Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer Review)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. 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 expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.

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

Contents

Arts[edit]

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Previous peer review

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed two Featured Article reviews. I have also applied for two Peer Reviews but unfortunately did not receive any feedback. I have been working on improvements over the past three years and am willing to work together with editors to improve the quality of the article. I've listed this article for peer review because, as the sole editor, it is sometimes challenging to move the article forward without outsider opinions.

I have identified some key areas of the article which have been noted as needing improvement. Most of these relate to the quality of the references. If contributors could focus their attention on these areas while reviewing the article, it would be greatly appreciated.

  • Validity of sources: I am seeking advice on finding more high quality sources to complement the article. For Hi-5, a children's band, there is a resounding lack of suitable sources. For years, I have intensively searched the internet to find the best references, so they are all most likely being used here already. Some low-quality sources are used as there are no better options.
  • Overuse of primary sources and quotes from key figures: Continuing on from the previous point, there is a lack of available reviews or professional opinions for sections such as "Educational theory". I am seeking suggestions on finding higher quality opinions of the band's work. I have also tried to remove many of the quotes from key figures, as they do not add much to the article. If you notice some that are definitely not suitable, please direct my attention to them, as I am still in the process of actively improving. I have used a university thesis in the article; I am seeking advice on how to use and quote this work as a professional opinion.

I look forward to hearing from other editors soon.

@Nick-D:. Thankyou for agreeing to be involved.

Thanks, SatDis (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Frank Matcham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 May 2019, 19:52 UTC
Last edit: 10 May 2019, 10:46 UTC


I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a major revision. While I originally got the article to good article status in 2011, it was my first good article and consequently my weakest; additionally, a lot of things happened in the last eight years relating to the song, both in new coverage as well as a film adaption last year that led to a new chart run (the song's third unique chart run). I've finally a completed a major overhaul I've been gradually working on and want to get input so that the article can be in as good a shape as possible, both in conforming to current GA standards as well as a future featured article nomination. Since this is such a large article, I figured peer review would be a good place to start. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I made some minor updates to the infobox as per Template:Infobox song#Parameters (easier than listing here). Please change/fix as needed. Studios are linked where possible (IBC Studios?) and the city is identified. Also, there is some overlinking: lead singer, common musical instruments, Bible, funerals, film, etc. Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! The IBC Studios here was in the US, presumably a separate studio; I’ll check the liner notes when I get home, but I’m guessing the name is coincidental. I’ll check the overlinks and fix those shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Parinda[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to the FAC. Constructive comments are welcomed. Thanks in advance. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Veera Narayana[edit]

So, i am here to comment on the article of "The Most Powerful Film Ever Made". Privilege indeed!

  • What do you mean to say through he word "scenario"?
Chopra has been credit with 'original story and scenario' in the film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Chopra wrote its story and scenario, while Shiv Kumar Subramaniam wrote the screenplay." -- close repetition of "wrote". Please avoid.
  • "Anna's men kill Karan's friend Prakash (Kher) in front of Karan; the two brothers are then caught on different sides of morality when Karan decides to murder Anna." -- Can you find some other way to write this sentence in a way where the wording is minimal?
  • Kishan in lead, Kishen in plot, Kishan in Cast. Please mantain consistency.
  • Karan also discovers Anna is Prakash's murderer and Kishan works for him. -- Karan also discovers Anna is Prakash's murderer and "that" Kishan works for him.
  • "Kishan also briefs Karan about Anna's rivalry with Musa" -- briefs? That means Kishan must be knowing that Karan is aware of his "employment". Or, is it about Kishan saying it as a matter-of-fact and Karan learning it that way?
  • Karan tells Paro Anna and his brother killed Prakash and he was unaware about it. -- Karan tells Paro "that" Anna and his brother killed Prakash and he was unaware about it. Plus, his henchmen were credited with the murder of Prakash earlier, no?
  • The sentences regarding the casting of Shroff, Kapoor and Patekar lack proper flow. For example, "Kapoor told Chopra that Patekar was not suitable for the role of his elder brother" is a sentence followed by "Anil Kapoor, who was cast in the role of Karan, asked Jackie Shroff to play his elder brother." Those parts need re-writing.
  • "While filming the final scene's fire sequence, a fire the crew lost control of a fire they built using rubber solution and petrol, leading to Patekar suffering from serious burns." -- You mean to say "the film's crew lost control of a fire they built using rubber solution and petrol, leading to Patekar suffering from serious burns"??
  • "The film was filmed and is set in Mumbai." -- film was filmed, eh? legitimately sounds like trouble was troubled.
  • "Tum Se Milke" is one of the most popular romantic numbers in Indian cinema. Great. But, a single source supporting it isn't nice.
  • "While reviewing Vikram Chandra's 2007 novel Sacred Games (who is Anupama Chopra's brother)..." -- Do you even need to mention her when Mr Chandra has an article of his own?

