Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.
"WP:REVIEW" redirects here. For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see WP:REVIEWER.
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
Shortcut:
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
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.

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]

Garamond

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 6 February 2016, 13:46 UTC
Last edit: 8 February 2016, 22:46 UTC


Nu metal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because my bud Statik N has pretty much become a dragon for this topic, and he expressed interest in getting this GA. I requested CE a while back but I needed time to work on other projects for a while. Now that I'm awaiting review for two articles, I thought I'd have this PR'd in the meantime where I have no timely obligations. He doesn't seem to know what to put in to make it GA, but I think the article could use a few improvements before it's nominated (it's certainly showing a lot of effort on his part, might make it a co-nomination).

Thanks, dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 16:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead
  • I've think this article has some useful information that might be implemented here.
Is an external link okay, or would you like us to put some researched information in? The article is already quite comprehensive, but we will add more from the link if you think it'd be best. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You may add something if it is not already featured in the article. I think it's a good way to check whether the article is well-researched.
  • I see there are capitalized titles from Blabbermouth in the references. KORN should be Korn, HELMET should be Helmet, etc.
  • Also, refs shouldn't be included in the lead, because the lead should summarize the entire article, not contain exclusive information.
Yes check.svg Done by Statik N. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 03:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Why there are so many refs regarding "bleached or dyed hair" in the fashion section?
What's wrong with this? Perhaps it was a contested statement in the past. Mudvayne's page used to do that with all its genres. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It's fine, but listing that many refs makes me think it's a disputable statement. For example, ref names such as "Sam", "FinalSix", "Decibel", "VH1", are not needed, I think, because they are already used for confirming other topics.--Retrohead (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at your concern I think I realize what he's doing. Statik has a habit of putting all the refs for everything mentioned in a single sentence at the end of the sentence. So he cited all the fashion aspects at the end. This may be a hefty task to fix because we're swimming in ref coding here, but I think that should be fixed. As 2/5, I am Yes check.svg Done with that instance of the problem, but I notice others do it too. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 22:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The "Nookie" sample should have sound quality around 60 kbps, not 160 as it currently has.
Yes check.svg Done by Statik. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 00:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Outlandos d'Amour[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to GA-status and could some really use some advice.

Thanks, Kurtis (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Habits (Tove Lo song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA, but I want to get some feedback first.

Thanks, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The first thing that strikes me is that this is very heavy on non-free content. Three album covers (300 by 300 px is normally considered big enough, by the way- the pictures used aren't much above that, but still), two samples (per WP:SAMPLE, 64kbps and 10% of the song's length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter, would be standard) and two music video screenshots seems a little excessive. Some more general comments:

  • Avoid contractions. They're a little informal for articles.
  • "didn't get to finish too much" is too rhetorical. The sentence is also odd because you talk about her not finishing things in New York before you've even said what she was doing there
  • The "Inspiration" section might be thought to lean a little too heavily on quotes. I don't mind too much, and I can't see it being a problem for GAC, but something to think on.
  • "Lyrically, the song talks" That's not what "lyrically" means.
  • "the singer emphasizes on her problems with sex" Clumsy
  • "The reviewers of Rolling Stone" Reviewers of Rolling Stone would be people reviewing Rolling Stone
  • There is too much crossover between your critical reception section and your accolades section, I think. The latter should be reserved for actual awards and nominations, not just minor critics saying how great it is.
  • This may sound like an odd thing given the focus of the song, but you need to be very careful about the sources you cite when you make claims about the singer drinking/taking drugs/sleeping around etc.- these are things which could be construed as negative claims about a living person.

I'll stop there and may be back (but no promises). This looks like a strong article which would, I think, do well at GAC. I hope these initial comments are useful to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review. I'm addresing your comments now.Paparazzzi (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Help Is on the Way[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel this article is ready for FA. It's a bit shorter than most FAs, but I'm almost positive I've run the possible refs for this article dry. Anyway, while it is currently at GA status, I've been doing a lot of editing recently, and it's far off from the GA reviewed version.

As always, I'm a firm believer in "You scratch my back, I scratch your back", so if anyone is willing to take up this review, I'll kindly repay the favor.

Thanks, Famous Hobo (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


God of War: Ascension

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 26 January 2016, 21:53 UTC
Last edit: 9 February 2016, 21:04 UTC


Michael Hordern

Article (edit | edit beta | 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 2016, 00:20 UTC
Last edit: 8 February 2016, 23:30 UTC


Elmore James discography[edit]

I've listed this discography for peer review because it is the first step towards becoming a featured list candidate. Elmore James is one of the most important blues musicians of the mid-twentieth century and his influence continues to be heard in contemporary blues as well as rock. His discography covers all of his known released recordings and is extensively referenced with many inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies.

Since its creation in November 2013, it has been stable with no tendentious editing, vandalism, edit wars, etc. In the last several days, I have checked all the citations and have updated the reference and table formats. The lead has been rewritten and referenced. I have the resources to make this a featured list and look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make it happen.

Thanks, Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been trying to bring its quality up to the level of an FA prior to her 25th birthday this June. The last review gave me minimal constructive actionable feedback. I was hoping for a more substantive review.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Mary Kom (film)

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 16 January 2016, 16:44 UTC
Last edit: 31 January 2016, 18:03 UTC


Super Bowl XLVI halftime show[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe as an article on one of the most watched events of out modern time, the Super Bowl halftime show. This article has all of the contents pertaining to every aspect of this show, hence looking for input from my fellow editors in order to better it and eventually take it through FAC.

Thanks, —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment/Suggestion: I have two current requests already, including one Madonna song, but you might consider requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I almost always request one before submitting an article for Good or Featured status, and they usually do a great job. I'd submit a request myself, but there is a limit of two per editor. Thanks for your work on this article and good luck at FAC! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't close this PR since Moisejp is taking a look into it. —IB [ Poke ] 14:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have it improved and I'm hoping this will speed up the good article nomination.

Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


Mouche Phillips[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some extensive updates over the past week and want to know what else I can do to improve its current state.

Thanks, H.dryad (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


William Sterndale Bennett

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 16 December 2015, 09:58 UTC
Last edit: 20 January 2016, 08:29 UTC


Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 15 December 2015, 03:10 UTC
Last edit: 4 January 2016, 22:18 UTC


Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some major work on it and would like feedback on if it works as a well written article. Check for irrelevant information, length of the article, references, and the layout. Any suggestions for improvement? I'd like to get this recognised as a good article. Thanks, SatDis (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


Matangi (album)[edit]

Over the years I have managed to get the articles on M.I.A.'s first three albums to FA status, but for whatever reason I never got round to getting this one past GA status. I thought I'd finally get round to that, but figured a PR would be good first............

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


Shenmue[edit]

I've been working on this article for a while and have almost completely rewritten it. It's still far from perfect - the references need more formatting and there are a couple of missing citations still - but I'd appreciate some feedback on how it's shaping up so far. When you work on an article more or less alone for a while, you tend to lose objectivity. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing that annoys me is that the sources aren't very neatly done. There are a lot of situations where the citation is just some text with an external link (see "Shenmue creator: Story has 11 chapters, ideally '4 or 5 games' in the series"; "New Shenmue 2 information (Sega Dreamcast)"; "http://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2015/08/16/classic-shenmue-interview-unearthed/"), sometimes with an accessdate attached to it. I'd recommend making use of a template like Template:Cite web, to fill in the publisher/work (such as Forbes, IGN, etc), the author of the article, the date on which the article was published, etc. This all makes it easier to find the source back if it is ever moved, and makes it possible for readers to get an idea of what kind of source it is. It also just looks tidy. ~Mable (chat) 16:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutely right there. Since I started sprucing up the article, I haven't put any work into neatening up the existing sources. I should work on that next. Popcornduff (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Lorde

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 27 November 2015, 04:55 UTC
Last edit: 28 December 2015, 09:15 UTC


Phantasmagoria (video game)

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 25 November 2015, 14:41 UTC
Last edit: 3 February 2016, 21:43 UTC


Ruan Lingyu[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i am going to nominate it to become a GA in the near future as Xu Lai (actress). And the last thing, I'm not sure this article is well-written.

