Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

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.

Arts[edit]

Donkey Kong Country[edit]


I have just finished an extensive rewrite that Jaguar and I initiated two years ago, and I believe it's ready for FAC. However, I just wanted to get some feedback before we eventually nominate it. I'm still doing some minor print reference work to include all ISSNs and locations but otherwise I think it's complete. I'd greatly appreciate any commentary! JOEBRO64 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Bayraktar (song)[edit]


I'm planning to nominate this for GA in a few months. It's quite short and recent, but there haven't been any sources about it in the past few weeks and it seems that the topic is getting stable. I haven't written a song article before, so I believe this should be checked by others for some errors.

Cheers, ~StyyxTalk? 20:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx: I have checked the whole article and foud only a few issues. Would you check Basshunter article in return? List of issues:

1. "It has been named a patriotic pop and folk song." - by who?
plus Added "by media outlets"
2. "(...) the song had over a million views on YouTube before being taken down." - why it was taken down? Is the reason known?
No source provides the reason. Probably copyright issues as it wasn't uploaded by the creator.
3. Links to redirects. See Help:Link color. Eurohunter (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~StyyxTalk? 14:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


He-Man as a gay icon[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status at some point in the future, which I'm sure would require a lot of work and additional help. One area where I could definitely use help is with finding additional sources on the topic; especially academic ones. I've looked through various academic sources such as JSTOR and whatnot, and I cannot seem to find any more. During the GA review, User:Figureskatingfan brought up some good points about how to move forward. It would be very helpful if some also looked through the article's prose. Regarding the prose, the use of the sources was also questioned. It would be great if an outside party could go through the (online) sources and see if the way they are used in the article is proper or not; maybe a given source's information that is provided in the article would be better suited in a different section. I've never worked on an article like this before, and unfortunately such an article doesn't exist on Wikipedia either, so someone familiar with the franchise, or the handling of LGBT themes and analyses in media or a specific work would be very helpful. Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 June 2022, 20:26 UTC
Last edit: 22 June 2022, 20:45 UTC


Bad Romance

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 June 2022, 20:15 UTC
Last edit: 23 June 2022, 06:47 UTC


Title (album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 3 June 2022, 09:30 UTC
Last edit: 5 June 2022, 08:02 UTC


Basshunter

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 2 June 2022, 18:05 UTC
Last edit: 24 June 2022, 18:50 UTC


Zahia Rahmani[edit]


I want a peer review because I've been working on biographies of women, but was way out of my league on this one to write about art curation, and many of the sources are in French. If someone who knows about art curation could take a look at this that would be awesome.

Thanks, Zaynab1418 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaynab1418: Just checked the article and I did minor fixes. Infobox is missing. "www.inha.fr" and "www.bookforum.com" are not names of websites (it's just taken from url address which is incorrect). For example "facebook.com" website is called "Facebook". There are categories such as "Berber Algerians", "Berber writers" but from the article we know she is just "Berber heritage" so she is not Berber. From the lead we know she is "French-Algerian" but there is no category for Algerian novelists etc. Every sentence in section "Art curation" starts with "Rahmani" - it is possible to add some other variations? Would you review Basshunter in return? Eurohunter (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Cobra (2022 film)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I've been editing this page for past few days and want to know how-far it has improved. Also, I expect your valuable comments for further betterment of the article particularly in the production and references section.

Thanks, AvRam (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimama1209: I have checked the whole article. Would you check Basshunter article in return? List of issues:

1. "of KGF fame" - "KGF"? I see it is titled "K.G.F: Chapter 1" so the series title would be "K.G.F" Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Popular Malayalam actor Mamukoya (...)" - I don't think "Popular" is needed. Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Vikram 58 (Chiyaan 58)" - is it on title or the second one is in different language? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Word "flick" is used a few times. It that correct? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. "However, since Vikram is also involved in the shooting of Ponniyin Selvan (...)" - Ponniyin Selvan: I? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. "The first single titled "Thumbi Thullal" released on 22 June 2020." - "was released on"? 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
7. I think section "Music" should be expanded twice. Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. "The release date has been officially announced by the producer of the film, 7 Screen Studio with an innovative video on their Twitter page." - external link. Is it possible to find reference to article than video released by label? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Is "Seven Screen Studios" official variant of name? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Links to redirects. See Help:Link color. Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. No official website for film? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get this article to FA-status. All constructive comments welcome.

Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Pablo Honey[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article looks great but I am not a Wikipedia expert so I wanna make the article super good. Every other Radiohead album is good or featured so I just want Pablo Honey to catch up

Thanks, WeInTheUSA (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WeInTheUSA: I just checked the article and I did minor fixes. Would you review Basshunter in return? List of issues of found:

  • Where is there 1,520,000 in reference number 89?
  • Why there is "UK" and "US" everywhere? It looks for me like these countries has no its names.
  • "and reached number seven on the UK Singles Chart when EMI rereleased it in September 1993" - "rereleased" than "re-released"?
  • Reference number 20 to be removed or replaced if needed - it leads to Wikipedia article (not a source).
  • "They also opened for PJ Harvey in New York City and Los Angeles." - is this correct sentence?
  • "Critical reception" - I think there is chance for less direct quotations.
  • "Clash argued that it "points towards everything that [Radiohead] would go on to be"." - "Clash argued"? I would add Editor from Clash argued" if the author is unknown. Same for "In 2007, Pitchfork wrote that".
  • "In 1996, Colin Greenwood said" - from? He is from Daily Herald? Just noticed it's one of band members - add link for his biography and mention it that he is from the band. Same for the next reviewer.
  • "O'Brien felt the album was derivative of Dinosaur Jr. and the Pixies,[61] and said in 2020" - if the first paid was said in 1997 I think it would be worth to mention t and noticed it.
  • No reference for tracklist, credits and personnel section.
  • I think it would be worth to mention double platinum from Canada in section "Release and promotion" and "1,520,000" number for sales in the United States as well.
  • "Weekly charts" why there are "1993–1994" and "1996–1997"? You add just highest peaks for one year otherwise it was number 56 in 1996 and 1997 in Sweden?
  • Links to redirects

Eurohunter (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Euphoria (American TV series)[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like for the article to be more refined before it becomes a FAC.

Thanks, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a mentor who can help provide feedback on the article. Posting on various applicable Wikiprojects for help will also solicit comments. I also suggest that you review FACs right now: this will allow you to get to know the FAC process and criteria, as well as build confidence among the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Late Registration

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 27 April 2022, 13:59 UTC
Last edit: 25 June 2022, 17:41 UTC


Dhampire: Stillborn[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like an honest assessment of this article's current class-rating as well as what could be done to improve it (though I have not been able to find any further sources than the those currently used).

Thanks, The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ghost of Art Toys Past: I have checked the whole article. Would you check Basshunter article in return? List of issues:

1. Lead should be extended. Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. "The Dhampire series was intended to continue beyond this one-shot graphic novella, but as of 2022 there have been no further stories published due to several problematic circumstances." - so Dhampire: Stillborn is oner of Dhampire series or it's not directly related series? Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. "she'd" - abbreviations Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. "who asked if she'd be interesting in writing a "Gothic" graphic novel" - why Gothic in quotation marks? Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. "As of 2022, no new Dhampire comic books have been published." - this sense is going to be updated every year? Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. No reviews or any reception? Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. "Collins, Nancy A. (February 13, 2013). "Nancy Collins on Exploring Cajun Culture and Breaking Up Swamp Thing's Family". Hasslein Blog (Interview). Interviewed by Rich Handley. New York, NY: Hasslein Books. Archived from the original on March 24, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2022." - you add "author of article" so exactly credited "author of interview" no who was interviewed or by who. "Hasslein Blog (Interview)." so it's "Hasslein Blog" or "Hasslein Blog (Interview)" (really?)? Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. I don't think division of references is good idea or how article can benefit from such solution. Just add full references in one section. Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Links to redirects. See Help:Link color. Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Exo[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring the article back to GA status. I've tried to address the concerns raised at Talk:Exo/GA1 but I'd like some help. Thank you, Poirot09 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Poirot09 There are a few bits of unsourced content, for example: "Following Tao's lawsuit, Exo promoted their albums as a full group rather than in two sub-groups.", "The band did not publicly promote the album." "Exo was awarded Best New Asian Group at the 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards and the Newcomer Award at the Golden Disc Awards." I would fix these and bring it back to GAN, where you're more likely to get in depth feedback. We're doing a backlog drive in June, increasing the chances the article will get picked up quickly. Ping Whiteguru for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buidhe I'll add those refs and, now that I'm reviewing the article more carefully, I've seen some unreliable refs which I hope I'll be able to replace before June. Thank you for your feedback! Poirot09 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome! (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metro is considered unreliable, according to WP:RSPPerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


And Yet It Moves[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate this article for FA status. This was the first article I got to GA status almost 10 years ago and has been stable since then. I haven't yet worked solo on getting an FA status, and I would love to push this article to the next level.

Thanks, ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ThomasO1989: This PR has been open for almost two months and has not received any feedback. Are you still seeking feedback? If so, I suggest asking for help on Wikiproject talk pages. Also, since you are still seeking your first successful FA, I suggest seeking a featured article mentor who can help guide you through the process, and that you review articles at WP:FAC to help you to get to know the process and FA criteria. If you are no longer seeking feedback, can we close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 12 April 2022, 15:02 UTC
Last edit: 2 June 2022, 11:00 UTC


My Neighbor Totoro[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded and revised this article significantly, and would like to receive feedback on how to improve it so that it could eventually be upgraded to a GA.

