Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Pr)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
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.
PR icon.png

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

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

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.




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)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'll nominate it for FAC next month. After the FAC is promoted, it will have a fully FT about Lorde.

Thanks, TheFame08 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Phantasmagoria (video game)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's already a GA, but I'd like to nominate it for FA eventually, so I'd like a more thorough copy edit. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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)


Previous peer review

Cher is a singer-actress who first rose to proeminence in 1965 as one-half of the husband–wife duo Sonny & Cher, as their song "I Got You Babe" topped the Billboard Hot 100 and the UK Singles Chart. She was able to stay in the public eye since then by adopting a variety of styles and appearances during her five-decade-long career. Biographer Mark Bego wrote, "No one in the history of show business has had a career of the magnitude and scope of Cher's. She has been a teenage pop star, a television hostess, a fashion magazine model, a rock star, a pop singer, a Broadway actress, an Academy Award-winning movie star, a disco sensation, and the subject of a mountain of press coverage."

I've been working hard on this article since 2012, firstly because I am deeply interested in Cher's career and its overall impact on today's female pop artists, and secondly because editing the article helps me improve my English (it's not my first language, as you probably can see). I'm not that good with prose, but I have a lot of patience and a tremendous desire to learn. Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Puella Magi Madoka Magica[edit]

Previous peer review

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)

The Beatles (album)

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 17 November 2015, 14:31 UTC
Last edit: 26 November 2015, 14:43 UTC

The 2nd Law

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 10 November 2015, 02:42 UTC
Last edit: 22 November 2015, 23:12 UTC

Dark Angel (TV series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i'd eventually like to nominate it for FAC. Please note I am about to take a wikibreak so will likely not be replying to any comments here though I will certainly look over all suggestions once I return.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would still like to get this article to featured and WP:TFA in time for the subjects 25th birthday in June 2016 if someone can help me to get it cleaned up enough.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Out of Mind (Tove Lo song)

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 October 2015, 09:22 UTC
Last edit: 31 October 2015, 03:12 UTC

The Andy Griffith Show[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for GA status, and would like some feedback to see if that would be an appropriate move.

Thanks, Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999[edit]

  • One DAB link
  • Some dead links too
  • The show, → Remove
  • semi-spin-off → How can it be a semi-spin-off? Isn't it just a spin-off or not?
  • , stars Andy Griffith, → it stars Andy Griffith
  • inept, but → Remove the comma
  • deputy, Barney Fife (Don Knotts), a spinster aunt and housekeeper, Aunt Bee (Frances Bavier), and a precocious young son, Opie (Ron Howard). → The comma's before the name make it sound really jilted
  • ne'er-do-wells → Can this be wikilinked? I don't understand what this is
  • 9th-best and 13th-best show → How can it be both?
  • series co-stars → his co-stars or just co-stars
  • on DVD. → Wikilink DVD
  • producer of The Danny Thomas Show, →Wikilink his name
  • pilot show for Andy Griffith, → Wikilink his name
  • 3, 1960 at → Comma after 1960 per MOS:DATE
  • (Evidence for this is that at the start of the episode "Barney's First Car", aired in 1963, Barney wants to buy a 1954 Ford; later in the episode Andy says, "that car is nearly 10 years old.") → This needs sourcing with an inline citation
  • In the Production section, avoid using one line paragraphs.
  • Writer Harvey Bullock left after season six. Bob Sweeney directed the first three seasons save the premiere. → Source?
  • One of the show's tunes, "The Mayberry March", was reworked a number of times in different tempo, styles and orchestrations as background music. → Source?
  • with promotional consideration paid for (in the form of cars) by Ford Motor Company (mentioned in the credits). → Source?
  • In Griffith's development of Andy Taylor sub-section, block quotes should not have quotation marks, because they are indented and therefore indicative of being a quotation
  • In Plot and characters section, again avoid one sentence paragraphs like at the end here. Just place at it the end of the second para. It looks a lot better.
  • Place the image in Plot and characters on the left so that not all three are on the right
  • There's a citation tag at the end of Episodes which needs addressing.
  • Reruns, spinoffs, and reunions could be just two paragraphs instead of so many short ones.
  • The table in Ratings needs to be marked up for WP:ACCESS so the Season column is shaded grey.
  • I think the Awards and nominations would be better as a table instead of a bullet point list.
  • DVD name in Video releases needs shading grey in first column too
  • Ref 1: Link NBC and Today

