RuneScape talk:Editor Review

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Editor Review page.

Not an interview[edit source]

I'd like to add a new point to An editor review is not:

  • An interview. Reviewees should not respond to a review, except to answer direct questions, to ask for clarification of a review, or to ask for advice on how to improve. If the discussion with one reviewer gets large, consider taking it to their talk page instead.

Is that okay? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 10:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Would something like what is in my review be ok? I did ask questions, but they were questions that helped me gain more from the review. --Serenity1137 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that is classed as "asking for clarification/advice".
The intent of the point is mainly to prevent a situation such as:
Reviewer: Good, but you need to xyz more, and sometimes you can be a bit abc.
Reviewee: Yeah, I know that's because lmn and pqr and occaisonally stu.
The reviewee's comment is not needed for their review, as the reviewer didn't ask for an explantion, nor the reviewee ask for clarification or advice on how to improve. He just gave a bunch of excuses; we want editors to improve from a review, not stay the same.
I reworded the point above to include asking for advice. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case I'm a for this one, support --Serenity1137 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

12 Reviewees?[edit source]

If only 10 people are meant to be reviewed at a time, why are there twelve reviewees that have added themselves to the page? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  16:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived two inactive ones which have been reviewed. Also added instructions about the queuing to the requesting reviews section. The only reason there should be more than 10 (from now) is if a handful are incorrectly archived then brought back when more users have created reviews. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity[edit source]

I see reviews that have last posts from far before 14 days ago. There are ones with last posts from a month ago!

Shouldn't there be a bit more activity and cleaning up? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:31, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Sections with at least one review will be archived at RuneScape:Editor Review/Archive after two weeks of inactivity.
These sections don't have any reviews hence cannot be archived. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:34, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't seen that. Thanks. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:39, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

2nd review[edit source]

If I want a new review, should I create a page called RuneScape:Editor Review/Oli4burggraa (2) or something like that, or should I replace the old one with a new one, providing a link to the old version (like in RfA's), which might screw the archives up? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:05, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

It should be RuneScape:Editor Review/Oli4burggraa (2) per "If you have had a previous editor review, append a number after your username (usually, (2) if it is your second review, (3) if it is the third, etc). The preferred format is as follows: "RuneScape:Editor Review/John Doe (2)". " from the project page. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 17:09, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:59, October 4, 2009 (UTC)