Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
What makes Film Music Reporter a high-quality reference? I think even its reliability is in question as perhaps a self-published source, but the threads I've seen at WP:RSN (one you started) seem unclear on it. That being said, even if it is reliable, what makes it high quality? Urve (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I've trusted Film Music Reporter for a long time since there has been no evidence of them giving false information since they started publishing in 2010. All of their reports are styled like press releases given by studios, and again, they have been reliable for more than a decade. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to nominate it for FA in the future and welcome any comments to make that process smoother. This would be the first biography article that I take to the FAC level and I am quite nervous about that so I wanted to get as much feedback as possible here prior to trying that. Thanks, Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the link! I have only recently started to use this citation style so it is greatly appreciated. I really need to learn more about tools like this. I would have kept reading over my mistake without it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
was worried about the reliability of the obit but it seems fine
Thank you for double-check this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
the cite for The Silver Bracelets being the first Bulgarian rock band is ok. I would prefer a more reliable source (it's fine) but none exist from a quick look
Thank you for checking. I could not find further resources on this, but I think there is a language barrier at play here. I would also imagine that coverage about them could be restricted to print sources given the time they were active. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
is the source for "Following an industry contact's advice, she created a YouTube channel on December 1, 2007" the youtube channel or is it the citation at the end of the sentence? does whatever source explicitly say it is following advice from a contact?
I have cited the YouTube channel as that explicitly mentions the date she created it. I must have accidentally deleted the source that covers the industry contact part. I have added it back in. Thank you for noticing this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
source for Sexify and Lolita's peak chart positions? not in the table so unsure
Could you explain what you mean by this? The chart positions are cited in both the prose and the table. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
"Her full name Leah LaBelle Vladowski is referenced in her obituary" - could use commas before and after name; unsure if that's necessary, but reads better to me
I agree that commas just looks better as well. I am pretty bad with commas so I am not sure if they are necessary or not either, but I have added them anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
All for now. It looks good to me Urve (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Urve: Thank you for your comments! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
During this time, LaBelle was mentored the Total Experience Gospel Choir's founder Pat Wright - I think its missing a "by".
Should "Grand Prize" be capitalised?
She placed twelfth during the season finals, after performing a cover of The Supremes' "You Keep Me Hangin' On" - I think per MOS:THEBAND, it should be "the Supremes'" since it's in continuous prose?
The same year, she was included American Idol Rewind is probably missing a preposition.
"Lolita" reached number seven on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart and peaked at number 264 on the official Tophit airplay chart. I might be wrong but according to MOS:NUM, Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. So should this be "number 7" and not seven?
in 2009, she was featured on Kumasi's single "Angel" from his debut studio album The One. "Kumasi" doesn't have an article so will it be beneficial to introduce who he is?
did background vocals for Nelly's seventh studio album M.O - can "did" be replaced with "provided" or another word?
That's all from me. Excellent work on the article, it is very well-written and well-formatted. Good luck with the FAC. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this for PR before nominating this for good article. I'm aware that I'm not the best in terms of grammar, so any comments on that are welcome. Also on any aspect of this article, really. GeraldWL 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have been working on this article for a featured article nomination — something that I have never done before — and I would appreciate any help that I can get. I have tried my best to see that the article meets the criteria; I have also taken inspirations from how other featured articles are written, and I have incorporated their basic concepts. I have invested a great amount of time in writing this article and it would mean a lot if I can elevate it to featured article status. Please do not hesitate to point out even the most minor of points. As I have never gone through this process before, every little detail will help. Thank you. — The Most ComfortableChair 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get the article to GA status. This means making sure that the article is worthy to pass GAN. I'm looking for suggestions, comments and/or contributions that will help to achieve this.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a significant amount of text (over 2000 words) and a number of pictures and info tables. I have done so for a university assignment and would love for my work to be reviewed and to receive feedback! I would love feedback on any grammar, punctuation, citing or structure issues. Thank you so much for your time!
Thanks, LibraryofEphesus (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article which I've created not long ago for peer review because I am uncertain of its neutrality in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, as well as of its quality compared to other articles about world music, considering it's my first article that deals with any song, let alone an extremely politically charged one. I hope any reviewers would be able to rectify any downsides with the article's phrasing or terminology.
I'm hoping to list this for FA status eventually. For this peer review, I'm hoping for some additional feedback on the prose, and a reminder about any issues in the references. I'm happy to offer some QPQ, and I'll be helping out at other PR/FA/GA discussions regardless. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from first readthrough. It's a pretty good article.
reconsider use of words like "however". it is usually not necessary and can be choppy, such as in this sentence: "The company's expenses for graphics were rising without a similar increase in sales, however, causing Random House to exit the game industry". could easily rewrite to flow better
please consider consolidating or removing excessive citations. second sentence of "Origins" does not need 10. if it does need 10 in your judgment, you can use an explanatory footnote to elaborate on all of the sources and reduce clutter, instead
clunky, can write in one sentence maybe?: "Activision acquired Infocom in 1986, as the PC game market was transforming with greater market competition.[1] Activision closed Infocom in 1989, due to rising costs, falling profits, and technical issues with DOS.[13]"
"veterans" may be editorializing
ditto "evolved"
"might be too much" - how so
"Publications took note of Legend for continuing the legacy of their work at Infocom, and credited their titles as part of a rebirth for the adventure game genre" - I don't see how the citation supports this. they say it's under the name Empire. also they don't say that "Publications" took note, but instead that they did.
