Wikipedia:Peer review
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking. Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on. A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
Contents
Arts[edit]Handel's lost Hamburg operas
IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have it improved and I'm hoping this will speed up the good article nomination. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Mouche Phillips[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some extensive updates over the past week and want to know what else I can do to improve its current state. Thanks, H.dryad (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC) William Sterndale Bennett
Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some major work on it and would like feedback on if it works as a well written article. Check for irrelevant information, length of the article, references, and the layout. Any suggestions for improvement? I'd like to get this recognised as a good article. Thanks, SatDis (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Matangi (album)[edit]Over the years I have managed to get the articles on M.I.A.'s first three albums to FA status, but for whatever reason I never got round to getting this one past GA status. I thought I'd finally get round to that, but figured a PR would be good first............ Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Shenmue[edit]I've been working on this article for a while and have almost completely rewritten it. It's still far from perfect - the references need more formatting and there are a couple of missing citations still - but I'd appreciate some feedback on how it's shaping up so far. When you work on an article more or less alone for a while, you tend to lose objectivity. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Lorde
Phantasmagoria (video game)
Ruan Lingyu[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because i am going to nominate it to become a GA in the near future as Xu Lai (actress). And the last thing, I'm not sure this article is well-written. Thanks, TheFame08 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Cher
Puella Magi Madoka Magica[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it's been almost a year and a half since the last one. Since then, it was promoted to Good Article status in December last year. Right now, I want me and other users to work on the article to help it reach Featured Article status in the future. In my opinion, the foundations are there: it has well-developed Development and Reception sections, and the plot section is fairly comprehensive for a series of its length. Anyway, what parts of the article need to be improved for it to have a chance of passing a Featured Article nomination? Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Hey, I didn't take a huge look at this article, but I thought I'd point out a few things:
I hope these few points help. This is a pretty darn good article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Beatles (album)
Everyday life[edit]Nights into Dreams...[edit]
Ludwig Augustinsson[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… ...This is my first real created article on Wikipedia and the one I've spent the most time editing. I want to know what I can do better and improve, for it to reach the top grades. I don't know if everydaylife is a good topic for a sport article, but couldn't find any suitable topic for it. Thanks, Psemmler (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) History of the New York Yankees[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for a potential run at FAC. After rebuilding this article from the ground up and seeing it become a GA last year, I'm interested in making a push for FA later this year. I have already focused on cutting down what was an admittedly huge article, trimming almost 1,000 words from the version that passed GAN. One of the areas I'm most interested in seeing feedback is how to further control the length of the page. Also, I'm always looking for prose help, particularly for statements that are confusing to non-baseball fans. I'll be around to address any comments that appear here. Thanks, Giants2008 (Talk) 03:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Apogee Stadium[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I will be making a third effort to raise this up to FA status, and I want to do this the right (long, arduous) way. I'd be especially interested in any comments on clarity. I'd also like for a bit more focus on the sections after "History", because few have been directed towards those sections in past reviews. I'm also debating on whether or not to keep the top five attendance table, as I think it's a bit superfluous. I know there aren't many sources to add here, as I've covered just about everything out there on this subject, but if you have any thoughts on the veracity of those sources (good or bad) let me know. Thanks, Runfellow (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Knight Lore
Adam Stansfield
Craig Kieswetter[edit]
I've taken this article through the GA review system, and am looking to take it on to FA, but if there's one thing I'm sure about, it's that my prose will get picked apart something chronic! Therefore, any nit-picking that can take place here will hopefully make life easier later on. Thanks in advance for any moans, comments, complaints and general nattering. Harrias talk 17:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comments from Relentlessly Copy-editing done. I've added a
