Forum:Pee Review Closure Policy

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Pee Review Closure Policy

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5710 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Okay, so, I've noticed this happening a lot.

1. User writes good article.
2. User puts article on Pee Review, mostly because he wants someone to nom it.
3. Indeed, someone noms it.
4. The article sits unreviewed for like a month and a half, because no one wants to review an article that's on VFH.
5. The bottom of the Pee Review queue is hard to work with because it's not always clear what should be reviewed and what shouldn't.

So I was wondering: would anyone object to a policy where, if something's on VFH, we close the review immediately? Maybe just give it straight 0s, or 5s, or 11s, or whatever, and mark it "closed"? (Or: is there a better way to close one? Is a review closed when someone signs? Hmm)

If it fails VFH, it wouldn't kill the writer to re-request a review at that time. pillow talk 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle - the problem is that a review should gauge VFH, but I think more importantly it should offer ways in which the article could be improved or issues that need to be resolved. The fact and article is featured or nominated does not really reflect the purpose of a Pee review for a writer.--Sycamore (Talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is that a "Yes, we should go ahead and close those reviews," or a "No, we should leave them up until they're done," or a "No, we should leave them up until they're featured," or a "I have a fourth idea"? pillow talk 17:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I pick B...;)--Sycamore (Talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying, I'd have a really hard time reviewing something like Metal Gear Solid, and I don't think Guildy would want to edit it after everyone agreed it was awesome, and I don't think anyone would particularly want him to spend time editing it instead of writing something new. So... I don't know who's gonna do that review, but probably not me. pillow talk 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not it. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 17:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that featuring an article is like saying there's little room for improvement, but a nom isn't such a big deal. A nom just means that someone likes it, but that doesn't mean it's good or even that the author's done with it. So I'd be for closing pees for featured articles, but against for articles on VFH. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 17:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but here's the thing. Most users here don't think that an article should be edited much while it's on VFH. For example, my own article, Scrub typhus: the geographic distribution of phenotypic and genotypic variants of Orientia tsutsugamushi, has been sitting on Pee Review for 4 weeks, and on VFH for almost that long. I wouldn't want to edit it right now - what, are the 25 people who voted going to be expected to re-appraise their votes? And everyone knows that, so no one's going to review it. So what's the benefit of the review just sitting there until the article passes or fails VFH? I don't get it. pillow talk 18:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about we just ban the jerks who nom things that are still in Pee Review and call it a day? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe two problems here 1. Reviews sitting for too long in the queue making a review redundant 2. Not enough reviewers - Both could be solved with one thing = More people reviewing. I'll take a look in the next week or so and maybe a push for more reviewers could be headed up?--Sycamore (Talk) 18:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that solves the problem. We could have a hundred active reviewers, and once one of those reviewers decides to nom an article rather than review it, and the article accrues a positive score, no one is going to want to do a review. pillow talk 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

why isn't there a header yet? shouldn't there have been a header by now?

so yea, i think it used to say somewhere in the guidelines something along the lines of 'remove a review if the article is on VFH'. therefore, i think the best way to go about this is: 1) for nommed articles on VFH, change the category from 'pee review' to 'reviewed', that way it's out of the queue but the author can easily toss it back on should its VFH run fail. 2) for featured articles, delete the review page...honestly i can't think of a reason to review features, other than to say 'this is awesome'. 3) enlist some sucker to be responsible for periodically checking the review queue to uphold these rules...perhaps that gerry fellow. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Cajek, if you ask me. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I'm down with that - most things that are on VFH generate feedback of one kind or another, and that should be enough to keep a writer going. If they still want a review if it fails, it's a simple matter to raise another request. I'm not sure if it used to be a policy or not, but I'm quite happy if people want it to be one. I'll try to keep an eye on it with all the other stuff. --UU - natter 21:52, Apr 24

