Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

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.

Arts[edit]

Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series)[edit]


First time doing a peer review! I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is already very close to GA-status, and just want to try and catch out any major issues before nominating it. What with the recent release of Spider-Man: No Way Home and the demand for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 to be made, I think this article is more than ready to receive the treatment it deserves. Thanks! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


The Powerpuff Girls[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to reassess the quality of this GA page as it has not seen a peer review since my request over 10 years ago. Its GA nomination in 2012 was both nominated and approved by the same editor within a 5-minute span with no additional comments or objections from any other user. I feel that this was not an unbiased review but rather a self-promotion from a nominator that went overlooked due to lack of disagreement at the time. A fresh look at this article's status as GA and what can be done to maintain its status is badly needed in my opinion. — Paper Luigi TC 03:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, — Paper Luigi TC 03:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Paper Luigi! This is not the wrong forum, but you might be more likely to get a response at WP:GAR by starting a community GA reassessment. Some editors regularly ask for their articles to be reassessed in that way, especially if the articles have been substantially expanded or updated. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. If this article's peer review doesn't garner enough interest, I'll relist it there. — Paper Luigi TC 02:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


Mick Jagger

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 28 November 2021, 22:18 UTC
Last edit: 26 December 2021, 02:36 UTC


Vincent Figgins[edit]


I've recently raised this article to GA, and considering trying to get it to an FA. If passed, this would be my first, so I'm keen to get input on what could be improved.

Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Budots[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to submit the article for GA.

Thanks, TreseTrese (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit]

Saint Vincent Beer[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review I feel like it is close to FA ready

Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Golf Club: Wasteland[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I improved it to GA status a few months ago, and am wondering if it could become a FA in the future. I have never done a FAC before, and am generally unfamiliar with the process. I understand the way I write is often not very clear so would appreciate comments about the prose, though all comments would be greatly helpful.

Thanks, eviolite (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
On an unrelated note, I suggest that you continue to review FACs: this will build goodwill amongst editors and help you understand the FAC process. I would also seek the help of a mentor who can suggest improvements to your article. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


Toys for Bob[edit]


My goal is to get this to Featured Article status within a month or two. The main things I could use help with are:

  • Identify any gaps in the coverage, especially in the company's years under Activision.
  • Identify any key employees other than the founders, to help describe the company's operations.
  • Identify any phrases that are confusing, so that I can WP:COPYEDIT for clarity and readability.

I did reach out to Cat's Tuxedo and OceanHok, for improving related topics like Skylanders, Crash, and Spyro. I don't mind doing the work, but I could use another pair of eyes to identify gaps and find sources. My hope is there will be two or three reviewers who can see what I missed. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments from IceWelder[edit]

I couldn't go in-depth yet but here are some issues I noticed on the spot:

  • The founding year is not sourced, nor does it appear anywhere in the body.
  • The infobox states Paul Reiche III is the studio CEO. However, he left in 2020. The key persons should be updated to reflect the current leadership. Also, before his departure, Reiche was the president and for a short time co-studio head with Ford, not CEO
  • The number of employees in the infobox is unsourced and undated.
  • The infobox should note the prior ownership by Crystal Dynamics and have timespans for both parents.
  • Use |class=nowrap for the products field UBL or drop the timespans to avoid the awkward "2010–
    16" line break.
  • The legal name of the company contains a comma.[1]
  • The "Founding and name" section should be integrated into "History" at the correct timeline position. Having it as a separate, two-line section makes it feel out of place.
  • The "History" section should note how Terry Falls fits into the picture. At least according to the credits, he worked with Toys for Bob only from Pandemonium!, which would make him not a founder.
  • In the photograph of Ford and Reiche, who is who? Also, consider cropping the image to only show the two relevant persons.
  • In the awards section, none of the awards were awarded to the studio, but to individual
  • In the games table, make the year indicators plain row headers per MOS:DTT.
  • Overlinking in the "Platform(s)" needs to be reduced.
  • There is no need for MobyGames as an EL if the official website is present per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.
  • Please review the reliability of your references. Pixelkin? Charlie Intel? AusGamers? My Nintendo News? Game Rant is officially situational on WP:VG/RS but should be replaced if possible or removed if not necessary.

