Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

If you wish to place a request for feedback, please click here. This page is for discussion about the RFF project and how to improve it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Feedback templates/userboxes

I hope that my idea of Requests for Feedback will soon become an integral part of Wikipedia. I have three suggestions on how to help users find and identify with Requests for Feedback:

• Create a userbox "This user helps answer Requests for Feedback" or something similar. Multiple userboxes are even better!
• Include links to Requests for Feedback on major Wikipedia pages such as Your First Article. For example, "Once you have written your article, you might like to place a Request for Feedback." I have added a link to Requests for Feedback from the New contributors' help page.
• Create a template for users who are seeking feedback on their article, which lists the article at Requests for Feedback. (I think users can improvise on my suggestion.)

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (creator of Requests for Feedback)

I made a message box for adding to a talk page (like a peer review box). It looks like this:

Request for Feedback

You can leave feedback on this article at WP:FEED/Nadine Baggott.

the link above relates to a current (13th Sep 2007) feedback request.

Ideally this should be a template but I haven't looked at making templates yet... DMcMPO11AAUK 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Feedback about this Project

There are many ways to contribute: adding facts, correcting typos, reverting vandalism, etc. There's now another way: read and give feedback on new articles!

For a start, why not give feedback about the Requests for Feedback project? Feedback on my idea and how to improvise it?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Repositioning of Google Groups and Homerun articles

My two articles about Google Groups and Homerun were the first two articles to be posted for getting feedback, obviously because I started Requests for Feedback. However, they have failed to get any feedback, despite many articles below it getting good feedback. I have moved my two articles to the bottom to help them get feedback. Is this considered acceptable under Wikipedia policy?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hildanknight, try Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and Wikipedia:Peer review, as these are more established avenues for getting comments from the community to improve an article. Cheers, Tangotango 08:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks. I was asking whether moving the feedback requests for my articles Google Groups and Homerun from the top of the page to the bottom was considered acceptable under Wikipedia policy. It's similar to bumping a thread in a forum.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review, according to its page, "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", not new articles. Requests for expansion, according to its page, is for "for listing those [articles] for which there is a specific request [for expansion]".

The Google Groups and Homerun articles are written mostly by me (a relatively new editor), with several polish-ups by other Wikipedians, and certainly don't qualify as "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work"; in addition, the articles offer sufficient coverage about their respective topics to not require a specific request for expansion.

The Article Feedback Desk is for new editors to get feedback on their articles and edits. This feedback includes insights into their strengths and weaknesses as an editor. For example, they may be brilliant at keeping their articles NPOV but have problem wikifying their articles. Hopefully, the feedback they gain will help them become better editors, and write even better articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel the same - many editors want to have their new articles checked out, but it's not possible to do this with the existing processes. Then again, it would be hard if the page received a barrage of new requests every day. Still, I like your idea - why don't you try advertising it elsewhere, for example on the Wikipedia:Community Portal? I'm sure other people would pick up on your idea. Cheers, Tangotango 08:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Receiving a barrage of requests every day would be good - it would encourage editors to help give feedback!

As for 'bumping', I've never seen it done, and it may be a faux pas to do it. You could consider requesting it again at the bottom - but again, if you get more editors to come to this page, you'll have a better chance of getting your articles reviewed. Tangotango 08:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Promoting Requests for Feedback

I think Requests for Feedback, as a new Wikipedia idea, is still not well known. How can we advertise it, to increase traffic, so more users will seek and give feedback here?