Where's Woody when you need him to say

Rules<Funny. This is a tad too bureaucratic for my taste. ~ 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

true. but we wouldn't need to add a set of rules concerning what to do with your own nomination once it is nommed or featured, we'd just have one or two users skim the queue for them and make it more convenient for reviewers. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we need UU's opinion on this. Maybe to add it to the list of assignments for the poopsmiths. ~ 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rules are like condoms: unpleasant, but protective. I'm asking because I want to be assured that if I close all the noms that are on VFH to clean up the queue, I won't get raped by a horde of furious admins. pillow talk 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

i did it with this one three days ago, and i'm happy to report i've lived rape-free since then. i think the consensus we've reached is 'whatever'. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, your rape is on the way, believe me. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:18, 24 Apr

Whoo! Its nice to see someone else jumping on the Rules<Funny bandwagon. Rules are great and necessary, but when they get in the way of funny they need to either be gotten rid of, or made more lenient (at least on this site). The is Uncyclopedia, fuck the rules. That being said, I haven't really read anything on this page, and I'm not really a part of Pee Review, and really only came to rant about things that nobody cares about or is listening to, so... Abstain. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My two cents

For me, it's really quite simple: If an article gets featured, there is no longer a need to get it reviewed. When an article ends up on VFH, a pee review can still serve an important purpose. While probably not all voters will take the effort of adapting their respective votes if the article is substantially improved, a few changed votes can still have a considerable effect on the VFH outcome. So I would support closing the review when the article is featured, and as long as it isn't obvious that the article is going to get featured, reviewers should just review the article as they would any other. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You can be looking forward to some rape as well. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:22, 24 Apr

As I will be the one raping. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pee review is rubbish anyway

The whole point of a peer review is that you get several people's opinions on it. The way pee review works, it's just one person's opinion, which is next to useless. There can only be one review - and if someone wants more, they have to nominate it again. I say we just ignore pee review till it goes away. Also, it definitely shouldn't be a part of the rules on VFH. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:30, 24 Apr 2009

Way to piss on the hard work of some people Spang. I agree that a proper Peer Review involves lots of people, but this isn't a proper peer review. Fuck me it's hard enough getting one person to review an article around here! And people have always been welcome to comment if they want to add points instead of doing a full review. Fact is, some people do find the reviews helpful (me for one - the last one I got from Gerry was really useful) and I have seen a bunch of articles improved as a result of getting a decent review. However, I am in agreement about removing the requirement to get a review before self-nomming - because it might get rid of the requests that are solely raised to meet this criteria, and which result in someone spending time on a review the recipient has no intention of acting on. A small caveat - could we mention that self-nomming lots of articles that get voted down quickly might result in some kind of ban? Sorry to take this seriously, we now return you to your regularly scheduled Uncyc whateverings. --UU - natter 21:48, Apr 24

i'm with UU on this one, spang. i mean, pee review has been criticized before, and i've directly changed my reviewing methods after receiving useful feedback, but...by referring to it as 'rubbish' and 'next to useless' you must just be expecting angry walls of text. i really just wanted to put in my token support here. in summary, FU. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean it's not very useful as a peer review. Nothing wrong with the actual reviews (mostly). Also things like the "I call this review, nobody else review it" template (which I tried to discourage the use of before) are rather counter-productive. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:31, 24 Apr 2009

Yeah, those templates were basically introduced to stop people reviewing the same article at the same time when the queue was long and it would have been more productive for them to review two different articles and help twice as many people. I agree it got ridiculous with people booking reviews and then not doing the reviews for days - I've tried to do a little something about that recently. But if used in the right way, I think they do serve a purpose. --UU - natter 22:40, Apr 24

I firmly believe that any templates should be removed after a couple hours or so. If your not gonna do the review right away then don't claim it. It's not really considerate to the person waiting for the review. The only time I think they should be allowed to sit is if the reviewee specifically requested a review from a particular reviewer. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:44, 24 Apr