I will probably deep-dive at FAC if I find the time. Regards, IceWelder [] 11:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I remember the initial review and wanted to see if the other people I tagged would check in first. And then I admittedly just forgot to check back in. And then I got busy. I intend to take a good shot at this over the holidays, but any additional reviewers / sources / suggestions are appreciated. Feel free to tag me one more time if I don't get to it this coming week. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done / On hold : I did my best to incorporate all the suggestions. I could use another set of eyes on it all around, including research and comprehensiveness. But I might take my chances with a FA nomination if I can just get review from a copy editor. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


Tessa Sanderson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 September 2021, 21:46 UTC
Last edit: 6 January 2022, 15:19 UTC


Engineering and technology[edit]

Saturn V[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it would be nice to have other people look at on the article. This article isn't GA quality just yet, but can get there with a little bit of work. I'm listing it here to have other people look at it. I'm looking for a general review of the article.

Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 03:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


Technical support scam[edit]


I've been improving this article for a week, could I have thoughts on the feasibility of a GAN? General pointers for improvement are also welcome. Pahunkat (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Pahunkat Article looks in decent shape, I'd go for it! We're running a GAN drive this month. (t · c) buidhe 12:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Buidhe, I've nominated. This will be my first GA if it passes. Pahunkat (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


Dylan Field[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's only my third biography of a living person and I'd love advice on how to improve!

Specific help wanted:

  1. How good (or bad) is the WP:NPOV right now, and how could it improve?
  2. Is the amount of attributed statements and quotes in the current article OK? How could it improve?

Thanks, Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


SS Edward L. Ryerson[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of making it a FAC. I would also like to receive feedback on how to improve its quality.

Thanks, GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Rublov[edit]

  • Lead
    • I recommend moving the second sentence of the lead (Throughout her career on the Upper Great Lakes, she has been laid up multiple times.) elsewhere and replace it with more important information, e.g. that the ship was one of the largest built for the Great Lakes at the time. The first paragraph should highlight why the ship is notable for a Great Lakes freighter.
    • Second paragraph is a little scrambled. It begins chronologically with the date of the ship's construction, then a couple of sentences about her physical characteristics (size, speed, appearance), then back to a chronological account of her sea trials and maiden voyage. I recommend moving some of the more important details into the first paragraph of the lead, and keeping the chronological information together.
    • Some of the details in the lead can be omitted, like the exact tonnage of her first load. (The tonnage of her record-breaking load can be kept since it is notable in its own right.) Also which was managed by Central Marine Logistics of Griffith, Indiana in the third paragraph.
    • The third paragraph says In 1998, Inland Steel was acquired by Ispat International N.V., but Inland Steel has not yet been mentioned so the reader cannot discern the significance of this fact.
    • The infobox image could be improved. It's a bit low res and the raised drawbridge behind the ship is distracting.
  • History / Design and construction
    • Lots of parentheses in the sentence beginning Her hull has an overall length..., which makes it hard to parse. Perhaps the second part could be written — a length between perpendiculars... instead (with an initial dash instead of parentheses).
    • She has a gross tonnage of 12,170 tons and a net tonnage of 7,637 tons. — this seems to belong in the previous paragraph. Conversely, The first keel plate was laid on April 20, 1959. more likely belongs in the second paragraph.
    • Enthusiasts consider her to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing freighters ever built. — this is a potentially controversial claim which would be better supported if you included a quote from the source you cite.
  • History / Career
    • there were rumours she would regularly be directed — In my opinion she was regularly directed is better; the conditional sounds off to me.
  • Miscellaneous
    • Perhaps you could add a "See also" section.

I made a few minor edits to the article where it strayed from the Manual of Style. Please let me know if you have any questions. Rublov (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: I have removed the first highlighted sentence, since it has been made redundant. There is not much I can do about the image. Other than that, everything is done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, it looks good to me. Rublov (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


SpaceX Starship

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 December 2021, 06:47 UTC
Last edit: 17 January 2022, 03:46 UTC


SoloTürk[edit]


I plan to nominate this for a GA, which will be my first ever here, so I'd like some general feedback. I myself am not quite sure about the current structure of the article, for example the first paragraph in the history section the first paragraph of the selection and training section are almost identical, with the latter only being a bit more detailed, and to be honest I don't which step to take to fix it. Any comments are appreciated, thanks! ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 17:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

  • I suggest merging 1 or 2-sentences paragraphs into each other, to achieve cohesion.
  • A few paragraphs in the "History" section merged.
  • Reference 3 seems unreliable
  • minus Removed the Townhall.com source, as the sentence is already sourced by 2 other references.
  • "Flight with a Single F-16 Aircraft" program should be Flight with a Single F-16 Aircraft program
  • minus Removed "" and instead made italic.
  • "SoloTürk tonosu" (lit. SoloTürk roll) should be SoloTürk roll
  • minus Removed Turkish word together with "" and instead made italic.
  • 3,5 tonnes should be 3.5 tonnes with a non-breaking space in between, see WP:NBSP
  • minus Replaced by 3.5{{nbsp}}tonnes
  • Top part of SoloTürk. caption should remove the period ( . ), recommend to change the caption all together. The period is only used when there are 2+ sentences
  • Removed period in this and other pictured. Caption changed.
  • ... make their decisions." should be ... make their decisions". since the period is not part of the dialogue
  • Moved the period.
  • Many references should change the website name from URL name to the website name itself. Example: www.trthaber.com should be TRT Haber
  •  Done.