More, if any, later. Veera Narayana 13:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Veera Narayana All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

  • You may want to mention the budget in the body of the article. The infobox already does.
  • Naseeruddin Shah and Nana Patekar were considered for the role of Kishan - Since they have been introduced a few sentences before, you may just mention them by surname here.
  • Where is the source that Vinod Chopra Films themselves distributed Parinda?
  • Parinda was shot in 66 days - you mean 66 working days right? I know you do, just somehow avoid the impression that it meant 66 consecutive days.
  • In the track list table, link the people on first instance only (avoid WP:OVERLINK).
  • The Central Board of Film Certification gave the film an 'A' (restricted to adults) certificate, due to its depiction of violence - the source doesn't mention violence as the reason (though I'm pretty sure that's the reason). Don't mention a film's rating unless there is extra commentary about it per WP:FILMRATINGS.
  • Nikhil Advani should be Nikkhil Advani. Sometimes these superstitious Bollywood freaks think adding a single letter (or removing) can bring them luck.
  • The film was included in CNN-IBN's 2013 list of the "100 greatest Indian films of all time" - somehow find a way to fit CNN-IBN's current name CNN-News18.
  • Replace "publisher" with "website" wherever necessary (exceptions are offline sources). Kailash29792 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Kailash29792 All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Ashes and Diamonds (film)[edit]

I've listed this article because I'd like to find out whether this article deserves improvement from the Start-class assessment. The article itself is a slightly changed version of FA-class version at Polish Wikipedia (authors) which I've contributed to. Any feedback about the topic would be helpful.

Thanks, Ironupiwada (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


List of songs recorded by Margaret[edit]

I started making this list a couple of days ago with the intention of nominating it for FL. The list of songs is complete and I expanded the lead today. I think it's ready but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything so I would greatly appreciate any help.

Thanks, ArturSik (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


Saving Light[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to properly prepare the article for a Featured Article Nomination. I was suggested to do so on the articles third FAN, as it was suggested that it had a bunch of problems and should be withdrawn, which I have done. The article previously underwent a peer review a while ago, but since then it had become a good article, underwent a copy-edit and two FANs, (first one failed because only one person actually commented on it and second one failed because of the questionable critical reception bit which has since been fully reworked, not by me) so there shouldn't be too* much work to be done. But yea, I am asking for a FAN-level peer review as I don't want to make a fool out of myself and fail a 4th time. Here are the links to the first peer review, good article nomination, first FAN, second FAN, and third FAN. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 08:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am wanting to propose it as a Featured Article candidate. Any comments would be helpful, especially if there are any suggestions on layout and tone of the article!

Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

An interesting article, which I much enjoyed reading. A few minor points on the prose:

  • "Venezuelan film was kicked off" – rather slangy way of putting it.
  • "Unfortunately, the screening did perhaps not go very well" – I'd lose the editorial "unfortunately".
  • "similar to Lumiere films" – the Lumières had their grave accent at previous mention; a pity to lose it here.
  • "Trujillo probably didn't" – should be "did not" – see MOS:CONTRACT
  • "it was reasonably accepted that Trujillo" – ambiguous: by "reasonably" do you mean "fairly generally" or "with good cause"?
  • "The historian López says that the film "may be the earliest views shot in Latin America", suggesting this was not only the first Venezuelan but first Latin American film" – doesn't the second part of this sentence tell us exactly the same as the first part?
  • "One writer, Michelle Leigh Farrell" – not sure of the purpose of the "One writer" here. If you mean she is the only one to discuss the matter you need to make it plainer. And if not, do the two words add anything of any meaning?
  • "Though, Chanan does also use a case study" – unwanted comma, I think.
  • "claiming the Edison films" – I'd be chary about "claiming". It has strong overtones suggesting you don’t believe what the writer is saying. "Suggesting" or some similarly neutral word would be safer.
  • "the 'Arrival of the train to the station' by..." – three points here. First, you want italics rather than single quotes, I think. Secondly if you're giving it its title untranslated in the "Screening" section there seems no cause to translate it here. Thirdly do trains arrive to somewhere rather than at?
  • "Notes" – I greatly like the way you have laid out the two Spanish quotations and their English translations. Very clear and helpful.

I hope these few points are of use. Tim riley talk 11:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


Lajos Markos[edit]

Hello,

I've submitted the article for peer review because it's my first time editing on Wikipedia and I'd like some feedback on how I've done so far. I'm interested in comments on style, formatting, cohesion, and particularly the Comment I made during the edit regarding Markos' move to Houston because I'm not sure how to deal with contradictory information in an article.

Thanks, A.T.

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I'm not sure why someone has added the banner at the top of the page. The prose, what there is of it, doesn't strike me as particularly sub-standard, though the penultimate paragraph is a touch incoherent: a jumble of unrelated statements. What chiefly needs attention, in my view, is the sourcing. There are six paragraphs, only one of which contains a citation to a source. All the important facts in the article should be verifiable in a reliable source. Tim riley talk 09:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


List of awards and nominations received by Exo[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it as a Feature List Candidate soon, and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead (a copy edit request has already been made) and the references. This is my first peer review, but I have made significant additions to this article and have every intention to continue on with it. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, NicklausAU 12:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created the article from a redirect and greatly expanded it. Would love some additional input on the article on how to improve it. Hoping to get this article up to GA status at some point.

