Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

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

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Arts[edit]

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Previous peer review


Hi editors. This article has endured a long process, like many do. I am hoping to get this to Featured Article status, but my main problem is low levels of response to Peer Reviews and Featured Article nominations, including the third nomination in September which received no comments. Its second FA nomination had a bit of support behind it so I am still remaining hopeful. I think the Peer Review space will be a good way to receive comments and make sure the article is up to standard before progressing.

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5 - they once rivalled The Wiggles in popularity, but as of this year, the band is inactive, ending a 20 year run. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed three Featured Article reviews. It has also undergone a Peer Review and I feel major issues have been addressed. I have been working on improving this page over the past five years. I am willing to put in the work to improve this article and am happy to make any adjustments. Thank you for taking the time to look at this page. Below, I am notifying some other editors who have previously been involved with reviews.

@Aoba47: @Casliber: @Dweller: @: Thank you to these editors for supporting the FA nomination in 2019. Hopefully you will lend your support to the promotion again.
@Nick-D: You were involved with the FA nomination and the Peer Review in 2019 and helped me to provide balanced views in the article. I would appreciate your continued feedback.
@Shaidar cuebiyar: Your assistance in helping this page to become a Good Article in 2016 was invaluable.
@Aircorn: Your support of Hi-5 (Australian TV series) in 2017 was indispensable. I would be grateful for further guidance.

I am looking forward to any support or feedback from any of these former supporters. Thank you in advance. 09:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


+1 (film)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to a higher status. Koridas 📣 22:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I know that with the right improvements, this article could become a good one in the future. Remember, any suggestions help!

Thanks, Horacio Vara (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


Royals (song)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... several users mentioned that a peer review or GOCE would be the fastest way for the article to obtain a bronze star. I previously submitted it for FAC and hope to renominate it in the future. The areas the article needs assistance in include: prose, syntax, and grammar.

Thanks, De88 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


Cups (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: 20 October 2020, 02:16 UTC
Last edit: 22 October 2020, 11:21 UTC


Wong Kar-wai[edit]


This is an article about one of the most prolific directors of world cinema. Overall I think the article is in good shape and is meticulously sourced. While I'm not the main editor of the article (the only major thing I've done is the lead), I plan to take this article to GA (will co-nominate with the main editor once I find out who that is), thus I'd appreciate any comments regarding prose issues. Thanks so much, (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Hanif Al Husaini[edit]

"Since its release, Fallen Angels has been considered to be one of Wong's greatest and most influential works, along with Chungking Express and In the Mood For Love." Where is the reference for this sentence? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's a big save! I removed the sentence because it appears to be a case of WP:FANCRUFT. (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


The Masked Singer (American TV series)

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 October 2020, 17:48 UTC
Last edit: 18 October 2020, 04:32 UTC


I Still See Your Face[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that, with some copyediting, it can reach GA. I first created this article in the Portuguese Wikipedia and it is currently a GA nominee there, with no opposition so far. I translated the entire article to English, however, since my English is not too good and I am not 100% familiar with the English Wikipedia standards, there might be some errors that I didn't notice.

Thanks, GhostP. talk 06:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Ojorojo I updated the infobox (easier than listing here, see Template:Infobox song#Parameters for current uses). I noticed some problems with the prose and the use of quote boxes – the Guild of Copy Editors may be helpful.[1] Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I opened a request there. GhostP. talk 15:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


Raiders of the Lost Ark[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA and I just want a once over by a third party to iron out any kinks ahead of time.

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


George Vincent (painter)

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 September 2020, 20:17 UTC
Last edit: 24 October 2020, 00:29 UTC


Eminem[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see it to FA status. All feedback is appreciated.

Thanks, RealFakeKimT 19:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


Grand Theft Auto IV

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 September 2020, 21:57 UTC
Last edit: 19 October 2020, 03:31 UTC


Don't Start Now[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to FA status. I have already had 1 unsuccessful attempt at it but I think it has lots of potential. Thanks, LOVI33 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


Cuca Roseta[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I created it recently and would like to submit for GA in the future. I would like to get some feedback and what needs to be improved in order to get there.

Thanks, Alan Islas (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


Tracing Faces[edit]

I wish for this article to be peer reviewed because I would like to one day nominate it for good article status. I would also appreciate any general comments on improvements that could be made. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)[edit]

Hi Sean Stephens. Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia.

As you might know, GAs are reviewed against six criteria (WP:GACR). I think this article is well on its way. The areas I see being a problem is "lead". The article has great sources, an appropriate image and what text is there is well written. However the lead is very short, so it doesn't summarise the body, and this would need to be improved.