Hope these help. Ping me with any questions.  — Calvin999 18:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

John Zorn[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because there have been significant changes since the last peer review seven years ago.

Thanks, DISEman (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Adventure Time[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would one day like to see it become an FA. I have worked for almost three years on this article, raising it from the rather sad state it was originally in. I've combed through it, looking for weird prose, and it's been copy-edited, but I would love for someone to peer-review it.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999
  • One Dab Link
  • For the opening and ending theme parameters, do they need to be in small text? It's a bit difficult to read.
  • You have External links at the bottom of the article so I don't really see the need to include another section of the same thing in the Info box which only makes it unnecessarily longer.
  • , a human boy, → Do you need to say "human"?
  • Along the way, → Where? What?
  • picked it up → I think this sounds to informal for a prospective FAC.
  • records their → I would have thought records should be singular here.
  • guest actors and actresses → Use either 'actors' or 'guest stars'. Actors and actresses sounds a bit long winded as it it's same thing but just for male and female
  • (which will debut on November 2 → Year?
  • is also in the works. → As before, this sounds a bit informal.
  • has developed a strong following among teenagers and adults. → So it's not for children? I thought it was until now.
  • Why do you link dog in Premise but not the lead? I don't think dog needs to be linked really.
  • time attending California Institute of the Arts → I feel like 'the' should be placed in between 'attending California'
  • single stand-alone → Same difference. Just use one.
  • the studio's rights to pick up the show expired, → This reads slightly awkward, to me at least.
  • decided to shop it → Too informal. Pitch?
  • , and, that by → Shouldn't it be: , and that, by
  • Many of the series' artists have backgrounds in indie comics. → This is sourced at the end of the following sentence, but really it should be at the end of this sentence, too.
  • Mike LeChevallier of Slate magazine, → You don't need to write 'magazine'
  • The quote box in Critical reviews doesn't need quotation marks in it, because it's already signified as such by being a stand alone quote box. And who is D.F.?
  • Why do refineries such as 31, 32 and 35 have [ ] in the tiles?
  • I did some spot-checks, and ref 27 clearly needs a login or subscription. This should be noted in the citation.

I hope these prove useful to you. Please ping me if you have any questions.  — Calvin999 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! These were very helpful!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Did It Again (Kylie Minogue song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is close to achieving a Feature article promotion. The article has been reviewed three times for a Good article banner, finally achieving it on the third try. I have submitted the article for a Feature article nomination but it has currently been viewed as an oppose than a support factor. I would like some assistance to improve the article from GA to FAC.

Thanks, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Friekorp
I remember the first time I saw the music video for this song on Video Hits as a child; I've loved it ever since so i'm happy to start a review of it. While I have 5 successful FAC's, be advised I've never taken a song article to FAC before. I've actually only recently got my first song article to GA, and currently also have it nominated for peer review (see here) with the hopes of taking it to FAC, so I guess we're both in the same boat there, anyway...