Thanks, Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Cambodian rock (1960s–1970s)[edit]

I wrote this article and I hope it can qualify for "Good" or even "Featured" status, but I am uneasy about nominating my own work for promotion. The community is welcome to provide comments in that direction. I have a few "citation needed" tags for things I'm pretty sure are true but can't quite verify, and hoped that an expert would come to the rescue (no luck yet). See also the article's talk page for some more details on things that are tough to verify. Thanks for any comments you can offer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the title: it seems the rock scene came to an abrupt end in 1975, so isn't using "1960s–1970s" somewhat misleading? ("1960s–70s" is used several times in the article; two-digit ending years have limitations, see MOS:DOB). An earlier title was "Cambodian rock (1960s-70)",[1] was "Cambodian rock (1960–1975)" considered? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There are about three people in all of Wikipedia who know anything about this topic. I started a discussion with that group in which I proposed writing this article but admitted that I could not think of a good title. (Here is that discussion: [2]) Nobody else could really think of one either, and there are also rules to follow at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Consider the current article title to be a "lesser of all evils" choice and I am open to any suggestions. Also, "1970s" vs. "70s" in the article text is an oversight on my part and easily fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


Kal Ho Naa Ho

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 April 2019, 12:35 UTC
Last edit: 3 May 2019, 07:51 UTC


Pierre Boulez

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 31 March 2019, 16:49 UTC
Last edit: 28 April 2019, 20:28 UTC


Melodrama (Lorde album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I truly believe its widespread acclaim and "cult-following" notability make it a unique subject to be a Featured Article (FA) contender. While it currently meets Good Article (GA) guidelines, I hope other editors can strengthen its prose and structure.

Thanks, De88 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • You did a great job compiling a vast amount of information on this album that has received vast media coverage. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." In other words, a photo of Paul Simon (for example) is relevant for articles about him, but here he is merely mentioned obliquely. Nobody may care enough to bring this up, but don't be surprised if it happens. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


.

Round the Horne[edit]

This is a joint effort by SchroCat and Tim riley. Round the Horne was a BBC radio comedy of the 1960s, a formative influence on one of us as a teenager (the other wasn't alive in the 1960s and so has no excuse whatever). We have been revising the article with the aim of bringing it up to FA standard. We have tried to give the show comprehensive coverage though we hope we have avoided being too solemn about it. We regret the lack of pictures, but we are restricted by Wikipedia's rules on copyight images, and have tried to break the text up with, we hope, enlivening quote boxes. All comments and suggestions on this and indeed on anything else will be gratefully received. We hope you find the article wangles your nurdles. – SchroCat and Tim riley talk 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - technical hitch (me, probably). Having to shut this page and open a new PR. Apologies! Tim riley talk 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


Cut the Crap

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 February 2019, 11:51 UTC
Last edit: 28 April 2019, 07:22 UTC


1989 (Taylor Swift album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this directly to FAC instead of GAN beforehand. I'm aware that for FA the article's prose needs to be brilliant, so I hope fellow reviewers can be really critical and constructive :). Thanks in advance, (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (during which time contemporary critics had), I believe you could drop "time" as it is not necessary.
  • This sentence (Songwriting for the album commenced in mid-2013, during which time contemporary critics had noted her fourth studio album Red for its mild departure from Swift's signature country sound and incorporation of straightforward pop production, a result of her collaborations with Swedish producers Max Martin and Shellback.) is rather long and takes up a sizable portion of the paragraph. I would consider separating this into two smaller sentences.
  • Something about this sentence (Martin served as executive producer alongside Swift in overseeing the coalition of the album.) seems overly word to me. I think that by definition any executive producer is responsible for "overseeing the coalition of the album". I would just cut down the sentence to something like (Martin and Swift were the executive producers). I have a similar issue with this sentence (the former also served as executive producer alongside Swift in overseeing the coalition of the record).
  • For this part (while the musical direction garnered polarized response), would it be fair to say "the more pop musical direction)? I think it would be helpful to clarify this somewhat as it is somewhat vague in its current form.
  • I rewrote the first two paragraphs of the lead
  • For this part (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift released her fourth studio album Red in October 2012), I do not believe you need the descriptive phrase "American singer-songwriter).
  • Removed
  • For this part (to courage to indulge in the big city), I would just say "city". Something about describing New York City as "the big city" seems slightly too informal to me.
  • Removed
  • I have a question for this sentence (To bolster album sales, Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds and Diet Coke.). Almost all of the tie-ins are linked except for Diet Coke. Is there a reason for this?
  • Whoops it was just my incompetence; added the link
  • There is a deprecated parameter in References 55, 147, and 229. It is something about the subscription part, but I am not entirely certain what it means.
  • Apparently there was something wrong with {{Cite web}}; I'll try to find some alternations to this
  • I would try to contact the opposition voter from the first FAC as they will probably be more helpful than me in pointing out areas where the article can be improved.

