Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
Shortcut:
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's 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.

Arts[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

Mika Häkkinen[edit]

Previous peer review

The previous peer review for this page only received comments for the first half of this article, and so I have re-listed the page because I will require a full and thorough review of this article before I make the submission for GAN and eventually go for FAN. I am happy to receive comments that might help the process become less difficult and which would be very much appreciated and helpful.

Thanks, Z105space (Talk to me!) 11:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2014, 11:23 UTC)----


Mami Kawada[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been improved greatly since the last peer review. Per numerous suggestions, such as those from the previous two peer reviews, I've added a musical style and influence section, which I feel is healthy enough. A few reviews for her songs were also incorporated into the aforementioned section. Finally, I did a full overhaul of the lede section, and it's now an overall overview of her career rather than just mentioning what anime she has performed songs for. There are still a few flaws I can see with the article, but these are more for reasons beyond my control (a lack of available information regarding her personal life, the article has no images simply because free images of her simply don't exist), etc. Nevertheless, I feel it's on the right track towards Good Article status. Any feedback and further suggestions are appreciated, but the main question is: is it ready for GA class? I want to nominate it only when it is fully ready. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say you can go ahead and nominate it for GA after this peer review. The article has by and far improved since the first time I looked at it, and it appears to be comprehensive based on the sources available for the subject matter. Any minor kinks can be worked out in the GAN process, but I'd say it is ready. Artichoker[talk] 00:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 05:32 UTC)----


2014 Philadelphia Phillies season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is admittedly a behemoth, and I am looking for comments on how it can be more concise, where there is jargon not accessible to a non-baseball fan – ultimately, I would like this to be a GA or even FA at some point, but I have been so invested in this article since the beginning of the season, and need some outside input.

Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 18:51 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

Siddharth Shetty[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to improve the content and quality of the article. In spite of making a number of edits, this article has been flagged with issues - I really don't know why. Could you suggest the necessary changed, and guide me accordingly.

Thanks, RohansoodH22 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 December 2014, 16:50 UTC)----


Blended Space[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am new to writing Wikipedia articles. My classmate and I wrote this article together from scratch. We received advice from a subject matter expert and made some edits as per their suggestions but we could use a Wikipedia expert to make sure that the standards are being followed correctly.

Thanks, Lnk2128 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 December 2014, 20:57 UTC)----


Transportation in South Florida[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because a few years after failing a GAN, I decided to improve it since it was a large but seemingly redundant article that was little more than a unified summary of several other articles. I would like to think that the direction I took it in could be a model for other "Transport(ation) in" articles, which I realized are for the most part surprisingly brief. It recently failed a FAR and a peer review was suggested. The FAR never got past apparent sourcing issues. It has many sources (and many claims) and some print sources have been added. I could add several more, but I don't want it to seem like a lengthy bibliography of loosely relevant publications was hastily added to make it look more "professional". Input from editors well versed in proper sourcing is sought.

Thanks, B137 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2014, 03:23 UTC)----


General[edit]

Thirteen (Megadeth album)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for suggestions on how to get the page to Featured Article status. presently, it is a Good Article, but I know it can hit FA with a little work.

There was a peer review on this about 3 months ago, but it was closed, as I didn't have the time to commit, and there seemed to be a lack of interest from reviewers. I implemented many of the suggestions of the previous PR. While I'd like completely different editors to look at it (for a different perspective), I welcome any editor who previously made suggestions as well.

Thanks, L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2014, 17:07 UTC)----


Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FA soon. By the way I am fully aware the 'Themes' section is not detailed enough for FA; i'm currently trying to expand it. Any help in doing so would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 December 2014, 13:21 UTC)----


Kathy Duva[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because that's what you do

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 December 2014, 04:40 UTC)----


Luis Buñuel[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've worked on this article for quite a while now, along with many other wikipedia film enthusiasts, with an eye towards nominating it for featured article status. I'd be very interested in getting comments, suggestions, advice etc. Do you think this is FA material?