This is my first PR so thanks for your help. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang thanks for working on this article. It's as lovely to read as the endearing movie and you should put it straight up for GA. I think it would satisfy most of the requirements straight off the bat - it's well written, well sourced, with very relevant images. Good luck! Tom (LT) (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! VickKiang (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


No Love Deep Web[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that the quality of Death Grips articles is usually somewhat lacking, even including their discography page which was promoted to a featured list but later got deformed after Year of the Snitch was released. I'd like some suggestions on how to improve this page as it appears to be salvageable. Getting it to a B-class or higher would be great.

Thanks, Miklogfeather (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miklogfeather: I just checked the article and I did minor fixes. Would you review Basshunter in return? List of issues of found:

  • Why is "online media groups" linked to online magazine?
  • Reference number 4 - Pitchfork should be linked. Same with the other references and websites.
  • "A sticker was included in the physical release of The Money Store that read: "No Love. Fall 2012." on the reverse side." - no reference.
  • "The song "Artificial Death in the West" features an audio sample from the song "Being Sucked in Again" by English post-punk band Wire from their 1978 album Chairs Missing." - no reference
  • "as well as being made available on iTunes and Spotify." - just write "as well as being made available digitally? There is no reference for iTunes anyway and there is no websie parameter for refernce number 24.
  • "No Love Deep Web was met with controversy related to its album cover, which depicts the image of an erect penis with the album title written across it." - from the lead we know it was pensis of Zach Hill. Why it's not mentioned in "Artwork and controversy"?
  • "Due to the explicit album artwork, Death Grips were forced[by whom?]" - template
  • "The 2013 Harvest release features the original artwork packaged in a black slipcase with a disclaimer stating that the artwork is explicit. The slipcase has to be removed before the album cover is shown.[citation needed]" - no reference.
  • There are only 3 reviews mentioned in "Reception" but there is a lot of them in table with revews. This section should be expanded.
  • No reference to tracklist.
  • No credits for tracklist available?
  • No personnel section?
  • "Pitchfork Media" - website of online music magazine is named just "Pitchfork".
  • Links to redirects.

Eurohunter (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to
  • No reference to tracklist.
  • No credits for tracklist available?
  • No personnel section?
WP:TRACKLIST says that tracklists for released albums have an assumed primary source which does not require a citation. The liner notes for the album only credit Death Grips as the artist, with no further personnel or writers. A personnel section would just list the band members. If that's preferable over nothing, I'll do that. Miklogfeather (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Miklogfeather: Maybe if it's done only by band members it's not needed but it would be good to have information in the text that whole album was prepared just by band members - something like that. I don't know this album and as a reader I would like to have reference so I can easly verify it. Digital version of release would be prefered if available. Eurohunter (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


UK drill[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring its grade up to B-class (and, sooner or later, GA).

Thanks, Hwqaksd (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwqaksd: I have checked part of article. Would you check Basshunter article meanwhile? List of issues:

1. Would it be possible to extend the lead? Eurohunter (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. "(...) in an interview with Complex, a grime producer noted that "without grime...there would be no UK drill." - who? Eurohunter (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hwqaksd (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. "AXL Beats explained that the 808's and fast-tempo snares are derivative of grime music." - what is the 808? Eurohunter (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done AXL Beats was referring to 808s in UK drill. Hwqaksd (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Links to redirects. See Help:Link color. Eurohunter (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. "(...) becoming the first UK drill album to do so." and "(...) becoming the highest charting project to date for a millennium-born UK rapper." - no reference. Eurohunter (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added reference to first, put second where it could be cited. Hwqaksd (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Why "a 9-track project" if it seems it's just mixtape? Eurohunter (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hwqaksd (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. "UK MPs"? Eurohunter (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hwqaksd (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Everyday life[edit]

Dreamcast[edit]


I'm preparing this article for an FAC run, and I've stumbled through trying to make the prose more readable and communicate the main points without losing what's important. Long story short, I helped work on this in 2013-2014 and stopped short of finishing its GA nomination, other editors continued to develop from there but the prose is pretty radically different from what I wrote, and in the last little while with their blessing I have been working again to get it FA-ready. I've read and reread it, but I feel like I'm missing a lot and could use some fresh eyes so it won't read clumsily.

Pinging @Popcornfud: as I'm sure he will be interested.

Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 22:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Margaret Abbott[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to take this to FAC. It is a relatively short, but comprehensive article. Little is known about this amazing woman with extraordinary achievement of being the first American woman to win an Olympics event! Feel free to comment prose, MOS, sources, etc. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EW[edit]

This looks to be in good shape; a few comments below.

  • Her victory was reported in the Chicago Tribune – I don't see this in either of the cited sources.
  • Writing for the Golf Digest in 1984 – remove "the"
  • moved to Boston – do we have a year for this?
  • Wikilink Chicago Golf Club
  • "Abbot" in footnote 4 needs another 't'
  • Usually "Olympic" and not "Olympics" would be the adjective form, so I'd remove the 's' in an Olympics champion, Olympics victory, etc. For your mother was an Olympics champion: this is a direct quote, and the source says "Olympic champion".
  • including Phillip Dunne – just one 'l'
  • The couple later settled in New York. – perhaps "settled in New York City", per the Rumore source?