Great work with the article. This is what jumps out for me when reading it. I hope this helps somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments :) Hoping this PR will attract more attention — (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


Mullum Malarum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 January 2019, 07:04 UTC
Last edit: 7 May 2019, 06:37 UTC


Art Ducko (student magazine)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit]

1999 FIFA Women's World Cup

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 18 May 2019, 02:19 UTC
Last edit: 19 May 2019, 02:02 UTC


Mark Kennedy (politician)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been receiving a large amount of edits lately and I am not sure that they are appropriate for the article but my previous edits have been reverted so I wanted some outside input.

Thanks, Iamcool234 05:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


Fred Keenor[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would ideally like to take this to FA status and would like to iron out any issues beforehand. A previous PR was left unanswered and the article has undergone a copyedit from a member of the WP:GOCE since then. Would appreciate any comments thanks, Kosack (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Cincinnati chili[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take it to FA and have never done that before, and it looks terrifying. I thought maybe some fresh critical eyes on it might be a good step.

Thanks, valereee (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


1982 Formula One World Championship[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed its FA review back in October. I did not get a lot of great input then, only some recommendations and some - as I felt rather impolite - comments from the only reviewer. I see that the prose has some problems. Since I am German, I tend to use longer sentences (which is just the style you use in German), but it does not work well in English. So suggestions as to clearing that up a little bit would be welcome. I am also concerned about the "Background" section of the article, since I am not sure how well this can be understood by people not overly familiar with Formula 1.

I am very much looking forward to your suggestions!

Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Maggie Gyllenhaal[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has too many issues to be an FA.

Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


Engineering and technology[edit]

Apollo 9

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 29 April 2019, 05:26 UTC
Last edit: 9 May 2019, 13:38 UTC


Distributed element circuit[edit]

This is a potential Featured Article, and a complementary article to planar transmission line which recently achieved FA status.

I've copied below a comment from user:Catslash on my talk page which is relevant to peer review. SpinningSpark 17:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Catslash[edit]

Distributed element circuit should perhaps mention tapers in the Circuit components section. At present it says Departures from constructing with uniform transmission lines in distributed element circuits are rare, yet in the lede picture there are two stick-insect networks with tapered bodies. These networks are unusual, but got me thinking of other examples of tapers, including; horns, vivaldi antennas, matched loads and various tapered transitions. Smooth bends and twists are also considered to be tapers. catslash (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a bit to the article lede connecting it to a very similar article: distributed element model. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


General[edit]

Digital dependencies and global mental health[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's pretty good as it stands. I am aiming for good article status, and then feature later. There is a problem with when we can add the medical sections, here or at social media addiction, but I've posted several notices about that. Attempting to attract more comment so we can get consensus as to how WP:MEDRS applies with the relevant linguistics. I want to start discussing ontology, linguistics, and philosophy more directly. It is required, but I'm not an expert. I need to bring in the ADHD psychologist, but we're pretty much consnsus opposed at the moment, bit of an impasse. Philosophy I think is needed! E.3 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


Unisound[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article!

Thanks very much, Redwards21 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts after going through this article:

  • What was the origin of the company's name?
  • Are their any notable moments that happened in-between their 2012 inception to now?
  • Other key people besides the CEO?
  • News coverage of them from companies who have their technology via secondary reliable sources?

This can really use some needed expansion to be considered notable. DepressedPer (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


Mark Mabry[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... It's a new article and I want to make sure there are no issues with quality or formatting. Thanks, Rightooth (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

Murchison Mountains[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm new to wikipedia and I've been working for a while on this article but I don't know if it's good enough and how I should improve this article.

Thanks, Luke'n'Thomas (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Boring Lava Field[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC in the next few weeks. I think it's nearly there, but it might need some more content. I also want to raise attention to the concern about my use of three masters thesis projects (Lite Jr 1992; Swanson 1986; Werner 1991) at the good article review here. I look forward to any and all feedback!

Thanks, ceranthor 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the theses, have the people participating in their writing a reputation for expertise and accuracy? I see that Lite Jr 1992 is cited twice in academic papers, Swanson 1986 is cited 17 times. Werner 1991 I can't find, but Werner 1990 is cited here 4 times. Otherwise, sure that it should say "extinct"? To me it looks like this volcanic field is similar to the Honolulu Volcanics which are not defined "extinct". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry for the delayed reply; thanks for your comments. Swanson has become a very respected figure in field volcanology; see [3]. Lite Jr still co-authors reports on hydrology for the USGS (see [4]) but unclear what his position is; might just be on USGS Staff. Less certain about Werner. I will address the extinct issue once these reference concerns are addressed; Squeamish Ossifrage, if you have any additional thoughts since your GA review, I would appreciate any and all feedback. ceranthor 14:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
IMO when judging the suitability of an author's work one should consider the reputation they had when they wrote it, not necessarily what came later except for the citation numbers. I'd keep only Swanson per the citation numbers but that's just a feeling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Makes sense! Thanks. ceranthor 15:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Honolulu Volcanics[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to send it to GAN and it needs a bit of a touchover.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


