Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Peer review  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PRG)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
PR icon.png
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting several requests on the talk page of a volunteer.


Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.

Step 1: Prepare the article[edit]

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

Please note:

  • Nominations are limited to one open request per editor.
  • Articles must be free of major cleanup banners
  • 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review of that article. Please address issues raised in an unsuccessful GAN, FAC or FLC before opening a PR.
  • For more information on these limits see here.

Step 2: Requesting a review[edit]

To add a nomination:

  1. Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
  2. Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this.
  3. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
  4. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
  5. Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to 2 other reviews, so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
  6. Avoid re-editing your own nomination if at all possible. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items.

To change a topic:

The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic= X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (X) on the template can be set as one of the following:

  • arts
  • langlit (language & literature)
  • philrelig (philosophy & religion)
  • everydaylife
  • socsci (social sciences & society)
  • geography
  • history
  • engtech (engineering & technology)
  • natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)

If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.

Step 3: Waiting for a review[edit]

Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.

Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it till it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.

Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.

Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.

Step 4: Closing a review[edit]

To close a review:

  1. On the article's talk page, replace the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page with {{Old peer review|archive = N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1).
  2. On the peer review page, replace {{Peer review page|topic = X}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}.

When can a review be closed?

  • If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active
  • If the article has become a candidate for good article, featured article or featured list status
  • If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
  • If an answered review is inactive for more than one week.
  • If a request is unanswered for more than one month.
  • A full list is available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy


  • Select an article on the current list of peer reviews.
  • If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
  • Feel free to improve the article yourself!
  • Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.

Please note:

  • When commenting in the review, please do not use level 1–3 section headings (level 4 headers are OK). Do not link your username, unless you precede it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews.
  • The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}} / {{notdone}} templates. Use the non-image templates, {{done-t}} / {{not done-t}}, instead.
  • Automated peer reviews can be generated using the Tips tool link in the upper right corner: please do not include them on the peer review page.

For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.