Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
PR icon.png

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

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. 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 such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects.

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

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

Contents

Arts[edit]

Henry Mazer[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

1) I could use the help of classical music experts or the general public to determine which of his discography or other aspects of his biography are most important. For example, he won awards for music education -- should there be a separate infobox module for that field (perhaps listing his educational background)? The article talks little about Mazer's style, or how he advanced the field (besides achieving international recognition, critical acclaim, awards, and recordings.) ... how does he fit into musical history?

2) Which of his recordings are most important and should be prioritized? What about his concert series?

3) Further insights into finding sources. There is A LOT of source material out there on Mazer (as I've tried to organize and provider pointers to), but it is very poorly organized, off-line or not properly organized when on-line, and in multiple languages. Google searches, for example, don't seem that helpful in uncovering material. Any suggestions?

4) General suggestions on how to improve this article and perhaps bring it up to Good Article standards, or the next level up from current?

Thanks, Dk3298371 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Drive (2011 film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like it's definitely FA-worthy as it stands. This one my favorite of films of its time and I can say I find it very humbling and rewarding to populate as a FA, considering it's already been made a GA by someone else. It would really be great if someone could help me out on this from top to bottom.

Thanks, Bluesphere 08:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Barrio Fino[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it in order to nominate it to a Good Article or Featured Article status.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Like a Prayer (song)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article, on one of the most controversial song and video feels like just appropriate for FAC, however there might be few tweaks and prose concerns that I might be overlooking. I would like to have a prose review and copy edit so that it can be taken through FAC. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Fargo (season 2)[edit]

This article passed its GA nomination almost 10 months ago and not much has changed since. It's very clean and sharp, but I feel falls just short of optimal health. Eventually I would like to take this article for an FA review (only befitting considering how great season 2 was!) and some feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advanced, DAP 💅 20:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll give it a try:
  • Is the Prod Cod. necessary for casual readers?
  • Avoid short paragraphs like the first one from Development and Writing. Either expand it or merge it with the second paragraph (same with ratings)
  • Try to give more flow to the reviews like "X reviewer also" or "On the other hand, X reviewer"
  • Are there sales articles that could expand the home media releases?

Other than it seems well written. If you have the time could you review my own peer review? It's Wikipedia:Peer review/Yu Kanda/archive2. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


Jacques Rivette[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of (non-recent) work has gone into it and I believe that it is ready for a GA nomination. All issues raised in the previous nomination have been addressed [1]. A good portion of the article was moved to Themes and style in the works of Jacques Rivette, which admittedly needs a lot of work and expansion and I plan to get around to it this year before I finally retire.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Lena Dunham[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like it's close to becoming a good article, it just needs more feedback.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Yuri on Ice

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 May 2017, 06:52 UTC
Last edit: 13 May 2017, 15:56 UTC


Ben Affleck

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 29 April 2017, 07:10 UTC
Last edit: 24 May 2017, 20:22 UTC


Ermac[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to reach GA status. I researched and rewrote the entire article and have maintained its upkeep since, and feedback would be very much appreciated. Thanks! sixtynine • speak up • 16:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

The article has a lot of potential to become a GA but there are somethings that might bother the reviewer.

Make sure every reference is a reliable source. This means avoid fansites or the account a noncommon Youtube user. For example, the armageddon video is actually in the game, so I would suggest removing the link to Youtube.
Avoid unreferenced sentences like "The test biography was hidden and unlockable in Armageddon's Konquest mode."
There are four nonfree images that might too much for Wikipedia. The limit is 3-4

Other than that, the article seems fine. If by any chance you don't get more feedback, I suggest reviewing other peer reviews in order to promote yours. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Removed nonessential YT links and two images. sixtynine • speak up • 02:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


Final Destination 3[edit]


Hello Wikipedians, I'm listing the article Final Destination 3 for peer review because I was able to get it to GA-status a few weeks ago and I would like to get it to FA-status. Some of the things that I especially would like help with and improve are: 1) the lead section and whether I should change it and/or add more info? 2) The "Production" section, specifically "Development" and "Filming and effects", the previous two film, both GA, have a different section for filming and effects. 3) The release section and lastly 4) critical response

I would really appreciate your help, PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Lydia Canaan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, classified as B-class, it's been half a year since the article failed GA after having been nominated, and all of the reviewer's recommendations have now been rigorously implemented. Though I did not author this article, I have done an extensive rewrite, and believe that it now meets the standard for Good Article class. In preparation for the article's renomination for GA, I would like to know if there is any way that it can be further improved. Thank you! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiEditorial101 are you sure all the recommendations have been implemented? According to the GA review (Talk:Lydia Canaan/GA1), one concern was the over-use of sources in the lead which is still evident in this latest version. I have written a few music-related GAs so I would be happy to give some suggestions. Usually in leads I wrote I summarize the artist's style, notable recordings, and other work if they are active in different notable ventures. Several quotes are typically frowned upon because, in some cases, it is unique information not written about in the body paragraphs and can be a little WP:Peacocky. I can review the rest when this is addressed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick thank you for the recommendations; I've implemented them (I removed all of the peacocky quotes) as well as implemented the recommendation by the GA reviewer that I'd overlooked. I would certainly appreciate your further review! Thanks again! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
WikiEditorial101 oh dear, I think there may have been some miscommunication. In the infobox, it is actually useful to have sources, for genres for example. The lead is the paragraph(s) before the actual body of the article. I'll read over your improvements because it looks like you are putting a lot of effort into this page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, there has indeed been a misunderstanding, but on your part; I'm aware of what the lead is, which is why I removed the excess citations from it as the other editor suggested. But I also removed the citations from the Infobox, because, if you'll see the WP article on Infoboxes, they aren't actually supposed to be sourced at all, as only information already contained within the article should be in the infobox to begin with; an infobox is meant to be an extremely brief summery of a few major factoids included in the article, it is not intended to host additional content that isn't in the article (thus, infobox citations are both unnecessary and frowned upon). Thanks for all of your advice, I think we're good. I'm going to go ahead and renominate the article for GA. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Flash vs. Arrow[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA, but would like feedback on what I can do to improve this article before nominating it, specifically what content should be added or expanded on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Brojam (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Mahira Khan[edit]

I've listed this bio for peer review because I want to get it to GA status.

Thanks, Saqib (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Not in This Lifetime... Tour[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a well written article that has faced major expansion recently, and I look to help it improve even more.

Thanks, RF23 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Definitely Maybe[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Oasis' first album seems in nice condition and this was a great album. But because it was such a big hit for a debut album, I want to know if anything needs adjusted or if it needs more research before it becomes a GA. This album is older than me, and I've never had a successful 90's album nomination before, so I wanted to know.