  • "in different outfits, and fighting with each other" – pretty sure this would be better if simplified to "in different outfits fighting with each other"
  • "In 1997, the British media reported that she" – i'd replace "she" with "Minogue", as it's the first time she is referred to in the body, the perhaps reword the next sentence if it doesn't read well referring to her as "Minogue" again so soon.
  • "She had begun writing the song whilst British tabloids published rumors about her private life" – are these the same rumours mentioned earlier of different ones? Clarify.
  • "However, she re-wrote the original lyrics with Anderson and Seaman" – This is the first time you mention them in the body, so give their full names and wikilink
  • ""Real World, Sarm West and DMC Studios" – can you wikilink any (or all) of them?
  • "The characters were Sex Kylie, Cute Kylie, Indie Kylie and Dance Kylie" – The characters names are already mentioned, I don't think you have to mention them again.
  • "represented herself than the other three characters" – should that say "represented herself more than the other three characters"
  • "Although Minogue said that "Indie Kylie" was the winner of fight," – I think you should delete all of this, and just begin the sentence with "Minogue felt "Cute Kylie" represented...", as you repeat the information that "Minogue said that Indie Kylie was the winner" later on
  • "Minogue said that Indie Kylie was the winner" – in what way was she the winner? Just in Kylie's view or actually in the music video? Clarify this to the reader.
  • "American website BuzzFeed hosted a poll" – When?
  • "During an interview Minogue gave to Jetstar Airways" – Since this interview was so long after the song was released I think you should add the year of the interview to the prose.
  • Why don't you add an audio clip of the song to the article?
  • I thoroughly recommend requesting a copyedit at the Guild of Copy Editors before taking any article to FAC

Hope this helps. Ping me if you have any queries. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Efe

  • There seems to be an imbalance between the song's development and the song's music video, which is comprised of three huge sections. The availability of such information may be attributed to the fact the the video was in itself popular. But, the information on the song's creation seems to be lacking for FA purposes, really. --Efe (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding the three lines found on the second section which were culled from the CD booklet. Speaking of which, it is used as an inline citation for the fact that the song is of pop genre. Do liner notes contain such information? --Efe (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because lots of work has been done on the article and it has been significantly expanded in the past few months. I plan on eventually nominating the article for good article status and want to make sure it's up to par.

Thanks, RF23 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead
  • I'll lose the citations from the lead, as everything mentioned in the lead should be present in the article's body.
  • Can you somehow merge the "criticism" section with the one preceeding it?
  • Are G N' R Lies and "The Spaghetti Incident?" considered studio albums now? Some years ago they were described as an extended play and a covers album, respectively.
  • There's a formatting problem in ref 38.
  • The awards and nominations section should feature the awards they've won, similarly to Megadeth#Awards. Definitely the AMA and MTV awards.
GNR Lies and Spaghetti Incident are both considered studio albums. Guns N' Roses website refers to Chinese Democracy as their 6th studio album, Spaghetti Incident as the fifth, and Lies as the 2nd (while noting it was considered an EP at first). Regarding the ref formatting problem, there's a title in the ref and it isn't showing up correctly, no idea why.RF23 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Guns N' Roses website is mirroring Wikipedia's album articles. Lies wasn't necessarily recorded with the intention of being released as one album when Live Like a Suicide was finished. Actually, it compiles the acoustic tracks with the EP, and was recorded over the course of three years. The Spaghetti Incident? isn't a proper studio album because it doesn't fullfil the definition of what a studio album is: "A studio album is an album of audio recordings made up of tracks recorded in a recording studio. A studio album contains newly written and recorded or previously unreleased or remixed material, distinguishing itself from a compilation or reissue album of previously recorded material, or live recording made at a performance venue". You can avoid this problem by losing the "studio albums" heading from the discography section--Retrohead (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Diamond Rio[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was one of my first GAs many years ago. I later had it delisted because I thought I could do a much better job. These guys were my favorite country band of the 90s, and I'd love to get it to GA.

