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.
"WP:REVIEW" redirects here. For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see WP:REVIEWER. 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, 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.



Love, Inc. (TV series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… this article has recently been promoted to a GA and I would like to attempt to promote this to an FA sometime in the future. I would greatly appreciate constructive advice. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fish Heads Fugue and Other Tales for Twilight[edit]

Just created this article over the last few weeks and am curious to get an outside opinion on it. Would like to nominate for GA, if others think that it's up to snuff. The article is fairly short, but considering that it's about a short film, length probably isn't much of an issue. The important points are covered. A little more production info would be nice, but I just don't think that are any more readily accessible sources to draw from, so hopefully what's included will suffice.

Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sue van Geijn[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the artist just had a large exhibition in Amsterdam and there was no article yet to be found on Wikipedia about her. So please have a look at it.

Thanks, Kvdstelt (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

One paragraph? The English needs tweaking, but is comprehensible. An image, of a work discussed enough to justify fair use, would help. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
@Kvdstelt: First, I would like to say that it is great that you created a page about this artist. I always think it is wonderful to see users expand the content on here. As Johnbod has stated before me, this article requires a rather large amount of expansion. I would highly recommend that you read through the "Tips for writing biographies", which can be found here, and look at other articles about artists for guidance on structure and other matters.
There should be at least a section covering her "Early life" prior to the start of her artistic career and a section tracking her professional career. A section informing the reader about her artistic style would be helpful if there is enough reliable sources/scholars/art critics that have commented on it to support this. An infobox would also be very help (or just an image of the artist if you are opposed to using infoboxes for whatever reason.) An image of one of her works would also be very helpful. The two things you should focus on is 1) expansion as this article is still in the very early stages of development and 2) look to other articles for guidance on how to expand. Hopefully, you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Editør

Without questioning the quality of her work or her potential as an artist, the article needs some independent sources that establish her notability, so it will become apparent to the reader why her article is included in Wikipedia. A mention on the website of an organizing gallery is obviously not independent, especially not when she runs it herself in the case of W139. See WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST for more information about establishing notability. If notability cannot be established at this time, the article should be removed. If notability can be established in the future, an article can be included at that time. – Editør (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Kazuma Eekman[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Kazuma is an artists with many publications and exhibitions in the Netherlands, please have a look at my article.

Thanks, Kvdstelt (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, one peer review at a time is allowed. Pick one and stop the others. JerrySa1 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because the w139 is one of the most influential art spaces in the Netherlands and deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia. With ten thousands of visitors each year people need to be able to find additional information about it. So please review my article.

Thanks, Kvdstelt (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kvdstelt: Only one peer review is allowed per user. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Neri Oxman[edit]

A GA attempt for an american artist/architect/academic. I am working on getting images of each piece. Thoughts on both format and content are welcome, including overall structure - since this bridges a few fields. Pinging @Secretlondon:, @Warofdreams:, @Aude:, @Bishonen: for good measure :)

Many thanks, – SJ + 08:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dulquer Salmaan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to make this a good article and would like some constructive advice.

Thanks a lot, JosephJames 07:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

Comparing with GA Shahid Kapoor

  • This article is a WP:QUOTEFARM. Use the quotes even if the same can not be said by a paraphrase.
  • The text is repetitive in some places: "He next starred in Anwar Rasheed's Ustad Hotel (2012) in which he starred alongside Thilakan and Nithya Menen".
  • State the following facts about each of his roles: Film name, year, 1-liner summary of his character and the plot, any special efforts to essay the character (e.g. "For the role, he shaved his head and learned to speak in a Kashmiri dialect" from Shahid article), reviews, commercial success/fail, awards.
  • "becoming the first ever actor to receive the award two times in the same category" is not supported by the reference.
  • Each reference should have this minimum info: Author, date, Web link (if any), Publisher/Newspaper (e.g. The Hindu).
    • Example where missing: "Anchu Sundarikal Movie Review". The Times Of India.
  • Not sure if is a RS.--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Redtigerxyz! I am working on it. Could you give me other instances where the text is repetitive? Also, I believe Filmibeat is a reliable source. It was used in Loham. Expecting your help further. JosephJames 13:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Repetitive text examples:
    • "Dulquer's performance was appreciated"
    • "was a commercial failure/success"
  • "The film garnered critical acclaim and became Dulquer's fifth consecutive commercial success in two years"; 2 problems:
    • "fifth consecutive commercial success in two years" is not supported by ref
    • The ref only talks about week 1 collections, which can be used to proclaim it a hit overall.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz: Sorry that I couldn't attend to your comments. I am having some network issues. Could you please help me in improving the article by editing it? I hadn't noticed the repetitive text and the overuse of quotes earlier. I hope you can help me. JosephJames 04:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Charles Turing
  • In the entire article, the actor is referred by the name "Dulquer", it has to be his last name "Salmaan".
  • The 3rd para in the lead is the continuation of 2nd. Is it necessary to divide them.
  • In the body, "Dulquer" is used in a number of times in every para, instead of his/he/him.
  • Lead reads: he "predominantly appears in Malayalam films". Then why there is a column for language in filmography. The only two Tamil credits can be moved to Notes.
  • You removed the In the media section citing as just random info. If it was about the placement, then you can re-add that under "Awards" (as prose), changing the title as "Awards and recognitions".
  • Keep a uniform referencing style. Some references are missing date and author.
  • Article should go through a copyedit from WP:GOCE.

--Charles Turing (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Maheshinte Prathikaaram[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, I like to nominate it for GA. Hoping some constructive comments. --Charles Turing (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles Turing (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from[edit]

Red link on the music section could be avoid. (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem with red links. But as it should be avoided to a name of a person, I have removed it. Thanks. --Charles Turing (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it for FA and would like to get feedback first, to catch any issues before then. Thank you. U990467 (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Post (Björk album)[edit]

Hi! I recently worked on the article for Vespertine and I succeeded in it becoming a Good Article. A peer review of the Post article would be appreciated. Kind regards, Bleff (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain


  • "Moreover, Björk co-produced every song on the album." Suggests she did not do so on previous albums. Is that correct?
In Debut, she only co-produced "Like Someone in Love", and produced "The Anchor Song" solely by herself. The rest was produced by Nellee Hooper.
  • I see a mix of spaced and unspaced em dashes, along with at least one em dash followed by a colon. Please review style guidelines at WP:EMDASH.
I spaced every dash. You mean comma instead of colon?
  • "the album is considered an important exponent of art pop, avant-pop and experimental pop." Art pop seems supported here, but you're suggesting the album is an important exponent of each of these genres. You mention avant-pop only once in the body, and the source given calls the album an "avant-pop wonderland" in the title only. That genre is neither defined nor mentioned in the cited article. I'm not too much of a stickler for genres, but you want to limit the ammunition you give genre warriors to argue with.
  • Don't hypenate "fast-pace" unless using it as an adjective like "fast-paced".
  • "The clips that accompanied every single heavily aided Björk's success" I'm not sure what you mean here by "clips". Do you mean music videos?
I wrote "clips" so as to not repeat the words "music video" in the sentence. I rewrote it to avoid confusions.