"it was possible to even turn off" - "even" is not necessary
worried that there is too much weight placed on Companions of Xanth
I did my best to address all your notes. This is really helpful and I'm hoping to give the whole thing one pass before trying to nominate it for FA. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review before nominating this for FA. The game isn't popular as it used to be, so some sources may be outdated.
Thanks, Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Jeromi Mikhael I also suggest that you review some articles at WP:FAC if you haven't already. This will help you understand the FA criteria so that you can further improve your article. It also builds goodwill among FAC regulars who will be more likely to review your article. Editors do not need to be an expert in the topic or in Wikipedia policy to review. In fact, FAC needs reviewers who are not experts to point out technical jargon and places they don't understand the prose in an article. I hope to see you there. Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
"with most reviews stating that the game is either better or supplementing its source of inspiration" ---> "with most reviews stating that the game is either better than or supplements its source of inspiration"
critical response seems to give almost WP:UNDUE weight to the praise alone. take a look at the first paragraph and then look at the reviews that were more negative - there's some balancing that needs to happen
@Urve: I'm not sure what balancing are you talking here....could you elaborate? English is my third language, so I might not understand some words/idioms in English. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Will return if/when have the time. Urve (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm listing this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get it up to Featured Article status in time for the series' 25th anniversary this September. I've already spent a good chunk of the month doing prep work, but as far as FAs go, I'm sure there's definitely a few improvements I'm still missing out on. For example, the page is still relatively bare in the image area, so I'd especially like suggestions on what points are most worth visually illustrating. I do intend on getting an image put together showing Crash's early designs, so that'd be a start.
This would be my very first FAC, so any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a very good article. You probably wouldn't have too much trouble getting it through FA. Here are some suggestions:
As you said, the article is lacking in the image department. I personally would recommend adding a video of crash's movement, and perhaps completing a short section of level one or two. Seeing a game being played really helps to give the reader a feel for it. I'd also recommend getting a visual of a Crate, a Wumpa Fruit, or some TNT to put in the gameplay section.
For the character and art design section, yes, some concept art would be good, but showing the frames of one of Crash's animations would also work.
Mention the perspective of the gameplay somewhere.
Since Tawna is "also evolved by Cortex,", make a mention of how Crash was made as well.
More to come, probably. Great job writing the article. Aven13 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aven13: Just had to figure out this gif thing, but went and addressed your points so far! Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
As Aven pointed out, the article looks in great shape, and I see a smooth FAC process. Although, here are some comments to make it easier.
(LEAD) "showcase forward-scrolling and side-scrolling perspectives." Perhaps link side-scrolling game in "side-scrolling perspectives"?
(LEAD) "video games during a cross-country trip from Boston to Los Angeles." The "from Boston to Los Angeles" bit is probably too specific for a lead, which is practically a summary. At least IMHO.
(LEAD) "The titular character was eventually named "Crash Bandicoot" for his"-- perhaps shorten to "Crash Bandicoot was named for his".
(LEAD) "and the game was unveiled at the 1996 Electronic Entertainment Expo." --> "and the game was unveiled at E3 1996."
(GAMEPLAY) "from a traditional side-scrolling perspective." Link side-scrolling game.
(GAMEPLAY) The first paragraph repeats the word "Crash" loads of times. If you wanna ask me for suggestion --- let's suppose sentence 1 has the word "Crash." Leave sentence 2 and 3 with "him" instead of "Crash", then have "Crash" at sentence 4. So in this case, sentence 2, 3, and 6 would have "him."
(GAMEPLAY) "Tawna's bonus rounds are the easiest and most plentiful"-- I think easy is subjective. Perhaps "designed to be the easiest" or "widely considered the easiest" etc.
(GAMEPLAY) "will grant Crash a gem"-- I don't think a link to gem is needed; it's common word.
(PLOT) "In a secluded archipelago 300 miles"-- should there be Template:Convert for those that use metric? GeraldWL 17:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important historical part of computing history (and 470 other pages link to it). also i feel it shoukd be listed as importance "Top", it is that fundamental to computer science, however that is something that definitely needs some consensus and feedback on, you don't put computing articles at "top" without a good reason and careful consideration.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of my first articles about a person, and I'd love advice on how to improve as a Wikipedia editor! Would appreciate any advice for this or future articles, especially biographies. I'm hoping it might be GA-worthy one day!
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and bring the article to B-class, for preparation for potential GA nomination. I'm not experienced with writing articles although I have expanded this one in the past (from stub status to start), so I'd appreciate some guidance on bringing this up to par for B or, ideally GA status. The article is currently rated as start class according to the talk page, although with the expansions it has gone through, it would probably be considered C-class now.
