Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchive
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 editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors 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 editors requesting feedback may also request subject-specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, 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, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Editors are limited to requesting one review at any one 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 comments are 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.

Contents

Arts[edit]

Michael Jackson singles discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i think that this article has Featured List potential. The list is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other FL of singles discography (Madonna's for example). I think that Michael Jackson singles discography meets the FL criteria. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions to help/improve the article, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


Sandringham House

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 5 July 2018, 21:33 UTC
Last edit: 8 July 2018, 09:52 UTC


Over the Edge (Kayzo and Gammer song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after having one of my articles promoted to a good article, I have decided to rework most other articles I've created to the best to my ability. I am using this article as a baseline to compare and judge the other articles with and having it reviewed would help me greatly.

Thanks, Micro (Talk) 11:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


Deep Space Homer[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed FAC. Issues addressed in the FAC include not enough sourcing from books and in general. Another issue is failure to meet 1b. of the FAC criteria (i.e. comprehensive). I had generally some support but some users sent a long message of issues and wrote out paragraphs on why it fails FAC. I would very much appreciate help on this article to ensure I can get a successful second FAC.

Thanks, AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


Rx (Medicate)[edit]

Previous peer review

Another request for a peer review of this article; there was no feedback given on the first request. Nominated for peer review to make this GA even better and possibly take it do FA in the future. Please take a minute to leave some constructive criticism and feel free to hit me up if you need something reviewed or commented on. Thank you in advance. Your input is greatly appreciated. Happy editing! — Miss Sarita 19:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


Chinese Democracy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because: I have worked significantly on the article and want to expand it to good article standing, or possibly feature article in the future. Thanks, RF23 (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


The Rolling Stones[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review after a GOCE copyedit by Twofingered Typist and per the latest (failed) FAC on the band. My plan is to address any and all concerns raised in hopes to resubmit the article for FA status (successfully) at some point in the (hopefully near) future.

Thank you for your time, TheSandDoctor Talk 15:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Just a couple of points.

  • Length
    • The article is far too long, and needs about 3,000 words pruning. See Wikipedia:Article size. At 226,635 bytes and 74 kB (12719 words) of readable prose, this is in the "Almost certainly should be divided" band. An article that goes on at this extreme length is not one that visitors to Wikipedia will be likely to read, and is not FA material.
On the other hand, FA criteria 1b and 1c imply the article must cover all ground and not leave things out. Looking at some similar FAs, U2 and Pink Floyd are 64K, David Bowie is 79K, and the Stones have got a lengthier history than all of these. The prose can be tightened up, but I'd be surprised if we can get it under 70K without breaching those two other criteria mentioned here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A couple of spelling points: "fulfill" and "catalog".
Tim riley talk 17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tim riley: What would you recommend moving to a separate article? Also, it is less than 100kB, (100kB & up are the the "Almost certainly should be divided" band). Being 74kB, it actually fits in the lower end of "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". Lastly, what do you mean by the spelling points? "fulfill" and "catalog" are spelled correctly? Thank you for your input. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know anything about pop music and can't suggest what specifically you need to prune. The fact remains that at 12,161 words the article is far too long to be readable. One loses the will to live when confronted with yet another list of concert venues. The "musical development" and "legacy" sections per contra are admirably succinct. On the spelling I was assuming that as the Rolling Stones is an English group you would be using English spelling rather than American. Tim riley talk 05:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Describing the Stones as "pop music" raised a smile here; except for maybe briefly around the early days of Andrew Loog Oldham's management, they've never been "pop"! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Toy Story[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to make sure that the article is in good quality. I want to nominate it for featured article, so I have to do this first.

Thanks, Jennete76 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Source Review[edit]

Sources 79 and 128 are dead. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


Edge (video game)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wanted to see what I'm missing before I submit this for GAN. Thanks, Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Passing comment: the gameplay section needs more sources. JOEBRO64 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The review scores should be pulled out of prose and placed into a review table. See Template:Video game reviews for help on putting it together. I'd recommend creating a multi-platform table. TarkusABtalk 12:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


Exo (band)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm currently trying to get it to GA status. It's been nominated, but hasn't been touched in almost 2 weeks and will likely take a long time, so I'd like to use this time to get it as ready as possible.

The areas I think that need review are the writing style and maintaining a neutral point of view.

Thanks, NicklausAU (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't do this per Step 4 of the PR instructions. This is, however, probably the result of me being just a little too ambiguous by saying "nominating the article for review" - I apologize for that. What I meant was when the review came, well obviously, you'd get that without even asking for it. That's what GA reviews are, after all, right? Face-tongue.svg Sorry to have caused trouble. dannymusiceditor oops 04:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Christopher Lambert[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone major improvements after user Filmman3000 edited it, and I would like to know if it fulfills the GA article criteria.

Thanks, Er nesto (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A quick, drive-by observation. Why is it written as lots of, very short, paragraphs, often only comprising a sentence or two? I would suggest it be redrafted as longer paragraphs of continuous prose. KJP1 (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


Konstantin Khabensky[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in knowing if it fulfills the GA criteria — if the article is not good enough, I would like to receive constructive advice on how it should be improved.

Thanks, Er nesto (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


Bring Me the Horizon[edit]

Previous peer review

In case I ever get to this one, I'd like to know how close it is to GA status.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor oops 16:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment – need to look at the references and standardise on using last/first or first/last format for authors and editors. Probably last/first is more appropriate as you are using that format in the Bibliography section. Keith D (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Floodland (album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been considering nominating it for GA status. I want to know what improvements should be made before putting it up for GA consideration. I'm aware that most of the references need fixing, which I will get to eventually.

Thanks, Aria1561 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Legend of a Cowgirl[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's almost ready for a GA nomination. I nominated it for a peer review a few months back and got some helpful feedback; I've done what that editor suggested, and I just want to send it through one more peer review before nominating it. In particular, I want to make sure that the formatting is appropriate and that the info is appropriately cited.

Thanks, Anotheronewiki (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Hey I think you have a solid overview and article.

Do you want to add an audio clip of the song? I see that some other Featured Articles in WikiProject Songs use audio clips.

The Background and composition section would read more smoothly if we could connect the sentences and ideas together. It seems a bit disjointed. Maybe we can add a link between sentences with words like "Despite its success, Coppola disliked the song..."? Does Coppola give a reason for sampling "Sunshine Superman"? Could that be worked into the article?

I see the article is linked to five WikiProjects. Would it be worth posting on them asking for feedback as well? You might find someone who is more familiar with music articles.

Overall it seems fairly well cited. --Culix (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Cool choice for a project. Here is what I notice from my first read:

  • References are typically discouraged in the infobox. All of the information cited there (i.e. the release date, the formats, the genre, and the length) should be located and referenced in the body of the article.
  • Make sure to link Imani Coppola on the first mention in the body of the article and use her full name.
  • The “Background and composition” section seems rather short. Is there any further critical commentary on the song’s lyrics, instrumental, or overall sound?
  • The same section should include information on the recording process (i.e. a prose version of the “Credits” section).
  • For the same section, you repeat “the song” a few times. I would add more variety.
  • For the “Track listing” section, move the reference right after “CD Single”.
  • The “Music video” section should be after the “Commercial performance” section.
  • ”Allmusic” should be “AllMusic”.
  • Could you expand on this sentence (Coppola disliked the song, calling it the worst song on Chupacabra)? Why did she dislike the song?
  • For this sentence (The song samples Donovan's "Sunshine Superman" extensively.), please link Donovan.
  • I do not believe the table in the “Accolades” section is really necessary as it can be conveyed in the prose and there are only three items.
  • I would combine this section with the “Critical reception” section, and move any information on the reception of the music video to the appropriate section.
  • Make sure that everything is linked where appropriate (such as Barenaked Ladies, Fastball). I would look through the entire article to check for this.
  • I would recommend a copy-edit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

Hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Megamusical[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for some feedback on the preliminary additions I have made to create this page.

Thanks, Aoifemahood (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi Aoife!