Thanks, Jburlinson (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 December 2014, 00:56 UTC)----


Jack White[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a stone's throw from being ready for GA consideration, but I really need inside input, since I am the primary editor, and really don't have much outside perspective. I've read this article so many times, I'm cross-eyed. I'm still working on finding references for the the fact-tagged statements. I also know some of the references need a touch more formatting help (which another editor and I made A LOT of progress on this week). Otherwise, any other things that could be fixed or improved, I just need a second set of eyes.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 December 2014, 15:27 UTC)----


Jeong Seon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to make this article better.

Thanks, Youkseo (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Good artice! It's great, because it has lots of pictures of Jeong Seon and I would like to know about his reputation or influence to modern society of Korea. Tksgk262 (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Uhmm, I think Korean (untranslated to English) caption of file should be fixed and cite needed template should be removed or additional citation should be added to article.  Revi 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 December 2014, 07:37 UTC)----


Spectre (2015 film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… The 24th James Bond film has just been announced, will start production on Monday, and of course is too recent and without data to get anywhere near Good or Featured status. But given this film series is a good topic, Spectre needs a peer review to get included and further its global domination plans. I'm willing to hear all comments and suggestions.

Thanks, igordebraga 01:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a mention of "35mm" film under Filming, and I added a non-breaking space between 35 and mm. Also, check the link for reference #17 as it appears broken to me. Otherwise, the article looks fine. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 01:31 UTC)----


Origami[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Origamidesigner and I want feedback on how to improve it, hopefully to GA status. Any feedback would be great, as I am not a content creator and they're inexperienced as well.

Thanks, Origamite 02:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • Origami (折り紙?, from ori meaning "folding", and kami meaning "paper" (kami changes to gami due to rendaku) is the art of paper folding: this makes the opening line very hard to read—I'd move the etymological expalanation further down, or even have it only in the body. Something like this is sufficient:
    • Origami (折り紙 "paper folding"?) is the art ...
  • Unless you are citing something contentious, inline cites shouldn't appear in the lead, as everything in the lead should also be in the body (where it should be cited).
  • If the number of basic folds is small enough, you might want to include them in the lead; or at the very least mention valleys and mountains.
  • The principles of origami are also used in stents, packaging and other engineering applications.: is this prominent enough to be lead-worthy?
  • The body has an awful lot of uncited passages—even entire paragraphs. If you hope to get this article to GA status, you'll have to cite everything. If you manage to get everything cited, give me a ping and I can give the article a thorough copyedit. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 December 2014, 02:55 UTC)----


Family Feud (Australian game show)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve the article but need to know where to start!

Thanks, StewdioMACK (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am fairly new to editing so I am probably not much use but I did find another game show article which might be a good template for you to work from - The Chase (U.S. game show). The obvious issue, with the Family Feud article, is references but the content seems fairly good to me (if it can be backed up with sources). Give me a shout if you want any help with it though I am no use at being able to review! ツStacey (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2014, 01:27 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Smooth Island (Tasmania)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel I've collected almost all the information on Smooth Island which is freely available online, even from the depths of historical newpaper achives.

I'm not sure what the next set of goals for this topic should be.

I'd appreciate specific advice on how I can improve the quality of the page.

I'd also like an independent assessment of the importance of this topic, if that's not too much trouble.

Thanks, jkokavec

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 December 2014, 08:15 UTC)----


2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because because I wish to nominate the article for a promotion. This is the initial peer review to to get an understanding of work needs to be done. Thanks, Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Some comments from a brief skimming: The article doesn't mention the 2004 earthquake at all; I think it's important to put into context how the earthquake served as a major test for the Indian Ocean tsunami warning system. The recent 2004 tsunami, the worst in history, was still relatively fresh in people's minds, and the prior events hugely affected people's and organisations' responses to the 2012 earthquake. (I'm not quite familiar with peer review; I'll leave it to other editors to comment on the other aspects.) --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2014, 11:08 UTC)----


Moon Lake Park[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to know how it looks so far. And if it's missing useful information typically found on a park page.

Thanks, -Fluous (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 14 December 2014, 01:56 UTC)----


Stanley Park, Blackpool[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've reached my limit on what to write! I haven't done much editing and so I really need some assistance from experienced editors to advice on improvements. I would love to get this to 'Good article' status if its worthy. I'm very passionate about Blackpool articles and if this goes well, I hope to write more! Any advice is much appreciated =)

P.S. I hope I have put this in the correct category?

Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 13:05 UTC)----


History[edit]

May 18th National Cemetery[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to make this article much better.

Thanks, Tksgk262 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is good article that are arranged very well. I can have some interest in this building. Good job, Youkseo (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out empty section, and Cemetery section might need more reliable, verifiable source, imo.  Revi 16:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 December 2014, 07:33 UTC)----


Horace Greeley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to take it to FAC and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

My first batch. It was disconcerting to discover that the only association I had with the name of Greeley – his supposed "Go West, young man!" quote – is apparently dubious, especially as the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations includes it without any caveat. I like the sound of this man, and look forward to learning more.

I have a source that directly says that the ODQ is wrong. It cites a researcher who checked the 1850 Greeley book, Hints Toward Reform, the stated source per the ODQ and found no trace of it, or in any Greeley writing. And even the Indiana editor, John Soule, who supposedly wrote it in 1851, there's no trace of it in his paper that year and the attribution to Soule doesn't start appearing until 1890. "NEVER MIND",

Author(s): Sandra Beasley Source: The American Scholar, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter 2006), p. 16, jstor 41222524

  • Early life
  • No issues
  • First efforts at publishing
  • Awkward "of diet of" – suggest "run on the dieting principle of..."
  • "abstaining from the use of tobacco and opium". The linking of tobacco and opium is a little glib, implying that opium usage was as common as smoking tobacco and that abstaining from it was a notable denial. Maybe opium usage was more widespread then, possibly in the form of laudanum, but it might be advisable to expand this a little.
  • Changed opium to "intoxicants".
  • "Greeley was following Graham's principles, and to the end of his life rarely ate meat." As phrased, this sentence sits awkwardly in the paragraph, and I suggest "Greeley was a firm believer in Graham's principles, and to the end of his life rarely ate meat."
  • I don't know that he kept up the principles to the end of his life. The source isn't clear on that. I think your phrasing is a little too definite, so I've taken another go at it.
  • "In his journal, he urged..." → "In his journal, Greeley urged..."
  • "...and was helped with elect the Whig candidate" – something slightly awry here
  • Tribune, first years
  • "As technology advanced, it was cheaper and easier to publish a newspaper" → "As technology advanced, it became cheaper and easier to publish a newspaper"
  • "...died after a month in office, replaced by Vice President Tyler." Replace the comma with "and been", for correct syntax
  • "who would a decade later found" – "who a decade later founded"?
  • "To place the newspaper on a sound financial footing..." – as the last paper mentioned is the NYT, perhaps "To place the Tribune..." Also, the phrasing "sound footing" occurs at the beginning and of the sentence.
  • "One factor in establishing the paper nationally was the Weekly Tribune, created in September, 1841 when the Log Cabin and The New-Yorker were merged, which was sent to many across the United States by subscription, and was especially popular in the Midwest." Too long and complex, especially with consecutive "when" and "which" subclauses. Suggest subdivide.
  • "...the site of the one in Pennsylvania was after his death named Greeley." I learn from the link that it was the town built on the site, rather thn the site itself, that was named for Greeley. Is it worth the the settlement that originally occupied the site wa scalled "The Sylvania Association"?
I don't think it would add anything. That's not a very distinctive name. I've spelled it out a bit more clearly.
  • Congressman
  • "Greeley pledged support for Irish efforts towards independence" – needs clarifying. As written, it sounds like support for Irish indepencence from America. And was he really in a position to "pledge" (a solemn promise) anything? It would be more appropriate to say that Greeley "proclaimed his support for Irish independence form Great Britain", or similar wording.
  • "Greeley's election..."? Appointment or selection, surely?
  • "taking note of what congressmen were missing votes" → "which congressmen"
  • The leading "But" (third line) should be removed. And perhaps say "travel allowance" rather than "mileage allowance" which has a rather modern connotation.
  • I don't see the issue with the but. It seems to bridge Greeley's transition from unpopular new boy to utter pariah rather well.
  • "to ban alcohol from the ships" – all ships, or just naval vessels?