And by the way, I'm sure there are dead links in the article, I have not looked at that yet.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

Lead

Recording

  • "...and questioned Morris' mixing choices...": I think "Morris'" should be "his" – it's quite clear that "his" refers to Morris.

Release and reception

  • Who is Neil Strauss? One of the album's reviewers? From which publication?

Cover art

  • The 1st sentence doesn't need the commas ("... was taken, by rock photographer Michael Spencer Jones, in guitarist ...").
  • The 1st sentence needs to be sourced.

Legacy

  • "In 2006, NME placed the album ...": suggest replacing "placed" with "put" to avoid repetition of "placed".
  • "rank" is repeated 6 times in this section.

DVD

  • The 1st paragraph and most of the 2nd paragraph has no sources.

Notes

Otherwise I think the article is looking good. I did a little copyediting here. —Bruce1eetalk 10:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Bruce! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Amnesia (Chumbawamba song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's about ready for a GA nomination but I want feedback before I actually nominate it. There's not really one particular area I think is problematic; any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Anotheronewiki (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


List of awards and nominations received by Holby City[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after recent contributions made to the article, I would like to nominate it for Featured List. However, before doing this I wanted to receive a peer review. I'm also hoping this has been included in the correct category as there wasn't really one that covered media (television, film etc) except this.

Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Usually, these types of lists include a sentence or two at the beginning of each award ceremony's section saying a little about the ceremony and who it is presented by, as well a sentence about how many awards and nominations someone or something has received. For example: The A awards are presented annually by the B Association and recognise accomplishments in film and television. Holby City has received C awards from D nominations. Done
  • You only need to link articles the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article.  Done
  • Why do you use rowspan for the years column but not the category and nominee column?  Done
  • You only need to link publications and their publishers the first time.  Done
    • Do you mean within references? Soaper1234 (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Dead links need to be replaced.
  • Maybe run something like autoFormatter on the article to fix some minor formatting issues.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit messy in my opinion. I would focus it on specific aspects or crew members of the show that have received the most acclaim.  Done - although this made need re-checking.
  • Overall though, this list looks very good to me! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback Littlecarmen. I will now go through and delink extra links, add a few sentences here and there, go through some formatting issues and edit the lead. In reply to the rowspan, I did previously do that in this version but I looked at other featured lists and they didn't adapt that format so I decided not to either. Thanks again. Soaper1234 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Littlecarmen: I am unsure of what to do regarding the deadlinks as I have searched for alternatives to no success, and I am struggling to understand how to use the autoFormatter. Aside from these comments I have mentioned, I am confident with the article but would like confirmation from yourself before nominating the article for Featured List. Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 15:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I applied the autoFormatter for you. I think you can nominate the list but I think the dead links might be an issue for commenters then as well. It's still worth a try though. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Littlecarmen: Thank you for doing that - I appreciate it. I might try and should it be an issue, I can atleast say I tried. Soaper1234 - talk 15:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


Monnow Bridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 March 2017, 23:28 UTC
Last edit: 11 April 2017, 13:11 UTC


Planet of the Apes

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 February 2017, 22:33 UTC
Last edit: 27 March 2017, 14:41 UTC


Dulcitius[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like feedback about the article's development and direction.

Thanks, Joshuachasegold (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919

  • I support the tagged suggestion of splitting the article. An article about a play and an article about a real person are two very different things, and it is very awkward to have them joined together.
  • The list of scenes should be rewritten to a more conventional plot summary.
  • The section titled "Dulcitius and feminism" doesn't seem to have much to do with feminism. Perhaps it should be re-titled, or is there more material available to expand the discussion?
  • I did some MOS-based copy edits to the punctuation and capitlization.

This is an interesting item and a lot of my article work is on older plays (usually not quite this old!), so I would be happy to help you work on the article beyond peer review if you would like.

  • I agree with previous suggestions that the extent of the biographical info about Hrosvitha's life is unnecessary given the existence of another page about the topic. Beyond that, the page would benefit from a section for a synopsis of the play. While it's useful to have the scenes outlined there isn't any clear summarization of what the play is about or why it is, as noted in the lead, comedic in nature - this explanation is also absent from the Dulcitius as comedy sub-heading. At the same time, it's interesting to know that the play was written in the style of Terence, but if a reader doesn't know anything about that playwright they would have to click into the page for that work to understand the reference. A review of the lead and a consideration of how they align with WP:LEAD guidelines would also help. There is information presented - specifically that Agape, Chionia, and Irena are sisters - that isn't clearly outlined in the remainder of the page. I hope this helps with page revisions moving forward! I have a page submitted for peer review right now, as well, and would appreciate any feedback. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit]

Meteos

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 April 2017, 02:32 UTC
Last edit: 10 April 2017, 13:52 UTC


Engineering and technology[edit]

SanDisk[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article could use more details on both the corporate history (according to PC Card it was originally founded as SunDisk?) and the specific innovative products developed, starting with ones still in use today. Toshiba appears to have implemented Flash memory but partnership with SanDisk around 2005 led to large capacity leaps, and I believe they've shipped some market leading stuff. I hope I did the list update to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Peer Review correctly, as it was unclear what syntax to follow.

Thanks, —Hobart (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


United Express Flight 3411 incident[edit]

  • Article much more stable now after Keep at deletion discussion [2], Keep Endorsed at deletion review [3], and Speedily Kept at 2nd deletion discussion [4].
  • Current issues of debate that can use wider peer review include: (1) Use of word "incident" in the title, (2) How best to use an infobox in the top right of the article to introduce the reader to the material, and (3) how to best and most neutrally describe biographical information about the victim of the incident.
  • Bringing to peer review, now that the article is more stable after three deletion discussions all closed with a result of "Keep", for wider eyes on these issues and any others the community wishes to discuss to improve the article. Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Second Avenue Subway[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there are any improvements to this page that I could make before nominating this for featured status. Although a little long, I believe that the article is comprehensive enough that it sufficiently educates every reader on the topic. It has been improved to GA status already after several years of improvement.

Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox mentions a "near top" image, but I only see the Q and T emblems ("far top"), and the map ("main panel"). Looks like the middle image was deleted. --Golbez (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Nuclear weapon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get a barnstar submit this article for a GA review and make it into GA. Eventually I would like for this article to become FA again! I would welcome any advice and feedback.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot easier ways to get a barnstar and to get an article to GA. I'll submit a full review soon. In the meantime, the first step would be to get it up to B class. That means that it has to pass criterion B1, which means that everything has to have an inline reference. There are already some "citation required" tags, but there are whole unreferenced sections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The second major problem is the "See Also" section. It's too large. Basically, it is telling you that the article does not cover the subject.
  • Replace the first one with a {{Wikibooks}} template and put it in the external links section with the other Inter-Wiki links.
  • Remove the portal; portals are in a bar down the bottom.
  • Then remove all the links that are in the article. Each of the headings should be present as sections in the article (with a {{Main article}} template) The sub-topics should be mentioned in those sections. Start by eliminating the ones that already are in the article, and then add the ones that are not. You should be left with just a few, starting with the Timeline (although we can use a {{See Also}} card in the history section for that). There's some like the Butter Battle Book that should not be there at all. With any luck, the whole section will disappear. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Bulldozer (microarchitecture)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get a feel for what I need to do to raise it to b-class, and there to GA.

Thanks, -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


Spitzer Space Telescope[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the is involved in the discovery of TRAPPIST-1, which has been on news and received a crazy amount of visits in February. I believe that this article is quite important and I need your feedback to promote this article to Good or even featured. I need feedback on improving the article based on GA criterion.

Thanks, FriyMan talk 07:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Smurrayinchester[edit]

  • "Unlike most telescopes that are named after famous deceased astronomers by a board of scientists, the new name for SIRTF was obtained from a contest open to the general public." - it's not clear to me what this means. Spitzer was deceased at the time of launch - I assume the difference is that it was named by the public. I'd reword this a bit.
  • I think there's too much info about Spitzer in the lead. I'd move it to later in the article.
  • I've given it a copyedit, but it still has some clunky sentences. "Additionally, the atmosphere is opaque at most infrared wavelengths. This necessitates lengthy exposure times and greatly decreases the ability to detect faint objects. It could be compared to trying to observe the stars at noon." is a good comparison, but it could be made smoother.
  • The Instruments section probably needs links - eg, to indium antimonide and spectrometer.
  • The Results section is quite "bitty". Minor discoveries could be lumped together, and the subsections should be consistent (there's nothing until "GLIMPSE and MIPSGAL surveys", which are program names, then there's "2010s", which is a decade, then "Spitzer Beyond", another program name, and then "Planet hunter", a generic description).
  • Images need alt text.

Smurrayinchester 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

  • Try to get as much information for citations as possible, including an access date when you verified the information was there.
  • Each paragraph should have at least a citation in it. It will not get past GA without it.


General[edit]

Voxman Music Building[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because.

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheWarOfArt you haven't provided a reason. The article does however seem well written and well sourced, so I'm not sure what I can add. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:KJP1[edit]

General[edit]
  • I think buildings/structures articles are much improved by a photograph.
  • In the absence of a photograph, or indeed with one, a building article really needs a description of the building itself. This article doesn't have one. Looking at images of the building online, it is certainly striking, and a description should be relatively easy to craft. This should include reference to architectural style, etc.
  • Something on the building's reception would be useful. Do architectural critics / its users (teachers/students/performers) like it or loathe it?
Lede[edit]
  • The lede is very short and will need expansion if your intention is GA.
  • Is an "academic building" a specific type? I know what you mean, but I'm not sure the "academic" isn't academic.
History[edit]
  • "located on the bank of the Iowa River" - does the Iowa River only have one bank? The left or the right?
  • "a new location for the new music building" - two "new"s in one sentence. An "alternative location"...?
  • "formally announced" - had it previously been announced "informally"? Suggest "announced" is sufficient.
  • "officially opened" - did it have a soft opening first? Suggest "opened" is sufficient.
Performing spaces[edit]
  • "700-seat concert Hall, a 200-seat recital Hall and a 75-seat organ Hall" - in each case, I don't think the capitalisation of "Hall" is necessary.
Citations[edit]
  • Link 6 appears to be dead.

Hope the above comments are of some use. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Nicholas C. Rowley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This is one of my first articles and am looking for any peer feedback. Thanks, BME917 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:KJP1[edit]

A few thoughts on what I think are the article's major issues:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - It isn't a Neutral article, reading much more as a publicity piece than a balanced appraisal of the subject's importance and career. A quick google search, [5] suggests a more balanced view of the subject's career could be written.
  • Citations - Many are not independent sources. Nearly half, including the first three, come from websites directly linked to the subject of the article. This includes the very first, which asserts the subject's notability. You really can't use the subject's own website as the source for the claim that he is "one of the most successful attorneys in United States history."
  • Photograph - I see you are the author of the photograph of the subject. This may suggest a personal connection, although it may not. If there is a personal connection between yourself and the subject, you should be clear about this to avoid any suggestion of a COI.
  • Use of subject's first name - to refer to the subject as "Nick" throughout the article comes across as informal and unencyclopedic, and again suggests a closeness between the subject and the author of the article.
  • Incorrect formatting - Four of the citations, 1, 9,10 and 15 are incorrectly formatted.
  • Citation 16 - This leads to a defunct website.
  • Broad Coverage - The bulk of the article comprises, in effect, two lists - his accolades and his notable cases. Where was he born, where educated, where does he live, does he have family, etc. etc.?
  • Prose - "awarded his family with a verdict of $40,000,000.00." I'm not a lawyer, but does a jury award with a verdict? And is $40M a verdict? Isn't the verdict the decision, i.e. the liability or otherwise of the company being sued, and the degree of liability; and the $40M the award?
Hope these comments are helpful. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Canobie Lake Park

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 January 2017, 00:48 UTC
Last edit: 9 April 2017, 17:28 UTC


Underwater diving[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA, and would like comments particularly on completeness of scope, clarity of writing and comprehensibility of explanation. I have already done the automatic checks from the toolbox. I would be happy with a review from an expert in the field, or someone who has no previous knowledge of the subject at all, or anything in between, all could be helpful.

Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

    • I include my comment here only to point out a possible inclusion of material related to aquatic ape hypothesis, a WP:FRINGE theory which includes somewhat dubious claims about the antiquity of diving as a bread-and-butter point. However, the work of Erika Schagatay and her colleagues in documenting the anthropology of the (somewhat offensively named) Sea Gypsies -- Sama-Bajau peoples may be worth of inclusion in your article. Not to mention that there are some images that this group took which are found on WikiCommons which may be of interest to you. jps (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (talk · contribs), could you disambiguate your link to Sea Gypsies and link to the Commons category which contains the images you mention? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought there was a Commons category, but actually there isn't. In any case Chakazul (talk · contribs) uploaded all the images of interest: [6]. jps (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look into this. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