The only things I can think of immediately are a better picture (can't currently find any) and a little more on their personal lives. Other than that, I'd like to gather more suggestions on improvement before I give this another shot at GA.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120: I'm not so sure the two things you mention are such a big deal – the picture isn't terrible and at least shows the band in action, and personal lives are probably the least important part of the article, especially if the partners aren't notable and we probably have to be aware of WP:BLP anyway. Reading through it there are various comments I would make if I were doing a GA review, regarding grammar and restructuring sentences and the usual, but two things cross my mind... should you have references for the birthdates of the band members, and should the section about 'Pitch issues' be included under 'Musical stylings'? I wonder if it might be better in the preceding section, before the paragraph about 'Outside contributions', as it seems to have more in common with their career than their influences and style. Richard3120 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Richard3120: It might be possible to contact the band and ask if they'd be willing to submit a picture, as I was successful in doing this for The Kentucky Headhunters. I put a reference for the members' birthdays, and moved the "Pitch issues" section to the "One More Day" subheader to fit the chronology better. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from 16912 Rhiannon: I spotted this at WikiProject Biography and took a quick peek. I agree with Richard, the picture is high quality and better than those in many band articles. One thing I noticed you don't have (yet) is a table of album / single releases showing their chart positions per WikiProject Discographies, which seems like it would be a nice addition. Hope this helps! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh, so sorry, I totally missed that link in the article. You're right, it would be really long to include in this article and is nicely done in the discography. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Only Girl (In the World)

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 2 September 2015, 16:21 UTC
Last edit: 7 September 2015, 17:21 UTC

Impossible Princess

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 28 August 2015, 03:58 UTC
Last edit: 2 September 2015, 06:44 UTC

By the Bluest of Seas

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 August 2015, 18:27 UTC
Last edit: 13 October 2015, 18:08 UTC

Rod Steiger

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 25 August 2015, 17:21 UTC
Last edit: 8 September 2015, 14:25 UTC

List of awards received by Lecrae

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 August 2015, 04:00 UTC
Last edit: 3 November 2015, 21:59 UTC

Thom Yorke[edit]

I've been picking away at this article for a while now. I think it's much improved since I started, but I don't think it's ready for a GA nomination and I'd like to get another pair of eyes on it to see what can be improved, particularly the "Musical approach" section. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999
  • There are some dead links
  • For genres, instruments, assoc. acts, labels etc, you can use a hlist so it bullet points them and makes them clear. See "Man Down" info box for an example.
  • Associated acts generally are only included if there are three or more notable instances/songs/recordings/collaborations where Yorke has worked with someone. Not just once or twice.
  • best known as the singer and principal songwriter of the alternative rock band Radiohead. He is known → Repetition of known
  • is an English musician best known as the singer and principal songwriter of the alternative rock band Radiohead. → is an English musician. He is the lead singer and principal songwriter of the alternative rock band, Radiohead. (link alternative rock too)
  • He is known for his falsetto vocals. As a multi-instrumentalist, Yorke mainly plays guitar and piano, but also plays synthesiser, bass guitar and drums. → He is known for his use of falsetto, and is a multi-instrumentalist. While he predominantly plays guitar and piano, he also plays the synthesiser, bass guitar and the drums.
  • with schoolmates. → with his schoolmates.
  • After he finished his degree at the → After graduating from the
  • The 2000 Radiohead → Which album was this? First, second, third?
  • saw Yorke move → It's not just him if he is part of a band
  • In 2009, to perform the album live, he formed Atoms for Peace with musicians including Flea and longtime producer Nigel Godrich → This reads awkwardly, especially the second clause
  • the band released an original album, → So was their previous material covers and not original work?
  • he creates artwork for Radiohead's albums. → he creates the the bands album artworks.
  • Use of one line paragraphs/sentences should be kept to a bare minimum per criteria. There are a few instances of this, as well as two line paragraphs. I personally think it makes the article look messy and unfinished; a paragraph should ideally be 4 to 5 sentences.
  • Yorke has been critical of the music industry, → Why?
  • and with Radiohead and his solo work has pioneered alternative music → Should be a new sentence.
  • wear a patch over his eye. → You don't need to say "over his eye" because a patch already indicates that.
  • Yorke's family moved frequently. Yorke's → Repetition of Yorke successively.
  • after his son's birth; → after his birth;
  • Yorke was seven. Yorke moved → Repetition of Yorke close together again
  • The whole Early life section sys Yorke a lot to be honest. I know it's his name but you can use 'he', 'the singer' etc.
  • worked a few jobs → worked at various jobs
  • worldwide hit single → the article for Creep doesn't have any chart positions. What made it a hit exactly?
  • By the time of Radiohead's second album, → By the release of their second album
  • but Yorke was ambivalent about this success → Need context
  • Ref 1: The Guardian, not
  • Ref 5: link The Observer
  • Ref 11: link The New Yorker
  • Ref 18: Problem with the formatting, red link.
  • 26 and 27 are missing publishers and dates.
  • Same with 84
  • Ref 113 Don't WP:SHOUT
  • There's inconsistency with the date formatting throughout the references.