Your page is coming along so well! I think it's looking really good in terms of the categories that you've separated it into and the context within them. The citations are clearly inserted within the text and they are easy to follow for more information in the reference section. I would suggest to take another read over the article for places you could put additional wikipedia page links within the text. You also might want to consider splitting the very first paragraph into an "intro" section followed by a more detailed explanation of what defines a mega-musical. I think the chart is an awesome addition. Great work! Irene.elias85 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


Peer Review[edit]

Great Start to this article Aoife! The introduction is well written and provides a general overview of the topic. One spelling correction to make in the introduction – “Megamusicals tend to me mega-marketed as well.” There is definitely room to expand this article and add additional sub sections as well as further develop the History section. A few suggestions could be talking about how mega musicals proliferated through technological developments, decline in travel costs, Globalization, etc., Visual content would help to enhance the article as well. The inclusion of the Notable Megamusicals section is a great addition to the article! Great use of internal links in this section. The article is well cited however a Resources section would be a great addition so the reader can research the topic further. I’m excited to read the finished article. You have done a great job with organizing the content in a clear and understandable way. It also follows proper writing conventions and utilizes a neutral voice throughout. Stories Alive (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


Virginia Minstrels[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like suggestions on additional potential subsections of the article.

Thanks, Jre1991 (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

The brief existing article is all right as far as it goes. It isn't clear what "potential subsections" you have in mind. It depends first of all on what further relevant and useful information is available from reliable sources. A typical article on such a topic might have sections on these lines:

  • Background
  • Peak years
  • Decline
  • Critical reception
  • Legacy

Another possible model is in the article to which this one is linked: Minstrel show.

Note also that the lead should contain a brief summary of all important points in the main text, but should not contain anything that isn't in the main text.

I hope these few points are useful. – Tim riley talk 11:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lillian[edit]

Mostly I think you should edit the sentence structure through out. Sentences like the first one are a little clunky. A few suggestions here:

The Virginia Minstrels or Virginia Serenaders was a group of 19th-century American entertainers who helped invent the entertainment form known as the minstrel show.

While they weren't the first blackface performers to band together and present a show, they were the first to present a concert.

etc. There are just ways to streamline the language to make it easier to understand. Hope that's helpful. Comments by Lilliemer8519 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Jordan's Peer Review[edit]

The lead section is great! Very engaging and clearly states what the article will be about although it might be a bit of a run on sentence. It is missing a citation though.

I can see the sections you've added which I think will make the structure much more robust. You should definitely think about adding to the "Significant Works" section and making sure its properly cited. The current references are a little bare so I look forward to seeing what kind of sources you add.

I like the idea of including the "Changes to the Ministrel Show" but the title of that section seems out of place. Think about restructing that part and maybe including it as a subsection of another area.

Overall the article looks promising but definitely needs some updating with the sources, citations, and sentence structure. I'm excited to see what you do with it!


Dominique Morisseau[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of my class assignment, THEA 7216X Global Theater History, and Theory III, as a part of the Wikiedu project. My classmates have already been assigned as reviewers.

Thanks, Jlingreen (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Spring 2018[edit]

Hi Jordan!

I think your page has a lot of great qualities! One of the things that really popped out at me that could use an edit would be to take another look at how you might structure the section with Morisseau's works. I think that while the Detroit Projects are probably what she is best known for, that the other plays sort of look insignificant. I think a simple fix is just playing with bolding and which "heading" setting to use.

Another thing I thought of would be maybe to add a table at the bottom of the page showing the notable productions of her plays (maybe combining that with the current awards section, having tabs for "play," "theater," "year," and "award(s)"?)

Some smaller things I noticed were that there seems to be some debate as to what age she is - I wonder if you could find more solid information on her birth date? The "childhood" and "personal life" sections are pretty lackluster, so if you don't plan to expand them much I would suggest combining them.

Overall, I think the page is off to a great start! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoifemahood (talkcontribs) 04:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Hi Jordan,

I like that your article has a very clear, readable voice. There are only two things that I would improve here. Maybe the structure of the Works section. Maybe listing the three plays in the Detroit Projects section more separated from her other works. The other plays not in the cycle sneak up on you and from the layout of the page feel like they belong to the cycle as well. I know since she is a living artist, getting a photo is tough, but I think that would really add to the page as well. Also maybe think about combining the Childhood and Personal Life sections into one section so it doesn't seem too skimpy on information. Overall, really good! GGRiehl (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


A Short Vision[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what the article could be improved on. And, see, how to get the article to a Good Article, or maybe Featured. Your help will be appreciated.

Thanks, Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 15:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

--

Hey, neat article. I feel what you have is good, but there are some things you could do to make it even better.

  • You're relying mainly on two sources. Are there any others you could find? Having other critical commentaries, reviews, or sources that speak about the influnce the film had would be really useful. The article would benefit it was a bit more broad or had more material.
  • State who made each claim. There are claims in the article like "Sullivan was incorrect". Who said he was incorrect? It would be useful if you put that in the article so we can tell who said it. This also helps with Neutral Point Of View. I added some 'who?' templates to try and help point out areas that could be improved.
  • The article says the film was controversial. Can we clarify who thought so? Why was it controversial? What did people do about it?
  • The 'Synopsis' section seems like it is just stating everything that happened in the film. Is that accurate? How long is the film? I feel like the article would be better served if it had a shorter synopsis, and didn't list everything line by line. Maybe take a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot for tips.
  • The article says "The scheme also funded an earlier Foldes' animation entitled Animated Genesis about a society which is under threat from a tyrant." By 'scheme' does it mean the 'British Film Institute's Experimental Film Fund'? I'm not clear on how this sentence is relevant or related to the film or article. Is it possible to clarify?

Hope that helps. Happy writing! --Culix (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Onir[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because while it is a page I made a while ago, as someone who's learning the basics of editing, an assessment would be helpful in understanding how to create better articles going forward

Thanks, TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, nice work :) I think you have a good article. It gives a good broad overview, is clear, and seems well referenced.
A few suggestions:
  • It is helpful if you can show how an idea in one sentence flows into the next. For example, "He did A, which lead to B". In the 'Early life' section it says his father resigned, but then is suddenly "In Kolkata". Did the resignation cause them to move? It would help the reader follow the flow if you could join things like this together.
  • Try to provide context for someone unfamiliar. In the lead section it says "His next film Shab was released in 2017, starring Raveena Tandon". Is this notable? If so, how? I don't know who Raveena Tandon is, so I'm not sure if this is important. If it is, it's useful if the article can explain why.
  • Explain acronyms the first time they are used. For example, 'SFB/TTC'. What are these? It is helpful if you can spell it out.
  • Splitting long sections into paragraphs can make it easier to understand.
  • It is okay to re-use references. You can use a reference for an in-line citation more than once. This makes it easy to see where a claim is cited, even in the middle of a sentence. For example: "The film was screened at over 40 international film festivals,". Great fact! We could put a reference citation right there, after the comma. That makes it easier to find. I added a few 'citation needed' templates to the article just to suggest where this could be done.
  • I would avoid putting references in the lead section. See if you can use them in the article, and then refer to them from the lead.
I found the top part of this article useful for improving some of my wiki writing as well.
I hope that helps! Nice work, and happy editing! --Culix (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much Culix (talk, this is really helpful. Hopefully this means to more & more improved articles going forward. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


WizG[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be patrolled to appear on search engines. Per SmartSE´s comments, I´ve added citations, published references and improved the neutral tone of the article. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Music (talkcontribs) February 26, 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the article had a deletion debate and was deleted? Do you think you can find sources to pass the notability criteria? --Culix (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Devil Without a Cause[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how close it is to being featured.