Thanks, TheFame08 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • You have Richard J. Meyer's book listed in the Bibliography, but nowhere in the citations. That's a grave error for two reasons: first, anything listed in the refs should be something that has been cited. Second, and far more importantly, this would be grounds for Oppose based on WP:WIAFA 1c.
  • That problem needs to be addressed. In short, you need to get a copy of Meyer's book, read it cover to cover, and then use it (with no errors of WP:COPYVIO.
  • @TheFame08: I think there are also many other good sources that you have overlooked. JSTOR would be a good place to start. Then Google Books. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Алый Король[edit]

Tones of books and articles have been written about her, but nothing of them is presented in this arcticle. No any professinal review, critic's aclaim. Nothing. Author is just too lazy to write --Алый Король (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Cher

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 22 November 2015, 22:24 UTC
Last edit: 9 February 2016, 20:15 UTC


The Beatles (album)

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 17 November 2015, 14:31 UTC
Last edit: 19 January 2016, 06:25 UTC


Everyday life[edit]

Blast Corps[edit]

We're fixing up a few articles as part of the Rare Replay project. I think my research into this 1997 N64 game went fairly deep, so I'm looking at taking it to FAC but first wanted to see whether anyone had any preliminary comments. Thanks, czar 07:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I remember the game being in the shops, but I didn't play it- I never had an N64. A few comments:

  • "The player-character transfers between vehicles mid-level to operate other passenger vehicles and machinery." I'm struggling with this sentence.
  • "a three-quarters overhead view" I know what that means, but I suspect a lot of readers won't.
  • "Wakeley called this Blast Corp's fundamental game design" Design element, perhaps?
  • The third paragraph of the development section could be smoother- it currently reads like a list of facts. Certainly not terrible, but could be smoothed before FAC. (The "platinum medal" thing, as well as the medal feature more broadly, could perhaps be explained a bit more clearly. Imagine you're writing for someone who's never played a video game before, if that's helpful!)
  • The first paragraph of "Reception", too, is a little listy
  • From page 31 of this book:

BLAST CORPS
1997 Nintendo 64, Rare/Nintendo
[three stars out of five]
Blast Corps is generally regarded as one of developer Rare's lesser games (at least by their high standards), and though it may lack the "wow factor," its gameplay is still very compelling and its large-scale destruction never less than entertaining. // In Blast Corps players are charged with preventing a trundling missile carrier from crashing into any of the buildings or obstacles that block its path. This you can do with a team of bulldozers, dumper trucks and giant robots - all capable of demolishing the environement with a varied armory of rams, missiles, bombs and metallic fists. Many praised this as a wholly orginal concept, but the idea of clearing and creating a safe passage while a clock ticks against you provided the basis of the earlier classic Highway Encounter, and even featured to an extent in the Stamper's [sic] own Lunar Jetman (back in 1983 when Rare were known as Ultimate). // Blast Corps was exclusive to the N64 and sadly received no sequel."

I've not looked at absolutely everything, but the article seems to be very good in its current state- this may have a good chance at FAC in the future. I hope these thoughts are helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Nights into Dreams...[edit]


After working on this article for quite some time, I feel like FAC will be a possibility soon. Any comments to help it on its way would be greatly appreciated. JAGUAR  16:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Ludwig Augustinsson[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… ...This is my first real created article on Wikipedia and the one I've spent the most time editing. I want to know what I can do better and improve, for it to reach the top grades. I don't know if everydaylife is a good topic for a sport article, but couldn't find any suitable topic for it.

Thanks, Psemmler (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


History of the New York Yankees

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 2 January 2016, 03:07 UTC
Last edit: 28 January 2016, 23:09 UTC


Apogee Stadium[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I will be making a third effort to raise this up to FA status, and I want to do this the right (long, arduous) way. I'd be especially interested in any comments on clarity. I'd also like for a bit more focus on the sections after "History", because few have been directed towards those sections in past reviews. I'm also debating on whether or not to keep the top five attendance table, as I think it's a bit superfluous. I know there aren't many sources to add here, as I've covered just about everything out there on this subject, but if you have any thoughts on the veracity of those sources (good or bad) let me know.

Thanks, Runfellow (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Elisfkc Review[edit]

Here we go:

  • Currently, the article is a part of nine hidden categories, two of which are categories that the article should get out of, Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content & Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.
  • References are filled out entirely according to Refill.
  • I don't understand what the first paragraph in the History section has to do with the stadium. If you could explain that, otherwise delete it.
  • "Richard Raefs, then vice chancellor of administrative affairs at UNT, claimed" should be rewritten as "Richard Raefs, then vice chancellor of administrative affairs at UNT, said". It sounds more netural, rather than already seeming to put the blame on someone.
  • Estes bill should be possessive.
  • While I understand why you did it, putting then in front of everyone's job titles does not seem necessary when you have given the date of that person's quote.
  • The section Opening should have a picture of the opening, rather than a graph of attendance. It should also be renamed Opening Season or Inaugural Season, as it covers the whole season rather than just the opening game.
  • File:Apogee Stadium back.jpg should not be centered at the top of a section
  • Have an Other uses or Other events section, talking about what it is used for besides Football.
  • Didn't check the references, but they looked good
  • Have a picture of inside the stadium during a game


Adam Stansfield

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 13 November 2015, 04:42 UTC
Last edit: 24 December 2015, 16:57 UTC


Craig Kieswetter[edit]


I've taken this article through the GA review system, and am looking to take it on to FA, but if there's one thing I'm sure about, it's that my prose will get picked apart something chronic! Therefore, any nit-picking that can take place here will hopefully make life easier later on. Thanks in advance for any moans, comments, complaints and general nattering. Harrias talk 17:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly

Copy-editing done. I've added a {{fact}} or two. One other small thing: you use "accumulating" a few times. I know you need some synonyms for "scored", but "accumulate" is an odd one. It seems more of an Atherton/Cook word than a Kieswetter word! This is obviously already a good article. There isn't a whole lot wrong with it! Relentlessly (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Image review
  • Overall looks good. I'd personally accept the fair use rationale for that last image, though I recognize that not everyone will agree. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Engineering and technology[edit]

Registered user[edit]

I've listed this for peer review because I'm fairly new as an editor (in that I haven't actually written much for Wikipedia), and my edits amount to basically a complete rewrite of an article which had severe neutrality issues (which are still reflected in the Wikipedia:NOTESSAY link at the top). I hope I've solved those, but I'd really appreciate some feedback. Thanks!

BlacklightShining (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The biggest issue with this article is that it is completely unsourced. The rewrite has not addressed that problem at all, it has rather gone backwards in that respect. It has gone from having poor or dead references to having none at all. I can give you advice on recovering dead references if you need it.
The article no longer reads like a personal essay, but without references to verify the content, it is not possible to say whether or not it is a personal essay. I would certainly not be willing to remove the template myself without being able to verify the content against sources.
Without reliable sources discussing the topic in detail, it is not even possible to say for certain that it is a notable subject deserving of a stand alone article. A case could be made, for instance, that it should be merged with the login article.
The article is written from the point of view of accessing websites and pretty musch ignores all other applications. Websites are not the only application. They are not even the most important application (most websites do not require registration to view). Much more important is registering users on company internal computer networks. This is for security reasons, and usually the user will not take part in the registration process. This is done by the system administrator and the user has no choice in it. There are also internet pages that are very important to have registration to control login - your online banking for instance. None of this is discussed in the article.
I don't think this is a problem, but you ought to consider whether a disambiguation page is required. There are other uses of the term registered user. It comes up a lot in a gbooks search in connection with the use of trade marks for instance.
Hope that's helpful, SpinningSpark 23:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Light-emitting diode[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to make little to no distinction between green vs. pure green LEDs. Green LEDs have been around since the 1970s and were introduced around the same time as orange and amber LEDs. Pure green LEDs (which are more suitable to RGB displays and traffic signals than traditional green LEDs), on the other hand, weren't introduced until the 1990s (around the same time as blue LEDs). This distinction is not only important due to the different shades of green, but the fact that they use different chemistries and have different operating voltages. I think we should include more distinction between the two different LED types, including specific wavelengths, voltages, and chemistries, as well as the histories of both types, along with appropriate sources.

As for terminology for the shades, there is also the debate on which convention to use. Some manufacturers insist on using the plain term "green" for the older style, and call the newer style "pure green" or "true green", while other manufacturers prefer to call the newer style "green" and call the older style "yellow-green" or "chartreuse".

Thanks, ANDROS1337TALK 03:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it an interesting topic, however you need to cite some sources for these specifications and the controversy surrounding them. Wikipedia builds on existing published knowledge, so it is difficult to write something of this sort without sources.
Regards Thorseth (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


Boeing 717[edit]

A few months ago I performed some edits to this article, fixing dead links and adding a number of citations to unsourced content. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what can be done to this article to bring this to GA status.