The second thing is (in my opinion), that the text within the article is quite short. My impression is that some additional information could be included to flesh it out a bit. If the album is notable enough to get an encyclopedia entry here, my feeling is that some of the very short sections such as "Release and promotion", "Recording and composition" and "Background" could be expanded.

Luckily, there are lots of good articles to model yours on. Have a look at WP:GA and find some good articles about music albums and you'll have a better idea where to aim.

Good luck! Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Tom (LT)! This is all very very useful feedback, I'm very grateful you took the time to write such a detailed response. I will definitely take your suggestions/advice on board; I tend to agree that certain sections of this article are quite short, I will try to expand them where possible. Sean Stephens (talk)


JK-47[edit]

I wish for this this article to be peer reviewed because I would like to ensure it follows all relevant policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BLP. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article. When did he become known as JK-47? I read the Manual of Style and it seems yo say the lead section shouldn’t have references, but these should be incorporated into the body of the article. Is this possible? Overall though, great to have an interesting article about an up-and-coming young indigenous artist! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


Candy (Foxy Brown 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: 11 September 2020, 05:11 UTC
Last edit: 20 October 2020, 05:41 UTC


A Crow Looked at Me

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: 31 July 2020, 07:33 UTC
Last edit: 24 October 2020, 02:44 UTC


Everyday life[edit]

Cleavage (breasts)

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 September 2020, 09:13 UTC
Last edit: 23 October 2020, 14:36 UTC


Engineering and technology[edit]

Vidyasagar Setu[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to FA. Its my first FA attempt. It was listed GA back in 2013.

Thanks, ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24[edit]

I'll try and leave some comments soon. In the mean time you may want to list this article on Template:FAC peer review sidebar if FA is your goal. Aza24 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


General[edit]

Juventus F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because...I want to nominate this article for FAC. and would like to get others thoughts about it.

Thanks, REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


2b2t[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in potentially bringing its class up to A or Good-class. As I'm accustomed to editing this article for months, I'm interested to see if there's anything missing that readers would want to know.


Blue LoLãn[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if there are any errors.

Thanks, Ömer Ezgi Erdoğan (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


Warner Bros. Movie World

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: 11 October 2020, 04:47 UTC
Last edit: 20 October 2020, 23:22 UTC


Pottery Cottage murders[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because - this was my first attempt at writing an article and I've been expanding it over time. (Possibly too much!) I'd really like some feedback on what I've done so far and how it can be improved. I'd love to be able to get it to good article status, so any pointers would be much appreciated.

Thanks, DSQ (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

Fort Saskatchewan[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it recently became a Good Article, and I want to nominate it to be a featured article. I am not sure of what needs to be improved before it meets the critera, so I would greatly appreciate some feedback and advice on how to make it FA quality.

Thanks, CplKlinger (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

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 October 2020, 06:48 UTC
Last edit: 22 October 2020, 14:12 UTC


Nyborg Municipality[edit]


I'm working on all the pages for municipalities in Denmark, going through them one by one. Nyborg - my home municipality - was naturally the first. So I would like to see if the format and writing is good, considering a lot of pages will follow the same style. I also might nominate it for GA sometime, so ways to improve towards that would be nice, too.

Thanks. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


Darnestown, Maryland[edit]


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

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


Southend Pier[edit]


I have substantially rewritten much of this article over the past few weeks and would like to take it to GA, a grading I feel it should at least be at, given it's "longest pleasure pier in the world" status. I'd like to try and iron out any minor issues prior to doing this or consider any feedback on how it could further be enhanced. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


United States[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA status (and maybe one day, FA status...), primarily because of its high visibility. It was delisted in August of this year due to concerns about length and excessive detail. The readable prose size has decreased significantly thanks to the work of several editors, including myself, but my recent nomination for GA was deleted without explanation—I'm guessing because of length. Thus, I thought I might open a request for peer review.

I think one important area of improvement is the History section. It's just too detailed, but I feel like there will be significant resistance to removing/moving content from it.

Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Just a passing comment; I would never support an article this WP:SIZE at FAC, but not all reviewers agree with me. My reasoning (and general FAC advice as a former FAC delegate, now called Coord) is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. I think your best shot at FAC is to rigorously apply WP:SS, and I think sprawling Geography articles become maintenance nightmares very quickly. If you get it to around 7 or 8,000 words of readable prose (currently above 12,000), I would review. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


Indianapolis[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to receive feedback on areas of the article that may require more attention in order to bring it to Featured Article standards. Sections that may require more scrutiny than others include History and Economy. The latter section could probably be shortened and a new article started to accommodate the depth of the current information.