Thanks, TheRealBoognish (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks well cited, but still ugly. There are many one-liners that don't qualify as actual paragraphs. The songs don't need individual enter buttons pressed after you talk about them - depending on how much content you have, you could put two or three of them in a paragraph. In fact, it happens pretty much everywhere in the article; it's the biggest problem. Integrate these into paragraphs - they fit fine. Kid Rock's biography has a lot of the same problem - well cited, poorly formatted.
All your references need formatted consistently - the Biography.com reference (is that reliable?) is missing accessdate at least, and ideally should have an author and date posted as well - but it's alright if it isn't available. I would also recommend being much more specific about the albums success and promotion - were there any tours that helped promote this? Any incidents that occurred during those times? And 2002 isn't a fifteen year anniversary celebration, I believe that's a 2012 typo. The credits overlink everyone, once is enough. That's all for now. I'd recommend heading to GA before FA, but your choice. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit]

Kerala Blasters FC[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually get this page up to featured article status and I want to see what I need to add or what I need to improve to get that to happen. The page has already gotten up to GA status but I know FA is something else entirely. Cheers! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Its been almost 4 months now since the article listed as GA and end of their fourth season. But still have no section about their fourth season?.Wonder how it achieved GA status. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of changes have been done since the last proper good article nomination in August 2014 (the other 2 reviews had no actual suggestions), so it would be worth doing a review to see where we are at, and what improvements are still needed to get it back to a good article status.

Thanks, Purijj (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Once the edit war regarding the opening sentence is resolved, and when the speculation regarding Juventus is done, then may be best for someone to do a peer review. Purijj (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


Pokémon Go[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it’s been quite some time and the article is quite long, so some degree of quality control would be required to trim off excess detail. Also, a GAN might be appropriate soon.

Thanks, Juxlos (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


Engineering and technology[edit]

Planar transmission line

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 May 2018, 10:01 UTC
Last edit: 7 June 2018, 23:04 UTC


PC Perspective[edit]

This is a new article about the PC Perspective technology news and reviews website. I have tried to construct it in the same style as comparable articles such as Ars Technica, Anandtech, and The Tech Report. I would appreciate some outside feed back.

Thanks, Dbsseven (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


General[edit]

Nicholas Hoult

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 16 April 2018, 15:20 UTC
Last edit: 10 May 2018, 07:11 UTC


Hoosier cabinet[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article. Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello, this is a very interesting article. I learned something! I have a little passing advice, but not a full review.

  • Maybe turn the list in the other manufacturers section into a table.
    • Can do, but I think they are ugly. I'll see what others say. It seems like Wikipedia does not like bullet points and prefers tables. TwoScars (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Review WP:IMAGE and make sure you are following all the image guidelines. Remove the forced image size, add alt text, etc.
    • All images are from before 1923 except the first and last. As someone with not-so-good vision, I prefer large images. However, I removed forced image sizes. TwoScars (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe use Template:Inflation for any references to money, this will help the article age better.
    • Using it now. I learned something—did not know about that template. Hopefully readers are smart enough to know that the cabinet market has differing supply/demand from other things. TwoScars (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Referencing is excellent.
  • The prose and referencing is pretty good. I think you could get through a GA review pretty easily.
  • I did not perform any fact checking

Cheers —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


Reciprocal IVF[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article.

Thanks, Alliemallie (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Free Rider HD[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of my first articles (the second one to be exact) and I would like to know if it is well written, how much it will take for it to deserve a GA nomination and any advice to improve it.

Thanks, Gidev the Dood(Talk) 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • It's far too short to be GA. Each section is only a couple of sentences long. I would expect it to be far more broad and comprehensive than it currently is. I suggest taking a look at some other recently promoted GA articles to see the depth of coverage expected. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to what The1337gamer has said, I suggest taking a look at WP:VG/RS. Of its 11 sources, I can probably count the reliable ones on one hand. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The subject barely (if at all) passes notability issues (see WP:GNG). Anarchyte's arguments about reliable sourcing is a good one. Pocket gamer is a reliable source, as is TouchArcade. These sources don't go into much detail about the game, so personally, it's hard to make a case of the notability. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Dust II[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what I can improve prior to nominating this article for FA.

Thanks, Zoom (talk page) 16:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Wow, this article sure has improved since the last time I looked at it! Here is a non-exhaustive list of comments:
    • Don't think the article needs this part of the quote: "In it's most basic form". Easier to just start out with the figure eight comparison.
    • The second paragraph is quite convoluted. I've played Dust 2 countless times and I got lost reading the summary.
    • "being" doesn't need to be in italics.
    • I made some changes to the prose. Hope these are fine. Felt it was unnecessary to mention them here and to just fix them myself.
    • I'm either not reading this part correctly or it's contradictory: "It was added to the map because of space limitations; there had been plans to make the area larger". If there are space limitations, why is it being made larger? What is being made larger?
    • Explain the Active Duty map pool. The article goes on to then call the pool the "competitive pool".
    • Is the quote from kio necessary? It's written in broken English and doesn't add anything as it's not juxtaposed to anyone.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!
  • I'll start with what I've changed.
    • I have removed "In it's most basic form".
    • I removed the italics in being.
    • Elaborated on the Active Duty Competitive Pool, explained in this edit. Also revised for consistency.
    • Tweaked explanation with the Long A development more comprehensive now.
  • Now my input on your comments:
    • I do think that the second paragraph of Design is hard to read, I'll probably have to start over and I'll get back to it.
    • I think the quote from kio is necessary, explaining why the removing of Dust II was logical. This follows ptr's comment with frustration of the removal of Dust II.
Thanks, again! Zoom (talk page) 18:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: When I rewrite the 2nd paragraph of Design, should I keep the details (such as explaining where places like cat, pit, lower tunnels, mid doors, etc. in relation to the other main choke points) or only mention the main choke points and spawns in order to make the summary more comprehensive? Also, should I use the minimap as a point of reference for explaining these locations on the map or no? Thanks! Zoom (talk page) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zzzoom: What do the sources say? Do they go in depth into each choke point or do they only mention the important ones? I don't think cat, lower tuns, mid doors, etc are too relevant unless you're using them very briefly to explain the layout of A/B. ALso, try to not make reference to images from the prose. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: Do you think that this will work as a replacement for the second paragraph? I cut down on some of the unnecessary locations and expanded on some of the main choke points themselves. Zoom (talk page) 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zzzoom: I prefer the existing one over the new one. The one in your sandbox is even more convoluted. Having read the existing one again, it's perhaps best we leave it as is until other people chime in. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Overload (video game)[edit]

I would like some peer review in this article, since I have currently only worked on this primarily alone, expanding the article majorly ever since the game's public release. I would like input on readability, the layout and whether the sources currently given are sufficient. Feel free to suggest any other improvements as well.

Thank you in advance. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 15:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Surjection - I saw this article as being flagged as in need of reassessment on WP:VG. Here's a few main issues:
  • Remove the references from the lede. The lede is a summary of the rest of the article. The information SHOULD be somewhere else in the article, and that is where it should be sourced.
Done. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The lede should also mention all of the important information. It should mention the release date(s), as well as what platforms they are on, and who it was developed and published by.
I'll add some information to the lede. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The development, section needs some context. It simply seems to mention that people worked on the same game as the Dissent series, but it needs more information about this game. It also doesn't really mention anything about how development happened, simply that they raised some money on Kickstarter.
I'll work on this section to add some context. My biggest issue so far has been the lack of secondary sources concerning the development. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have added content into the Development section about the early phases. Coverage on later phases is still lacking, and I have added a Template:expand section in there, in case someone else will fill it in before I have the time to do it (which seems unlikely, so I'll probably end up being the one to expand it). SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 15:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Expand the reception section! This is the biggest issue. See This section for details on writing a good reception section. First, mention what Metacritic says, (You can quote metacritic), and then any good third party reviews. 4players is fine, as is GameStar and RPS. The rest shouldn't be mentioned in the review box as they aren't notable or reliable sources.
I will check the section you linked. I've also removed the mention of the Steam user reviews. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have improved the Reception section now. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 15:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Race to Alaska[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first article I've added any significant amount to, and I'd like to know whether or not my writing style and content meets the standards for wikipedia. Any advice on how to improve my additions would be lovely, and confirmation that this is unbiased enough of a write-up.

Thanks, Korinthos (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Korinthos, my initial thoughts are that the article is highly reliant on r2ak.com as a source. This is not ideal because that's the race organisers official website and therefore a primary source. You need to locate secondary sources with information about the topic to be able to improve the article. Frayæ 16:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Celtic F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because a couple other editors and I have been working to push this article into GA quality and I'd like an outside opinion on how to improve the article to that end.