Thanks, sst 10:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


Transportation in South Florida

Article (edit | edit beta | 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 December 2015, 06:40 UTC
Last edit: 7 January 2016, 21:33 UTC


Hi-Level[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's expanded to the point where I'm thinking about good article status, but the article has been a one-person effort and I'd appreciate thorough review from a third party. I've tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to avoid burdening the article with railfan jargon.

Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck!

Always nice to read a page about trains :). I think this article has a good chance of meeting the good article criteria and would benefit from a nomination directly there. Sorry for the long wait, there are only a few of us at PR. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@LT910001: Thank you kindly, I'll do that. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


Stapleton Road railway station

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 18 November 2015, 14:04 UTC
Last edit: 28 January 2016, 19:37 UTC


SUNY Poly College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering[edit]

This article has some of components to it that makes it a college of a university, but it also seems too big to fit in one article because the research portion, however much is warranted, is bloated. I would make an attempt at fixing it, but I had been reverted doing so in the past and I don't know where to take this article with respect to other schools such as Texas Tech and its colleges for example.

Thanks, Buffaboy talk 23:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ergo Sum
The History section seems to be sold short. Relative to the rest of the article, it can be expanded. Additionally, the text for each Research Center section should be complete, grammatically-correct sentences, not continued clauses of the section titles, seeing as the article is not a list. Sections 4 and 5 can be put into prose, instead of the current bullet-format. Ergo Sum 05:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


General[edit]

Jochen Rindt[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA. I am grateful for every pointer on what needs to be improved to achieve this rating. I know that I need to bring the Motor Sport magazine references in order, we are currently debating which is the best template for that (web or magazine).

Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


Andheri railway station[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because as per my edits on this page, wanted to nominate in Good Article and i have made edits to the same. After the peer review, the decision should be made whether it may be nominated at GA or not

Thanks, SuperHero👊 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)
 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No major issues I can identify. Thanks for your edits to this article. There is luckily a list of existing model good articles for train stations here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology#Transport. I am sure this article will join them soon! Good luck at GA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Thanks alot LT910001 SuperHero👊 08:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Stone Town[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is an Iconic part of our nations history and I believe this article should be able to achieve good article status. I am mainly concerned about the Landmarks Section. It seemed that it was like a guide and I tried to touch up a little. There were way too many land marks on there and I made a separate article List of Landmarks in Stone Town and moved most of them there. However, I am still not sure about the language style in that section.

Furthermore, with regards to the geography section. Should the Climate section fall under geography? Also I personally did not write the 3 sentences under the geography section but I am unsure as how to expand it, if I wanted to.

Moreover, any other help and advice that would lead this article to become a good article would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Sputink (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Review by Fritzmann2002[edit]

This is my first review, but I'd like to devote my time to a thorough review of this article, and I look forward to working with you, Sputnik. I'll write what I find in a bulleted list, you can respond using a colon on the line after each point. Don't worry about signing your name, but start every response with User:Fritzmann2002 so I can be notified that you responded. Thanks!

Thank you for your time and help, Applogies for not getting back earlier I did not receive a notification. Sputink (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
  • In the second sentence, the part in parentheses should be moved into the first sentence; it should not be its own sentence
  • "it retained its importance as the main city of Zanzibar during the period of the British protectorate" may need to be rewritten. It is hard to understand the first, and even the second, time reading it
  • "Stone Town is a city of prominent historical and artistic importance in East Africa" This has already been stated many times. A different lead sentence is needed for this paragraph
  • The third paragraph needs more to it. In fact, if you can't find any more to complete it, you could probably easily integrate it later in the article.
  • The Infobox needs other information besides the UNESCO World Heritage Site info. You could probably add another infobox below that one with that info
User:Fritzmann2002 - What kind of infobox would you mean, Stone town despite the name is not a town nor a district. Do not believe any other infobox would fit in.
Overview[edit]
  • In the second sentence, bicycles and motorbikes do not need to be wiki linked

More to come very soon


Girija Kumar Mathur[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to improve this article to a great extent. It's quite rusty and maculate now... Thanks, Bismuth 123 (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)

Thanks for your edits to this article, Bismuth 123. What an interesting article about someone who has played a role in the modern social and cultural development of India. Here are some suggestions to improve the article:

  • Firstly, it's already easily to read and has some sources, which is great
  • I value that the article has an infobox that has relevant information in it, making it easy to get a snapshot of this person
  • I suggest including more WP:WIKILINKs so that interested editors can keep browsing Wikipedia if they so desire
  • I suggest including more sources, particularly to support claims about his importance to Hindi literature
  • I suggest including more information about the life of Girija.
  • I suggest expanding the section about reception and criticism (from inside and outside of India) about Girija's works

I hope this advice is useful. I find this article quite interesting and hope that it can one day make it to good article status. If it does, please let me know so I can offer you my congratulations! Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


One Sweet Day[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article looks like in tip-top shape and could be expanded to A-class or FA. Also, I need ideas for expansion. :)

Thanks, Vincent60030 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to get some more opinions on what sections need more fleshing out. In the controversies section I have plans to include the exact number of horses passed by the USDA this year, as soon as I find the source--I plan on saying something like "In 2015 the USDA passed xxxx horses as sound out of xxxx inspected", ref. I'd like to know if the sections on the actual show itself need more. Thanks, White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


Sword Art Online: Lost Song

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 2 December 2015, 04:38 UTC
Last edit: 4 February 2016, 16:41 UTC


Thomas de Veil

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 27 November 2015, 22:11 UTC
Last edit: 20 December 2015, 03:20 UTC


Hamed Sinno[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it would be helpful

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)

Thanks for your edits to this article, TheWarOfArt. I would recommend expanding this article, currently only 4-5 sentences long, including with relevant biographical information such as age and place of birth, relevant qualifications, and early and middle life. It's great that you've sourced what you have and I encourage you to continue. With further editing, this article may be suitable in the future to become a good article! Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this review. Happy editing! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Skin Trade (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because while this is a "good article", I would like advice on how to improve the article further. As this article has been solely written by myself, I find it hard to spot any mistakes that would be easily spotted by another editor. I would like to improve this article prior to its FA review, so any advice or help will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Metal121 (talk), November 26, 2015 (UTC).

I think that plot and cast of 'Skin Trade' need reference. --Limji1234 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Jumping Flash!

Article (edit | edit beta | 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 November 2015, 22:55 UTC
Last edit: 19 November 2015, 15:48 UTC


Geography and places[edit]

Massachusetts[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get this article to FA for the Wikicup and would like to improve it before I send it to FAC.

Thanks, Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


North Coast Inland Trail[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a Good Article soon. I've done everything to my ability to make this article as good as I can under my own standards, and my understanding of Wikipedia's quality standards. I've seen no one has paid much attention to this article as I've edited it for the past month. And that's okay, but now's the time someone should review it. I've literally added all the sources that I could possibly find that were relevant to the topic. I want someone else to see the article and edit or something at least before I nominate it at GAN.

Thanks, Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)

Thanks for your edits to this article :). I think this article might need a little bit of work before it can be nominated as a good article. I suggest:

  • Expanding the lead to reflect all sections of the article
  • Expanding the information about the history of the trail, including why it is on its current route, how it started, and how it developed, and any major figures or incidents that promoted it
  • Including more information about what can be seen along the route, such as flora and fauna
  • Including more information about particular figures, policies and plans played a role in the design and funding of the trail.

I hope you find this useful. Some existing good articles you can use as models can be found here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Lucknow[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… The article has been proofread and edited with suitable sources. It now stands at its best state and me along with other editors would be vary happy if it passes GA nomination. Thanks, Wikiboy2364 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)
 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your continued edits to this article. I suggest directly nominating as a good article. My suggestion would be to make sure all sections of the article are fully sourced (there are still some areas that are not) and then to iron out the article during the GA process... I think it has a very good chance of passing. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this review. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Cerro Blanco (volcano)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to bring it up for a GA nomination. Things to check would be both the quality of the translations (some sources are Spanish and I am not very good at that language, so errors may have slipped in) and text quality.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)
 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about how long you've had to wait. Based on my experience with the good article process I think this article has a very reasonable chance of meeting the good article criteria (WP:GA?). I suggest you nominate directly and iron out any flaws there. Thanks for your edits to this article. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Ara Canal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i want to get a more information.