I would say 24 hours would be a more reasonable amount of time. Occasionally, I claimed an article in the morning and then did it after work. Like UU said, it was created to prevent two people from reviewing the same article. Also, if you feel the need to comment on a claimed article, you can always leave some fly-by comments. --Mnb'z 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	9	Nice and sassy
Concept:	8	I've never heard anybody pee on pee quite like this before in my brief stay at the Uncylopedia Arms
Prose and formatting:	9	Well written
Images:	8	I love the little talk button, the color is great.
Miscellaneous:	9	The links and attention to detail in the formatting really stood out. Great job.
Final Score:	43	I really enjoyed this one.
Reviewer:	--    20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	2	i didn't laugh. the VFH rules thing was decent, though.
Concept:	13	omg pee review sux rofl!
Prose and formatting:	9	perfect, minus one point for using one of these: -
Images:	0	i liked your unicorn better
Miscellaneous:	5.555	ur mom!
Final Score:	29.555	hey you're right, two reviews are better than one!
Reviewer:	SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	0	Stave it off.
Concept:	1	One
Prose and formatting:	2	Two
Images:	3	Three
Miscellaneous:	10	And now you can count to three!!
Final Score:	16	You had a big day today, champ!
Reviewer:	pillow talk 20:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10	Hilarious! I lolled.
Concept:	666	Just look at what you've done! Everybody's peeing all over!
Prose and formatting:	8	You didn't make any errors, but I'm sure you could have said it in an even funnier way.
Images:	-700	You didn't use any images! Shame on you!
Miscellaneous:	13	13 because of the completely random scores in this review.
Final Score:	-4	No further comment.
Reviewer:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	1	Jumpin
Concept:	2	on
Prose and formatting:	3	dis
Images:	-4	bandwagon
Miscellaneous:	5	for
Final Score:	7	great justice.
Reviewer:	OptyC Sucks! CUN21:08, 24 Apr

Humour:	0	F
Concept:	0	U
Prose and formatting:	0	S
Images:	0	p
Miscellaneous:	0	a
Final Score:	0	n
Reviewer:	g --UU - natter 21:57, Apr 24

Now that's something I can agree with

I fully agree with what Spang said, but didn't want to break up an awesome new fad, so a new header is born. PR should have nothing to do with VFH. Can someone with experience tell me why this is a rule in the first place? I find that people are going to self-nom regardless. The only thing it does is force them to wait a few days, regardless of the score it may receive. It's nice to have the opportunity for someone to review it, I just got a great one from Gerrycheevers, but the VFH self-nom rule I am not a fan of. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, the self-nom rule is an awfully easy one to make an endrun around. I usually just hop on IRC and ask Colin or Ethine to do it for me. pillow talk 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. In theory it's there to stop people, particularly new users, nomming any old crap. Doesn't seem to do that much, though, does it? --UU - natter 21:39, Apr 24

How would it stop new users from doing that? It's a self-nom rule after all. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I used the phrase "in theory". --UU - natter 21:55, Apr 24

Well, my point is that it even fails to do that in theory. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What if the rule was for Noobs and I.P.s only? That makes sense to me. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did I miss out the word self? It's supposed to stop them selfnomming any old crap, in theory. But it doesn't, really, does it? --UU - natter 22:09, Apr 24

Oh! So you're talking about n00bish users nomming their own (old) crap. Okay, that makes sense. Usually though, a crappy nom (selfnom or not) tends to quickly accumulate a considerable amount of against votes anyway. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Without the pee review requirement we'd have a lot more bad noob-created articles on VFH. This would, in turn, cut down on the space for good articles. The chance for these writers to be told their work sucks in advance is, I feel, a valuable one.

