Wikipedia talk:External peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Marking articles externally peer reviewed

Should we tag articles that have been externally peer reviewed? violet/riga (t) 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

in the past articles that were externals peer reviewed were tagged using the source template (ex. Talk:Media in South Africa). I think such a template would fine (I mean, we mark articles that have under gone an internal peer review). Broken S 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Now someone be bold. :-) — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd do it, but I am an ignoramus when it comes to templates and tables. Broken S 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added the following template to the correct articles; how does this look? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Peer review This article was externally reviewed on December 14, 2005 by Nature. It was found to have no errors.
Looks nice. Broken S 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
"This article was reviewed by a secret expert Nature magazine sent it to. Their 'expert' tried to find wrong stuff in it and failed," would be more accurate. Maybe Jimbo will get a few articles loosely nailed down, but even those will still need work. If you pat yourself on the back too hard you will be propelled into whatever your face happens to hit. Be careful. Metarhyme 04:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Nature is a science journal. They're calling this a peer review; I suspect they really have gone through the usual formal process, which normally means the reviewers are anonymous. In this case, Wikipedia and Britannica were also anonymous to the reviewers (double-masked review). The purpose of anonymity is to allow the reviewers to be as fair and critical in their reviews as possible. That Nature has done this should come as a humbling blow to Britannica while at the same time demonstrating Wikipedia is worthy of being taken seriously. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 06:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
EB is eating their liver, alright, but their snide remark that Wikipedia needs editing isn't incorrect. Your template looks better - either you changed it or I'm feeling less critical or both. Metarhyme 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] email about the Congo Wars

Xed has pasted part of an email he received from Prof. Didier Gondola of Indiana University, author of The History of the Democratic Republic of Congo, at Talk:First Congo War#Accuracy questionned. Commenting on First Congo War and Second Congo War, Gondola says that they are a "great set of articles well researched and very well balanced", before going into bulleted points to address. The main page here is probably for reviews that can be linked to, but some people might be interested in the comments. - BanyanTree 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it could be called anything as formal as a "peer review" - such things are more forensic. Interesting though. - Xed 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "peer"

We should consider changing the name of the page and associated articles/tags/categories to "external review" rather than "external peer review". "Peer review" has a specific meaning, and articles about an encyclopedia in newspapers, magazines, and even journals isn't it. - Nunh-huh 02:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that though. We already have pages for news articles about Wikipedia - this is for those ones that specifically review individual articles. violet/riga (t) 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the examples here review, but they don't "peer" review. (In fact, Nature shouldn't really be calling their study "peer review", but an evaluation based on the peer review system. - 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The title is fine to the extent that it refers to Wikipedia:Peer review. --Rikurzhen 09:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of German Wikipedia

Maybe we should also report on the two formal peer reviews that have evaluated the German Wikipedia? Both results were excellent. AxelBoldt 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. You can see more details on meta

[edit] Independent Online

Should we make an entry for this recent review from the The Independent? It is fairly positive. BrokenSegue 02:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is kind of a rethorical question now, I guess. In any case, my answer is: yes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Basically I was asking if someone else would do it (I was feeling lazy). I set up the bare bones template and some pull quotes a few moments ago. BrokenSegue 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq Museum International

This isn't exactly in the same vein as the rest of the reviews this page covers, but Iraq Museum International has apparently done a lot of research on Wikipedia's handling of the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Is this the place that should cover their review, or does it deserve its own page? [1] ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I would say The Signpost would be the most appropriate place. violet/riga (t) 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Record

I don't think this is exactly a notable news source, and the guy who wrote it seems to have no understanding of Wikipedia policies like no original research, but I think the inaccuracies mentioned in the article are worth checking out. jacoplane 00:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Academic peer review

Taking our lessons from the demise of the Scientific Peer Review project, there is now a much simpler way to attract academic peer review. Feel free to give us your comments, but please remember to keep it simple. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American history brief review

A pretty good academic article about Wikipedia by Rosenzweig, Roy ([2]) noted some errors in several articles about American history, I left links and quotes on appopriate talk pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/x/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EExternal_peer_review_e1cc.html"