[edit] Limits

Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits.

1. Editors are limited to making one peer review request per day, and are further limited to a total of four open requests.

   Since PR is supposed to be an interactive process, having more than four open PR requests seems counterproductive. A PR request can always be archived if someone had four already and wanted to open another. If an editor is fully engaged in four requests (responding to feedback promptly, making changes to the article based on suggestions, etc.) they may open another PR request.

2. Articles with major cleanup banners in place can not be submitted for peer review.

   Since the goal of peer review is to improve articles that are already decent, major issues should be resolved first, before PR. This is similar to the "quick fail" criterion used in Good article reviews: Presence of any correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags.

3. An article that has had a peer review, or gone through the substantial review process at FAC unsuccessfully, can not be listed on WP:PR until at least two weeks after the archive of its previous review.

   The basic idea is that editors should look carefully at feedback from any review process, and make the needed changes before asking for a peer review. Example: On the 1st day of the month, article A closes an unsuccessful FAC and article B has a Peer Review which is archived. Neither of these articles can be the subject of a new peer review request until the 15th day of the month (14 days later), by which time the old comments should have been addressed.

Note: These limits are based on this discussion.

[edit] Removal

To keep down the size of the PR page, every editor is invited to close inactive discussions. Please only do so with the following kinds of requests:

1. Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in containing vandalism, resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio. These should be removed promptly in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them at Peer Review. Please drop a note on the requester's talk page to inform them of the removal and the reasons for it, and try to recommend a better page to list the request, for instance for vandalism Vandalism in progress, for editing disagreements Requests for comment, and for suspected copyvio Copyright problems.
2. Requests that have received one or more responses and have not shown any activity (apart from semi-automatic reviews) for a period of 14 days (two weeks)(requests with no responses may be kept longer).
3. Requests older than a month, unless they remain very active (with activity in the last two days).
4. Articles that have gone on to be listed as featured article candidates or featured list candidates. (If you feel that an article you posted needs more comments and suggestions from peer review, it's probably too soon to list it on FAC.)
5. Articles which have been nominated for deletion, or have been deleted, through a deletion debate or otherwise. (In case an article has been undeleted, the request may reopen at any time.)
6. Nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated (but please see also item 4 above).