Are there any other ways by which we can get feedback on articles we write? Someone suggested that I go to the talk pages of articles on topics related to my article and post seeking feedback. I have done so for Google Groups[1], and have requested they answer at Requests for Feedback. Although this strategy has been mostly unsuccessful, I see it as a potential means of promoting Requests for Feedback, and will soon do this for Homerun.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Feedback was previously known as the Article Feedback Desk. The name was changed after a discussion which is retained below for prosterity. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I am aware that the acronym AFD for Article Feedback Desk clashes with the more well-known Articles For Deletion. If someone is going to list his article on AfD, Wikipedians won't know which one he means! Could anyone suggest a better name?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It may not be necessary to rename it. The shorthand it'll be known by can be influenced by giving it a good shortcut. WP:FD and WP:FB are both taken. How about WP:FEED? — Saxifrage ✎ 08:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have created WP:FEED in accordance to your suggestion. Hopefully we can establish FEED as an integral feature of Wikipedia. Please don't list this article in AFD! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I don't think I'd like to hear someone saying "I'll list your article on AFD". It'll give me quite a shock ;) How about Requests for Feedback (RfF)? WP:RfF and WP:RFF are not taken yet. Tangotango 08:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my concern, Tango. I don't know how to move my page, so could you help me move Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk to Wikipedia:Requests for Feedback? Thanks so much. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page, as you can see, has already been moved by another user to Requests for feedback. The main page, however, still remains and cannot be moved to the new page (Wikipedia:Requests for feedback) because of a botched move operation. I will get it removed so this can be done. Tangotango 09:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I went to move it and completely botched it by moving the talk page to where the project page should have gone. I posted a requested move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the {{prod}} works before an admin sees that, please remove it from the listing there. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've tagged it for speedy deletion, which should be faster than the prod. Tangotango 09:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, I've made worst mistakes on Wikipedia before, and I don't blame you. I just hope to get this settled ASAP. Since I'm a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian (regarding things like page moves), I'll leave this to you and the admins to sort out. I hope you do a good job. Best wishes, --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith. :-) It's a silly mistake but fortunately a relatively inconsequential one. Ironically, I was always keeping aware of the chance of making this exact mistake, but there's just nothing like experience to learn "oh, let's not do that again!" This is the quiet hour for most admins, I think, so it might be a few hours before it gets sorted out. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Banes has deleted the page for us, so Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is the official link for it now. Let's get this thing advertised! -- Tangotango 10:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the introduction

Since many people seem to be confusing this page with the help desk and/or the New contributors' help page, I propose the changing of the introduction (the header) of the Requests for feedback page to make it clearer. My proposal can be seen here. I would appreciate feedback on the proposal here. Cheers, Tangotango 09:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your proposal would definitely make things clear. However, you missed out that newcomers can introduce themselves at the Wikipedia:New user log and place {{helpme}} on their talk pages to ask a question. Your rephrasing is excellent, though. I'm actually 14, and my exams are coming soon, so I won't be on Wikipedia much in the next couple of weeks, so be bold and make the change. I hope you can keep up the good work and contributions! I think a userbox for RFF would definitely help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed those because I thought it would make the non-essential part of the intro a bit too long. I'll ask other editors if it should remain or not on the talk page. Good luck with your exams! Cheers, Tangotango 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Archival

Hello, I've created the archive page for April 2006, and a general Archives page that lists all the archives. Also, this page appears to be getting dormant—many queries have gone unanswered for nearly a month. Can we have more people watching this page? — Tangotango 08:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am watching the page, and yes, it is true that a lot of requests are going unheeded. Help! Where are all the good editors? Freddie _Message? 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be archived again. Also, you might consider setting up 5 or 6 broad categories of articles so that page watchers can focus on the articles that are most likely to be of interest to them. --Richard 12:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Werdnabot automatically archives requests which have not received any response in 15 days. Please check the archives for older requests." --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between PR and RFF

Peer Review and Requests for feedback are both Wikipedia processes to provide feedback on articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of providing feedback on articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Attracting experienced users who will regularly respond to requests

Requests for feedback is growing in traffic. We are currently receiving up to 2 requests for feedback daily.

I plan to make RFF grow into an established, integral Wikipedia process, just like Peer Review or Good Articles.

However, there are only 4 Wikipedians who regularly respond to requests for feedback posted here: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng.

Therefore, we need more users to respond to requests: preferably experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and are friendly to new users.

If you have ideas for attracting regular respondents, particularly experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and friendly to newcomers, please reply posting your ideas. If you're an experienced Wikipedian who is familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, and you wish to become a regular participant in this project, please get to responding to requests as soon as you reply!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You could try liasing with the welcoming committee and/or the help desk, as there's a decent amount of overlap between them and RfF; even just posting a message on their project pages saying that the volume here is increasing would probably net a few more feedbackers.