I've been attempting to improve this article over the past month or so - when I first started it was in a bit of a mess, with luck I've made it less so. I feel that some parts of the article are still in a state and could do with improvement though, so I'm listing it here in order to figure out how best to improve it moving forward. I'm hoping to get general feedback on all sections the article - feedback on the following (but not limited to it) would be particularly helpful:
Organization - I've attempted to edit the article so it seems less list-like and chunky. Have I succeeded, and is there a way to reduce the list-like prose even further? Would it be feasible for me to completely remove some sections - especially thinking about what to do with the "reactions" which could be split into the rest of the text, and the "further kidnappings" at the end - could this be put into the "see also" part?
Quality of references - I haven't had time to check them all, most seem fine but I'm sure there are some unreliable ones out of the multiple ones on the article
Inclusion of content - what parts do I need to expand? Does it leave out anything major that I need to get down?
Whether it might be feasible to get this to a GA, though for now I'm most interested in getting the basics of this article sorted out.
Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pahunkat, as I've mentioned before, this subject matter is beyond my scope so my comments would be general. Please let me know if you disagree with any of them.
Per WP:LEADCITE, citations should not be used in the lead unless you are citing controversial information. I get that this entire subject is controversial, but there are too many references in the lead. Any information that is already well-sourced in the body and repeated in the lead does not require a citation. You might want to check to see if it's possible to remove some/all of them.
There are some instances of WP:OVERCITE throughout the article. See if its possible to trim the excessive citations and keep only the highly reputed ones. If you plan on using more than three citations to support a claim, then the references should be bundled.
References should be arranged in numerically throughout the article. So "[28][40][41][33]" should be written as "[28][33][40][41]".
Some references are lacking publication, date, and author parameters. Also, make sure to wikilink the publications/websites to their respective pages. I see that The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, The Times, USA Today are not linked at all. Some of them like "BBC News" should not be italicised. See that the citation style is consistent throughout the article- for instance some references use The New York Times while others use New York Times. Same with The Washington Post.
Some statements are unsourced in the article.
I can see some MOS:INOROUT issues with the quotations.
The article might benefit from the WP:GOCE but that again is a personal suggestion.
I think that's all from me. Hope this helps. All the best, --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I have been working on this feedback and will provide a more detailed response to it once I'm mostly done. Pahunkat (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've edited the text of the article to better reflect its sources, I've uploaded images to Commons that I took of the event, and placed them in the article itself. I would like other editors to chime in with suggestions on further improvements, areas needing polish, and any additions needed. I'd like to improve this article until it's featured article worthy.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience in waiting for a review of your article, RobotGoggles. Here are some comments below. I suggest that you review some articles at WP:FAC before nominating an article there; this helps you understand the FA criteria and builds goodwill among editors, making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Here are some comments below:
"and disavowed responsibility for any casualties had there been any actual attempt to raid the military base." -> "and disavowed responsibility for potential casualties if there was an attempt to raid the military base."
"On the day of the event, only about 150 people were reported to have shown up at the two entrances to Area 51," -> "On the day of the event, about 150 people were reported to have gathered at the two entrances to Area 51,"
"The facility is kept highly classified, protected from unauthorized entry by warning signs" Replace the first comma with "and"
"and unexpectedly went viral." wikilink viral
"topics like means of breaking into Area 51." replace means with ways
"The town of Rachel posted a caution on its website," Wikilink Rachel here, remove the wikilink in the business section.
"people were reported to be showing up and camping around Rachel in preparation for the raid." replace "showing up" with "arriving". Showed up is generally unencyclopedic language and should be removed from the article.
"1,500 people showed up at the festivals," Replace "showed up" with "attended"
Ref 22 (Know your Meme) is considered unreliable on Wikipedia and will probably be rejected at FAC.
Formatting of references needs to be standardized. The date of the news article source should probably be in brackets after the author, as that is what is present in most of the references.
The article uses very few sources. Although that will not disqualify the article for FA status, it will its success more difficult as editors will question whether it comprehensively addresses every aspect of the event. More sources can be found at WP:LIBRARY, Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar.
Those are all my comments! Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@RobotGoggles: want to make sure that you saw these comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, User:Z1720, I saw them and thank you so much for your feedback. I'm busy with irl stuff so I haven't been able to implement any of your suggestions yet. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@RobotGoggles: There's no rush to complete corrections; Wikipedia is a volunteer service, I just wanted to make sure this PR was not abandoned. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks fairly comprehensive and well cited for a GA, but can probably use some formatting and wording fixes (e.g. the Awards and Honours section).
I request a peer review because I would like to nominate this Good Article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). Not being a native speaker I always need help on prose. I would appreciate any help to get the article in such a shape that it is likely to pass at FAC.