Hope this helps. I think it needs quite a lot of work. I don't think it would pass a GAN right now. Ping me if you need more help or have questions.  — Calvin999 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Yeah, I don't think it's ready for GA either - I've yet to really undertake that particular mission, but wanted some more feedback first. All your points are appreciated. Popcornduff (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful Monsters Tour

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 17 July 2015, 02:07 UTC
Last edit: 17 September 2015, 22:59 UTC

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to nominate this for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and I'd like the most critical peer review possible to work it up to FAC presentation.

Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999

This has been waiting a few weeks without response, so here's some comments from what I found looking at the article.

  • Alphabetise the genres in the info box
  • Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 is the fourth studio album by American recording artist Janet Jackson, released on September 19, 1989, by A&M Records. → Long winded. Try: Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 is the fourth studio album by American recording artist Janet Jackson. It was released on September 19, 1989, by A&M Records.
  • Despite label executives desiring → Although label executives wanted
  • Collaborating with record producers → Collaborating with musical duo (since they are songwriters and producers)
  • for youth because → for youth groups because (I doubt she was a role model for all youth)
  • Notable for → Noted for (?)
  • Songs range → The songs range
  • appeal along multiple → appeal across multiple
  • sixfold → six-times
  • , among other publications "best of" album lists. → Unless you're going to give an example(s), I'd remove this.
  • It has been cited as an influence in various musical trends, inspiring numerous artists. → Such as?
  • It is only album → A word is missing here
  • For further promotion, → What was the previous promotion in order for this to be further?
  • She became regarded → To me, to reads a bit awkward
  • She became regarded as a fashion icon, with her "Rhythm Nation" attire being emulated by youth. → What attire?
  • producer Jimmy Jam later → Link Jimmy Jam.
  • Jimmy Jam stated → Jam stated (Use surname only following the first mention)
  • The Background section, I think, is too reliant on long quotations.
  • According to Jimmy Jam, → Same here, use Jam
  • Actually, make: According to Jimmy Jam, he, Terry Lewis and Jackson → Jam, Lewis and Jackson
  • Prior its recording, → Missing word
  • sixfold platinum → six-times platinum
  • The first two paragraphs of Release and commercial performance should remain as so. But the following paragraphs discussing the singles should be in their own section called Singles
  • You start Composition and production, Release and commercial performance and Critical reception with "The album"
  • Elizabeth the Queen Mother → Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
  • Rhythm Nation World Tour 1990 is far too detailed. It should be one, perhaps two, paragraphs at the very most. There's no point having a Main article tag if this much info is being used.
  • In the Accolades section, you either have prose or a table, not both, as it's repeating the same thing.
  • The Organization column should be marked up for access (shaded grey) and I would rename it to Ceremony. I don't think magazine ranks should be included here, they aren't 'awards' as such.
  • Tables like this should also go at the bottom of an article, with the others.
  • All songs except interludes and "Black Cat" are co-produced by Janet Jackson. → A bit irrelevant.
  • United Kingdom Albums → UK Albums Chart
  • There doesn't seem to be many charts?