Engineering and technology[edit]Registered user[edit]I've listed this for peer review because I'm fairly new as an editor (in that I haven't actually written much for Wikipedia), and my edits amount to basically a complete rewrite of an article which had severe neutrality issues (which are still reflected in the Wikipedia:NOTESSAY link at the top). I hope I've solved those, but I'd really appreciate some feedback. Thanks! — BlacklightShining (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Light-emitting diode[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to make little to no distinction between green vs. pure green LEDs. Green LEDs have been around since the 1970s and were introduced around the same time as orange and amber LEDs. Pure green LEDs (which are more suitable to RGB displays and traffic signals than traditional green LEDs), on the other hand, weren't introduced until the 1990s (around the same time as blue LEDs). This distinction is not only important due to the different shades of green, but the fact that they use different chemistries and have different operating voltages. I think we should include more distinction between the two different LED types, including specific wavelengths, voltages, and chemistries, as well as the histories of both types, along with appropriate sources. As for terminology for the shades, there is also the debate on which convention to use. Some manufacturers insist on using the plain term "green" for the older style, and call the newer style "pure green" or "true green", while other manufacturers prefer to call the newer style "green" and call the older style "yellow-green" or "chartreuse". Thanks, ANDROS1337TALK 03:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Boeing 717[edit]A few months ago I performed some edits to this article, fixing dead links and adding a number of citations to unsourced content. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what can be done to this article to bring this to GA status. Thanks, sst✈ 10:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Transportation in South Florida
Hi-Level[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it's expanded to the point where I'm thinking about good article status, but the article has been a one-person effort and I'd appreciate thorough review from a third party. I've tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to avoid burdening the article with railfan jargon. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Stapleton Road railway station
SUNY Poly College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering[edit]This article has some of components to it that makes it a college of a university, but it also seems too big to fit in one article because the research portion, however much is warranted, is bloated. I would make an attempt at fixing it, but I had been reverted doing so in the past and I don't know where to take this article with respect to other schools such as Texas Tech and its colleges for example. Thanks, Buffaboy talk 23:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC) General[edit]Stone Town[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because this is an Iconic part of our nations history and I believe this article should be able to achieve good article status. I am mainly concerned about the Landmarks Section. It seemed that it was like a guide and I tried to touch up a little. There were way too many land marks on there and I made a separate article List of Landmarks in Stone Town and moved most of them there. However, I am still not sure about the language style in that section. Furthermore, with regards to the geography section. Should the Climate section fall under geography? Also I personally did not write the 3 sentences under the geography section but I am unsure as how to expand it, if I wanted to. Moreover, any other help and advice that would lead this article to become a good article would be much appreciated. Thanks, Sputink (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Review by Fritzmann2002[edit]This is my first review, but I'd like to devote my time to a thorough review of this article, and I look forward to working with you, Sputnik. I'll write what I find in a bulleted list, you can respond using a colon on the line after each point. Don't worry about signing your name, but start every response with User:Fritzmann2002 so I can be notified that you responded. Thanks! Lead[edit]
Overview[edit]
More to come very soon Girija Kumar Mathur[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to improve this article to a great extent. It's quite rusty and maculate now... Thanks, Bismuth 123 (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC) One Sweet Day[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because this article looks like in tip-top shape and could be expanded to A-class or FA. Also, I need ideas for expansion. :) Thanks, Vincent60030 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to get some more opinions on what sections need more fleshing out. In the controversies section I have plans to include the exact number of horses passed by the USDA this year, as soon as I find the source--I plan on saying something like "In 2015 the USDA passed xxxx horses as sound out of xxxx inspected", ref. I'd like to know if the sections on the actual show itself need more. Thanks, White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Sword Art Online: Lost Song[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take it to GAN eventually. Since this is my first attempt at a video game GA, I feel like things are pretty rusty and could use some improvement. Thanks, Zappa24Mati 04:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thomas de Veil
Hamed Sinno[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it would be helpful Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Skin Trade (film)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because while this is a "good article", I would like advice on how to improve the article further. As this article has been solely written by myself, I find it hard to spot any mistakes that would be easily spotted by another editor. I would like to improve this article prior to its FA review, so any advice or help will be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Metal121 (talk), November 26, 2015 (UTC). I think that plot and cast of 'Skin Trade' need reference. --Limji1234 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Jumping Flash!