Thanks, Pkh409 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from White Arabian Filly[edit]

  • In the infobox, the end point needs double brackets, not single ones.
  • The history section needs expansion.
  • In the Outline section the reference could be put in the table instead of the header.
  • "5million ton" could be changed to "5 million tons".
  • Shouldn't "hanyang river" be capitalized?
  • "Yellow sea" should be "Yellow Sea".
  • "So installing 'rain water pump'" is sort of awkward. The sentence needs to be changed to start with something other than so.
  • "suhyang" should be Suhyang.
  • "Also in Ara marine center" could be rephrased to start with something other than also.
  • The cultural life subsection needs to start with a the.

White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is decent and I have rated it as B-Class and I would like some further guidance on how to improve the article. I would also like to know if I have overrated the article (if it is actually C-Class, etc.). For improving the article, I would like to know how I could improve the History, Industry, Harbour and Two Rivers sections.

Thanks, JakeR2002 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


Climatic regions of Argentina[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if this article needs improvements, particularly with the prose and sentence structure since I would like to nominate this article for WP:GA and WP:FA. It was created as a separate article from the Climate of Argentina page since that page had too much information.

Thanks, Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Sources in the Books section should be sorted alpha by author, then chronological (typically, ascending) for more than one work by the same author.
  • Strongly suggest you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to your User:Ssbbplayer/common.js. It is extremely useful for highlighting reference errors, like to one in this article for the source "Trees in Patagonia 2008".
  • It's odd that 5 of the 6 sections of your article have 3 subsections, but Pampas has only one. It's also a bit odd tha the graphic in the WP:LEDE lists 9 areas of Argentina, but the article covers only the 6.
  • @Ssbbplayer: I skimmed the text, not reading closely, and it looked good. I also ran Earwig's copyvio tool without problems. But I am concerned that some sections may be direct translations from source, whic may in turn be WP:COPYVIO. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I will look over these issues, particularly with the translations which was the hardest part. Could you indicate which Spanish sources are problematic? For the Pampas one, that can be reorganized easily and I will do it shortly. For the map, although it includes the South Atlantic islands and Antarctica, the article should deal with areas that are internationally recognized and not subject to dispute which is why it should not include anything related to Falkland Islands or Argentine Antarctica as these claims are not recognized by other countries and are subject to territorial disputes. The Pampas covers both the dry and wet Pampas (I could not find a lot of any reliable climatic information on the Pampas). For the Sierras Pampeanas, I could not find a lot of good, reliable information related to the climate of this region (only a few sentences related to it in both Cuyo and NWA). However, the map is not really that good although it is the only one that fits well with this article for those not familiar with Argentine geography. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
My Spanish is limited to what I learned in elementary school approx. 40 years ago. [If you need someone to count from 1 to 100, I'm your man!]. However, when I glanced at some of the Spanish-language sources, the sentence structures and the placement of many words with Latin roots (shared with English) seemed perhaps a little too similar. You should probably research the whole translation/copyvio issue, but in general, I would assume that the rules are the same: please paraphrase, and do not repeat the structure (overall document structure, and/or individual sentence structure) of the original. Perhaps Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing will be helpful... I hope that helps a little at least. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will look into that. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Haryana[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for GA level asap.

Thanks, -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Doing... – I sometimes post comments in multiple parts. Here are my thoughts on peer reviews, so you know where I'm coming from. Runfellow (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from User:Runfellow

Notes from toolbox (top right corner of this page)
  • Consider using non-breaking spaces.
  • In text, spell out units of measurement
  • The heading "Formation of Haryana" should just be "Formation"
  • There are instances of weasel words in the article. These are a major impediment to promotion.
  • There are three instances of "the year XXXX" when simply saying "XXXX" will do.
  • The navbox template for Haryana contains a link to Geography of Haryana, which is currently only a redirect to this article.
  • There appear to be a few external links that are dead or timed out. Consider using archive.org or other sources.
  • Images do not have alt text. This is not required for GA status, I don't think, but you should include them anyway.
General notes

I'm going to keep these a bit more general. If you address these and would like further input, just ask and I can be more specific (especially regarding MOS or clarity issues, many of which I have skimmed over.)

  • Have you looked at other good and featured articles for Indian states? Of course, they need not follow the same exact structure, but articles like Tripura can provide some inspiration.
  • Consider including a pronunciation.
  • According to WP:LEAD, for every section in the article, there should be at least a mention in the lead. There are many sections of the article not mentioned here. This will mean shortening your info on the economy so that the lead remains concise.
  • There are many instances of multiple wikilinks to the same article. See WP:REPEATLINK. Consider using this script.
  • Consider "Name" instead of "Etymology" for section title. Simpler is better, I think.
  • There are quite a few sections with only a few references, and many Template:Citation needed tags to address. This will be an automatic failure for [[GA promotion, so I'd address these ASAP.
  • The section title lists the name as "Rao Tularam" and the body reads "Rao Tula Ram"
  • Some sections, such as Administrative districts and Law and order ("order" should not be capitalized, by the way) are sparse. Consider merging some of these at least until you have some more information on them.
  • The Manufacturing subsection is currently a list. Would it work better as summary prose?
  • Someone has added a original research tag that you will need to address before nominating for GA promotion. The first two paragraphs have no references, and they begin with an NPOV issue ("Haryana has a rich cultural heritage") so you'll want to start there.
  • Additionally, there are other NPOV issues throughout the article, such as "Haryana has produced some of the best Indian players in a variety of sports." Remember that Wikipedia is not an advertisement, so you'll want to eliminate these kinds of biased statements.
Suggestions for moving forward
  1. Address as much as possible of what I've listed here.
  2. When you're done, post it here OR if the review has been archived, begin another review. I believe you'll need another review before going to GA nomination, but that's up to you.
  3. After the second go-around, you might want to consider requesting a copyedit with the GOCE. Unfortunately, this takes a lot of time. Don't request unless you've addressed what's here already, though.
  4. Then recommend for GA status.

I don't want to sound overly negative. I remember when I submitted an article for my first peer review (I don't know if this is your first or not, just guessing) and someone kind of ripped it apart. Just keep working at it. If you have the passion to improve this article, keep improving it using featured articles and the MOS as your guide. Runfellow (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve much of the issues listed here. However, I am finding it difficult to fix the issue of ref and OR. Can you please help with a suggestion for that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


History[edit]

Siege of Sidney Street[edit]

The Siege of Sidney Street was the culmination of a two-and-a-half week investigation by the two police forces of London, following a bungled burglary by Latvian agitators. Three policemen were murdered in the burglary, and two more were badly injured (it is still the blackest event in British police history). The siege itself was made all the more interesting by the fact it was captured on the cameras of Pathé News, and the presence of the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. This has gone through a recent re-write and the aim is for a stab at FA, unless reviewers think otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Marvellous stuff! I have conducted some fixes, feel free to revert any of them. Paragraph three in the "The Houndsditch murders, December 1910" section is huge compared to the others. Could this be split? More comments to follow... CassiantoTalk 00:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


38th (Welsh) Infantry Division[edit]

I am aiming to get this article to FA status by July, in order to give it a shot at the front page in time for the 100 year anniversary of their fighting on the Somme. I have yet to finish the final section on the First World War (or write up a full lead), but expect to do so in the next few days. All comments welcome. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Ah, Blackadder... ;-) G'day, good work on this article. I have the following suggestions/comments/nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • there are a few "harvnb"/ref anchor error messages showing for the "Munby" work;
    I believe I have fixed this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • page ranges should have endashes
    I believe @Anotherclown: addressed this, in which case kudos :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "... form 'Second Line' divisions...": I believe that the MOS prefers double quotation marks over single
    Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "1914––1919" --> "1914–19" per WP:DATERANGE (same for other similar date ranges in the article)
    Addressed I believe.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    I made a couple more tweaks, sorry, my comment was a bit confusing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    Cheers!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • not sure about the link to this: Purchase of commissions in the British Army. It doesn't quite seem to fit what it is being used for
    Removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "home defense" --> "home defence": as it is about a British topic, the article should probably use British English variation/spelling instead of US
    This is what happens when a Brit gets stuck in the Americas, he starts spelling everything wrong! :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • " King's Shropshire Light Infantry-between 1944 and 1945-trained over 4,000 replacements" (the hyphens should be spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes)
    Got it!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the comments, and the edits! Further feedback is more than welcome. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, I'm seeing a few more harvnb/anchor errors: Lewis, McGreal, Miles, Edmonds, Rawson, Middlebrook. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    I will attempt to fix those later when I am home. For future reference, how do you go about seeing the errors? RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    If you install this script on your monobook you should be able to see them as red warnings on the page in read view: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for that, hopefully this will cut that down in the future!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments I fixed a few broken references, please check. Note: there is a missing reference for citation " Middlebrook 2000, pp. 80–81" Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the amendments, and I have added the missing ref.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Old Pine Church[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to progress to a featured article candidacy. I've had two other articles for historic churches make it to featured article status: Capon Chapel and Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia). Please feel free to provide any helpful guidance, suggestions, and other comments to improve this article to a featured article! Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Women in Classical Athens[edit]

I've (hopefully!) improved the article significantly since October. It's still got a way to go before it's up to the mark, though, I think, and I'd welcome some fresh eyes on it to see what needs doing. The sections on Childhood and Family Life are probably the best bits of the article at the moment; I think the section on Religion and the Lead are most in need of work still. I'd like to eventually get this up to at least GA status.

