User talk:Gryllida/2012

---

Archiving

For whatever use these might be to you, here are some thoughts from my own struggles with archiving in slowdowns. (We had a comparable slowdown in February.)

• I reckon we shouldn't ever have a lead on the main page that's archived. It would seem not cricket to feature an article at that level and then say "but you can't edit it". We did once temporarily lower the number of leads, but it was a bit of a logistical mess.
• At some point, one would think, there must be a lower bound on how many articles we display on the main page DPL. At that point, they act as examples of what we publish, and they are just "the n most recently published articles", regardless of how long a span of time that represents. I guess we should stop archiving at n until we publish replacements for them.
• In practice, I use n=10. Partly to spare myself. It is a nice round number, large enough to demonstrate some variety of what we publish, and large enough to safely provide leads — but I was also concerned that I'd agonize over exactly how low n should be, so I decided to pick a number before we ever got that low, and then if we ever did, I'd have already made the decision so wouldn't have to worry about it in the event.

--Pi zero (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed The wub actually has reduced the number of leads. So I suppose we'll get to see whether my "bit of a logistical mess" claim holds up :-). --Pi zero (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this imply that I need to edit the mainpage articles-list after each archival? Is there any tool to do that? --Gryllida 11:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, what I do when archiving an article off the main page is, first put the archive tag on it, then go to the main page (already open in another browser tab) and use the "refresh" button (above DPL, rightmost of icons), causing the archived article to disappear off the list, then go back and protect the article. --Pi zero (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the details; I'll keep it in mind for future archivals. -Gryllida 12:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Florida schools begin to enforce new statewide ban on saggy pants and other revealing attire

EPR didn't sight the passed revision. I've sighted it manually. --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pi zero, the gadget seems to have froze this time. Gryllida 06:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Gryllida! Thanks for reviewing and passing the article so quickly. Ragettho (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Gryllida 06:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Scientists sequence small genome of a pest: spider mite

Science reporting is tricky, after all; language log likes to ridicule mainstream media's worst blunders on science. At any rate, I invite you to take a look at the edit history, which (as I remarked in my review comments) is broken up into small edits to allow detailed explanations in the edit summaries. Interesting story. --Pi zero (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The "distance from source" (sentence structure) concept is interesting. Thank you for your time and attention with the edits, and for the review. -Gryllida 03:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Windows 8 beta: 'refresh' option to re-install, keep user settings

Hi. I rated it not ready on review; my review comments. I could wish I'd been able to get to it sooner. --Pi zero (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Pi zero, I was reading the comments earlier and it did't seem newsworthy at all despite my original impression. Thank you for your time. --Gryllida 12:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Electric vehicles less green than classic fuel cars, Norwegian study finds

Hi. Found not-ready; review comments. Interesting stuff; as I said in my comments, this kind of study is tricky to cover. --Pi zero (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and thorough reviews. --Gryllida 23:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian scientists develop culture to destroy reef-killing starfish

Found not ready; tricky point this time is the difference between "culture" and "bacteria" (yikes). Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This one is interesting. Thank you for your thorough review. Gryllida 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Felix Baumgartner jumps from stratosphere, breaks sound barrier

Problem with sourcing, encountered before source-checking. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

EasyPeerReview anomaly

The problem with the review tool, since a software upgrade a few weeks(?) ago, has to do with the way it displays its messages that say what it's doing/done. They appear as overlay boxes that go away after a few seconds, leaving behind no lingering evidence they were ever there — and what's even worse, I think (haven't made a systematic study of it) they appear in the upper left corner of the page rather than of the window, so that if you're scrolled well down on the page when you click the "submit" button, the message won't even be visible to you. This can and does result in people submitting a review, not realizing it worked, and submitting it again and again.

The best way to live with the problem, for now, is apparently to make sure the page isn't scrolled any further down than it has to be when you submit, and look for the message immediately. The only person who would probably dare to touch the terrifying code of the tool is Bawolff who wrote it, and word is lately Bawolff is unavailable. So the problem will probably linger until EPR is replaced, which might happen once I get my wizard-building tools online if I do so good a job with them that they can be used for it. The time till those tools are ready to use should likely be measured in months rather than weeks (and I don't preclude its being more than twelve of them).

Btw, thanks for fixing that bug in {{PeP applied}}. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, I will try to follow the messages at the right top; I kept getting them for passed reviews, but not for failing ones, but I have not been watching them as much recently. The "bug" turned out to be easily reproducible and documented well; you are most welcome. Gryllida 13:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for trying to cool the discussion on Tony1's talk page. I have my doubts, but at least there's an effort to restrain the hyperbole. - Amgine | t 06:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Fujitsu invents dog pedometer with online data

My theory is, the reason it comes across advert-y is lack of a focal news event; I elaborated in a review comment. --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This's been published, thanks for writing here. I'm making more extensive use of my watchlist to notice the things in time. Gryllida 03:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

---