Geography and places[edit]Massachusetts[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get this article to FA for the Wikicup and would like to improve it before I send it to FAC. Thanks, Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC) North Coast Inland Trail[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a Good Article soon. I've done everything to my ability to make this article as good as I can under my own standards, and my understanding of Wikipedia's quality standards. I've seen no one has paid much attention to this article as I've edited it for the past month. And that's okay, but now's the time someone should review it. I've literally added all the sources that I could possibly find that were relevant to the topic. I want someone else to see the article and edit or something at least before I nominate it at GAN. Thanks, Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Lucknow[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… The article has been proofread and edited with suitable sources. It now stands at its best state and me along with other editors would be vary happy if it passes GA nomination. Thanks, Wikiboy2364 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Cerro Blanco (volcano)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to bring it up for a GA nomination. Things to check would be both the quality of the translations (some sources are Spanish and I am not very good at that language, so errors may have slipped in) and text quality. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Ara Canal[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because i want to get a more information. Thanks, Pkh409 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Comments from White Arabian Filly[edit]
White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is decent and I have rated it as B-Class and I would like some further guidance on how to improve the article. I would also like to know if I have overrated the article (if it is actually C-Class, etc.). For improving the article, I would like to know how I could improve the History, Industry, Harbour and Two Rivers sections. Thanks, JakeR2002 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Climatic regions of Argentina[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if this article needs improvements, particularly with the prose and sentence structure since I would like to nominate this article for WP:GA and WP:FA. It was created as a separate article from the Climate of Argentina page since that page had too much information. Thanks, Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Haryana[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for GA level asap. Thanks, -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from User:Runfellow
I'm going to keep these a bit more general. If you address these and would like further input, just ask and I can be more specific (especially regarding MOS or clarity issues, many of which I have skimmed over.)
I don't want to sound overly negative. I remember when I submitted an article for my first peer review (I don't know if this is your first or not, just guessing) and someone kind of ripped it apart. Just keep working at it. If you have the passion to improve this article, keep improving it using featured articles and the MOS as your guide. Runfellow (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
History[edit]Thomas Bailey Marquis[edit]I've listed this article for peer review with a view to taking it on to Featured Article status. I particularly want to seek an opinion on this series of edits made by the GA reviewer. The article copyeditor and others at Talk:Thomas Bailey Marquis#Discussion regarding style have criticised some of these changes on style grounds. An opinion on whether or not you agree that some of them should be rolled back or modified would be appreciated. I would also like an opinion on this edit. It may well be correct that Weist obtained the information from family tradition, but the statement is entirely a surmise by the editor (this is self-admitted "I am guessing that the writer worked from family lore") and it does not seem proper to me to make this statement in the article. Thanks, SpinningSpark 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Murshid Quli Khan[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA. Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Hans-Ulrich Rudel[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because Rudel is one of the more controversial and difficult figures of World War II to write about. His actions as pilot have been exploited by the Nazi propaganda, his fame as Germany's most highly decorated soldier and his involvement in post World War II Neo-Nazi activities, him protecting known war criminals, weapons dealing in Latin America, and his ambitions in politics, require the effort of more than one editor. I want to avoid that I fall into the trap of misrepresenting his actions. I am aware that the article still has some white spots which I need to dig in to. Nevertheless I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thanks for your time and attention. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896
Pelé[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I am nominating for good article status soon. Thanks, JerrySa1 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Comments from Spiderone
Please do address all the 'red' links on that page; replacing them with newer links that work. You could see if you could 'rescue' some broken links by using Web Archive. Best wishes with the article and I hope that it can become a GA at some point in 2016! And who knows maybe even an FA? Spiderone 12:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Royal Australian Corps of Transport[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I have only just recently returned to editing Wikipedia. I would like to try to get this to GA status. Thanks, Aeonx (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC) AustralianRupert's comments[edit]G'day, good work with this so far. It's great to see someone working on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Portuguese Empire
Zahir al-Umar[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for Featured Article candidacy in the near future. The article recently passed its GA nomination. The main thing I'm looking for is a pair of fresh eyes who could help identify any potential obstacles to passing the FAC (MoS mistakes, grammar and flow, issues with comprehensiveness or neutrality, incomplete lead). Note that I will begin the process of converting the citations to Harvard refs very soon. I also need to need to add alt text to the images. To be honest, once that is done, I believe the article will be ready for FAC, but this is why I think another pair of eyes would be greatly beneficial. I will continue to add or change content, and have recently and currently been working on improving many of the articles related to the subject of Zahir al-Umar. Thanks, Al Ameer (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Comments. Oops, the Milhist bot doesn't seem to be working. I've now added this manually to our announcements template. I'll have a look soon. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Bu-Ma Democratic Protests[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because…
Thanks, Rhee In Joon (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Beach volleyball[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because the latest change adds a very interesting section about Beach Volleyball's origins being in Hawaii. However, it lacks sources/citations for that claim. I'm not sure how to specifically tagging a section as needing citations/sources. Deleting the whole addition for lack of reference source(s) seems a bit harsh. Thanks, naturist (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Comments from White Arabian Filly[edit]
White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Molly house[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it and improved its structure and I will appreciate some feedback and any eventual suggestions for improvement. Thanks, Pbord (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Bow Street Runners[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it has been recently improved and expanded. Thanks, Elisa.danesin (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a peer review on Pele and I want a comment. JerrySa1(talk) 16:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Penal transportation[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I worked hard to improve it and I think that some suggestions and a feedback could be helpful to enhance it. Thanks, Gio1291 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Footpad[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it could be helpful to improve it. I've worked on it a lot and with effort and dedication trying to make accurate researches about the topic. I've cured and edited all paragraphs exept the introduction and the origin of the word and now I'm trying to understand if expand the page without resulting to get out of topic and deal with concepts that already have their own section on Wikipedia.