1998 NFC Championship Game[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible FA candidacy. Helltopay-27 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkish Land Forces[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The listing of corps, divisions, and brigades is almost completely unsourced. That will need to be much better.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • For a successful GA nomination, you will need to modify commentary such as this (adding attribution): "The information below is unconfirmed and may be out of date; it seems likely now that the Training and Doctrine Command controls all the artillery and infantry training brigades."
  • I suggest adding a short paragraph or two to the Equipment and Insignia sections, which summarise the main articles
  • the bare urls should be formatted with author, title, publisher and access dates
  • the "page needed", "dead link" and "unreliable source" tags will need to be dealt with
  • every paragraph should end in a citation
  • suggest moving "Note a" out of the body of the article to the Notes section just above the References (currently empty)

Comments: I've browsed over the article and see a couple major structural issues that need to be tackledXavierGreen (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • In regards to the History section, details regarding Post-Cold War operations are noticably lacking, for example absent are mention of the several Turkish Interventions into Iraq attacking Kurdish forces there and most importantly, entirely missing is the [Turkish campaign in Northern Syria.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_military_intervention_in_Syria)
  • The entire force structure section is reliant on a single source that is marked as potentially unreliable. I imagine there must be some source out there that gives a general order of battle on the brigade or regimental level
The only recent authoritative source, though dated 2004-05, appears to be Chapter 5, 'Turkish Armed Forces' in Umit Cizre (ed.), 'Democratic Oversight and Reform of the Security Sector in Turkey,' LIT/DCAF 2008, ISBN 978-3-0858-0969-0. This is written by a long-time Turkish defence journalist. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Turkish Naval Forces[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkish Air Force[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkish Armed Forces[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Euphoria Festival[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have followed the advice of the last reviewer, added new information and sources, and I'm looking to see what else needs to be done to make it eligible for publishing.

Thanks, EuphoriaMarketing (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)EuphoriaMarketing


Ben Ricciardi[edit]

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

Thank you, MarkDaddy (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


Newcastle Interchange railway station[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to fetch opinions on this article I wrote; feedback from a third party on what can be improved, mistakes I've made, ect.

Thanks, Philip Terry Graham 17:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

George Town, Penang

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 May 2017, 09:01 UTC
Last edit: 25 May 2017, 11:51 UTC


Parbhani[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review becuase it is still categorised as "start class" article. I would like to make it either a Good Article, or a B class article. So suggestion for editing the article to achieve this goal are more than welcome. Face-smile.svg

Thanks, —usernamekiran (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


Vancouver[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a second opinion before nominating this article for GA status.

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that you've got a few unsourced paragraphs, particularly in the Architecture, Music and nightlife, Media, Sports and recreation, and Greenest City sections. SounderBruce 19:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Elcor, Minnesota[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have edited this article as much as possible. It is well-sourced, but occasionally I've added an additional source if it provides relevance to the article (which can be tough if you're writing about a ghost town). I know there is some "fluff" which could be re-worded or perhaps eliminated, but I think its beyond a "C" article at this point.

Thanks, DrGregMN (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkey[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible FA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


History[edit]

Battle of Moorefield[edit]

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

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - thanks for looking at this. TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Historians group this battle with Early's Washington Raid and operations against the B&O Railroad" - are there specific historians that do this, or is it only the NPS?
    • Wikipedia makes the grouping and template. Changed to say National Park Service since that agrees with the reference. TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "another major victory for Averell, who typically did well when operating on his own instead of in concert with other generals" - the source, and the lead, both suggest that the issue was not collaboration but rather subordination
    • Changed sentence to "Moorefield was another major victory for Averell, who typically did well when operating on his own, but had difficulty with direct supervision where he was expected to work in concert with others." TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Something is amiss with the campaignbox formatting - the text is extending right past the confines of the box
    • The campaign box is messed up on every page it is used. I will have to observe a good campaign box to see if I can learn what needs to be fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed it. TwoScars (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In the "McCausland's raid north" image, the caption should explain the significance of the different colours - and ideally the image would be scaled up so that the circled text can be read
    • Will redo that, and may have to eliminate Cumberland. TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Moorefield, Romney, and the South Branch of the Potomac River" - again, what is the significance of the solid vs dotted lines?
    • Changed caption to say "After an unsuccessful attack at Cumberland and nearby New Creek, McCausland moved to where the South Branch of Potomac River crosses the main north–south road between Romney and Moorefield. This is where of Battle of Moorefield took place." Another alternative would be to eliminate the dotted circle around Cumberland, and have a caption saying "Site of the Battle of Moorefield". What do you think? TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Could do, or you could just add parentheticals to the caption, eg (dotted circle)
  • Footnotes 14 and 32 appear to have the wrong dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


HIAG[edit]

The article deals with a post-WW2 lobby group formed in West Germany by former Waffen-SS members. The topic is multi-faceted, dealing with the post-war integration of veterans into society, politics, historical revisionism and the impact of the organisation on the contemporary popular culture. I'm looking for feedback that could help bring the article to a successful FA nomination in the future.

Thank you, K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Attempted assassination of Donald Trump[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to identify any areas of improvement needed with a view to eventually working towards Good Article status.

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Edict of Torda[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be chequed before its GAN. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Gallipoli Campaign

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 May 2017, 10:05 UTC
Last edit: 23 May 2017, 10:38 UTC


Vasco Gonçalves[edit]

I am requesting a peer review for this article because the subject of this article is an important individual in Portuguese history, specifically in Portugal's transition to democracy. I have hit a wall on how to expand this article, and I am looking for some advice (and maybe some help) on how to improve this article. Also, if its possible it would be very helpful to see what level this article is on the quality scale.

Thanks, Jp16103 23:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by KJP1 KJP1

I think this article requires quite a lot of work and is probably rated appropriately as Start Class at present. I agree as to his importance. As such there must be some appropriate, written, sources (books) which could form the basis of a more complete article. Specific issues below:

Layout
  • It doesn't follow the format of a Wikipedia article. I'd expect to see something like: Lead / Early Life / Military career / Political career / Appraisal / Death.
Focus
  • Not nearly enough detail on the major aspects of his career. The 23 years, 1950-73, are a complete blank. Pretty much a complete blank for the 30 years from 1975 to 2004.
Citations
  • There aren't nearly enough. The whole of the 4th paragraph has a single citation. And see below.
  • There are quite a lot of citation errors, in particular, Sources 2 and 6. Source 4 claims to be from The New York Times but actually links to The Daily Telegraph obituary. Also, it's exactly the same as Source 1, which is the Telegraph obit. re-cycled. Similarly, Sources 2 and 6 are the same and should be linked.
  • The sources are not sufficiently broad. Given that 1 and 4, and 2 and 6, are actually the same two sources, you've got the DT obit., the Independent obit., a short, Portuguese article and a YouTube video. That's not enough.
Copyvio
  • The 4th para. has too close a similarity to the text in Source 3. The Copyvio tool shows a very clear match for much of it. It needs re-wording.
Prose - quite a lot of issues. Examples below:
  • "Vasco dos Santos Gonçalves was born on May 3 1921, in Sintra, Portugal. His father, Vítor Candido Gonçalves, was a professional footballer turned foreign exchange dealer. He graduated from the Portuguese military academy..." - Who graduated, him or his father?
  • "Gonçalves married, in 1950, Aida Rocha Alfonso,.." - did he marry someone else in 1951? Suggest "In 1950, G married ARA..."
  • "Gonçalves short tenure as Prime Minister of Portugal.." - either Gonçalves' or Gonçalves's, here and elsewhere.
  • "Vasco dos Santos Gonçalves passed away on June 11th, 2005" - can we replace "passed away" with "died"?
Image
  • Is there no better photo than this profiled crowd shot?