Thanks, Momoneymoproblemz (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You may want to list your request at Template:FAC peer review sidebar if FA is your goal. Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


History[edit]

Francis Saltus Van Boskerck[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I worked hard on it, it is my first article, and I would like to improve it in any way possible but am not sure how. Not sure what else to say. Thanks, mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


Tobias Watkins[edit]


I created this article about a month ago and have improved it some since then. I'm now pretty confident that it covers the breadth of the available scholarship on the subject in a way that fits Wikipedia's best practices, but I would really appreciate a few more people taking a look at the article to let me know any issues I'm not seeing because I've perhaps become to close to the product: POV, clarity, typos, anything that sounds questionable, etc. I believe he's an interesting marginal figure in US history and worthy of a decent Wikipedia article, so I appreciate your assistance. If you're interested in medical/political/military/literary/legal crossover history of the early American republic and/or the Baltimore/DC area, this article is for you!

Thanks, Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


Charles I of Anjou[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and prose should be checked before its FAC. The article is about a talented medieval ruler who was close to establish a Mediterranean empire in the 1270s, but his tyrannical methods cost him the island of Sicily after the Sicilian Vespers.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24[edit]

  • I don't know if I'm going to do an extensive review but I'll try and leave some random comments later. For the moment you may want to list your review at Template:FAC peer review sidebar if FAC is the plan for this one. Aza24 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your action. I do not understand the template, so I prefer not to list articles at it. Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


Ada Winifred Weekes Baker

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: 22 September 2020, 16:40 UTC
Last edit: 6 October 2020, 11:55 UTC


Huey Long[edit]


Although I am quite active with Featured lists, I really have little concrete understanding of what distinguishes a GA from an FA. I personally think that the "impeachment" and "assassination" sections are of the highest quality. If I ensured that the rest of the article was up to that standard, would I be good to go? Please tell me if anything else is lacking. I may not be able to act on everything now, but I hope to begin another big improving push once I can get my hands on a few more books. Thanks, ~ HAL333 22:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24[edit]

  • Some drive by comments:
  • If you're going for FA then a 5 paragraph lead will be advised against by many FAC reviewers. There's some where in the MOS that prefers 4
  • The songs in the Discography should be in quotes, not italicized (you can see that the song you linked already does this in its article)
  • Later this week I'll look more in depth Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hal, I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this and will get back to it in the next few days (Keep getting distracted by other things). I thought I'd mention that PR seems to be rather dry nowadays and the best strategy I've seen is to approach users directly and ask them to comment on the PR, regardless I'll be sure to leave comments myself soon. Aza24 (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    No worries. This is more of a long term project for me so there's no rush. ~ HAL333([2]) 17:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


National Covenant[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am unused to creating this type of article, and I am unsure what sort of structure or headings it should have. Any other suggestions for improvements appreciated.

Thanks, CSJJ104 (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I've done a quick copyedit of the article, making some small adjustments for readability and trying to make the lead a bit clearer. Also, reference no. 10 (Goodare 2015) doesn't have a page number - you may have forgotten to add it in. As for the structure, I renamed the last section to consequences, but if you feel original header was better feel free to restore it. Cheers, Jr8825Talk 19:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jr8825: Thanks for looking :) The heading Significance is better than Legacy, and does seem to match what I was meaning. The p=? in the Goodare reference was added by another editor and I have removed it. The book is a Google book which has no page numbers, would you know another way to indicate the location? CSJJ104 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@CSJJ104: - I just had a look at the source, and as I'm able to access it via my university I added the page numbers for you. In this case I'm not sure there would've been a way to find the page number via Google Books. Have a check at WP:GBOOKS as sometimes it's possible. Jr8825Talk 22:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


Sennacherib[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to FA eventually - it has recently undergone a copyedit and has already passed GA. Sennacherib is by far (only rivalled by Ashurbanipal) the most famous Assyrian king, remembered as an aggressive "enemy of God" thanks to the Bible. The real Sennacherib was superstitious, had daddy issues, preferred building stuff over conquering nations and was plagued by constant insurrections instigated by his arch-enemy, an ex-king of Babylon.

Thanks, Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Rudolf Haag[edit]


I was one of the people in charge of reviewing Rudolf Haag's German Wikipedia article (). We had made substantial additions to the original version and we had recognized Haag's contributions according to their scientific weight. We had also replaced the picture by a newer photo.

I have ported these major changes to the English article. I saw that the previous version of the article was rated as Start-Class. Since the article was improved with substantial changes, I'm requesting a new review.

Thanks, SimoneD89 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


Typhoon Jebi (2018)[edit]


I'm considering nominating this for FAC in the near future and would like to see how it can be improved further. Thanks, ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


August 2020 Midwest derecho[edit]

I've done the best I can to make this a high-quality article about this recently severe-weather event. However I would like the assistance of more experienced editors in the field to help make this article B or GA quality.