Back with more later. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Keeping Up with the Kardashians[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been promoted to GA-status not so long ago and I wish to further improve the article. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, Mymis (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts III[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been in development for many years and is still not coming out yet, and the other Kingdom Hearts game articles are nearly ready for a Good or Featured Topic nomination. So this needs a peer review!

Thanks, Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

My only concern is that the current article uses too many quotes. I have often been criticized for doing that. Also, I would remove Sora's new outfit big quote with another more important for an article.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's definitely do-able. If Judge doesn't get to this, I'll definitely work on cutting back the quotes. I also have ideas to remove the Sora's outfit quote and work into the section, outside of using the quote box. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I've reduced the amount of quotes in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Dev section could have less dateline. Connect the events in narrative form instead of plopping them next to each other in "In year X, happened Y" format I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I read through the section and didn't really see a way to avoid that. After the first paragraph, all the content included is important to know when it was said/revealed/announced etc for context on what was being said. I'm open to suggestions for fixing it if you have thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
example of edits: remove passive voice, reduce redundancy in the sentence, remove extraneous detail that detracts from a generalist overview also lede can stand to be significantly expanded I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 00:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I worked on the lead, and adjusted the proseline a bit more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: If you want to take any critiques on this article that would be awesome, I have a full plate at the moment :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Title TK

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 June 2016, 04:45 UTC
Last edit: 23 July 2016, 13:39 UTC

Ben Affleck[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA and eventually FA status. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Passing Comment

As much as I would have liked to help review this I don't seem to have the time currently. As it stands at present, it is way too detailed and trivial in places. I'll see if I can help with certain sections, but you could try inviting editors who are familiar with editing related articles to help in PR. NumerounovedantTalk 07:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

General comments from DAP

The skeleton is certainly there. Balanced POV, references are correctly formatted, and the prose is tight and polished. Certainly very near GA quality if not at it, and not too far off from satisfying the FA criteria. Well done on that note!

With that being said, I echo Numerounovedant's sentiments. The most glaring issue facing this article is its size. At over 193 KB, it is much too big. There's too much trivia and it looks more like an attempt at completeness, which Wikipedia articles should not aim to do. The article needs a good trim, and especially so if you intend on prepping it for an FA review. Unfortunately I do not have the time to complete a comprehensive review, but hopefully these general comments will get you somewhere to start. At first glance:

  • By far most of the trivia I've observed in the article is the "Personal life" section. Individual subsections about Ben's rehab stints, ancestry, and so forth are completely unnecessary. The only things of note in that section should be about his family, relationships, and religion, and perhaps gambling since he played professionally. You could perhaps mention his ancestry in the "Early life" section, in no more than a sentence or two.
  • Much of the article's immense size is due to its 527 references. Not even the longest featured article has that many references. Not every possible referenced fact needs to be in the parent article.
  • Likewise, there is a lot of irrelevant information in the "Early life" section that detracts from the subject matter. There's no reason to go in depth about Affleck's grandfather or dedicate an entire paragraph to his father.

@Popeye191: I hope I was able to help. Feel free to ask me any questions. Good luck! DAP 💅 23:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Titanic: Adventure Out of Time[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been re-writing the article for months now (since Nov 2015) and I'd like suggestions for further improvement to possibly get the article to GA status.

Thanks, κατάσταση 23:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good use of general audience tone, overall, but why is the plot twice the length of the gameplay? Should be put into proportion. Also the reviews should be paraphrased—they should include quotations only when the language cannot possibly be put adequately in your own words. You can probably find more historic reviews in an academic/newspaper database. Watch for consistency in CyberFlix CamelCase. Publications and works in citations should be wikilinked whenever possible. Might do well to get a WP:GOCE copyedit. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks for the details. Any suggestions of a database to find more historic reviews? I always have a difficult time locating sources in print. If you could also suggest an academic database to find more sources on the development, that would be much appreciated. CyberFlix (with capital F) seems to be the correct form from sources and the game itself. About the plot, the game has a lengthy and relatively complex storyline, so I doubt it's possible to keep it as short as the Gameplay section. I'll try to trim as much as possible, but some significant details might be left out. κατάσταση 18:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no one-stop shop for reviews of older games, but you'll want to check the PC/Mac mags of the day, wherever they are archived and/or indexed. MobyGames is generally the place to start for older reviews. If none are listed, you can try searching the OCR'd magazines uploaded to the Internet Archive. Then you hit the academic databases (use the fire hose)—LexisNexis, EBSCOhost, ProQuest—especially for historical newspapers, to see what kind of coverage it got in papers outside of dedicated magazines. czar 19:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Currently using HighBeam to find newspaper coverage. I searched gaming mags at but I haven't found significant reviews so far. Will continue looking though. Thanks for the tips. κατάσταση 20:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Astronomica (Manilius)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 June 2016, 15:33 UTC
Last edit: 21 July 2016, 16:17 UTC

Spirited Away[edit]

Previous peer review

This project took about a few years in the making (with some breaks due to real-life situations) and the first peer review was withdrawn because of that Richard Wagner PR for FA. Now, I've listed this article for peer review again because I am planning to take the article to FAC and would appreciate comments to improve it further.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The plot section's awfully long—there's a hidden comment that it should be between 400 and 700 words long. It's 855. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Has the literature been re-consulted since the last review? I note that FAC requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The French article (promoted to FA in early 2016) seems much more comprehensive than this article at present, and seems to have some English-language sources that this article does not, such as "Heart of Japaneseness". -- (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, as I was busy with other things actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The citation style varies widely in the article, and images do not have Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. What makes the HSC source a reliable source? At present, the article needs more depth - for example, there is no section on the music album associated with Spirited Away, although it has apparently attracted some critical attention in the British Film Institute's film classics entry on Spirited Away. -- (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a music section should be included. I plan to include it when I get the chance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you read the French article? -- (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

One comment: why is there a picture of a place that has been proven not to have been an inspiration for the film? Perhaps it deserves a brief mention in the prose if this is a common misconception, but showing an image of something that has nothing to do with the film seems inappropriate to say the least. Hpesoj00 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sept haï-kaïs[edit]

A setting of Japanese poetry to modernist French music.

I've just made a translation of this article from the French FA. I don't pretend I have a native-level undertanding of French, nor expertise in classical music terminology, and would appreciate help cleaning things up. I probably won't nominate the article for FA, but still aim to bring it to that level of quality.

I've also corrected a couple of errors in the original, removed some PEACOCKery, and have tried to track down the original Japanese versions of the poems—I haven't had luck with threetwo of them, one of which (purportedly by Matsuo Bashō) has stumped others looking for it as well.