I hope the above comments aren't discouraging. You've found an interesting subject, and have the basis for a decent article. But there is quite a lot that needs doing. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, actually I did not find your comments discouraging at all. In fact, I am even more motivated to work on this project. Once again, thank you! Jp16103 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It has been new and unreviewed for a while now. Thanks, TheBD2000 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Farrukhsiyar[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Muammar Gaddafi[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been GA-rated for some time now and I am planning on taking it to FAC later in the year. It would be great if some other editors could give the prose a read-through and let me know their thoughts. It may be that others pick up on prose problems that I have missed.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Drusus Julius Caesar[edit]

I'm working on articles relating to heirs or potential heirs to the Roman Empire, and am hoping to get this promoted to GA. Any input welcome. Psychotic Spartan 123 09:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Arab Agricultural Revolution[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because to my surprise this quiet, well-cited article has met with out-of-hand rejection at GAN. Having considered what is needed I've found nothing I wish to alter, but would welcome the independent thoughts of other editors.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:Anotheronewiki[edit]

This is my first peer review, so bear with me. Also, I'm not an expert, so I might have missed some problems, or some of what I point out may not be problematic. Here goes.

Lead[edit]
  • The first sentence in the lead section seems a little unwieldy. It might be a good idea to split it into two or three sentences, or to rearrange it so that the meaning of "Arab Agricultural Revolution" comes before the info on who coined the term.
Done.
  • It's best to have the lead section act as an overview of the article as a whole. Try rewording some of the lead so it's broad enough that you need no (or fewer) citations (as long as the info is restated in the body of the article, with citations there).
Moved the list of alternative names out of lead, with their citations.
  • I don't think it's necessary to name specific scholars who disagreed with the idea in the lead. Perhaps you could simply note that some scholars disagreed in the lead, so people can go down and read the "Reception" section if that's what they're interested in.
Done.
Watson's paper[edit]
  • The first paragraph is really good. I see no blatant issues with it.
Thanks.
  • Three of the four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Watson." I think it would be OK to refer to him as "he" a couple of times, since he's the only individual mentioned in the section.
Done.
  • For conciseness, I think you could reword the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the 2nd paragraph to read "according to Watson, had not previously grown these plants; he listed eighteen such crops."
Done.
Reception[edit]
  • The first sentence doesn't sound quite right. Maybe "Watson's work was met with some early scepticism, for example from the historian Jeremy Johns in 1984" could be reworded as "Watson's work was initially met with some scepticism from historians including Jeremy Johns in 1984" or something like that. When you say the skepticism was early, it sounds like the skepticism came before the paper was published.
Done.
  • The following sentence, in the 3rd paragraph in the reception section, feels a little too complicated: "In the case of cotton, which the Romans grew mainly in Egypt, cultivation remained minor in the classical Islamic period, the major fibre being flax, as in Roman times." There are so many dependent clauses that it takes a couple of reads to understand the sentence. I'd recommend either splitting it into 2 sentences or rewording it to combine clauses.
Tweaked.
  • The rest of the reception section looks pretty good. I can't see anything wrong with it.
Thanks.
Overall[edit]

Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-researched article. I learned quite a bit from it, and I think that with a few minor changes, it'll have no trouble passing GA Assessment. Good luck! -Anotheronewiki (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Very many thanks for taking the time. I'll see what I can do to incorporate your suggestions and will post details here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Ezra Weston II[edit]

Seeking a peer review for this article. I am considering submitting it for GA and would appreciate any suggestions for improvement, corrections, etc. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Herbert von Dirksen[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… As the last diplomat posted in the UK before WWII it seems that this person has got very little written about them here on Wikipedia. However, there are an abundance of sources on the article’s subject so this could be turned into a fantastic article. Shamefully, I simply do not have the time to do any more than I have done so far with it so would like to get some history wigs working on it. Cheers.

Thanks, ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 11:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because: It was a pretty basic start-class article originally, but I have substantially expanded (x4, I think) and thoroughly sourced it, as well as providing more sections and images, bibliog, etc. For the purpose of GA or beyond, hopefully. Many thanks, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Not sure I see the value in having full bibliographic details in both References and Bibliography - usually we either see short cites in the former and full in the latter, or full cites in the former and no latter section.
  • Beyond that, you've got two distinct citation styles going on plus a few link-only refs - suggest making consistent
  • Rather than fixed image sizes, suggest using scaling - see WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why is the article here and at A-class review? I think it should be one or the other, not both. I also think this needs quite a bit of work....just mho, but there it is.... A lot of the issues would have been addressed at a GA review as well.....auntieruth (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Auntieruth55: Out of curiosity, since I am unfamiliar with the GA process, what issues are there in this article that the GA process would address? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • usually a lot of basic issues are covered at ga review. Photo licensing. Basic grammar and punctuation. Etc. Peer review is the next thing I'd do in place of ga. It is just that by skipping that step And putting it at both peer review and a class we duplicate our efforts. Just saying. You can do what you wish. I just think one or the other is appropriate. auntieruth (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Auntieruth55:Oh, this isn't my nom. I'm a reviewer. :-) I was just curious. I'm very surprised that a GA reviewer would look at photo licensing. [I have sworn never to do another GA review again, because everyone complained that I was too picky. They took it to the talk page of GAC, in fact.] And yes, I agree this nom is double-dipping in PR and A-class review.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Russian military deception[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article to be thorough and well-sourced on a significant and coherent topic, but it appears to arouse passions among some readers. Since it was reviewed in 2015 I have revised it for tone and selected a more neutral title than the one popular in the West. Encouragingly, the text has barely changed since May 2016. I would be interested to know what other editors now think of it, with a view to taking it to GAN when ready.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, Chiswick Chap, nice work with this article. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations (I mainly looked at the citations):AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "Glantz 2006" appears in the citations, but there doesn't appear to be a corresponding entry in the Sources section
Fixed.
  • "Glantz, p. 3" --> which year?
Fixed.
  • "stated that "Surprise has a stunning effect on the...": you can probably silently decapitalise "Surprise" here
Done.
  • same as above here: "claimed early in November that "The Russians no..." (for "The")
Done.
  • "Khitrost' means a commander's...": is the extra apostrophe needed here?
Removed.
  • same as above for: "vnezapnost', so the two are naturally..."
Removed.
  • there are a few short citations that don't link properly to long citations (for example, "Alʹbat︠s︡ & Fitzpatrick 1994"). This script can help highlight these for you: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js (if you install it in your monobook, such as I have here: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js)
Thanks, and fixed.
  • there is some mixture of US and British English variation. For example: "armor" and "armour"
Fixed.
  • there are some overlinked terms: David Glantz and Ivan Konev
Removed.
  • Citations 72 to 80 should have accessdates added to them
Done.
  • "The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote that...": it should possibly be attributed in text that this is being cited by Glantz?
Done.
  • Also, the above quote seems to end in a quote mark, but not begin with one
Removed.
  • Good luck with taking the article further
Many thanks, I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from S Khemadhammo[edit]

