Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer Review)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.
For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes.
For the review of new pages, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol.
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
PR icon.png

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

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

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

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




Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was previously a good article in 2006 but has since then it has fell into disrepair. I am not sure where to start, hoping for some advise assuming it's salvageable. Additionally I have created a sandbox so you may comment on specific sections.

User:Kelvin 101/EastEnders (Main article draft)

Thanks, Kelvin 101 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just some general issues, I will add more as I find them. TsangeTalk 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Images need ALT text
  • Multiple dead links see [1]
  • History section should come before Setting section
  • Not really sure the Realism section adds anything to the article.
  • Character section is too long
  • More of the article consists of
  • Lots of choppy sentences that are short and don't flow well into each other

Comments by Smurrayinchester Smurrayinchester 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • A couple of sections are out of date - the budgets only run to 2010, for instance, and the number of episodes per year is as of 2006.
  • The "Internet" section should probably go - very out of date, and it's no longer especially interesting that people search for TV shows.
  • The "Criticism" section should be split up - maybe something like "Allegations of national and racial stereotypes", "Morality and violence", "Controversial storylines" - and be trimmed a bit. (As the most viewed show in the UK, there will always be some complaints. Priority should be given to the biggest ones.
  • The "Realism" section seems mistitled - "Issues" might be more accurate.
  • I'd expand the "In popular culture" section to "In British culture", since it currently contains nothing but a link to EastEnders in popular culture. Academics have written reams about what EastEnders means to British culture (see 1, 2, 3).

Thanks for both of your comments I shall try and rectify all problems as soon as possible. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Monnow Bridge[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA and am keen for feedback, prior to doing so. The bridge is important in its own right, as the only example of its type in Britain. It also has some importance for Wikipedia, as the symbol of Monmouth, the World's First Wikipedia Town. Any, and all, comments welcome.

Thanks, KJP1 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Nev1

  • I'm reading the article at the moment and will leave some comments tomorrow (Wednesday). Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: First of all, well done on a thorough and well rounded article. It’s a very good quality article, with plenty of additional information for context. I really like the way the text is structured, with the purpose being discussed in the history, an interesting section on depictions in art, and rounding it off with the architecture.

The lead does a good job of summarising the article – striking a good balance between describing the bridge’s history and giving some additional context.

The history section is comprehensive and I like the way it blends a history of the site’s interpretation and study towards the latter part of the section. Again, you give good context to understand the subject, an example of which is when explaining the uncertainty of the construction date. I have a few suggestions for improvements:

  • “Some sources suggest that the earlier wooden bridge…” is it primary or secondary sources that make the suggestion?
  • When murage is mentioned, the term is linked but I’m wondering if it’s worth have a very brief explanation within the article.
  • Where it says “The grant allowed the townspeople to build the town walls and gates for defence and protection”. Urban defences also helped control traffic, making it easier to levy taxes, as well as acting as a status symbol. This is acknowledged later in the section where Bagnall-Oakley questions how useful the gatehouse would have been as a defence. It’s a tricky one to strike balance, but I’d be tempted just to write “The grant allowed the townspeople to build the town walls and gates, including the construction of the gate-tower”.
  • “the enceinte encircling” – I’m not keen on enceinte as it’s a bit of a jargon-y term. How about “The gate formed part of the circuit of walls/urban defences encircling Monmouth”?
  • When discussing the 1889-1902 conservation, it would be worth specifying who carried it out.

I also like the mention of the Glyndwr rebellion though Monmouth wasn’t directly involved.

The depictions in art section isn’t something I’ve seen very often but adds a nice dimension to the article. I might adopt this approach myself in future. In particular the role the 18th-century depictions played in encouraging tourism to south Wales is good context.

With the architecture section I only have a few small points. For the conversions, would it be more usual to have it in feet and inches rather than as a decimal? Also, by any chance did the gatehouse have a fireplace? It’s interesting that it was provided with a garderobe, clearly people were expected to man the gatehouse for a while. I particularly like the conclusion to the architecture section. When I put these together it can sometimes feel like the article hasn’t finished properly, but the conclusion about the architectural importance of this structures ties the article together very nicely.

  • Any idea where the Old Red Sandstone was sourced from? It might be that the source material doesn’t mention it, but I thought I’d ask. English Heritage did a survey of building stone some six or seven years ago; I’m not sure if Cadw did something similar.

In terms of the bibliography, it looks good and in particular it’s good to see Kissack and Rowlands used. Having read through there aren’t any glaring gaps, but since the aim is to take the article to FAC (and I think it’s pretty much there) you might want to take a look at Soulsby (1983) The Towns of Medieval Wales, Creighton & Higham (2005) Medieval Town Walls, Harrison (2010), Barley (1975) and Bond (1987) and see if they have anything extra to add. I’ve not had a chance to check myself – I have a copy of Creighton & Higham buried somewhere but double checking those sources would help meet firmly nail down WPFA? 1c, even if there is nothing to add.

And finally, the article is well written which made it a pleasure to read. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article successfully was listed as a Good Article in 2016, and after a year, I believe it has improved even more. To prepare the article to eventually become a Feature Article, I would like to hear some further feedback. This article sat in Peer Review for 6 months with no comments, so any feedback would be welcome here! Thankyou in advance. SatDis (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Over the Garden Wall (miniseries)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is suitable or near-suitable for featured article status. It is already at GA status, and I think the only part of it that would be troublesome is the length of the miniseries' episode descriptions, but those are fixable.