Though it's a bit more effort, the feedback requests also could be classified by type with requesters adding their article to an appropriate section. I'm not sure what sections would work best, but feedbackers are more likely to help out if they can easily find the type of request they're looking for. --jwanders^Talk 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Jwanders! I have posted on the Welcoming committee, Help desk and New contributors' help page. However, I have not received any replies yet. I'm considering posting on Esperanza as well. Jwanders, do you consider yourself an "experienced Wikipedian who is familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers"? If so, are you interested in responding to requests for feedback? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that shoe fits ;-) I try to divide my WikiTime between here, GAN, PR, FAC, MCOTW, and occasionally working even working on my own interests. RL has encroached this week, so I haven't done as much as I might like to... <shrug>. --jwanders^Talk 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing we could consider trying is encouraging users who request feedback to consider answering one or two of the other requests themselves. Some of are "check out my first article!" requests might not be experienced enough for it, of course, but it would only be a gentle suggestion at the end of the "How to Request" instructions. --jwanders^Talk 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One of my main concerns is, as you pointed out, that newcomers who request feedback here probably lack the knowledge of policy required to give useful feedback. Perhaps we should KIV that.

Since you're "an experienced Wikipedian familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers", and you're interested, I hope to see you respond to requests more regularly. Do you have any more ideas for attracting such Wikipedians to regularly respond to requests here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there.. Do you know that box on WP:PR?? "The path to a featured article"? Probably someone could put "Get first feedback at RFF" before the third point, so the writer would come here, then to the PR. I'll try, then I'll get back to you. Cheers -- Imoeng 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Please discuss on Peer Review's talk page first. Remember that posting a request for feedback should come after one has finished writing a new article, and well before Peer Review. In addition, Requests for Feedback is not a compulsory step before a Peer Review - some who have posted here have this misconception. Hopefully including RFF in the steps will get more newcomers to post requests for feedback here. However, it is very important to have experienced Wikipedians to respond to requests posted here; we don't want to receive a barrage of requests which no one responds to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just want to ask, am I considered as a "unexperienced responder"? As I've only been here for two weeks now.. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you have a good grasp of policy and are friendly to newcomers, you qualify. The length of time you have spent editing Wikipedia is not so important. For someone with only two weeks' experience, you seem like an excellent editor. When I had been at Wikipedia for two weeks, I was still messing up templates and making heavy use of the helpme template. I've been here for six months now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I've been here for five months. Experience is relative. I'd say that knowledge and understanding is more important than "raw" experience in terms of calendar time or number of edits. If you understand the five pillars of Wikipedia that define Wikipedia's character and what Wikipedia is NOT, then that's the most important thing. If you can get that understanding in one week, I would count you as "experienced". For others, it might take a month, a year, whatever. Some people never get it. Sigh.... --Richard 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just discovered this page...you may be interested in the proposal put forward to change the "Steps" infobox at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Rough_revised_steps with the intention of giving less of an air of "look how easy it is to get a Featured Article under your belt". The reasoning behind it is: Peer Review is becoming a ghost town as more people either go directly to FAC for a high level review (which isn't its purpose) or to one of the WikiProjects or here by the look of it. It may be an idea to divide up requests between PR and RFF at the "I want a review" stage rather than trying to subdivide Peer review as I initially proposed in that discussion. Take a look anyway and see what you think. Yomangani 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yomangani's comment above. In addition, how about putting a place in the article for "members" of RFF, much like that done on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal? SteveMc 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup the page please

OK, so perhaps the problem isn't archival but something else.

IMHO, the page is too much work to scan on a frequent basis especially since I don't intend to give feedback to the vast majority of requests. I would only respond if the article was about something that interested me and that I knew something about.

For these reasons, I would like a way to quickly see what requests are open, what requests are new and whether I think I might actually want to consider responding to one of the requests. The current mess is too much work and I'm not likely to spend much time on this page in its current state.

Of course, I should comment that I also consider WP:AfD to be too much work and also don't spend much time there. My favorite pages of this general category are: WP:GA and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. Please study the structure and format of these pages and consider altering the structure and format of this page along similar lines.

--Richard 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Further suggestions for improvement

I have just finished providing a response to an RFC on the Marvin Heemeyer article.

The process was easy. I saw the RFC on [[2]] which was on my watchlist. From there, I jumped to the talk page, saw what the dispute was about, jumped to the article, made some edits, jumped back to the talk page and commented on the dispute. Bing, bang, bong - I'm done and outta there.

By comparison, the RFF process is much harder. As stated earlier, it's hard to determine if I want to even determine which articles I might want to provide feedback on. Secondly, the idea of having comments provided on the RFF page makes it difficult to look at the article and provide comments due to issues of navigating back and forth. Of course, this would be easier with two browser windows but it's still a bit of a pain. I much prefer bouncing back and forth between the "article" and "discussion" tabs of the article itself.