Thanks, Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi CT. I wanted to help you find the one of the missing Akiko Yosano poem but unfortunately was unsuccessful. At first I thought this [[1]] was her complete works, and searched it for key words such as 秋 and 月 but unfortunately no poems came up that seemed to match the French. (Now looking at the title more closely, I think it may only be her complete "psalms", not necessarily her complete works, and from skimming the introduction I think it says poems were selected for the book—hence, again, not her complete works I guess.) I'm including the link here in case the poem actually is in there and I just missed it. But my other suggestion is, I see you live in Japan, have you tried your library system there for other of her poetry compilations that you could look for the poem in (i.e., even if not in your local library, maybe you can order some of her books from other libraries). That's what I would try if I were in your shoes. Good luck! Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp: Sorry, somehow I missed your comment until just now. Thanks for looking! I think I'll have to look into inter-library loans (never done one in Japan before). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain[edit]

My first FAC attempt on an American actress. Would be glad to receive constructive criticism on how to strengthen the article. Thanks, Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

I know nothing about Jessica Chastain, so these will probably be mainly comments on style/prose.


  • "Chastain is reticent to publicly discuss aspects of her troubled childhood.": I can't explain why, but this sounds wrong. "Chastain is reticent about aspects of her troubled childhood" or "Chastain is reluctant to publicly discuss aspects of her troubled childhood" would both be OK, but "reticent to discuss" just sounds incorrect.
  • "gained her an Academy Award for Best Actress nomination": per WP:SURPRISE I would reword this to "gained her a nomination for Best Actress at the 2012 Academy Awards". As it is, I thought on my initial reading that she had won the Oscar until I got to the word "nomination", which is jarring.
  • "Chastain is the recipient of several accolades, including a Golden Globe Award and has been nominated for two Academy Awards and two British Academy Film Awards.": Too much "and"ing here. I would write something like "Chastain is the recipient of several accolades including a Golden Globe; she has also been nominated for two Academy Awards and two British Academy Film Awards" to avoid the repetition of "and".

Early life and background:

  • "Her parents were both teenagers when she was born, and while reticent to publicly discuss this aspect of her childhood, was estranged from Monasterio and has claimed that no father is listed on her birth certificate." A few things here:
  1. this "reticent to" construction again.
  2. we know from the lead that it is Chastain who is reticent about this, but in this sentence it is unclear who "reticent" is referring to.
  3. There are two sources given for this sentence. One is cited to the Telegraph, but is actually in the Independent, and doesn't appear to back up any of the sentence whatsoever; the other supports that no father is listed on her birth certificate ("has claimed" seems to me to imply a doubt (see WP:CLAIM) which is not backed up by the source, however. "has said" would be more neutral.). Neither support the claim that she is reluctant to discuss her biological father.


  • "Having struggled for a breakthrough in film for a number of years, the year 2011 was noteworthy for Chastain. She had six film releases that year and gained wide acclaim and recognition for her roles in several of them." This can just be one sentence, something like "After struggling for a breakthrough in film for a number of years, in 2011 Chastain had six releases, gaining widespread aclaim and recognition for her roles in several of them." The "the year was noteworthy" is just unnecessary editorialising.
  • "which she filmed back in 2008." this reads as colloquial/informal to my ear; I would put "which she had filmed in 2008" or "which had been filmed in 2008".
  • "the film premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival to a polarizing reception from the audience". I suspect it was the film which was polarizing; the reception would have been polarized (or simply "mixed"!).
  • "...and eventually won the Palme d'Or prize." I don't think "eventually" or "prize" are necessary in this sentence. "...and won the Palme d'Or" is fine.
  • "which marked the third installment of the lucrative Madagascar franchise". "which marked" is unnecessary, I suspect "lucrative" is too.
  • "Zero Dark Thirty received critical acclaim but was controversial for its depiction of enhanced interrogation techniques". "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a non-neutral euphemism. The article also masks the fact that the film was not so much controversial for its depiction of torture per se as the fact that it portrays torture as "valuable in finding Bin Laden" when it wasn't. I suggest something like "was controversial for portraying torture as effectively contributing to the search for Osama Bin Laden, which Glenn Greenwald called a 'false assertion'".
  • The subsection on 2014-15 is subtitled "success in science-fiction films", but discusses only two scifi films versus 3 non-scifi films, and the only one of the five films to get an entire paragraph to itself is A Most Violent Year, not one of the scifi films.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto So sorry about this. I was on a long vacation and completely forgot about the peer review. Thank you so much for taking the time out to comment here. I've addressed all your concerns except the last one about the section header. I've named it "success in science-fiction films" because two of her most successful films were of that genre, even though she did gain praise for her dramatic roles. Do you recommend something else? Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I think I could made this article good. I need a feedback. Eurohunter (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Other" section in his personal life is unsourced '''tAD''' (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That right. I forgot to addd it. Eurohunter (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Added. Eurohunter (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam

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: 17 May 2016, 01:07 UTC
Last edit: 12 June 2016, 08:58 UTC

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Previous peer review

After four unsuccessful FA nominations, I've decided to list this article for peer review. Although I do think the article is in top shape, feedback was limited in said nominations, and thus I was left unsure of what to do to meet the FA criteria. I would like some feedback and to perhaps build a rapport so as to bring attention to a future FAC.

Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments by Aoba47
  • I am a little uncertain about this statement in the lead: “cited as one of the strongest dramas on television” as it is somewhat ambiguous. This phrasing makes it sound like critics viewed the show as one of the strongest television dramas of all time, but I am not sure if that actually matches the reviews. I would suggest clarifying this by saying: “one of the strongest dramas on the 2014 television season” or something like that.
  • I would clarify the “religion” in the phrase “The season explores masculinity and religion” as Christianity just to be clear since the show seems to be referring to one specific type of religion.
  • I would suggest turning “Home media release” into its own section as it does not make much sense to place it under the larger “Production” heading. I would advise moving this under the “Reception” section as I have seen done on numerous FA articles about television seasons.
  • For the first sentence of the second paragraph in the “Casting and crew” subsection, clarify that Harrelson was brought on to play the role of Martin Hart.
  • Add a comma between “by April 2012” and “the network had comissioned”
  • For the “Music” section, I would suggest including information about how a soundtrack was released featuring songs from Seasons One and Two.
  • The “Themes and influences” section is very strong and informative!
  • It may be helpful to expand add a short and concise sentence or addition on how the season finale was inspired by Top 10.
  • ”so too did Michael Star” sounds a little awkward to me and I would recommend finding a strong transition or connector, but it may just be me.
  • In this phrasing “ an unconventional move given the show's format and fierce competition”, I would suggest clarifying that the format is referring to the show’s structure as an anthology. I was a little confused when first reading this until I read the source.
  • I would suggest expanding the second paragraph of the “Accolades” section. The final sentence is not referenced. While the table may support this information, I think you need to add prose to support this as well.
  • @DAP388: I have written a few suggestions above. I am not that experienced on Wikipedia so definitely take my comments with a large grain of salt. This article is already very good so I only have minor comments to add here. I am sorry to hear about the lack of participation on your previous FAC attempts and during this peer review. I am honestly surprised as this is a very well done page. Hopefully, it attracts more feedback in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Aoba47: first and foremost thank you for taking the time to provide some feedback. Regardless of being new, any constructive assessment/critique is appreciated! Hopefully come next time, it will pass the FA review. Cheers! DAP388 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@DAP388: Thank you for the kind words and good luck with this article in the future! I look forward to seeing be nominated for FAC in the future and I will definitely provide feedback on that as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gill Sans[edit]

One of the most iconic pieces of applied art ever designed in Britain. I've been working for the last couple of months to get it to Good Article status, which Sainsf awarded it just this morning, and I'm looking to move on to Featured Article status shortly (unlike Garamond, which I've put on hold for FA due to need to get some better images, I think the sourcing here is probably complete enough to move forward). Advice on content or formatting much welcomed. I'm going to ping @Cassianto:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton: and @Ealdgyth: as people recommended to me by Casliber to discuss on the Garamond peer review project. Also @Tphinney:, @Stewf: - any thoughts?

Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I have only two suggestions:

  • You should rearrange the illustrations so that slabs of text are not sandwiched between them. With so many different shapes and sizes of screen now in common use it is impossible to please everybody with your placement of images, but keep them to one side or other of the text as best you can, rather than on both sides at once.
  • There is a clunky tabloid-style false title in the lead:"from calligrapher and lettering artist Edward Johnston...". Adding a definite article will solve the problem.

This is a fine and immensely thorough article that I look forward to seeing at FAC in due course. Tim riley talk 09:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • Clearly close to FA-standard, or there. Some paras too long, some (in the lead) too short - somebody will want this kept to 4 paras per WP:LEAD - it's currently 6. I don't entirely agree with Tim re the picture placing. On my 300px default setting, the pics now go way down into the notes. I'd move one (perhaps the swimsuit girl) up to below the lead pic, where there's white space next to the TOC. I'd consider mini-galleries at a decent size setting. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2016 (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: 20 April 2016, 05:53 UTC
Last edit: 17 July 2016, 12:19 UTC

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status ([2]). Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate.

Thanks, Edelseider (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


I was asked by one of the principal authors, who is not a native English-speaker, to review the wording of the article, in order to ensure that the English is idiomatic. I have done this and made a number of minor changes. I am now going on to look at the article from the point of view of content. I am familiar with the building, having lived near it for a while, but had only a sketchy knowledge of its history. However, the contents of the article are consistent with what I already knew.

  • The lead section is longer than some, but it summarizes the history of the building and the uses to which it has been put, without going into excessive detail.
  • The main body of the article is divided into logical sections and a great deal more detail is included in these.
  • The definite article is used in two of the section headings, and while this is generally frowned upon, its use seems natural in both contexts and I am not prepared to condemn it. I am reminded of an old adage: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise."
  • There are a number of images and these are mostly grouped into small galleries in the relevant sections. Given the specialist nature of the images, this seems to me to be the sensible way to handle them.
  • The sources seem appropriate, but are largely in French. However, I am not aware of any English-language source which has this amount of detail. The authors of the article have perhaps done the English-speaking community a service by extracting and translating the detailed information.
  • All the links appear to be in working order at the date of this comment. LynwoodF (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is a very fine piece of work, a pleasure to read and highly instructive. The proportions are apt, the sourcing is wide and evidently authoritative. All I can offer are a few tiny drafting points:

  • Spelling: English or American? At present we have BrE "favourable" and "splendour" alongside AmE "center" and "realized" (the latter is technically BrE as well as AmE, but "realised" is much more usual).
  • Empress Joséphine – it seems anomalous to give Josephine her aigu while denying Napoléon his. Common English usage? Perhaps, though a quick rummage in the archives shows that The Times has never given her the acute accent.
  • "the right wing was the used as the stable" – needs tweaking: either "the right wing was the stable" or "the right wing was used as the stable" – not sure which you intended.
  • "who later offered it to the Marquis of Cinq-Mars" – did Cinq-Mars accept it? If so, I'd write "gave" or "presented" rather than "offered".
  • "the main foci" – according to Fowler, "The pl. of the noun in general use is focuses, and in scientific use most often foci" (the latter pronounced with a soft "s" it seems). I'd follow Fowler's lead and go for the everyday "focuses".

Those are my few gleanings. This is an excellent article, and I hope to see it promoted to GA or FA in due course. – Tim riley talk 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick comments by Johnbod[edit]

I've raised one query on the talk page. Generally seems GA standard, but maybe not FA yet; the referencing would need work for one thing, as I doubt all are WP:RS. I'd move some images out of the mini-galleries to beside the text. The section on the "structure" says next to nothing about the architecture and should be improved. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Viking metal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking that this article is a likely FA candidate. I've tinkered with it since 2012, gradually expanding it to the point of reaching GA status. With the the plethora of scholarly literature that's come out since around 2010/2011 onward, I think that this article has become very comprehensive and is able to summarize a rather complicated musical genre. I'd like comments to see what issues would hinder this becoming an FA.

Thanks, 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from DannyMusicEditor[edit]

  • The TeamRock ref for Amon Amarth denying viking metal is giving me an internal server error.
  • A couple of these links throw me redirects that Checklinks somehow fails to catch. For example, Eduardo Rivadavia's article on Bathory's Blood Fire Death ref from AllMusic is throwing me a redirect to the band's bio, and it doesn't keep any of the claims written in the article. Chad Bowar's 2014 article also throws me a redirect. Check for errors in the URL or add some archives.
  • For the music samples, I would suggest putting "by (x)" after the song title, or "(x's)" "title" rather than simply the song's title.
  • Speaking of those song samples, their sound quality is too good to fall under fair use. Try somewhere between 60-80 kbps rather than 100-130.
  • Who's that accordion player in the picture? (Actually, I know it's Korpiklaani's Sami Perttula.) Might want to add that somewhere.

- dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 15:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere in an update way back, Audacity changed how it converted sound files. I'll have to continue tinkering to get the right quality. I'll work on the link issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The Blood Fire Death link probably got misdirected when being converted to Sfn format or something.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: I reduced the sound quality for the samples down to 48kbps through Audacity (for some reason, exporting to .ogg doesn't let you choose the bit-rate, so I exported to .mp3, than re-exported to .ogg). I also re-titled the examples to include the artist name.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyday life[edit]

Arsène Wenger[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take this to FAC in the coming weeks. The article has been expanded almost threefold since I last worked on it years ago, and I'd be grateful for feedback/advice – particularly to do with prose. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted an opinion of an experienced user before nominating it for FA status. Please @ping me if news concerning this may appear.

Thanks, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Engineering and technology[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking about good article status. I created the French article and was able to improve its status until good article. The English article is a translation. Since English is not my mother-tongue, I would like to be sure to have made no mistakes during the translation. I would also like to know if the article respects the english wikipedia guidelines which could differ a bit.

Thanks in advance, Crazy runner (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Budd Rail Diesel Car[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's expanded to the point where I'm thinking about good article status, but I've had trouble striking a balance between global coverage and summarizing the topic adequately. I've tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to avoid burdening the article with railfan jargon and I'd welcome an outside perspective.

Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 418[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article on a subject that is incomplete and missing information that is unobtainable at this point. As such, the project it is rated under utilizes a special assessment of Future-class. However, I have 400-series highways nominated for a good topic, and as such require a peer review of this subject.