@Styyx: Here's my comments. Cheers, and good luck at good article nominations. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane Huge thanks for the comments, I've done my best to address them. :) If you find anything else feel free to add more comments! ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 08:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


Radio Caroline[edit]


I'm someone who is fairly interested in the offshore radio history scene, Not many people know about this story, and I'm trying to (maybe) get it up to a presentable level. From what I've seen I think it's a relatively solid article, maybe the intro lacks a bit. I want to know what needs to be done to make it look and.. feel better for a station with such a amazing history.

Thanks, Fadedmax (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: I just realised there's a sidebar for peer review, and have listed it here, that's the reasoning for the Dec 11 post date vs the Dec 23 Sidebar date. Fadedmax (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


Nintendo 64[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a high importance article for the Nintendo and Japan WikiProjects. I also want to review this article and do some work on it before it gets nominated for GA status

Thanks, Showerstuffthoughts (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


Scott Kelly (astronaut)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review becaus I am looking to get it to FA status. Several years ago, I worked on this article and got it to GA status; as it has been some time since it was last reviewed I would like someone other than me to take a look at it and give feedback before I nominate it for FAC.

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

@Balon Greyjoy: Looks like this place is pretty empty for a while, so I just gonna step in and review it :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • References at the end of ... at the start of Expedition 26. are spaced weirdly
  • Last sentence at the lede should be moved, it broke the lede coherence
  • 1 or 2-sentences paragraphs should be merged
  • ...


The Epic Split[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take thas article to WP:FAC. This is the first time I am attempting such a thing and would like to get a review to see what would need to be done to get that done.

Thanks, PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest some general expansions. @PhotographyEdits Wingwatchers (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek[edit]

Thanks for your work on this article. Some general comments from me on ways that the article could be further improved:

  • I would recommend requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors to firm up the prose.
  • There is some inconsistency between the lead/infobox which say it is 75 seconds long, and the external link box which says it is 1 minute and 16 seconds long.
  • The infobox says it was released on 22 November 2013, but that's not consistent with the Variety source, which says 13 November.
  • I don't see the point of putting Volvo's website in the infobox
  • Piping "Spanish airport" to Ciudad Real International Airport in the lead is a bit of a MOS:EGG; maybe just name the airport?
  • Production agency and director should be moved up earlier in the lead
  • The commercial itself didn't "cause" parodies to be made, people made them in response to the commercial
  • I would add a brief caption to the infobox image indicating that it's a still from the commercial
  • "The commercial then states" is kind of vague wording, and without watching the actual commercial I would have thought that it was a voice-over saying that. If you're going for a comprehensive description of the commercial, I would make it more clear that it is just words on a screen.
  • Background could use some expansion. Maybe some more information on the "Live Tests" series in general, some background on the Forsman & Bodenfors agency and their relationship with Volvo, how Van Damme became involved, etc.? I have not looked at all the sourcing so I'm not sure if some of these suggestions are actually sourceable, but it would be a beneficial addition if they are.
  • "Volvo Trucks has appointed the advertising agency" this was kind of vague and Forsman & Bodenfors have not been mentioned since the lead, so it would be good to name them again here.
  • "It was the sixth advert released in the series called Live Tests" this information is repeated in both the background and production sections, you probably only need it in background
  • Be consistent about capitalizing "Van" in "Van Damme" – there is a lowercase "van" in the Production section
  • Be consistent about whether you are referring to the commercial as "The Epic Split" or "Epic Split" (the former is probably best), and whether it's in quotation marks, italics, or unadorned (the first is probably best).
  • "advert" is an informal term
  • I don't think the first sentence of the Reception section is quite consistent with the source if you're looking at the details. It was watched by over a million people within a week, and over 41 million (or 48.5 million per Visible Measures)
  • "the advert received six prizes" it would be good to be more specific here and discuss what prizes it won
  • "in causing immediate action of the viewer" not sure what this means. Action = purchasing a Volvo?
  • I am a little skeptical of the neuroscience claims about "high memory encoding effectiveness" in the Analysis section – this is veering into scientific claims that have not been peer reviewed
  • "late-2014" hyphen not needed
  • Source states "$3–4.7" million, so you should be specific about that rather than rounding to 4
  • "a face-swapped variant was distributed" this is currently vague – was it like an officially distributed parody or an internet meme?
  • "mayor" can be in lowercase
  • Lots of passive voice in the Parodies section making it unclear who created these parodies
  • "would go on to film" → "filmed"
  • "featuring the real Chuck Norris" – the previous sentences did not make it clear enough that the 2013 parody did not actually feature Norris
  • The Further Reading link looks to be a bachelor's thesis, what makes it scholarly enough to merit listing in the article?