I may have a few more comments later, but there's not much for me to nitpick here: it's a fascinating and well-written article about a fascinating person. I doubt you'll encounter any serious issues at FAC; ping me once you get there. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Engineering and technology[edit]

Dylan Field[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's only my third biography of a living person and I'd love advice on how to improve!

Specific help wanted:

  1. How good (or bad) is the WP:NPOV right now, and how could it improve?
  2. Is the amount of attributed statements and quotes in the current article OK? How could it improve?

Thanks, Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General[edit]

Northwest Championship[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's my most substantive new article to date and I would like a general review.

Thanks, PKAMB (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PKAMB: - please fix the unreferenced statements that I have tagged with the citation needed template. Please also specifically cite a source for each table. starship.paint (exalt) 08:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations added. Thanks for the review. PK-WIKI (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Ted Heaton[edit]


I started this article on a former British swimmer/diver not long ago and have expanded it to the point that I feel it's close to being taken to GA. I'd like a peer review beforehand to iron out any obvious errors or issues and think it would benefit to have another set of eyes read over it. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Grotesque (architecture)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a great amount of content over the last few weeks and would love to double check if I'm on the right track! I also want to make sure I am not missing any huge pieces of information or making any obvious errors.

Thanks, Lucy :) Lwinterrrrr (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Shahid Afridi[edit]


I have worked on this article for a while and I am requesting for a general review on the article to see what improvements could be made. I’m looking to nominate this for GA so that is the main reason for this review. Kindly, inform me on my talk page once the review has begun.

Thanks,  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 20:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Paradise Airlines Flight 901A[edit]


Looking for a peer review to identify issues or objections that would be brought up during a Feature Article nomination. In the time since I have written it, I have periodically revisited it to give it a critical read to see where it can be improved. At this point, I think it is ready. Do you? Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Geography and places[edit]

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I started working on this article in 2007 and I believe it is finally ready to be nominated for FA. It is currently an A-Class article and this will be its second peer review.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Glen Rock (boulder)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to prepare this article for Featured Article candidacy. I have never gone through the process for FA before and I'd like feedback on the article from people who are experienced with the FA process. I'm also pinging Dudley Miles, a user I have recently reached out to as a potential FA mentor.

Thanks!

Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "The boulder, which is the namesake of the town". Namesake usually implies something which happens to be the same. Maybe "which the town is named after".
  • Refs 1 and 3 need page number(s).
  • "As of December 1971, the Glen Rock measured forty-four feet wide" Why the date? Presumably any changes in the size of the boulder since then have been minimal.
  • "glaciers receded during the recent Ice Age". It would be more accurate to says "glaciers receded at the end of the last Ice Age". Also, it would be better to link to Wisconsin glaciation.
  • "the 2009 report by the Borough of Glen Rock suggests that the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" I do not think that you need to keep saying the 2009 report. "the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" with the ref is fine.
  • "As late as 1910, about half of the rock remained submerged under soil". "As late as" does not say anything useful. I would say "Until 1910".
  • The main problem with the article, in my view, is the exccessive reliance on newspapers. They can be OK for current events but are not reliable sources for geology and history. The newspaper articles probably have errors, but are presumably based on books and articles. Your refs on geology look OK, so you probably need just to delete the newspaper refs for statements about geology. The referencing for history is weak, apart from the Encyclopedia of New Jersey. In Britain you can borrow academic books and journals through inter-library loan from your local library. Is there any way you can get access to more reliable sources for the history? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: Thank you for the pointers. I think that my recent edits have fully addressed everything but part of the last bullet. There are inter-library loan systems in the United States, but I'm not sure that my local library is connected to a national network. I'll look into seeing what resources libraries local to me have access to through interlibrary loans or I'll start making requests on WP:RX to get access to more academic sources and/or historical monographs. And, while newspapers will inevitably have some errors and it is generally better to cite mainstream scholarly sources over mainstream newsorgs, I think there are parts of the cultural history section that newspapers are adequate sources for (i.e. the sign theft saga). The geology section has been culled of direct references to newspapers. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


History[edit]

Betsy Bakker-Nort[edit]


FAC: I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this political history article as Feature Article Candidate. Bakker-Nort was the predecessor of Corry Tendeloo whose article was promoted to FA last month. I welcome your comments to make it better.

Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sailor tattoos[edit]


Over the past month or so, User:IcebergSings and I have rewritten this article that was not in good shape, and we'd like input on improving it! We're interested in trying to get it to GA. Our goal is to represent this topic in an informative and research-based way, with clear structure and storytelling. This is important because English Wikipedia articles on tattoo history and practices are of very uneven quality, even though this is a popular topic among readers. We have more sources we may work through for adding additional historical details, but I believe it's ready for comments, including on structure and general approach. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sholom Katz[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see how it could improve, being one of my first articles.

