.

Where's the appropriate place to start drafting these new reviewer guidelines - is it acceptable to do it at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Draft guidelines, or would a subpage in talkspace or userspace be preferable?

I read SPhilbrick's comment in the previous thread on this page and it made me realise something important. RFF operates in a vacuum compared to some other WP feedback-gathering processes, with few signposts to attract potential contributors. This is largely because we give feedback here, in a vacuum away from the article, so there's no obvious way, if you stumble upon a new unreviewed article in mainspace, to tell whether it is listed at RFF. So articles get speedied or maintenance-tagged by others even though they are already in our feedback queue. This causes duplicated efforts, will demoralize contributors who see their article zapped even after they asked for help, and is a wasted opportunity to attract the attention of those users who routinely patrol and assess new articles. If we could come up with a solution it could help bring in new reviewers and (as SPhilbrick says) maybe deter trigger-happy speedy deletion of potentially usable content. Sorry to bang on about another thread, but I think it has implications for what we've been discussing here. I added a couple of ideas above, but maybe others will have better ones? Karenjc 16:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just musing, I wonder if posting a request at Feedback should trigger a message either on the article or on the article talk page (in the case of articles in article space, not in user space), that informs readers the article is in a feedback process, worded in such a way that would discourage tagging for some period of time. I wouldn't prohibit all tagging - a copyvio or a serious BLP violation shouldn't be ignored just because someone asks for feedback, but perhaps it would cut down some of the tagging.--SPhilbrickT 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, that's my feeling too. Did you see my draft template at the end of the previous thread on this page, under your comment about RFF articles in mainspace vs userspace, and my thoughts about a bot? I think the template sums up what you've just said, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Karenjc 18:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The draft template is here too if anyone wants to see it. Karenjc 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Cindamuse, your suggested text starts each line with a piece of Wikipedia jargon. I think it is important that we don't do that. We should start with what we want from the author of the article. I know that reliable sources are not a sufficient condition for notability, but they are a necesary condition and an easier one to explain (Wikipedia:Independent sources is just an essay, whereas Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a well established guideline)

• While the terms are widely used on Wikipedia, they are certainly not jargon. Whatever wikilinks are used, the instructions need to be graphically appealing, leading the editor to read and follow the overall text. Straight text will not accomplish this, nor with the proposed "Before you request feedback" box. The instructions need to be direct, concise, and visually appealing. I agree with Karen, most people on Wikipedia do not read instructions before posting. The RFF page needs to be greatly simplified. Cindamuse (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Karenjc, I would just start editing Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines if I were you. Use a hat note to explain it is just a draft. Better still, use {{Proposed}}.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• With regards to the feedback template, I have to agree with Cindamuse. It is important that the instructions are concise and easy to read.--Ykraps (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The words “Notability”, “Verifiability” and “Neutral point of view” are jargon. The words do have a common meaning, but they also have a specific meaning in Wikipedia. It is this specific meaning – the jargon meaning – that is important in this context. We need to explain to the new user what we want from them. We don’t need to have one word sentences that only make sense to the experienced. One word sentences are exactly the sort of thing that will put people off from reading the instruction. Also, what is so bad about straight text? I think the current header suffers from far too much bold text. A small amount of bold can draw attention. Any more and it starts to look a mess. People will naturally divert their eyes from the mess, instead of reading the text. Yaris678 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Patroller Academy

I'm reading over some of the suggestions here and in the spirit of working with other editors and trying to tie something together rather than working with cross purposes, I'd like to suggest that at least a few people take a look at this suggestion I made on the policy section of the Village Pump:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Page Patroller Academy

What I'm trying to do is to set up a training group that would help to come up with "best practices" that reviewers and other folks who are involved with monitoring new content coming into Wikipedia could share with potentially new contributors to Wikipedia and to help grow new reviewers to help out with the crushing load of content that comes into the project on a daily basis. So far the support for the idea is lukewarm, but perhaps some of the regulars who are interested in giving feedback to new users might be interested in at least looking over the debate that has been happening over the past week or so regarding new user contributions on this Village Pump section.

My objective here is to increase the number of people who are monitoring the new content coming in, and to not simply "throw them to the wolves" with no experience whey they have to make judgement calls on content. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

RFF draft guidelines

Just to say that I have created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Guidelines and made a hurried and sketchy start. Assistance welcomed. Karenjc 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some comments and the start of some discussions to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_feedback/Guidelines--SPhilbrickT 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Wendt and Dayananda Gunawardena

Dear friends, There was copyright violation suspects for two of there article and i re wrote few times and avoid all of Copyrights on This is a temporary pages Talk:Lionel Wendt/Temp,Talk:Dayananda Gunawardena/Temp. I believe these Articles should be publish . could you please assist me to solve this problem and Fix these articles. In addition to ,if there is Copyrights problems any body can assist me to re write . Thanks--Wipeouting (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Redesign

Editors involved here might be interested in the redesign I've just implemented at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Questions are relegated to a separate subpage, which makes it easier to separate out "should you be asking here" from "OK, you should be here, and this is how you should ask (oh, and do this first...)". So a similar approach might be helpful here. Rd232 ^talk 12:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Requests for feedback

I've moved {{RFF}} (while keeping the shortcut redirect) to {{Requests for feedback}} after it was mistagged as a CSD G2. I've reworked it significantly from User:QwerpQwertus' initial version and there is also now a {{Requests for feedback/testcases}} subpage. It still needs documentation though. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Scanning for copyright violations

Regular reviewers might like to bookmark http://toolserver.org/~earwig/cgi-bin/copyvio.py

It's a tool that takes the page name and gives you a fairly quick reply about whether the page needs a closer look for copyright issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Guides study/project

Hi Everyone!