I think sometimes articles are of feature-quality before they go through pee review, but they can still be improved. Pee review is still then useful for good articles, in helping them be the best that they can be before they are featured. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  23:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hea! What if the rule was for Noobs and I.P.s only? That makes sense to me. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It's fair only if it applies to everyone. That way it prevents me from nominating that thing I wrote that one time. It was awesome. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But don't you think we trust you to only nominate that one thing that you wrote that one time? It is a trust issue with users. Once they've been around for a while, I figure they have gotten a handle of things. I trust YouKnowWhatTheMusicMeans now, where I wouldn't have a month ago. And fair? FAIR!? Where is your basic instinct as an admin to abuse your power at all times? Where is that joy that you will receive from banning the first guy who self-nominates a really terrible article for VFH? Isn't it somewhere in there? Even a little bit? Plus, if you guys disagree with me then I'll have to question your sexuality. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 04:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't trust me, and I know me. I only became an admin because I accidentally ran over the previous one. Also, I found his skin to be remarkably comfortable, if a bit tight in the crotch. Modifying the rule would just make it more complexificated ("Users (with less than 90 days in) must get Pee Review before self-nom'ing"). That you want to modify it makes me question your sexuality. Perv. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, and I'm taking your reluctance to change the rule to my idea to be in agreement with everyone, I support two things: 1. Just get rid of the Pee Review/VFH need then, and 2. You all are getting serious sexuality-questioning coming your way, except for Orian, Fag, and any other gay users I don't know about. I refuse to question theirs, and will continue to believe in their rampant heterosexuality. If anyone wants to complain about this, just thank your buddy <sneer> MODUSOPERANDI </sneer>. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 05:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That rule was made for a reason. We had a bunch of poor quality pages self-nom'd there. Oodles. Frankly, it was a madhouse (A madhouse!). Since we're supposed to assume good faith, that meant that VFH got clogged with crap. It's a good rule. It both helps protect VFH and it protects the egos of the Jr Divas whose good enough for VFH pages really aren't good enough for VFH. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I hear you. If I am to believe your stories I'm pretty sure you've been here slightly over 68 years, and I am just closing in on 1. However, I'm thinking two things: 1. I really don't care about this argument. Just adding my two cents, which now has turned into a buck fifty (.0286 euros), and 2. I still support getting rid of it based on all of my earlier comments, along with some other people's (UU, Hype, Sockie). And adding a 3rd. I'm calling it a night. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 06:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the rule was implemented when pee review was barely used, and we wanted people to do more reviewing and less time on VFH. I think that goal has been accomplished, so I would favor removing it (and have said so previously).--<<>> 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How about a no self-nom rule?

Let's take this discussion about goofy self nomination policies to their logical conclusion: no user can nominate their own articles. So, if you wanted to get an article on VFH, you could ask an esteemed user to look it over, and if they like it, then they would nominate it.

Sure, shy users like myself might take issue with having to swallow up their pride and ask other people to nominate articles they already know are the height of literary genius and comedy, but it would be a community building exercise, and you would have a for vote that you would probably get anyway.

This would solve the original problem of featured articles sitting unreviewed in the queue. Well, maybe not, but it would separate Pee Review and VFH from each other, so that Pee Review is not a required step for nomination but merely a recommended one.

Also, n00bs and IPs won't put their shit on VFH, and any rule that keeps the n00bs and IPs down is a good one. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 11:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally think this will lead to an increase in whoring, you know, people giving hints for you to nominate their terrible article on your talk page. Pee gives a place for articles to be noticed and then nominated based upon quality rather than just whether X likes Y. Most IP's nom articles with many years of memes and crap that isn't their own anyway. ask[ing] an esteemed user to look it over, and if they like it, then they would nominate it sounds a lot like Pee except without the feedback. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it really. We need to have the option to self nom, nothing wrong with that. We also need to prevent self-nomming flood, so as far as I can see while the self-nom rules aren't perfect, there are the best option we have so far, unless someone has a better idea of how to allow self-noms. ~ 20:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Mordillo. Having a no self-nom rule would just encourage noobs to nom (and vote for) each others weak article articles. I.e. Noob A noms (and votes for) Noob B's weak article, while Noob B does the same for Noob A's article. Not only will it make those articles harder to vote off, it might snowball into "Noob mobs" who "politically" vote for each other's articles. --Mnb'z 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Forget that! Why do we have to have a no-self-nom rule? How often do people nominate crap articles on VFH anyway? I don't see anybody with a vote that looks like:

1. Against. Not funny at all. Is this a self-nom? --MaxPayne 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm just blind when it comes to that regard. All I know is that nobody's article would ever get featured unless somebody knew it was there. I mean, how many great articles are there lying around Uncyclopedia that no on ever sees because they have an obscure title or they're uncategorized? If there was no self-nominations, that number would increase a whole bunch. --MaxPayne 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm creating my own header

to say...I like that idea. For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:09, 25 Apr

I'm creating yet another header

to say... even though apparently no one wants to close Pee Reviews for articles that are on VFH... no one ever, ever reviews them. Then they sit there for 40, 50, 60 days. Is the consensus that this is something we're just not going to try to fix? pillow talk 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• For. No one needs to review highlighted articles. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 15:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• No wait! Stuff that's on VFH should just as well be reviewed as other stuff! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• For. VFH gives feedback on the article anyway and there's nothing stopping the author from asking for a review later. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  17:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• FU <insert name here>!--<<>> 18:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction... what I meant to say is that those should be taken off pee review; they can be returned after the VFH stint.--<<>> 18:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• I dunno what this vote is for, but I think we should definitely remove the pee review rule from VFH. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:15, 26 Apr 2009
• Againsty. Just because an article is featured, doesn't mean everyone thinks it's great. Some people still want to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's not as funny as others think and how it could potentially be better. The article on Wikipedia is featured, and yet it's up on the IC hitlist and will probably find it's way to PEE review at some point soon. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • True, but featured in 2005 =/= featured these days. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:49, Apr 26
    • Yeah, that's so mid-00s. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • If that anecdote is true, then there should be a bunch of material from 2005 that wasn't good enough back then but is VFH material now. When I see a bunch of old junky junky junk flood VFH and pass I'll believe that premise.--    10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Mid-00s revival! I'm listening to heavy-onset period alt. rock already. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• For closing Pee Reviews for pages on VFH. Against rescinding the "no self-noms w/o Pee Review" rule. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• What Modus just said. --UU - natter 07:31, Apr 26

• I should probably point out at this point that Mordillo's opinion on Pee Review closures was basically "Whatever UU says, goes." pillow talk 07:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thar's right. UU for the Queen of Britain! Also, what UU said, which is what Modus said.~ 08:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever suits you people. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  "You people"?! Honky. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Take a look in the mirror, bro. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I don't know if you are aware, but if there's one thing you be, it's trippin'. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I be bangin' that trippin' business. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, wait. Allow me to correct myself: Whatever suits Mordillo. $=$ What UU said. $=$ What Modus said. $=$ Mind-blowing paradox. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• No It depends, an article is featured if it is the Best of the Best, that means if the article can't be improved further. If an article has 20 for votes and 10 against votes it may get featured but those 10 againsts suggest it can be improved further. However almost no one follows the advice of those who vote against, even if they put up reasonable advice, therefore people don't bother as much. The article sits there until there are only new articles on VFH and it gets featured by default. A set time limit on VFH might fix that - isn't that what the health part was for anyway? This means that articles that are good but not feature unless improved can be taken off and reviewed, while those that are good enough for feature are not hindered and do not need a second review if self nommed. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  So, close Reviews for those articles on VFH but only if we put a time limit on how long an article can be there. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I vote for a fourteen-second time limit. pillow talk 16:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, we'll apply that for your articles. For everyone else it can be something like 30 days or something. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  I think his vote was an illustration of...<pregnant pause>...hyperbole. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Careful with the "pregnant pause" phrasing. You'll get Mnbvcxz all... excited. pillow talk 03:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant pregnant paws. Awww! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  That'll get Crablogger all... excited. --Mnb'z 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant baby octopus. Awww! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sauce, per Hyperbole's request. --Mnb'z 06:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just DAT ASSED like a volcano. Sauce?? Moar?? pillow talk 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  moar octopus pr0n per Hyperbole's request. --Mnb'z 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that people don't vote "against" enough. However, an against vote normally doesn't mean "this needs more finishing touches". It often means "the underlying concept just isn't funny". There are instances in which an article is as good as its going to get, yet its not good enough to be a featured article. There are also some people who just don't get certain types of humor.--Mnb'z 17:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Jumping in late on this... If an article is good, it's good, and will be on par with other, more-reviewed, articles on VFH, or at least not mercilessly voted down. Given that Pee Review is for people looking to improve their article, if they think it's good enough (within reason, of course), they should have a chance to nom it. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 15:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, guys, let's just pass directly over the simple solution and instead go entirely off topic (i.e. pee review is not PEER review, reservation templates, VFH rules, et cetera)