Thanks, Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


Australopithecus sediba

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 August 2020, 16:13 UTC
Last edit: 16 October 2020, 05:28 UTC


Mosasaurus

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 July 2020, 06:51 UTC
Last edit: 15 October 2020, 17:11 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Holy Grail[edit]


I require thine input. Please giveth deserved criticism post-haste!

Sir Lancelot of the Lake (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Just wondering, what do you plan to do with feedback on this article? (Are you going for WP:GA or WP:FA?) I only ask because I see that you aren't a main contributer to the article, which makes it very difficult to go through one of these processes. Aza24 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


Brotherhood of the Bolt[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this article to at least a B-Class rating or higher. I need feedback so I can finish the editing and work on it more.

Thanks, Go-Tsumaroki (chat) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


Mah Laqa Bai[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to nominate it for FA.

Thanks, Omer123hussain (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Megan Phelps-Roper[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this for GA and would like ideas on how to improve it.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


Social sciences and society[edit]

Iron March[edit]


Hi there! I'm hoping to get some feedback to move this article towards a GA and eventually an FA review. I've scoured the internet quite thoroughly for information on this subject, so I believe that I've accumulated a reasonable percentage of everything that has ever been written on Iron March. Now to move slowly towards ~perfection~ of this page.

Looking forward to any suggestions, Jlevi (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


Erin O'Toole[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about the following things:

  1. The lead. I'm aware that the lead likely has problems and needs improvement, but I would like some advice on how to improve it, especially when it comes to O'Toole's political positions. I made a summary of some of his positions in the lead, but I'm not entirely sure what should and shouldn't be included.
  2. Content in the "Background" and "Political Career" sections (before "Leadership of the Conservative Party"). I'm not sure whether those sections have all the encyclopedic content that would fit in the article.

My goal with this article is to get it to GA, possibly FA if I can get that far. If you feel this article is a good enough GA candidate (I doubt it is), please tell me! Thanks, Username6892 19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


New Wave science fiction

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 September 2020, 14:19 UTC
Last edit: 20 October 2020, 14:29 UTC


Women in Islam[edit]

I've listed this article to request peer review since in one of article talk page discussions it was claim that since Women in Islam article is available there is no need of separate article for Rights of women in Islam.

So I wish and request to review the article

1) Is Women is Islam article is giving through and proper coverage to Muslim women and related aspects if not what are the gap areas?

2) Is Women in Islam article covering Muslim women's rights comprehensively enough ? ( I see only two proper sections at the end but not comprehensive what is your opinion?)

3) According to you what is the scope for having separate comprehensive article for Rights of women in Islam?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bookku (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in Islam should be considered a high priority article and I can give a review for it from the perspective of Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria, although it will take a few days. In the meanwhile, to answer your questions:
1. This is something that should become clear during the review. This article is already quite comprehensive, but some gaps might become apparent once I survey the literature.
2. At first glance, it seems so. The article discusses women's rights when it comes to education, employment, financial and legal matters, marriage, dress code, political participation and emancipation (7 sections). Again, gaps might become clear as the review goes on.
3. It seems there are already several articles on Islamic prescriptions on women: Islamic clothing, Islamic marital jurisprudence, Divorce in Islam, Polygyny in Islam, Islam and domestic violence, Status of women's testimony in Islam, Women as imams, Female labor force in the Muslim world (that article needs to talk about labor laws). There are other article which have a section on women's rights, like Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence#Women_and_inheritance, Madrasa#Female_education etc. Are there any other areas of women's rights that are not already covered by these articles?
One of the best things for a review would be to find scholarly sources that deal with the whole of the topic of "Women in Islam" (i.e. they give the topic comprehensive coverage as opposed to focus on one part of it). That would help in identifying areas on which the article doesn't focus enough, as well as areas on which it focuses too much. I can see a few such sources at [Women_in_Islam#Further_reading]], do you have any other suggestions? VR talk 13:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


Lists[edit]

Gibraltar national football team results[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to become a feature list. I believe the list entries (matches) are as detailed as possible with notable information and each entry is referenced. The main area I wanted reviewing was the introduction. Prose has never been my strong point but I've tried to include as much detail as possible without it being too long. I would appreciate any feedback and welcome any suggestions for improvement. Also any comment on whether this list has a chance at becoming a featured list.

Thanks, 6ii9 (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


List of diplomatic missions of Taiwan[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FL soon. Since there are no other lists of diplomatic missions that have been featured to the best of my knowledge, I would like other users to review the page's presentation of the topic, especially in coverage on political issues. I would also like someone to look at the image I made for the page. General or any other feedback is also highly appreciated!

Thanks, MSG17 (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24[edit]
I'll leave some comments sometime soon – an interesting choice for FLC! Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]