Hope these are helpful. I enjoyed learning about the commercial. DanCherek (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thank you, these are very helpful. I will work through your comments ASAP. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@PhotographyEdits: are you still working on the above comments? Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720 Yes, although I was busy with other stuff at the same time. Sorry, I'll try to work on this soon again. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


Pan Am Flight 7

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 12 October 2021, 16:23 UTC
Last edit: 20 December 2021, 22:40 UTC


General[edit]

List of Coppa Italia finals[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like that this article be a FL. Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: This has been open for a very long time, and no one has commented yet. Would you like to ask some editors on their talk pages, at WikiProjects or WT:FL to review this? Otherwise, perhaps you can close this PR and consider nominating it at WP:FLC. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 thanks for the response. I've already asked several times at WT:FOOTY some help but no one is interested on doing so. I'll ask at WT:FL and I hope to get a response. I do prefer not to open a nomination. If I don't get a response in spite of my several requests for help, I'll open a nomination. Dr Salvus 19:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


Turkuvaz Media Group[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it was used as a reference by Youtube to determine whether certain channels were government funded. However, according to Webtekno, Youtube later stated that the information in the Wikipedia page was wrong.[2] By the way although Webtekno is an unreliable source per tr:WP:GKDP#Webtekno.com, many mainstream outlets cited their content.[3][4][5] I want to make this article as accurate as possible. Please tell me if there are any mistakes in it.

Thanks, V. E. (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Visnelma: I see that you have not edited Wikipedia since October. Are you still interested in receiving feedback for this article? Z1720 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


Jürgen Klopp[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get this article to GA status. I have had a look over it and it seems to be ok, no citation needed or general clean up tags. However, it is a large article and I may well have missed something. If others could have a look and give me an idea of what would be needed to bring it to GA status it would be much appreciated.

Thanks, REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Hey @REDMAN 2019:, this has been open for quite a while. I suggest that you post messages on Wikiprojects or ask editors to review this article. Upon a quick skim, I think it's ready for GAN. Here are some comments about the article:
  • The "Outside football" section has a lot of WP:OVERSECTION perhaps "Media career" and "Endorsements" can be merged, and "Political life" and "Pro-vaccine stance" can be merged (and I don't think there needs to be as much space for the pro-vaccine stance)
  • ref 14 needs a publisher
  • Per WP:ALLCAPS, titles in refs should not be in all caps (ref 270, 274, 275)

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 October 2021, 00:49 UTC
Last edit: 27 December 2021, 23:34 UTC


Degrassi Junior High[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to get this article of a cult Canadian teen drama series to featured status. At the beginning of this year, the page did little to demonstrate the popularity and legacy the show actually has, such as being named one of the most significant television shows in Canadian history by the Toronto International Film Festival. The article had a total of four sources and consisted mostly of fan cruft, such as a massive paragraph on a character wearing an Australian football sweater. I spent the first half of this year expanding it significantly with hundreds of sources and even getting it successfully assessed for GA. I'd be glad to tweak this article to fit the FA criteria.

Thanks, ToQ100gou (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Marcus Rashford[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to get it to Good Article status. Please respond swiftly and give me any feedback needed to improve this article.

