Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject

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.

You can find the list of all current peer reviews in different formats: a list with reviewers' comments included, a list without any reviewers' comments or a list by date.

Arts[edit]

Dr Disrespect[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because, first and foremost, I have been heavily contributing to the article (at first anonymously, as 2601:47:100:ac40:...) and hoping to get it to B-class. I think it is right now, but as @PresN: noted at WT:VG#Dr Disrespect, despite some cleanup and copyediting, which is always helpful there are "choppy paragraphs, choppy sentences, a flow so close to WP:Proseline that it's almost uncanny, and most of all almost no information about the person that isn't just a list of controversies". @Sergecross73: added that they currently have "no interest in writing about these ridiculous, over-the-top gaming personalities. Doubly so with someone with the allegations against him he's got going on at the moment". At the article's talk itself, I suggested that there should be a screenshot of a livestream, which was opposed by @Axem Titanium: because both images have Beahm "wearing the same wig and sunglasses he always wears and "He looks like the same middle-aged white dude in both photos to me. I have a hard time imagining readers not believing that they're the same person". There is also a slight contention over a few citations between me and @Rock & roll is not dead:, particularly over Kick (service).

Thanks, 2601AC47 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Why was my lack of interest in YouTubers included in the status update of this article...? Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was what you pointed out to me. Like I said then, I was hoping that participants of the Wikiproject maybe interested. And despite now almost being nothing to add since the streamer's removal from the YT partner program and almost no word from him, there is still interest in the article's improvement. Also, if you're still wondering about his controversies, no, I've not found a good place for them. 2601AC47 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I just don't understand what my comment indicating I wasn't interested in contributing to the article at the Wikiproject discussion does to benefit this peer review. I've made zero contributions to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not asking you to do so. Just quoting.
In any case, brief history: On March 19, 2018, Valoem created the article as seen here. It was briefly subjected for deletion in late April that year; with 7 keeps, 1 move to draft and no deletes, it was kept incontrovertibly in May. By then, it looked like this. 2 years later, after he was banned from Twitch, it looked like this. It was semiprotected for the first time afterwards (currently it is through August).
Progressing every mid-year onward: 2021; 2022; 2023; and before a reason was released by Cody Conners in 2024. Each time, it was proven to be notable. I first edited it in July 2020; one little edit in September 2023 here; and my first in a line of 50+ edits on June 29. All in good faith and with the intent to improve this to meet the B-class criteria, which I think definitely does unless proven otherwise. 2601AC47 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Godzilla Minus One[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for a second peer review (the first one was for GA, which it passed) because I'd like to bring it to FAC within the next few months. This is probably the largest and most ambitious film article I've ever done and am still a bit unsure about how to format some things, so I'd appreciate any feedback. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Sims 4[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in working on an FAC attempt for this. I took this article to GA status in Nov 2022, which involved basically rewriting the entire article, so I can handle any changes/edits from minor to major.

Thanks, Theknine2 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of generation IX Pokémon[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FL, and wish to get the suggestions of other editors, since I lack prior experience with featured articles and lists and this is the single most unwieldy article I've ever had to work on so far. I intend to take the other eight generation lists on as well, but I'm starting here given how recent the content is. For this review, I'm primarily looking for:

-Copy-editing, to catch typos, strange wordings, or things that could be better phrased in the article.

-Additional context. What additional context does the reader need to understand everything in the article? I've done my best to try and cover the basics but I feel there's more I could do/stuff that slipped through the cracks.

-Reception section. The Reception for this generation is surprisingly very weak, and most of the only significant articles are from TheGamer (While they're a great source, I feel their overuse is lackluster.) I'll take literally any source suggestions or ideas I can get because finding even what I was able to pump out took several hours to research and put together. While this shouldn't impact LISTN, I do wish to have something decent here.

-Conception and design. Not quite sure what to do with it, since outside of some miscellaneous designer confirmations that can be covered in the cells individually, this generation has no design information. Most gens don't, but this list suffers from recency in that regard. I was considering listing the other reveals prior to release in there, akin to the line currently there about the starters, but I'm admittedly unsure and would appreciate feedback on this.

-What overall needs to be done to make it FL ready. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the standards, and though I'm aware of a good chunk of it, I wish to have some more experienced editors take a look over this first so I can make sure I've got everything down and correct.

Thanks, Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse[edit]

Going to start a source review in a few days. I'm busy with two FACs at the moment. lunaeclipse (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Take as much time as you need, and best of luck with your FACs. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A large majority this list relies on the following sources:
    • Dot Esports (it's reliable but I wouldn't use it for featured content due to some quality concerns)
    • Valnet news sites:
      • ScreenRant, GameRant and TheGamer sources should be replaced with more high quality ones.

lunaeclipse (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEclipse I've made sure only to use the aforementioned sources for verification purposes (And not Reception) but either way I plan on looking into replacement sources for some of the ones I know can be easily substituted by higher quality sources (Since I know quite a few of these subjects got covered by stuff like Polygon and the like). The main reason I'm using a good chunk of these is the fact physical characteristics aren't easy to source. It's hard to verify basic claims on their appearances at times. I'll see what I can do since I know some replacements should exist for certain ones but in some cases some of these subjects got very little coverage in comparison to others. Not sure if there's an easy work-around for it but I'll see what I can do.
I will note TheGamer post August 2020 is considered a generally reliable source, regardless of the fact it's Valnet-owned, so using sources from there shouldn't be an issue for FAC.
Do you have any concerns about any of the other things I've addressed in the lead? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(pinging Pokelego999) lunaeclipse (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Shirt (song)

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 July 2024, 01:50 UTC
Last edit: 7 July 2024, 14:02 UTC


Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)[edit]


i've listed this article for peer review because i am interested in improving the article to FA status. also, if it gets FA status, the 1989 (album) topic is able to accommodate one more good article to keep its featured topic status, so i should be able to create another article (to add to the topic) (fyi the article is i wish you would, and i found lots of sources). furthermore, it would help me get a featured article under my belt, which i have none (and i tried with outram park mrt station but failed.