On the other hand, processes like the WP:FA process create a separate page for the FAC discussion on each article. This is an alternate approach. The real point here is that there should be a separate place for feedback on RFF articles. It could be on the article talk page (like RFC) or on a separate discussion page (like FA). Doing it on the RFF page makes for a messy page that is hard to navigate and tedious to plow through.

--Richard 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New layout

I think it is bit hasty moving any request with feedback to the fulfilled section, as it will discourage anybody else from leaving feedback - maybe rename the sections to "New requests" and "Active requests" or somesuch? Truly fulfilled requests should really be archived to keep the page clean. Yomangani^talk 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I changed to "New requests" and "Previous requests." Maurreen 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling this change breaks the "Click here to post your request" and the "+" tab on top of the page. Also, this page is automatically archived by Werdnabot, and I'm not sure if it supports level 3 headings. Bearing this in mind, wouldn't it be better if the big headings (New requests/Previous requests) were changed to level 1 headings, and the New requests section were moved to the bottom of the page? Cheers, Tangotango 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize there would be complications. I don't mind if anyone changes it back.

But somehow the layout could be more efficient. The number was overwhelming to me, and it wasn't easy to see which requests still needed to be filled.

I think Richard's idea above about subject headings is worth considering.

Also, it might make more sense to have all the feedback go on the article talk pages, where it is most relevant. That would streamline this page, people could just note any article which has had feedback. Maurreen 02:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't archive too quickly. Give those requesting feedback some time to check back for feedback. And sometimes, the second Wikipedian responding to a request for feedback may spot something the first didn't. Of course, if three people have given extensive feedback, most will be smart enough to not respond to that request, although we should still give those who request time to check back. And remember that this page is supposed to be newcomer-friendly. Adding lots of red tape and complicated wiki markup will make it more difficult for newcomers to navigate. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed the headings back now, as users of this page were posting requests in different sections. As Hildanknight said, please remember that the primary audience for this page is the newcomer, who will most likely abide by our instructions to "click here to post your request" when they see such a link. (P.S. The level 3 headings were also not being detected by the IRC bot in the Bootcamp channel). Cheers, Tangotango 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My feedback on feedback

I think this process is a great idea. It fills a need not met by the other tracks. It certainly helped the article I brought forward, although this page obviously needs more visibility. I also agree we should structure this after WP:RfC, that is, just include a link to the talk page, and a one line summary of the request. New requests on top, actual feedback on the article talk page (in fact in my case, I transcribed the feedback to the talk page anyway. I also notice some people reply by saying "I left comments on the talk page"). 192.75.48.150 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the target for this process is new editors, I'm not sure moving the comments to the talk page is a good idea - it presupposes that the editor is a)asking for feedback on a single article, b)knows how to link back to the talk page, and c)is only interested in their article. At least one of the RFFs has been asking for information on how to link, and several have failed to provide links back to the article they want reviewing. I would also think that new editors may pick up some tips by looking through feedback for other articles on this page.

From a personal "reviewer's" point of view I find it a lot easier to scan the RFF page looking for requests that have little or no feedback, rather than clicking off to the talk page for each article and having to look through the talk page for the appropriate section. Yomangani^talk 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Then I have completely misunderstood the point. I think the instructions at the top might be a bit misleading in this respect. They may be a bit unhelpful for new editors, too: if they can't link to a talk page, they probably can't link to a diff. 192.75.48.150 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've wondered whether the instructions might be a bit offputting too, but there seems to be a fairly regular flow of new editors who request feedback without linking to the diffs, so I guess they just ignore that bit if they don't know how to do it. I think it is good idea to copy any useful feedback to the talk page if you know how to do that, it's just likely to hamstring some newcomers if we insist on that being part of the process. (...or alternatively perhaps if one newcomer is talking on their talk page then they all are? No...wait..that's not how it works...er...)

Query

I was wondering how (if?) this process is any different from Request for Third Opinion, Request for Comment and Request for Peer Review. >Radiant< 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for feedback is not a dispute resolution process. It is similar to Peer Review, in that we give suggestions for improving an article. However, Requests for feedback is designed for new articles and new editors. When newcomers request feedback on new articles they write, we are giving them feedback on their editing skills, and also trying to fix any major problems with the article. If an article is close to Good Article standards or higher, it probably wouldn't benefit from Requests for feedback; a peer review would be the way to go for such articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Well, helping new people is always good. Might I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Welcome templates as a means of advertising this to new users? >Radiant< 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New proposal

I have a new proposal for how we can get this page working more efficiently for all involved:

We split it into section like this, so the link will still work, and move requests to the other section when answered. We leave a message for users when we have given them feedback, so they don't forget for a month and come back to find it archived. We archive sections once they have had both of these: a) at least one reply, and b) it has been 10 days since the last reply. If a request is in the wrong place and better suited to another page it should be moved there and a message left on the user's talk page to tell them where they can find it. Another thing to look into is getting more experienced edtors here to help out.