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Rathersilly[edit]

Hey, I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I happened across this and I think it would be interesting to at least mention the implications of Perikles' citizenship law of the mid 5th century BC. See 'Law, the Democratic citizen and the representation of women in classical Athens' by Osborne for more information. Essentially, Perikles' law changed the status of citizen-women to become 'gatekeepers' of citizenship so to speak by making having an Athenian mother a prerequisite for citizenship. This in turn had an effect on how women were valued in Athens which is reflected in grave stelae for example. There is a lot to be said on this subject, I am sure something about this could be fit into the article. Furthermore it should be noted that the 'separate spheres' idea is not entirely uncontested, I think Katz discusses this in 'Women and Democracy in Ancient Greece', and Vlassopoulos if I recall correctly mentions it in his 'free spaces' article, which I personally found very interesting. I might add some more suggestions later, I did some research into women in democratic Athens in the past, but I am busy now, so these are some ideas to work with for now.- Rathersilly (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I was just reading the Osborne article yesterday, actually, and wondering whether I should work it into the article somehow. I haven't read Vlassopoulos or Katz, I don't think, so thanks for the pointers to them, too. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Murshid Quli Khan[edit]

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

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)

Thanks for your edits to this article, and what an interesting article it is! I've had a look at the article and also the previous GA nomination. All good articles are reviewed against six criteria here: WP:GA?. Here are my suggestions to improve this article:

  • Reword this away from 'brainwashed': "he brainwashed them then Quli Khan was responsible for the due of their salaries"
  • Include, if relevant, a "Legacy" section
  • Include more WP:WIKILINKs -- as a reader I do not understand all the terminology about government postings and responsibilities, and links to relevant articles (or even dictionary entries at wiktionary) would be appreciated.
  • Issues with sourcing and prose identified in the last GA review still stand and can be read there. I note the article has not been edited after said review, so I suggest that may be a helpful place to start

I hope this helps. WikiProject India may have some enthusiastic editors who are happy to help you, so you can try asking there as well. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Hans-Ulrich Rudel[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Rudel is one of the more controversial and difficult figures of World War II to write about. His actions as pilot have been exploited by the Nazi propaganda, his fame as Germany's most highly decorated soldier and his involvement in post World War II Neo-Nazi activities, him protecting known war criminals, weapons dealing in Latin America, and his ambitions in politics, require the effort of more than one editor. I want to avoid that I fall into the trap of misrepresenting his actions. I am aware that the article still has some white spots which I need to dig in to. Nevertheless I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thanks for your time and attention. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • " He was then posted to the Luftwaffe main testing ground at Rechlin experimenting with the Bordkanone BK 3,7 equipped Ju 87 G use in the anti-tank role.": I don't follow.
  • "III. Gruppe": Most readers are going to read the period as the end of the sentence when their eye gets to this point, because the III is separated from Gruppe in 3 ways: by the link, the font, and the period.
  • Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Early life and career and skimmed the rest. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, for your constructive feedback. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, I did some copy editing also. These are my edits: [1]. One suggestion that I have is to split the rather long second paragraph of the lead. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Great article-really enjoyed reading it. However, the first two sentences of the section Defeat on the Eastern Front aren't clear to me - in the sense that I could not figure out how to best correct them. Rudel was trying to defend 8. Armee, I am pretty sure, but that's not how it reads. Also, I think the word being needs to be inserted in front of encircled in the 2nd sentence of that section, but I wanted to leave that up to you. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, reworded the sentences. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Pelé[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am nominating for good article status soon.

Thanks, JerrySa1 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Spiderone

General
  • Make sure that all football scores are written using n-dashes. Using '–' rather than '-'
  • Write single digit numbers as words, so write 'eight goals' instead of '8 goals'.
  • See WP:NPOV. We should avoid using terms like 'brutal fouling', 'spectacularly saved', 'rolled perfectly into the path of' unless these are direct quotes.
  • I feel that there are too many pictures, especially in the After football section; it looks overcrowded.

Yes check.svg Done, except for that third one. JerrySa1 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead
  • Whilst WP:LEAD doesn't prohibit citations in the lead, I personally think that there are too many in this article. If you compare it to some of the best football biographies, such as Thierry Henry, Eduard Streltsov and Steve Bruce, you can see that their leads only contain citations for controversial statements or for direct quotes. The lead should just be a summary of what is already in the main body of the article and so having a citation in the lead and then a citation in the main body is redundant. Personally, I think the only citations that need to be there are the ones for his birthdate and the ones for his nicknames e.g. "The Black Pearl".
Yes check.svg Done JerrySa1 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
National team career
  • We tend to call this international career but I'm not sure if that is essential.
  • It should be in chronological order so South American Championship should not be at the bottom.
  • Perhaps a few sentences about other notable international matches outside of World Cups? His stats show that he played in a lot of other lesser tournaments and also some friendlies. I understand that the World Cup is the most important tournament but, in order to be comprehensive, we ought to give a few mentions of other achievements. Also, why did he never play in more than one South American Championship/Copa America?
    • There was none I could think of. His only goals in Copa America was in 1959. He got top scorer but that's all that he did there. he made appearances but didn't score. JerrySa1 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Reception and legacy
  • Very well written and well referenced!
Personal life
  • Very well written and well referenced!
After football
  • Sadly, I don't think this is as good as the two preceding sections. There are too many very small paragraphs and it doesn't read very well. When I read it out loud, it sounds very bitty and doesn't flow well at all. Consider merging some paragraphs and/or deleting some unnecessary trivia.
  • Remember to keep it in chronological order unless you are paragraphing by topics that are related rather than using chronological order.
  • Referencing is fairly good though.
Honours, records & statistics
  • Seems good to me!
Acting and film career
  • I'm not sure if he has done enough acting for this to warrant a section of its own in the article?
  • These need to have citations provided for each individual film mentioned.
  • I would also like to see some prose. I know his acting career is briefly mentioned in some other sections but it would be nice to see a short summarising paragraph if this specific section is to be kept.
I think this should be removed and the info put somewhere else. JerrySa1 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Cultural references
  • We shouldn't really use bullet point lists. I also don't think that this warrants its own section. The notable references should be incorporated into either Reception and legacy or After football.
  • Some statements have no citation to back them up.

Yes check.svg DoneJerrySa1 (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

References

See Reference checker

Please do address all the 'red' links on that page; replacing them with newer links that work. You could see if you could 'rescue' some broken links by using Web Archive. Doing... JerrySa1 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to WebCite so I can't do reference 193. JerrySa1 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done JerrySa1 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Best wishes with the article and I hope that it can become a GA at some point in 2016! And who knows maybe even an FA?

Spiderone 12:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


Royal Australian Corps of Transport[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have only just recently returned to editing Wikipedia. I would like to try to get this to GA status.