"Three times she was the Damallsvenskan top scorer" => "She was the Damallsvenskan top scorer three times"
"At the end of her career, in 2016, she moved to the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) in the US" => "Close to the end of her career, in 2016, she moved to the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) in the US" (as it stands, it says that her career ended and then she moved to the NWSL, which doesn't really make sense)
"her direct opponents often were" => "her direct opponents were often"
Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
"who ended up playing 16 caps" => "who ended up gaining 16 caps"
"Melis only played a few months for Be Quick" => "Melis only played for Be Quick for a few months"
"scored the first equaliser goal" - either "scored the first equaliser" or "scored the first equalising goal"
In places the prose can be a bit choppy eg you have a sentence of just four words: "Marta won the award". It would be better to try and find ways to integrate very short sentences into other sentences so that the prose flows better
"Malmö again stranded in the quarter-finals" => "Malmö again lost in the quarter-finals"
"defeated her team by 2–1" => "defeated her team 2–1"
Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Sherida Spitse not wikilinked when she is mentioned
"Vivianne Miedema, aged 17, made her debut as a late substitute" - could do with clarifying why this is significant i.e. Miedema has gone on to be one of the all-time greats. At present that context is missing.
"The outlook worsened when they drew Belgium at home" => "The outlook worsened when they drew with Belgium at home"
"given Miedema has been a life-long Feyenoord fan" => "given that Miedema has been a life-long Feyenoord fan"
"that Feyenoord Women will field a team in the Eredivisie Vrouwen for the first time in the 2021–2022 season" => "that Feyenoord Women would field a team in the Eredivisie Vrouwen for the first time in the 2021–22 season"
Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
"stressing she is a centre forward" => "stressing that she is a centre forward"
"her teammate both on the national team and one season at Göteborg" => "her teammate both on the national team and for one season at Göteborg"
Refs after the first sentence of Personal life are not in correct numerical order
Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:Thanks ever so much for taking the time and making these suggestions. I think I have done them all. In the end I simply removed the Miedema debut sentence from the article, keeping the focus on Melis. It's not actually that surprising that Melis and Miedema played together. As for the choppy prose, perhaps what I'll do next is request some help from the Guild of Copy Editors. Thanks very much for the help, and I'm glad that you think it is overall ok! Edwininlondon (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am the author but also the subject so that creates a COI. I think I was fairly balanced and sourced well but I would like someone to take a look over to confirm what I think.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article was written without bias and I would like the conflict of interest warning to be removed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a certain editor on WikiProject Pakistan has been working on it quite a bit and I thought it could benefit from peer review (I think it could be ready for a GAN soon).
Pinging S2102sa, Will take a more thorough look at POV issues later, but from what I've heard, you're looking for sources from the Chinese perspective. Here are some English language sources I know of:
Xinhua English: Link - state-run news organization in China; you can often find the Chinese government's official stance in these articles.
However, there are also some sources to avoid, as they have been deprecated by the community for publishing false information or conspiracy theories:
CGTN - Global television network owned by the Chinese government.
Global Times - Newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party, known as the "Fox News of China".
Let me know if you have any questions! Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Yeeno: None of those sources seemed to have anything on this article (all I could find was 1 sentence about how great the project was, which didn'tcite any numbers). I tried some google searches as well, but found nothing. I even tried the sources to avoid, but they had nothing either. Do you know of any other Chinese news sites? RealKnockout (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I utilized the People's Daily Article for a paragraph on the first phase. I skimmed the press releases, will work on those later, although from a quick read it seems that most of the basic facts are covered. However, I will delve deeper into that later. Also, do you think splitting the 1st phase criticism sub-section into its own section is a good idea (i.e. a section titled "Critcism" with sub-sections on each phase and topic)? RealKnockout (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Criticism, we usually want to avoid sections dedicated to criticism as to maintain a neutral point of view. The guideline says we should incorporate positive and negative views into the same section, so perhaps you could do something like "Reception" or "Reactions". Yeeno (talk) 🍁 22:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
If you still have the data, the graph should be converted into one that uses Template:Graph:Chart. Displaying the data like this makes the graph easier to update and more accessible. The template page should have instructions and examples, but feel free to ask me if you need any help on this. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively updated it after it had been created by a sockfarm (banned). I would like some feedback on the neutrality of this article to maintain Wiki standards. I also hope to bring this bio up to a B-class.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see whether it has a reasonable chance of getting through the featured article process. If it's a no to going for FA then comments here will be used to improve the article anyway.
Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
My views on where the article is at, against the FA criteria:
1a. Well written? Better than it was, due to the GA review, but worth putting in for a GOCE review before any FA nomination.
1b/1c. Comprehensive/well-researched? Hopefully. Any sources that I've missed or any used that don't seem to be suitable quality?
1d. Neutral? I believe so.
1e. Stable? Yes.
1f. Compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing? I believe so.
2a. Lead/Lead? May benefit from improvements.
2b. Appropriate structure? "World championship finals and later professional career" is a bit of a wall of text. Any ideas for improving structure? The balance between article sections was raised at the recent Steve Davis review. Any rebalancing needed for this article?
This will be the thing. I thought we got the Davis article into a well written article, but it sounds like it needs to be consistent across the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
2c. Consistent citations? May be some amendments needed, but hopefully generally OK.
