Wikipedia:Peer review/Why Peer Review Is a Good Idea Here

Why Peer Review Is a Good Idea Here, Example 1:

From the Talk page, Everyking explains what he considers important, valuable encyclopedic information:

---Begin quote---

Which seems more informative? Compare another of Zen's paragraphs:

"In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 on the Jam Music charts in late July [1], and peaked at 11."

With mine:

"In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 in late July [2], rising to number 36 in its second week [3] and then to number 30 in its third week. [4] In its fourth week, it rose greatly, to number 11 (its peak), [5] but fell to number 14 in its fifth week, [6] where it remained in its sixth week. [7] In its seventh week, it fell slightly to number 15, [8] and then slightly more in the next two weeks: first to number 16 (week eight) [9], and then to number 17 (week nine). [10] It remained at number 17 in its tenth week, [11] before falling to number 24 in its 11th week [12] and then to number 29 in its 12th week. [13] It rose again in its 13th week, however, to number 23, [14] and rose further still in its 14th week, to number 20. [15] It then fell to number 30 in its 15th week [16], to number 33 in its 16th week [17], to number 41 in its 17th week, [18] and to number 46 in its 18th week. [19] In week 19 it fell slightly more to number 47, before rising to number 38 in week 20. [20]"

---End quote---

Every tiny factoid is precious, every tiny factoid is valuable, no matter what: it's like the Special Olympics of encyclopedia articles. --Calton 08:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of what disagreements you may have with them, please treat others with respect; "others" include both fellow Wikipedia editors and athletes with disabilities. — Matt Crypto 08:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please, get over yourself. --Calton 12:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why Peer Review Is a Good Idea Here, Example 2:

Some statistics:

As of 03:08, 13 Dec 2004, there have been 554 edits (counting the original creation of the article), inflating the article to 38K in size. The article was created on 26 Jul 2004, 140 days ago, giving an average of just under 4 edits per day, though that was not spread out evenly:

• July: 3
• August: 16
• September: 13
• October: 40
• November: 356
• December: 125

Of the 554 edits, 496 (or 89.5%) have been by Everyking.

Thirty-two users performed the remaining 58 edits -- although since two of each were the leveling and then lifting of protection, I'll discount those, making 30 users performing 56 edits. Reene had the highest single number at 13 edits.

Of those 56 other edits, 29 were reverted by Everyking (25 completely and 4 partially) -- over half of non-Everyking edits. This includes the removal of at least 4 tags (peerreview and clean-up), and involved at least four violations of the 3-revert rule (including an astonishing 8 reversions in 2 hours on 26 November).

These are the numbers as best as I could reconstruct them: I leave out the details concerning bad faith, insults, refusals to engage in discussons, professions of injured innocence, and lack of perspective regarding the notability -- or non-notability -- of this article and the details Everyking choses to insert. I assert that Everyking needs to step back and let go, because his behavior regarding this article and anything connected demonstrates his complete lack of perspective on this issue and on the general purpose of Wikipedia. --Calton 12:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right, well, we disagree, Calton. Have you considered that the reason that I have made the vast majority of the edits is because, well, I'm really the only one here who knows much of anything about the subject, or at least the only one who has bothered to contribute his knowledge? Virtually all of my reversions were of content removal. I have left alone, and in fact welcomed, the content additions, which mainly occurred early in the article history with the addition of the infobox and then later on the table formats. Everyking 07:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Frankly, I think that the article needs to be rewritten from scratch. There is far to much superfluous data in there. Data and information are not the same thing. iMeowbot 01:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree and take offense. None of it is superfluous. In fact, it needs more info, and I'm continuing work on it. Everyking 00:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)