Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baseball WikiProject
Information Project page talk   •Discussion archives Participants talk 2007 MLB team articles talk 2008 MLB team articles talk Game logs talk Articles talk Dif.  •1  •2  •3  •4  •talk Project category talk Baseball Portal talk Departments Assessment talk   •Worklist  •Log Article Improvement Drive talk Peer review talk Deletion sorting Quiz talk Tools Project banner talk Welcome banner talk Userboxes Large Userbox talk Project Userbox talk Area specific Baseball Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk International Australian baseball talk Japanese baseball talk Korean baseball talk Taiwanese baseball talk MLB Team Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
edit · changes

The peer review department of the Baseball WikiProject conducts peer reviews of articles on requests. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on. Generally, most reviews will be conducted before nominating an article for Good Article or Featured Article status.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Baseball WikiProject. You do not need to be a member of the WikiProject to review an article.

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Related Items 3 Requests 3.1 Posting system

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{Baseball-WikiProject}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page.
2. From there, click on the "currently" link that appears in red in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~). Also specify if you are going for Good article, Featured article, or neither as this may require different levels of scrutiny.
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

1. Move the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing the primary page, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{Baseball-WikiProject}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Related Items

If there are no articles below, or you want more articles, see Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates#Sports for articles currently Good article candidates. You should not approve any article that you were involved heavily in editing or reviewing here, but you could help another article reach GA.

[edit] Requests

[edit] Posting system

I've listed this article for peer review because I've completely overhauled it, and I would like to get it to at least GA quality. I believe that all the information that needs to be on the page is there in some form or another, I would just like to get the prose and grammar perfect, which can be hard when there are so many names, terms and technical jargon to juggle around. Any help perfecting it would be great! Torsodog (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)