Cheers, Matthew - (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The article overall is well done and does a good job of covering the development and scope of the series. I made a few minor text edits directly in the article. Not having seen the series, my comments below are predominantly based on trying to follow the plot for something I haven't seen - I hope they help! I have a page submitted for peer review right now and would appreciate any feedback you might have about it. Good luck with the FA review! --Dnllnd (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The second sentence in the first paragraph of the Plot sentence is rather long. Readability would be improved by splitting it up, possibly after noting Beatrice is a bluebird.
  • "On the other hand, Greg, the younger brother, is all about play and being carefree, much to Wirt's chagrin and the danger to himself and others." This sentence could be rephrased to improve clarity "On the other hand..." doesn't serve any clear purpose - you could get rid of it without losing the essential contrast between the brothers. the part about danger to others doesn't fit with 'much to Writ's chagrin'. Did try rewording it myself in case I'm not accurately assuming intent.
  • Last sentence, first paragraph of Final chapters section: Are the train tracks on a hill? Does pushing him off the tracks cause them to fall down a hill into a lake? As someone hasn't seen the series this part is confusing to me.
  • "As the scene ends, Greg's frog begins to glow, due to having eaten a magic bell in.." Why does Greg have a frog in the hospital? Is there a way to mention it earlier in the synopsis?
  • Pilot synopsis: ".. but they manage to escape while John Crops finds a lover." Again, having not seen any of these this is an odd conclusion to the section. Why do the have to escape? Do they get trapped by the dangerous animals?
  • E3 synopsis: How does Wirt joining the class prove a point to Beatrice? Doesn't joining the class confirm he's a push over given that he's been told to do it by someone he doesn't know? Also, in the last sentence, whose finance is discovered? Miss Langtree's?
  • E4 synopsis: Whose daughter's soul? The Woodsman's or The Beast's?
  • E5 synopsis: Which two embrace each other?

Planet of the Apes

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 February 2017, 22:33 UTC
Last edit: 2 March 2017, 16:03 UTC

Yuri on Ice[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it to be suitable for Good article status. I am mainly interested in whether it is possible to use the articles that are linked to in the refideas box on the talk page, which are translations of interviews posted on blogs. I imaging the interviews are reliable but the blogs might be a problem. Also, would it be a problem if such an interview was posted on a social media website like Tumblr for example.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I only did a quick check and would say it is not ready for GA. The character and location headers under the production section is all speculation from non-official sources; even if they're plausible. I spotted a bunch like those around the article as well. The article should be restructured as well; eg, the media section. See if Puella Magi Madoka Magica will help. Eliminate short paragraphs. The production section is breaking every paragraph under unnecessary headers. Consider removing references not acknowledged by official sources. I would not make a note on a related series every time they make a reference to Detective Conan. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What are the non-official sources? ISD (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I meant references as in referring and not citations if there was a misunderstanding there. An example of what I meant can be seen in the character section. The protagonist is a reference to either character 1, or 2, but has this been acknowledged by author or the staff? It remains as a fan speculation, and should be avoided. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Just some comments I leave

Try to expand the lead to two or four paragraphs.
Is the series' plot completed still ongoing? If the series ended, it needs to full.
Since the anime is the only media, I suggest removing the media section.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Results May Vary[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate for a featured article.

Thanks, Statik N (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Kelli Presley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it up to Featured article status. I've managed to get it to Good article status but I would like outside opinions on how to further improve it.

Sincerely, PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

I am making some changes as I go, the reasons are in the edit summaries. Ask if any questions or revert if I change the meaning accidentally:

After kicking him out of, - something is missing here....

@PanagiotisZois: I have been browsing on google for any possible out-of-universe information to add, interviews where (maybe) alternative actors were considered for the role or other information about the script etc....but I can't find anything. This worries me as the article is otherwise pretty flimsy, just plot and some reviews, some of which can the role anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: First of all, thank you for taking the time to help me. Secondly, I know what you mean, finding any sort of information on the movie in general has been pretty hard. Apparently, Amanda Seyfried auditioned for the role but I couldn't find a reliable source for that. As for the script, in a previous edit I had a link to it (which also gave a description of Kelli) and used it to show that the character didn't change much during development. Unfortunately that constitutes as original research so I had to remove it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
BuddyTV does state that she auditioned for the role. Here Is that site a reliable source? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Road to India (Family Guy)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have a feeling that this article could become a GA, and be part of the Featured Topic for Road To... (Family Guy), which was demoted.

Thanks, 1989 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 21 January 2017, 22:52 UTC
Last edit: 24 January 2017, 04:16 UTC

La calandria (play)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as part of my final project in our Theatre History Class.

Thanks, DaniellaBenavides (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Comments by RL0919

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

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

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

Sept haï-kaïs

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 26 May 2016, 03:29 UTC
Last edit: 23 February 2017, 10:49 UTC

Everyday life[edit]

Dan Bain[edit]

Previous peer review

It went through a Peer Review years ago, and then a failed FAC. Well I'm back to try and push it through FAC again, but want to make sure its up to the higher standards that are required for FA these days. The biggest concern would be the writing style itself, which was the most noted issue way back when, but anything to improve it is welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Engineering and technology[edit]

Spitzer Space Telescope[edit]

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

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

Comments by Smurrayinchester[edit]

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

Smurrayinchester 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because my intention of creating an unbiased article about a company using just media links are flagged as promotional. However I am unable to find anything promotional in the language. Please guide if there is something I am missing.

Thanks, Faiz Dan Shaikh (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Faiz Dan Shaikh since the article was deleted you should probably close this request since there is nothing to peer review.  MPJ-DK  23:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Progress in artificial intelligence[edit]

This article was created in March 2008 and is based around a 4 point categorisation of progress (more recently 5), which could be considered as a piece of original research, and is expanded from a section in the AI article (which still shows the original). Requests for citations on the AI page were posted in 2011 and eventually filled in 2012 by reference to a 2011 refereed paper from a management journal. Comparing the wording it is obvious to me that this was lifted straight out of Wikipedia. In discussions with the original author (see Category names, Super-human?) he has argued for 4 other citations post 2011, although two of them are direct quotations from Wikipedia, as a reason for maintaining the original names.

