MarioWiki talk:PAIR

One word: Too hard (or maybe two words). 22:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm sorry, but did I say getting FAs back would be easy? 22:57, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I didn't quite follow that all. So what do I have to do when I want to become a reviewer? Just put my name on there? - 07:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, just put your name on there. 19:21, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Can we have more than 12 reviewers?
 * Of course, that was just starters, if it ever gets that far. 19:21, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
 * It shouldn't matter to you. You aren't eligible.

HK-47:Didn't I said to shape up or else?

I would love to help here! I think I am a pretty good writer, and I know a lot about Mario! But I have not been here that long (I joined today actually...hahaha), so I won't put my name in unless I get some approval. ♥♪!? 20:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Revival
What does everyone think about bringing this system back? It was discontinued because it was too complicated and there was lack of active reviewers. With some tweaking, we can probably make this work again. Of course, it won't have anything to do with FAs. Thoughts?-- 01:10, 27 November 2009 (EST)
 * I really like the reviews, so I would very much like to bring it back.
 * All the system needs is somebody active who consistently makes PAIR reviews, as they are a lot of work. If you want to do that, why not? We might make it a little bit simpler before that though. - 09:46, 17 January 2010 (EST)
 * I'll take the job. I'll make one review per day.
 * So, can we re-start this project?
 * Er, I'm sorry. You could already have started. We're not sure whether many other people will use the system, but nobody will stop you if you want to go ahead and use it. It might attract other reviewers if they are well-received. - 11:30, 23 February 2010 (EST)
 * Oh.

After 5 years...

My sister and I are interested in reviewing articles in this wiki, particularly (in my case) the major character articles, articles that are currently featured, articles that are unfeatured, and other articles. It would also be a good process for potential featured articles to go through before being nominated to be featured while also being a means of quality control for our articles, featured or not. The above discussion seems to be that you can restart it whenever you want, but years of uninterest tagged this project as abandoned. If not, I'll just keep this to a user subpage or something. 15:43, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
 * I was in the planning stages on making a Wiki Collab thread in the forums, actually, so we get some discussion and attention from users there as well. We can post article reviews there if it doesn't officially take-off, so we at least have some opinion out in the articles with some discussion. 15:50, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
 * A lot changes in 5 years: the indifferent shrug of a long-retired admin really isn't grounds to re-start this thing in any form, and it's been explicitly abandoned (read: dead and buried) because it's a clunky and ineffective way to try and get articles fixed. Hell, it should have been scrapped after its initial 2007 run failed to catch on: all that one-person 2010 revival attempt did was prove how useless it continued to be, and the only reason these pages are still here after we decided to kill it fo' realz in 2013 is for the record - not for potential revivals, in userspace or otherwise. It's much more useful to go and say "this article's X sucks and it needs more Y" than give subjective number grades to a handful of unhelpfully broad categories, like how the 'Shroom Spotlight highlights specific things that need fixing about certain pages, and really, like how the FA nomination discussions already pick out what aspects needs sprucing up - with the prospect if getting an FA status for a beloved page being a nice incentive to follow through and actually make those changes. Overall, setting specific goals is the way to get things done, both on talk pages or in the collab board - not boilerplate reviews. - 17:27, 23 October 2015 (EDT)