Great article! I didn't know that the Russians studied Sun Tsu as well. Although I have little knowledge about the subject, I think I can give a few humble comments on the subject, from an outsider's perspective:

  • "surprise was achieved despite very large concentrations of force, both in attack and in defence." This sentence took me a moment to understand. Though the meaning is clear, its structure feels a little unusual. Perhaps using more verbs and less nouns will solve it.
Can't think of a clearer and more compact phrasing: maybe one will come to me.
  • "Civilians within 25 kilometres of the front were evacuated..." No spacing between reference and sentence.
Done.
  • some numbers such as 20 can be written as words instead per WP:MOS.
Have tried to use words for small numbers and digits for large ones.
  • The concluding sentence "Regular Russian troops were...implausible." has too many references and some should be deleted or merged per WP:CITEKILL.
Done.
  • If at all possible, considering the nature of the subject, one could consider adding more from a Russian perspective, therefore increasing neutrality, though the nature of the subject makes this rather difficult.
Indeed. However, the Moscow Times is in there.

I hope this helps.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, just entering GAN but will try to action your suggestions now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, good luck with it! Meanwhile, may I ask you to take a look at an article i just submitted for peer review? It's here. Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you. I'll see if I can say anything on your article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Canadian Indian residential school system[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone extensive revision over the past several months to improve overall content and presentation of information. The topic is of significance importance and I believe it is a candidate for good article, or possibly, feature article status. Any and all input as a means of achieving either rating would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Dnllnd (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This appears to be a well-researched, comprehensive and attractive article on a very important subject. I think it needs a little more clarity on the importance of the subject, particularly for readers outside Canada.
I'd like the intro to talk more about the rift between natives and non-natives and to capture what the controversy is. This isn't something everyone always agreed was bad or that everyone knew about (I was about 12 when the last school closed and never heard a word); much of the work lately has been to raise awareness and reconciliation
Comments on writing (generally good!):
I'd avoid : and ;s- "cultural genocide: 'killing the Indian in the child.'" would read better as "cultural genocide, by 'killing the Indian in the child.'"
Should be written in Canadian English- ("centred" rather than "centered" under History header)
Headers lower case: "Religious Involvement" should be lower i
Inconsistent use of "%" and "percent"
Vatican section- "The audience was funded"- say what?
History between 1945 and 1969 appears to be lacking- no developments? Not even proliferation in schools?
References appear to be thorough, a combo of secondary and some primary (the Commission report) where appropriate
"Details of the mistreatment of students were published numerous times throughout the 20th century. Following the government's closure of most of the schools in the 1960s, the work of Indigenous activists and historians led to greater awareness by the public of the damage the schools had caused, as well as to official government and church apologies, and a legal settlement." - Citations? (high priority)
"At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease." - Citation? (low priority)
" It continues to operate today as the Blue Quills First Nations College, a tribal college." - Citation? (low priority)
"In March 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The Foundation was provided with $350 million to fund community-based healing projects addressing the legacy of physical and sexual abuse. In its 2005 budget, the Canadian government committed an additional $40 million to support the work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation." - Citations? (high priority)
Lasting effect section- "collective soul wound." - whose phrase?
"The ADR process was created by the Canadian government without consultation with Indigenous communities or former residential school students. The ADR system also made it the responsibility of the former students to prove that the abuse occurred and was intentional. Many former students found the system difficult to navigate, re-traumatizing, and discriminatory." - why would dispute resolution be re-traumatizing or discriminatory? I realize I'm asking for a lot of detail for a summary, but would a subarticle be appropriate?
Media portrayals section- a header with no text
I'm a bit out of step with what constitutes a FA or GA in history and legal articles today. Ten years ago this would be featured. Today, with a little polishing, I think this would be worthy. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ribbet32: Thanks again for the feedback. I think I've addressed the bulk of what you flagged, but will continue chipping away at things over the next while. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Balfour Declaration

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 April 2016, 13:07 UTC
Last edit: 17 May 2017, 08:14 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Bill Nye[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its undergone some extensive edits and I would like some more input to help improve it even more so that it can be soon listed as a Good Article.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Bhut jolokia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like a good topic and overall an interesting article. I would like to improve the article and bring it to GA stage.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 07:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Genetic engineering[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get it up to at least a good standard. It is a level 3 vital article and one that is quite relevant today. Obviously the topic is quite controversial so while it needs to be balanced reviewers should be aware that the area has had a pretty messy ARB case (article is under general sanctions) and numerous RFC's so it is probably not the arena to rehash those battles. What I am most interested in is that it is relatively simple to understand for people unfamiliar with the topic and that it is relatively broad (although note that this is an overview article). Thanks in advance to any commentators.

Thanks, AIRcorn (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


North American beaver[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently a B-class article, and I'd like to get some specific ideas on how to eventually bring it up to FA-class.