thanks, brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh[edit]


Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh was a BBC radio comedy starring Kenneth Horne and Richard Murdoch; it was one of the shows that built up Horne's reputation prior to his great successes with Beyond Our Ken and Round the Horne. This article went through a re-write in 2022 and a further recent brush up, with a possible FAC shot, unless reviewers counsel otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 12:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two penn'orth to the above: in the FA article on Round the Horne we followed the usual Wikipedia convention of using the present tense: "...is a radio show" etc. For the ITMA FA we used the past tense – "was a radio show" etc – because little of it survives in recordings and it is seldom heard on air, whereas Round the Horne receives frequent, one might almost say regular, rebroadcasts decades after its first transmission. Much Binding has had a few outings in the years since the first broadcasts, but SchroCat and I think that the past tense, à la ITMA, is the right one here. We'd be glad of reviewers' thoughts on this point. Tim riley talk 18:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schminnte[edit]

I'll take a crack at this one, looking forward to a good read.

Lede
  • Per MOS:ORDER, {{Italictitle}} should be below the short description.
  • I feel that it should be explicitly stated that this is a radio comedy in the first sentence, à la ITMA.
    If we say "was a radio comedy", that would mean repeating the word "radio" three times in the sentence
    This would work if taken along with the suggestion just below, but I see what you mean otherwise - S
  • More generally, I think the first sentence would benefit from discussing Murdoch and Horne instead of the broadcaster, since they were the constant throughout.
    We'll have a think about that. There are pluses and minuses to both. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could broadcast from 1944 to 1950 and 1951 to 1954 by BBC Radio and in 1950–51 by Radio Luxembourg be rephrased in relation to the BBC, something like "broadcast from 1944 to 1954 by BBC Radio, with one season broadcast by Radio Luxembourg in 1950–1951"? This reduces repetition and sounds more natural to me.
    But makes it incorrect - this way sounds like it was broadcast on both BBC and RL in 50-51. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, doesn't it. My main issue was the repetition and flow. I wonder if there is a way to reduce this while keeping all nuance - S
  • Regardless of above, it should be a comma after "Edwards".
  • finally the show became the chronicle of a newspaper, The Weekly Bind. "Finally" could be rephrased to "for its last season" for more clarity.
  • Also, I think a comma after club would be nice.
  • Among the supporting cast were, I think "was" instead of "were" as "supporting cast" is singular.
    But the cast were plural - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I parsed the sentence wrongly - S
  • Singers in the musical interludes in the show included Gwen Catley, Maudie Edwards. Binnie Hale and Doris Hare. To remove repetition, try "Singers in the show's musical interludes included Gwen Catley, Maudie Edwards, Binnie Hale and Doris Hare"?
Background
  • I think the ITMA in brackets should be italics.
  • Stand Easy for the Army and, for the Royal Air Force superfluous space after comma.
  • a BBC radio show for the Air Force, based on those who worked for the RAF Balloon Command comma is unnecessary.

More to come later. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 20:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Most of these done, but I need to have a chat with the one-armed bandit, once he is able to type properly again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the plaster will be coming off on Wednesday. Shall ping you, if so. Tim riley talk 20:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above, will try to finish reviewing sometime this week. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 14:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Undertale[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA status. Expecting a TFA on the game's tenth anniversary.

Thanks, lunaeclipse (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skyshifter

Welp, I literally had that same idea too! Here are some things that I'm pretty sure should be done before a FAC.

  • Undertale has been studied in multiple scholarly sources. Adding them is necessary for a comprehensive article. It's possible that a "Themes" section can be created.
  • The Reception section seems lacking, for a game that received so much attention — in fact, I originally planned to rewrite this section. More reviews and aspects of the game can be added here.
  • "Impact and legacy" can likely be expanded to include Undertale's influence in other games. Some retrospective Undertale articles (i.e. "Undertale was released 5 years ago" etc.) could probably be added here. "Fandom" could likely be expanded too — in fact, I think an Undertale fandom article is feasible.

Skyshiftertalk 13:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BP!
  • Game Rant sources are low-quality sources that should be omitted.
  • Italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE (this was brought up at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ada Wong/archive1).
  • Works/websites/magazines should be all linked at citations
  • Italicize the works/websites/magazines since some of them aren't yet, like IGN.
  • If some citations don't have an author, just simply remove the "staff" as an author since it's irrelevant.
  • Several citations don't have authors. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Biggs (singer)[edit]


I came across this article when it was the subject of an AfD for a supposed lack of notability, as well as being badly written. As I am Brazilian and would be able to read the Portuguese-language sources, I took it as a fun exercise to try to bring this article about a forgotten former child star up to Wikipedia standards, adding sources, formatting and copy-editing. I now believe it qualifies for C or B-class status, but would like your feedback as to what is appropriate and what could be improved upon (or whether it even meets the criteria for either of these).

Thanks for the atention, CVDX (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from brachy08[edit]

hello, cvdx. congratulations on saving this article from getting afd’d. personally, i feel that this article can reach c class, not sure about b tho. i feel that the article definitely improved from its initial state. if you want to, you can jump straight into nominating it for ga status. but if you fell like this article has a long way to go, try to find as many sources as possible (if you are not sure what is reliable or not, this should help a bit, but it is best to use wp:rsp brachy08 (chat here lol) 05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Luna (Feid and ATL Jacob song)[edit]

Previous peer review


Currently a GA, but I want to upgrade it to FA. I don't want to make the same potential mistake I made here, so I'm nominating it here first. I think that in the rest of the criteria for FA the article has no problem, but the prose part is the most complicated for me. In additon, I want a mentor for this.