3. Media? Not much available for use here, as far I can see.
4. Length? Seems reasonable to me, given the coverage in sources.
Is this likely to attract sufficient reviewer interest if nominated for FA?
I wouldn't worry too much about this. I have a few favours I can call in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because...Though I have tried to improve the article recently, not much information is available about the living person. I need to know more about what can be added / removed to avoid future GA failure. I welcome all inputs. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 06:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it a GA, but it is way too professionally worded. I want to prepare it, but need some solid footing on where I can build this article. Please ping or contact me on my talk page when/if you want to start this review.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a good article and would welcome any comments on how to improve it so it would pass GAN. Any general comments would be much appreciated too! If it helps, I've based the structure of the article on Wicklow Way which is currently a GA.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been at DYK and passed as a GA, and I'd like to nominate it as a featured article candidate. I've never nominated anything for FA before, nor have I undergone a peer review, so I guess I'll learn a bunch from this.
Some quick comments. I haven't looked at this in depth.
Image formatting needs work, currently all the images are clustered on the right below the infobox. It will be hard to avoid sandwiching in a short article like this. Does File:Shiloh_Wind_Power_Plant_aerial_(cropped_to_Bradford_Island_and_Webb_Tract).jpg really add any value to the article when there is a higher quality aerial shot in the infobox? I'd suggest removing that one and using {{Multiple image}} to display the two USGS maps together.
Maybe this is unavoidable, but this ref doesn't render properly in OpenOffice; I just get a garbled mess
WRT the FA 'comprehensiveness' criterion, I find it concerning that most references are from freely accessible, recently published online sources. Have you consulted newspaper archives, local libraries, etc?
The history section seems thin. Is there any information on when settlement of the island began? The extensive material about the USS Lucid seems undue especially considering the museum that now houses it isn't located on the island.
Earwig picks up one instance of close paraphrasing:
Article: successfully petitioned the district to expand its board from three to five members; he and his girlfriend were elected to the additional seats.
Source: successfully petitioned the district to expand the board from three to five members — after which he and his girlfriend were elected to the new seats.
Please review for more. Earwig doesn't do well with pdf/docx sources.
I thought I'd watchlisted this page, but it seems I didn't, so apologies for the late response. I appreciate that you have pointed out stuff I'd never thought of -- I'll go through it in a bit and address the points individually. Obviously, some will require more effort than others. But I'll tell you right off the bat, that image alt is stupid and the Word document is jacked up (I had the same problem, there were formatting issues that required me to move a bunch of boxes around and adjust font sizes to even figure out what they said). On the talk page for the article I've started pulling together some more sources that give a better idea of the history, although I fear an irl voyage may be necessary to close some of the gaps. Thanks for swinging by! jp×g 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Update: I have managed to find a wealth of sources on the earlier history of the island (the early establishment of levees in the late 1800s, its existence and settlement prior to levees, et cetera). There remains a gap but I will work to fill it. jp×g 14:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Filling it in slowly (I have a whole lot more to put in), but it's a start. jp×g 07:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Three days ago it was a start, now it's a middle. jp×g 08:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it would make a great featured list for the Rivers and Minnesota projects. There are two other Lists of longest streams in U.S. states (Oregon and Idaho). This article on Minnesota's longest streams is comparable and has some additional features not in other articles. There is another page for List of rivers of Minnesota. I would be interested in comments that would help this article get to the point of a featured list.
The article passed a Good Article review last month and I'm intending to bring it to FAC when it's ready. My only other FA is an academic biography; I'm rather less experienced with history/politics topics so I'd like to get some pointers as to how this article could be improved. One particular point on which I would value feedback is how to make the article accessible for those who aren't well acquainted with the maze that is German politics around 1930.
I think you may have trouble convincing some reviewers at FAC that the article can be considered fully comprehensive and well-researched when more than half of the citations are to a single source. The article is pretty short. Conciseness is good, but not at the expense of comprehensiveness. Looking on Google Scholar I found several sources discussing issues such as cross-party relationships[1][2] foreign policy[3] and an entire edited volume on the topic[4] You can probably access these with WP:TWL or at WP:RX. So I would say the article probably needs more research and expansion before it would be successful at FAC. Also, if I were doing a source review I would question if a 1930 source or Encyclopedia Brittanica really meet "high-quality" standard expected of sources at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Buidhe, this is already lots to work with. Thank you, also, for pointing out some English-language sources to which I should have institutional access. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been significantly expanded over the last year to include much more info about the house and its collection, as well as updating the family history with more-recent research. Guidance on what else is needed to achieve a higher quality rating (GA) is greatly appreciated
Hi @Isaksenk: I am not an expert on this topic, so consider my comments just as some general suggestions. Just mention whether you plan to nominate it for GA, A class or FA?
Considering the length of article (49767 characters), you should consider expanding the lead section, which is currently only 1 paragraph (1044 characters). Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead for articles above 30,000 characters is advised to be 3-4 paragraphs.