What do we do about it? I think it very unlikely there will be any earlier citation for this categorisation but it might soon become part of the lore of AI. Is it ever valid to use a citation which is based on material in Wikipedia? (My original reason for contributing to the article was a disagreement with the way that the term super-human was used, but this is a secondary issue.)

Thanks, Chris55 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by EthanMacdonald[edit]

I do admire the intention to create a page documenting progress in artificial intelligence. However, it is an ambitious goal.

No unified framework for reasoning about progress in AI has emerged yet. While the original author has listed one or two references, one or two references (which are relatively obscure considering the scope of the topic and the weight they are given in the article) is hardly grounds to declare scientific consensus. I believe it is important to ensure this lack of consensus is conveyed within the article, so that readers walk away with a balanced and neutral understanding of the subject (which they can use to form their own opinions). As such, I think it would be better for the article to critically discuss various approaches to reasoning about AI progress without settling on any one method or framework.

In my opinion, this article isn't really there yet. For example, it doesn't question the assumption that AI should be evaluated against humans. Why should I accept that premise when non-human benchmarks like MNIST, CIFAR, or ImageNet are abundantly common in top machine learning conferences (e.g., NIPS, ICML)? I'm not convinced. Personally, I think the classification scheme should be removed. At most, it should be a subsection describing one particular way of reasoning about AI (proposed by one or two people), out of a wide array of possible options.

Perhasps rather than categorizing notable achievements under the current headings, it would be ideal to describe various approaches to measuring or reasoning about AI progress (in all it's many varieties), and then illustrate those approaches with notable achievements, methods, and benchmarks instead:

  • Turing Tests & Comparisons to Human Intelligence
  • Formal Methods
  • Validation Error
  • Reconstruction Error
  • Game Theoretic Approaches
  • Regret
  • Sample Complexity
  • Computational Efficiency
  • Human Interpretability
  • Data/Task Benchmarks
  • Interdisciplinary Studies
  • Industry Adoption & Applications
  • AI Ethics, Law, & Pubic Policy

Another approach might be to split the article up into categories based on AI tasks and/or various applications of AI in society. In that case, something like:


  • Computer Vision
  • Natural Language Processing
  • Games
  • Robotics
  • Etc.


  • Recommendation Engines
  • Medicine
  • Personal Assistants
  • Law
  • Military & Policing
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Engineering
  • Transportation
  • Etc.

EthanMacdonald (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Railroad[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to determine if there is consensus as to whether this article, which already has good article status, is worthy of being upgraded to featured article status, and if there are any key changes or additions to the article that need to be made to that end.

Thanks, Jackdude101 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


Voxman Music Building[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because.

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

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

Comments from User:KJP1[edit]

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

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

Nicholas C. Rowley[edit]

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

Comments from User:KJP1[edit]

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

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - It isn't a Neutral article, reading much more as a publicity piece than a balanced appraisal of the subject's importance and career. A quick google search, [2] suggests a more balanced view of the subject's career could be written.
  • Citations - Many are not independent sources. Nearly half, including the first three, come from websites directly linked to the subject of the article. This includes the very first, which asserts the subject's notability. You really can't use the subject's own website as the source for the claim that he is "one of the most successful attorneys in United States history."
  • Photograph - I see you are the author of the photograph of the subject. This may suggest a personal connection, although it may not. If there is a personal connection between yourself and the subject, you should be clear about this to avoid any suggestion of a COI.
  • Use of subject's first name - to refer to the subject as "Nick" throughout the article comes across as informal and unencyclopedic, and again suggests a closeness between the subject and the author of the article.
  • Incorrect formatting - Four of the citations, 1, 9,10 and 15 are incorrectly formatted.
  • Citation 16 - This leads to a defunct website.
  • Broad Coverage - The bulk of the article comprises, in effect, two lists - his accolades and his notable cases. Where was he born, where educated, where does he live, does he have family, etc. etc.?
  • Prose - "awarded his family with a verdict of $40,000,000.00." I'm not a lawyer, but does a jury award with a verdict? And is $40M a verdict? Isn't the verdict the decision, i.e. the liability or otherwise of the company being sued, and the degree of liability; and the $40M the award?
Hope these comments are helpful. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Canobie Lake Park

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 January 2017, 00:48 UTC
Last edit: 13 February 2017, 19:14 UTC

Underwater diving[edit]

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

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

Toronto FC

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 15 February 2017, 22:42 UTC
Last edit: 11 March 2017, 14:52 UTC

CMLL World Welterweight Championship[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have gotten it to GA status over time and continued to work on it in the hopes of getting this to Featured Article status at some point. Since I have worked so much on this I tend to get a little blind to certain article issues so I would appreciate other eyes on this before I consider making it a FAC. Thanks in advance for any and all input,  MPJ-DK  23:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Scott[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm skeptical as to whether the article surpasses the given criteria for good article. And for the most part, need to know if the sources used in the article are reliable and not COI; most of them was retrieved from the subject's journals and materials written by her parents.

Thanks, Bluesphere 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

1998 NFC Championship Game[edit]

Trying to get this article featured. I think I've finally reached a point that it can happen, but obviously, I'd like some feedback first. Helltopay-27 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

Elcor, Minnesota[edit]

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

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


Previous peer review

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

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

Northern England[edit]

I'd like to get this article up to Featured Article status. Length-wise, it's more or less at the limit (65k of prose, roughly comparable to our articles on New England or Northern Ireland), so I'd prefer not to add anything, but any other comments would be very welcome.

Cheers, Smurrayinchester 15:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)



I have already nominated several Good and Featured articles on the French Wikipedia, and I would like to try to do the same on the English Wikipedia with the article Nantes. Ideally, I would like to nominate it to be a Featured Article straight away. I have worked on it for a couple of months, and I feel it is now exhaustive and even more complete than the French article of the same name. My main concerns are related to language: I am not a native English speaker, so the article needs to be checked and corrected to be better. Any advice on general structure is also more than welcome.