More to follow. I will dip in when I can, but might be intermittent over the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite understandable. Have a holly jolly and all that. Thanks for the review. I'm glad you think well of Greeley. I wonder how he would have done in the television era?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 23:21 UTC)----


Bolokhoveni[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it should be chequed against WP:NPOV before its GAN.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Boguslavmandzyuk comments

Hi,

Good job with citing all of your sources.

Some room for improvement:

Lead section

The lead section should follow the guidelines at WP:LEAD. The lead section should give a general overview of the subject of the article without getting in too much detail and avoiding jargon. It should summarize what the article is going to discuss later.

For example,
Instead of "Based on their ethnonym, the Bolokhoveni may be identified as Romanians (who were mentioned as Vlachs in the Middle Ages); but the Hypatian Chronicle and archaeological research suggest that they were rather a Slavic people."
Consider something like: "The ethnic identity of the Bolokhoveni is not known; whereas the ethnonym identifies them with modern-day Romanians, archeological evidence and the Hypatian Chronicle suggest that they were a Slavic people."

Also, consider giving more of an overview of the article in the lead. For example, you may mention that they disappeared from all records in 1257 (I think this is a pretty important piece of information). On a side note, is there any literature or hypotheses about why they disappeared? What is the result of a genocide, a mass-migration, or perhaps just a cultural re-identification with the other groups?

Boguslavmandzyuk, thank you for your comments. I am really grateful. I changed the text and expanded the lead. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Prose

Much of the prose is confusing and difficult to follow if you don't read through the passages multiple times. The prose should be easy to follow and straight to the point. Guidelines include WP:TECHNICAL and WP:WTA.

For example, the following sentence may be easier to follow: "However, this identification is not without contradictions, because the Bolokhoveni's material culture was not dissimilar from the contemporary culture of the western parts of Kievan Rus'."
Consider avoiding double negatives and just saying the facts: "However, this identification is contradicted by archaeological evidence, which indicates that the Bolokhoveni's material culture resembles that of its contemporaries in western parts of Kievan Rus'."
Thank you. I changed the text. After the peer review is closed, I will request a copy edit. (I always ask for a copy edit before a GAN.) Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Section heading names

Wikipedia doesn't have specific very specific rules about section names, but the general practice is to name a section based on what conceptually similar articles name such sections. In this case, the "land of Bolokhoveni" is not a very common section name that can be compared to other similar articles. You may consider the following examples: the articles Bavaria and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth use the section heading name "Geography", while the articles on Prussia and Kingdom of Navarre use "Territory" and "Territory today", respectively.

Thank you. I changed the heading name. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Other than these concerns, this article looks very solid from a content and citation point of view.--BoguSlav 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 05:43 UTC)----


History of infrastructure development in Bathurst[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i have added considerable content and would like to receive constructive criticism of the article.

Thanks, Geez-oz (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 10:43 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Fock state[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made few major edits to this page and wants to know whether the article is still in the same quality standard as before.

Thanks, Indranil1993 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tonystewart14
  • My main recommendation would be to make the article less dependent on the equations and add more text in order to make the article more readable to the average reader. You might want to look at WP:TECHNICAL.
  • The word 'we' is used a lot in the article, including phrases like "we have" and "we need". This along with the high number of equations makes it read more like a list of proofs than an encyclopedia article. Per MOS:FIRSTPERSON, you might rephrase some of these; while it says that 'we' is acceptable in the example of "Throughout the proof of this theorem we assume that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous", it suggests a rephrase and gives an example. You might do this for at least some of the instances of 'we' throughout the article.
  • At the end of "Example using two particles", you don't need to say that the different algebra "follows in the next sections". This might be good for a textbook, but for a Wikipedia article it isn't needed. You might say something like, "To distinguish between bosonic and fermionic states, Creation and Annihilation operators can be used." (I don't know if that example is scientifically correct, but that would be the format.)
  • You only use nine different references, so perhaps you could add more from other scholars.
  • Hope this helps. I'm not a physicist, but this should help you improve the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2014, 19:23 UTC)----


Japanese serow[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC. I have no background in biology—I began the article when I heard there were serows in my city, which made me curious about them.