Thanks, Aeonx (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

AustralianRupert's comments[edit]

G'day, good work with this so far. It's great to see someone working on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • for GA, I would like to see all paragraphs referenced, so I think refs should be placed in the following places:
    • at the end of the paragraph about the corps' role ;
    • after the sentence: "The RACT Banner is currently housed in the Tobruk Barracks Officers' Mess at Puckapunyal."
    • all of the equipment items
  • the RACT abbrev should be introduced formally. I'd suggest just putting it in the lead as follows: "The Royal Australian Corps of Transport (RACT) is a corps within the Australian Army."
  • link "corps" in the lead ;
  • I would like to see a broader discussion of where RACT soldiers are employed. For instance, mentioning some of the major transport units (e.g. the FSBs, CSSBs, etc.), but also making it clear that RACT pers are employed broadly in other units, e.g. infantry battalions, engineer units, artillery units, other log (e.g. medical) units, etc.
  • Is it possible to mention deployments...one imagines that RACT pers have been deployed on pretty much every major Australian deployment since the corps formed. Is this covered anywhere?
  • Good luck with taking this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I did a little copyediting in the first part and skimmed the rest. I don't think you'll have a problem with prose at GAN. Good luck. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


Portuguese Empire

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 17 December 2015, 01:58 UTC
Last edit: 20 December 2015, 18:50 UTC


Zahir al-Umar[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for Featured Article candidacy in the near future. The article recently passed its GA nomination. The main thing I'm looking for is a pair of fresh eyes who could help identify any potential obstacles to passing the FAC (MoS mistakes, grammar and flow, issues with comprehensiveness or neutrality, incomplete lead). Note that I will begin the process of converting the citations to Harvard refs very soon. I also need to need to add alt text to the images. To be honest, once that is done, I believe the article will be ready for FAC, but this is why I think another pair of eyes would be greatly beneficial. I will continue to add or change content, and have recently and currently been working on improving many of the articles related to the subject of Zahir al-Umar.

Thanks, Al Ameer (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments. Oops, the Milhist bot doesn't seem to be working. I've now added this manually to our announcements template. I'll have a look soon. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I copyedited down to Rule and skimmed the rest. I don't think prose problems will be a stopper at FAC, although I'd recommend adding this to the WP:GOCE's request page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Bu-Ma Democratic Protests[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • We don't have 'picture' yet. There are no available picture for this page(Because of copyright)
  • I wish if anyone could find available picture for this page.

Thanks, Rhee In Joon (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rhee In Joon, that really isn't the purpose of peer review - I suggest posting at WP:Requested pictures instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


Beach volleyball[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the latest change adds a very interesting section about Beach Volleyball's origins being in Hawaii. However, it lacks sources/citations for that claim. I'm not sure how to specifically tagging a section as needing citations/sources. Deleting the whole addition for lack of reference source(s) seems a bit harsh.

Thanks, naturist (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from White Arabian Filly[edit]

  • "Olympic discipline"--shouldn't that be Olympic sport?
  • "Birth" doesn't need to be in quotes.
  • The section about the sport's beginning could use a {{cn}} citation needed tag, but it'd be better to just find a source.
  • There doesn't need to be spaces between the words and dashes.
  • "But the sport's"--sort of awkward to start a sentence with but.
  • Need references for the whole section on skills. I'd suggest searching Google Books.
  • "Ire of some athletes". Which athletes?
  • Muslim could be wikilinked.
  • "And in fact the weather..." That sounds sort of awkward, find some other way to phrase it.

White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Molly house

Article (edit | edit beta | 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 December 2015, 10:10 UTC
Last edit: 21 January 2016, 13:16 UTC


Bow Street Runners[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been recently improved and expanded.

Thanks, Elisa.danesin (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "The force, originally numbering only six individuals, was founded in 1749 by the British magistrate Henry Fielding, who was also well known as an author." This sentence is a bit long.
  • The old system is similar to citizen arrest, you could say that instead of saying "The enforcement of the law then was mostly up to the private citizens"

I have a peer review on Pele and I want a comment. JerrySa1(talk) 16:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw There is lots of useful material in this article and you have done well to expand it this far, however I have few comments and questions:

Lead and infobox

History

  • The first three paragraphs (and several further down the article) are unreferenced
  • "legalize", "professionalization" and "organized" are used. I would assume this article about an English organisation would use British English spellings ie "legalise", "professionalisation" and "organised". The rest of the article should be checked for these types of issues.
  • In the section on Henry Fielding (1750–1754), I would think "duke of Newcastle" should have a capital D and possibly be linked to the relevant person at Duke of Newcastle
  • I find the statement "It is also true that many of the original Runners were also serving constables" confusing. If they were Constables weren't they already police officers?
  • There seems to be some overlap and differences between this article and History of the Metropolitan Police Service. Would it be worth mentioning here about Tipstaff and similar items included in the wider history article?
  • Should Public Advertiser be wikilinked?
  • There is some duplication between the sections.
  • There are a few examples of POV statements such as "generously funded" which need attribution - who said it was generous?
  • When discussing the development of the courts it may be worth linjking and referring to Magistrate (England and Wales)

Fiction

  • This section is almost completely unreferenced (but does include some external links within the text which should be turned into properly formatted references).
  • Per WP:TRIVIA some of the entries are not significant enough for inclusion.

See also

  • Several of these links are already included in the text and therefore not needed (See WP:ALSO

References

  • This looks impressive initially however many of the citations are to different pages in Beatie's book. You may wish to consider using Shortened footnotes so that the details of the book are given once but the references make it clear which page is used to validate the claim.

I hope some of these comments are useful.— Rod talk 11:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Penal transportation[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I worked hard to improve it and I think that some suggestions and a feedback could be helpful to enhance it.

Thanks, Gio1291 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


Footpad[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it could be helpful to improve it. I've worked on it a lot and with effort and dedication trying to make accurate researches about the topic. I've cured and edited all paragraphs exept the introduction and the origin of the word and now I'm trying to understand if expand the page without resulting to get out of topic and deal with concepts that already have their own section on Wikipedia.


Thanks, Im 2u (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto:

The lead says first that the term footpad was used from the 16th to 19th century, and secondly, in a different sentence, that footpads operated between the Elizabethan period and the 19th century. I suspect that fundamentally these two claims amount to the same thing, but the second suggests that the kind of activity that footpads engaged in (i.e. robbing pedestrians) only happened in this time frame. Perhaps, if footpadry is fundamentally distinct from e.g. mugging (other than the fact that one word is outdated and one is recent) you should say how in the article. I don't think they are distinct, though, so I'd just cut the redundancy.

Also in the lead, per WP:Refers, it is probably better to begin "Footpads were a type of criminal who specialised in robbing pedestrian victims..."

I'm not sure to what extent the etymology of "footpad" is relevant to the article, especially as currently the section essentially says "we're not really sure what the etymology is".

In the section on "robbery", the article tells us that it was impossible to buy a horse. This seems to be obviously wrong: clearly some people did own horses, and therefore presumably some were for sale. If horses were never sold, it seems a likely to be challenged claim needing citation (per WP:PROVEIT). If, as more likely, the article means that buying a horse was prohibitively expensive, it should say that! (but it seems to me this still lacks explanatory power. A fundamental component of being a robber is stealing things: why couldn't they just steal horses? There are reasons other than "horses are expensive").

The MoS guidelines for section headings are found at WP:HEAD. Specific violations in this article:

  • Headings should be in "sentence case" i.e. only the first letter of the first word (and of proper nouns) should be capitalised.
  • Headings should not begin with articles (a, an, or the)
  • Headings should be nouns or noun-phrases ("robbing" needs to change)

There are various sentences and phrases throughout the article that don't make much sense to me, or sometimes just aren't very idiomatic English:

  • "through which it was possible to gain time and take the lead in case of reaction from the victim" (the meaning of which seems to be later conveyed by "Violence was perpetrated as a means to ensure a rapid escape from the crime scene.": having both is redundant?)
  • "Criminals found more safe and advantageous moving in darkness"
  • "Not all such criminals were indespensable usual practitioners, but they could have an occupation as assistant or apprentice of some master who testified in favour of their good character." The first part of this sentence doesn't make much sense, the second part needs context.
  • "The scripture constitutes a testimony of how street robbery and its actors became the subject of cultural texture." I don't even know what sense this is meant to be conveying...
  • "efferate". As far as I know (and Google knows) this simply isn't an English word. The Italian word "efferato" means "brutal", which makes sense in context...
  • "perpetrators were generally tried with inflexibility." I know what this means, but it's not exactly idiomatic English. "perpertrators were treated harshly", perhaps?

There seem to be some contradictions in the article: e.g. the section on "robbing" suggests that all footpad attacks were violent, but the section on "Most noted Criminals and Gangs" says that not all attacks were necessarily violent?

The same section mentions Matthew Clarke and his burglary. This isn't really relevant to an article on footpadry: an example of a footpad famous for violence would be much better.

"Criminals convicted were taken to trial at the Old Bailey, the Central criminal Court of Engand and Wales, and if sentenced guilty they were punished.": Certainly in the 16th century this would only have been the case for London criminals. What about footpads elsewhere in England? Other towns (e.g. Norwich and Bristol) existed!