Muchos gracias, Floydian τ ¢ 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • As a Brit, I didn't know what the term freeway meant until I looked it up. You could say "a future tolled freeway" or otherwise indicate that freeway is synonymous with controlled-access highway.
  • The article is lacking decent inline citations. References 2 and 3 are dead links. References 1 and 4 do not support the text they are accompanying. References 5 and 6 are fine, and could probably be used to support some other parts of the article.
I also edited the article to improve the grammar and flow. Hpesoj00 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to get this to GA status, but my ideas for improving it are starting to stagnate. I'd especially like comments from people both more and less knowledgeable about the topic than me, for accuracy and readability respectively. Generally, how much needs to be done to get it to GA, and where is a good place to start.

Thanks, —  crh 23  (Talk) 19:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by StarryGrandma[edit]

You are brave to tackle an article that has so much information added in to it in random fashion over the years. I've wanted to see Computing become a Good article but haven't known where to begin. Amplifiers is at least a much less expansive topic. However, as you will see below, there were once two articles and it got complicated.

  • Lead
The lead should summarize the article, not be the only place where information is in the article. There should be an article section that explains what an amplifier is. Move the history material into a history section.
  • Topic
The article needs to be a high-level view of electronic amplifiers in general. Amplifiers can amplify current, voltage, and power. Currently the article is mostly about power amplifiers (see lead sentence). The article was reorganized in 2008, and the power amplifier material was moved out of an article then named "Amplifier" into the "Electronic amplifier" article, with the plan that it would then be moved into a power amplifier article in summary style. But that didn't happen.
In January 2013 the then named "Amplifier" article was split up into various parts, and the remainder moved to Amplifier figures of merit. So the older history of "Amplifier" is under that name. The discussion Talk:Amplifier figures of merit#Amplifier topic organization (which happened when the article was still named Amplifier) shows what happened. Then "Electronic amplifier" was moved to "Amplifier".
I hope this history isn't too confusing. I think a good start would be to put the power amplifier material, especially the classes, into its own article. (This should be separate from the Audio power amplifier article which is something else.) Then look at Amplifier (disambiguation) for other material which should be summarized in the article.
  • References
As with much older technical material the article's references aren't clear. For GA the material in an article needs references, but they don't have to all be inline. There isn't a reference list at the end to indicate the remaining references. Perhaps some of the external links are really references, but this isn't indicated.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments or need some more suggestions. This is a very interesting topic and I wish you well with it. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's given me a pretty good idea on how to start a serious reorganisation of the article. Is it correct to call a device that doesn't amplify power an amplifier? It seems that a device that amplifies only current or voltage would instead be a electric power converter, does this need clarification in the article? Splitting off certain sections may be a good idea, but to what degree? Electronic amplifiers are a pretty wide ranging topic, so it seems that their classification and categorisation would be a good subject for the article, but I'd say in its current state it is too detailed at many points. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The article could definitely be improved with inline references. Particularly in technical matters, it would be excellent to have a source directly after each claim. This seems to be the biggest challenge in the article - matching a source for each claim. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


Fallout 4: Far Harbor[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I might try to make it a featured article and I'd like the opinions of some more experienced editors before I nominate it (this was actually my very first good article, so my experience with these types of things is lacking). If you wish to see the differences between the article when it passed its GAN and now (creation of this PR), see this diff. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rhain, Czar, David Fuchs, AdrianGamer, Jaguar, and Masem: Your opinions would be appreciated because you're more experienced than me in this area. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Principal, Ecuador[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it needs verification and minor editing Thanks, Jameson Jameson Foulke (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be sure everything is OK and up-to-date with policy before I nominate this article for featured status. It is already a good article and a did you know article, but even with two independent reviews, I just want to see if anything else needs to be cleaned up before a featured article nomination.

Thanks, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jonesey95[edit]

  • Citations need attention. Inquistr and Daily Beast and Boston Globe citations are missing authors. Author name format is inconsistent.
  • Some MOS work needs to be done before FAC. I straightened curly quotation marks. Initials for people should have a space after the period (e.g. S.I. Rosenbaum).
  • The "Name change" section could be tightened up. Right now, it looks like something that was written by many people over a period of time. It should read as one coherent whole.
  • When you haven't mentioned dates for a while, provide some context, e.g. instead of "March 14", write "March 14, two weeks after the segment first aired". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Jonesey95: Thanks for the feedback. I'll fix these shortly. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • In the lead, we read "The segment, which is the show's most popular to date,[3] popularized the term Donald Drumpf..." Can this be rephrased to avoid repeating "popular... popularized"?
  • "Within one week of the original broadcast, the YouTube video of the segment had surpassed 20 million views, making it Oliver's most watched segment." Except that "John Oliver Sells Out of ‘Make Donald Drumpf Again’ Caps" says eight days and 19m+ views, and "Forget ‘Donald Drumpf.’ This new John Oliver segment is well worth a few minutes of your time." says nearly 20m views in a week.
  • If you're going to take this to FAC, your citation formats really need to be consistent. Some of your articles cited are undated, some have the dates in parentheses after the name of the author, and some have the date after the name of the website the article appeared on. Some don't appear to have author names.

Hope these help. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Seems reference formatting is an issue here. I've formatted the references in the "Description" section (including the "Make Donald Drumpf Again" subsection) and will try to help with the remainder of the article when I have time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

LeBron James[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was first approved as a Good Article a few years back and since then has grown a lot. I think it might need some trimming, or reference clean up. Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks, Ktmartell (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the same was suggested during the 2nd FA nomination. I have addressed the main issues brought out during the nomination, and am now requesting a peer review for improvement of the article to FA standards. Thank you. Thanks, Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and will be leaving some comments in a few days. Please forgive me, I leave Thursday on a trip and am trying to get some research in while I have access to the books. I've given it a read-through, though. Let me start you by saying this: I think you are mistaken in covering this as a cricket match, primarily, as that leads to dull reading, like a cricket match report. The fact that it was played, the first significant intercolonial match, is far more important than how many LBWs there were. The lede should focus on this as a historical event. Right now you have to dig through the lede to figure out why it is important this match was played. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Will do that. Thanks and looking forward to working on this with your suggestions. Thanks so much. Lourdes 16:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I've done some reworking on the talk page of this review. Do tell me if I'm on the right lines. Thanks. Lourdes 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I think Wehwalt is spot on here, we need to make much more about why this match was a big deal. I'm not convinced that the revised lead on the talk page does that either. The lead needs to include more about the background to the match. A good model, I think, would be 1877 Wimbledon Championship which is about the first Wimbledon, and might give some pointers for the first Australian first-class game. A few other points, but I will do a full review later as well:

  • In the background section, we need much more detail. I think we need to go more into general cricket in Australia, even how it got there. And I'd have much more about the growth of cricket in Tasmania and Victoria.
  • How "big" was cricket in these days? How many watched? How many played? How big were the names? How did it compare to cricket in England, for example?
  • It is worth remembering that first-class cricket did not arise as a concept for a long, long time after this game, and we need more about how it was viewed at the time. If possible, we could also say when it was retrospectively made first-class, and why? What made it so special?
  • Most of the sources are online. Are there any details in printed sources, such as histories of Australian cricket? To reach FA standard, we need to be certain that we have looked at everything important: the FA criteria state "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I think we might need to be a bit more robust here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I shall work on these points in the coming days. Let me ping you once I've driven through these changes. Thanks so much . Lourdes 12:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Ping me as well once Sarastro is done, and I'll go at it as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I shall do that. Thanks. Lourdes 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure. One quick point, I'd try to take "Aftermath" to try to show the development of Australian cricket reaching the "maturity" of the first competitions against England, in 1877 as I recall. Trying to show they were on the same road. Intercolonial competition yields eventual intercolonial team, take on England, and certainly full cricket maturity at that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Any progress on this one? I have a bit of time over the next few days. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Godfather[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… it is one of the greatest films of all time and I would like to see this article obtain Good Article status. I've been editing the majority of the article for the past years or so. At this point I do not know what else I need to the article, but I'm combing through books right now to make sure I'm not missing anything critical.

