This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver / Communities Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related This page is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This page is supported by WikiProject Vancouver. This page is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Archives

2006 2007–2012 2012–present

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 4.

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT), Thanks. What does peer review entail? And, are GA reviews a subset of peer reviews? If there is appetite for a GA review -- I would like to request one for John Turner. Ktin (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Anyone can request a peer review of any article at any time and you can go to WP:PR to learn more about that. A GA review is like a "step" in the development of an article where it has to meet certain criteria to get to that point. To learn more about that process, the criteria and how to nominate your article, see WP:GA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the userbox below and thought some project members might be interested in using it. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user acknowledges that they live on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh people.

I work for Absolute Software Corporation, and in the past year I have been trying to gradually improve this article, adhering to Wikipedia's own quality standards. I have tried to use a light touch, removing low-quality references, adding new higher-quality references, and removing statements that are poorly referenced, focus on small details that are years out of date, and the like.

I have hoped and expected that uninvolved Wikipedia editors would review my work, but there has been little substantive review to date. I of course appreciate the efforts of Wikipedia volunteers, and that there are many articles to work on besides this one. But I hope one or more editors can take a look now that I have proposed (on the article's talk page) a replacement for the existing "Products and services" section, which at present has only two footnotes, and which does not accurately express the range of products offered, focusing exclusively on the "Persistence" technology. I proposed a replacement with stronger sourcing on the talk page.

I also hope to propose changes to the "Partnerships" section, which (appropriately) has a quality banner. It is also thinly sourced, and it is not an accurate reflection of the role partnerships have played in Absolute's business model.

I hope someone would be willing to review the proposed "Products" section, and consider my proposed changes to the "Partnerships" section when I post them. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karenarlenereynolds. The best way to get attention would be to make an Edit Request on the article Talk page using the instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request . I noticed that someone else has suggested posting to the Administrators noticeboard, which is a terrible suggestion. Edit Requests, not noticeboards, are the way forward here. Good luck! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]