Wikipedia:Peer review/Pennington clamp/archive1

Pennington clamp

I've listed this article for peer review because...there's a statement on it which is plausibly true but I can't find any information to cite anywhere, even in the 400-page autobiography by the man the statement references.

Thanks, One cookie (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey One cookie, thanks for opening a peer review for this article, but I believe you're in the wrong place to get help with this concern. For context, peer reviews are typically opened to source comments on how an article (which has already been developed significantly) can be improved to a quality milestone such as a good article or featured article. Since this article is a stub, a peer review is only going to be of limited benefit. Individual statements requiring citations are typically brought up in discussions on the article's talk page, or on the talk page of one of the associated WikiProjects. You're also more likely to find other editors with knowledge in that specific topic area, which is not the case at peer review. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hiya, @TechnoSquirrel69: - maybe I am in the wrong place - here's the lowdown: I used the {{subst:PR}} template, following the instructions at wikipedia:Peer Review by adding the template to the article's talk page.

That template adds the article to Category:Requests for peer review and creates an infobox on the article's talk page which includes a link leading you to a page with some instructions from {{Peer review/editintro}} and a prompt to complete a form preloaded with the beginning of a one-line statement drawn from {{Peer review/preload}} regarding the reason for the request, and which then uses that info to create a new wikipedia:Peer Review topic.

Have a look at that instruction template - it's very basic, it seems to be light on wiki jargon for new users, but it mentions two templates which mustn't be removed - I assumed that those were to make the thing foolproof, and that one of them would provide more context to make the new peer review entry more than just a link to the article and the statement and basically nothing else.

I did search around to find the most suitable spot to request assistance finding a citation beforehand, but the helpdesk, the reference desk, the teahouse, the village pump - they all had some language in their guidelines which made me second-guess posting to them, probably to discourage flippant posting. IRC was recommended, but that ain't me, baby. Peer review felt appropriate for a request regarding valid references, though you're right that "peer review" does seem to have a specific goal here.

ANYWAY. As you pointed out, the article's a stub. It gets almost no pageviews, it was created in 2005 but still has a history less than one page long. It's for a very niche object. The talk page was empty. Posting there, there's every chance it would never, ever be seen by non-bot eyes...but I did! Talk:Pennington_clamp#Citation needed, it explains the issue I was having and why I was asking for assistance with this specific citation - until now, I've mostly been able to just power through with editing and research, but this one is a bit weird. I assumed the subst:PR template which I added along with the rest of the new section I created was going to use that text for something, but nope, just the barebones thing you saw.

I earnestly appreciate the helpful reply! One cookie (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@One cookie: Okay, so am I right in saying that you were attempting to draw attention to your talk page message using the peer review templates, but not create a separate subpage for the review? If so, then peer review is probably not what you're looking for. You'll probably find more luck soliciting opinions on the talk pages of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Fashion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)