Thanks, Seanstrain3001 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Drive-by comment for now, I'm afraid, but I'll look in again if I can.

  • Singular or plural?
    • The Celtic Football Club is a professional football club ... which plays
    • The club was founded
    • They played
    • Celtic established itself
    • The club enjoyed their
Tim riley talk 17:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment from KJP1[edit]

It's very well researched, and I would suggest it's a pretty easy contender for GA. There are some prose issues that could do with ironing out. Happy to either just action them directly in the article, or list them here for your consideration. Your call. KJP1 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


Participation of women in the Olympics[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA status. I'd appreciate any advice or improvements that could result in the article being ready to be nominated for, and become a GA.

Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 28 June 2018, 11:38 UTC
Last edit: 22 July 2018, 03:57 UTC


Full Sail University[edit]

Hello! I have been working with Full Sail University to propose improvements to the existing article. I've been upfront about my COI, and rather than editing the main space directly, I've been suggesting changes and updates on the article's talk page. To help get feedback to resolve the tags at the top of the article and look for other ways to improve content from the Wikipedia community's standpoint, I'd like to request a peer review.

A bit about what I've proposed so far, and has been done to update the page. First, a significant amount of unsourced content has been removed (see this edit request and this edit request). I've also proposed improvements to the "History" section, which has resulted in some edits but not all of the suggestions were accepted. (My first request was deemed too large, so I submitted a "sub request" focusing on a smaller chunk of content, and finally, I submitted a request to add mention of one of the school's former official names, and wording around some recognition received.)

At the moment there are 3 tags at the top of the article warning readers about neutrality (or lack thereof), promotional content, and problematic tone. Multiple times, I have asked the editor who added the tags to confirm if the banners are needed and if so, what changes need to be made in the article. To resolve them, I have offered the above-linked requests and stated my goal of resolving concerns and asked for feedback about what's needed to remove the tags. I've pinged multiple talk page participants for feedback, and requested help at WikiProjects Universities and Florida, but received little response.

I'm now requesting a peer review to invite any editors to please provide thoughts on how this article can be improved. Specifically, I'm hoping for some insight on how to address the tags, but I welcome any feedback for improving the article in general. If interested, editors are also invited to weigh in on any of the ongoing talk page discussions. I will be submitting a copy edit request from the Guild of Copy Editors, too, so hopefully that will fix some of the more minor errors so peer review participants can focus on the tags and any other problematic content. Thanks in advance for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sharing a quick update: The copy edit has been completed, and since requesting this peer review, two of the warning tags have been removed. One re: neutrality remains, so feedback there specifically would be helpful. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

Bradenton Riverwalk[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm at a bit of a struggle on what to add to this article and I would love input on any ideas. I do want to try to get this as a GA ultimately. Thanks, – TheGridExe (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


Birmingham[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article could, at this point, be nominated for featured article status. This article has been a good article for a very long time. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured but would like some other opinions.

Thanks, IWI (chat) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


Lago di Bientina[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because although I have put a lot of work into it over the last few days, I know it can be better.

It started out as one uncited sentence, and is now a good length, cited, and detailed, but far from complete.

I'm specifically looking for prose and readability suggestions as well as help with the difficulties of citing mostly Italian-language sources on English Wikipedia.

Thanks, Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


North Cascades National Park

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 April 2018, 02:49 UTC
Last edit: 2 July 2018, 23:23 UTC


History[edit]

Montana-class battleship[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because has been nine years since the last one, and in the past year in particular, I've added a ton of new information and corrected some misconceptions about the class. In particular, I heavily expanded the armor section and also expanded the design history section. Many (perhaps most?) of these edits were done when logged off. In any case, I referred heavily to well regarded book sources such as Sumrall, Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, and INRO publications in order to reduce the amount of citations to internet sources, many of which are tertiary. Hopefully all the additions are up to FA standards.

Thanks, Steve7c8 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, Steve, thanks for your efforts so far. I'm afraid I only had a quick look, but I have a few comments/suggestions:AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • From what I can see, it would need a few more citations to meet FA referencing standards. I would suggest adding them to the following:
  • "though the Kriegsmarine H-42 through H-44 design concepts would have exceeded both the Montana and Yamato classes in size."
  • "The large caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16-inch (406 mm) shells: an armor-piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high-explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment."
  • "(Rather than having the carrier defend itself by gunnery this would be assigned to other surrounding ships within a carrier battle group.)"
  • as does this whole paragraph: "While the Montana class would not be designed principally for escorting the fast carrier task forces..."
  • "This shift in policy meant that the Montana class would have been the only World War II–era US battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own."
  • "The aircraft would have been floatplanes launched from catapults on the ship's fantail.[8] They would have landed on the water and taxied to the stern of the ship to be lifted by a crane back to the catapult."
  • "Five ships of the Montana class were authorized on 19 July 1940, but they were suspended indefinitely until being canceled on 21 July 1943. The ships were to be built at the New York Navy Yard, Philadelphia Navy Yard, and Norfolk Navy Yard."
  • The referencing style also appears to be a bit inconsistent. For instance compare Note # 1 with # 2. Also compare Note # 1 with # 56, for instance. Also books like Newhart and Yarnall should be listed in the References section like Garzke and Keegan
  • watch out for endash and page range consistency. For instance, "Garzke and Dulin, p. 163-164" should be "Garzke and Dulin, pp. 163–164"
  • I would suggest removing the links to the individual ships of the class (e.g. in the infobox and , as the links are self pointing redirects Note # 20
  • watch out for duplicate links. The duplicate link checker tool identifies quite a few, for instance in the lead: Iowa-class battleship, aircraft carrier, Essex-class aircraft carrier. (There are others throughout the article)


History of Catalonia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in order to know if, after two months of editings that increased the extension of the article, adding references and bibliography (from 15 references to more than 50), adjusting the images and trying to made the redaction more academic and neutral, the article of history of Catalonia is ready to reach the next step of quality or not. Also, I need a review of vocabulary and grammar, because maybe my English is a little poor in some aspects.

Regards, Jacobí (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


National Jewish Health[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…we received this notice: This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, or encyclopedic content policy. (June 2018).

Since then, we have updated the page and added additional links and references so we would like this page reviewed and see if further changes or edits are required.

Thanks, Samanthalreeves (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lord Bolingbroke[edit]

Based on the "we" in your message, I take it you work for or are in some way affiliated with National Jewish Health. If this is the case, that means you have a conflict of interest (COI). Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage people from editing articles on subjects where they have a conflict of interest. Those with a COI are expected to discuss the changes they want to do to an article on its talk page or other forums and let impartial editors implement them rather than editing the article directly. They are also expected to be transparent about what exactly their connection to the article subject is. A guide summarizing the issues surrounding COI can be found here. Before the review proceeds, could you clarify whether you are affiliated with National Jewish Health in any way? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Louis Agassiz[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of copyediting.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


Post-classical history[edit]

Greetings, I am the user Sunriseshore, I have worked on this article for approximately seven weeks, when I began the article looked like this, [1] This article prior to that point had been much larger but problematic as it was competing with articles with its content. On Wikipedia due to the widespread tendency of 'Medieval History' to mean 'European Middle Ages' there was much confusion for what this article was meant to do. Using World History sources (and some regional ones) I have attempted to create a proper summary of the 400-1450 period in world history that would meet Wikipedia and professional standards. I must also thank the User:GreenC for his advice on fixing this article.

In the mean time, some more pictures, or even sound files (if appropriate) may be added, there may also be new sources/information as well. However the bulk of the article has been established. I encourage you to go over this article as thoroughly as you can to make sure it avoid problems such as Content Fork, and Original Research. Please give any suggestions you may have and be as detailed as possible. I hope to make this article the best it can be, an a positive example for other world history articles.

There was a also a previous peer-review of this article before but that was done long before the changes made here, and I could also not locate where the peer review had been archived. The template that addresses the old review simply links back here, if someone can find the old peer review please make a note of that here.

