Talk:Peer Community in
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The page Peer Community In already existed as draft under review
editHello there. Apparently there's no bot checking if a draft of a new page is present before allowing users to create one... 🤔 A draft of the PCI page was already present and under review: Draft:Peer_Community_in.
Since the version that correspond to the current one on the French Wikipedia, the current draft page was expanded by other users. So, I'm just pointing to that draft to encourage people to do a merge. Natematic (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality
editThe article relies far too much on citations to sources affiliated with the Peer Community in, and needs to base more of its content off of independent sources. The Recognition section in particular is not neutrally framed, and the Media Coverage section appears to use media coverage of Peer Community in as a primary source for said coverage, rather than using it as a secondary source to support other claims in the article. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I suggest rephrasing or removing the sentence "This indicates that the principles, originality, and importance of PCI are receiving high recognition and are more and more welcomed by the academic publishing community." W Liebermeister (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
removed suggested sentence LaFambe (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Further suggestions by Rosguill:
- additional third-party citations to some academic papers have been added, but as far as I can tell these sources say very little about Peer Community in, and in most cases do not even fully support the claims that they are attached to in the article. Meanwhile, the Recognition section is overly reliant on primary sources (i.e. organizations saying that they recognize PCi, rather than third-parties reporting that organizations recognize PCi). The "Media coverage" section has a similar issue: it's essentially a list of examples of times that the media has mentioned the subject. A better way to develop the article would be to take the reliable sources cited in the Media coverage and rewrite the article using them as your main source of information, with PCi-affiliated publications used only to provide greater depth to phenomena that the independent sources already draw attention to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosguill#Page_%C2%AB_Peer_Community_in_%C2%BB_tags_%28pov%2C_third-party%29 LaFambe (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)