Thanks, Santi (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fire (Kittie album)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... GA attempt. Not now because there will probably be more sources to come in the future, but still. CHECK: prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, any other forms of criticism welcome.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I Feel It Coming[edit]


I plan to begin a FAC for this article soon, but I feel as if I should go through with a peer review to get feedback on some parts that can have better wording, and some that could be excluded in general. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 04:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Beard, Wives, Denim[edit]


I have massively expanded this article over the past day week and I'm looking for advice as to if the article would qualify for C-class, or how it can be improved further.

Regards, Milkk7 (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Growing Up (The Linda Lindas 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: 17 June 2024, 20:33 UTC
Last edit: 28 June 2024, 23:06 UTC


Captain America[edit]


I brought this article to GA about a year ago, where reviewer Thebiguglyalien suggested that it may be a suitable candidate for FA status. The article has remained relatively stable in the time since that review, so I wanted to put the article before a larger audience of editors to identify any potential deficiencies, and get a temperature check on whether it is ready to undergo the FAC process. Thanks in advance for any input you're able to provide. Morgan695 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar[edit]

I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Tyla (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: 10 June 2024, 07:23 UTC
Last edit: 7 July 2024, 17:54 UTC


Jenna Ortega[edit]


Hi, all. I'd like to get this article to FA-status in the future; any comments on how it could be improved would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse[edit]

Going to review this article's references in a bit. I currently have a peer review open for DJ Kool Herc, it would be nice if you checked it out.

OK, here are my comments:

🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, LunaEclipse! Thanks for your comments—I've removed Ty Burr's blog and any Valnet-owned sources. I'll try and review DJ Kool Herc by the end of next week. Again, thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism[edit]

Hello Pamzeis! This will be my first contribution to a PR; delighted to be reviewing your article! Some things I'm noticing below:

  • Her mother attempted to distract her with activities... — The meaning is obvious, but would benefit from adding the word "other" before "activities"; there's a subtle implication that acting does not fall under "activities" with this wording.
    •  Done
  • ...adding that her family "keep [her] feet on the ground". — Should be "keep[s]", if I'm not mistaken; in American English the word "family" is treated as a single unit. A bit of a pedantic point, but the article is tagged American English, and my American brain clocked it as a bit strange.
    •  Done
    • Otherwise, it's very well-written as it stands. Well done!
      • Thanks!
  • Images look good as far as Creative Commons licensing goes (the one in the main infobox is of exceptional quality for a YouTube screenshot - I wish I could find good screengrabs like that more often). The audio clip of her voice LGTM too.
  • Sources all look WP:RS at a cursory glance.
  • Thank you for providing alt text for the images :)
  • MOS:LEADLENGTH feels a bit short given the 3000+ word count – you could likely expound a little bit more on her other ventures and her artistry within reason, I understand you've gone over most of her career highlights in the lead already
Hi, Joeyquism! A belated welcome to PR! Hope you decide to stick around. Apologies for not responding earlier; I have not been the most active on wiki lately. I will try to resolve your comment on the lead (though writing leads are definitely not my strong point), but I may rework some sections of the article before I do so. Thanks for the comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Glad to hear from you, and I’ll keep an eye out for your updates! joeyquism (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Tapir![edit]


Now that this article has achieved GA, I'd like to aim for FA, but I need some disinterested eyes to help me see if there's anything that needs to be improved and if it stands any chance of getting FA anytime soon - since I'm a fan of the band and the main contributor to the article, I don't think I can be as neutral about the article's quality as I'd like to be, and I don't know enough about the FAC process to know if it's anywhere close to FA.

Thanks in advance! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should list some important awards and nominations the band has received, highlighting their status and recognition in the music industry. Additionally, it should provide the band's official website and social media links to make it easier for the public to learn about them through performance videos. I hope this helps. Kikolipu (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the late reply - I saw this then completely forgot about it :P The official website is provided in the infobox, and due to being a very new band they haven't received any awards that I can find.
What about the question I asked in my original comment - is the article anywhere close to FA? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Knives Out

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: 14 May 2024, 15:22 UTC
Last edit: 6 July 2024, 01:54 UTC


List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes (seasons 1–19)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it could be considered for featured list status and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead and the references. I want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Campbell's Soup Cans[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended at the failed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2. When it was demoted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 the review mentioned both "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" as well as MOS concerns. Please point out any remaining problems from either of those two reviews and help me address them. I believe I have addressed the image issues.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Be advised that I intend to pursue WP:GA, WP:DYK and WP:FA for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720[edit]

@TonyTheTiger: This has been open for quite a long time without comment. Can this be closed and nominated to WP:FAC, or are you still looking for feedback? Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get comments. Also, it has been difficult for some PRs to get feedback, especially ones that are to go to FAC or are as long as this article. I am also aware of the fact that this PR should have closed when it was nominated for GAN a couple months ago, per the instructions, step 4. If you want to keep this open, I suggest that you post a request on the Wikiprojects attached to this article to see if anyone would like to leave feedback. Bringing it to FAC might also generate feedback on how to improve the article, even if it is unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the busy season for my work. A FAC is a big commitment.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)

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 March 2024, 01:03 UTC
Last edit: 19 June 2024, 23:12 UTC


Born to Run

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 February 2024, 15:44 UTC
Last edit: 11 June 2024, 16:49 UTC


Everyday life[edit]

Kim Kitsuragi[edit]


Looking for input from someone who is good at organizing/summarizing an overwhelming number of sources. I'm hoping to take this article to GA, maybe even further. The article could mainly use a second opinion on what's missing, and anything that seems unclear to an outside reader. There are a lot of sources that talk about this character. Maybe too many. I don't want to fully omit sources in the interest of brevity, but I know there is a better way to summarize and organize the reception. I'd appreciate an outside opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Lede needs to be expanded.
  • Appearances needs to be expanded, per the orange banner.
  • Reception is way too long. Consider reading WP:RECEPTION and organise the section by categories.
  • Has this person influenced culture or society?

Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I can definitely expand the lead and the appearances section. I agree with you about the reception, and could use some more feedback. Can you suggest some ways to cover the same material in a more organized, succinct way? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: WP:RECEPTION has suggestions on how to do this. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some few changes and removed Cultured Vultures as unreliable. I think the interview and commentary about its portrayal could be potentially be removed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to work with it. If anyone has more specific ideas for the reception, I'll leave this Peer Review open for another week or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Engineering and technology[edit]

Chaparral 2F[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what it takes to make this a featured article. Specifically, focus on article tone, lede, and summary style.

Thanks, X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great article! The lede generally looks good. I think that one thing I'd say is that the last sentence could probably be simplified (With the amounts of mechanical grip the car and tires could provide...).
If my understanding is correct, the last sentence is expanding on the sentence before it by explaining in more detail (1) what type of influence this car has had on F1 car design (specifically, the aero) and (2) specifically who adopted these changes. I think that it would help if the dependent clause With the amounts of mechanical grip... was shortened or cut. It disrupts the flow b/w the last and 2nd to last sentences, and doesn't add much to conveying ideas (1) and (2). spintheer (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar[edit]

I have added the article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles posted there. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Nuclear clock[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Created on behalf of User:97.102.205.224 by Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from Cryolophosaur[edit]

Overall, I think it does a good job of being accessible to non-technical readers; as someone not particularly familiar with physics or chemistry, I felt it was a pretty easy read. A few suggestions for improvement:

  • The final few sentences of the lead section (about the suitability of thorium-229m) are confusing in isolation; the lead doesn't make it clear why energy or laser excitation are relevant. The following section expands on this, but in general, lead sections should stand on their own.
  • There seem to be several violations of WP:EDITORIAL throughout the article. I fixed one of these myself, but many of them I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to elegantly rephrase the sentences. Some examples: "it is also intriguing", "it is evident", and "fortunately".
  • The end of the ionization section mentions "the loss is tolerable", which left me wondering what "tolerable" means in this context and should probably be expanded on.

Cryolophosaur (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General[edit]

Nestory Irankunda[edit]


I have listed this article for peer review in hopes of making it a featured article in the future. Any comments on how to improve is welcome.

Thanks, JC Kotisow (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SafariScribe[edit]

  • While the lead needs rewriting, the third paragraph, "Irankunda was announced to join Bayern Munich in July 2024 for an undisclosed fee, presumably, breaking the A-League transfer record " is too short and should be merged with the fourth one.
  • This line, "Born in Tanzania, Irankunda has represented Australia at youth level" should go to the second paragraph. Second paragraph is the line after the infobox
  • Also add the Tanzania part where he was born and link them. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe Thanks for your comment. I have reworded the lead according to your views. JC Kotisow (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC PR sidebar[edit]

I added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles on that list. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Aishwarya Rai Bachchan[edit]


The article was copy-edited back in February 2024 and passed a GA review in May 2024. My ultimate aim is to take this to FA status and I would welcome some detailed feedback and comments on its prose and sources as well as other aspects. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 17:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the career description of this actress is too lengthy and convoluted, mixing plot details, reviews, and awards. It's not concise enough for the general audience to grasp the core information. Wouldn't it be better to separate career, awards, and critical reception into distinct sections? Also, I don't understand why the description of her appearance is clearer and longer than her accolades. Kikolipu (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment but I tend to disagree. We cannot create a laundry list of everything and then scatter them across different sections. The article needs to have a chronological order and a flow with relevant information put together. For FA examples with similar structures, you can look at Angelina Jolie or Deepika Padukone. Keivan.fTalk 04:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


English whisky[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it requires reviewing by someone with more experience in topic who may see something I may have missed and improve the article. Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Game Boy[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it feels well-written and referenced, but it recently failed a GA nomination. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very good because it provides a detailed introduction from the development to the sales of Game Boy, compares it with other competitors, and points out the advantages of Game Boy, which can provide great help to confused consumers.ZHANG0822ZH (talk) 10 June 2024(UTC)

Kusma[edit]

Will make some comments soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: might even be more interesting to state it was the best selling console at the time than that it is by now only number four.
  • Development: maybe explain in a sentence or so what "Game & Watch" was
  • Try to combine paragraphs into longer units that flow better instead of the short stubby paragraphs.
  • Yamauchi rejected the TN technology as too hard to see the technology was hard to see? Or do you mean it was too hard to see something on the screen? (I find it difficult to this day to see anything on the screen of a Gameboy Color, but that's not the article's fault).
  • Okada had worked on an electronic game [...], he thought it would be possible if you must put this in one sentence, separate the parts with a semicolon. Better split it up into shorter sentences.
  • The Game Link cable was generally used for various mutiplayer activities (I remember playing multiplayer Tetris), not just for Pokemon.
  • Okada pushed to make development tools available for third-party developers, a shortcoming of the launch of the NES if you want to say that the third-party developer tools for the NES were not yet available when it launched, you need to add a few words. Or do you mean that tools were available for the NES and it was bad for its launch?
  • How much did the original Game Boy cost when it was introduced?
  • Technical specifications: we haven't been told about the Game Boy Pocket and Game Boy Light yet in the body, so their appearance in the table is a bit of a surprise. Why is the Game Boy Color missing here? In a comparative table it would be good to have it.
  • There is also nothing on the Game Boy Color in the "Revision" section.
  • Launch titles: what about Europe?
  • Reception: the Game Boy's lower price along with longer battery life made it much more such much more what?
  • There is a "Critical reception" and a "sales" subsection. Most of the "critical reception" subsection is about sales.
  • There is actually extremely little critical reception here. The lead section claims it was a "cultural icon of the 1990s"; this does not seem to be substantiated in the body.
  • Sources: do not cite Wiktionary. You can link to it inline, but it is not a usable WP:RS.
  • Why is Rodrigo Copetti's website a reliable source?
  • Why is RealBoy Emulator Blog a reliable source?
  • GameBoy Development Wiki is not a reliable source.
  • Game Boy Owner's manual pictures on Flickr might be copyvio, and it may be better to cite a secondary source
  • I notice that the sourcing was also brought up at the GA review. This really needs to be improved if you want the article to become GA.