Thanks, ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Henni147[edit]

I'm not an expert for the prose part, but I can give a quick feedback to the table formatting in the career statistics section:

  • The List of international goals scored by Marcus Rashford looks good already. I added scope-row parameters for better accessibility of the table and changed the legend to a bulleted list to avoid " : " in the plain text.
  • What could be done to further improve the table is to split the venue column into venue, city and country, so that you can sort after all three parameters.
  • Also, to reduce overlinking, it's enough to link entries like Wembley Stadium once in the first row and remove the link from other identical entries. Another option is to use the rowspan parameter for UEFA Euro 2020 qualification. That would not only reduce the number of links, but also visually structure the table better (it would stress that Rashford has scored multiple goals in the same competition).
  • I turned the other two tables into a sortable ones as well, with the club and division column skipped to keep the first table horizontally as narrow as possible. The national team column in the small table below feels superfluous at this point as well, as Rashford has only played for England so far. If he changes clubs or plays in another division, I suggest to create a separate table or (if it doesn't blow up the current ones horizontally) to put the missing column back (but only if really needed). However, if this goes against the manual of style for soccer players' bios pages, please feel free to undo the changes.

I hope, the comments helped a bit. Best wishes Henni147 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


Alice (Friday the 13th)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because...I have expanded this article to "good article" status recently. I would now like to make it "featured article" quality.

Thanks, The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


KiHa 80 series

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 January 2022, 03:49 UTC
Last edit: 14 January 2022, 08:17 UTC


John Manners (cricketer)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA class. The article is currently a GA.

Thanks, StickyWicket (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

Public housing in Singapore[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten it and I intend to submit it for GAN. I would prefer comments regarding the nature of the article compared to GA standards, and also on the "Design" and "Housing types" sections

Thanks, R22-3877 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


Fort Saskatchewan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 28 December 2021, 00:04 UTC
Last edit: 3 January 2022, 00:29 UTC


List of longest streams of Minnesota

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 17 May 2021, 22:01 UTC
Last edit: 20 December 2021, 14:22 UTC


History[edit]

Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to take to FL status. I believe it is a solid article; however, an independent set of eyes will serve the editing process well. Most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus[edit]


Listing for peer review, thoughts on how this might be further improved. Could it be worked towards FA? Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


Nadezhda Alliluyeva[edit]


The second wife of Joseph Stalin, Nadezhda Alliluyeva had an interesting life of her own, though is of course most famous for who she married (and her death). I expanded this article some time ago and it passed GA, but think it could go for FA, but I'd prefer a look over if possible. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive suggestions for its improvement before its GAN. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent article, but I have some comments. The article is actually contains only political history in chronological order. It would be good to write more about the economy (trade, coinage), art (literature, architecture), society and administrative system. English-language sources already exist for these, for instance The Economy of Medieval Hungary (Brill, 2018). --Norden1990 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Fair point. I have the book so I can expand the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


Arthur Phillip[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I just recently got it to pass a GA and thought I’d do a peer review before nominating for feature article

Thanks, Knightmare 3112 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder by Kavyansh[edit]

  • Will take a look in a day or two, or three or four. I reviewed it for GA, and am happy to know that it is being considered for FA! Ping me if I forget. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


Edmund the Martyr

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 11 December 2021, 11:41 UTC
Last edit: 16 January 2022, 14:36 UTC


Abdollah Mirza Qajar[edit]


i'm planning to nominate this article for FA, i'm looking forward for any suggestions. thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments
  • The following sources are cited under the Bibliography section, but are not used in the prose as in-line citations. If they have some significant work on the topic, better to cite them. If they provide certain mention of the topic or closely related topics, better move then to "Further reading" section. Else remove.
    • Al Davod, Ali (Winter 2001). "دخمه ارغون" [A look at Tomb of Arghun by Habib Yaghmaei]. Nashr-e Dansh (in Persian) (102): 57–58. ISSN 0259-9090. OCLC 607709011
    • Amanat, Abbas (1997). Pivot of the universe : Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831-1896. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520914056. OCLC 44964072
    • Anosh, Abolhasan Fayyaz (2011). "پديدة رست مالتواريخ؛ تأملي بر شخصيت محمد هاشم آصف و اثر تاريخي او" [Rostam Al- Tavarikh An Analysis of the Character of Mohammad Hashem Asef and his Historical Work] (PDF). Tahqiqat-e Tarikh-e Ejtemai (Social History Studies) (in Persian). 1 (1): 97–122. ISSN 2383-0484. OCLC 7854919621
    • Ostadi Moghadam, Kazem (2015). کتابشناسی خط فارسی و تغییر خط [An Encyclopedia of Persian Calligraphy and It's Changes] (in Persian). Tehran. ISBN 9786000437336. OCLC 1243881046

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

* @Kavyansh.Singh: All removed Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Constant-recursive sequence

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 6 January 2022, 04:12 UTC
Last edit: 18 January 2022, 22:35 UTC


Bonacynodon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 7 December 2021, 17:19 UTC
Last edit: 19 December 2021, 18:04 UTC