Thanks, Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Aquatic ape hypothesis[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone substantial rewriting over the last two months as a result of some discussion at WP:FTN, the talkpage, and elsewhere. The article was initially considered by myself and others to be overly promotional and in violation of WP:FRINGE, but it is my opinion now that much has improved. Still, it would be good to get outside opinions on the topic. Appreciated. Thanks, jps (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The subject is difficult for the reasons you hint at, and on the whole the article has converged on a correctly neutral text. I'm surprised, though, that all the images that I and others proposed have been removed. There seems to me no reason why the hypothesis should not be neutrally illustrated by the sorts of images suggested by February this year in the article, with suitably neutral captions ("Hardy suggested ..."), once tempers have cooled. The only current illustration is a marginally-relevant timeline which adds little to the article; I'd have thought we could do rather better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to decide on good images mostly because a lot of them are arguably unconnected with the topic. We also have a picture of two skulls which seems a fair image as there is no argument about that. However, what other images would work here? Images of wading great apes, diving people, swimming babies, and the like are not particularly illustrative of the topic in the sense that they don't provide any meaningful exposition. Pictures that are directly connected to the topic would be things such as illustrations from Morgan's books, for example, maybe a picture of David Attenborough, etc. The problem with pictures of the evidence that AAH proponents support is that there is dispute over what actually is evidence. A picture of Elaine Morgan might be nice, and there was one included briefly, though now removed. Other ideas for what kinds of images you think would be appropriate would be appreciated, but when we got into the weeds we quickly found problems with most/all of the ones proposed. jps (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


Rotating locomotion in living systems[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for a possible attempt at FA. Please note any areas that are likely to be a problem there. Thanks!

Thanks, —swpbT 14:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


Homogenization (climate)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I mostly wrote this page and it got a grade-C. I work on the topic and the homogenization of climate data is important in the US climate "debate". Thus I would love to make it better, but would need outside input to know what is apparently missing or unclear or badly formulated.

Thanks, VVenema (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi VVenema. Thanks for your work. I am not an expert in this area, but will offer some of my opinions. First off I feel it is more a B than a C grade article. These grades can be somewhat arbitrary so don't get too caught up on that. The lead can be improved however. It should summarise the article much the same way an abstract would. It could use some fleshing out. I also found it a little technical for me. We usually write for the widest possible audience and this can accomplished somewhat through wikilinks (i.e linking technical terms to other articles on those can keep this article focused). It can also help to start really simple and then expand further down. If you lose your audience in the first few sentences then it can be hard to get them back. Diagrams and graphs can also help if appropriate. In your article I feel this is only an issue in the lead and first section. After that it was explained really well.
It probably needs a few more references. In particular sentences that read a bit like an opinion. For example From the perspective of global warming, such local effects are undesirable, but to study the influence of climate on health such measurements are fine. and but parallel measurements are unfortunately not very often performed, if only because the reason for stopping the original measurement is not known in advance, but probably more often to save money. There are other examples as well. By not doing so you can easily cross the line to original research. The sources you do use are excellent however.
It is well written, the pictures look good and the topic is important. You might want to drop a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force to find someone more able to help with technical aspects. AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


Cloud

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 October 2016, 21:37 UTC
Last edit: 30 March 2017, 01:02 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Yu Kanda

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 May 2017, 11:49 UTC
Last edit: 14 May 2017, 11:49 UTC


The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I would like to take it to FAC. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks, —Bruce1eetalk 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC) User:Bruce1ee, sorry for the delay and I will try to find some issues:

  • The first paragraph is a bit small. Normally, the first paragraph of a novel article tends to take place in the beginning.
    I don't understand the second sentence – what do you mean by "in the beginning"? —Bruce1eetalk 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Avoid quotes in the lead and remove the reference. Try using a more generalized comment.
    Thanks, but there is only one quote in the lead, which I'm going to leave because of its relevance. —Bruce1eetalk 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Zones introductions also seem to big for the lead (in comparing the actual zones). Can you simplify it?
    I've simplified it a little. —Bruce1eetalk 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to expand the reception? You could also find similarities to make the prose flow more. For example "Like X reviewer, Y reviewer liked the story"
    Good point, I'll have a look at doing that. —Bruce1eetalk 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    I've expanded the Reception section and also linked some of the reviews. —Bruce1eetalk 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Other than that the article looks in good shape. I just recommend using paraphrase quotes, something which I have often been critised. Lastly, could you check my peer review? It's Wikipedia:Peer review/Yu Kanda/archive2. Regards,Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this review and the helpful suggestions. I'll have a look at the outstanding points you've raised. I'll also have a look at your peer review, but I must warn you that my knowledge of manga is effectively zero, so it'll be a review by the uninitiated :) —Bruce1eetalk 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I've reduced the number of quotes and dealt with the issues you raised above. Thanks for your help. —Bruce1eetalk 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Sasak language[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first time I write a substantial article about a language. I'd like to bring it to GA status, but I need guidance on what is required to get there.

Thanks, HaEr48 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Randall Flagg[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for years and my goal is to see it achieve featured status someday.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have knowledge of this series but I could see some issues I'll point out. Try using my FA Allen Walker as a guide consider it became FA in late 2016.
  • How about starting as
  • The lead uses quotes and references which is a bit disapproved by guidelines. Try generalizating some of those parts.
  • Try balancing the lead with each paragraph covering something from the main article.
  • Remember to reference as much as possible (the The Dark Tower series section is lacking too much).
  • How come there is no a reception section? Does the comic project's guidelines say nothing about how the media received the character? I'm a little confused. Some parts from characterization could be used in the creation section.

That's all I could find. By the way, I would appreciate if you could comment on my own peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/D.Gray-man/archive1. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    • There was a reception/critical reaction section but they were eventually moved to the characterization section by other editors during another peer review. Thanks for the comments, I'll take a look at yours.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Dhammakaya meditation[edit]

Dear fellow Wiki contributors, I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have some feedback on the writing and organization of the article. I also think it should be reassessed. Thank you!

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the great help you have given me at Proto-Indo-European religion, so I will attempt to give you as much feedback as I can. This is my first peer review as a reviewer, but I have now gone through three as a nominator, so hopefully that has given me some idea of how this process is supposed to work. I should warn you ahead of time that I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about dhammakaya meditation; my main areas of study are the classics and the Near East. Nonetheless, I think that reading through this article should be interesting and I look forward to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Katolophyromai, that's all I ask. It is a bit of a specialized subject, so it is hard to find independent people to assess it. I welcome your outsider's perspective and input.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


Proto-Indo-European religion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 May 2017, 20:17 UTC
Last edit: 23 May 2017, 23:46 UTC


Astronomica (Manilius)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 January 2017, 21:01 UTC
Last edit: 24 April 2017, 14:06 UTC


Social sciences and society[edit]

United Kingdom general election, 2015 party spending investigation[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… The topic has a material bearing on the current UK general election and it would therefore be good to ensure it is balanced. Previous edits also imply disagreement about whether it is appropriate to name members of parliament who are known to be under police investigation (where suitably extensive mainstream media reporting attests to this), so it would be great to get feedback on that! Thanks, Alarichall (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in preperation for a future Good article nom.