It is not a bad article, but sourcing and prose need improvements, and there is too little on reception and cultural impact. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Amiga Format[edit]


Amiga Format was one of the largest magazines dedicated to the Amiga brand of computers. However, not terribly much third-party information about the magazine exists, and I have made all the changes I could think of in the article, the few places needing citations notwithstanding. That said, I feel like there are gaps to fill in, such as style of reporting, more editor info, notable stories, etc., and I am not sure where to look. Note that the article largely consists of the History and Staff sections, and I have removed a large chunk about the regular features for not having any independent sources about them and lacking notability. I do know I can find more about the magazine in issues of Amiga Addict, of which I will have to ask others on this site to send PDFs to my email account. I will probably need someone much more familiar with this subject, or at least have access to the Amiga Addict articles, to reply. Thanks, FreeMediaKid$ 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma[edit]

I never read this particular magazine, but I grew up with an Amiga and remember how print magazines like this one shaped much of the home computing culture of the 1980s and 1990s. Nostalgia aside, here are some comments, mostly suggestions for improvement:

  • Lead: I would prefer to first say where the magazine came from and then how long it was published.
  • History: "the Amiga and Atari ST operating systems" these were not just operating systems, better to say something like "computers" or "computer families". Amiga and Atari ST were not just rivals, but also shared some hardware, most notably the Motorola 68000 CPU (and there were a few magazines covering something between "both" and "all " 68000 systems).
  • "in the wake of Future's sale of the video game magazine ACE to EMAP, it was decided to split the magazine" what is the relevance of the sale of ACE?
  • "Future decided to spin off the magazine after reader demands for magazines with narrowed interests" clarify / improve: they decided to create spin-off magazines in response to reader demand for magazines with narrower interest / after readers demanded magazines ...
  • Do we know how long Amiga Shopper / Amiga Power existed? Were they merged back into Amiga Format after they ended?
  • "The last tutorial was cut short in the middle because of the cancellation of the magazine" uncited and sad, but a bit trivial.
  • "Each issue of Amiga Format was provided with a cover disk containing an assortment of application software, public-domain (i.e. free of charge) games, and new game demos—a practice pioneered by Future Publishing and which it inherited from its predecessor, ST/Amiga Format—popularising the concept amongst its rival magazines" split long sentence and try to organise it more chronologically. As this seems a central claim of fame for this magazine, it should be explained properly.
  • "This practice drew ire from software publishers, and Amiga Format and its competitors agreed to halt it." er, why? Did they illegally publish these games without a license?
  • "Blitz BASIC subsequently overtook AMOS as the preferred way to program games" whose preferred way to program games? A few years earlier, C+Assembly was popular especially for anything serious.
  • "the United Kingdom's first computer magazine to attach two cover CDs to a single issue, the second in this case AGA users" what about the AGA users? I don't understand this.
  • I would suggest to split the "history" section into "history" and "content".
  • The "circulation" graphic is nearly unreadable at this size and still hard to read on the image description page. Perhaps you can move the sources to the description page instead of making people zoom in on the file?
  • Generally, you could consider starting the History section with a little bit of context on the Amiga (and the Atari ST) and their rising popularity in the late 1980s/early 1990s
  • As you say, "style of reporting" and similar things could be helpful to discuss in terms of content. How serious was the writing? Were the contests a regular feature? How was the split between hardware/application software/games? (You would not need to cover all of these topics to get the article to GA status, but it certainly is worth trying to address these points).

Thank you for working on this computer magazine! These magazines are an important part of computing culture that is in danger of being forgotten. Let me know if you want me to clarify anything (or even if you want more suggestions). —Kusma (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ada Wong

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: 4 July 2024, 07:33 UTC
Last edit: 16 July 2024, 01:23 UTC


2017 NHL expansion draft[edit]


Hoping to take this article to GA, but I'm not sure what still needs to be done to get it there. It certainly doesn't feel like it's ready, and IMO lacks enough prose, but I'm not sure how it can realistically be expanded beyond what it's currently at. The Kip (contribs) 20:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Geography and places[edit]

Palmyra Atoll[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article could be improved to meet GA standards.

Thanks, 141Pr -\contribs/- 06:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Scarsdale, New York[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA status.

Thanks, 48JCL TALK 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


History[edit]

Catherine, Princess of Wales[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I need to know the community's opinion on it before I send it to FAC for a second time. The first FAC was archived due to lack of general support, weak sourcing and prose issues. Since then, additional book sources have been introduced within the article, material has been trimmed and previous sources have been replaced with higher quality ones as and when needed.

Thanks, MSincccc (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

A few thoughts after a quick canter through the article:

  • "has played a significant role in various charitable activities" – this is the first of five "significant"s in the text. There is good advice in Plain Words: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?
  • "Her paternal family benefited financially from trust funds; her great-grandparents Noël and Olive Middleton, played host to members of the British royal family in the 1920s through to the 1940s" – three points here: (i) the semicolon leads one to suppose that the second part of the sentence is connected in some way to the first, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, (ii) you don't want the comma before "played", as this phrase is used restrictively (unless they were her only great-grandparents, which seems improbable) and (iii) is there any other way than financially to benefit from trust funds?
1) Replaced with a colon.