Thanks, Oie blanche (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Smurrayinchester Smurrayinchester 18:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I wish my French was nearly as good as your English! Given it a copyedit, but didn't come across anything serious.
  • "Around 20,000 people suffered damage in the 1943 raids" - does this mean "injured", or more like "affected"?
  • It would be good to mention what happened to the city during the WWII invasion of France - at present, it skips straight to US air raids and Nazi executions. And the same for liberation - when did the Allies recapture it?
  • Given that there's a section on strikes, the May 1968 events in France seem to be missing.
  • (I'll check the second half of the article tomorrow)
  • "As such, it is the residence of a région and a département préfet, whose charge is to represent the State on the local level." It's not clear whether these are separate roles, or what the difference between the two is.
  • A few town twinnings are missing citations.
  • "Students generally come from the region, while people in employment are often from Paris." - "often from Paris" doesn't sound right, although I can't read the citation. Is it saying the majority are from Paris, or that Paris is the most common place for those to come from?
  • There's a lot of overlinking - "Paris" is linked every time it appears, for instance, which is definitely unnecessary.
Thank you so much for your help and fixes.
  • It is around 20,000 people affected by the raids, because they lost their homes. Should we say "affected" instead of "suffered damage" then?
  • I'll add information about WWII and May 68.
  • These are two roles. Would it make more sense if I precise "a région préfet and a département préfet, whose charge..."?
  • I'll add citations for twinnings.
  • For Paris, I would say that the sentence can mean the two. The original sentence says "Ces derniers, issus en majorité de la région parisienne...".
Oie blanche (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, "affected" - or even just say "Around 20,000 lost their homes in the raids"
  • I think maybe it's the word "State" confusing me here. "As such, it is the residence of a région and a département préfet, local representatives of the Government of France." (if that's correct) might be clearer to people who don't know the French system so well. "Prefect" is the usual translation, rather than "préfet".
Smurrayinchester 13:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I changed the two sentences. Oie blanche (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Vindelfjällen Nature Reserve[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to identify any areas of improvement that would help it to become a good article or featured article.

Thanks, Dig deeper talk 17:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dig deeper thanks for your edits here and to WP. This is a really interesting article and fairly well-written. Articles are reviewed against six good article criteria here: WP:GA? Several areas in your article lack sources. Once you have provided sources, I would say just give GA review a go -- your article is very close and any further issues (eg regarding technical language or prose) can be ironed out during the review. Feel free to ping me again if you need help or need extra hands during the review. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

South Stoneham House[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it broadly meets the FA criteria but I'd like some additional comments before I submit it for a full FA review.

Thanks, WaggersTALK 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Dig deeper[edit]

I made a few changes to the lead. Overall looks pretty good. Please update the 7 dead links (indicated in ref section).Dig Deeper (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from User:KJP1[edit]

An interesting article, on an attractive building. A few thoughts.

  • I think the convention is not to have cites in the lede as all of the information it contains should appear in the main body of the article, and be cited there.
  • "The building is currently owned by the University of Southampton" - is "currently" necessary? I appreciate a change of ownership may be on the cards.
  • "The architecture of the existing structure has been attributed to .. " - "The building has" or even "It has"?
  • "..with the gardens and landscaping attributed to Lancelot "Capability" Brown, the house is close to the River Itchen and Monks Brook" - Do the second and third clauses connect, or should the third clause be a separate sentence?
  • "The manor was owned and occupied by a long series of families and people" - not sure what a "long series of families and people" is. "The manor has had a series of owners, including...." perhaps?

All now Yes check.svg Done WaggersTALK 11:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "a Gregory de South Stoneham (or Gegory de Stoneham)" - Gregory in the second appearance?
  • "its design has been attributed to Nicholas Hawksmoor" - I wonder if a slight caveat would help the reader. HE/BLBO both say "almost certainly", quoting Pevsner (p=581). But your sentence is entirely accurate.
  • "He was commissioned by George, Prince Regent to travel back to France while the two countries were at war in order to obtain a particular material the prince desired for a waistcoat" - not entirely sure this sentence is necessary to a history of the house. If it is, then "George, The Prince Regent", or just "The Prince Regent".
  • "With Southampton being attacked, the halls of residence were also under siege" - Not literally! "At risk", perhaps?
  • "regarding the state of the building itself, with damp wardrobes, rusty bath plugholes, stained baths and generally "damp and squalid conditions"" - a little too much detail, perhaps? Maybe, "regarding the state of the building itself and its "damp and squalid conditions".
  • "The key part of the master plan is to refurbish and change the use of the Listed Building as a conference facility" - I understand it's a quote but should it be/is it "to a conference facility"?
  • "which is supported by an entablature decorated with triglyphs and modillions" - as a general comment, I wonder if the architectural detail is a little specialised at times. While you've provided links, three in one clause is asking a lot of the reader. "...supported by a decorated entablature"?
  • "The door itself is placed centrally with a coved, moulded architrave above and 45-degree corbels decorated with acanthus supporting a cornice with round brackets and a carved keystone. The door is glazed and a Doric porch of modern brick covers the doorcase." - A little more detail on the door than is required?
Grounds and gardens[edit]
  • "landscaped some time after 1722 by Lancelot "Capability" Brown" - is this [3] a better source than the inaccessible Times?
  • The main quote is very long and may cause issues at FAC. Is it needed in its entirety?
  • "The interior is panelled to dado level" - surely not the whole of the interior? I think the HE/BLBO entry is referring to the staircase hall.
  • "an early 18th-century staircase" - Pevsner thinks it has been modified ""in part at least an original feature but which has almost certainly been remodelled."(p=582)
  • While we're on Pevsner, his description of the remodelling of the house over the centuries as "disconcertingly sensitive" making it difficult to know what's Hawksmoor and what's not, is rather nice and may be usable.