Thanks, Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 02:13 UTC)----


Camas pocket gopher[edit]

This is a fascinating rodent, only found in Oregon. I've built this page up from a stub and eventually would like to propose for FA status. I've worked with the maproom to get the distribution map. I also had to do some major leg work to get suitable images, obtained by permission from an ecological non-profit organization in Oregon. Questions that I have include whether to stick with the common name (Camas pocket gopher) or the scientific (Thomomys bulbivorus). Since most of the literature refers to the scientific, that is what I have stuck with. I have done my best to avoid close paraphrasing and stick to WP:MOS, but I am still not the most experienced editor. Copyedits and even comments on how the sections are named and the article is structured would be appreciated.

Thanks, Gaff ταλκ 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tonystewart14
  • It looks like you've waited quite a while for a peer review, so why not one on Christmas? Hope you're doing well.
  • Since you already have GA, most of it looks good. I noticed in the references section that you cite the same page of some sources extensively; for example, two pages (1 and 3) of Verts & Carroway are used a total of 48 times. This source is also cited several more times, so you might be over-reliant on this source. This might come up in FAC, so I wanted to mention it.
We can certainly mix up the references. However, many of the subsequent sources, including much of what the IUCN and NatureServe report, derive from this Verts/Carraway paper. I also have a copy of the book that they published in 1998, which covers most of the same material. At least for the sake of appearances, I can spread out the references and try to add more independent sources. Gaff (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's my copyediting remarks:
Lead:
  • Link to Foraging for the word 'forages' in "The herbivorous gopher forages..."
Yes check.svg Done
  • Remove comma in "The dull brown to lead-gray coat, changes color and texture over the year."
Yes check.svg Done
Taxonomy:
  • Remove comma in "The name Thomomys, derives from..."
Yes check.svg Done
  • Remove comma in "The early confusion arises from writings by John Richardson, during the years 1828 to 1839."
Yes check.svg Done
  • Change "all the specimen" to "all specimens" in "...he was not familiar with all the specimen."
Yes check.svg Done
  • Change "Richardson describes the type specimen in his work of 1829, Fauna boreali-americana." and part of the next sentence to be something like, "In his 1829 work, Richardson describes Fauna boreali-americana, a specimen obtained...". The first sentence sounds awkward, and it's unclear if the next sentence refers to this same specimen.
Symbol question.svg better?
Yes check.svg Done
  • Remove 'the' in "Errors with labeling of illustrations in the Richardson's book..."
"Error" fixed. Yes check.svg Done
  • Remove comma in "...The American Cyclopædia, provides..."
Yes check.svg Done
Description:
  • Remove comma in "...to the premaxilla, pull the pouches..."
Symbol question.svg better? I think its grammatically correct with the newly added comma...
Distribution and habitat:
  • Remove comma in "...subsequent study, as of 1987."
Symbol voting keep.svg Cleaned up
  • Change "with estimated" to "with an estimated" in "This was a massive flood, with estimated 1,693 km3..."
Yes check.svg Done
Behavior:
  • Remove comma in "The large incisors of the gopher, and their..."
Yes check.svg Done
  • For "There are variable reports...", you might say "varying" or "conflicting" instead of "variable." This phrase is also used in the Ecology section, so you might consider changing it there as well.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Hope this helps. Good luck with FAC and have a happy new year. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all good stuff. Thanks for the review.

(Peer review added on Thursday 20 November 2014, 22:28 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been several months since the end of the Synod so it should be stable. I also think it is in pretty good shape, and would like to eventually bring it up to FA status.

Thanks, Briancua (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 December 2014, 19:22 UTC)----


Social sciences and society[edit]

Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014[edit]

The 2014 Scottish Labour Party leadership election was held in the wake of the independence referendum, and following some internal upheaval within the organisation. I've worked on this right from the beginning and think it has potential for GAN, or even FAC, where both elections and Scotland are underrepresented topics. I've listed it for peer review because I'd like some feedback on the content and some suggestions on what else might need to be included. I've used the GA New Zealand Labour Party leadership election, 2011 as a template for this, so will probably add details of frontbench team appointments, and I'll run it through GOCE before putting it forward. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 December 2014, 17:37 UTC)----


Oxford College of Emory University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it pass the Featured Article candidacy process. It failed the last time around because the article needed another person to read through it and catch errors that I, as a contributor to the article, wouldn't notice. I appreciate any and all help that I can get!