So, what do you all think? Any thoughts? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean but is it something like the Articles for Deletion templates? What I saw on your sandbox looked like what we use now, or did I miss something? James086 ^{Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review!} 04:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that RFF primarily targets newcomers. I have kept the layout and process simple and free of red tape, so that it will be easy for newcomers to navigate, request feedback, and check back.

I welcome suggestions to improve the layout, but the new layout must remain newcomer-friendly. Your suggestion seems to introduce a lot of red tape for those responding to feedback requests. I agree with the good intentions of informing newcomers when their request has received a response, and seperating requests which have received a response and those which have not. However, will those responding to requests follow the proposed red-tapped process? Will we need to add "Instructions for those giving feedback"? As a side note, Werdnabot automatically archives requests which have not received responses in over 15 days.

What RFF needs are experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, to watch RFF respond to feedback requests. A severe shortage of such Wikipedians has led to a backlog of unanswered requests. How do you suggest we get more such Wikipedians to participate in RFF? I'm considering liasing with the Welcoming Committee. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This primarily targets newcomers? Didn't know that; the impression I got from reading Wikipedia:Peer review is that it's basically like peer review for articles that aren't quite up to featured quality yet, whether written by newcomers or not. Now I feel slightly bad for clogging the backlog further.

That said, I think the same sort of Wikipedians who frequent peer review could work on these as well, maybe less nitpicky, but still. Alternatively, for experienced editors who are placing requests for feedback, you possibly could encourage them to comment on one article for every articles submission. Sort of like WP:ER. Crystallina 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of response to feedback

Feedback is being provided on this page but there is often no response from the original poster. This can be a discouragement for contributors to keep providing feedback. — RJH (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. I frequent forums where users ask for, and give, help, usually regarding software. Of the users who ask questions, only a small percentage check for answers a couple of days later, and post a follow-up or thank-you note. This phenomenon can also be observed at the reference desk, help desk and other places of Wikipedia where newcomers frequently ask questions.

Newcomers may not remember to check back, or they may not be able to find RFF again (some may get impatient after checking an hour later and not receiving any responses). However, it is quite common for newcomers to check back without posting a follow-up or thank-you note. We will never know whether they have read our answer. Even if they do not check back, any feedback given would be useful should anyone else wish to improve the article.

We should not let this deter us from responding to feedback requests. In fact, we need at least 10 experienced Wikipedians to regularly respond to feedback. This ensures feedback requests are promptly responded to, and each request receives multiple responses. Such positive responses will encourage newcomers who do check back to become active Wikipedians. For example, in August 2006, I responded to several feedback requests by Imoeng, and he became a prolific contributor for a few months before retiring in November 2006.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, in addition to archiving, we should also copy the sections over to the relevant article talk pages? This would help make the feedback available for others who would like to improve the articles. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If only those responding to feedback requests would be willing to do so... --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving? esp. "Human Eye Color"

The section "Human Eye Color" on the rff page, which looks like it belonged at the Reference Desk to begin with, looks like it's older than some requests I saw already in the archives -- including requests that were archived without ever getting a response! Why is it still there? & how active is this page anyway? Should folks be looking elsewhere for comment on still young-ish articles? thx --Turangalila (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot has been instructed to archive requests 15 days after their last response. Unfortunately, the bot appears to be down. Perhaps you should contact Werdna, who runs the bot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot is designed for not archiving topics that have less than three signed comments. Unfortunately, afaik it was Shadowbot3, who took some other pieces out of the RFC, especially the section "Cademuir International School", which doesn't even feature any responses. If there is anybody interested in helping - sorry for saying this in Wikipedia - I want it to be kinda visible :-P - in an archive it is a bit too hidden for me ...^^

My question: Is it bad to put it in again? --Lazer erazer 23:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Drawing board

