User:AndyZ/peerreviewer/guide
Introduction
[edit]Despite its name, reviews created by this script aren't by peers, but by a JavaScript (written by peers, though). "Peer" is in there to clarify its purpose.
The suggestions generated by the script focus largely on style issues, e.g. those that can be found on WP:MOS. Other topics covered by the script include: WP:CONTEXT, WP:GTL, WP:LEAD, WP:LINK, WP:SS, WP:FOOTNOTE, WP:PDATA, WP:AWT, and several subpages of WP:MOS including WP:MOSDATE. These tips tend to appear (based on my experiences) on WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FARC (most of these tips are covered by my suggestions page). Though most of the tips are generally accurate, some will not be accurate/applicable for the article in question.
Fixing the generated issues is not mandatory (for WP:FAC or WP:GAC), nor will completing them guarantee that the article will pass both. The goal of the script is to supplement the advice of manual reviews by looking for common issues often overlooked by editors, as well as setting up a starting point for problems to work on while editors review articles with more comprehensiveness. Comments/questions about the suggestions can be placed directly on the PR/A page (I'll try to address all questions placed there) or at other locations, like the actual peer review for other editors to elaborate upon or my talk page.
Note: AZPR is not a BOT – it can be considered a semi-bot. The current automated peer review listings can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2024.
Some FAQs:
What is an automated peer review? And why is it called a peer review, if it is automated?
An automated peer review is a list of suggestions generated by JavaScript by searching an article for certain errors, mainly based on stylistic problems.
Peer is misleading; as the review is automated, it clearly is not by a peer (the script was written by peers though!). It is there simply to specify its purpose (instead of Featured Article Review, for example).
I'm confused. I clicked on the link, and I can't understand anything there.
First, make sure that you're at the right article (read the headings, or scroll back up to the Table of Contents). Though it may look daunting at first, it actually isn't that bad. If any of the suggestions are confusing, click on the provided links; if those don't help, notify me and I'll try to clarify it.
I don't like the automated peer reviews; I find them useless/overwhelming/rude.
Feel free to delete my notice if you find the autoPR unhelpful.
If you wish for me to skip over the article, add a comment somewhere on the Wikipedia:Peer review page saying <!--No User:AndyZ/peerreviewer-->
(be sure that the User:AndyZ/peerreviewer part is typed exactly like that, the "No" is not necessary). You can still find the review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2024 though.
I found it helpful; where can I get an updated review?
To get an updated autoPR,
- drop a note on my talk page (or that of any other user who has installed the script)
- run the script yourself. To install it, see the simple installation instructions. If you don't wish to install it, there is an alternative method to run it quickly (though it might not work with the same effectiveness) — see here.
What can/do I do with the suggestions?
Pretty much anything. Feel free to strike out incorrect/nonapplicable/completed items, move them to other pages (talk, sandboxes, etc), or anything else.
I've installed the script, and it isn't working.
There are multiple reasons why this might happen. Some possibilities:
- make sure the .js file is lowercased, and make sure that it matches your current skin (monobook is the default one).
- if there has been recent activity in the history for User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js, it is possible that I've accidentally made a mistake. If so, wait for a while before trying again, and hopefully I will have noticed it and fixed it by then.
- there could be a conflicting script (however, I think that is highly unlikely now, unless you have the script installed twice).
- remember to bypass your cache.
- if nothing is happening, go to the edit mode for any main namespace article (like test). There should be a "peer review" link right next to the "log out" link, which is what you should click (don't click on the "send to WP:PR" tab!)
Where can I learn more about using JavaScript on WP?
See Wikipedia:WikiProject User Scripts. They offer a tutorial for starting your own scripts.
None of these have answered my question(s).
If you're looking for specifics about each of the suggestions, take a look at the User:AndyZ/peerreviewer/guide (in progress). Otherwise, leave questions on the talk page or my talk page.
Specific to this page:
What is the point of this page?
Simple: to explain the messages you get on Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2024 or wherever else. Explaining the messages with thoroughness there would bloat the size of the suggestions to a ridiculous size (considering how large it is already!). Here, you can also read about potential errors if you're getting a message you don't believe should appear, and see the reason why JS makes it appear.
What's with the strange heading names?
These were created based upon the original templates at User:AndyZ/PRtemplates. Some of them are misleading; for example, User:AndyZ/PR/spellnum would more accurately describe spelling out units of measurement in text, not spelling out the number. Others have evolved over time to be different too.
Some messages in the review aren't followed by these footnotes.