How about we institute this new guideline called the Doppelganger Guideline, in which it is stated that an article cannot be in two places at once, i.e. both in Pee Review and on VFH. If an article is going to be nommed for VFH, the Pee Review must be closed first, [edit: FOR EXAMPLE] either by being reviewed (wait until reviewing to get nommed) or by the request for review being closed (the person who requested the review must be the one to retract it, if someone wants to nom it they have to contact the article author first for this to happen). – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 15:24 Apr 27, 2009

Got rid of the specifics. Specifics are for queers. See below comment in response to Gerry. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:37 Apr 27, 2009

And by the way,

FU SPANG

– Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 15:29 Apr 27, 2009

this again sounds too complicated. too many steps in the nomination process will lead to less people bothering with it. i can volunteer to move review requests back and forth between the actual queue and the reviewed list, so VFH stuff doesn't clog up the queue. skull, i'm all for your idea in principal (principle?), with the added bonus of offering to do all of the work. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

d00d, awesome 'n' such. The idea behind the Doppelganger guideline is that it simplifies things: i.e. there is only ONE GUIDELINE, an article cannot be in two places at once. However that issue gets settled is entirely up to interpretation - the things I put up there were only suggestions. It's also totally possible for someone ELSE to close a request if they notice the article's on VFH. Stuff like that. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:34 Apr 27, 2009

sounds like a plan. i'll just monitor the queue for articles on VFH, most of the time notifying the author or review requester of the move. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Principal is the occupation, I think. As in 'Principal Schoolmaster'. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

that's it! go to the principle's office, nach! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

official-ish vote on THE DOPPELGANGER POLICY ONLY

Score: +2

• for this policy. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• For as long as Gerry/poopsmiths/PEEing people/random users are in charge of closures and not the authors themselves. pillow talk 17:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain There is a possible issue with time sensitive unnews articles and reviews made by someone other than the primary author of an article. --Mnb'z 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hence why I call it a "guideline". – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:34 Apr 27, 2009

  You weren't calling a guideline when I voted abstain. And, I assume its a non-issue now as the Category:Review Suspended idea seems more popular. --Mnb'z 06:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• For. I didn't read all that but I'm assuming we're voting on some sort of FU Spang policy. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:38, 28 Apr

I know no one uses categories but

Can we create a Category:Review Suspended or something like that for cases like these? It's more accurate than Reviewed, and PEEING dudes won't have the headache of trying to sort the really and truly reviewed from the delisted. --C:\syndrome\_ 04:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

that's actually a solid idea. i was just going to keep track of the reviews in 'reviewed' that were really suspended, but this will help organize them and it will also help checking the reviews for quality. thanks, syndrome. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was about to ask "why not just close the review?" and then I realized closing the review would put it in the "Reviewed" category, which wouldn't do any good. So yeah. I guess that whole "suspended" thing is a good idea, though I'd call it more like "closed" or "ended" or somethin'. Suspended implies it's going to come back again, like suspended animation. If the article makes it on VFH, it's not gonna be un-suspended, is it? That sounds kinda pointless. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:20 Apr 28, 2009

my current process is to move the reviews in question to Category:Review Suspended and notify the author. i will then monitor the articles in this category. if the article is not featured, i will move the review back to the queue. if the article is featured, i will ask the author what he/she would like to do with the review, which i assume in 99% of cases will be 'it can be deleted'. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading through all of this crap