I'm actually going to buy this album now, I want to listen to it after reading this. Please ping me if you have any comments of questions. Hope this helps.  — Calvin999 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notes. I hope to continue editing the article over the weekend. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. I actually bought this album yesterday.  — Calvin999 15:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyday life[edit]

Adam Stansfield[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I would like to know what to do to make it a potential Featured Article. Many of my GAs are on people who are in an active career and thus the articles are not stable, unfortunately this subject is deceased.

Thanks, '''tAD''' (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XV[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after 7 years, WP:SE has finally gotten every main numbered Final Fantasy game up to GA/FA, with the exception of the unreleased Final Fantasy XV. In order to nominate the whole group as a Featured Topic, we need to have this article receive a peer review to make sure we're not missing anything. ProtoDrake has done a great job on it so far, so we're just looking for any improvements that can be made prior to the game itself being released and all the changes associated with that. Thanks! --PresN 20:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max (2015 video game)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring the article to GA status but I want to hear more advice about how to improve the article before doing so.

Thanks, AdrianGamer (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

2012 Gatorade Duels[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC in the future. All feedback is welcome.

Thanks, Z105space (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


I've been trying to figure out how to improve this article ever since creating this. Making a Peer Review for it might help me out so if feel free to critique the page.

Thanks, GamerPro64 03:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

  • psychological links to psychology, not a genre
  • "60.80" 60 minutes and 48 seconds? Or do you mean something like "between 60 and 80 minutes"?
  • "It received average reviews from video game critics." I'm not sure "average" is the right word.
  • The latter half of the first paragraph of "gameplay" is apparently unsourced
  • I'm not really clear on what you're talking about in the second paragraph of "gameplay". You're yet to introduce traveling with a map, and the role of days is not explained
  • "founder Alex Schwartz" Founder of what?
  • Your reception section is rather light; could you not beef it a little?
  • I'm not really sure I'm clear on what the gameplay actually involves. Is this a top-down RPG in the style of (say) Zelda, or is it more of a straightforward "choose your own adventure"? I understand the setting, the PC and the objective, but not what the actual gameplay is like. (Also, perhaps you could give some examples of the kind of choices that the player is asked to make?)

I've done some moderately heavy copyediting; please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

2012 Tour de France[edit]

The structure is based on Grand Tour featured articles 2009 Giro d'Italia, 1987 Giro d'Italia and 1988 Giro d'Italia. All input is welcome. May be something important I've missed from the race?

Thanks, BaldBoris 21:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clube Atlético Mineiro

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 October 2015, 22:32 UTC
Last edit: 19 November 2015, 15:44 UTC

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 {{fact}} or two. One other small thing: you use "accumulating" a few times. I know you need some synonyms for "scored", but "accumulate" is an odd one. It seems more of an Atherton/Cook word than a Kieswetter word! This is obviously already a good article. There isn't a whole lot wrong with it! Relentlessly (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Image review
  • Overall looks good. I'd personally accept the fair use rationale for that last image, though I recognize that not everyone will agree. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

St Andrews University Canoe Club[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm not sure on the best way to proceed to improve / expand it. Suggestions for content would be useful as well as the usual style etc. guidance.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 October 2015, 16:11 UTC
Last edit: 19 November 2015, 16:58 UTC

Scotland national football team[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… it is several years since the article was last reviewed (or discussed at FAC). Another user has nominated the article for Today's FA, but other users have raised concerns about the article's quality.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

Hi guys. I wanted to list this article for peer review because, being about one of the greatest footballers of all time, I honestly think it should be good enough to be promoted to GA. I haven't gone through the entire article myself, but at a glance it seems like the article shouldn't be too far away from becoming GA-rated and getting featured on the association football portal; referencing seems more than adequate in every section of the article in particular. Also seeing as it is mostly written in British English, any American English within the article should be converted to British English, while minor grammatical and formatting mistakes could be dealt with.

Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 19:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a user suggested it.

TODO: Check prose, tone and grammar; remove American English; remove paragraphs with one or two lines if necessary.

Thanks, SLBedit (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu[edit]

Per Threeohsix's request, I looked at the article and got the following impressions from a rather quick analysis:

  • Overall, there are many paragraphs made up of very few sentences, sometimes even single-sentence ones. In my opinion, this makes the prose look poor and disorganized. My advice would be to try to join them with surrounding text, provided that they are contextually related.
  • In "History", I would try to merge the second and third sections, which are very small in comparison with the others.
  • Too many sentences start with temporal references ("In the 19XX–XX season..." or "In 19XX–XX..."), making the History section look like a mere chronological list of events. Minimize this occurrence by playing with sentence construction and vocabulary.
  • I see no need to have a sub-section for the evolution of the club's crest. I'd remove the heading and just integrate its content into the rest of the main "Crest and colours" section.
  • The stadium image is too wide for its current placing. Move it to the bottom of the text and use {{wide image}} to display it as a large-sized panorama.

I'll try to make a more careful run-through and bring you more detailed comments. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Parutakupiu: Thanks for the feedback. I agree, small paragraphs are a problem and some sections need expansion and others trimming. A more careful run-through would help, since I don't see this gathering more users.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Maximum break

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 17 September 2015, 18:01 UTC
Last edit: 21 October 2015, 19:08 UTC

Engineering and technology[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[edit]

I've been gradually working my way round railway station articles in Bristol, improving them to GA status. FA is the next obvious step, but I've never done anything FA related before. I thought that by bringing it here, I can get a general idea of the changes I may need to make to bring them to FA status. I think that this article is a fairly good representation of the articles, so thought I'd put my head above the parapet...

Thanks, -mattbuck (Talk) 14:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Capacitor plague[edit]

I've made a significant number of edits to this article over the years. I'm trying to keep the content neutral and verifiable, and I've had to frequently reference, re-write, or remove content that's uncited, unclear or biased, or original research. I'm hoping that I can get help of another editor in cleaning up the article to make it more approachable to lay-people, verifiable ... even if that's only building a lit of things that should be fixed in the article, it's a start and would be helpful.

Thanks, Mikeblas (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Falcon 9 v1.1[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see this page moved into a B-class article and hopefully GA. The content is more technical, and I know that I and many editors on the article are biased in favor of more technical phrasing because we've heard it for so long. Hearing feedback from editors who don't know as much about spaceflight can help in making sure this article is accessible to all readers, not just those who are already interested and somewhat knowledgable about spaceflight. I've been personally interested in SpaceX (and other new astronautics companies) for quite a while, so it may also have POV issues. While I've attempted to resolve any that I come across, it's difficult to resolve FANPOV issues as a fan of SpaceX and private spaceflight companies.

Thanks, Appable (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Tillie the All-Time Teller[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the overall quality of the article needs to be improved.

Thanks, Proud User (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rwxrwxrwx[edit]

Interesting article, enjoyable read. A few suggestions:

  • As shown by the atomated link checker, the Wells Fargo external link redirects to another domain.
  • The colour picture would be more useful for the infobox than the current crude black-and-white one.
  • If the black-and-white picture is kept, the numbered items should be explained.
  • The sections are very short. If they can't be expanded maybe some merging should be done.
  • Several of the citations are missing "title" parameters.
  • The "how it worked" section is exactly the same procedure as a modern ATM; either point that out or explain any differences. The list of instructions would be better formatted as prose.
  • What was an "Alltime Tellercard"? Same as a modern bank card?
  • Punctuation is messed up in several places. WP:LQ should apply.
  • Did the machines really have a TV screen? What size? Colour? I remember early ATMs having only a single-line dot-matrix LED display.
  • The two song adverts are unreferenced.
  • The quoted song title links to "If You Knew Susie" so that's what the link text should be. See WP:EGG.
  • The quoted song could be formatted within <poem> tags to eliminate blank lines.
  • The mention of the song "she's a jolly good teller" could be expanded to link to the original song.
  • The last two links in the references section should be either put into an "external links" section and their relevance explained, or used as citations in the article.
  • There is a lot of redundancy in the categories list.