Hello all. Lately I've been the only one responding to posts on the Drawing board. I'm taking a wikibreak until August 1 and I'd not want queries to go waiting, so I'm hoping some other editors will be willing to lend a hand there. It would be good to have other perspectives besides my own for those editors seeking help even after I'm back. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Archival questions

I noticed that Shadowbot3 has not archived RFF for the last two weeks, despite still being active. Will this just catch up with itself or should someone (I'd be happy to do it) make a manual archive? Also, the archives are out of order (not sure if that matters enough to warrant any action). Adrian M. H. 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New header

As you have probably seen by now, in the spirit of WP:BB, I redesigned the header to make it more compact, more useful, and much clearer to read. Hopefully, I succeeded. Feedback welcome. Adrian M. H. 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is of utmost importance that RFF (the instructions, process and editors responding to feedback) be friendly to newcomers. Shortening the instructions may make them harder for newcomers to understand. I see no harm in having the header explain that you wikilink an article title by enclosing it in [[double square brackets]] or that you sign a post by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of contribs from User:MadhuS.vichare

I have removed the section from said editor. See this diff. As it was significantly off-topic and appeared to be a WP:OR essay. I've commented on the editors talkpage also. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this page still active? (Suggesting tag historical)

This page doesn't appear to be getting feedback at any kind of reasonable rate where it would be useful to those requesting it. I was thinking of tagging this page as {{historical}}, or putting it up for WP:MFD at least to get broader input. Then recommend to future individuals to either put the article up for peer review or contact associated wikiprojects. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD it if you feel it's appropriate, but I'd be totally against directing the type of enquiries we get here to WP:PR; PR is for borderline-FA candidates in their final stages, not the "I wrote an article about this band I found on Myspace, how do I stop it getting deleted?" type queries we deal with here. – iridescent 16:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, the requests are overwhelmingly first article nature. My thoughts would be to send them to the projects, A lot of the links to this page are from places like New Contributor's help page so those would need to be redirected to alternate places as well. I was also thinking of placing the template or some other autoarchival setup for the page to begin moving topics out. There is a werdnabot config at the top of the page but it isn't firing. I'm not sure if this page just needs a lot more advertising since it is good in concept, but it just isn't working, its like the league of copyeditors. I'm going to notify the village pump to get more input. How is the below wording for a first draft? -Optigan13 (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would like feedback on an article you have recently created or expanded try contacting any related Wikiprojects. If this is your first article, please read the guide on how to write your first article for basic suggestions on how to proceed. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of articles don't have related WikiProjects, or have inactive related WikiProjects, or may have a related WikiProject but the editor may have difficulty figuring out what it is.

On a more constructive note, perhaps merging WP:RFD with WP:Drawing board (say, into something like Wikipedia:Article feedback) might improve both places, which have relatively low volume. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the issue I'm wondering about is how all these small areas of Wikipedia that may not get regular patrolling but new users might come across through some link. They are all well intentioned but are so small that if the few people monitoring go away it becomes inactive. I'm not sure how this fits in with other pages, I'm also thinking about Wikipedia:Articles for creation as another place to direct people who do new submissions. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

Over at WT:ER we are discussing renaming it to WP:Requests for editor feedback, I'd suggest either renaming this to WP:Requests for article feedback or merging it to PR (since it is mostly inactive and then using this as a disambig page to those two things. MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviving Requests for feedback

When I was a newbie, I was looking for a place to get feedback on an article I had written, but found none. As a result, I created Requests for feedback (RFF) with the help of several experienced editors, who responded to feedback requests during its early days. Unfortunately, they eventually lost interest, while I moved on and have since written two GAs. Now there is a huge backlog.

I am dismayed to see the above discussion, proposing that RFF be MFDed. RFF was created to meet a need and does have the potential to become an established content review process, like PR. That several feedback requests are posted every week shows that the demand is there. Instead of killing RFF, we should recruit friendly and experienced users to respond to feedback requests.

Next week, I have exams, but once they are over, I might have the time to answer a couple of feedback requests per week (I will also be writing my third GA). Perhaps we could post on the talk pages of content review processes (such as PR or GAN) and processes dedicated to helping new users (such as WC or ADOPT), inviting Wikipedians to respond to feedback requests posted here. Someone suggested merging other poorly-maintained processes targeting newcomers (such as WP:DRAW) into RFF. Such mergers might help get more Wikipedians on board, but I am concerned that they may cause RFF to lose its focus (giving newbies feedback about articles they write).