Hope this helps!


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Typhoon Melor (2015)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this fully details the history, preparations and impact, and preparing this article to be a Good article. Thanks, TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Manuel Casanova[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be better sourced and I am not sure how to do it in this case.

Thanks, Ylevental (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)

Thanks for your edits to this article, Ylevental

To improve the sourcing in this article, especially when you use quotes, here are some suggestions:

  • Do a search on google news ([news.google.com]) and see if you can find some news sites that may support what is written in the article
  • Search the relevant university websites - many of which have a biographies page for their professors
  • See this list of tips for more information - WP:BTIP

As a sidenote, the last sentence of this article ends on a cliffhangar: " A similar phenomenon involving spindle cell neurons is being investigated by"

Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Ralph Vary Chamberlin[edit]

Previous peer review

This article was promoted to GA in December, and I'm seeking input on how best to bring it to FA status. I've been the primary developer of this article since its December 2013 stub form, so can definitely use some fresh eyes on it. I'm more interested right now in big picture things like article structure, writing style, lead length, level of detail and balance (should certain elements be expanded? scaled back?) and less interested in issues of punctuation or citation format, but am open to any opinions and constructive criticism. I currently have the article structured more or less in a chronological profile of key life/work stages followed by more in-depth coverage of his research and personal views (not necessarily chronologically), but I'm open to alternate suggestions (e.g. primarily chronological, with his death at or near the end). While there are sources that expand in detail on some events here (especially the 1911 Brigham Young University modernism controversy) I believe this article is the most comprehensive single source on Chamberlin I've seen that addresses his entire career, and unless I can find some more in-depth biographical information (scholarly obituaries, more opinions and context from contemporary and modern researchers, or just why exactly he got banned from the MCZ), I don't foresee a dramatic increase in coverage.

Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Polar bear[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it should be upgraded to featured article status.

Thanks, Bueller 007 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Just glancing over this:

  • The Norway section is empty.
  • There's a "not in citation given" tag in the Canada section (meaning there's a non-verifiable ref)
  • There's five "citation needed" tags

What I don't understand is how this all snuck passed GA criteria.


Termite[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what the broader community thinks about the current status of this article for FA. Before I started editing this article, it was in a horrible state and I made a goal to myself to get this to GA. After an exceptional copyedit and impressive GA review were initiated, I believe this article is almost at its greatest and now I have a goal to get it to FA. Because of this, I would like to see if any noticeable issues still stand before I nominate this for FA.

Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
In greater detail, this is a really interesting and well-written article that deserves to be FA status. I think it's very comprehensive, relatively easy to read, and has some of the best use of images to illustrate the text that I've seen on Wikipedia. One thing that could be improved is making the lead and first 1-2 sections easier to read for lay readers. One way that could be done is to invert the sentences so that simpler information comes before the more complex zoological descriptions. I hope this helps. Good luck at FA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Tom for the comments, perhaps from what you have said we should close the PR here and just nominate? I could definitely do that. In regards to your suggestion, you can feel free to leave any particular comments about it in the FAC since I'm unsure what to change. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments, I'm glad that people believe this is FA worthy. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Just glancing over, there don't seem to be many obvious errors. Just a few things, though:

  • One thing I noticed was that there's a section called Cited literature with only two books in it, but there's 35 other refs with ISBN numbers. Be consistent.

This is because there are multiple pages cited throughout the article.

Not throughout the article, in just the Reference section, for example ref no. 2 (Cranshaw, Whitney (2013)), and ref no. 115 (Wilson, Edward O. (1971))
  • In the Taxonomy and phylogeny section, wikilink "Cryptocercus"; it is wikilinked the third paragraph but is first mentioned in the first paragraph

Already linked in first paragraph, but I have delinked "wood roach" if that is what you mean?

Yes. Also, when you first mention "Cryptocercus", put the common name "wood roach" in parentheses next to it
Done.
  • In the Description section, wikilink "ocelli"

Linked.

  • In the Description section, change " hind- and fore-wings" to "hind-and-fore-wings" or "hind-wings and fore-wings"

Wouldn't that be repetitive though?

I suppose it might, but "hind- and fore-wings" is not grammatically correct
Done.
  • In the Predators section, in this sentence "while chimpanzees have developed tools to "fish" termites", wikilink "developed tools" to "Tool-use#Primates"

Done.

  • For ref no. 105 (Lepage, M. G. (1981)), add the parameter "|language=Spanish"

Done.

  • For ref no. 106 (Levieux, Jean (1966)), add the parameter "|language=French"

Done.

  • In the Parasites and pathogens section, move ref no. 119 (Weiser, Jaroslav; et al. (2009)) and ref no. 120 (Chouvenc, T; et al. (2012)) to in front of the semi-colon

Done.

  • Is ref no. 127 (Costa-Leonardo, Ana Maria; et al. (2013)) a book or a journal? I see both a doi and an ISBN

It's technically a journal article, but it only appears in the book (it's pretty much a chapter of its own).

  • For ref no. 162 (Forbes, Henry O. (1878)) add template {{subscription required}}

Done.

  • In the Nests section, change " (built above ground, but always connected to the ground via shelter tubes." to " (built above ground, but always connected to the ground via shelter tubes)."

Done, I was confused as to what I needed to change until I realised. Good catch!

Should I just move these comments to the FAC page? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 21:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, I'll address your comments shortly. I haven't nominated yet but if you have any more comments you can feel free to post there. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright then.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


Language and literature[edit]

Wings for My Flight[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, well, I've been pretty much the only person writing/editing this article. It passed GA, and my goal is WP:FAC, but I'd like some fresh eyes first. Are the citations okay? Are there any sections that might need revising?

I'm kind of new to this; this is my first peer review experience. Let me know if I've messed anything up. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi

Article (edit | edit beta | 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: 7 December 2015, 02:14 UTC
Last edit: 18 December 2015, 15:54 UTC


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Pantheism[edit]

Previous peer review

This is specifically about the sub-topic of history in the 20th century concerning Einstein quotes. I really don't like bothering anyone with this, but the discussion is at an impasse with new references available. Could use a third party to evaluate the validity on the claims of Einstein being a pantheist. See Einstein Quotes talk discussion.

Thanks, Muemmel85 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Muemmel85: I think, rather than a peer review, you need a request for comment. You may also want to ask at the appropriate WikiProjects (though be careful not to inappropriately canvass). I will say, though I'm not really interested in debating whether or not Einstein was a pantheist, that the best option would surely be to follow the third party reliable sources, such as Jammer's book, rather than pushing for our own interpretation of Einstein's own words. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to have it evaluated against WP:FL criteria. This article is nominated 4 times and failed each time. Efforts are made to enhance the quality and fix the mentioned problems which were mentioned during previous nominations.

Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein I'm sorry that you've had to wait so long for a review. I've read your article and cannot identify any major problems. It must be very frustrating to continually hit the review loggerhead, and I can see you nominated several times. That said in my editing career I've found it very useful to approach problems from the side rather than head on. I would recommend you focus on editing other articles and area for the next 6-12 months. You will find that you learn and develop as an editor, and may without realising it pick up several useful tips that can help you when you resume editing here. In my past experience, focusing on a single article on wikipedia without letting it drop is a recipe for frustration and burnout. Kind regards, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Tom (LT): Thanks very much for your valuable tips. It's a long time I have not edited this article and I'm doing other jobs such creating new pages and nominating DYK hooks. Anyway, do you think the article is not still ready? Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speak to whether it will pass or not, I have some suggestions but (unfortunately) they're no guarantee of what reviewers will point out during the featured list review. I've tried to look through the last nomination for more ideas:

  • Consider removing all the footnotes that are just Persian, and not translations. They don't add encyclopedic value to English language readers who for the most part will not be able to read them.
  • Consider writing 1-2 sentences at the beginning of the "Family tree" section to explain that they are all biologically related. I find the family tree useful but I'm not sure what other users may say.
  • I am unclear what time period you are speaking about when you write "The eldest surviving grandson of Muhammad," who has by now passed away.
  • I am still unclear why several other infallible are considered such by the Shia community. Eg: "Al-Jawad was known for his generosity and piety in the face of persecution by the Abbasid caliphate.[49]" was known as... but why does he continue to be revered?

