On 4/11/12, Dr Jacob F. de Wolff <jfdwo...@doctors.org.uk> wrote: > Carcharoth wrote: >>What I'm thinking in particular > is that some FACs would benefit from what is essentially an *external* > peer review process (as opposed to the internal peer review and other > review processes). i.e. Actively soliciting reviews from those holding > credentials (academic or otherwise) in the topic area. Historically, > given the "anyone an edit" and (mostly) pseudonymous nature of > editing, there hasn't been much interest in this model of reviewing, > but I'd be interested to see reactions to this. > > Some medical FAs had the benefit of external peer review (coeliac disease, > subarachnoid hemorrhage), but as always it depends on someone outside > Wikipedia to take an interest. The quality, depth and timeliness of the peer > review is largely dependant on that.
Returning to this topic because something similar has come up at WT:FAC, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Subject_matter_experts_and_reviews I completely forgot to go there (WT:FAC) earlier and point out the PLoS Comp Biol review process. I'm away this weekend and might not be able to post on-wiki about this until tonight or Tuesday. I know it is a big ask, but would someone reading this be able to briefly post at WT:FAC pointing out this mailing list thread and this talk page review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circular_permutation_in_proteins#Open_Peer_Review It might not be what is planned at WP:FAC, but I think that 'open peer review' should be brought into that discussion as an example at least. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l