Thanks, Skullovitch (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skullovitch: I have checked the whole article. Would you check Basshunter article in return? List of issues:

1. "During World War II Sholom was deported to a Nazi internment camp in Bralow, Ukraine." - I think something is wrong with name "Bralow" - can't find anything about this place/city. Eurohunter (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Use surname than name or full name in the article. Eurohunter (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Missing references. Eurohunter (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Beth Sholem synagogue" - do you know which synagogue in the United States it is or is it in Canada?
5. He mgrated to "America" or exactly to the United States? If there are sources for that. Eurohunter (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Sholom sang for the closing scene of The Garden of the Finzi-Continis and also sang for the film, The Eichmann Story." - add years of release for films. Eurohunter (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. "He made more than 160 recordings of his own music." - he did not release any single or album? There is a lot of works. Would be good to find reliable source about these works and list them and discography section and describe in Career section. Eurohunter (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Links to redirects. See Help:Link color. Eurohunter (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Securitas depot robbery[edit]


I've recently brought this article to GA status and would like to take it to FA. I'd be grateful for any comments pointing out things that need fixing before that step! Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Asian Australians in politics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to see if this article needs to exist or if it just needs to redirect to List of Asian Australian politicians. I also would like to know what other information needs to be added to differentiate it from the list. Also my writing is not the best.

Thanks, SCN 1999 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Tiger Fire[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on getting the article to a GA grade.

Thanks, JoleBruh (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to send it to FAC. Some aspects of the tomb clearance were politically controversial at the time, and their treatment in the sources is changing as academia reassesses the impact of colonialism (I've put some more information about that on the talk page), so I'd like to have as much input as possible to make sure the article meets NPOV.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Jews in Hong Kong[edit]


I'm trying to get this article to FA and it's already failed FAC twice (due to low participation). I can't think of any other ways to improve it beyond what it is now.

Thanks, — Golden call me maybe? 07:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest that you seek a mentor, who can help provide feedback on the article, and post on various applicable Wikiprojects asking for help. I also suggest that you review FACs right now: this will allow you to get to know the FAC process and criteria, as well as build confidence among the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Many FAC reviewers, myself included, prioritize reviewing articles from nominators with high review-to-nomination ratios. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of Cove Mountain[edit]

Previous peer review


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

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Subneolithic[edit]


Hi! I recently contributed a significant amount of information to this stub. I'm nominating for review both to receive some feedback and suggestions on the contributions and as well, to hopefully remove the template for "additional citations" and if possible to reassess the article's classification. Thanks in advance :) OK872 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello OK872 - I am by no means an expert of archaeology, but here are some suggestions. (First, thank you for contributing and improving the article!) I recommend that you "cheat"! Find an article on a different archaeological period that has a Good Article or Featured Article rating, and pattern Subneolithic after it. TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the mean time, here are things I noticed with very little effort. The intro should be a quick summary of the entire article. Your introduction should be two or three paragraphs with no citations. Any facts in the intro should be backed up by cited text in the main body of the article.
  • Some sections appear too small. Not required, but any section should be at least two paragraphs.
  • Wikilinks: Could use more of them. In the Infobox, Mesolithic and Neolithic should definitely be Wikilinked. There has to be a few other terms that can be Wikilinked. As always, do not have any duplicate links—although the Intro and text for images do not count for duplicate links.
  • Citations: I always use the Harvard Style. That means there is a Notes section with Footnotes, Citations (author-year-page for book, cite web, and cite newspaper), and References (the books). That does not mean Harvard Style is the best. In your field, it may be more common to use a different reference style.
  • Images: Good images can make a difference, especially for less informed people (like me) that may have a short attention span. The ‘Artemis’ of Astuvansalmi is really good.
  • Once you do this minimal amount extra work on the article, someone from WikiProject Archaeology or Anthropology may be willing to do a quick review, and could give it a B-class or C-Class rating on the Quality Scale. This is all I can contribute. Good Luck! TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for the feedback, any suggestions are always welcome! :) OK872 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


History of Pune[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because that can help to take the article to GA level. Thanks, Jonathansammy (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look, some rather over-long paras, and seems to use American rather than Indian English ("center", watercolor", "theater"). Perhaps too weighted to the modern period. The lead is too short. But at or near FA level, & certainly should bwe ok for GA. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will work on fixing the issues you have raised. Best regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a quick look, I see:
  • "generic name" errors in the References for 3 Gautam, 38 Kadekar, 89 Kosambi, 117 Alison, 122 Mills, 125 Jackson, 126 Mills, 127 an-Naim, 149 Marinos, and 179 Rao.
  • Numerous duplicate links, such as Tughlags, Baiaji Vishwanath, Madhavrao I, Parvati hill, Ganesh, The Peshwa rulers, Peshwe park, and 10 or 20 more. Remember that the Intro and image captions do not count, but everywhere else does. TwoScars (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have removed most of the duplicate links, and will work on the generica name errors. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Wei Yan[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because the page has major improvements as per the previous peer reviews requirements which noticed the article's problems, including:

  • reducing some WP:Oversection problem which not solved for more than a decade
  • improving the pupular culture legacy section with each of quotation reference by @KeeperOfThePeace:
  • summarized the "analysis" section.
  • reference now has page numbers or at least the link to the page in each books/journals
  • inline citations improvements, including the quotation from secondary sources such as modern time academic figures & universities researches which gave commentary to the primary sources by @Z1720:

i humbly asking for senior member of wikipedia 3kingdom project too for this review @Benjitheijneb:, @Jftsang: @Underbar dk:

Asking fellow peer reviewer volunteers too @Vice regent: @Goldsztajn:

Thanks before, hopefully this page can be improved to GA. Ahendra (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahendra, I'm happy to leave some comments but see that you haven't edited in a while—are you still working on this? Please ping me if you get a chance to respond. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

TRAPPIST-1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 15 June 2022, 17:27 UTC
Last edit: 24 June 2022, 08:29 UTC


Life[edit]

Previous peer review


Per a request at WP:RB, I'm trying to get a level 1 vital article to GA/FA status. I chose this one for now because it is B-Class and a former good article candidate. I would like some specific points to work on to get it to GA/FA status.

Thanks, interstatefive  18:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chicken turtle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 27 May 2022, 14:57 UTC
Last edit: 12 June 2022, 16:19 UTC


Dwarf pufferfish[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent the past couple weeks revising and improving the article significantly, adding more information, reputable sources, finding supporting evidence for previous claims, removing erroneous or unsupported claims, reorganising, and other general cleanup. I've more than doubled the article in size and I hope I've managed to raise the article from its current grade of "Start-class".

Thanks, -- Primium (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primium, that's a pretty solid article. I don't know whether the article is comprehensive enough, other than that, I think that the article is worthy for good article status other than a few minor cleanup edits. Do try your best there and good luck. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane, I really appreciate the review. I'll try to see if I can find more information on taxonomy, at least, as that's an area I wanted to expand / include but could find little about. As for minor cleanups, is there anything or any sections in particular I should consider? -- Primium (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primium, I think that the article only need minor copyedits at this point. I honestly don't see how this article would fail at GAN instantly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added two more sections, Taxonomy and Resemblance to Carinotetraodon imitator, because I do agree the article could be more comprehensive. I also went through and fixed every minor issue I could find. If you see any more, please tell me exactly where, because I've been staring at the article so long I'm now blind to them 😅. Thank you. -- Primium (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BigDom[edit]

Just reading through the article, it generally looks in great shape but I have a couple of comments:

  • One thing that stands out to me as a non-expert in fish or zoology in general is the extensive use of technical/rare words that are just not accessible to the average reader. Most of them are linked to explanatory entries, granted, but if I have to leave the page several times to find out what words mean, I'm probably not going to bother reading to the end. There's nothing wrong with using these terms by the way, but a few subsequent words in plain English to explain what they mean would be a good addition I think. Here are just a few of the terms I had to double-check the meaning of: polyphyletic, emarginate, congener (which by the way is a dab link), spination, potamodromous, euryphagous, demersal, infusoria.
  • Do we know how long this fish lives for?
  • Any information on when/why the fish inflates? Any predators?
  • Carino- comes from the Latin for "keel" as mentioned in the article, but the "Resemblance to C. imitator" section says this fish lacks a keel. Is this correct?
  • The lead section should be expanded to include information from each section of the article.

Hope this helps! Cheers, BigDom (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BigDom, this is really great feedback. I'll try to address these issues and get back to you.
Some information, like lifespan, I could not find from reliable sources. I've also not seen anything reliable that says we don't know its lifespan, so I'm not sure how to include that information. The best I've seen is a magazine article from a hobbyist who said his would usually die after around five years of age, and he presumed from old age. If you have a suggestion, please let me know. -- Primium (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in the literature then no problem, better to omit it than include unverifiable or dubious information (I had a look myself too and couldn't find anything). If it's a reliable magazine then maybe something how anecdotal evidence suggests a lifespan of around five years in captivity? BigDom (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BigDom. I've published the last of my changes based on your suggestions. Let me know if there's anything else to address. -- Primium (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Wood-pasture hypothesis[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article, and I would like to receive a general assessment

Thanks, AndersenAnders (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please note that English is not my first language and this is my first article of this length so bear with me.