Street in Venice[edit]I'm so fascinated by Venice and sometimes a dream up it. This morning I was taking a peek about works of art depicting this wonderful city and I was surprised to happen to your article that even if concise it conveys a good idea of the landscape of the lagoon as it was perceived by the American painter. Good job!Im 2u (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]Manuel Casanova[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be better sourced and I am not sure how to do it in this case. Thanks, Ylevental (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Ralph Vary Chamberlin[edit]This article was promoted to GA in December, and I'm seeking input on how best to bring it to FA status. I've been the primary developer of this article since its December 2013 stub form, so can definitely use some fresh eyes on it. I'm more interested right now in big picture things like article structure, writing style, lead length, level of detail and balance (should certain elements be expanded? scaled back?) and less interested in issues of punctuation or citation format, but am open to any opinions and constructive criticism. I currently have the article structured more or less in a chronological profile of key life/work stages followed by more in-depth coverage of his research and personal views (not necessarily chronologically), but I'm open to alternate suggestions (e.g. primarily chronological, with his death at or near the end). While there are sources that expand in detail on some events here (especially the 1911 Brigham Young University modernism controversy) I believe this article is the most comprehensive single source on Chamberlin I've seen that addresses his entire career, and unless I can find some more in-depth biographical information (scholarly obituaries, more opinions and context from contemporary and modern researchers, or just why exactly he got banned from the MCZ), I don't foresee a dramatic increase in coverage. Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Polar bear[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I think it should be upgraded to featured article status. Thanks, Bueller 007 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Termite[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what the broader community thinks about the current status of this article for FA. Before I started editing this article, it was in a horrible state and I made a goal to myself to get this to GA. After an exceptional copyedit and impressive GA review were initiated, I believe this article is almost at its greatest and now I have a goal to get it to FA. Because of this, I would like to see if any noticeable issues still stand before I nominate this for FA. Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Language and literature[edit]Allah jang Palsoe[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FAC and would like some feedback from persons unfamiliar with the subject. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Comments from SchroCat[edit]There are one or two places where you refer to Kwee, and others when you refer to Kwee Tek Hoay; I'd standardise on the full name, given you have John Kwee also mentioned (if he's referred to more than once I'd use "John Kwee" throughout too).
