289:
82:
104:
660:: Sorry about the delay; I've had a very busy week over here. I think in this case we would want to close the discussion whether it's listed in the sidebars or not — this bot task is intended to clear out the extremely old backlog when it's clear no editors will be leaving further comments. The part of the existing task that closes answered reviews after a month can also be retained.
517:
felt that ends up being a very, very long backlog of unanswered reviews and I feel if a review hasn't attracted interest in some period, it's better off to be closed to direct reviewers to newer reviews. The reviews that are that old are stale and, unfortunately, that often means the contributes might not be so active either.
915:, Step 4, it states that a PR can be closed if the article is nominated for good article, featured article or featured list status. When answering PRs, I came across a situation where an article was first nominated at GAN, then nominated at PR. I would like to add the following text to the "Please note:" section of Step 1:
687:
Ok. The bot will now close valid PRs (i.e. the PR and the corresponding article talk page both exist and are non-redirects) if (1) It's on the FAC sidebar and is inactive for 3 months, (2) It's on the unanswered sidebar and is inactive for 3 months, (3) it has only one contributor and is inactive for
869:
but also having another spot for reviews with minor additions is unnecessarily awkward. As for the pre-FAC sidebar, I don't think it should be a problem with anyone as the bot would only be removing reviews that have been closed manually or automatically after three months of inactivity (the same as
850:
Thanks for the ping. The unanswered peer reviews sidebar seems like lower hanging fruit that I think would be useful were addressed automatically. The FA crew really took up the pre-FAC reviews with gusto and from my take on things prefer to curate the list themselves - sometimes leaving things open
516:
Hi all, great to see your discussion above. As you probably can see from this histories I've been quite involved in the PR processes previously. Happy to respect the consensus here but I'd suggest that there is some threshold (E.g. 3 months, 6 months) that is included in the criteria. Previously, I
445:
which previously read "If a request is unanswered for more than one month." Because of how understaffed the peer review process tends to be, I regularly find that reviews can go unnoticed for months before an interested editor comes along and provides comments. I don't think it's a net positive to
851:
for a very long time. I feel it might create some friction for that group of editors and contributors if the bot were to automatically remove reviews without checking if they would find that useful first. I'm not sure about the tracking categories - how would that be different to the present?
734:
for PRs with no feedback (i.e. only one contributor) that wouldn't show up on the normal list wouldn't be too bad either. Determining if feedback is "minimal" or whether it's related to a FAC seems beyond what AnomieBOT could handle though, humans would still have to do that part.
576:
Sorry for the delay, it's been busy off-wiki. Sure, I can reach out and see if the task can be expanded to cover this case as well. Speaking of automating repetitive tasks, it might be worth workshopping a more efficient way to update the
757:
Let me get back to you on this one. It might be better to place the pages in appropriate tracking categories so the bot doesn't have to do the heavy lifting of deciding whether or not the discussion is "minimal feedback" or "pre-FAC".
803:(and, to be safe, the associated date isn't within the past month). I didn't enable that code yet though, pending consensus. I didn't try writing anything for adding to either sidebar, that would still be done by humans.
446:
summarily throw out month-old requests and tell the nominator, in essence, that they're out of luck. Feel free to revert me if you disagree with the change and we can discuss it further if necessary.
950:
Sounds good to me. I also saw a situation like this recently and was a bit confused about the editor's decision to do that, as it unnecessarily splits reviewer energy between two discussion venues.
624:
Just to be clear, the request for change to the bot is to start archiving reviews with only one contributor (i.e. the nominator) after three months of inactivity? But still excluding PRs listed on
489:
Probably not, as those discussions were closed validly at the time. It would be easier to have the nominators simply open a new review page if they're still interested in comments.
906:
870:
all other reviews). Using a tracking category would give the bot a way to determine whether or not a particular review is "pre-FAC", which it currently has no way of doing.
597:, which is currently a rather tedious task of checking whether reviews have been closed and going through the main list to see if any other reviews qualify to be listed.
433:
468:
944:
866:
475:
172:
32:
90:
270:
442:
182:
218:
845:
110:
794:
511:
484:
1086:
1060:
728:
708:
628:
581:
724:, it seems like it would be fairly straightforward for a bot to remove properly-formatted links to closed PRs. Adding entries on
892:
860:
742:
619:
571:
557:
526:
362:
357:
352:
865:
It's mostly for the unanswered reviews sidebar that I'm proposing introducing tracking categories, as the current system of
810:
695:
682:
651:
986:
972:
535:
take over closing unanswered reviews (which it already does for reviews that have been answered and inactive for a month).
347:
342:
337:
332:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
113:
discussions and keep related topics together, most talk pages relating to
Knowledge's peer review process redirect here.
263:
239:
146:
67:
1038:, there isn't a dedicated sports topic, but I think this article can be sorted under "social sciences and society".
562:
Good idea! Would you be happy to post a request for it? I'm always in favour of automating repetitive manual tasks.