I think that's it. Hope it's helpful. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Muammar Gaddafi[edit]

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

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

Drusus Julius Caesar[edit]

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

British Army[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it into a Featured Article, but I am not sure if it meets all of the criteria. I need feedback on how I can improve this article.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 09:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi FriyMan, the article is in reasonable shape at the minute, but I'm afraid the GA review didn't go into the sort of depth necessary for an article like this. I'm afraid as things stand, an FAC would have no hope of success. What's here is mostly good, though it lacks depth in some places and it gives undue weight to recent history (this is a common problem on Wikipedia—anything that happened since the advent of 24-hour news channels and constantly updated websites gets blown massively out of proportion). My main concern is that it seems to built around websites and news sources, some of them of doubtful reliability, when an article like this needs to be based on books. There are plenty of good, solid histories of the British Army and of of British military history. Some of them are cited here, but not as much as they need to be, and just by glancing at my bookshelf and glancing at the bibliography here, I can see obvious gaps—for example (and these are just examples), no works by Lord Carver or William Jackson (both former army officers and distinguished military historians) are cited.

The other dealbreaker is that the references are a mess. You've got a mix of shortened footnotes (some using {{sfn}}, some not) and full citations in the references section, and a mix of books and web sources in the bibliography. Before you do anything else, I would suggest you gather all the books and multi-page sources into the bibliography and use Harvard-style shortened citations (with or without the template but be consistent) to cite individual pages and page ranges; then gather all your web/single-page sources into the main references section; then gather all your unused sources into another place (a further reading section, the talk page, or this review are all good places) until you can figure out whether you want to cite them or not. Then make sure they're all formatted consistently and contain all the necessary information. Once you've done that, it'll be much easier to figure out what you've got and where the gaps are, and you have a system you can easily follow for any citations added in future ([an example]). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

World War I[edit]

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

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


  • The article uses a mix of British and American English - should be consistent
  • Dead links
  • Cleanup tags should be addressed
  • Suggest scaling up maps and graph
  • Several of the short cites have harv errors
  • File:1908-10-07_-_Moritz_Schiller's_Delicatessen.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
  • File:1914-06-29_-_Aftermath_of_attacks_against_Serbs_in_Sarajevo.png: when/where was this first published? Same with File:FirstSerbianArmedPlane1915.jpg
  • File:Hochseeflotte_2.jpg: tag does not match given information. Suggest checking other images for incomplete or incorrect description and copyright tagging
  • Several paragraphs are lacking citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Arab Agricultural Revolution[edit]

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

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

List of sunken battleships[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I was instructed to do so, upon my original completion of the article, by the evaluators of it at Wikiproject Military history. I want to know what more I must do to get this article to Featured List status.

Thanks, Vami_IV✠ 22:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, nice work. I only have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I think this should be referenced: "The ship's bell was recovered, restored, and is now displayed in the Merseyside Maritime Museum in Liverpool"
  • "908 Killed, 20 Captured" --> "908 killed, 20 captured" (same for all other instances of "Killed" and "Captured")
  • for King Edward VII what ref provides "under 115 metres (377 ft) of water"?
  • " Off Lisbon, Portugal" --> "off Lisbon, Portugal" (and other similar instances when preceded by co-ordinates)
  • this should be referenced: "HMS Centurion's badge is on display at Shugborough Hall."
  • suggest cropping the caption off "File:Japanese battleship Settsu in old postcard.jpg"
  • suggest replacing "File:USS Nevada (replica).jpg" with a photo of the actual vessel if one exists
  • the External links section should be below the Notes per WP:LAYOUT
  • the bare urls in the External links section should be formatted with a title
  • there is a short citation for "Rohwer, p. 118", but no corresponding long citation in the References section
  • same as above for Lengerer, p. 59, Preston, p. 176, and Schultz, pp. 228–248
  • ref 104 "Grant" needs a page number if possible
  • "ARMOUR-PLATING-FROM-THE-TIRPITZ": the capitalisation should be reduced per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • ref 1 uses a different style to most of the other citations (there are a few inconsistencies throughout)
  • good luck with taking the article further
Implemented, thanks! –Vami_IV✠ 01:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Yes check.svg Done
  2. Yes check.svg Done
  3. Yes check.svg Done (researched and cited)
  4. Yes check.svg Done
  5. Yes check.svg Done
  6. Yes check.svg Done (Replaced image)
  7. Yes check.svg Done
  8. Yes check.svg Done
  9. Yes check.svg Done
  10. Yes check.svg Done
  11. Yes check.svg Done
  12. Yes check.svg Done
  13. Yes check.svg Done
  14. Yes check.svg Done (Removed)
  15. Thanks, I will probably need it

Ezra Weston II[edit]

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

Congress of the Confederate States[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially added narrative from reliable sources Thomas, Coulter and Martis, adding inline citations, images and footnoting previous contributions. Following a peer review, I'd like to nominate the article for a Good Article. Thanks, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Herbert von Dirksen[edit]

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

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

Isabelle Eberhardt[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FAC soon. If you have a PR, GAN or FAC I would be happy to review it in return for your comments here.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • There is an inconsistent use of "Isabelle" and "Eberhardt" in the Early life and family background section
  • "The two initially lived with the Davids" - who was the other David other than Louis David?
  • "Her morale was lifted when Ehnni was transferred to a spahi regiment near Marseille" - this has already been linked
  • "In 1954, author and explorer Cecily Mackworth published "The Destiny of Isabelle Eberhardt"" - shouldn't this be in italics?
  • "a fictionalized account of her" - fictionalised (if you want the spelling to be stay consistent)