History[edit]

Camp Meriwether (Oregon)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it is listed as a start-class when it should be at least a B, if not higher. A lot has been added since it was last evaluated and really could use another look.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


Supermarine Spitfire[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be able to pass the A-class nomination, and am looking to improve it over the summer.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 19:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • For A-class, make sure that the entire article is fully cited
  • Some of the current citations are of questionable reliability
  • Citation formatting is rather inconsistent at the moment - once all the new references have been added suggest taking a pass through to standardize. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Not much more than a drive by comment:

  • I was a little surprised at how little there was on the Merlin engine.
  • Similarly I couldn't find anything on the change to a constant speed propeller in the summer of 1940.

It may be that these omissions are deliberate, I appreciate that something has to give, but for me it seemed odd.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Adele Spitzeder[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a number of far more experienced editors have suggested to do so in preparation of a potential FA nomination. I think I addressed all previously raised problems but I'm looking forward to more tips. Thanks, SoWhy 09:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things.
  • "She was initially a promising young actress, but she became a well-known private banker in 19th-century Munich by promising large returns on investments that were only sustainable by continually enlarging her customer base." I think you should be more clear about what she was doing. It is not even obvious that what she was doing was illegal under the current phrasing.
  • "In her personal life, Spitzeder was never married but was documented as carrying on more than one lesbian relationship. " I would cut the first four words. I don't think you need a transition.
  • "Starting in 1869, Spitzeder managed to prevail for a few years against attempts by the established banks and the liberal newspapers to discredit her before the authorities were able to bring her to trial in 1872." I might shorten to "Opening her bank in 1869, Spitzeder managed to fend off attempts to discredit her for a few years before authorities were able to bring her to trial in 1872." I'm not sure the reader needs the detail of who was against her at this point.
  • "as she found no more employment. " I would be blunt and would say "as she could not find a job" or similar.
  • "open up a new bank" I might cut "up"
  • "Wanting to become an actress, Spitzeder studied with Munich actresses Konstanze Dahn and Charlotte von Hagn.[7]" Two uses of "actress[es] close together, I would change one, perhaps the first (take the stage?)
  • "In 1856, she debuted as an actress in Coburg to great acclaim and went on to work in Mannheim, Munich, Brno, Nuremberg, Frankfurt, Karlsruhe and Altona but failed to achieve success as an actress.[1][7" I would cut the last three word or else substitute "on the stage" or "in the theatre" rather than use the phrase "as an actress" twice in one sentence.
  • " Spitzeder also inserted an advertisement into the city's major newspaper, the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, requesting to borrow 150 Gulden with the promise of 10 percent interest after two months.[13]" I might say "offering" rather than "requesting". I might even say "offering to pay 10 percent interest after two months on deposits of 150 Gulden" if the source will support it.
  • "moneylenders" or "money-lenders"? You use both.
  • "also defamed criticism of Spitzeder as attempts by the "Jewish capital" to discredit a pious and hard-working woman, tapping into the widespread antisemitism of the times.[33]" I might begin, "characterised criticism of Spitzeder ..."
  • "She then performed as a folk singer under the name Adele Vio and lived off friends and benefactors.[41][17][29] Minor swindles led to further trials and periods of incarceration.[44] She died of cardiac arrest in Munich on 27 or 28 October 1895[41][17][29] " Refs are out of numerical order.
  • Changed her name posthumously? Isn't that unusual?
  • "It was produced by the Bayerische Rundfunk and the ORF, and starred Birgit Minichmayr as Adele Spitzeder and was first broadcast on 11 January 2012.[1][49]" The consecutive "ands" should be massaged.
Aside from that, it appears pretty good.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Thanks for the comments. I did some copyediting based on them, I hope it's better now. Two things though: The Harper's Weekly source (first column near the bottom of the page) cites the ad she placed verbatim (translated) and it contains no mention of depositing or suchlike, like because at that time she didn't plan to open a bank. So I don't see how the sentence could be changed further without going away from the source but I'm open to suggestions. As for the namechange, the source only mentions that the family did it, not why. I assume because they didn't want to be associated with her. I see if I can find a source for the reasons. Regards SoWhy 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. The "deposit" wasn't the key thing, I just thought "requesting to borrow" sounded odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


1991-92 Georgian coup d'état[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after spending weeks on researching for this article (which I've already published in the French Wikipedia), I have the opinion that it deserves to become a featured article. I understand there may be several structural or other mistakes within the article, which is why I'm submitting this to you all.