Yes, I am aware of this. I'm working on resolving this.
Suggestions specifics
[edit]lead
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/lead
|
---|---|
Description | The lead should conform to guidelines at WP:LEAD; it should have enough content to adequately summarize the article. |
This appears because | JavaScript looks for the number of new lines starting with actual letters (other characters, like {|<'[ will be ignored).
This message appears if:
|
Known errors | If a paragraph in the lead starts with some sort of wiki-syntax (a template, bold, a comment, etc.), it might not be counted as a paragraph. It also only looks at uppercase letters; for certain articles (like iPod), this could be a problem. |
leadlong
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/leadlong
|
---|---|
Description | The lead should conform to guidelines at WP:LEAD; the lead should be a concise but compelling summary of the article. |
This appears because | JavaScript looks for the number of new lines starting with actual letters (other characters, like {|<'[ will be ignored).
This message appears if:
|
Known errors | Since this is automated, not manual, it cannot tell the different between a newline in a table/comment and an actual paragraph; if the table/comment/other syntax is written in an unique fashion, like
{{infobox person | name = whoever instead of {{infobox person | name = whoever extra paragraphs may be counted. |
leaddetail
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/leaddetail |
---|---|
Description | |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for the number of paragraphs in the lead (using the method noted above). It does not actually check the content of the lead; this message only appears if the number of paragraphs in the lead exceeds 5. |
Known errors | See the errors listed at #leadlong. |
infobox
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/infobox
|
---|---|
Description | Articles often benefit from infoboxes, which can provide quick and easy-to-see information or link to related topics.
Infoboxes are in no way mandatory or required. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for an infobox (or taxobox). If it doesn't find one, it displays the note. |
Known errors | Many articles will not have applicable infoboxes. If so, don't waste your time searching for one. Generally, articles that parallel other articles will have infoboxes (cities, mammals, military people, etc).
Also, the infobox list searched for by the script is very limited. It searches for keywords like "infobox", "taxobox", "geobox", and a few others. As a result, many more specific infoboxes are often missed. When I finally look thru WP:IB, this may be resolved. |
contxt
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/contxt
|
---|---|
Description | Articles should follow MOS:DATE and WP:CONTEXT. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for stand-alone linked years (like 2024), linked days of the week (Monday), and stand-alone linked month (March). |
Known errors | There is considerable debate surrounding if years should be linked or not at MOS:DATE. In general, the consensus is to not link dates unless they provide context for the article. |
linkdate
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/linkdate
|
---|---|
Description | Date linking allows the users to view them different depending upon their date preferences. However, linking dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting has been deprecated. Read more at MOS:DATE. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for dates with years that have not been linked (like November 4, 2024 instead of November 4, 2024). |
Known errors | This may occur if retrieval dates in <ref> tags or other inline citations are not linked. |
dateth
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/dateth
|
---|---|
Description | Dates should not use ordinal suffices, namely [1]'st', [2]'nd', [3]'rd', [4-9]'th'. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for dates in the format of: MONTH 1-2 digit NUMBER th and other layouts.
|
Known errors | No known errors. |
time
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/time |
---|---|
Description | Since we wish Wikipedia to continue on until the future, don't use times that are relative to today/now. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for terms like 'soon' and 'recently'. Other terms like 'last day/month/year' are no longer searched for due to heavy inaccuracy. |
Known errors | This is no longer used (by default) in the script. If you wish to search for this and have installed the PR script, add a new line saying
|
nbsp
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/nbsp
|
---|---|
Description | To prevent units of measurements from falling off onto the next line, we use a non-breaking space. This is similar to a regular space, except it prevents the next word from falling off onto the next line when viewed on the webpage. If you had a measurement of, for example, 100 centimeters (250in), write instead 100 centimeters (250 in).
To resolve this problem:
|
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for: # UNITOFMEASUREMENT\W (\W stands for any non-letter character, like a parenthesis or comma).
|
Known errors | Before, 'in' was often interpreted as inch incorrectly. As a result, it is no longer searched for. The most common error for such would be in a link to another article (article titles don't include ) or in an external link. |
spellnum
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/spellnum
|
---|---|
Description | Spell out units in text (but not conversions). Thus, 100 centimeters (250 in), not 100 cm (250 inches). |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches standard abbreviations following numbers that are not trailed by a closing parenthesis. |
Known errors | In infoboxes, tables, and other templates, space is of concern, so it is proper to use abbreviations there. |
abbrev
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/abbrev
|
---|---|
Description | Use standard abbreviations for units of measurements in conversions (see example above). |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for measurements written out completely followed by a closing parenthesis. |
Known errors | No known errors. |
headingthe
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/headingthe
|
---|---|
Description | To avoid redundancy, do not start headings with articles ('a', 'an', 'the') unless necessary. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for headings that start with the aforementioned articles. |
Known errors | Sometimes, the articles are necessary; in the majority of the cases they are not.