Some paragraphs in the article are either partially un-sourced or based on a single source. The paragraph As Duchess and consort to a very ....... kept her tea secure in a “Japan box” in her adjoining Private Closet. is based on a single reference. It is always advisable for article to have various in-line citations, especially for claims that are likely to be challenged. The entire article has 35 references, which may be less considering the length of article.
Consider using other books like this or find others here.
The reference "Pritchard 2007", "Rowell, Christopher" and all other sources which are books cited in "Further reading" should be cited as a Short Foot note as <ref> {{Sfn|Author's last name|year|p=page number}} </ref>
The authors of books cited in "Further reading" section need Wikipedia links (for those who have a WP Page) and should sort alphabetically by Author's last name.
ISBN numbers should be added to cited books. Try using this site
Ham House A Guide – 9780000001719
The Furnishing and Decoration of Ham House – 9780903335034
Overall very nice article, and your efforts are very much appreciated. I leave the grammatical check and other things which I left to some another user. If you feel that the article needs some copy-editing or needs to be more neutral, consider requesting it to be Copy-edited at WP:GOCE/REQ. Thanks a lot!! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to be a Good Article. The article was created 11 years ago, but was expanded by me 5 time the original number of characters and have above 85% authorship. It has almost been Copy-edited and DYK nomination has passed. Would appreciate any suggestion on wording, MOS, prose, etc.
Thanks!
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been expanding and revising this article for the past two months, and I want a second opinion on its writing style; and any other general suggestions are also very welcome. I also want to bring this to good article status. I listed this article under the History section, but obviously this topic has a significant overlap with Language.
I'm putting this article here for a review because though I'm done with my article. However, I would prefer an article review or nothing, as I have a one-way view, and would like some more support or any assistance in sources/grammar issues
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed a major rewrite to it and would like others to check that it appears well crafted. I know that spelling and grammar are not my strong suits so I'd love some input on that throughout the article, but I'd also like to know if there seems to be any gaps, any extraneous information, or anything that the article leaves you wondering. I hope to propose this as a GA after this peer review.
Hi @Found5dollar: as requested I've looked over the document particularly for spelling and grammar.
I've made a number of edits to the article, mostly general copyediting and rearranging of material.
I have removed excessive detail about some events tangentially related to the desk. This includes lots of fine detail around the changes to the White House buildings during the 1902 renovations and the details on the 1929 fire (which I moved to the article on the West Wing itself).
On the description of the desk, the article mentions "masculine lines". What does this mean?
There isn't anything about the desk I found myself wanting to know - the article covered everything I could think of.
I have not reviewed the article for verifiability. I've taken as read that the inline citations back up the statements in the article. If that's something you want checked, be aware I haven't done that.
Overall it looks good. Well done! HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@HenryCrun15: Thank you so much for this review and edits! My life has unexpectedly gotten extremely busy so I'm sorry for the delayed response. I'll look more at this when things calm down in about a week or so. Thank you again!--Found5dollar (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this peer review because I would like to reach this article, which touches on the history of an enormous number of significant artworks, to B-class and eventually GA status. I'm particularly interested in recommended expansions to the article, to include more affected countries, as well as large cuts, since the article is already around the 40kb area. I'm also wondering if the list section should be split off into a separate article.
@Wingedserif: The "List of artworks taken"-section should certainly be split from this article. In fact, you could be bold and just split it immediately (WP:SPLIT allows bold splitting if it is uncontroversial and clearly notable). Judging from the list content, it could be made into a table with images of the art, their location, artist, etc. which definitely deserves to be a standalone list. Wretchskull (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have found little on quality standards centered specifically on WP lists. I am looking for suggestions for improvement, as well as any policies or consensuses I have overlooked. I am relisting this due to non-response to last posting.
Second point in Featured list criteria is Lead: "It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria".The article has lead only of 3-4 sentences, which needs to be increased in order to summarize most of the aerial victories mentioned.
If it is possible to separate date and time from the list as two different columns, it would look much better. Also, using any of the date templates in preferable.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has progressed beyond a Stub class article and would like it to be classified. I welcome any suggestions for improvement or edits.
The expansion looks pretty good so far. I'm not really that knowledgeable about the article quality ratings, but I can provide some suggestions for further improvements. I'll start with some more general stuff:
While WP:PR is a good system, one of its downsides is that many editors find it not to be especially visible. One way to get around this is to post a brief message at the paleontology Wikiproject's talk page to let other editors know about the review. Additionally, the paleontology project has an internal peer review system for quicker "fact check"-oriented reviews (although the downside is that it won't attract editors who don't specialize in paleontology-related articles).
We usually put images of fossils in the taxobox if they're available.
The lead right now is quite long - I'd try to trim it down to two or three paragraphs. We also usually avoid putting citations in the lead, as the lead shouldn't introduce any information that isn't later stated in the article.
It should be stated where the cladogram comes from (immediately before it, something like "The following cladogram follows Author, Year." should be said).
Perhaps an image of a related genus could be put in the taxonomy section?
