Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2006

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

Shortcut

The path to a featured article

  1. Start a new article
  2. Research and write a great article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback
    1. Automated review ←
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. Featured articles

The following peer review suggestions were semi-automatically generated by a javascript code - they may or possibly may not be accurate/applicable for the article in question due to unique differences for each articles. They are provided as a supplement to manual suggestions, and generally focus on stylistic issues that peer reviewers may miss or not be aware of.

Creation procedure
Generally, the suggestions will be generated semi-automatically by User:AZPR, though all users can run the script themselves by following the instructions for installation.

How to respond to a request
Feel free to strike out issues that have already been taken care of or to respond to problems; questions about issues can be left on this page (which hopefully an editor will notice and respond to) or on the articles peer review page.

How to remove a request
Automated reviews for articles that have been closed or archived should be left on this page to keep the links organized.

How to get updated suggestions
A message can be left at here or here requesting an updated automated review, or you can install the script yourself by following instructions at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer#Installation

Notes
Please see User:AndyZ/peerreviewer/guide for additional information about specific suggestions.

  1. ^ The following suggestions are all semi-automatically generated by JavaScript, and there is no guarantee that they are all accurate; in most cases, however, they are correct for the article in question. The suggestions above include stylistic problems (many having to do with WP:MOS and its subpages) and other issues pulled from WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FARC. However, it is strongly suggested that besides just tackling the problems listed here, that you ask for human assistance to review your article with a greater depth.
    You can use the script yourself. Add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js}} to your monobook.js, and then bypass your cache. While in editing mode, click on the peer review link that appears next to your logout button. The suggestions can be traced through User:AndyZ/PR.
  2. ^ This suggestion will always appear if the lead is only one paragraph long.
  3. ^ If the lead is 5 paragraphs or longer, this suggestion will appear. It does not actually look at the content of the lead.
  4. ^ Many articles will not have applicable infoboxes. If an article already has an infobox/similar template, the javascript code probably did not recognize the infobox; please just strike the comment.
  5. ^ This will trigger if dates located in references or inline citations are not linked
  6. ^ Partial dates like months and days of the week usually aren't linked; years alone are sometimes linked – see WP:CONTEXT. User:Bobblewik has an useful JavaScript code to deal with this - add {{subst:js|User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js}} to your monobook.js
  7. ^ In many occasions, these terms are used as relative time terms and have absolutely nothing to do with the recent time concern.
  8. ^ Certain phrases, especially “# in ”, will trigger this suggestion; in that case, the in is interpreted as “inches”.
  9. ^ This will occasionally be triggered incorrectly due to certain phrases.
  10. ^ The categories and interwiki/language links usually are located at the bottom of the article. They are in the format [[Category:THE CATEGORY]] and [[es:Espanol]]. About the alphabetizing of categories, see discussion.
  11. ^ {{subst:User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} can help newer editors to add footnotes to the article. You can add it to your monobook.js and click on the tab that appears in editing mode to quickly create footnotes and paste them into your article.
  12. ^ Sometimes images in an infobox will be missed.
  13. ^ If the beginning of an article is a comment or a disambiguation link, this might cause the suggestion to be triggered.
  14. ^ Sometimes, an infobox image’s caption will be missed.
  15. ^ Depending upon the scope of an article, in certain cases the TOC will have to be larger. There is not set min/max for the TOC.
  16. ^ This is a default suggestion; it will always appear.
  17. ^ Many phrases are not weasel words (ex. They are found in quotes, or in other situations where it is clear that they are not weasel words.). In addition, if an inline citation is provided, it cannot be picked up by the javascript code.
  18. ^ As of now, this suggestion will only appear if you have a section starting with == List of