I'm also looking at advice for the cinematic influence section. I do not really know how to tackle it. I've posted on the talk page of the godfather with my idea for the section, but I have yet to receive any real feedback. My idea is to scrap the "In film" and "In television" sections as they really don't hold much value and seem like something IMDb would have, and is overly trivial. In addition, more and more examples will be continued to be added to these sections as the years go by and more forms of media imitate the film, making it even more unnecessary.

Any and all comments are welcome! Thanks ahead of time! I do know some refs are out of order, but I'm planning on fixing that once I've removed more sources and whatnot. Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tuineau Alipate[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to weigh whether it's worth taking to GA. It's right on the bubble of what I would consider worth such a classification. It's comprehensive in the sense that I've incorporated everything available from sources (except some details of family, which I'm going to include shortly), but any advice on how to improve this article to meet GA criteria or even whether it's a worthwhile nomination at all would be helpful.

Thanks, ~ RobTalk 16:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

CSI: Miami[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article is currently a B-class article, however a lot of work has been done to increase its encyclopedic value, and I feel it should be upgraded to A class.

Thanks, Unframboise (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments by Aoba47
  • The lead needs to be expanded to include information from each section of the article according to WP:LEAD.
  • Make sure to add an alt for the image in the infobox
*I would recommend spelling out MDPD when you first use it in the body of the article. While I am familiar with the acronym (since I am from Florida) and it is suggested in the title of the show, I find that is always best to be as clear as possible.
*I would suggest replacing "Plot" with either "Series overview" or "Premise" as you seem to be doing a more broad overview of the show than is suggest in the term plot.
*The "Plot" section also requires references.
*Make sure to link CBS the first time you use it in the body of the article.
*The "Music" subsection needs references.
*A majority of the articles I have seen about television shows have a large "Production" section. I would recommend relabelling the "Creation" section and turning it into a "Production" section and merging the "Casting" section into this. This is more of a suggestion as this is something I have noticed when examining other pages about television shows.
*The article needs a "Critical reception" section
  • The "Awards" section could be expanded as well as the "Franchise" section.
*The "South Beach Riot" article is a great source, but I am not sure why it is used as an external ink. The article seems more appropriate as a reference in the article rather than an external link.
  • More information could be provided on the reasons for the show's cancellation.
*The table in the "Awards" section needs to be sourced.
  • @Unframboise: I have written a few suggestions above. I am not that experienced on Wikipedia so definitely take my comments with a large grain of salt. My primary advice is to expand the article more and go through the entire thing to make sure everything is sourced. It is definitely on the right track, but it still needs more work. I hope this is helpful in some small way. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Further comments by Aoba47
  • I would strongly discourage against making two sections devoted to Caruso and Delaney. You can keep the separate paragraphs devoted to each actor, but it should fall under the larger subsection "Critical reception". Creating two subsection headings for two relatively short paragraphs disturbs the flow of the section and gives undue focus on these two particular points of the reviews.
  • You need a better and more reliable source for the table. Imdb is not reliable and is strongly discouraged to be used as a source. I would recommending finding a source for each award. CSI: Miami was a rather major show so it should not too difficult to track down more reliable sources for this table.
  • The bulleted list for the "United States" subsection in the "Broadcast" section should be turned to prose. The information on the first run also needs to be cited.
  • You need references for the "Ireland" and "United Kingdom" subsections.
  • Expand the information in the "Recurring cast and characters" subsection if possible.
  • The lead is still not fully developed enough for an article of this length.
  • Expand on the subsection "CSI: NY"
  • Do not cite with just bare links. Use the appropriate templates for every citation.
  • The information in the "Main cast and characters " subsection needs to be cited. You started doing it for Caine and Duquesne, but stopped for everyone else. Episodes from the show can be used for citation.
  • The section of the adaptations needs to be expanded. More information should be provided about the comics, novels, and video/mobile games.
  • I would recommend combining the two tables from the "Broadcast" and "Episode" sections. Look at House for the perfect example at how it is done. The way it is done now, it is too repetitive to include similar information on two different tables.
  • @Unframboise: I have added some more suggestions above. Two major points are avoiding the use of bare links and that IMDB is not an appropriate source. Let me know if you have comments or concerns about my review. I hope you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

New England[edit]

Previous peer review

It's been a couple of years since the last peer review, and the article has been edited heavily since then. Would be nice to get a few other sets of eyes. The goal is to eventually get this article to GA status.

Thanks, TimothyDexter (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to give it a last check before I nominate it at FAC. All comments and feedback are welcome. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

M15 Halftrack[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am just making sure there's no problems before sending this to FAC again. I would like comments about any grammatical errors or any technical terms that should be changed.

Thanks, Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 14:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

HMS Alceste (1806)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering nominating for FA status. Therefore any comments welcome on all aspects. Thanks, Ykraps (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments:
  • Unless there is a controversial fact, there's no need to put two of the same cite in a row. The error looks like this: "The Sun is one solar mass.[1] It is a yellow dwarf star.[1]"
    I've removed a couple of citations that appear quite close together but some paragraphs seem quite long to just be cited at the end. Are there any instances in particular you don't like?--Ykraps (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding alt text would be nice, but isn't required for FAC.
    Not required but a good suggestion nevertheless. I have added to all images except the one in the infobox as there is no parameter in the template.--Ykraps (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • All contractions (like couldn't and hadn't) should be expanded.
    Done, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Alceste was a little undermanned" could be a grammatical error. (in Fate)
    Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly but a quick search on Google books suggests that, "a little undermanned" is a quite usual thing to say.[[3]]--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "...and make off." Shouldn't it be "...and took off" (in lead)
    I was going to say that make off and take off mean the same where I hail from but I get the feeling you're saying it should be in the past tense. I don't think so because we are talking about what Cochrane did at the time (the present for him). If we ignore the middle of the sentence, we are saying he managed to take off, not he managed to took off. By the same token we cannot say that he managed to freed his ship.--Ykraps (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Link: Pensacola, jib-boom, spritsail and stunsail.
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest you send to MILHIST A-class review. It makes the jump to FA much easier. (merely a suggestion)--Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    Seems like a good idea. When I have a bit of time to spare, I will nominate. Thanks for all your suggestions.--Ykraps (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Siege of Arrah[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have created this article and I would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