I honestly can't find any issues to raise with this article. I've read it thoroughly and also remember reviewing the GAN! I also spotchecked the four accessible refs and couldn't find any issues there. I'm really not sure how much I can be of help other than recommending you take it to FAC, because I think it stands a good chance. JAGUAR  17:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Jaguar; I addressed everything. I completely forgot you reviewed the GAN! I've nominated this article for a copyedit, once that is done and my current FAC nomination is closed I'm intending to submit this one to FAC. I'll probably ping you for your comments there since you're already familiar with the article. Cheers. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Janweh64[edit]

I will start this soon. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Social contract[edit]

Social Contract theory is an influential political and moral theory advcoated by enlightenment thinkers. The article is rated C-class. It has some nice information, but it is not ready to go for GA or even FA status yet. I would like some input by other editors on how to improve the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

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


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


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

Belarusian Black Cats[edit]

I already proposed this article for deletion because of the lack of trustable sources. It uses obviously nationalist propaganda material as a source while serious historians write very little about this mysterious unit. Biddiscombe writes that the Black Cats consisted only of thirty persons and therefore it definitely cannot be called a guerrilla. Overall, the article conveys nationalist legends of a fictional anti-Soviet guerrila which actually did not exist. I would be very grateful if someone would make improvements in order to present this unit in a differentiated and realistic manner. --Der Rationalist (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Same as my comment at AfD, I suggest that the article be redirected to Michał Vituška#Black_Cats, where the topic is already sufficiently covered. Perhaps a better avenue for this would be the article's Talk page? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Rwandan Civil War[edit]

I've been working on this article on and off for a few years now, and finally I think it's ready to begin the formal article promotion processes. The end goal I'm hoping to reach is an FAC, although if people here think that the article is still far short of that, then I'd be happy to go for a GA nomination as well. Basically, any and all feedback welcome.

Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Suggest scaling up the lead map, either within the infobox or outside it if need be
    OK. I'd really like to find a new infobox image, as the map of Rwandan road network is really not particularly revelevant to this subject. Unfortunately there seems to be an almost complete lack of free images pertaining to the civil war (as opposed to the genocide). I'll keep searching, and if I can't find anything then I'll scale up the current one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually suggest scaling up the other maps as well
    OK, I'll look into these.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Associated Press belongs in |agency=, BBC News in |publisher= or |work= depending on desired format. Check for other non-authors in |author=
    The current format is how I've always cited when I write articles - where there is no discernible human author, I use the organisation as the author. This was not a problem in FAs Rwanda and Paul Kagame.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Check for ENGVAR consistency - it's mostly British but then you've got things like "reorganization". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    OK, I've changed all to -ise form. Actually, -ize is legitimate British English, (for example in the Oxford dictionary) but it wasn't being used consistently, so best to settle on -ise.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruce by-election, April 1865

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 February 2017, 20:33 UTC
Last edit: 16 March 2017, 05:33 UTC

Hulbert Taft[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first attempt at writing an article for Wikipedia, and I am anxious to improve it. As you can see, it was accepted, and classified as Start. The suggestion in the description of this classification is that the article does not contain enough meaningful content for most readers find it useful.

I should mention that I put the COI tag on this article because I think it might be coloring how I proceed with developing it. My bias is that Hulbert Taft was my great grandfather. I want to write this article not simple for that reason, but because he was, in fact, an influential figure in Cincinnati for five decades -- not only politically, but because his opinions were frequently sought on issues of public interest.

There's more to his story, which I'm wondering if I should mention in the article. His son, Hulbert Taft, Jr., began his career in journalism at the Time-Star, and was able to convince his father to expand the paper's operations beyond print journalism into broadcasting. That arm of the business became Taft Broadcasting when the newspaper closed. Taft Broadcasting grew exponentially into a huge media enterprise. I think that part of the story should be told in a separate article (about Hulbert Taft, Jr.; a Wikipedia article on Taft Broadcasting already exists). The point is, the Hulbert Taft/Times-Star story is partially about how Taft Broadcasting was started.

The truth is that, while I am very proud of my grandfather's and great grandfather's contributions to Cincinnati, that isn't why I want to do an article about them. I do understand about having a COI, and am aware that it might color how I write this. This isn't some vanity thing for me. They were both noteworthy figures, and I think their stories need to be told.

Not only that, but the fact that they are members of Ohio's Taft family is also an element of this, I think.

I apologize for the length of this, but I thought I should provide some background. So, I'm hoping that I might receive some suggestions as to what other specific information I could add to make this article more useful to people.

Thanks, KenMahler (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Abebe Bikila[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant improvements to the article recently and would like a second opinion. My main concerns are any POV problems that may arise because I was the only recent significant contributor. I would also like a close look taken at the lead which is entirely my addition. Please also reassess the articles rating under the relevant WikiProjects.