Thanks, Sunriseshore (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


John/Eleanor Rykener

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 26 June 2018, 11:33 UTC
Last edit: 14 July 2018, 20:49 UTC


Apollo 15 postage stamp incident

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 June 2018, 12:35 UTC
Last edit: 5 July 2018, 14:57 UTC


Hermano Pule[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article, and I intend to improve it enough to become a featured article candidate.

Thanks, Jollibinay (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Scribolt

Please note, that I'm not reviewing to FA/GA standards, just some prose comments. I saw this on peer review, interesting read. I've made copy edits directly in the text for you to consider, amend or reject and additional points below.

  • Would it be helpful to define what a cofradia is when the term appears in the lede? I linked to Cofraternity, but maybe a bracketed explanation in the text would be good as well.
  • the cofradía transferred to Majayjay. Does this mean physically re-located? Or something else?
  • Hermano Pule immediately sent a letter to Archbishop José Seguí in Manila rebuking the acts of the Tayabas friars. Immediately after what? The transfer in early 1841? Or the arrests in October 1840?
  • The 1841 Alitao massacre became a controversial issue in Manila - Maybe explain what controversial means in this context?
  • In terms of structure, The Aftermath and Legacy is mostly to do with the events following from the suppression of the cofradia, whilst the legacy is more focused on Hermano Pule the man. You might want to think about reorganizing a little so the social impact of the suppression are separated a bit from the personal biography. Not quite sure how you'd do that, but just a thought.

Scribolt (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review User:Scribolt. I really appreciate your time and efforts for the review and copy edits.
  • Would it be helpful to define what a cofradia is when the term appears in the lede? I linked to Cofraternity, but maybe a bracketed explanation in the text would be good as well.
  • I changed it to "...was a Filipino religious leader who founded and led the Cofradía de San José (Confraternity of St. Joseph)." Is this better? I also put a wikilink on "Confraternity".
  • the cofradía transferred to Majayjay. Does this mean physically re-located? Or something else?
  • Most of the members physically re-located to Majayjay (the next town).
  • Hermano Pule immediately sent a letter to Archbishop José Seguí in Manila rebuking the acts of the Tayabas friars. Immediately after what? The transfer in early 1841? Or the arrests in October 1840?
  • Based on Palafox (2012), it's after the the arrests in October 1840.
  • The 1841 Alitao massacre became a controversial issue in Manila - Maybe explain what controversial means in this context?
  • Martinez (1999) used the term "cause célèbre". Martinez (1999) wrote that "flyers criticizing the government's actions were circulated" and that "The Real Audiencia blamed de Oraá". Although it's not good to assume, based on Philippine history, there would be people who would've sided with the government on the issue. Some people were for it, others were against it.
  • In terms of structure, The Aftermath and Legacy is mostly to do with the events following from the suppression of the cofradia, whilst the legacy is more focused on Hermano Pule the man. You might want to think about reorganizing a little so the social impact of the suppression are separated a bit from the personal biography. Not quite sure how you'd do that, but just a thought.
  • I actually tried to do that while working for he GA status. However, I find it quite difficult since the books that I've cited always mix the cofradía and Hermano Pule, that's why the article ended up like this. The best I could think of was writing four subsections.
Jollibinay (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


Tegetthoff-class battleship[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this article for a while now. I'm by far the greatest contributor to it. It's grown roughly 2-fold since I've started working on it last month. I'm hoping to eventually bring it towards FA-status, but for now, I think there's certainly potential in getting the article to A-class status. As I've just recently come back from a 5-year long wikibreak, I'm trying to get back into the swing of editing, I'd like to use this peer review to help me along the way.

Thanks, White Shadows New and improved! 02:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Lead's a bit on the long side
  • Some of the details in the infobox don't quite line up with those in the article text, while others don't appear in the text at all
  • If you're hoping to head for FA, I'd encourage you to either do a comprehensive run-through for MOS issues, or possibly see if someone at GOCE could help with that.
  • "French Admiral Augustin Boué de Lapeyrère was issued ordered to close off Austro-Hungarian shipping" - do you mean issued orders?
  • Some of the entries in your References section are not cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I've trimmed the lead a bit, though I'm hesitant to cut any more out of it at this point unless there's a consensus to do so.
I've been away from Wikipedia for half a decade before coming back, so I have to admit I'm not sure what MOS means?
Manual of Style. A-Class review generally doesn't emphasize it, but FAC does. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out those infobox issues! I've corrected the mistakes there, but I'll need to check other battleship articles to see what infobox material is present in the article vs what is usually not included in the text itself.
If there are details you opt to include only in the infobox, they should be cited there. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The bits about the French admiral have been corrected. That was a simple typo.
The Naval Proceedings will be used soon as a reference. The rest which aren't used as citations have been chopped out. White Shadows New and improved! 17:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Indian National Congress[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article has Good Article potential. The article is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other GA Political Parties (BJP for example). I think that Indian National Congress meets the GA criteria. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions to help/improve the article, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Few thoughts

  • Many things are unreferenced - headquarters at Akbar Road, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha leader etc. I have added some citation needed tags.
 Done No more citation tags.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • often called Congress - I think it is often called Congress party, not simply Congress
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Pattabhi Sitaramayya here is a WP:Primary Source and hence a better one is required.

 Done Better source added.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • the rest were of Parsi and Jain backgrounds - how many Parsis and Jains?
 Done This sentence removed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • new "extremists" - " " marks must be removed. It is a well established fact that Tilak, Ghosh were amongst the extremist faction.
 Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • One or two sentence about Jinnah's Hindu-Muslim unity mission in his early life?
 Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • He formed an alliance with the Khilafat Movement in 1920 - Did he form an alliance with the Khilafat movement or during the Khilafat movement?
Gandhi formed an alliance with the Khilafat movement.Not during the khilafat movement.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The section - "Congress as a mass movement" needs to be composed better.

RRD (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


British home army in the First World War[edit]

Companion article to Territorial Force, this article details the measures undertaken by the UK to defend the country in the event of invasion during the First World War. It's very much a first draft, and will be subject to polishing, including the addition of images. I'm looking for a broad brushstroke peer review to identify any obvious problems or areas for improvement. Particularly concerned about the size of the article, so interested to hear if anyone thinks there's too much detail or whether it strays off-topic anywhere. It's also a complicated, bitty subject, and the few sources available weren't always easy to follow, so interested to hear how well it reads; does it convey the information logically and well, or is it difficult to understand? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, nice work, as always. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • the first sectence of the lead seems a little complex. I wonder if the estimate of the invading force is really necessary here
  • in the lead: "The 14 infantry divisions and 14 mounted brigades...": suggest linking division and brigade here
  • the lead doesn't quite summarise what happened post war
  • link platoon
  • "Field Marshal Sir Sir Henry Wilson": duplicate word "Sir Sir"
  • I found this sentence a little awkward: "The government considered the allocation to the associations responsibility for the administration of the VTC a way of maintaining them for possible post-war use"
  • "benefits provided by the volunteers to the home defence effort is..." --> "benefits provided by the volunteers to the home defence effort are..."
Thanks. I've fixed all of the above. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


WAVES

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 May 2018, 04:20 UTC
Last edit: 22 July 2018, 20:37 UTC


St. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because significant additions have been made to the page.

Thanks, Rob Sherratt (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

An interesting building and an interesting article. Some suggestions:

  • Images - there are some nice shots, and architecture articles are always improved by images, but there are way too many! The text runs like a column between them, making it hard to read. If you must have them, stick them in a gallery at the end.
  • Citations - there's quite a lot that's completely uncited. The general "rule" is for a minimum of one cite per. paragraph.
  • Prose - I've made some minor prose amendments, rather than listing them here.
  • Tags - there are a few tags that need dealing with.
  • Original research - as the tag over the Dragon Icons section indicates, you need to show that the content isn't your original research. Who says the bull is "possibly" Paris etc., and can these be cited to wheresoever the claim is made? And what does "The following information may be co-incidental" mean?