2) Dropped comma 3) These trust funds primarily offered financial benefits. Additionally, the Middleton family had other social and professional advantages. For instance, members of the family, such as solicitor Henry Dubs Middleton and Gertrude Middleton, attended prestigious institutions like Charterhouse and the University of Oxford. They also held significant social positions, with Noël Middleton hosting members of the British royal family and co-founding the Yorkshire Symphony Orchestra​

  • "The couple was given the country home Anmer Hall... Following their marriage in 2011, the couple used Nottingham Cottage" – you need to decide whether "couple" is a singular or a plural noun. Either is acceptable – I believe singular is more common in AmE and plural in BrE – but you should be consistent one way or the other.
Using the plural form that is more common in British English.
  • "mentioned in a personal letter released by Kensington Palace the previous day that she is still undergoing treatment for cancer" – past tense is called for here.
Done
  • "The meeting was well-received" – when a phrase is used as a predicative adjective it should not have a hyphen (although if used attributively, as in "It was a well-received meeting" the hyphen is in order).
Done
  • "marking their first visit to the region since becoming Duke and Duchess of Cornwall" – this is the first we've heard of their becoming Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. Few readers will know that the title is automatic for the heir apparent to the throne: a line of explanation is wanted here.
Done
  • "Former royal press secretary Dickie Arbiter" – clunky tabloidese false title here.
Done

I can't pretend I read the entire text as thoroughly as I would normally do when reviewing an article: I found the exhaustive detail sapping my will to live part of the way through the Charity Work section. But I hope these few comments are helpful. Tim riley talk 12:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Thanks for your time and suggestions. Please do let me know if you have any further suggestions for me. Looking forward to your response to the above responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Brighton hotel bombing

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: 26 June 2024, 09:19 UTC
Last edit: 13 July 2024, 15:58 UTC


Military logistics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... I am unsure of whether the article covers the topic or not. The history section is now a summary of a long article (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). Suggestions as to what else the article should cover and ideas for improvement sought.

Thanks, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Neue Deutsche Heilkunde[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because...

1. I feel the article is at a good start. I think its missing some events that I didn't find for one reason or another.

I want to add a section about the the mass expulsion of Jewish/ marginalized groups from the medical field in Germany. However, I feel I couldn't do it justice.

2. Also, I cannot read German and rely on AI translations so there might be errors possibly. And makes reading books on the topic much slower / and excludes goldmines of information.

3. I don't know if the formatting is correct for Wikipedia standards.

Overall I'd like to see more historical details and format correction.

Thanks, Gameking69 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Regency of Algiers

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: 4 May 2024, 08:04 UTC
Last edit: 7 July 2024, 12:34 UTC


Nezak Huns

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: 6 March 2024, 14:05 UTC
Last edit: 12 June 2024, 15:07 UTC


Muckrach Castle

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 March 2024, 20:25 UTC
Last edit: 15 July 2024, 15:46 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Plant micro-reserve[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GAN soon. I have worked extensively on plant species articles, but this is my first on a broader topic in the field. I would appreciate input on broadness, readability, and general manual of style. I do intend to eventually go for FAC with it, so anything beyond GA criteria is also more than welcome. Happy to peer review an article of yours in exchange! Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Brown bear[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how to improve this highly important article.

Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and Vanamonde93: Pinging the two main reviewers of my last FAC. I took your advice and will be stepping away from narwhal for a little while. In the meantime, I've taken it upon myself to really work on this article. What are your thoughts? FA-level? Or in need of more work? I'd appreciate reviews below. Regards, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be waiting for a maximum of 2 months for a response. I'm in no rush to get this article to FA-status. In the meantime, I'll be dropping at WP:Guild of copy editors. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 10:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the "Interspecific predatory relationships" could use some trimming. I don't think interactions with smaller predators like wolverines and eagles is that important. One record of a golden eagle eating a cub is trivial, just like the line about a dead polar bear cub in a brown bear den. I suggest sticking to their main enemies and how they interact ecologically. The lines on polar bears could be rewritten using this as a source. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

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: 16 June 2024, 07:32 UTC
Last edit: 3 July 2024, 19:52 UTC


Rhea (moon)

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: 14 June 2024, 21:31 UTC
Last edit: 4 July 2024, 19:53 UTC


Algebra[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


IAU designated constellations[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it is in excellent shape and I'd like to go for featured list. I wanted to get the opinions on that for further improvement.

Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma[edit]

Looks pretty good. I have a few comments and suggestions for minor improvements. I know very little about astronomy, so I might be wrong, so don't listen to me if you think my suggestions are bad.

  • In the lead, would it make sense to mention that Argo was split in 1750?
  • Lead image: you could link equirectangular projection. Do I understand correctly that this image is the only thing in the article actually defining what the modern constellations are? What does the epoch mean?
  • History: this is a bit too short. We are lacking what Ptolemy did, that the Southern celestial hemisphere is not observable from Europe, so these constellations were defined much later than the others. Then you could mention some of the most influential people like Lacaille, and mention what Delporte did and what the IAU did in 1922 and 1928.
  • Modern constellations: if not in the History section, you should explain here that they are defined (more or less) by the lines in the image. (In particular they are not just a small number of visible stars each).
  • There is a lot of detail on the abbreviations. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes the lack of history more noticeable.
  • Does anybody still use the "NASA abbreviations"?
  • Table: Does "created by Keyser and de Houtman" mean the constellation and name were invented by these people? There are a lot of these; maybe they should be mentioned in the History section.
  • It is a bit unclear which "meanings" get a link and which do not. Some links go to disambiguation pages, which is not very helpful
  • Would pictures in the table be useful or not?
  • Asterisms: was there actually a difference in meaning between "asterism" and "constellation" before people tried to unify the definitions?
  • It is not clear to me that this (very short) section should be at the end; actually, as part of clarifying the definition, stating what a constellation is versus an asterism might make sense pretty early on.

Hope some of this is helpful, good luck with FLC when you go there. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review and those comments were extremely helpful. I'll definitely incorporate them into the article. Thanks again and happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of nonlinear ordinary differential equations

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 2024, 07:07 UTC
Last edit: 25 June 2024, 11:44 UTC


Nodoroc[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love to see it get a higher rating at some point.