TRAPPIST-1[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a major expansion on the article and wanted to get second opinions on whether the new version is OK to people. I was also thinking of sending this article to FAC or GAN [after some cleanup] but I have never written an astronomy article before so I'd like to get some assistance from editors with experience in that field.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

  • TRAPPIST-1: The star should be Star only; Potential atmospheres should be Planet atmospheres
    Did the first, went with "of the planets" for the second since stars also have atmospheres. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Kepler should never be italicized
    Deitalicized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Notes should be incorporated to the article. I like the idea of explaining words this way, but usually a wikilink is suffice.
    In some places (the Featured article process) folks will want more than a link to explain what an article's jargon means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • External links should be cleaned up
    Did some cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • My suggestion is to break up the paragraph. It would look like a wall of text on mobile, and is just unpleasant. I also suggest consise writing. Example:
The intense UV radiation - both "far" UV and XUV, which includes X-rays - can efficiently remove water from the planets, by splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen and heating the upper atmosphere until they escape from the planet.
Intense extreme ultraviolet and X-rays can make water escape from planets, by splitting and heating into hydrogen along with oxygen gas.
That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Three or four planets – e, f, and g or d, e, and f – are located inside the habitable zone. should not be bolded. Bolding only used for the title in the text.
    Hmm, I think highlighting the names of the planets is probably better here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Gallery images should be get rid of, adding more images to illustrate the sections would be better
    Moved one image and one video up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, CactiSaccingCrane Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Nice work on Trappist-1! If you'd like, you can comment on SpaceX Starship peer review as well, where you can find extra aspects of the article that is missing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Put a comment in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


Psilocybe tasmaniana[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded fairly extensively from stub class. It is an old article that had no content and isn't likely to be found and reviewed by chance. It is the first article I've attempted to write and I would like any kind of constructive feedback and to hopefully move it out of stub class and in to something more accurate.

Thanks, Mycellenz (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Hi @Mycellenz:, here are some comments about the article:

  • Great job with the description. The second sentence in the "Published description" section is probably not needed.
  • The last paragraph in "Habitat and distribution" needs a citation.
  • Prose is not usually underlined, as seen in the last sentence in "Taxnomy"
  • Wikipedia has something called featured articles which is Wikipedia's best work; I often use these FAs as a template for my articles and ideas on what should be in an article. Some FAs on fungi include Cortinarius caperatus and Hydnum repandum.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


Peking Man[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article certainly can be organized better. For example, the question of cannibalism is discussed in great detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Age and taphonomy; fire is brought up in a lot of detail in taphonomy, palaeoenvironment, and its own section fire; and most sections are incredibly long and could use some subdivisions but I can't think of any logical ones. Also, comments on general grammar and readability would be appreciated

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


Language and literature[edit]

Ayn Rand[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a GA for over a decade, and I've recently updated and expanded it in preparation for FAC. Since Rand is a controversial figure, any feedback is welcomed but especially any concerns about sourcing, POV, etc. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


One Day at HorrorLand[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA status from its current GA status.

Thanks, SL93 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I now see that the first part of the plot summary I added was copied to Goodreads at some point which is so not cool. I will work on rewording it. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Scratch that. A Goodreads reviewer did the deed and not Goodreads itself. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 January 2022, 02:53 UTC
Last edit: 18 January 2022, 09:02 UTC


First circle of hell[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first of a series of articles I've begun working on regarding the divisions of Dante's Inferno. Due to nature of the articles (I have also created the second and third parts so far), any suggestions here will be useful across multiple articles. I have deliberately avoided any of the "popular culture" cruft that can permeate these kinds of articles and want to focus on the actual subject itself; any sources that seem like obvious omissions or any themes not covered here would be welcome additions. Thanks, ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


Levantine Arabic

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 19 December 2021, 11:26 UTC
Last edit: 17 January 2022, 11:53 UTC


Immortality in fiction

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 December 2021, 23:42 UTC
Last edit: 11 January 2022, 17:08 UTC


Raoul Whitfield[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I recently added a significant amount of information to it with a major expansion. It is my first article to edit, it's a topic I find extremely interesting, and would love to get feedback so I can improve the article, and improve my editing skills for future articles.

Thanks, Kting97 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


Journalism of Early Modern Europe[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on getting it to GA at some point and as it was last rated as C want some clarification on what could be improved to get it there. I contacted an expert in the area via email to get some feedback but am still waiting on a response.