718:
638:
591:
435:
244:
203:
177:
39:
187:
1028:
1000:
800:
234:
167:
141:
60:
256:
819:: If there are no objections to this change, I plan to set up the maintenance categories later this week.
688:
3 months, or (4) it's not on either sidebar, has more than one contributor, and is inactive for 1 month.
393:
213:
53:
1051:
963:
883:
836:
785:
673:
610:
548:
502:
459:
766:
136:
1075:
1017:
419:
799:
I went ahead and wrote code for removing PRs from the two sidebar templates if they're not in
1041:
953:
873:
826:
775:
663:
600:
538:
531:
I would be fine with extending the deadline to three months. It might also be useful to have
492:
449:
122:
25:
412:
8:
823:, since you've also been discussing the guidelines here recently, do you have any input?
479:
1035:
856:
567:
522:
404:
87:
Before posting about a review closed without any comments, consider the instructions
807:
739:
692:
648:
982:
940:
376:
474:
Should old discussions that were closed under that criterion be reopened? (e.g.
532:
372:
928:
924:
920:
912:
852:
816:
759:
563:
518:
288:
151:
994:
1007:}} but, I'm not sure which topic it belongs to... Can someone help me???
1004:
804:
736:
689:
657:
645:
378:
978:
936:
820:
103:
374:
379:
919:
Articles may not be listed while they are nominated for
762:, what do you think of adding a couple of parameters to
282:
907:Add "nomination at FAC/FLC/GAN" to notes in Step 1
387:This page has archives. Sections older than
264:
977:I have added the above to the instructions.
271:
257:
999:Hi! I want to request a peer review for
644:? Anything else for the existing task?
867:listing reviews with a single revision
397:when more than 3 sections are present.
98:
76:
19:
441:I've just removed a criterion from
13:
14:
1104:
391:may be automatically archived by
436:Knowledge:Peer review/Guidelines
287:
102:
80:
729:Unanswered peer reviews sidebar
709:Unanswered peer reviews sidebar
629:Unanswered peer reviews sidebar
582:Unanswered peer reviews sidebar
343:September 2010 - February 2012
1:
1003:, I've already substituted {{
801:Category:Current peer reviews
1001:2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup
338:August 2009 - September 2010
318:December 2006 – January 2008
91:Step 3: Waiting for a review
7:
333:November 2008 - August 2009
10:
1109:
443:§ Step 4: Closing a review
402:
1087:15:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
1061:14:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
1029:13:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
987:16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
893:15:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
861:12:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
846:14:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
811:20:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
795:16:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
743:12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
704:As for the comment about
696:20:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
683:16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
652:12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
620:01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
328:April 2008 – October 2008
323:January 2008 – April 2008
973:21:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
945:02:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
572:00:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
558:21:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
527:11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
512:20:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
485:20:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
469:00:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
348:February 2012 - May 2014
313:May 2005 – December 2006
18:
925:featured article status
719:FAC peer review sidebar
639:FAC peer review sidebar
592:FAC peer review sidebar
147:Writing better articles
394:Lowercase sigmabot III
358:March 2016 - June 2020
308:July 2003 – April 2005
353:May 2014 - March 2016
929:featured list status
921:good article status
913:the PR instructions
196:Peer review process
142:Develop the article
137:Start a new article
772:to control these?
434:About a change to
1096:
1095:
1084:
1059:
1026:
971:
891:
844:
793:
681:
618:
556:
510:
476:Arena Corinthians
467:
401:
400:
281:
280:
117:
116:
97:
96:
75:
74:
1100:
1082:
1074:
1072:
1056:
1049:
1048:
1046:
1044:TechnoSquirrel69
1024:
1016:
1014:
968:
961:
960:
958:
956:TechnoSquirrel69
888:
881:
880:
878:
876:TechnoSquirrel69
841:
834:
833:
831:
829:TechnoSquirrel69
790:
783:
782:
780:
778:TechnoSquirrel69
771:
767:Peer review page
765:
733:
727:
723:
717:
713:
707:
678:
671:
670:
668:
666:TechnoSquirrel69
643:
637:
633:
627:
615:
608:
607:
605:
603:TechnoSquirrel69
596:
590:
586:
580:
553:
546:
545:
543:
541:TechnoSquirrel69
507:
500:
499:
497:
495:TechnoSquirrel69
482:
464:
457:
456:
454:
452:TechnoSquirrel69
422:
415:
396:
380:
291:
283:
273:
266:
259:
129:Editing articles
119:
118:
106:
99:
84:
83:
77:
20:
16:
15:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1076:
1066:
1052:
1042:
1039:
1018:
1008:
997:
964:
954:
951:
909:
884:
874:
871:
837:
827:
824:
786:
776:
773:
769:
763:
731:
725:
721:
715:
711:
705:
674:
664:
661:
641:
635:
631:
625:
611:
601:
598:
594:
588:
584:
578:
549:
539:
536:
503:
493:
490:
480:
460:
450:
447:
439:
426:
425:
418:
411:
407:
392:
381:
375:
296:
277:
245:Volunteers list
178:FAC preparation
160:Current reviews
152:Manual of style
81:
12:
11:
5:
1106:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
996:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
933:
932:
908:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
813:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
481:Bluecrystal004
438:
432:
430:
424:
423:
416:
408:
403:
399:
398:
386:
383:
382:
377:
373:
371:
368:
367:
366:
365:
360:
355:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
310:
302:
301:
298:
297:
292:
286:
279:
278:
276:
275:
268:
261:
253:
250:
249:
248:
247:
242:
237:
229:
228:
224:
223:
222:
221:
219:Closure policy
216:
211:
206:
198:
197:
193:
192:
191:
190:
185:
180:
175:
170:
162:
161:
157:
156:
155:
154:
149:
144:
139:
131:
130:
126:
125:
115:
114:
107:
95:
94:
88:
85:
73:
72:
70:
65:
63:
58:
56:
51:
49:
44:
42:
37:
35:
30:
28:
23:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1105:
1088:
1083:
1081:
1080:
1071:
1070:
1069:Vestrian24Bio
1065:Okay, Thanks
1064:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1055:
1047:
1045:
1037:
1036:Vestrian24Bio
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1023:
1022:
1013:
1012:
1011:Vestrian24Bio
1006:
1002:
988:
984:
980:
976:
975:
974:
969:
967:
959:
957:
949:
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
930:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:
914:
894:
889:
887:
879:
877:
868:
864:
863:
862:
858:
854:
849:
848:
847:
842:
840:
832:
830:
822:
818:
814:
812:
809:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
791:
789:
781:
779:
768:
761:
756:
744:
741:
738:
730:
720:
710:
703:
697:
694:
691:
686:
685:
684:
679:
677:
669:
667:
659:
655:
654:
653:
650:
647:
640:
630:
623:
622:
621:
616:
614:
606:
604:
593:
583:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
554:
552:
544:
542:
534:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
515:
514:
513:
508:
506:
498:
496:
488:
487:
486:
483:
477:
473:
472:
471:
470:
465:
463:
455:
453:
444:
437:
431:
428:
421:
417:
414:
410:
409:
406:
395:
390:
385:
384:
370:
369:
364:
361:
359:
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
299:
295:
290:
285:
284:
274:
269:
267:
262:
260:
255:
254:
252:
251:
246:
243:
241:
238:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
225:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
194:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
165:
164:
163:
159:
158:
153:
150:
148:
145:
143:
140:
138:
135:
134:
133:
132:
128:
127:
124:
121:
120:
112:
108:
105:
101:
100:
92:
89:mentioned in
86:
79:
78:
71:
69:
66:
64:
62:
59:
57:
55:
52:
50:
48:
45:
43:
41:
38:
36:
34:
31:
29:
27:
24:
22:
21:
17:
1078:
1077:
1068:
1067:
1053:
1043:
1020:
1019:
1010:
1009:
998:
965:
955:
934:
910:
885:
875:
838:
828:
787:
777:
675:
665:
612:
602:
550:
540:
504:
494:
461:
451:
440:
429:
427:
388:
293:
208:
204:Instructions
46:
40:Instructions
363:June 2020 -
240:WikiProject
123:Peer review
935:Thoughts?
209:Discussion
173:Unanswered
111:centralise
47:Discussion
33:Unanswered
995:PR topics
533:AnomieBOT
420:WT:REVIEW
405:Shortcuts
1005:subst:PR
853:Tom (LT)
564:Tom (LT)
519:Tom (LT)
294:Archives
109:To help
389:30 days
235:Archive
68:Project
61:Archive
805:Anomie
737:Anomie
690:Anomie
658:Anomie
646:Anomie
979:Z1720
937:Z1720
927:, or
821:Z1720
413:WT:PR
227:Other
214:Tools
54:Tools
1079:TALK
1054:sigh
1034:Hey
1021:TALK
983:talk
966:sigh
941:talk
886:sigh
857:talk
839:sigh
788:sigh
714:and
676:sigh
634:and
613:sigh
587:and
568:talk
551:sigh
523:talk
505:sigh
462:sigh
183:List
168:Full
26:Main
911:In
817:Tom
760:Tom
478:) ~
188:Log
1085:)
1027:)
985:)
943:)
923:,
859:)
770:}}
764:{{
732:}}
726:{{
722:}}
716:{{
712:}}
706:{{
642:}}
636:{{
632:}}
626:{{
595:}}
589:{{
585:}}
579:{{
570:)
525:)
1073:(
1058:)
1050:(
1040:—
1015:(
981:(
970:)
962:(
952:—
939:(
931:.
890:)
882:(
872:—
855:(
843:)
835:(
825:—
815:@
808:⚔
792:)
784:(
774:—
740:⚔
693:⚔
680:)
672:(
662:—
656:@
649:⚔
617:)
609:(
599:—
566:(
555:)
547:(
537:—
521:(
509:)
501:(
491:—
466:)
458:(
448:—
272:e
265:t
258:v
93:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