Thanks, — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

Will complete a review of this one soon. Freikorp (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"member of the Imperial Guard" - this sentence doesn't give much indication of what the Imperial Guard is. A few words of clarification explaining what it is would be helpful; at the very least I think you should describe it as the Ethiopian Imperial Guard.
"Abebe was a trailblazer" - what is a trailblazer in this context? Can you wikilink that word to an appropriate article? Not being familiar with marathon sports I haven't heard of this term; even though it might not be, in the way that you've used it it strikes me as slang.
"before the accident that would leave him incapacitated." - I don't think this is necessary as the accident is mentioned in the very next sentence. I suggest you delete this and just specify the year of the first injury in order to distinguish it from the second one.
"There are many schools, venues and events named after him" - I think this could be worded better. How about: "Many schools, venues and events are named after him,"
Early Life
Imperial Guard is wikilinked in the lead but not at its first appearance in the body.
1960 Summer Olympics in Rome
The section about lead changes and even the amount of photos in this section strikes me as over-detailed.
1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo
"To this day" - have a read of WP:REALTIME
"due to an earlier fracture to his left fibula." - when and how did this happen? It's confusing to read.
Accident and death
"He witnessed his countryman Mamo Wolde fail to match Abebe's twin marathon victories." - This wording seems a bit harsh on Wolde.
Mention of Abede's death seems to come out of nowhere. Can you tie in some information about his health before he died? For example was his death completely unexpected?
"kicked off" reads like slang
Obviously the three sentences requesting citations need to be cited.
In popular culture
I think you should introduce 'Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian (2009)' before you comment on it. I.e 'Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian' was directed by [x] and released in 2009. According to Tim Lewis, it is a more journalistic and less forgiving biography...'
I think you should mention Robin Williams full name, and perhaps where he said that comment, in the quote box.
  • Hope this review helps. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Singapura[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of issues in the article with presenting uncertain and possibly mythical history as if it is real. The only source for large part of the list of rulers and the events as presented is the Malay Annals, and historians don't regard it as entirely reliable. For example, some thought that most of the rulers of Singapura were invented, the only one known to be historical is Parameswara (unmentioned by the Malay Annals but thought to be the same person as Iskandar Shah of the Malay Annals), and whose story is very different according to Portuguese accounts. The article does not question many of the stories as presented in the Malay Annals, and is full of dubious statements, mixing true accounts with possibly mythical ones. There were also attempts to skew the narrative to suggest that the accounts as given in the Malay Annals to be true. I have adjusted some of these, but I think the article as a whole needs to be overhauled so that it is written in the right tone and bring it up to a standard suitable for an article on history. Input would therefore be appreciated on what may be done to make it better.

Thanks, Hzh (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It seems pretty good to me, but you could make it more accessible to outsiders like me by adding years to the history section headers, e.g. Sang Nila Utama (13th–15th century C.E.).
  • In the section on Administration, certain positions are in bold font. I am not certain whether this is allowed by WP:MOS: I have never seen anyone else do it.
  • The John N. Miksic reference has two separate citations, with only the page numbers differing. Better merge and use short footnotes.
  • I have noticed that some of your main sources are not quoted much by scholars. I have not checked them all, but you might want to replace any source that is not quoted much by a more mainstream scholarly source. As an outsider with little knowledge on the subject, that is just a general recommendation.
--S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. The suggestions will be used in process of rewriting the article. The problem for now is that some of what's written appear to be original research not supported by the sources, and parts of them also appear to be copyright violation. (I didn't write those, the person who wrote those parts appear unwilling to rewrite them). It may take a while checking different sources. Hzh (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, good luck with it! In the meantime, may I ask a bit of your time to help peer-review the article here? Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, but it may take a while as it appears to be a very detailed article. Hzh (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Thank you! --S Khemadhammo (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a problem with listing dates as there is uncertainty if the people or even the kingdom are real. Fixed the bolding, and the sources will be checked thoroughly later. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian military deception[edit]

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

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

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

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

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

Comments from S Khemadhammo[edit]

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

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

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

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

Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 December 2016, 08:49 UTC
Last edit: 29 January 2017, 02:16 UTC

Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 December 2016, 08:43 UTC
Last edit: 25 February 2017, 01:51 UTC

Vlad the Impaler[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Vlad the Impaler's personality and rule has always been subject to scholarly debates, often coloured by emotions. Consequently, I think the neutrality of the article about his life should be peer reviewed before its GAN.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This sfn reference is malformed. The year parameter is occupied by a page number (the template expects years to be four digits so is treating the page number as a name). I expect that the correct year value is 1991 but because I cannot know if the page number is supposed to be 217 or 218 or both 217, 218, I have not repaired it.
Also, Harmening in §Secondary sources is not used so may not belong in this list.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, thank you for your copyediting and also for your above remarks. I fixed the problems. Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The article's title bugs me to no end and in the past I've suggested it be changed. It is very Anglo-centric and a term used by his enemies. The article should be re-named to a neutral name used by himself at the time of his life. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. Sorry, I do not understand why do you think that the translation of his Romanian name ("Vlad Țepeș") is Anglo-centric? According to my experiences, Vlad the Impaler is his common name in books published in English. Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Vlad the Impaler" seems like an Anglo-centric and POV term. Just call him by his actual name. Note that name in the article of course. "Vlad Țepeș" is fine. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Like, if in the year 3000, Wikipedia had an article called "Obama the baby eater". And it was okay because that's generally how he was known in the language of the Wikipedia. It's a bit silly. The article should just use a neutral name that he was called at the time, rather than something promoted much later that is slanted. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why the Romanian translation of the Ottoman expression for "Vlad the Impaler" is better than the English translation of the same name. Does Obama habitually eat babies? Does reliable sources commonly refer to him as "Obama the Baby Eater"? Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school system[edit]

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

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

Balfour Declaration

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 April 2016, 13:07 UTC
Last edit: 22 March 2017, 10:48 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Rotating locomotion in living systems[edit]

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

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

Dire wolf

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 March 2017, 10:50 UTC
Last edit: 23 March 2017, 19:50 UTC

Homogenization (climate)[edit]

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

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


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 January 2017, 23:07 UTC
Last edit: 19 March 2017, 21:38 UTC


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 October 2016, 21:37 UTC
Last edit: 12 February 2017, 23:57 UTC

Language and literature[edit]

Sasak language[edit]

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

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

Yu Kanda[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have plans to nominate it to FA in the future. I know it requires a copy-edit so I requested one some days ago. Still, I'm not sure what it lacks to become a FA like Allen Walker so I would like suggestions, critcism, etc.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging @DragonZero: and @ProtoDrake:.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Forgot @Jaguar:
Comments from 1989
  • Looks fine, should be better after someone copyedits it.
  • Ref 12 is not archived.