Thanks, A. C. Santacruz Talk 11:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch[edit]

Placeholder. Will take a look this week. JBchrch talk 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  • It seems like the coverage is unduly biased in favor of Italy. If I take a look at Hamish, Scott, ed. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern European History, 1350-1750: Volume I: Peoples and Place. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199597253., and specifically its chapters on "Printing and Printedness" by James Raven, "A Revolution in Information?" by Ann Blair and Devin Fitzgerald and "Travel and Communications" by Hamish Scott, I see a lot of crucial material concerning other countries that is not covered. It also seems like some essential information is missing such as the fact that "Europe’s first weekly newspaper began publication in 1605 in Strassburg" (Scott) or the history of La Gazette. And that is just from a very very cursory reading of this one book.
  • I think the problem is the sourcing, which relies almost exclusively on scholarly articles focusing on Italy. I think you need to find more sources with a broader focus, and preferably WP:TERTIARY ones, such as the Oxford handbook mentioned above (and its sources). JBchrch talk 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


Dinogad's Smock

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 14 July 2021, 11:29 UTC
Last edit: 19 December 2021, 09:45 UTC


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Hòa Hảo[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I've made it a GAN, though it will be better to get initial wrongs right before the someone takes the nomination.

Thanks, --► Sincerely: Solavirum 16:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


Egami Church[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make sure it fits the MOS and that no vital information is missing, I hope to nominate this for GA soon.

Thanks, Tai123.123 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RoseCherry64[edit]

Lead[edit]
History[edit]
  • Wikilink Naru Island.
  • Comma after "the location of Egami Church".
  • "this allowed them to" -> "allowing them to", flows better.
  • Comma after "In [years]".
  • Quote shouldn't be italic.
Architecture[edit]
  • Put ref tag after "the finest wooden churches in Japan", it looks like you're citing that it's one of the finest wooden churches in general.
  • Comma after "in Japan".
Cited sources[edit]
  • The Japanese references do not have transliterations. I don't think this is required, but it gives people who can't read Japanese more context about the source.
  • UNESCO source is repeated with different page numbers. To reduce WP:INLINECLUTTER, consider using something like <ref>{{harvnb|UNESCO World Heritage Centre|2017|p=82}}</ref> after the first cite. You also need to add a tag for works without authors with harvnb, see Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template for how to do this.
  • UNESCO is written as Unesco in the reference.
  • 横坂剛比古(MARO) -> |last=Yokosaka |first=Takehiko

Not really sure how much this has left for GA, really, but there were numerous issues I spotted on a quick look. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@RoseCherry64 Thank you, I'm unsure how to follow through with the second citation tip you listed so if you have the time could you do it for me. Is there any other problems you see know Tai123.123 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


Al-Fatiha[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks good enough to be nominated. the structure us well done so far. grammar good enough. inline citation doesnt lacking.

Thanks, Ahendra (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


Social sciences and society[edit]

The Walt Disney Company[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because as a level 4 vital article who's name is recognized across the globe by most people, I think the rating being C is extremely annoying, despite being the most famous and powerful media company, it still has major gaps. So I want to restore it to Featured Article quality, and need new advice on how to do it. Many edits have been made since September 2019, and it may not be as helpful as a recent up-to-date review would be.

Cheers, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


Paul Goodman[edit]


PG was a major public figure in the 1960s with dizzying breadth across varied and many disciplines. It's likely the challenge that sunk more than two biographies that were in development in the late 20th century. This article is now the best resource on the Internet on his life, and I'd like to make it better—featured, even. Looking for feedback on any blind spots I might be missing before taking it to FAC. Thanks and happy New Year, czar 20:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


Corry Tendeloo[edit]


I request a peer review because I would like to nominate this Good Article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). Not being a native speaker I always need help on prose. I would appreciate any help to get the article in such a shape that it is likely to pass at FAC.

Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


Japanese New Zealanders[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks, ADWC312 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


Air Tanzania[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring this Article into an A Class Article. The page has not been reviewed for years and it failed B Class certification due to in-line citations in 2013. I have since fixed alot of that and need some guidance on what needs to happen to bring the article closer to A-Class.

Thanks, Sputink (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


The May Pamphlet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 24 December 2021, 18:58 UTC
Last edit: 4 January 2022, 00:18 UTC


Andre De Grasse[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an assessment of the page. I would like to know what would be a grade assessment of the page and how to improve the article towards a GA article.

Thanks, Words in the Wind(talk) 18:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


Ian Hislop[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of nominating it for Good Article status, but would like it to be checked by reviewers beforehand.