Thanks, AlexandreAssatiani (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • My first comment is that the article is very long. At 59kB it is nudging the "Probably should be divided" level in WP:SIZERULE. I will not pretend to have read it all, but one point that stood out from my sampling of the article is the use of the historic present in recounting the day-by-day events. I have never encountered this in a Wikipedia article about historical events, and I found it rather distracting. Whether this would in itself sink the article at FAC I am not sure, but it is not even applied consistently. In this paragraph for instance the tenses clash:
The American reaction toward the putsch shocked several Georgians who had been convinced that the United States represented Russia's geopolitical alternative. However, it soon becomes clear that Washington sees Boris Yeltsin's Russia as a potential ally in the new post-Soviet world and for that reason, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, who often criticized human rights violations made by Gamsakhurdia, ignored the same violations done under Eduard Shevardnadze, even supporting and advising the latter's presidency.
  • In the lead "a bloody civil war that lased 1994" needs attention.
  • I think using the historic present in the caption for Dudayev and Gamsakhurdia is all right. This seems to be the general usage for captions of this sort.
  • In the caption "Eduard Shevardnadze became the head of the Georgian state as soon as March 1992", English idiom requires "as early as" rather than "as soon as"
  • In the final paragraph the date range should have an en-dash rather than a hyphen, and I'm not sure what purpose the blue link serves for the years, here or elsewhere in the article.
  • You need to be consistent in capitalising Deputy (or deputy) Minister of Defense.
  • There is some WP:OVERLINKing that needs attention: we do not link the names of countries – Georgia, the United States, Great Britain; and there are far too many names and terms linked more than once: South Ossetia, Zviad Gamsakhurdi, and more than a hundred others.
  • The referencing needs a little attention. Reference 70 has an error message. All four footnotes a–d lack citations for the statements in them. The bibliography lacks ISBNs (or OCLC numbers) for some of the books.

I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 10:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


William S. Powell[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is about an important person in North Carolina history and could use some input on what needs to be done.

Thanks, User:G._Moore, Talk Talk to G Moore 17:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • With what we have already, this article is fine. I couldn't spot any problems with the existing content. One thing I did encounter was the first sentence in the lead: "...native of the Tar Heel State of North Carolina." I am no American. I clicked on the link to Tar Heel State, which was just a redirect to North Carolina. I then had to read a bit to realize it was simply a nickname for North Carolina (if I am not mistaken). This got me a bit confused, so I think you should find a way to rephrase it so non-Tar Heelians will understand it. As for the article itself, I believe there is much more to tell about someone who wrote more than 600 articles and books, especially in America. The article says he wrote some books. What about them? What subjects did Powell deal with? What new fields of North Carolinian history did he research? What impact did his books have on the historiography of this state? Are there any debates on the history of North Carolina that Powell holds a specific view on? And talking about views, do we know something about his views, political or social? Did he have some interesting collaborations with other scholars, or made some big projects worth mentioning? Are there any interesting facts about Powel that have led you to expand this article? Some stuff the average reader would be interested to know? I hope I am not going too far here, and that most of these questions can be answered with the sources accessible to you. I made a simple search on the internet and found this page which shows clearly that there is a lot more to tell about this man.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Warrenton Junction Raid

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 6 April 2019, 22:04 UTC
Last edit: 29 April 2019, 16:27 UTC


23rd (Northumbrian) Division[edit]

The 23rd (Northumbrian) Division had a short history during the Second World War: an untrained infantry unit untimely deployed overseas to conduct labour duties in support of the British Expeditionary Force, it was thrown onto the frontlines with mixed results as the Battle of France entered the final stages.

The article has recently been overhauled and expanded. I have also requested that the Guild of Copy Editors give the article the once over to help improve the prose. I will be looking to take the article through its GA, A, and FA reviews in the coming months. It would much appreciated for a peer review to help whip the article into shape with that in mind.

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • Currently Hewitson is in the References list but there are no citations to it
  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • Suggest moving the "It had been envisioned" piece into the end of the Background section - would seem to fit better there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Sorry about the delay, thank you for the suggestions and they have been acted upon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, nice work. Thanks for your efforts. I have a couple of minor points/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • "defense" and "defenses" --> should this be "defence"/"defences", given that it is a British topic?
  • there are a couple of dab links: Siege of Calais, Watten, St. Omer -- suggest reaiming these links if possible'
  • light infantry lineage of the regiment: should "regiment" here be "division"?
  • citations 38 & 41 could probably be combined as a WP:NAMEDREF
  • is there a corresponding long citation for "WO 167/262"? Also, I suggest using an sfn citation for this, for consistency
  • in the References, Hewitson isn't specifically cited -- suggest the entry be moved to the Further reading section, or removed
@AustralianRupert: Thank you for the comments. Your recommendations have been acted upon. I have now added in a long citation for the above War Office record.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from PM Good work so far. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, suggest "its soldiers were separateddispersed"
  • suggest "and immaturessoldiers under that age were"
  • "which had to be diverted from training to help"
  • "46th Infantry dDivisions"
  • "did little to solve the crisis"?
  • say what Hugh Sebag-Montefiore is. eg "The author Hugh Sebag-Montefiore"
  • who were the "Tyneside Scottish"? battalion and regiment?
  • drop the hyphenation from "for less than 24-hours" and later "48-hours"
  • "northeast of the Arras"
  • where did 8 RNF come from? They weren't part of the two brigades listed earlier?
  • give John Drewienkiewicz's rank

Hope that helps. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for your comments. I have acted upon your recommendations and comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I look forward to seeing it move through the assessment points. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


John Curtin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished add references to the page. It should pass GA now, but I can't help think it could stand a great deal more improvement. Curtin is often regarded as Australia's greatest prime minister, and the only one from Western Australia. The article is listed as a level 4 vital article.