For the sake of the newbies, please do not let RFF die.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know this existed. I'll help with it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! A few of my IRC mates have also pledged to help clear the backlog; hopefully they will keep to their words. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately to me this also closely resembles the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors in that the number of requests outnumbers the number of respondents. As I outlined over at the editor review response (diff), the problem is that there are several options for editors with varying levels of activity on the low end of article development. I see that it would serve a purpose if the page was functioning as intended, but it is worse for new users to encounter a confusing array of options, some of which take months to get a response than to not have the non-functioning options presented to them. Looking at submissions like [3], and [4] people are clearly treating this like the Wikipedia:Drawing board. Good luck trying to revive this, you may want to look into Template:Wikipedia ads, getting the userbox placement, and other ways to draw attention to this page. But for something like this to work it will need at least a few editors with the time and interest in the long term to respond to the requests and maintain this page. I think merging the drawing board and requests for feedback would help reduce the maintenance work involved in having the two similar pages. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a regular contributor to the Drawing Board, I'd be all for that. I try to keep on top of the drawing board requests, but, lo, the watchlist is legion and I've just noticed that I missed several dating back to August 25th that have gone unanswered. If combining them means more eyes, it would be a good thing. :) OTOH, at this point, the Drawing Board has much less of a backlog than this page. Is anyone currently working here? Is there a chance that merging the two pages will simply mean more requests go unanswered? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a subsection for discussion of the proposed merger. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of merge proposal

• Support if and only if RFF does not lose its focus as a result of the merger. Remember, RFF aims to give newbies feedback on articles they have written and, in the process, teach them the basic content policies and wikiformatting. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think the merge is a good idea. One of the things that's confusing to newbies is the large number of pages, so having fewer might help. Also, I'm not that concerned about loss of focus; if the page is helpful to people, it's doing its job. Why limit it to articles that have already been written? I can't think of a reason to have two separate pages for written and not yet written. I also don't see why merging them would make more requests go unanswered, as long as people don't lose interest in helping out; the unanswered requests just all be in the same place. I'm for merging that page here. delldot talk 03:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• While I think it's a good idea in theory, I'm a little cautious about implementation, given that RfF currently has unanswered requests dating back almost a month. It looks like there's been great contribution here recently, but I am concerned that increasing the burden of tickets here is not likely to help. The Drawing Board has been extremely quiet for the past few months, and would not add much to the workload, but in the past we've typically received considerably more. While I've been working at the drawing board for almost a year now, I have less rather than more time to contribute than when I started. This means, basically, that you're proposing to increase the workload here, but probably not the volunteer workforce, since there are only three users who seem to pop in at the drawing board, and among them only I do so with any regularity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• I too support the idea of a merge. WP:DRAW and WP:RFF perform basically the same function, just that one is intended for before the article is created and the other is intended for after it is created. It would likely make things much easier for new editors to just have one place to come to for advice on article development; before, after, and during. As to which project gets merged into which, I'd vote that WP:RFF be merged into WP:DRAW- judging from the archival discussion below, the Drawing Board's month based archival system works better and is more organized. That will make it easier for the new folk to find their questions when they forget to look for more than two weeks. Besides, I think Drawing board sounds a bit more folksy and friendly. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well I've waited for a while to see how the first month or so of the redone RFF would do. It's better but still not that great. I was going to go ahead with the merge, but in terms of the direction I still like DRAW to RFF since RFF appears to be getting more activity. Although the archive structure has the date based layout, since the responses appear to be within a more reasonable rate compared to when they are getting archived I don't think people requesting feedback wouldn't have a huge amount of difficulty finding their request to just go through the most recent archive. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be a better idea to come up with an entirely new name for the combined board reflecting its expanded focus rather than going back and forth over whether WP:FEED or WP:DRAW is better. Maybe something like Wikipedia:Article creation and improvement help desk or some-such. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds good, but I'm still stumped on where this fits into the grand scheme of things. Your naming brought up another point. I think of this place in terms of article development, but we also get a lot of new people so it serves as part help desk and part welcome committee. I'm stumped on name at the moment, but should we just go ahead with the merge and then figure out naming after the fact? I've sandboxed (oldid) some possible navigation templates to try to figure where this fits in article development, but I'm stumped on where relative to the help desk. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I like the idea of a new name, but I think we should be careful to avoid duplication of efforts with the help desk. The drawing board is swamped enough as it is lately. :) We already have the main one and one specifically for new contributors. (I do think it would probably be a good idea to put an infobox box at the header of the page with links to other forums that users may be seeking, including those help desks, and I like your navbox.) What about Wikipedia:Article creation and improvement board? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good point that we should leave the word "desk" out to allay confusion with other forums, but I think without the word "help" the title conveys a sense that we'll be doing the creation and improvement rather than helping them to do it. How about Wikipedia:Article creation and improvement help board? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• It works for me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't roll off the tongue, but it gets the point across. I've sandboxed the header (User:Optigan13/Sandbox 2). -Optigan13 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Support merge. Both pages do similar things, and i know i only check one, usually feed. Both WP:Feed and WP:Draw can be kept as redirects, yes? Therefore i don't really care about the official title.Yobmod (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Advertising RFF