Thanks, MallardTV (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

I think this article is off to a great start. I would continue looking for sources for the article and adding information. For ideas of what to include in the article, and how to format the information, I would look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles about volcanoes such as Cerro Blanco (volcano) or Coropuna. I hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Language and literature[edit]

Weise's law

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: 6 July 2024, 14:33 UTC
Last edit: 11 July 2024, 21:26 UTC


Geographia Generalis[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it as much as possible. I recently created this article, and I'd like outside feedback. Comments about formatting, content, or general editing are welcome. Hoping to bring this up to good article status at some point in the future.

Thanks, GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese characters

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: 30 May 2024, 19:24 UTC
Last edit: 2 July 2024, 18:51 UTC


Idris Bazorkin[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for FA. I'm mostly concerned about the grammar and the possible close paraphrasing. Thanks in advance. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Added link to Ingush in first summary sentence, might not be obvious to readers. Lacanic (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123: This has been open for over two months without comments. Are you still looking for comments, or can this be closed and nominated for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Z1720! I was looking forward to see comments, but unfortunately nobody commented anything... I'm really not sure if I should nominate it for FAC as I'm sure it would be wiser to first receive peer review. Would you happen to have any comments regarding the article? WikiEditor123… 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you nominate the article for WP:GA first. This will allow you to get comments on the article in a lower-stakes environment. I always nominate articles for GA first before going to FA. Some comments after a quick skim:
  • I think the lede is too long for the length of the article. I would suggest cutting this down to three paragraphs.
  • I would add a new level 3 heading to divide the "Early life" section because it is quite long.
  • Add some more images. Any images of his work? Maybe the cover of a playbill for the plays? Other images of the person?
  • Legacy is too short. Suggest expanding this with commentary about his work. Any statues or things named after him?
  • Some of the sources listed are not used as inline citations. I suggest that these are used, or removed.
  • This is a personal preference, but since you have so many sources, you can split the sources into two columns. I did this with the "Works cited" section of William Lyon Mackenzie.
  • Per WP:ALLCAPS, the titles of sources should be in sentence case. Some of the titles are all caps in Russian and should be corrected.
  • "Further reading" section should either be used as a source or removed.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123: To ensure that they saw this. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Z1720. You recommended adding more images but I'm not sure if I can if most, if not all, images of Idris Bazorkin are either copyrighted or not under clear copyright. Can I add more non-free images to the article under fair use? WikiEditor123… 19:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiEditor1234567123: Yes, non-fair use images can be added to the article so long as the correct licencing is used for the image. Also, take a look in Commons to see if any free-use images have been uploaded there. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

Military dictatorship[edit]

Previous peer review


I'm opening a new peer review for this article after the last one failed to get any response. I'm hoping to bring this article to FAC, but it's a big topic and more feedback would be helpful. I'm especially interested in comprehensiveness, but as always, any feedback is appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see a high quality article on this important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The 'Formation process' section is dismissive of the role of political ideology in military coups and dictatorships, implying that this is a pretext. I don't think that this is correct, as there are a number of examples of where the military see themselves as having the right to overthrow the government and rule if political parties adopt non-military related policies they don't approve of - Turkey and Pakistan are examples of where the military has historically seen itself as being the guardian of the constitution (as defined by the military high command).
  • The 'Factors' section is a bit hard to follow
  • It would be good to discuss somewhere the role of indoctrination and political ideologies within the military in forming and sustaining military dictatorships. For instance, extremely few officers in modern western militaries would ever consider it appropriate to overthrow the government and if they took any steps to do this their comrades would either stop them or the rank and file soldiers would refuse to follow orders. This is due to the way in which officers are trained, as well as the strength of other political institutions.
  • The role of training in ending military dictatorships could also be noted - some sources argue that sending officers overseas for training where they were indoctrinated about the importance of civilian rule contributed to the downfall of military dictatorships in Europe in particular during the 1970s and 1980s.
  • I'd suggest expanding a bit on the situation where the military shares power with the civilian government as part of a democratisation process and the tensions this results in - Myanmar is a good example.
  • Likewise, I'd suggest covering the situation where while the country is led by non-democratic civilian regime the the military is a significant political player in supporting it - Zimbabwe is an example.
  • The 'use of force' section should note that the extent to which military dictatorships use repressive and violent tactics domestically varies. For instance, the Cold War era military regime in Brazil was much less likely to kill its opponents than those in Argentina and Chile.
  • The 'South Asia' section is under-developed and should discuss the role the Army sees for itself in Pakistan.
  • You could possibly more explicitly flesh out the material on the self-defeating nature of military dictatorships for the military in many countries, where political instability, slow economic growth and a lack of international support undermine funding for the military and its prestige over time, especially in relation to the external opponents the military is meant to be countering. Pakistan and Thailand are good examples. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to say that I've seen this, I just want to wait a bit to see if there's other feedback or additional considerations that touch on the same areas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Suicidal Tour[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured article status, and since it's my first time doing so, I want to get a more experienced editor's opinion on it.

Thanks, – Hilst [talk] 00:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for almost a month and planning to take it onto a FAC. Just wanted to run it by the Peer Review for reviews and suggestions as it's my first FAC nom.

Thanks, Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Majed Abu Maraheel[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate as a FAC soon! The article has a lot of information and I just need some comments on how to improve the prose (mostly), and other things that could be added towards the advancement of the article.

Thanks, Arconning (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ateneo de Zamboanga University[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what I need to expand on for it to meet B-class criteria.

Thanks, Raymondsiyluy05 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of Dutch (in)formateurs and scouts[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to turn it into a Featured List in the future. I have a few specific questions:

  • Is the introduction good enough for anyone not familiar with the topic?
  • Does the default sorting method make sense, or should I do ascending on date? (I prefered the most recent at the top, as I can imagine more readers would look up the more recent ones)
  • Should I include the end date, given that the table is already wide (and I can be deduced from the number of days)?