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 December 2014, 21:57 UTC)----


Bill Cosby in advertising[edit]

Previous peer review

Hi all! This is a GA-status article, but a previous request for peer review went unnoticed. I'm interested in getting this article to featured status, now that the topic is relatively dormant. Not to editorialize, but I doubt Mr. Cosby will be endorsing much in the next little while, so the article should remain largely stable.

Thank you in advance, I eagerly await your input,

Zanimum (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 21:30 UTC)----


Twink (gay slang)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I feel this article has reached a good stage. I feel the article has reached B grade, for LGBT studies, also how the article stands on Gender studies if the article needs more work and if so what could improve the article?

Thanks, Pennine rambler (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:LEAD says the article should be a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. The lede intro is therefore a bit too short right now. — Cirt (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks, I think it is to early for a peer review on reflection.--Pennine rambler (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is a bit young for a peer review as well. I copyedited it a bit though to help with the effort.Esprit15d • talkcontribs 19:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 October 2014, 20:18 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

Rajinikanth filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to become as good as it can be. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The "role" field can be completed. And List of awards and nominations received by Rajinikanth can be merged with this article to help expand it. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Are the role names mentioned in the Naman Ramachandran book? —Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope; just gotta see each film and find out yourself; a pity that much of Indian film's plot details are not published in reliable sources Face-sad.svg or just ask those who have seen them. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Are the role names a must for filmography lists? —Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but it's best not to leave something incomplete. And there are only a few fields blank; get some help and fill 'em up! Kailash29792 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kailash29792: Managed to find out the role names of Rajinikanth in his films. Some of them were guest appearances. Only Iraivan Kodutha Varam remains. The problem is that there are no sources or videos about the film. In that case, shall I go as per IMDB (there it states Rajnikant (as Rajnikant)) — Ssven2 speak 2 me 11:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2014, 10:53 UTC)----


List of Indian violinists[edit]

If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that I've changed it significantly. I have referenced all names, all pictures are from Wikipedia themselves and I've put them all into a table. I want to get this list to very good standard. Kindly let me know the necessary changes/mods that maybe needed to get this list to the highest rating possible.

Thanks, D437 (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Stfg
  • I've copy edited the lede for better grammar and flow.
  • The sentence "Indian violinists have performed concerts all over the world and have achieved a lot of fame and success over the years" is puffery and isn't verified by the source given. Suggest removing it as it doesn't give any real information.
  • The references need filling out to provide more details. Just a URL and a title are insufficient. I suggest using the {{cite}} templates.
  • I haven't checked all of the references, but the following are unacceptable:
    • FN6 (B. Sasikumar Profile): appears to be his own web page, and McAfee SiteAdviser warns of "risky behaviors"
    • FN9 ("Dwaram Venkataswamy Naidu") Wikipedia page, not allowed as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR
    • The following, being the subjects' own web sites (if they are really notable, you should be able to find suitable references in the articles about them):
      • FN7 (Balabhaskar Profile - Official Website)
      • FN10 (Embar Kannan - About)
      • FN24 (Lalgudi Vijayalakshmi - Profile)
      • FN31 (N. Sivanandan - Profile)
      • FN33 (Official Website of Sangeeta Shankar)
      • FN38 (V.V. Ravi - Profile)
      • FN39 (Vittal Ramamurthy's Official Page)
Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 December 2014, 07:32 UTC)----


Robert Mitchum filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Featured List status and anything would be helpful. Thank you!

Thanks, LADY LOTUSTALK 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 December 2014, 16:07 UTC)----


National symbols of Sri Lanka[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take another step on article writing and I'd like to nominate it for WP:FL.

Thanks, AntonTalk 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments from Blackknight12
Good work.
  • At first glance looks good, but could use a few more references for each of the unofficial symbols.
  • I'm sure there is a official national dress and dish...
  • Including national colours would be goo too.
  • The lead of the article should be bigger, with more of a historical background and so could the development section.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 2 December 2014, 08:06 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]