Apparently, there is an error with this message in Firefox. |
headingre
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/headingre
|
---|---|
Description | Don't repeat the title of the article in headings, as the title is implied as the subject for the section. Otherwise, it would be redundant. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for the title (without disambiguation parentheses information) in all lines that are headings (start with == ).
|
Known errors | The title should be repeated for the names of proper nouns. (A fictitious example: if Washington had a heading for the capitol of the United States, it would be ==Washington D.C.==, not ==D.C.==). |
headinglink
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/headinglink
|
---|---|
Description | Avoid linking words in headings. This is for style and readability. Instead, use the link in the first sentence after the heading. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for a [[ blah ]] in headings (lines that start with ==). |
Known errors | No known errors. |
headingcap
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/headingcap
|
---|---|
Description | Only capitalize a word in a heading if it is a proper noun or if it is the first word of the heading (and of course, if the capitalization complies with standard English capitalization usage). It is not to be capitalized as is done in book titles. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for a few commonly used headings, like ==External Links== , ==See Also== , and others, but seeing if the capitalization is [in]correct.
|
Known errors | No known errors. |
gtl
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/gtl
|
---|---|
Description | The order of the final few sections is:
References can also go before Notes. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for the sections see also, references/footnotes, and external links, and compares their relative positions. |
Known errors | No known errors. |
overlink
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/overlink
|
---|---|
Description | If an article was completely blue, you would not want to read it, would you?
Making too many links (especially those that don't provide additional context) distracts a reader and looks poor stylistically, especially for people who have the underlined links option turned on. Instead, only link terms that provide valuable context. Don't link to low value links (like in the example sentence above); also, there is no need to link to certain links repeatedly in a single line or paragraph (or even section!), as these repeated links can be bothering (haven't you noticed that I linked to WP:LINK with 11 links?). Read more about links at WP:LINK. |
This appears because | WP:MOS-L gives the suggestion that at most 10% of the words in an article should be linked. JavaScript counts the number of [[ against the number of spaces.
|
Known errors | There will probably be minor discrepancies caused by image syntax, and there will likely be many spaces not part of the prose that are counted. |
underlink
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/underlink
|
---|---|
Description | While an article shouldn't have too many links, having too little links makes the article look too plain and dull, while also making it difficult for a reader to establish context for the article and read further into the subject about topics that he/she doesn't know about. WP:BTW also notes that linking allows the encyclopedia to link relevant articles together. |
This appears because | WP:MOS-L gives the suggestion that at least 3% of the words in an article should be linked. JavaScript counts the number of [[ against the number of spaces.
|
Known errors | There will probably be minor discrepancies caused by image syntax, and there will likely be many spaces not part of the prose that are counted. Also, the guidelines consider the number of words in the links, not the number of links that the script searches for; this could throw the script off considerably. |
footspace
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/footspace
|
---|---|
Description | To keep consistent on Wikipedia, keep inline citation tags right after the punctuation mark, without a space.
Good style:
Bad styles:
This method is endorsed by the Chicago Manual of Style. To fix this quickly, User:Gimmetrow has a replacement script that automatically places the citations in the correct place. The PR script transcludes this script (the autoformat button after you open up the suggestions). |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for ref tags that are placed such that there is a space b/w the ref tag and the punctuation mark, or ref tags that are placed right before the punctuation mark. |
Known errors | No known errors. |
alpha
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/alpha
|
---|---|
Description | This is somewhat controversial, but occasionally it is a good idea to categorize the categories and interlanguage links. However, there are cases when prominent categories should be placed first. Wikipedia:Language order poll is oriented towards either alphabetization by the name of the language in that language or by the 2-letter language code. |
This appears because | The script looks at all of the categories/interlanguage links and then compares them to see if they go in alphabetical order. |
Known errors | This no longer appears by default. If you want your own personal reminder for this, add: cat_PR = true; for category alphabetization, and alpha_PR for interlanguage links alphabetization.
|
how
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/how
|
---|---|
Description | Wikipedia is WP:NOT a discriminate collection of information: more relevantly, it is not a how-to (there is a wikiHow for that though). |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for a section heading that starts with "How to ..." |
Known errors | No known errors. |
ref
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/ref |
---|---|
Description | References are required to make sure that an article is fully verified. See more information at WP:CITE. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for a heading titled with "References", "[Foot]notes", "Works cited", etc. |
Known errors | No known errors. |
foot
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/foot
|
---|---|
Description | In order for a reader to know that an article is verifiable, inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs) should be located throughout the article by which readers can check information with external sources. The current recommended system is the cite.php <ref> system.