Thanks, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Hawkeye, I don't usually work on politics-related articles, but as this has been sitting here awhile, I thought I'd take a quick look. Most of my comments are pretty superficial, though, I'm sorry: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is one paragraph too many per WP:LEAD. Suggest combining a couple if possible
  • He became the first and only prime minister to come from Western Australia: I wonder if this needs an "as of" caveat?
  • on a RAAF Dakota escorted: not sure if the abbreviation has been introduced formally in the article. If deemed not necessary, it should probably be "an RAAF"
  • would remain a record --> "remained a record"
  • possibly overlinked terms: Frank Forde, Australian Labor Party, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, Perth,
  • I wonder if the footnotes also need citations -- these days, I've seen this requested at A-class or higher, so it might be an idea to add them before you get to that venue
  • (incredibly minor nitpick): in the References, the puncutation in the titles of the two works by Edwards are slightly different (colons and hyphens in different spots). Suggest replacing hyphens with dashes and making the colons consistent
  • in the References, suggest adding an endash for the date range in the title of Hasluck
  • in the References, there is no need for "retrieved 25 March 2019" for the Hasluck entry
  • same as above for Wigmore
  • in the References, is there an OCLC number for Wigmore?
  • in the Further reading section, there are minor inconsistencies in presentation. For instance some entries have full stops after the bracketed year, while others have commas or no punctuation at all. Suggest using the cite templates for consistency
  • in the Popular culture section, is there a reference for the first entry?
  • regarding the Popular culture section, do the sources indicate the significance of these appearances/entries, or are they just passing coverage? If the latter, I suggest removing the section altogether


Kargil Review Committee[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added over 94% of the content currently and the topic is related to a report that had far reaching implications for the Indian security system at a national level which are still being implemented to date. I would also request for comments related to any copyright violations, if found. Although I have checked for copyright violations, but I would still request someone to double check. (I have reduced copyvio as much as possible, names and quotes etc aside, of course). If possible, fact checking would be a good idea too. I have tried to make sure that the content is as accurate as possible, but again, since I have added over 94% os the content, asking for a peer review would also be a good idea. Before any more major expansion is done from my side, I want to be ensure that the current content is a good base, structured well, has no copy vios and is fact checked reasonably. This is a lot to ask, so accordingly I will add to other review requests shortly.

Thanks, DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, congratulations on your first article! I took a quick glance through the results of Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and I don't seen anything that raises a warning flag. The vast majority of the matching text can't or shouldn't be changed, such as the names of groups. If you want to work on finer details, you could look for bits of matching text you can change, and reword those. For example in this comparison, you see 'Age profile of the army','could perhaps have been avoided', and 'surprise to the Indian government'.

This isn't mandatory, more a low-pressure suggestion which might give you a fresh view of the article. I'll let another editor (or several) work with you on the fact-checking and structure, and wish you the best of luck. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, thanks for your efforts on the article so far. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • in the lead, complete eviction of Pakistani intruders: suggest finding a different word to "intruders" as it might be seen as promoting a point of view. Maybe "soldiers" or "troops"?
  • are there any images that might be added -- even maybe a generic one related to the conflict?
  • in the Members section, does citation 11 cover the committee members? If it does, I suggest adding it thusly: "consisted of:[11]"
  • is there a citation that could be added for the Recommendations?
  • the Recommendations section begins "The first recommendation..." but doesn't seem to refer to any others. Were there other recommendations?
  • Task forces were formed by the GoM, as suggested in the KRC report: --> "Several task forces were formed by the GoM, as suggested in the KRC report. These were:"
  • there a citation that could be added for the above mentioned list?
  • every item in the Timeline ection needs a reference
  • is there a citation for the quote beginning "To review the events leading up to the Pakistani aggression"?
  • DelhiSeptember 26, Prabhash K. Dutta New; September 26, 2018UPDATED: -- the parameters in the citation need to be reworked as this does not make sense
  • Various recommendation have not been fully: "recommendations" -- also needs a citation
  • border areas as well as the country -- > missing something: "border areas as well as the rest of the country" (or similar depending on what is meant)


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Onychopterella

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 April 2019, 22:56 UTC
Last edit: 21 May 2019, 17:08 UTC


Ruby Payne-Scott[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, for the first time, I've put a fair deal of work into researching and adding content to an article. I think this article could be close to GA status and would really love some feedback on what's still lacking or could be improved.