A section on the environment that it lived in a contemporaneous animals (usually entitled "Pal(a)eoenvironment" or "Pal(a)eoecology") should be added if possible. I see that there's already a little bit on this at the end of paleobiology.
I see that frequent mentions are made to "a study" or "studies". Where possible, it should be specified by who and when, for example "a study by Author, Year" assuming the information isn't non-controversial (i.e. non-contested information on osteology, bone measurements, where specimens were found).
One thing to remember is that subjects should only be linked on their first mention. There's a handy script that allows one to find duplinks (short for "duplicated links") though I can't remember too much about setting it up (I think that FunkMonk, who told me about it in the first place, might know more).
Yep, here's the script:[5] Also, a term can be linked both at first mention in the intro and first time in the articule body. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully these comments are helpful. I'll see if I can conduct a more thorough review over the coming days. Sorry that I can't say too much about where the article fits on the quality scale, other than that it's virtually certainly no longer a stub. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I added new content to this page and would like to hear your opinion on it.
Thanks, DazzleFrancesca (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
From a quick read, I think the main point of improvement before FAC should be sourcing. Many of the sources are quite old, and the article relies a lot on a single source. The FA criteria expect you show it is well-researched, which typically requires up-to-date scholarship. Of course, a lot of the basics won't have changed much, so a complete rewrite won't be necessary.
A second major point is the structure of the article. The later uses section described chlorine used as a weapon, but this also has a separate section below. Similarly, it is unclear why "Semmelweis and experiments with antisepsis" is not in 'later use'.
Additional comments:
SCl2, SOCI2, ClF3, ICl, ICl3, TiCl3, TiCl4, MoCl5, FeCl3, ZnCl2, and so on.. I don't see the point of enumerating them all, nor what 'and so on' means.
Syria is a very small section, you should probably merge Iraq and Syria into '21st century' or something.
The Syrian government has allegedly used chlorine -> is more known now? If it has become an established fact, the word allegedly should be dropped
Medical sources have to be of very high quality (for the section biological role), see WP:MEDRS
The toxicity of chlorine comes (...) unsourced
Deleted the sentence. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 01:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hope these work as a first pointer. Excited to see somebody work on an important article as this. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Keresluna did you address the comments above? Please post when the comments have been addressed so editors know when you are ready for more feedback. You can also close this PR if you are satisfied with the comments or are unable to resolve issues at this time, and reopen the PR when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Therapyisgood Thank you for your patience and I am sorry that it has taken this long for someone to review your article. I do not know much about this topic, so please consider this a non-expert review.
"In Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1, author Carles Carboneras states Hydrobatidae probably diverged from other petrels at an early stage." Why is the source quoted in the article? Is this fact in dispute? Is it important for the reader to know where this information came from?
I have not been able to find another source, so cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The taxonomy section uses "storm petrel" a lot. Are there alternate terms for the species that can be used?
"Its name in Spanish literature is Golondrina de mar negra." This feels like trivia, especially as it has its own paragraph. This should be expanded, integrated into another paragraph or deleted.
Combined with other paragraph. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
"Sexes are alike." I don't know what this refers to.
"A 2002 study in Marine Ornithology that examined a total of 95 Markham's storm petrels from Paracas Peninsula and La Vieja Island in central Peru, collectively, found its main diet by mass consisted of fish" I don't think you need to include the methodology of this study. Instead, just state what the study discovered, give the citation and if the reader is interested they can look at the study themselves. If this is kept, I would shorten this description.
"Researchers Rodrigo Barros et al. (2019) described the bird as "one of the least known seabirds in the world"." This sounds like trivia again. I would incorporate this in another paragraph or delete.
" Barros et al. (2019), " again, delete the year and name the researchers or give a general statement like "based on the estimates of researchers from XYZ"
In ref 25 and ref 30, the citation is not presented as a range of numbers. Why is this inconsistent with the other academic journals?
It's the specific pages I'm citing as opposed to the whole thing. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This is fine as long as it's standarized among all the references: either all the journal references only give the specific pages cited, or all the references need to give the page numbers of the whole article. 19:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Therapyisgood it's been a month since the last comment in this PR. Typically, PRs are closed if there have not been comments in a month. Can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Therapyisgood: See above. If there's another week without a response I'll close this. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because, in short, I intend to bring it to FA status. I brought this to GA status in February 2021, and since I have been cleaning it up and expanding it even more. I am aware a lot of work needs to be done, but I am prepared to do whatever it takes. Specifically, it would be nice if the lead, plot, and characters sections could be reviewed.