There are many Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, but how do we let them know about RFF so they can help out?

As I suggested above, perhaps we could post on the talk pages of content review processes and processes dedicated to helping newcomers. Wikipedians who help out with those processes might want to help out here as well. I have compiled a list of processes; feel free to suggest other processes we should contact.

Content review processes:

• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Good article nominations
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
• Wikipedia:Did you know

Processes for helping new users:

• Wikipedia:Welcoming committee
• Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User
• Wikipedia:Articles for creation
• Wikipedia:Drawing board
• Wikipedia:New contributors' help page
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• Template:Helpme
• The #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel

Spamming the same message across over ten talk pages will not work. Each message has to explain how RFF is similar to, and different from, the other process. For example, the average peer review or GA review may take over an hour, while responding to a feedback request here may take fifteen minutes (and is less stressful, since we are dealing with newcomers here).

Feel free to explore other ideas, such as Template:Wikipedia ads and posting on the user talk pages of Wikipedians who have previously helped out (or who have the RFF userbox on their user page), encouraging them to come back and help.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Building an RFF community

In the short run, a mass recruitment campaign will get some experienced Wikipedians to respond to requests. However, in the long run, will there be enough experienced Wikipedians responding to feedback requests? Building an RFF community will help attract a steady influx of new helpers and encourage new helpers to keep responding to feedback requests.

We could start by improving the guide for those responding to feedback requests. Besides the RFF userbox, we could create a list of helpers, as well as an RFF barnstar for outstanding contributions to the process. As a small, informal process, RFF probably does not need a dedicated WikiProject (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed the heart of the issue. Working on WP:RFF & WP:DRAW takes a specific breed of editor. These pages require the critical analysis of the other content review pages combined with the patience of Job for ever recurring n00bish nonsense- all the while being diplomatic. We have to protect the encyclopedia from being buried in spam and trash without hurting anyone's feelings- all the while avoiding becoming so cynical that we might miss a gem in the rough. Heck, that almost sounds like a script for an ad. Hmmm... —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Okay, so I broke up the archiving as it was quite strangely arranged. Archive 2 was approaching 700kb, which is just... ridiculous in length. It's currently split between 6 archives, but I may go back in and make it a couple more, as they currently range from about 100k to 200k in length, which is still pretty big.

Anyway, I think it would be best to set up an archive bot and any thread that sits idle for, say, 14 days or whatever, gets archived. Set the archive for a maximum size, like 100kb, and go from there.

Lastly, there are requests on the page that are around 8 months old. Although unanswered, perhaps time to archive those, yes? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice to just say something along the lines of "Sorry no one got to you, but if you are still interested you may want to talk to Wikiproject:Foo, or relist the entry on this page." Just so they know they weren't completely ignored, but at this point I doubt the article is still in the same state, or that they have been checking back on this page. It might also help to have archiving similar to what they have on the WP:AFC page. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do go ahead and archive anything that is over a month old. I heard that Werdnabot is down; once it is back up, I suggest it automatically archive anything over a month old. RFF receives about three to five feedback requests per week; having about fifteen feedback requests on the page seems reasonable. Remember, we need to give the newbies time to check back. If the number of feedback requests posted per week significantly increases (and feedback requests are promptly answered), we can reduce the time needed before automated archival.

Once the archiving is fixed, remember to respond to the remaining feedback requests, to clear the backlog!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to leave a note under their post if it's months old; no one's going to check back here after all that time. I've been leaving notes on their talk pages asking if they still have questions and offering to help if so. delldot talk 03:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I usually respond here, and copy that to talk, so archiving after a month is no problem.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)