MCMLXXXIX 14:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Archived.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Complete the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" table for the infobox image. Same goes for the screenshot in the "Appearances" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Link D-Gray-man in its first instance in the body of the article. Same goes for Allen Walker. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you further specify this sentence "Additionally, she found Kanda difficult to illustrate due to his beauty."? How does the character's beauty make him difficult to illustrate? Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the screenshot really necessary? I am not sure what it adds to the article (especially since it is a non-free image). Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not find the image of the cosplayer to be entirely necessary for the article as it does not add much to the article and it clips through the subsections awkwardly. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Avoid shouting in the reference titles. For instance, in reference 24, anime review should not be in all caps. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try to address your comments once I get my cpu fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries; I will look through the article again in the next couple of days to make more in-depth remarks. My above comments are just some minor things that I noticed while briefly reading through it. Hope it helps, and I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Greek literature

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 16 March 2017, 00:12 UTC
Last edit: 22 March 2017, 15:14 UTC

Randall Flagg[edit]

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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

Naoum Mokarzel[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to reach FA status. It started off as a hagiography-like essay and was later developed to be a balanced article that addresses all the important (documented) aspects of an imperfect pioneer journalist. At least two experienced editors left their marks on the article; it still needs to be formally appraised to check if indeed it fits FA criteria (or GA at least).

Thank you, ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The article looks like it could easily become at least GA but there are some things I worry.
  • Per WP:Lead, the lead should between two or four paragraphs that serve as an introduction to most sections.
  • I'm pretty sure I've been told to avoid red wikilinks.
  • If you plan to take it to FA, you will have to archive all the urls.
  • Linking google books might cause copyright issues so I suggest removing them.
  • Why is there a reference in the second sister? Is it controversial information? If not, I suggest removing it.

Other than that, I think the article is in good state. Also, I've my own peer review here and I would appreciate feedback. Anyways, good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Deseret alphabet[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I've expanded the article from ≈17000 bytes [4] to over 65000 bytes [5] in a ten day marathon. Last time I did something like this (West Coast Customs, also the first major project I undertook on Wikipedia), I leaped right into a GA nomination without getting any advice: so I failed. Once again I have been staring at the article too long to be able to see its faults, so I humbly submit it for other Wikipedians to give me advice if they please before I try to get this article GA status also. Thank you very much for your time SCongratulate.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Closed. I received adequate third party review via Template:Did you know nominations/Deseret alphabet and have listed this article at WP:GAN. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Chatwin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating it for Featured Article status and would like feedback on improving the article before nominating it.

Thanks, Notachatterbox (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Notachatterbox. I only managed to get two FAs so far but I managed to get some knowledge that might help you before nominating this article.
  • First of all, avoid small paragraphs like Themes' first one. Merge them with others or try to expand them.
  • All the references need wikilinks. See for example my recent FA, Tidus, that has links in all of its references regardless of repeating sites.
  • Avoid redlinks.

Other than that, I can't find more notable issues. I also have my own current peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/D.Gray-man/archive1, so I wonder if you could provide commentary there. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I appreciate it your comments - they're helpful! Notachatterbox (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like other objective readers to detect any issues with NPOV or citation errors, and if there could be any third party Korean - English translators who verify that the translations of the original korean news is accurately described in the citations.

Thanks, Avataron (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article covers various points of view, and I would like more objective peer reviewers to check for neutrality and the strength/validity of all the sources.

Thanks, Avataron (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Merit (Buddhism)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 18 February 2017, 12:24 UTC
Last edit: 23 March 2017, 08:30 UTC

Astronomica (Manilius)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it promoted to FA. The Astronomica is an epic Latin poem that was written in the early first century AD by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius. In many ways, it can be viewed as a reply and a rebuttal to Lucretius' De rerum natura, in that it espouses a Stoic understand of the cosmos. While almost all of the poem is intact, it has sadly been neglected for much of its existence (probably due to its esoteric subject matter). In the past year, I have written almost the entire article. It has been peer-reviewed once before, but that was 7 months ago, and I have edited the page quite a few times since then. I believe another look-over would really, really help to improve the article.

Thanks, --Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Social sciences and society[edit]

David M. Friedman[edit]

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

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

New York City Fire Department[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal[edit]

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

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

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

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

Debra Ruh[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was originally sent to AfD for being too promotional in nature, but received a significant rewrite and expansion with sources from CaroleHenson (see original version here) and was voted as keep just now. On the talk page though Cullen328 commented that "the article needs a major trimming", and in response, I have decided to seek a formal review process - which has the additional side-benefit of evaluating the reworked article for potential GA status.

Thanks, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I see the the request was archived, and then returned. It would be lovely to get at least some high level feedback about the current state of the article.—CaroleHenson(talk) 13:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • References 29 and 30 are dead, both are links to the site. The cited material is possibly still available at the archived site at -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Update It looks like none of the submitted material was saved — I am not able to find it through searches or going through the menus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

I hope it's useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67 Yes, that was useful guidance, thanks for taking time to compile the list! The peer request was opened because a user thought "the article needs a major trimming". Do you have an opinion about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
CaroleHenson the section about the TecAccess company could possibly be trimmed, if there are sufficient good sources to sustain a separate article about it. I'll try to throw something on a page at Draft:TecAccess, just to see if it could be viable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67, thanks. Yes, it looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to start a separate article. I'll start drafting the content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
CaroleHenson see Draft:TecAccess, where I made a start. I also added a list of possible sources that we can use to expand the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67, Oh, wow, thanks. I will work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Parliament of Australia[edit]

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

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

Qamar Javed Bajwa[edit]

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

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

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


List of awards and nominations received by Daddy Yankee[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want other Wikipedians to express their views about my article in order to nominate it for a Featured list criteria.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

List of United States tornado emergencies[edit]

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

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

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]