Thanks, Jerry (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


Schadenfreude[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It would help to have this article nominated to a Featured Article status, as the subject is interesting and also understudied, less-known!
For this, I've expanded the article from then (with 14,828 characters) to current (with 74,382 characters) where I've sourced content via PubMed Central from within their Open Access Subset with CC BY 4.0 Licence statement defeating all/any copyright infringement violations.
Since this is my first, would appreciate all/any insights that would help with having achieved the same.
Thanks, TopCipher (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


David M. Friedman[edit]

I've significantly expanded this page since Friedman became notable back in December. I want to make sure that the article is specific enough and not getting bogged down into details, particularly the "Nomination" section. I'm hoping to bring it to GA, and any feedback about how to structure the article and what to focus on would be appreciated.

Thanks, Werónika (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


New York City Fire Department[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to be of a good quality, but definitely not ready for GA. I'm hoping to bring it to GA after improvements are made. I'd wish to see {{citation needed}} tags where necessary and comments on which topics I should elaborate on and which I should summarize. Really any feedback would be great, including where I could find sources.

Thanks, UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively edited since its beginning (2009) as such I would appreciate knowing what needs to be done to better it.

Thanks, StephenTS42 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • suggest removing the ROK icon from the infobox as it seems confusing for a US Army unit
  • this sentence should be referenced: "At the end of the war (1945), the 38th Anti-Aircraft Brigade was inactivated in Germany"
  • this should be referenced: the paragraph ending "...were collocated at Osan Air Base"
  • this quote should either be rewritten in your own words, or attributed in text: "On 15 July [1981] the 1st Bn, 2nd ADA..."
  • there are too many images in the Inactivation section. I suggest removing the files and rewriting the information in your own words
  • the "Force Planning and Budgetary Implications..." entry is not an internal link and shouldn't be listed in the See also section (potentially it might be in a Further reading section, though, or could be worked into the text as a reference)
  • the bare urls (refs 9 and 14) should be formatted to include title, publisher and access dates
  • anyway, good luck with taking the article further


Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because: I created this article in 2013 about a breaking scandal involving the former mayor of Toronto which attracted a lot of media coverage at the time, well beyond normal coverage for Toronto mayors. I chose the timeline format as what I thought was the best way to present the topic. Several other editors joined me in keeping it up to date. Since then, the mayor left politics and has passed away, and there are no longer any active investigations.

This was an important topic, and I would be interested to see, after the elapse of time, whether it is presented in a neutral and informative manner. I am also interested to know whether the choice of a timeline format was best.

The only disagreement I had with other editors was over the extent of direct quotes from newspapers whether than summarizing what they said. I would be interested in any input on that.

Thanks, TFD (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Parliament of Australia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made substantial edits and expansions to this page over the last few months and I would like some feedback on how the article is going and how it can be even better!

Thanks, Superegz (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from J947[edit]

I'll review this. J947(c) 02:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead
  • There should be no citations in the lead as per WP:CITELEAD.
Infobox
  • I've removed a few spaces.
  • It is very long. You should shorten it by at least a third.
First paragraph
  • I've added the serial comma and removed a space.
  • WP:OVERLINK should be followed for the 'Australia' link.
  • This sentence: The combination of two elected Houses, in which the members of the Senate represent the six States and the two self-governing Territories while the members of the House represent electoral divisions according to population, is modelled on the United States Congress., is rather long and should be split up.
Second paragraph
  • The upper house, the Senate, consists of 76 members:, should use emdashes instead of commas surrounding 'the senate'.
History
  • The Commonwealth of Australia came into being on 1 January 1901. Any reason why? It just seems too much of a coincidence...
  • After the official opening, from 1901 to 1927,. An emdash should be used.
Old Parliament House
  • There shouldn't be links in headings.
First paragraph
  • And, again. :)
Second paragraph
  • was commenced on 28 August 1923[12] and completed in early 1927. Comma.

@Superegz: Ping for you. J947(c) 19:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@J947: Thanks, I will have a look at this later when I am free. Superegz (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Qamar Javed Bajwa[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this one up-to GA status.

Thanks, Saqib (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done a, light, copy edit. My particular concerns would be around the, very positive, tone of the article. It doesn't appear to be a fully-balanced appraisal - I know nothing of the man, but I doubt he reached the position he has without attracting some negative commentary along the way. In particular, the "Public image" section reads more like a press release than a considered appraisal.
Also, there's a bit of "over-citing". In the first sentence of the last paragraph on his Military Career, you've 9 references. It's a short, factual sentence, and I really doubt it needs so many.
Best of luck with the GA. KJP1 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Lists[edit]

List of United States Senators from Ohio[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I believe that this is a well written and encyclopedic article. However, AndyZ's automatic peer reviewer says that the lead needs expansion, and I can understand why. Furthermore, I am uncomfortable with the overall lack of content outside of the table.

Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


List of UK top 10 singles in 2002[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on improving the lists of UK top 10 singles for each year since 2000, adopting a consistent style and making the content more thorough (background information, sections on chart debuts etc.). I hope this list will eventually become featured and serve as a model for lists on the UK singles chart. A few years ago I played a big role in getting List of UK number-one singles from the 2000s to featured list status. Any feedback on this list would be appreciated. I know I need more references, and a few more images, so comments on the content and the look of the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, 03md 23:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Abasyn University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have made major changes to this article and should be ranked higher on the quality scale. Currently it is ranked as stub-class Thanks, Xafariqbal (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Zafar

Hi Xafariqbal, I have remove the mission/ vision and list of programmes. We don't usual include such sections on articles as they are promotional, it would be better to include a list of faculties instead. I will re-assess the article class as it is no longer stub-class. Thank you Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


List of United States tornado emergencies[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before nominating it for featured list status.

Thanks, Ks0stm (TCGE) 12:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • My notes:
    • Way, way too many "cities" listed, especially in 2011, such that many are redlinks, despite us having articles for pretty much every place in the country. Also, some of the "cities" are simply part of counties. I would remove the city column altogether and just use county.
    • "N/A" means something is not applicable; "Unconfirmed" tornadoes have no rating, but that column is still applicable to them. Needs something other than "N/A", maybe just "Unk."
      • What makes "N/A" different from "EF?"
    • Right now, this isn't a list of emergencies. This is a list of dates, with some emergencies linked to them.
    • Why cannot sort by "Event link"?
    • Why can sort by "Ref"? That's never going to be useful.
    • If a tornado impacted multiple states, rowspan it, so that you don't awkwardly deal with counties from multiple states in a single cell. So, row 1: alabama counties, alabama, rowspanned tornado. row 2: tennessee counties, tennessee.
    • Rowspan the "event link" cells when possible.
    • April 28, 2014, needs work. Black text, misplaced refs, and somehow an "N/A" for a ref and a city; did this tornado exist or didn't it?
    • Ref 265 is unhappy.
  • So it needs quite a bit of work. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]