  • The article appears to provide a good overview of the Vera hypothesis. I find the article lacking in that it includes very little about competing theories or how widespread acceptance of the alternatives are. Birks and Mitchell are barely referenced. Birks has said that the high-forest hypothesis "has been widely accepted by forest ecologists and conservationists."[2] The article focuses more on dismissing critiques than it does in acknowledging the valid points that are made by critics. Please see WP:NPOV in particular WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. I appreciate the work that has been done to thoroughly document this topic but I believe that our readers need additional context to put the ideas in an appropriate perspective. This is especially relevant given that wikipedia lacks an article for the alternative interpretation of the high-forest hypothesis. --mikeu talk 23:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sincerely, @Mikeu, for your time and your honest and valuable thoughts. Actually I already thought that a section dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis and its history might serve the article well. I attempted to do this in this section, but realise that expanding it into its own, more detailed section could improve the article's quality and provide perspective to readers. Admittedly this is a topic that I myself am not entirely familiar with, so I'll research that better.
I think there are two major issues in relation to the topic as a whole that I find challenging to address properly: Firstly, that it's not always entirely clear which period exactly researchers are referring to, the Holocene or Pleistocene, yet, because of its interconnectedness with the Quaternary extinction, I think it is of paramount importance to distinguish between the two, a distinction even scientific publications do not always seem make. Then, secondly, that the high-forest hypothesis is indeed so widely accepted that the general public doesn't seem to question it, or even see it as questionable, which confines the debate virtually entirely to the academic community. And wikipedia's lack of an article dedicated to the high forest hypothesis only illustrates this lack of public discourse.
I will therefore provide two more sections, one dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis, its history and the fact that it indeed represents the more widely accepted viewpoint of the two, interlinking to this article to better represent the common viewpoint, and one dedicated to critiscism raised by Birks, Mitchell and others. It may take me some time, but I'll do my best.
Thanks--AndersenAnders (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing text is well written and covers the topic in an understandable way. I had never heard of it before reading the references and searching for more information. I'll check back after you've added to the article and let you know if there is anything else I can think of. BTW, you can ping me with {{reply to|User:Mu301}} as my username differs from my signature. --mikeu talk 22:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will leave you a note here once I think I'm done --AndersenAnders (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Mu301:,
I have implemented your suggestions and the sections I pledged to add, as well as some more general information. If you find the time, I would appreciate your feedback.
Thanks --AndersenAnders (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sodium chloride[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because this is a vital article in chemistry, and I wish it to improve to GA status.

Thanks, Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keresluna, I like your ambitious goal! Overall, I found that the article, to be honest, is very messy; improving the layout also make the article more appealing to readers and reviewers. The article is also missing on a lot of info about such a common compound, so I suggest reading books, review articles, and websites to add and source the information in. Here are some stuff that I think the article may miss: NaCl tastes salty, NaCl is present in ocean and seas, role of NaCl in biology, NaCl in space (Europa for instance, see [3]), refining NaCl to higher purity, osmosis, and so on and so on. Good luck on your journey! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cati, I am not sure that I agree with you here. We already have Salt. Taking for granted that we wish to have separate pages for the two topics, I do not think it is necessary for the NaCl page to go beyond the scope of its chemistry. I think it is hard to draw the line between these topics. Maybe two pages are not needed? Czarking0 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nonmetal

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 23 February 2022, 06:15 UTC
Last edit: 21 June 2022, 08:17 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

English translations of the Divine Comedy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 June 2022, 23:30 UTC
Last edit: 26 June 2022, 04:55 UTC


Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because i've recently expanded it by 6000 bytes and I want to improve it but don't know exactly what there is about the article that needs attention, and I think it would be very cool if I could expand my local library's page even more than i already have.

Cheers love, the cavalries here, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Crusading movement[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because a previous peer review disappeared into the weeds and the article really needs a fresh pair of eyes, or pairs of eyes, to move forward. What it needs is actionable suggestions for improvement please rather than opinion, sourcing suggestions are always welcome as well. It is a contentious subject and there have been frequent widespread debates across this article and Crusades that frankly prevent improvement & cause experienced editors to avoid the subject.

You may question why this is raised in Philosophy & Religion, rather than History. This is because this is not about the MILHIST; the various campaigns are more than covered in other articles. It is about the movement that lasted centuries, the instituitions of that movement, its philosphies and historiography.

All help and advice would be gratefully received.

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gog the Mild:—from your Talk it looks like you are away, hope you had a good time. As an editor whose opinion I value, do you think you can have a quick look over this one and give some possible notes on improvement? If not thanks anyway, love your work on the Hundred Years War.
Hey @Dr. Grampinator:—any chance or some more actionable improvements on this one?
Hey @Johnbod:—would appreciate any advice you could give on this one?
Hey @Dominic Mayers:—would you like to add some reasoned works as you usually do?
Hey @Ealdgyth:—appreciate this request might fall into the lifes too short/lions mouth category, but I would be grateful if you could give some notes on this one. I think it way have gone as far as I can take it without outside input?