For those who are unacquainted with the cite.php system, here's a quick description:
|
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for <ref tags, as well as {{ref , {{harv , and {{fn . If the system used is not the cite.php system, it posts a note suggesting it. If it can't find any of them, it suggests the addition of footnotes in general.
|
Known errors | The article may use Harvard references without templates, which is an acceptable citation style. |
fact
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/fact User:AndyZ/PR/fact |
---|---|
Description | In order for a reader to know that an article is verifiable, inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs) should be located throughout the article by which readers can check information with external sources. There should never be original research or false/unverifiable in the article. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that any unverifiable information in biography articles should be removed immediately. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for {{fact}} tags, as well as redirects to that template/similar templates (such as: {{citation needed}} , {{cn}} ).
|
Known errors | No known errors. |
noimg
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/noimg
|
---|---|
Description | Images, though not a prerequisite for featured article status, are useful for readers to visualize information. Good graphics (of course, that don't violate WP:FUC and/or infringe image copyright rules) can help a reader to understand more about the topic. |
This appears because | The script searches for image: (capitalization is ignored). |
Known errors | Images in infoboxes and other templates may be missed if it is not necessary to type out image:. |
leadimg
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/leadimg |
---|---|
Description | There should be an image to the right side of the lead (usually, it should be located in the first couple of lines or in an infobox/other template). This creates a nice draw-in to the article and gives the reader a starting impression and perhaps even a summary about the subject. This image will likely be featured on the Main page if the article reaches featured article status. Note that this is from no specific guideline, but solely for style. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for a image: in the first 500 characters. |
Known errors | Images in infoboxes and other templates may be missed if it is not necessary to type out image:. Also, images are often placed at the bottom of the lead, which usually will not be located within the first 500 characters; a simple upwards shift would solve this. |
imgtag
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/imgtag
|
---|---|
Description | Images must have proper copyright tags. The list of copyright tags is at WP:IT. Otherwise, using such images is an infringement upon copyright laws. About fair use, see #imgfu. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript picks up the names of all of the images, and then uses ajax to check the contents of the respective image pages. There, it checks for an image copyright tag or for a defunct tag (like {{pd}}).
To save time and disable the usage of ajax, add a line in your monobook.js or other js file saying: |
Known errors | This is not currently in use due to an unresolved error.
If it were operating normally, there still would be several bugs:
|
imgfu
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/imgfu
|
---|---|
Description | Images that are claimed underneath the fair use doctrine need to have fair use rationales that explain why the image in question falls underneath WP:FUC. Specifically, it should explain WP:FU#Law. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript picks up the names of all of the images, and then uses ajax to check the contents of the respective image pages. There, it checks for a fair use image copyright tag and then searches for a fair use rationale (looking for keywords like 'fair use', 'rationale', etc).
To save time and disable the usage of ajax, add a line in your monobook.js or other js file saying: |
Known errors | This is not currently in use due to an unresolved error.
A fair use rationale may be written without the keywords noted above; such a rationale will be missed. |
caption
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/caption
|
---|---|
Description | Images should have captions so readers can identify the subject and focus of the image. These captions should not be too long (a good rule is less than 6 lines); see WP:CAPTION for more detailed image caption guidelines. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for | .jpg/.png/.(etc)/left/right/center/none/##px ]]
|
Known errors | There are several known bugs:
|
ig
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/ig
|
---|---|
Description | Galleries consisting of indiscriminate collections of images are discouraged. Wikipedia is NOT a repository of images. These images, clustered together, provide little help to the reader since they are not near the relevant piece of text, and also may overwhelm a reader.
There are a couple of solutions to this problem.
|
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for <gallery> .
|
Known errors | No known errors. |
toc
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/toc
|
---|---|
Description | The table of contents should not be too large. This makes the formatting neater (then, we won't have this giant list that extends down for a page alone), and allows readers to skip directly to the section that is most relevant. It also is part of Wikipedia:Summary style.
