Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Peer review

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

The begining

I started this page off with a basic structure from Wikipedia:Peer Review. It needs a lot of work done to it. In addition, i have also created the template Template:CVGPeerreview. This is the best i can do right now, help from other's would be great to make this work. --ZeWrestler 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Apparently my edit overwrote yours. :/ Anyway, I made the page more specific to CVG. I removed a lot of information pertaining only to the official peer review too. I don't think we need a lot of the more detailed stuff (this includes subpages of this subpage for these reviews). If anything this should just be a talk page with individual listings of games where "peers" can discuss how to improve an article etc. If it becomes popular then we could add details and so forth. K1Bond007 June 29, 2005 19:59 (UTC)

I've added a few stuff from my initial idea, mostly around the header. ^wS+♬ 29 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)

I added some stuff to the nomination section. I set it up to be more like the real peer review.--ZeWrestler 29 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)

Archiving

How long should we keep articles that haven't been edited in a given amount of time. The regular peer review uses 2 weeks. Would that be sufficient, or should we wait longer? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Since we don't get too many requests and this place isn't exactly hopping, I'd say go for a month until (if) things pick up. K1Bond007 17:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say only archive once the page gets so big it's hard to navigate. Jacoplane 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What about articles that get too large to navigate, but are still active? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit icon

How about we edit our icon in the template so that it is not identical to the regular peer review magnifine glass. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What about...

^wS;✉ 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thats perfect. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The change has been made.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Nicely done. Jacoplane 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Computer and video games

Its time to archive the entry for Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Computer and video games, but it doesn't follow the format set up for the normal CVG peer reviews. How should i go about archiving it? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I need a different place

I need a place for casual CVG editor attention. This peer review following the format of the big Wikipedia Peer Review is fine, but a noticeboard where we can direct attention of CVG editors to articles that are not yet near featured article quality would be helpful. We have the box on the main page, but the links are just links to the stub category and the big Wikipedia cleanup part. Something like the peer review noticeboard at WP:LDS would be helpful. Agree? I will make it soon if there are no objections. Cookiecaper 02:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll just make it now because I need it. Please see the noticeboard's talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Noticeboard. Cookiecaper 02:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Limits on Peer Reviews

If anyone cares, I'll put it here- I'm going to use a limit of 2 weeks on peer reviews, same as regular PR's. That means, if it goes two weeks without activity, it's archived. You can, of course, bring it back out again, but it'd probably be better to just make a new one. --PresN 20:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

With an additional suggestion to make it "indefinite" prior to the first comment (the GA rule; it stays on the list until someone sees and comments on it). Nifboy 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not. --PresN 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Help

I've nominated a game, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, for peer review but have no idea how to nominate it using the VG template, I used the normal peer review template. What do I do now? The Clawed One (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Second peer review?

In the previous peer review I requested for GT Advance Championship Racing (seen here), the only response I received was from David Fuchs who was also the GAN reviewer.

If I wish to ask for a second peer review to help me get the article a step closer towards being featured (my goal is something in the vein of Iridion 3D), I'd like to ask for another peer review from the WikiProject to help me achieve it, especially considering that the one comment only answered a question of mine about policy, not looking over the article (though, thanks to David for answering it!).

Is there a way for me to archive the previous discussion? Or should I continue on the same page? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)