User:AndyZ/peerreviewer/guide

Introduction

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/August 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  (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/August 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.

Suggestions specifics

lead

Configurable options
Content	User:AndyZ/PR/lead Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Description	The lead should conform to guidelines at WP:LEAD.
This appears because	JavaScript looks for the number of new lines starting with actual letters (other characters, like {\|<'[ will be ignored).
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.