In general, try to avoid using only one subheading underneath a higher level heading. Instead of using a full new section to split up the external links, bibliography, references, etc, it may be wise to use boldface (using
|
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for the number of headings in the article. |
Known errors | Depending upon the scope of the article, an article may require a larger table of contents. It will also skip over level 1 headings (=Heading=), which shouldn't be used in the article namespace anyway. |
expand
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/expand
|
---|---|
Description | A featured article must be comprehensive and cover the entire subject of the article with detail (while following WP:SS). |
This appears because | The article either has less than 7500 total characters (including whitespace) or there are less than 5 sections. There are a few exceptions, depending upon the scope of the article (there are a couple of WP:FAs that have 5-6 sections, and yet are comprehensive). |
Known errors | Depending upon the scope of the article, having more than 5 sections may not be feasible (though for most articles, this is not the case). The only other possibility really is if the article was just vandalized and blanked. It will also skip over level 1 headings (=Heading=), which shouldn't be used in the article namespace anyway. |
sectexpand
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/sectexpand
|
---|---|
Description | Self-explanatory: an article should be fully comprehensive and not be missing any major facet of information. If a section is a stub (by definition, doesn't cover enough), the article can't be comprehensive. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for {{Sectstub}} and other related templates. |
Known errors | No known errors. |
SS
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/SS
|
---|---|
Description | Though it is important for articles to be detailed, it is equally important to ensure that the size of the article is not too large. There are several difficulties to overly long articles:
To avoid such, use subpages: For example, instead of fitting the entire history of the United States in United States#History, just discuss the major points of US history on the main article and spin the rest of the details to History of the United States. Even there, further subdivision may be needed (History of the United States (1776-1789)). |
This appears because | If the length of the article is greater than 50,000 and the {{main}} template is not used, then this appears. |
Known errors | No known errors. |
copyedit
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/copyedit
|
---|---|
Description | Make sure that the article meets the requirement that the prose is brilliant and compelling - WP:WIAFA #1. |
This appears because | This appears by default. It just acts as a reminder, and in no way implies that the article is of poor quality writing. |
Known errors | Always appears, no matter how many times you copyedit the article... |
awt
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/awt
|
---|---|
Description | Weasel terms that seem to support a statement without using actually using verifiable sources. General phrases like "People consider that..." or "Many scientists believe..." may make an opinion seem NPOV, but is not substantiated by actual sources. Either append a citation (if there isn't already one) or remove the weasel term. They also cause a number of other problems listed here (including both grammar and style, such as readability and passive voice). |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for a list of common weasel words. |
Known errors | Weasel words located in quotes should not be deleted, as well as in titles (for example, an external link or a ref tag). |
list
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/list
|
---|---|
Description | Lists disrupt encyclopediac prose. |
This appears because | This is no longer searched for due to high inaccuracy. It used to search for sections beginning with "List of..." |
Known errors | This is no longer searched for. |
trivia
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/trivia
|
---|---|
Description | Per WP:TRIV and WP:NOT, trivia sections should not be included in encyclopedia articles. Important information in those sections should be moved into the article or into a "In popular culture" section. |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches for a regular expression |
Known errors | Certain sections will be mis-interpreted as a trivia section. Examples include "Other factories" (it sees 'Other fact') and "Miscellaneous", used in discographies. |
persondata
[edit]Content | User:AndyZ/PR/persondata
|
---|---|
Description | {{persondata}} is a metadata template. It does not provide any immediate benefits for Wikipedia and its readers, but may be useful in the future as a way to organize Wikipedia biography articles. For more information about this template and its syntax, see Wikipedia:Persondata.
persondata is only to be used on biography articles. It is to be used like this (for Ferdinand Magellan): <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] --> {{Persondata |NAME=Magellan, Ferdinand |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Magalhães, Fernão de (Portuguese); Magallanes, Fernando de (Spanish) |SHORT DESCRIPTION=Sea explorer |DATE OF BIRTH=Spring [[1480]] |PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Sabrosa]], [[Portugal]] |DATE OF DEATH=[[April 27]], [[1521]] |PLACE OF DEATH=[[Mactan Island]], [[Cebu]], [[Philippines]] }} If the subject in question has not died yet, of if the date/place of birth/death is unknown, or if there are no alternative names, just leave that part blank (|DATE OF BIRTH=, next line, continue). By default, persondata cannot be viewed. If you wish to see it, add the line |
This appears because | In the script, JavaScript searches first for an indication that the article is a biography article (if it has the xxxx year birth/death category or includes an infobox about a person), and then sees if {{persondata is in the article. |
Known errors | No known errors. |