William Borah[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like feedback prior to FAC. William Borah was a significant figure for the third of a century that he was a senator.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States

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 July 2016, 18:54 UTC
Last edit: 22 July 2016, 01:38 UTC

Nelson Mandela

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: 13 June 2016, 18:09 UTC
Last edit: 21 July 2016, 15:18 UTC

Bonville–Courtenay feud

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 May 2016, 16:46 UTC
Last edit: 22 July 2016, 15:35 UTC

Coloman, King of Hungary[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be checqued before its FAC.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Borsoka: there are a few red links, such as the wife sophia, and one of the councils, however otherwise I would definitely support this being given GA or perhaps even FA status. Iazyges (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark and kind words. Yes, red links still exist in the article, but during a FAC review it is often a requirement that the article can contribute to the expansion of our encyclopedia through the creation of new articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • Lead sentence: was King of Hungary from 1095 ... Something like "until his death in year" or "until year" should be added.
  • From 1102, I understand that there was an unification of the crowns of Croatia and Hungary. Mostly needed in the lead
  • "His mother seems to have been Géza's first wife Sophia, because Géza's Byzantine second wife—whose baptismal name is unknown—left Hungary after her husband's death."
    • I could not understand how the part after because is the rationale for identifying Coloman's mother.
    • is anything known about Sophia - his royal family/house/nationality; do add that.
    • Is this a mainstream opinion or debated? Attribution is needed if the latter
  • What is the Illuminated Chronicle? Link it if possible. Provide the dating and a brief description e.g. a chronicle of the 11th century European kings
  • While the lead states unequivocally that Coloman was disabled, the main text states "the reliability of this description is doubtful". POV in lead? Should it be stated that it is the POV of late medieval chronicles to portray him as disabled?
  • Please provide dating for texts/chroniclers e.g "according to Albert of Aix"; to understand if contemporary or later accounts.
  • Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia) -> Nyitra (present-day Nitra, Slovakia) ?

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comprehensive and bold review. I think I made all modifications that you suggested above. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything or there is anything left to change. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
More to come. Reached Expansion in reading. Will complete the review over the next week.--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: Title is a 1 bullet point section. Can you integrate it somewhere.--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A section named Historiography (Henry III of England) telling about the chief sources of info about him; can be added.Redtigerxyz Talk 07:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Karl G. Maeser[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it for good article status. This is the first article that I have worked on that i have gotten peer reviewed, so I am new to this process. I would like feedback on how to better the page to get it approved as a good article.

Thanks, Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Given the length of the article, I would recommend expanding the lead
  • The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, so the BYU statue will need a licensing tag for the copyright of the work itself as well as the photo
  • "is considered its true founder" in the lead: it's not clear at this point in the article what is meant by that. Suggest rewording or omitting
  • Usually non-notable children are not listed in the infobox, just a number given
  • Why did he lose his sight? Why was he unfit for military service? Who forced him to leave Germany? A number of questions are raised and not answered by the text throughout
  • Work titles should be italicized in references - Deseret News, BYU Magazine, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my article! I have gone back through and made your suggested changes. However, when you said that there were a number of questions raised that weren't answered, did you have any other questions in mind besides the ones that you listed? Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Who called him to serve as a missionary? Who asked him to be the conference president? Who appointed him to head church meetings? What is a Norman Department? Why was the spelling of his name altered for the school named after him? "Although no one was baptized while Maeser was president, he did help create friendlier public-relations between Utah and California" - how are these facts related? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Women in Classical Athens

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: 27 April 2016, 20:54 UTC
Last edit: 11 July 2016, 20:34 UTC

Balfour Declaration[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured Article status prior to the 100th anniversary next year. At this point I am specifically looking for feedback regarding how to ensure that this article meets the requirement that it should be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (WP:FACR 1.c.)

Thank you, Oncenawhile (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: There are some sources in this bibliography which might be useful to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The article seems very comprehensive to me, representative of relevant literature, and in compliance with WP:POV. However, there are very few (only two?) Arab and Palestinian sources cited in the article. Perhaps, in order to avoid POV accusations because of the touchiness of this topic, it's best to add a few more citations of Arab and Palestinian sources, if they exist and are on par with the quality of the existing citations. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Western Airlines Flight 2605

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: 22 April 2016, 18:24 UTC
Last edit: 7 July 2016, 15:58 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Hurricane Sandy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is in good shape and I want it to become a GA sometime this year or next year.

Thanks, JerrySa1 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2016 (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: 25 June 2016, 04:53 UTC
Last edit: 24 July 2016, 04:28 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: 29 May 2016, 23:31 UTC
Last edit: 24 July 2016, 16:11 UTC

2011 Super Outbreak[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article should end up being featured. It is very informative and detailed on the topic it discusses.

Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out there is an {{expand}} tag   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Translational glycobiology[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this isn't my field of expertise, and thus far I've been the only contributor. Considering the somewhat esoteric nature of the subject, I am looking to have my additions checked over and possibly improved upon by editors more familiar with the field. Thanks! ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 11:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Good work Erick Shepherd! I've done a little copyediting. Overall the article is clear and precise, with relevant examples. Useful additions would be:
  • Some history (e.g. when was the first?)
  • Some comparison (e.g. are there significant differences to other drugs?)
  • Non-drug uses (e.g. diagnostics, biotech uses?)
Hope that helpsT.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Language and literature[edit]

Woman's Home Companion[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I've recently made some substantial edits to an existing article.

Thanks, Jaldous1 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jaldous1. The article could become a GA but there are somethings that bothered me.

  1. The lead feels like a spam of wikilinks. Try avoid by writing "It had multiple famous editors"
  2. Again with the lead. I would suggest expanding considering how big is the body of the article.
  3. There are several sentences unsourced. I tagged some for you to see.
  4. "Stats and lists about the magazine" feels quite empty. If you can't reference such large section, I would suggest removing it.

Other than I'm also making a peer review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive1. I would appreciate responses.

The Dark Fields[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded the content significantly and would like to hear the community's appraisal of my work.

Thanks, Eddie morra brian (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Eddie. The article looks good but there are somethings bothering me.
  1. Try expanding the lead to mention other stuff such as the premise and other stuff. Normally, well-written articles have two paragraphs in the lead.
  2. Could you make a reception section? Sales would be good.
  3. The Film adaptation section feels like WP:Original research. Maybe you could trim it and leave it like a legacy section alongside tv spin off.
  4. One last thing, the making of the novel (inspirations, author's comments) could be helpful.

Other than that, I also made a peer review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate feedback.