It's certainly well beyond Stub class. Best of luck with it. KJP1 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


Alte Brücke (Frankfurt)[edit]


Hi!

I have recently translated this featured German article, but I'm not a native English speaker. Some typos have already been corrected by another user with AWB, but grammatical problems might remain. There are two yet-untranslated quotes at the end of the article, which should preferably be translated by someone whose first language is English. After peer review, I would like to attempt including this article as a "Did you know?" on the Main Page. A possible DYK sentence might be Did you know that the "Alte Brücke" ("old bridge") in Frankfurt has been reconstructed at least 18 times and destroyed by German soldiers?

Thank you very much in advance. Face-smile.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi ToBeFree, I have done some copyedits and to me the English translation appears excellent. The quotations could use some citations, and as you note, translation for those longer quotes. Otherwise it seems interesting. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Frayae: wow, thank you! Face-smile.svg And huge thanks to Arjayay, Neils51, Felixkrater, Coryphantha and the May editors too! I came back looking at the article, because it was linked from Museumsufer, and was amazed by the changes. I have read somewhere that "if one wants to have their book translated, it should always be done by a translator who is a native speaker of the destination language, not the source language." And that's probably right. With your help, however, together, we can do it. Emoji u1f60a.svg
I'll try to translate the quotes now; the translation will need copyediting for sure, but it might be a good start, finally finishing the translation foundation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, you are brave to translate a whole page into English, I wouldn't translate an English page into German! I have created a few English equivalents of German pages, most recently Alte Nahebrücke (Bad Kreuznach), which is why by chance I found your Frankfurt bridge page. It is based on the German page, but I wrote it bearing in mind an English speaking audience, rather than translating the whole thing directly, and did independent fact-checking and referencing.

One thing I was unsure about on the Alte Brücke Frankfurt page is that sometimes it refers to the "Main bridge" and it is not entirely clear if that means the wooden predecessor to the Alte Brücke, or the Alte Brücke itself, or even another bridge. When the Alte Brücke is meant, it would be better to consistently call it that name, or simply "the bridge" if it is clear from the context what your are refering to, rather than using any other name. Felixkrater (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's a nice article! Face-smile.svg
About the "Main bridge" problem, that's a good point. I might even have been unsure too about that during the translation process. The issue here, maybe, is that the bridge wasn't called "Alte Brücke" ("old bridge") back then. It wasn't old in that time. And I guess that using "Mainbrücke" in the German article might also have been an attempt to avoid repetition of the same word.
To clarify what is meant, I'll now try to replace all the occurences of "Main bridge" with the actually meant bridge names or a short description. I hope that I don't get confused myself... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


Tokyo subway sarin attack[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've expanded the abstract and added significant amounts of previous missing and relevant information - mostly pertaining to the background of the attack, and which now answer questions which came to mind during my first reading (such as 'how did Aum acquire sarin, a dangerous nerve agent? Why did they choose to pursue sarin?' etc). I believe this has made the article sufficiently broad while not drifting from the topic itself.

This is the first article i've made significant contributions to, so i'd like any information to improve the article such that it can be considered of the highest quality. Thanks, Fouriels (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Each paragraph should have at least one supporting citation
  • "With the intention of building a compound incorporating facilities such as a phosgene plant (as well as facilities to manufacture VX and chlorine gas, Aum Shinrikyo used 14 dummy companies to purchase acres of land in Namino (now part of Aso city), and began construction" - grammar
  • All book citations should generally include page numbers
  • Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs
  • Suggest scaling up the maps, and each should include on its image description page an explanation of the data sources supporting them

Sunriseshore's comments

  • This appears to be a well rounded and sourced article at this time. Good Work!


Parliament of 1327

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 25 March 2018, 17:58 UTC
Last edit: 26 May 2018, 16:59 UTC


Pylos Combat Agate[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this article to receive a grade and to learn how this article may be improved.

Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for bumping, but this peer review has been open since mid-March without responses; perhaps I should have put it under the arts section instead of the history section? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Update/comment - The article has been assessed and given a C class rating, so I am now wondering what steps can be taken to meet all B class criteria or higher. Thanks! Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's too early to improve it. Scholarship in the humanities is slow and the discovery is too recent. Thus, there is a limited amount of scientific articles on the subject and currently the article cannot by expanded further. Come back in a few years...T8612 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you may very well be right; most articles I'm finding when looking for more source are hundreds of days old and already cited in the article. No major manual of style concerns have been identified so far, so aside from minor edits to wording, the best we can do is either search for any notable details included in the sources but left out of the article or wait for newer developments. I'll occasionally search for newer sources, but I'm expecting the process of expanding the article to be very slow. I appreciate the edits that you along with Joe Roe have made thus far, I'll be sure to come back (but probably not for ages). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 06:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to upgrade it to Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

    • Nikkimaria—thank you for looking over this. TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Missing bibliographic details for McClure 1879
    • Fixed -- easier to use another reference. TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • See also should go before references
  • File:West_Virginia_Civil_War_Medal.png: since this is a 3D work, should include a copyright tag for the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Help! I am ignorant of what needs to be done here. I changed the description to "This medal, which belonged to a relative of mine, is the West Virginia Class I "Honorably Discharged" medal given to West Virginia Union soldiers in 1866 in appreciation of their service in the American Civil War. The artist listed as the main person responsible for the medal's design is J. Sigel. The West Virginia Division of Culture and History has more background on these medals." The medal belongs to me, and I took the picture. My relative probably received it in 1866. Should the date be changed to 1866?
    • I think I fixed it. TwoScars (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: This is a fine article, IMO, well done. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

    • Thanks for looking it over. TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • link "Medal of Honor" on first mention
    • Fixed. Wikilinked in Monterey Pass section. TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Final muster out section, I suggest mentioning whether or not the regiment is perpetuated by any later units
  • Citation # 2, "UNION WEST VIRGINIA VOLUNTEERS" should be "Union West Virginia Volunteers" per MOS:ALLCAPS
    • Fixed. As info, the web page has it in all caps. TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • same as above for Citation # 154
  • in the References: "A guidebook to Virginia's historical markers" should use title case capitalization
    • Fixed. Also same treatment to Farrar and Spicher. TwoScars (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • the article could probably be added to the following categories: Category:Military units and formations established in 1861 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1865
  • there are a few overlinked terms, for instance: Henry Capehart; Berryville, Virginia; J. E. B. Stuart; Wheeling Island; Richmond in the American Civil War; Wesley Merritt;
    • Fixed Henry Capehart. Will get to others tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed the others. TwoScars (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • the grammar here isn't quite right: Private Daniel A. Woods, of Company K, received his medal for "Capture of flag..
    • Reworded and dropped extra quote for Houlton. TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


New Albion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 March 2018, 00:24 UTC
Last edit: 22 July 2018, 12:31 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Louis Agassiz[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of copyediting.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


3596 Meriones[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the details are too complicated for a general-interest encyclopedia. Many of the terms could be explained within the article rather than forcing a reader to click on a wiki link.

Thanks, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Monomelic amyotrophy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… After some ego-crushing help from user:Jytdog (I survived) and further advice from user:Staszek Lem I cut and pasted the entire article into my user sandbox. The revised article is almost triple in size and more than triple in references.

Navigating the complexities of WP -- aye, that is another matter. I've been asking for and getting good advice and article upgrades. user:David notMD made several important improvements.

Alas, from my Sandbox, led on by its SUBMIT prompt, I guilelessly submitted this revision as a new article -- REJECTED. Apparently I've been bungling WP protocol plenty, as I next learned at the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#feedback on revisions. More smartly, I posted a message in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Monomelic_amyotrophy. That request generated further improvements by User:Ozzie10aaaa Yes I should of submitted Peer Review sooner.

This has some little flaws -- it is well researched and has lots of citations, but I lost track and need to clean some aspects so that citations match better with some materials. But it is ready enough. My biggest challenge is how to correctly transplant the revision from my sandbox. Please look at the revised article there (Monomelic amyotrophy -sandbox revision) but comment here. I'll also put a note there about this review request, with link to here.

Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


Oxalaia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 May 2018, 05:17 UTC
Last edit: 14 June 2018, 03:55 UTC


Myliobatis goodei[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This is one of the few articles I've created that I've been able to find a substantial amount of information about. I really would like to improve this article in any way possible, so it could be nice to have some suggestions as to how the article can be improved. If one thinks that it may be able to be upgraded to C class, please do so. Otherwise, I welcome any way that I could make the article more appealing to readers. As for adding actual content, I've looked everywhere and I have added everything I could that came from a reliable source to the article.

Thanks so much! SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a few quick comments. It's an interesting article with, sadly, a poor infobox illustration. Why not use this real photo rather than a derived sketch?
  • In the lead, swap round the sentence about its size with the one that follows it. Dimensions are less important than habitat and distribution, in my view.
  • "Its width is somewhat bigger than its length," - ugh! I think "somewhat greater than..." sounds much better.
  • "Southern eagle rays usually have a darker brown colored back." Darker than what? Other species? Or darker than its underside? I think this needs to be clarified. Do rays have backs? I'd prefer to use upper side or dorsal surface, not 'back'.
  • The lead sentence is a bit tautologous, effectively saying the "Southern eagle ray is a species of eagle ray." (That's how it looks when previewed in a hovercard.) I'd suggest saying "Southern eagle ray is a species of ray in the family Myliobatidae. As that link redirects to eagle ray, you've said the same thing, but in a more informative manner, I feel.
  • I would suggest rereading some of your references. I think you could extract a lot more; in fact, you have drawn a wrong conclusion on threat in a single sentence, whereas you could have expanded the content by creating a 'Conservation and status' section. I don't think it's correct to simply say it is threatened by fishing. It clearly is a bycatch component, and there have been significant declines, however the reference makes it clear that more research is needed, hence its IUCN listing as 'data deficient', and the taxon has no conservation measures in place.
  • "A sighting was also recently reported in the island of Maldives," - beware the use of 'recently'. Tell us when, because this page may survive for 100 years. It won't be recent then!
  • Galleries: I thought these were deprecated, and I really don't think one is needed here at all. Just use the images within the article, avoiding phrases like "You can see that it is a rather dark color.." because this sounds much too chatty, and not encyclopaedic in tone. Try to find a different way to draw attention to colour differences.
  • There's nothing on their life cycle, or being Ovoviviparous. As a result, the rather clumsy statement about feeding on yolk and then uterine fluid leaves the reader wondering what on earth they're up to. Again, re-read the sources and take care not to omit or misinterpret key information.
  • Comparison chart. There's nothing about depth of water found in. You do have this information for both taxa, and the differences are quite significant, and worth mentioning. (i.e. M. freminvillei not found below 10 metres depth)
I hope this gets you off to a good start; no doubt other reviewers will add their additional thoughts, too. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to read the article thoroughly and provide this feedback. I've implemented some of your suggestions in my last edit - specifically, I think I have satisfied your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th comments so far (out of the 9 total). I am definitely planning on trying to take the rest of your feedback and add it to the article - just those will probably take a bit more time. Thank you!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Bayesian model reduction[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first contribution and any feedback is welcome.

Thanks, Peter. Peterzlondon (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peterzlondon: I'm new to Wikipedia and I know nothing about statistics, so don't expect much help from me. However, here are a few questions regarding references:
  • The article begins with "Bayesian model reduction [1][2]". Here, the references indicate that's the method's name, right?
  • In the neurobiology subsection of the applications section, you use reference [5] mid-sentence. Is there any reason for it?
  • Is there any reason you "define" the references the first time you use them, instead of down in the reference list? Given the amount of information you include in them, they take up a lot of space.
  • Same question about not using template:r, which I personally like.
Additional questions:
  • Is there any non-aesthetic reason you number the equations? I don't see it much here in Wikipedia (I'm not saying it's a bad thing!).
  • Do you think the article could fit in any of the subcategories of category:statistical methods? I'd just add it to that category, but articles should always be in the narrowest subcategory possible.
  • Finally, and most importantly: What exactly is the article's audience? Is it beginner statistics students, beginner statisticians, or somewhere in between?
I'll do the changes I want once you answer.
Professor Proof (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


@Professor Proof: Thanks for going through this! I'll reply to each point in turn:
  • Regarding the references in the first sentence - "Bayesian model reduction [1][2]". The statistical method was first introduced in reference 1, for a specific application. Reference 2 generalised it to broader applications and gave it the name 'Bayesian model reduction', which is the title of the article. So I thought it better to include both references, to ensure they each get equal credit. However, it would probably be OK just to cite reference 2 here, given reference 1 is detailed below.
  • In the sentence 'it has been proposed [5] that the brain...' I used the reference mid-sentence to make it clear that the reference is linked to the proposal. At the end of the sentence, I reference another paper (about sleep) and I didn't want to cause confusion. If you think this is inelegant, please feel free to adjust.
  • Regarding 'defining' the references the first time I use them - I am not sure I fully understand, please can you give an example?
  • Thank you for telling me about template template:r - I wasn't aware of that. Happy to use it.
Additional questions:
  • I numbered the equations to make it easier to reference (I could say 'take a look at Equation 4 on the Wikipedia page'). However, it does introduce an annoyance - the numbering is not compatible with Wikipedia's graphical equation editor. So this may be good reason for getting rid of them.
  • The page is listed in the more specific category:Bayesian_statistics
  • The audience I had in mind is anyone working in science or engineering, who use mathematical models to understand their measurements. They could be students, academic researchers or people working in industry. I expected the reader to have an awareness of Bayesian statistics and an interest in Scientific modelling.
Thanks again.
Peterzlondon (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peterzlondon: OK, made the change I wanted to make (moving refs to the end of sentences and "defining them at the bottom"). What do you think?
As for the categories, category:Bayesian statistics isn't "more detailed" (i.e. a subcategory, sub-subcategory, etc.) than category:statistical methods. It makes sense to me—some subjects in Bayesian statistics aren't methods.
I wish I could help more, but I don't think I have the skills to really improve things. It's great for a first article, by the way. The subject is a bit heavy for me, but it seems well-presented and well-organized. Professor Proof (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Tasmanian whitebait[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it based on the available reference material from a stub and would seek guidance on where the article sits on the Wikipedia quality scale.

Thanks, Nick Thorne talk 13:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: one of the things I did early on was try to park articles at GA or FA status, which is the closest thing we have to stable versions. I have buffed Pacific blue-eye and smooth toadfish to FA status. I took some liberties in tweaking the article but figured you'd get the idea...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • It still needs a lead section. It also needs some notes on its classification. elaborate on harvest. Does it have predators? what does it eat? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick Thorne: Hi! Here are just a few things that you could do which I think would improve the article:
  • Complete sentences are always better imo. I noticed a few incomplete sentences in the prose of the article, such as "A slender, spindle shaped scale-less fish that grows to a maximum length of 77 mm, commonly 65 mm."
  • You're missing a bit of punctuation here and there. For example, "Originally named Tasmanian whitebait the species was renamed Australian whitebait following the discovery of a population in southern Victoria on the Australian mainland in 1993" has a missing comma after "whitebait."
  • I think you could expand the lead a bit to comply with the length of the article more. Maybe include one sentence about the description and one more about its life cycle?
  • Per WP:REPCITE, there's not really any need to have the same citation 9 times in the same paragraph - it just looks cluttered. Per the link I provided, "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient."
  • If you're able to find more information about its behavior, that would be great. I definitely think finding out and adding what it eats, as Casliber mentioned above, would be a good start.
I hope you find this information helpful, and good luck! :)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I just went ahead and completed that one sentence for you. =)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


Rubidium azide[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that this article is as good as possible, and because I would like someone other than me to make sure of that.

Thanks, WhittleMario (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Radio Galaxy Zoo[edit]

I've listed this new article for peer review as it has been given a 'C' class and could do with improvement.