I have a suggestion: why not just take something off Pee Review if isn't reviewed within X amount of days? Solvent was on there for a ridiculously long amount of time, and I reviewed it just to get it off there (it's not a bad review, though). Just putting it under "articles that need reviewing" isn't enough. Here's an example: Let's say User A submits Article A for review. Nobody feels like reviewing it. So, after 40 or so days, an admin huffs it and informs the user that the review is gone. If the User REALLY wants a review, they can just create the review again. A fresh review is more compelling than an ancient one, so it might work for the best. Anyways, that's my 2 cents, feel free to bang me over the head with a pipe now. Oh, and, SABER FOR ROTM! Saberwolf116 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't help any. It would only cause hard to review articles to stay on there longer. Generally, when I do reviews, I try to review the oldest one I can first. The fact that is has been on there for ages is a sign that it needs to be reviewed. The point it to try to get articles that need reviewing reviewed, and by-pass those that don't need a review, i.e. articles that are on VFH. --Mnb'z 19:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Butting in my "But"

I agree with suspending reviews when the article is nommed on VFH... But the user requesting the review should have the authority to negate that suspension whenever he pleases. If they make it clear that they want it reviewed despite it currently being on VFH, the review should be unsuspended. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that will be a good idea. Once an article is on VFH (or passes VFH for that matter) it should be kept in a relatively stable state. An author (as a rule) shouldn't still be working on an article that is on VFH, granted there are exceptions, but I think the general principle of "have your article cleaned up and finished before it gets nominated" is a good idea. If the article still needs reviewed, the author should vote "self-against, still working on it, I'll renom later." If the article is good enough for VFH, then the pee review is basically a waste of the reviewer's time. --Mnb'z 20:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as you said, there are exceptions. If somehow an article ended up on VFH but the author still wants to work on the article and specifically stresses that he wants it peed despite it being on VFH, I think that shouldn't be much a problem. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not just cancel the VFH nomination? If the author is intending to work on it, then it shouldn't be on VFH. (I can see taking care of clean-up/formatting issues while an article in on VFH, but if its getting serious re-work, the author should withdraw it from VFH.) --Mnb'z 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should also fill up form AXV/7? Shall we stop with the paperwork now? ~ 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Mordillo It looks like the idea is dying of instruction bloat. --Mnb'z 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay It's not really necessary to make it official policy or somesuch. Things'll probably work themselves out when a problem arises. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what they said before Archduke Ferdinand got shot. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's also what they said when we had these. We need an official policy, or terrorist spammers will bomb the Twin Userpages. Saberwolf116 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't they do that already? --Mnb'z 01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Easier Idea

How about, we create a "This article is on VFH, so its low on the review priority" template. Moving the article into a special category seems like too much work. If the author doesn't want the article to be given lower priority he should get the article off VFH he should make a comment like "I want this reviewed even though its on VFH." --Mnb'z 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates are your answer to everything. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:46, May 4

i have been implementing the 'review suspended' category for a week now. it involves minimal effort. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The most complex idea, therefore best

If an article has stayed on the VFH list for no less than 24 hours and no more than three days, and got no more than 36 points in its pee review (8 of those points must be from the prose - and not counting formatting!) it should receive an "Approach with caution" -template. Then the author(s) of the article must turn a somersault on a ten-shilling coin. Fail that and the article is off the list. If 5 of the pee points are from humo(u)r, it is possible to put the article back on the list, but in that case self-nomination is not possible - except if one or more of the authors are less than 3 years old. If it gets featured after all this, the rest of the articles will get a "PWNED"-template and will have to be rewritten. This law will stay in effect for two years or I will fucking kill the lot of you. -- Style  Guide 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

all other policies will be scrapped and this policy will henceforth be enforced in an unflinchingly rigid manner. now excuse me, i have to go and locate a ten-shilling coin. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Motivation?