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Gospel of John[edit]

I had recently nominated this article for FA, but other editors pointed out some serious flaws that need to be resolved before it's ready to be promoted. I would like to work on these issues. I'm transcluding the failed FA nomination below. EDIT: Transcluding created problems, so I'm replacing it with a simple wikilink. Thanks, —Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC), edited 21:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

FA candidacy page
  • I said "I'd recommend a Peer review, after a period of improvement", but you've launched it straight away. Personally I think the various FAC comments gave you plenty to work on, so I'll come back later, probably in a week or three. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, you should work on the points identified in the FAC, in particular the straightforward ones such as uncited statements, bullet-point prose, and sorting out the sources from the general bibliography. I'll be watching the article page, and will comment here when some of these issues have been tackled. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Regarding your last two bullets in the FA review:

  • The editor who inserted the claim actually mis-paraphrased the source. I've corrected that. The evangelist was always called "John", according to the source. In any case, saying "the evangelist" doesn't imply "John the Evangelist" or any other particular identity—the word "evangelist" simply means "author/writer of a gospel", whether he be named John, something else, or truly anonymous. A capitalized "Evangelist" might in certain contexts, but this form isn't used in the article.
  • I'd like to know, too. That notice was here when I first arrived (albeit somewhere else, IIRC), and I haven't been able to figure out which part of the text it refers to. But I haven't removed it in case there really is something from CE that I've missed.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Chhinnamasta is a self-decapitated Hindu goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound. A GA since 2010, the article was recently expanded with a dream of being a FA. Request for reviwers, who are unfamiliar with Hinduism so that we can know if a non-Hindu understands the article, which has some jargon. Thanks a lot, Redtigerxyz Talk 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lynn de Silva[edit]

I'd be very grateful if I could get some assistance with editing this article to get it up to FA quality. It has been a GA for 6 years now, and has had over 1,200 revisions in total by over 80 editors. When I nominated it to be upgraded to a FA, I was basically told to "review WP:WIAFA and spend some time ensuring all statements are cited and that WP:MOS is followed".

Thanks! Ldesilva (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ldesilva. The article looks well-written but there are some parts that left me confused. For example:
  • The lead has some references which is something other FAs avoid. I think I really like WP:Lead considering how I follow that guide. Maybe if you remove some doubtful information you could remove the sources and move them to the articles' body.
  • There are some sentences in the article unsourced like the first one "Hugh de Silva died whilst studying to be ordained." or "He also took a study course in Mahayana Buddhism at the Vidyodaya University in Sri Lanka. During his studies, Lynn and Lakshmi had their second son, Lalith Chrishantha de Silva, on 16 September 1954." The same goes for the second paragraph of Thanatology.
  • Also, I have requested a peer review for Allen Walker here so I would appreciate some feedback.

Still nice work in the article. I hope it becomes a FA.Tintor2 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Image Review: File:Lynn and Lakshmi.jpg - There is no proof by the description ("This picture was given to me by one of their children") that the uploader holds the copyright. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission needs to be used. Similar issues for the other photos attributed to The de Silva family.
  • All dates like birth of his children needs references
  • The whole generic Intro of "History of Buddhist-Christian relations in Sri Lanka" from the 16th century seems WP:UNDUE. Most of the content is relevant to Christianity in Sri Lanka. Only the most relevant part to de Silva needs to be retained. The article can contrast de Silva's attitude to Buddhism with older Christian attitudes, for example.
  • "He died soon afterward, having continued to work until the end." The tone is more wp:peacocky rather than encyclopedic.

Redtigerxyz Talk 18:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Social sciences and society[edit]

David McDowall (criminologist)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what other editors think needs to be added/improved before it can have a chance at becoming a GA.

Thanks, Everymorning (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe there is good reason to see it as biased, and clearly anti-Kirchner. To be frank, it appears to me like it could need a partial rewrite, by someone other than the article contributors so far, that including myself. I'm no expert on Kirchner; I simply noticed the unserious language used in this article.

The user who has so far refused revisions – and who has been the main writer behind the article – has stated, among other things, the following:

Furthermore, the article is in my opinion little other than a rant about everything said user perceives as wrong about CFK, and he/she fails to employ encyclopedic language. Naturally, there have been multiple contributors, but said user is of concern, as he/she actively blocks the article's revision.

This (very much unfinished) draft for a rewrite has been rejected by the user, due to its use of the word "alleged" when referring to allegations against Kirchner, as he/she would prefer such allegations to be stated directly as facts.

It's clear that something must be done about this.

Thanks, Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have seen in the discussion, it seems that the problem is that this user prefers to use "politically correct" language, while I prefer to call a spade a spade. For instance, the sandbox version talks about an "Alleged cult of personality" and cites the BBC as a reference; but the BBC says "there is undoubtedly a personality cult centred on the current president herself" (note that by "current" they were talking about Cristina Kirchner, who was president when that article was written). So, who says that this is something "alleged"? Who disputes the existence of that cult of personality? See WP:ASSERT. Note that every sentence of the article is referenced to a reliable source. I have asked this user to focus on specific points, so I can provide any clarification required, to no avail.
I also find it unfair to say that I'm "blocking" the article. I'm the main contributor, so of course that I will explain my edits as needed. But this user deleted huge blocks of texts and asked for some time to write a new article, and I accepted that. I only restored the contents when a week had passed and the user had made absolutely no edits about the topic, neither in the article or elsewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hands Across Hawthorne[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get a sense of whether or not this article meets FA criteria. This article has been promoted to Good status and received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I am wondering if I should try taking it to the next level... Any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks for your consideration, --Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Furry fandom

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: 28 April 2016, 09:14 UTC
Last edit: 29 June 2016, 10:52 UTC


List of poker hands[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to bring it back up to featured list standard. As well as general feedback about content and formatting, I would also like feedback from the perspective of those not so familiar with the game of poker, to ensure the article can be understood by a general audience.

Thanks, Hpesoj00 (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

List of films featuring time loops[edit]

Please assist in forming consensus about how list items should be added to this list, through discussion here or, preferably, on the article talk page. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Rise Against discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been sitting on this page for too long. Just a few minutes ago I did a cleanup on the lead, and I feel it's close to FLC, but I'd like to get some eyes on it if possible.

Thanks, Famous Hobo (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by DannyMusicEditor[edit]

  • "recording The Unraveling in 2001, and Revolutions Per Minute in 2003" recording releasing
  • " In addition to becoming the band's first album to reach the Billboard 200, where it peaked at 136, ..." how about number 136?
  • " It's third single, "Savior",..." Its, not it's
  • Might want to mention its ceritifications in the band's home country (America), so mention the Gold success of "Re-Education" (don't see that one mentioned here at all, which is an important one) and the Platinum status of "Savior". Same thing with "Prayer of the Refugee" (Platinum) and maybe even "Swing Life Away" (Gold), in their respective sections. Also mention how Siren Song, Sufferer, and Appeal went Gold in the US.
I'm working on this
  • Do you know how many records Rise Against has sold to date? Put that after the lead sentence. Generally, for my first paragraph, I think a good idea is: Opening statement + brief formation + optional brief style + total records. But at least have the total records sold information.
Surprisingly, I've never been able to find their total number of sales. Even the band's website doesn't mention their sales
  • "[Endgame] and remains their most commercially successful album to date." This is incorrect, commercial success by default refers to how many have been sold. Reword so it's clear you're referring to its chart success that was > all the other albums.

Might need someone else to comment on refs, I don't know where they're necessary in a list's lead. The rest of it seems fine. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Danny! I've fixed all but one point, which will be addressed later tonight. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Romanian football champions[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what other fellow wikipedians think of the lists quality before nominating it for FLC.

Thanks and cheers, BineMai 16:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]