Thanks, —AFreshStart (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • AFreshStart: There's a few stubby short paragraphs in "Television and radio work" that should be combined, and a couple [citation needed] issues. Fix those and go straight to GAN would be my advice. Any others can likely be fixed during the GA review. (t · c) buidhe 12:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the help buidhe! I have made those edits now. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try to nominate it for a good article. I don't think it is there yet but I am not sure where to get started and where it would need the most help. Anyone who might pull up sources would also be helpful. Jorahm (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment(s) from Extraordinary Writ[edit]

I can help with the sources, Jorahm. Take a look through this Google Scholar search: there are lots of relevant law review articles that discuss the case in detail. I have free HeinOnline access (through WP:TWL), so I can send you PDFs of any of these. Just email me the names of any articles that you're interested in, and I'll send you copies. Oh, and I'll try to leave some comments on the article itself sometime soon. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your offer! I found these [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] from the more recent times. These older ones may offer equal but different value [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. What is the best way to get these from you? Jorahm (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Jorahm, the easiest way would be for you to send me an email through the "Email this user" interface (which you can read about here) so that I can reply with the attachments. If that doesn't work for you, I can try to come up with another way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jorahm: I see that your last edit on Wikipedia was November 14. Are you still interested in getting this article to GA status? Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Life got hard for me over the month that just passed. I am still interested in getting this article to GA status but I might not have time at this exact moment. I will take any comments and try to get to them eventually. Jorahm (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


Open New York[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on the content, particularly with respect to WP:NPOV, and that it is up to par with other articles on non-profit organizations.

Thanks, Varavour (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

  • New York, New York in infobox is excessive
  • More New York name should be pushed to the lede
  • SoHo/NoHo rezoning should be SoHo and NoHo rezoning
  • Adding more image to illustrate the sections would be great
  • 2021 should not be linked
  • ...

Courtesy ping: @Varavour:. Let me know if you have any more questions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


Atlantic College[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review as it has had substantial revisions and additions (by many different editors) since being assessed as Start-class in the schools (high-importance), education (mid-importance), and Wales categories 8+ years ago. Would appreciate any pointers to how best to improve the article, and external eyes to highlight where there might be gaps in the content. (ps - not sure what the best "topic" is for this peer review; an educational institution seems to feel loosely within "Social sciences and society" but happy to adjust if there's a better home for it, or if it would be better off in the general list.)

Thanks, Dotx3 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Hi Dotx3, I am sorry that it has taken so long for someone to comment on this article. Here are some suggestions, based on a quick skim:

  • Each paragraph should end in a citation to verify the preceeding information.
  • Ref 5 is for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia should never be used as a citation in Wikipedia articles.
  • The notable alumni and students section is too long. I suggest trimming out the less-important people.
  • The second paragraph in Academics needs citations.
  • The second paragraph in College needs citations.
  • "Students from over 90 countries participate in Atlantic College's rigorous two-year programme" Delete rigorous, as that is subjective.

Once these are addressed, please ping me and I will add additional comments. If you are concerned that you might be missing information, I suggest looking at featured articles about schools, such as Texas A&M University. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Dotx3 are you still interested in fixing up this article, or do you want to close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Z1720 I am! I'm working through the comments above in a sandbox; will push to the main article soon. Thank you for your feedback and your patience - and for checking in! Dotx3 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Z1720: I think I've fixed up the issues listed above and a handful of additional things (Among other things, I cut down the alumni list significantly, but - would you suggest trimming further?). I would welcome any further PR suggestions. Dotx3 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Dotx3: I suggest putting the list of alumni in paragraphs, with brief descriptions of their accomplishments. I would also suggest trimming the list to the most important people in each category. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dotx3: are you still working on this article? If not, can we close this PR? If you are looking for more comments, perhaps you can ask for reviewers on relevant Wikiproject talk pages. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    Let's close it for now. Thank you for your suggestions - I think I've incorporated all of them except one, and I will take a stab at restructuring the alumni section into paragraphs when I have time. Cheers! Dotx3 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


Lists[edit]

List of Coppa Italia finals[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like that this article be a FL. Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: This has been open for a very long time, and no one has commented yet. Would you like to ask some editors on their talk pages, at WikiProjects or WT:FL to review this? Otherwise, perhaps you can close this PR and consider nominating it at WP:FLC. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 thanks for the response. I've already asked several times at WT:FOOTY some help but no one is interested on doing so. I'll ask at WT:FL and I hope to get a response. I do prefer not to open a nomination. If I don't get a response in spite of my several requests for help, I'll open a nomination. Dr Salvus 19:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]