A general issue I find in this article is that most of these paragraphs are quite small. Imagine Wikipedia as a formal letter. The genre could also be mentioned in the lead section too.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Added a genre to the lead. Also expanded some of the paragraphs a bit. I will expand the rest in a bit. Link20XX (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
If you intend to take this to FA, I think the Development section needs some expansion. Are there interviews with the manga artist and/or creative team behind the anime discussing inspiration, production, etc. that can be incorporated? I imagine most of this material would be in Japanese, and probably in print publications. If they exist, fan-translated copies these interviews might be a good starting point, though you would of course need to source the actual interview if you intend to cite them in the article and cross-reference with the original interview to ensure the translation is accurate. Morgan695 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, aside from what is present in the article, there isn't much I can find. Arakawa didn't write any afterward sections and the only other interviews with him I could find are from Operation Rainfall, which describes itself as a website run by unpaid, uncredited volunteers (here) and Anime Herald, which is having its reliability questioned at the talk page of WP:A&M/ORS. Neither of them also really contain anything that I haven't added from other sources. As far as the anime, I recently found this Comic Natalie interview with the director, which I will likely be incorporating soon. Unfortunately, I can't really find much more than that. Link20XX (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Morgan695, Anyway, thanks for the advice. Anything else to say about the article? Link20XX (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to the stub to create an article for a university assignment and would love to have some feedback and edits on the article.
This is a fairly key article for ProjectWebcomics, but it needs improvement as it's an old article with a fair amount of unsourced material or material from primary sources. I'd like advice and help to improve this at least to B-class by making it more streamlined and better sourced, among any other improvements you can suggest.
Offering a comment to maybe save this request from oblivion: you may want to click on the "copying check" link in this page.
I can help correct things if needed. Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article to Featured Article status and want to see what should be done to get it to that status. GamerPro64 00:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi GamerPro64, I'm sorry that it has taken a month to get a review for this article, and I thank you for your patience. I will review this as if it was an FAC. Consider me a non-expert.
"Parodies of the strip became more and more abstract," -> "Parodies of the strip became more abstract"
The article's last sentence needs a citation.
Know Your Meme is not considered a reliable source, so it will probably be challenged at the FAC. If you want to include it, ensure you have an answer to "Why is this a high-quality reliable source?"
I am concerned about the lack of sources in the article; this will not disqualify an article for featured article status, but it will make its success more difficult. Consider looking for more sources in the databases at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Google Books, and in databases available at your local library or post-secondary alumni association. WP:RS/P and WP:VG/RS might also have additional sources.
I also recommend that you speak with someone who has brought comic articles or similar topics to FAC; they might help describe areas that could be expanded upon or included in the article.
Sorry that I can't give more advice. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
GamerPro64 making sure you saw these comments. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes I saw them. I was waiting for my FAC for another article to get done to focus on this. GamerPro64 20:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Listed this article to remove any errors and determine a more accurate quality class. Interest in Castillo is growing regarding his controversial rise from elementary school teacher to president of Peru. Due to the polarized politics in Peru's recent election, it is important to have more users involved in monitoring the article's substance and quality to make it appropriate for Wikipedia.
Thank you, WMrapids (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
This article regards bugchasing, the intentional pursuit of HIV infection by some gay men. Its prevalence is not known, but it appears to be exceedingly rare.
I am looking to improve it on the prose and explanation level. I have consulted almost every piece that has been published on the subject in the English language and it is, I think, as complete as Wikipedia policy and guidelines allow. (In particular, there is some psychological research that exists, but it contravenes our medical sourcing requirements, so it is omitted.) I am hoping this to be an featured article candidate.
This article is the best resource for the topic on the Internet and I've exhausted all the sources I wanted to cite. Looking for any suggestions or feedback before taking it to WP:FAC. Appreciate your time! czar 20:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to get this article peer reviewed, but someone responded to it and I think it messed up the process because it got archived.
Anyway. I'm basically looking for feedback to improve the article. All (to my knowledge) available information has been included in this article, and I want to see what might need a repair.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the creator, I would value some feedback on neutrality, encyclopedic tone, etc., and the possibility of improving its grade/rating.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first Wikipedia article I've ever written, and have included a lot more content than previous. I would really appreciate if anyone had the time to take a look!
I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly improved this article from a stub. I am doing this for a university unit project. By the time that I finish editing it (2 June 11:59 PM AEST), it will have images, citations and significant information. I would greatly appreciate any feedback and an assessment of what the class of the article is. I have linked it to the politics WikiProject, and it was already linked to the Social Work Project. Any help or feedback would be super helpful.
Hi all - I've listed this article for peer review because I have continually added 2000+ words to enhance this stub article. Since the original stub, It now includes a range of citations, images, an infobox and a navigation box. The upgrade of this stub was due to a university assignment, however I have found the topic particularly interesting therefore would love some feedback to further enhance this stub and possibly request a review of the articles class. It is currently at start article status. Any comments in reference to editing, re-arranging of subheadings, citations or anything in general would be very, very much appreciated. Thank you so much! I look forward to hearing from the Wikipedia community. Thanks, LMJ050100 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has expanded significantly, including some content that appears to be of questionable relevance and reliability. Assistance in identifying the material that should stay and material that should go would be appreciated.
Interested in getting this to featured list. I understand the part on withdrawals is not complete and presently working on that, but would appreciate comment overall. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Salve Dr Salvus: I made a complete copy-edit of the lead for the peer review. Hopefully it helps. One comment: it would be ideal to link (or explain) the difference between an official and unofficial match in the first paragraph. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Done
.jpg){kind=link}