--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Social sciences and society[edit]

Thomas Bailey Marquis[edit]

Previous peer review

I am looking for a detailed review from an experienced editor that will allow this article to go on to be a Featured Article. I recently requested a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Bailey Marquis/archive1) but I feel that although the reviewer answered the direct question that I raised in the request, the review was not as detailed and searching as I would expect for an FA review and the reviewer was too new and inexperienced.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


State Shinto[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've made major contributions to the article, and believe it could be ready for a re-assessment. I'd like to get the article to Featured, or at least "Good Article" status. Suggestions on formatting, content, needs, and other issues noted by experienced editors would be welcome.

Thanks, Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this article up for review, Owlsmcgee. It's clear you have put a lot of work into this detailed article. I would recommend a few things, but that said these are only my thoughts:
  • This article would benefit from an initial 'overview' section that explains what shinto is as a religion, what its major tenets and practices are, and maybe a small historical overview.
  • The lead would benefit from expansion
  • The article is very well supported with sources, which is great
  • The details in the article are very interesting and well above "broad", which is wonderful.
  • I find the images relevant to the article

I hope this helps on your path to good article status. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Tom (LT)! I tend to like short leads, but I will explore ways to develop it. And yes, some additional background will be useful - I'm working a bit on the main Shinto article, so I can create a summary while I am at it. Thanks again! ---Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure that readers see it as neutral and factual.

It's important that Victorians are away of the state's anti-corruption agency and I'm seeking any edits to make the content easier to understand.

Thanks, Michael.social (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)

Thanks for your edits to this article, Michael.social. It's great to have another editor on board.

I suggest some edits to make this article more like other Wikipedia articles in style and tone:

  • Firstly, I suggest including more secondary sources - I notice a lot of primary sources are used in this article (see the essay WP:USINGPRIMARY for more details)
  • I suggest including more WP:WIKILINKs to other related articles so readers can continue to explore this topic
  • I suggest writing in a more discursive fashion, instead of just writing as lists
  • I suggest including a section on public reception and criticism, which is very important to wikipedia articles

I hope this helps. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


University of Virginia Greek life[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to bring it up for FAR soon. It's already had one failed review. I believe I've addressed all of the comments aside from adding the suggested extra sources, which I've had trouble finding at local libraries. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome.

Thanks, Puppysnot (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


Norodom Sihanouk[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…

As a whole, I think I have written and rewritten this article to the stage whereby the content should be balanced enough, and in principle, meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. However, I have a gut feeling that the current state prose may pass the FA process as yet. I've done a Peer Review for this article previously, but it had yielded minimal outcomes. Hope to gather inputs so as to make this article truly FA worthy.

Thanks, Mr Tan (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


Albert Rees[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because need the help of the Wikipedia community to do this topic justice.

I've expanded this article from a short stub by another user. However, note that, despite related University research projects and archives at two major universities and research centers (the Council on Wage and Price Stability project at George Mason University and Albert Rees papers at Duke University, together with Council on Wage and Price Stability archives at the Ford Presidential Library), the federal agency (1974-1981), he headed didn't even have a Wikipedia page until I created the redirect here (despite being named in the bios of multiple other notable individuals.) The NYT obit doesn't mention his Academy of Arts and Sciences Award (normally a career highlight), even for someone of Rees' stature, and doesn't really IMHO properly explain that he started a federal agency, or that IMHO he was apparently instrumental in dismantling price controls by dismantling the former Nixon price board (not sure about this --- check this!), was the number 2 guy at Princeton University (mentioned by NYT but relegated to the background.) They say he was an advisor to President Ford, but not clear what they meant by this (the title "Senior Advisor to the president' has been used differently by different administrations, sometimes formally and sometimes informally, but did he actually hold this title, formally or informally, under the Ford Administration?).

Probably the NYT decided it didn't have the print space in 1992 to explain some of these things -- they can't do a link the way we can. They are missing things that might be trivial. We Wikipedias often care about whether or not a professor held an endowed chair, as a major criteria for notability (Rees is a total slam dunk). Provosts of major universities generally get these ex-officio, and it seems not mentioned anywhere as Rees is far above the mere endowed chair criteria in Wikipedia notability. The name of his endowed chair, or even that he held an endowed chair, was probably too trivial for the NYT obit given all the other things they had to write about in their limited 1992 print run space. (That being said, we might still mention it if we can find a reference to it.)

There are lot of universities still doing things connected with him (the aforementioned study projects), the various awards named after him), it would seem he would deserve a better Wikipedia page just so Wikipedians can understand what someone means when they list this award in their bio. Also, I was unable to find information on who his thesis advisor was, although this is surely listed by convention in the acknowledgements page of his PhD thesis, accessible to anyone with access to Proquest (nearly any US university).

How can get all the other institutions invested in studying this individual, such as the Council on Wage and Price Stability Project at George Mason University, the Duke University Collection on Albert Rees, the Ford Presidential Library archives on CoWPS, or the two universities (Princeton & Oberlin) that have prizes & fellowships named after him, more involved in this Wikipedia bio. Sometimes people care more about ideas than people. so what about getting these institutions also more involved in same of the related articles like the history of price controls that could also be improved on Wikipediia? What about getting all those Wikipedians who have been editing other people's bios, that list "Council on Wage and Price Stability" prominently in those bios, more involved in creating an actual article on that agency, or expanding the section in this one that i created?

The article has been rated "Start" class. How can I, or other Wikipedians that over this project from me, bring this article to "C" or better standards?

This article does not yet have an importance rating from any of the half-dozen or more Wikiprojects it touches upon. Would it be possible to rate the importance of this article on the talk page for some of these projects, so that there is at least one importance rating?

Thanks, Dk3298371 (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've started the a discussion for splitting the article here: Talk:Albert_Rees#Split_-_Council_on_Wage_and_Price_Stability Jonpatterns (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Death of Yoshihiro Hattori[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it could use a good bit of work and it probably could be a GA with some extra contributions.

Thanks, H.dryad (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What a fascinating article about a very sorry circumstance.

In terms of the good article criteria (WP:GA?), I think this article is very easy to ready, well-written, and suitably broad. The only one I think could be improved off the bat is by making sure you source all parts of the article, especially the quotes. When you have found sources for these I'd encourage you to nominate directly. One other small comment is that I am not sure inclusion of the 'discrimination' sidebar is completely relevant - there may have been elements of discrimination but I do not think this is the central issue in the article according to the text.

So in summary well done, a very easy to ready article that needs a few more sources and then off to GA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Effects of genocide on youth[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it could be a candidate for GA with the appropriate feedback and effort.

Thanks, PEGLEG3 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi PEGLEG3, thanks for working on this important human rights topic. I'm happy to give the article a review. I see you have not made many edits to the article so far, but are you willing to make improvements if I suggest areas to work on? I've done several GAs and lots of GA reviews so I can help if you're interested in taking it through the process. delldot ∇. 04:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
PEGLEG3: I took a peek. The article mixes up deculturation or assimilation (boarding schools) with genocide, etc. It seems one-sided as for now. I spot checked one ref for the exaggerated (?) claims and could not find it, see my edit there. Zezen (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Lists[edit]

List of Georgetown University alumni[edit]

I've listed List of Georgetown University alumni for peer review because… it was previously listed as a Featured List candidate (here is its listing) but failed. I and others have thoroughly overhauled the list article. Any comments on the lede section, list entries, citations, or other general matters would be very much appreciated. Hopefully, after peer review, any critiques can be addressed and the article eventually re-listed as an FL candidate. Thanks in advance, Ergo Sum 20:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Iron and Steel Industry in India[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to clear the issues associated with the article

Thanks, Bismuth 123 (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Searchtool.svg Review What an interesting page, Bismuth 123! I quite like the overview of the history of steel and iron in India. Here are some thoughts from the review:

  1. The article would benefit from the tables being included in written text, rather than a series of tables, which are difficult to read.
  2. The first half of the article would benefit from more citations
  3. The history section is really interesting
  4. The article overall would benefit from more Wikilinks so that readers can go to articles about related areas (such as about the major steel companies and regions of India)
  5. Most articles are titled in lowercase except for names, so this article should probably be titled Iron and steel industry in India.

Overall it's clear you've put a lot of effort into this article. Nice work. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Searchtool.svg Review As Tom (LT) said, an interesting article indeed. I think a few things could be done for the benefit of the article.

  1. Under exports, if such data is available, break down yearly export quantities as the import section does.
  2. A picture in the lede would do well.
  3. Although there is a bibliography, inline citations for the number-heavy portions would be good.
  4. Some areas could use copy editing, so requesting that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors would go a long way.
  5. I reiterate Tom (LT)'s #5

Quite an informative article overall. Ergo Sum 21:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]