Thanks, Iknowyourider (t c) 03:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • First question that comes to mind is Payne, Australian, Astronomer... any relations to Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look! I can't be sure but I don't think there's a connection. Although Under the Radar has reasonable coverage of Payne-Scott's genealogy, I was unable to quickly find information on Edward John Payne's parents. Iknowyourider (t c) 04:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Animalparty

  • First, the lead section is far too short. It should serve as a concise summary of the subject, touching on major accomplishments and the most noteworthy aspects of the subject.
  • Second, the string of degrees after the name in the ntroduciton is uncalled for: almost every scientist has a bachelor's degree and many have a PhD. Generally only very prestigious honorifics like OBE, FRS, etc. should be appended to the name. A string of lesser degrees just gives the appearance of (needlessly) trying to increase the notability of the subject. Payne-Scott is perfectly notable as is, no puffery or overcompensation is needed.
  • The infobox caption is needlessly complex: captions should be concise, especially infobox captions. Extraneous metadata about where or when can be relegated to the file description page. "Payne Scott in the 1930s" is perfectly adequate to provide context. See MOS:CAPTIONS and WP:CAP for more guidance.
  • The word "pioneer" in the lead is somewhat vague and can be construed as a "peacock phrase" that promotes without imparting information. What did she do in radiophysics and radio astronomy besides being the first female radio astronomer?
  • If you haven't already, review Wikipedia:Writing about women, and ask yourself if content in this article would be equally appropriate, or given the same emphasis and presentation, if the subject was male. For instance, it may be verifiable that she enjoyed knitting and loved cats, but unless such aspects were a substantial part of her personal life, they may not raise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia is not a place for everything), or at least not until other parts of the article can be expanded to give better proportion.
  • Avoid sections composed of disjunct sentences. Information is better be presented in paragraph form (WP:PARAGRAPH).
  • The list of publications should be considered. While somewhat of matter of personal taste, it risks becoming (or appearing) as indiscriminate info, or as trying to artificially inflate the importance of the subject. I don't know if it's comprehensive or a selection, but publishing articles is par for the course for most scientists: a selective list might include just the most significant publications, books, etc. Newspaper submissions and other lesser publications might be omitted.
  • The Further reading section is largely extraneous and can be removed: per MOS:FURTHER, it should generally not include sources already used as references, or as External links.
  • Lastly, the External links section should be judiciously trimmed per WP:ELNO #1: Links "should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." This means that standard biographical articles with redundant information should generally be omitted, or used as citations to expand the article. Links already used as references need not appear here. Per WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE a short, well-curated list of links might include resources for more specialist readers (i.e. links to collection archives or museum records), and links that offer unique perspectives (e.g. video clips of, or interviews with the subject). Cheers, and happy editing! --Animalparty! (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


Language and literature[edit]

Albert Camus[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I 'd like to propose it for GA. This articles routinely get>2K pageviews per day, some days even more than 3K.

Thanks, Cinadon36 16:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Eddie Linden[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it very recently, believing the subject was worthy of an article. It has had 300 views so it seems there is interest. Feedback would be welcomed, and it would be nice if the article could be graded with an assessment too, as it is currently of unknown status. I believe literature is the best category for this request although the subject also encompasses LGBT and religious themes.

Thanks, TrottieTrue (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch 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 2019, 07:41 UTC
Last edit: 15 May 2019, 11:59 UTC


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 15 January 2019, 22:16 UTC
Last edit: 24 April 2019, 15:16 UTC


Social sciences and society[edit]

Hungary–Kurdistan Region relations[edit]

I believe it is a good quality article but since I'm almost the only user who has worked on it, it would be great to have other eyes read and improve it. Is the content balanced enough or is it one-sided with an uneven focus on military relations? Or, should some of the sections be (re)moved? Any constructive comments are welcome.

Thanks, Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Percy Glading

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 10 March 2019, 18:54 UTC
Last edit: 21 April 2019, 19:10 UTC


Lists[edit]

List of unmanned NASA missions[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I hope to get it promoted to a featured list, and want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has had quite a substantial update with new references. The page (including the talk page) has had a tidy up, and it would be an ambition for it to be considered a "featured list".

I'm looking for comments on the list itself and anything else that needs adding, was wondering if a graph showing the history of expansions would be useful.

Thanks, Jayflux (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


List of black NFL quarterbacks

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 17 April 2019, 22:55 UTC
Last edit: 19 April 2019, 03:55 UTC


Daft Punk discography[edit]

Will nominate for FL in the near future and would appreciate feedback on what needs to be improved. Philroc (c) 16:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Black Clover (season 1)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get suggestions from outside editors before I plan to take it to FLC. Any comments on how we can improve this list would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Just made a brief check up so I would recommend:

Hope this helps. By the way, I'd avise you to review other peer reviews to exchange feedback. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick update: Miniapolis is currently undergoing a copyedit of this article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]