An interesting article. The plot could probably do with a couple of tweaks to tighten it and I'll have another look at that in a day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt[edit]
Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi
Philosophy and religion[edit]Pantheism[edit]This is specifically about the sub-topic of history in the 20th century concerning Einstein quotes. I really don't like bothering anyone with this, but the discussion is at an impasse with new references available. Could use a third party to evaluate the validity on the claims of Einstein being a pantheist. See Einstein Quotes talk discussion. Thanks, Muemmel85 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC) The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]I've listed this article for peer review to have it evaluated against WP:FL criteria. This article is nominated 4 times and failed each time. Efforts are made to enhance the quality and fix the mentioned problems which were mentioned during previous nominations. Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Social sciences and society[edit]State Shinto[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I've made major contributions to the article, and believe it could be ready for a re-assessment. I'd like to get the article to Featured, or at least "Good Article" status. Suggestions on formatting, content, needs, and other issues noted by experienced editors would be welcome. Thanks, Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure that readers see it as neutral and factual. It's important that Victorians are away of the state's anti-corruption agency and I'm seeking any edits to make the content easier to understand. Thanks, Michael.social (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC) University of Virginia Greek life[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to bring it up for FAR soon. It's already had one failed review. I believe I've addressed all of the comments aside from adding the suggested extra sources, which I've had trouble finding at local libraries. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Puppysnot (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Norodom Sihanouk[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… As a whole, I think I have written and rewritten this article to the stage whereby the content should be balanced enough, and in principle, meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. However, I have a gut feeling that the current state prose may pass the FA process as yet. I've done a Peer Review for this article previously, but it had yielded minimal outcomes. Hope to gather inputs so as to make this article truly FA worthy. Thanks, Mr Tan (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Albert Rees[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because need the help of the Wikipedia community to do this topic justice. I've expanded this article from a short stub by another user. However, note that, despite related University research projects and archives at two major universities and research centers (the Council on Wage and Price Stability project at George Mason University and Albert Rees papers at Duke University, together with Council on Wage and Price Stability archives at the Ford Presidential Library), the federal agency (1974-1981), he headed didn't even have a Wikipedia page until I created the redirect here (despite being named in the bios of multiple other notable individuals.) The NYT obit doesn't mention his Academy of Arts and Sciences Award (normally a career highlight), even for someone of Rees' stature, and doesn't really IMHO properly explain that he started a federal agency, or that IMHO he was apparently instrumental in dismantling price controls by dismantling the former Nixon price board (not sure about this --- check this!), was the number 2 guy at Princeton University (mentioned by NYT but relegated to the background.) They say he was an advisor to President Ford, but not clear what they meant by this (the title "Senior Advisor to the president' has been used differently by different administrations, sometimes formally and sometimes informally, but did he actually hold this title, formally or informally, under the Ford Administration?). Probably the NYT decided it didn't have the print space in 1992 to explain some of these things -- they can't do a link the way we can. They are missing things that might be trivial. We Wikipedias often care about whether or not a professor held an endowed chair, as a major criteria for notability (Rees is a total slam dunk). Provosts of major universities generally get these ex-officio, and it seems not mentioned anywhere as Rees is far above the mere endowed chair criteria in Wikipedia notability. The name of his endowed chair, or even that he held an endowed chair, was probably too trivial for the NYT obit given all the other things they had to write about in their limited 1992 print run space. (That being said, we might still mention it if we can find a reference to it.) There are lot of universities still doing things connected with him (the aforementioned study projects), the various awards named after him), it would seem he would deserve a better Wikipedia page just so Wikipedians can understand what someone means when they list this award in their bio. Also, I was unable to find information on who his thesis advisor was, although this is surely listed by convention in the acknowledgements page of his PhD thesis, accessible to anyone with access to Proquest (nearly any US university). How can get all the other institutions invested in studying this individual, such as the Council on Wage and Price Stability Project at George Mason University, the Duke University Collection on Albert Rees, the Ford Presidential Library archives on CoWPS, or the two universities (Princeton & Oberlin) that have prizes & fellowships named after him, more involved in this Wikipedia bio. Sometimes people care more about ideas than people. so what about getting these institutions also more involved in same of the related articles like the history of price controls that could also be improved on Wikipediia? What about getting all those Wikipedians who have been editing other people's bios, that list "Council on Wage and Price Stability" prominently in those bios, more involved in creating an actual article on that agency, or expanding the section in this one that i created? The article has been rated "Start" class. How can I, or other Wikipedians that over this project from me, bring this article to "C" or better standards? This article does not yet have an importance rating from any of the half-dozen or more Wikiprojects it touches upon. Would it be possible to rate the importance of this article on the talk page for some of these projects, so that there is at least one importance rating? Thanks, Dk3298371 (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Death of Yoshihiro Hattori[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it could use a good bit of work and it probably could be a GA with some extra contributions. Thanks, H.dryad (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Effects of genocide on youth[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it could be a candidate for GA with the appropriate feedback and effort. Thanks, PEGLEG3 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Lists[edit]Iron and Steel Industry in India[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to clear the issues associated with the article Thanks, Bismuth 123 (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC) List of awards and nominations received by Bradley Cooper[edit]So I feel like this list is ready for an FL nomination, but I just wanted to make sure. The lead is a bit long, but I think it does a good job at mentioning all of his important award moments. If you take up this peer review, I'll be more than willing to help out with any other peer review or GA review you may have. Thanks! Famous Hobo (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doing... – I sometimes post comments in multiple parts. 
Done, except for that third one. 