I wanted to let you know about a study that we are getting together to start next month. As I’m sure many of you are aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years.

As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.

We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.

The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally! Jalexander--WMF 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PERSAURA: review and please provide feedback

Hi, I had write a article on PERSAURA. This is a village inside Bhinga city, distict Shrawasti, U.P. I have provided brief details about it but in future I will continue to edit and provide more information about article.

Please review the article named "Persaura", and let me know your valuable feedback.

Regards,

Sageer Ahmed 09:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the article? ThanksScaleshombre (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the OP's contributions, this is the article they created Persaura. ~~ GB fan ~~ 19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Please find link for the article Persaura. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persaura

Thanks, Sageer Ahmed 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageerahmed1983 (talk • contribs)

Planning to start editing section headings

I've "learned" that user talk comments are close to sacrosanct. While article prose is subject to merciless editing, we don't edit the talk page comments of others, with rare exceptions.

I've tried to follow that rule; the very few times I've found a desire to edit a users comments, I've left a note at the users talk page informing them. I think the broad rule makes sense, but I've noticed that new editors have a devil of a time getting the article name in the section heading when they ask for feedback.

I'm making the decision now that no new editor really wants a mess that doesn't even properly link as a section heading. In short, I'm going to grant an exception that when an editor posts a request at this forum, and fails to properly link the article, they will not be offended but grateful that someone fixed it for them. If anyone disagrees, let me know.--SPhilbrickT 02:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've quite regularly fixed section headings, and other formatting, on the FEED pages. Definitely an appropriate exception.  Chzz  ►  16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Modify scope?

We should consider modifying the opening sentence: This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed., in particular the "substantially changed" phrase.

As I said in Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_July_18#Steffen_Thomas_Request_clean_up

the facts are that this forum is woefully understaffed, and those that do drop in are usually in a mindset to review very new or draft articles. If you glance at other entries on this page, you'll see that 98% or so are brand-new. My usual advice is to say that improvements such as the ones you requests are better handled by the relevant project. ... I'll leave the request here; if someone wants to respond, that would be great, but as you can see, responses are lagging, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I'll separately look into modifying the advice on the Requests for feedback page, in case others agree that this is not the right forum for a request such as yours.

We should simply drop the last phrase, or possibly expand the point and urge editors with substantial rewrite to go to the relevant project. What do others think?--SPhilbrickT 16:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to solve the under-staffing; it's been a concern of mine for years - that so many queries go unanswered. I've poked, prodded and cajoled people into helping - in fact, I did so just yesterday, on Wikipedia:HD#FEED.

I believe that the essence, and remit, of FEED is for 'short' help - not detailed analysis, but simply pointers in the right directions.

Users requiring more extensive, in-depth help should indeed be redirected elsewhere (WP:PR, probably). So yeah; I agree we should just remove that "substantially changed" phrase. Go for it.  Chzz  ►  16:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about Peer review

My proposal:

Existing wording:

• This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed.
• This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions.
• If you are requesting feedback on yourself and your editing in general, see Wikipedia:Editor review.
• If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
• Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.

Proposed wording (the new wording will all be in bold; the bold here is merely to identify changed wording:

• This page provides comments and constructive criticism about relatively new articles that you have drafted or created.
• This page is not suitable for feedback requests if you have substantially rewritten an existing article. To seek such assistance, go to Peer review or a relevant WikiProject
• This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions.
• If you are requesting feedback on yourself and your editing in general, see Wikipedia:Editor review.
• If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
• Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.

--SPhilbrickT 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Phil, do what you think best. WP:BRD. You know *I* get it...but, I suspect not many people bother. To be honest w. you, you may as well do what you feel best for FEED 'coz no other bugger will. *I* do care tho, so keep me informed. Stay bold. I think the instructions are getting too long, so I encourage KISS but... yeah. Go for it.  Chzz  ►  03:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I only drop in occassionally out of a sense of duty but I have always felt that this is not the best forum for in-depth feedback because of the high demand, and usually point people towards a project or peer review.--Ykraps (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I support your proposed change. It's pretty much word for word the same idea that I was formulating in this sleep-deprived brain of mine. I think you should just go for it. Be bold and all that stuff... er, what Chzz said. On another note, I think the format and structure of the instructions is a mess. None of the boxed sections follow a set pattern. Ideally, I would like to see some consistency, which would improve readability. Let me know if you need help. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'd be happy to see the word "detailed" (as in, "not the place for detailed feedback") added to the newly proposed sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make the change, but I didn't see a rush, and wanted a couple days to go by to see if there might be some dissenting opinions. I do see some suggestions for further changes, which we probably should consider. I may get to it this evening, if not will do something later in the week.--SPhilbrickT 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do what you feel best, SPhilbrick; I'm sure it'll be an improvement. FWIW, I think the whole header should be a lot shorter, clearer, etc. - I think there's far too many instructions thre. But, also, we don't have the resources to manage it (or, at least, can't seem to enlist them). But...sure; if you have ideas, just go for it. (waiting a few days is nice though; I just wanted to reiterate general support)  Chzz  ►  00:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisting

I've been wondering about this for a while. Why isn't the RFF page structured like the Help Desk? i.e. We don't get alerted when a new request has been made even if the page is in our watchlists? I get notifications but only for the specific subpage I posted a reply to, any new pages for new dates are ignored.

That probably explains why this page has little traffic when it comes to helpers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, something is lacking, isn't it? The project page is on my watchlist (have zero recollection of adding it, mind) but I've seen nothing until you raised this here and I can see the project page is quite busy. So, I second Obsidian's call for action: I don't have the first clue as to what need be done to change things). --bodnotbod (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, a very sophisticated system has been created which allows this page to build itself. No human or bot is necessary. I think there are two ways that can fix this. First, rather than use the sophisticated system, at the start of every new day a bot could be designed to transclude one new day and remove one old day. In that manner, there would be a minor notification in that a new day was started. The second, easier way would be to get rid of the subpages and post everything on the main project page. I think doing so could help considerably. In addition, I think that it should run in a way that messages are not archived unless they have received a comment. Editor review does something similar. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea where to start fixing this as well, like Bodnotbod. But yeah I'm more in favor of the second option (no transclusion, only archiving) as it would also get rid of the necessity of protecting the main index page, of which I've had two complaints on already. I'd also prefer that people who watchlisted the project page get updated with every new post and thus can answer on demand rather than simply be updated on daily page turnovers. It keeps this visible in the watchlist. The Help Desk and the Reference Desk pages use the same system, yeah? And they all work very well imo, even with comparably high traffic.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Instructions re: request for response to feedback

While trying out the RFF page for the first time, I came on one element of the page I think could be improved. The editor who provided feedback to my original request clarified for me how to meet the request for response in the "After Receiving Feedback" introductory section of the main RFF page. In order to respond, one has to click on the date of the original posting, in "The previous few days of requests are transcluded below" section at the bottom of the introductory sections. Then and only then are "edit" buttons made available. I would suggest that the "After Receiving ..." section have added to it, to point #2, something like "Click on the date of the original request below to initiate a response." I think it could save future editors some time and/or perhaps improve response rates. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sky Jessica Powell

Sky Jessica Powell

Sky Jessica Powell (born June 12, 1993) is an British model. Sky Jessica Powell is best known for her amazing photo's that can be found all over the web. In 2010 Sky began her Modeling career by signing a contract with the "Eden Haven's Modeling Agency" in the lovely Cayman Islands, but it wasnt working out for her at all. Sky left gladly, "This Agency wasn't, and isnt doing anything for me, i need jobs!" She twittered. Sky is now working with the Model and Talent Management of John Casablancain Miami florida. John Casablancas is the founder of Elite Model Management International, the largest and most prestigious modeling agency in the world. Sky has walked many runways, and has done a lot of promotions for popular places. This chick is definitely living the life of a celebrity; she has the best of both worlds. In 2011, Sky walked the Red Carpet in the Cayman Islands at Island Air. This young super-star has made it in music videos such as 'KMNITE - MY FAVORITE' and many more. Sky Jessica Powell Also plays the piano, writes songs and sings. She is very popular on YouTube. Before Sky was in music videos, she started to get many hits on her first single "Chase After Me" that was released on YouTube and Radio Stations. "One day i will release my first album and its going to be a BIG hit" she said LIVE. She is looking forward into doing Movies with Lionsgate, and commercials for other places.

http://www.wix.com/fashionmodelin/sky-jessica-powell

--Ebanks 17:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the most extreme examples of fanboy puffery I have ever seen. Was it written by her publicist? For Seventeen? (Aren't their standards higher?) For a start, why is she notable? (Pictures on the Web don't qualify. Neither does YouTube.) The tone is atrocious. ("Chick"? This isn't the '70s, or "The Good Guys". And using her first name is way too familiar.) Inline external links are a bad idea. If she actually recorded for an acual label, which was it? What "songs" did she actually record, if any? Have any of them actually charted? (Again, YouTube doesn't count.) And BTW, does Soundcloud.com qualify as a reliable source? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI userspace draft

If somebody is wondering why the rate of the requests were "minimalized" the last few days: I changed the {{userspace draft}} so that the users automatically move there pages to WP:AFC. (request a review, a bot moves them) and thus we have ~50 - 100 submissions more a day. Feel free to help us. If somebody needs help/tools or whatever, ask at WT:AFC or come to the IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect. Regards, mabdul 15:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)