Thanks, Richard Nowell (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Review by Chetsford[edit]

Areas for improvement:

  • In general, the lead should not contain citations as per MOS:LEADCITE. In the case of this article, the material in the lead is not repeated in the body, however, the material should be repeated and reintroduced. Per the MOS, "lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph". In other words, the lead should function as a standalone encyclopedia article like one might find in a traditional, bound encyclopedia. All of the material in it should then be re-established in the body of the article so that, it too, is a standalone article. Citations, therefore, should appear in the body only.
  • All of the images currently lack WP:ALTTEXT. This is not a major issue, and is optional even at GA level, however, would preclude the article from promotion to FA class.
  • I'm unclear what the first image is as the caption refers to it as "Radio Galaxy Zoo" but the article says Radio Galaxy Zoo is a website. Is this an image of the website? Is it the logo?
  • Should there be a "the" prior to "NASA" here: As a result of NASA 'gap fillers' initiative, it is hoped that?
  • Per MOS:EMPHASIS the titles of all published studies should be in italics. In the article they're either bolded or placed in quotation marks.
  • Per MOS:COMMA, Wikipedia only uses logical quotation, even for articles written in American English.
  • Earwig shows a high likelihood of plagiarism / close paraphrasing: [2]. This is not due to plagiarism, per se, but because of the extensive quotations. While the material is properly sourced and attributed, in general our articles summarize content and don't quote to the very high degree done so here, as per WP:CLOP.
  • "NASA" should probably be wikilinked.
  • There are issues with the image captions. For instance, the second image capitalizes the word "snapshot" for reasons unclear. Other captions are minimally descriptive and don't clearly explain what is being illustrated.
  • The website infobox could be useful: Template:Infobox website.

Good:

  • There are no disambiguation issues.
  • Everything in the article is thoroughly sourced.
  • The web-based references are all archived, which is great.
  • The references are all WP:RS.
  • The images all appear to be correctly licensed.

Overall, I would agree with the C classification. Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


SDS-PAGE[edit]

Hi, I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • it's about the method with the most cited paper by a single author in the world.
  • i believe it's a decent and comprehensive article (don't know a better one on the subject, but i may have overlooked some of the myriad references ;)
  • probably there might be some language and comprehensibility issues, where i might need your help.
  • if you have suggestions on what's missing, i'd be more than happy.

Thanks, Ghilt (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You should request GA status first, it makes easier to get through peer review and then go to FAC. Mdob (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, i didn't necessarily seek an article status so far, merely a review to improve the article, so should i still go there? Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Just at a glance, several of the longer paragraphs/sections (especially Applications and the beginning of Procedure) have great/most likely accurate information but no in-line citations. The information is most likely verifiable in many of the references already provided, but it might be good to add one or two into the longer sections with no citations. On the opposite end, the bit on silver staining has 6 citations, some of which might not be necessary. That's all I've got :) originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 00:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Kallmann syndrome[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have been the main editor for this article, it is a subject close to me as I am a patient with the condition.

I would like an experienced editor to look at the article to see how it reads to somebody new to the condition. I would like to raise the standard of the article as high as possible and would welcome any suggestions for improvement. I have followed the rules for medical related articles the best I can and have tried to use current review articles whenever possible. Since Kallmann syndrome is a rare condition the number of review articles available are limited. Thanks, Neilsmith38 (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ubedjunejo[edit]

Thank you for your input.
  • This source says "When associated with anosmia or hyposmia, CHH is termed Kallmann syndrome...". In my opinion, material describing this in the lead should be in the first paragraph. Something like this: Kallmann syndrome (KS) is a genetic disorder that prevents a person from starting or fully completing puberty. It is a form of a group of conditions termed hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Kallmann syndrome has an additional symptom of a total lack of sense of smell or a reduced sense of sense of smell which distinguishes it from other forms of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.
Altered.


  • The statement The condition is more commonly diagnosed in males than in females should precede mention of Finnish study. Otherwise it is redundant.
Altered.


  • If possible, a secondary source, possibly in English, can be given for discovery of link between anosmia and hypogonadism by Spanish doctor, as it will be easier to verify.
Will try to find a English reference for this.
Fixed, I think.


  • Table of responsible genes is quite complicated and technical. As a non-specialist in the field, I couldn't understand much. I'm not sure if it should be included.
I am considering whether to have a separate article just for "Genetics of GnRH deficiency" to list the table and cut this down to a few more readable sentences.


  • The article needs significant copy editing effort. I have added a tag on the article.
I have not noticed many spelling mistakes on the article. Most of the article has been developed over the years with editing from different people. Do you have examples ?
I have done some fixes in the lead section. You can have a look in history. Similar instances can be found in other sections. Thanks --ubedjunejo (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Section on history of the condition needs to be moved up. It should be first section, just after the lead.
I am following the suggested layout in the Manual of Style for Medicine related articles. The "History" section is supposed to be near the end of the article unless the disorder is now only of historical interest, when it is then moved higher up.
You are right. Sorry, my mistake.

Regards. ubedjunejo (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It obviously needs a photo[edit]

Neil, could you put a picture of a person with more than 21 years on the article? Since you have the condition, I was thinking maybe you could upload your own picture to Commons. Mdob (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


Language and literature[edit]

Aldus Manutius[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to improve grammar and flow. I'd like the reviewer to look for any gaps in the writing. Also, the article has a lot of different sections that could potentially be rearranged for better understanding. If you have any suggestions let me know.

Thanks, Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


List of Icelandic writers[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I would like to submit this list to become a featured list. Any improvements or suggestions and feedback would be welcomed.

Thanks, — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC) & 12:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


Puella Magi Madoka Magica[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to send this article to FAC. I've never done a FAC before and I've already asked for help from other users on the process, but in the meantime, while preparing for the nomination, I just want to make sure that the article is ready. If there are still any suggestions this has before I can take it to FA, please list them here.

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I would advise you to avoid the reception structure to be like "X says this, Y says this and instead come with generalization. See Sasuke Uchiha's reception section which went through a major rewrite during a review. Remember to talk about all of the series' aspects there too like music. Other than that, I would also suggest you to ask for a copyedit since the prose's quality is often commented in FACs.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot about possible scholars' response. User talk:122.108.141.214 helped me a lot with it while working in the Captain Tsubasa article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


Sex (book)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, although this is currently a Good Article, I see this with the potential to become a featured article someday. However, prose and some pruning might be needed as when it was written the content was getting added on and on. Would need someone with a comb to prune out the unnecessary content and details and make it FA worthy as much as possible. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Annales (Ennius)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 May 2018, 17:24 UTC
Last edit: 30 June 2018, 09:48 UTC


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Papal conclave, March 1605

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 June 2018, 18:39 UTC
Last edit: 15 June 2018, 16:54 UTC


Social sciences and society[edit]

Prison education[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it did not pass its nomination for FAC, yet there was no clear consensus at FAC on what needs to be improved; different editors had different ideas on the matter. In exchange for your comments here I will gladly review any PR, GAN, FAC or FLC of your choice.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


Electoral College (United States)[edit]

This article has been expanded substantially since it was last formally reviewed (over 12 years ago). It's an important subject, and a component of an ongoing debate within the nature of American electoral politics. I would like to field a more formal discussion on the article and future points of improvement.

Thanks, Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


Africa Italy Excellence Awards[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like the article to be critiqued in order to be improved upon before I submit it for publication. Thanks, Esmenkah (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


California housing shortage[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in the topic (though I didn't write this article), and I want to know what's missing from it before I shoot for a GA. Could it use charts or graphs? A different arrangement of the relevant information?

Thanks, grendel|khan 07:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Great Britain and the Iraqi oil industry[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is comprehensive enough in its scope or if it leaves serious researchers and students wanting more. Are there further topics, or issues that should be addressed?

Thanks, D.Thompson (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Foreign aid for gender equality in Jordan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can make it complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. Thus I want to know if the article provides a complete picture of how the field of "gender equality" funding in Jordan is being addressed as well as connects to the broader picture of development aid in Jordan.

Thanks, D.Thompson (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Bolivarian diaspora

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 March 2018, 16:54 UTC
Last edit: 17 July 2018, 03:40 UTC


Lists[edit]

9th Mirchi Music Awards[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a feature list.

Thanks, Vivek Ray (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]