But any feedback is welcome Thanks, Dajasj (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the topic, but still think I can give some pointers. I like the default order, but I'm unaware of any specific MOS elements. Don't include the end date, as this would pose an accessibility issue if the table is too wide. Other nitpicks
  • The Maas book doesn't have a translated title. Might want to add for consistency. In citation 106, the "De" of de Bruijn is not capitalised. I assume we use Dutch rules for this and capitalise?
  • I wouldn't capitalise Prime Minister
  • However, some formateurs were instructed to do preliminary informing work --> I don't know what the word informing means in this context. Can it be omitted? I assume it refers to the work the informateur does, but not sure it translates to English.
  • For all roles, they are often members of the largest party --> The roles are often filled by members of the largest party (awkward prose).
  • Evaluatie kabinetsformatie 2017 is too meaty a document to not have a page number.
  • Until 2017 -> Before 2017
  • It was customary for a formateur not to accept the assignment immediately, but to consider it until the formateur believes there is certainty that the cabinet can be formed --> it was customary for a formateur to delay accepting the assignment until confident that a cabinet could indeed be formed.
  • Since 1989, it has been customary for the first informateur to receive an assignment to explore the possibilities for a cabinet within a short period of time. --> Since 1989, the initial informateur is tasked with quickly exploring cabinet possibilities. (or coalition possibilities)
  • The text doesn't mention why we need so many steps in the process. That is to say, that there is an increasing number of parties that form part of a possible coalition. I think this is important historical context.
Hope that's helpful! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have adressed all but two of them. I will need time more time and sources to look into the word "informing" and the last point (I have not come across that yet explicitly in sources). Again, thanks for taking the time to review this list! Dajasj (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to your last point, I have searched for an explanation, but none of the sources I have read explicitly state that the number of parties or complexity are a reason for the introduction of the informateur or having so many phases. There is a source that states that fragmentation is a reason for longer formations, but the summary (the book is too niche and too expensive for me) does not mention anything about the number of phases. Dajasj (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking! The longer length of the formation itself may be worth mentioning in the lead for extra context. Two more comments:
  • You introduce the changing role of the formateur before you introduce the informateur and scout in the last paragraph. I understand what You're doing, but it doesn't quite work for me.
  • The tense in the last sentence should be "have been appointed". The sentence works better if it starts with " Since then"
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have changed both points and will look into the length of the formation asap. Dajasj (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I have looked into length of the formation. It is obvious from the list that formations have become longer, but there is no source specifically saying that. I could create a graph in the future, but if I remember correctly, the templates are still down.
I could include information about what makes a formation, but that would make more sense on the page List of Dutch cabinet formations. Dajasj (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Matthew Charles Johnson[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got this page to GA and I am looking to see its likelihood of being promoted to FA-class.

Thanks, GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar[edit]

I have added the article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

Interesting article. A few fairly quick points:

  • Bearing in mind WP:NOTNEWS, could you outline the notability case for this subject? Most of the sources seem either to be connected to his trials or to be closer to sensationalist tabloidism than scholarly sources (the Vice article, namely). Can we demonstrate that this person has enduring notability, beyond the interest that existed in his crimes and trial at the time?
  • The tone of the article sometimes gets a little too empathetic, or a little too close to journalistic, for an encyclopaedia. A few illustrative examples:
    • Johnson's early life was marked by familial challenges: better to be factual about what these challenges were.
    • His most infamous crime: infamous is not a neutral word or really one we can verify. Better to simply state that he committed this crime.
    • There are a lot of slightly euphemistic references to "troubled youths", "difficulties" etc in his childhood -- as above, we should be dispassionate and factual here.
    • Johnson became involved in the use of amphetamines, marijuana, and prescription medication at the age of 15: became involved in seems like a mealy-mouthed way of saying that he began misusing them (unless you mean that he dealt them).
    • Johnson went to multiple youth training centres and even jail for burglary: phrases like this as WP:EDITORIALISING and always best avoided.
    • Johnson secured employment as a concreter and was able to stay out of trouble until he suffered a workplace injury: likewise, euphemistic and slightly informal. Better to cut to the chase: "In 1997 (or whenever), he was injured at work [and lost his job?]; in January 1998, he carried out [again: euphemism of "was involved in" should be avoided] a series of armed robberies..."
  • In general, try to make sure that people from around the world can understand it: so "at the age of 11 or 12" is better than "in Year 7". Similarly, it's a good idea to convert AUSD amounts into USD.
  • Our paragraph on the Conyers murder casts the very strong aspersion that he was guilty, despite the jury's verdict to the contrary. Are we following sources in doing so? If not, the detailed account of what was "alleged", which is presumably untrue (at least as far as the law is concerned), should be cut down or reworded as what happened to Conyers.
  • What makes Roberta Williams notable enough for a redlink?

UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Napier Technical College (New Zealand)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.

Thanks, —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


BP Refinery v Tracey[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to go for my first ever Four Award, which inevitably means getting an article I created to FA status. I have gotten decent at getting my work through DYK and GA, but FA eludes me. I was wondering if I could have people critique my work the same way they would if it were at FA.

Thanks, — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse[edit]

Quick source review:

  • I'm unsure about the Fox News citation here, especially with the contentiousness (I mean, the man was literally fired for posting an Internet meme with Hitler in it) of the subject at hand. FAC demands the cream of the crop for this type of stuff. Do you have any other sources that can replace it?
  • I'm going to assume good faith for the CNBC source, as it's from a decently reputable TV channel.

🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Lists[edit]

Pedro Pascal on screen and stage[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... It is a list with citations, and I hope to see this become a featured list someday.

Thanks, BarntToust (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust, what makes [7] reliable? 48JCL 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is in practice a placeholder. just a list from the internet, but I personally might do professional & deep research to find these roles in a better context. I wasn't sure if using two list sources together would be improper WP:SYNTHESIS. Now I look at it, deep research into the bowels of the internet may have to be done to improve those cites.
Thanks for looking into that. Have yourself a good one! BarntToust (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject peer reviews[edit]