Maybe you could add like, a Reviewer of the Month award to perhaps motivate people to do Pee Review? Because Pee Review is so lonely. It's like the specific area featured votes, Nobody cares about them. I've put 4 articles up for Review, only 2 of them were Reviewed. --MaxPayne 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What a good idea. If only there were some kind of Reviewer of the Month award. Why did we not think of it earlier? Also Max, you can ask people to do reviews, that sometimes helps. Also also, have patience, stuff does get reviewed eventually. It used to take months, with a queue about 15 pages long. It does work, honest! --UU - natter 13:55, May 5

Pee Reviews are hard. Writing those are probably the hardest thing on this site to do. I Pee Reviewed a page this one time, back before your mother met your father, and to this very day I still wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night. "The Pee Review sweats", they call 'em. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, snap. This is embarassing. :P --MaxPayne 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Max - Pee Review also seems less lonely when you look at the maintenance/rankings pages at User:Cajek/Pee. (By the way: why the hell are the maintenance/rankings pages still in Cajek's userspace?) pillow talk 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Because we all miss Cajek very much. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer of the Month

Agree. a good idea. --Romartus 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What a good idea. If only there were some kind of Reviewer of the Month award. Why did we not think of it earlier? Also Max, you can ask people to do reviews, that sometimes helps. Also also, have patience, stuff does get reviewed eventually. It used to take months, with a queue about 15 pages long. It does work, honest! -OptyPlagiarizer 16:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pee this

What's wrong with Pee Review? This: how the hell can anyone review a humour article they don't see as humorous? It's a good idea to judge the quality of images, prose, formatting, shit like that - but again: everything must be seen as "bad but good in the context" or "good but bad in the context" and so forth. And the context is? The joke. What if I don't get it, or don't like it? Pee Review only seems to stand as a gateway to self-nomination. There's been a study somewhere and it shows that the sense of humour has the least correlation amongst one's peers. As if we didn't know it. I didn't make the study, don't blame me. Fuck you anyway. You shut up. No, you shut up!! Both of you shut up, piss off and shut up. The end. -- Style  Guide 16:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found most of the reviews I have received to be helpful. The pee review basically was two functions: the author how good the article is and offer suggestions for improving it. Pee review does both of those functions fairly well, as long as the author doesn't get a one line per box review. I (and I assume most experienced reviewers) also tend to avoid reviewing articles whose subject I am unfamiliar with to minimize the "I don't get it" problem.

Also, since everybody has different senses of humor, that clearly means we shouldn't create some sort of system by which we vote for our best articles, and feature said articles on the main page, right? --Mnb'z 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

VFH scores are usually decided by 10 - 20 people. Pee Review scores are always decided by 1 person. It can be helpful, but shouldn't be part of any rules. Unless it were to become an actual peer review system. Which I doubt we have enough people to do. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:49, 05 May 2009

i think the pee review rule serves more like the waiting period for buying a gun - n00bs aren't going to wait around to get a pee review and then nom terrible articles. there's no set minimum score for self-noms, either - i could write an incoherent mess of an article, get a score of 3, and nom it, and that would be in the rules. but i wouldn't: because getting it reviewed makes that process too long. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pee Review has definitely helped me bring three or four articles up from "kinda amusing" to VFH quality. We may not always use it optimally, but it's not useless. pillow talk 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not subject but the joke. You may even see what the joke should be, yet it doesn't make you laugh, for some reason. OK, it may do some good as well - but if anyone can review I don't know how much. -- Style  Guide 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)