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Johnbod
  • On a first look, though the lead mentions crusading outside the Middle East, there is very little on other crusades below.
I must admit I thought this was covered sufficiently, but obviously not. To help me bridge the gap what sort of thing/details would you touch on? The MILHIST is largely out of scope as this is about the movement.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The economic pressures and motivations should be covered. The attitude of some, notably the Italian mercantile republics and their sailors, was pretty frankly commercial.
  • The motivations of non-knights should probably be covered more. Among the cause of the failure of the ME movement was surely that it struggled to attract women, enough farmers, and professionals like lawyers.
  • Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Johnbod. I must admit I am struggling with this. The challenge is always scope, this has been honed on the advice of other ediors to completely exclude MILHIST on the grounds this is covered elsewhere and concentrate on the instituition of crusade. The IR sources narrow this neatly into the medieval reformed church, the identity of the church as a legitimate war making organisation & the structures that underpinned that. If the scope was an overarching Crusades article I agree whole heartedly that the wider campaigns, the maritime republics, and the lack of migration to the crusader states would be improved with more detail. However that leads us back to a different article and is dangerously close to reopening all the tortuous debates we know it would from previous experience. That said, do you have any sources that tie the topics to the current scope, I could then try to mitigate the advice. I am away now IRL for a couple of weeks so if you do reply I am not ignoring you :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer - probably not, beyond those already cited in the article, but there must be more in those. Have a great holiday - I'm sure you deserve it. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hugo Krabbe

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 21 March 2022, 22:15 UTC
Last edit: 12 June 2022, 20:40 UTC


Doukhobors[edit]

Previous peer review


Hi there! I'm requesting a second peer review of this article after a year since the last review. I've fixed many issues in the article; references are improved, many Manual of Style issues are fixed, and the article is much cleaner overall. However, I'd still like some extra eyes to look at the article before a GAN. I don't have anything in particular this time - just a general sweep would be nice! Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (formerly known as DoggieTimesTwo)[reply]


Social sciences and society[edit]

2022 Serbian general election[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some feedback before nominating this article for WP:GA.

Thanks, Vacant0 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Wiley Rutledge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 10 June 2022, 00:02 UTC
Last edit: 17 June 2022, 07:14 UTC


Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be thoroughly checked/edited for paragraph cohesiveness, sentence flow, tone, and possible grammatical errors.

Thanks, Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 28 May 2022, 22:14 UTC
Last edit: 14 June 2022, 15:35 UTC


Killing of Patrick Lyoya[edit]


The article has been listed for peer review as there has not been much interaction by other users and due to the controversial nature of the article's topic. Assistance is also needed with any issues regarding neutrality and WP:BLP, as edits should not be made in a damaging manner.

Thanks, WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


William McAndrew[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to enhance the article to reach featured-article quality

Thanks, SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: This PR has been open for over a month. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest seeking a FA mentor or asking for feedback on applicable Wikiprojects. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if I can get a FA mentor. SecretName101 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Paul Goodman

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 January 2022, 20:02 UTC
Last edit: 19 May 2022, 03:45 UTC


Japanese New Zealanders[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks, ADWC312 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ADWC312 the article looks great! I think you should put it through WP:GA. It was well written, well illustrated, well sourced, and interesting to read. Thanks for your contribution. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ADWC312: Looks pretty good to me too! I also found it interesting to check out. There are a few cases, like "Historians note that the higher proportion of women can be attributed to a larger number of Japanese women in mixed relationships with New Zealand citizens than Japanese men.", where I'm not sure whether the citation for the following sentence is meant to cover the first sentence as well. I'd suggest explicitly citing all those sentences where there could be any doubt, to help readers and future editors looking for a reference. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lists[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Trent Boult[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how I can improve this page further.

Thanks, Alphacx1 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


List of compositions by Cécile Chaminade[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… it is being presented in an interesting way for the readers; clean, neat, orderly-fashion mode, with lots of information for each of Chaminade's musical pieces. I think she deserves better than what she had from us so far. One more thing, please, I would like your input, not correction, but complementary advice and smiles. If this community believes this list should go straight to FA then... so be it.

Thanks, Krenakarore TK 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few things:
    • Per FL Criteria #5, you should try to add images when possible, maybe pictures of the sheet music, and an image of the musician in the lead.
    • Why does #Works with opus number have an empty column "W No."? Remove it.
    • No reason for "All works are for one piano, two hands, unless otherwise stated." to be italicized.
    • Per MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID, you shouldn't link the boldface reiteration of the title. Either de-bold it, or de-link it (it should generally be linked later in the lead though).
    • Lead seems too short
    • There should be more wikilinks in the "Works with opus number" table, for example, Overture, étude, etc.
    • Why does the table suddenly end and turn into a list? It should be entirely consistent: convert all of the list into the table.
    • The list is poorly sourced.
  • (I'm not watching this page – please use {{reply to|PerfectSoundWhatever}} on reply)PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]