Cheers. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently over the past couple of days added substantial content to the article and essentially rewritten the entire article. I've improved the article as best I can and request feedback for further improving this article for good article review. Please ping me when ready to review. Thanks. David Condrey log talk 07:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I've made a quick pass over this for a few grammatical errors; it may be worth checking to see if I've missed anything similar.
  • Something to avoid is the use of paragraphs of one or two lines; there's one in the lead which is particularly prominent, and a few elsewhere throughout.
  • Links with disambiguation terms (like "intaglio (printmaking)") should be piped to hide the baggage; in this instance you want "intaglio". The bracketed terms are more for indexing articles than for use in prose.
  • "Sandwiching" text between a right- and left-aligned image is to be avoided; where possible try to offset these images vertically so they aren't on the same level horizontally. It might be worth dropping one of the images used to facilitate this too, though which one is up to you.
  • Acronyms should be spelt out first, then noted in brief, so "MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition)" should be "Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR)" (there's also no need for the title casing here, either).
  • Measurements should ideally use some sort of conversion ({{convert}} is your friend), so inches can also be read as centimetres, etc.
  • "See also" links shouldn't include anything already linked in the article.
  • A good chunk of the article seems to be uncited; if you have a few paragraphs supported by one citation, repeat it in each of those paragraphs—this isn't necessary in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, however, but the break between paragraphs would necessitate it if this is the case. Obviously, if this isn't the case then the material will need to be cited to a reliable source of its own.
  • I hope these comments have been of some use to you; I tend to comment on, rather than action, minor changes as I feel it's good to know why they're needed, but a lot of what's going on here is relatively minor. The last point however is the most important. GRAPPLE X 10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Grapple X: thanks for reviewing the article. Sorry for the delay in replying. I just saw your comments this evening. I will review your comments more thoroughly and reply afterwards. Just wanted to let you know.. thanks. David Condrey log talk 08:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because it's been majorly improved.

Thanks, MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. This tool - - and Checklinks tool - - found link problems and dead links. Suggest archiving hyperlinks in article with WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive. Recommend archiving all links in article this way.
  4. Dablinks tool - - shows no problems here, good job.
  5. Reflinks tool - - shows no necessary changes, good job here.
  6. Alt tool - - shows at least one image that could use alt image text.
  7. Citation bot tool - - shows no changes required.
  8. Recommend posting to WP:GOCE to request a copyedit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
  9. Suggest placing neutrally-worded notice to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects linking to this Peer Review and asking for additional comments.
  10. Per WP:LEADCITE, all info in lede should be already cited to in-line cites, below later in article main body text, thus, lede intro sect itself should not need cites, IFF info cited later in article, and it should be.
  11. Per WP:LEAD, lede intro sect should be able to adequately standalone as a summary of the entire article's contents and all its subsections. Currently, lede should be expanded in order to do this properly.
  12. Copyvio Detector tool - shows - - no copyvio likely - good job here !!!
  13. External links - A bit of an imbalance with portals, recommend converting to {{Portal bar}}.
  14. History - most of article looks like it is history, and yet it is disconnected and lacks flow for reader. Suggest restructuring whole article in straight chronological format, under subsect, History, broken up by periods.
  15. For example, after sect History, you have Privacy sect with info on 2012 partnership which belongs in History.
  16. Then you have sect Acquisitions with info that also belongs in History sect. These other sects are too small to standalone on their own.
  17. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Nice little article, good start, could use some work, as recommended, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MarkMillerITPro[edit]

  1. I may be doing this wrong.
  2. Wow, Thank you so much. A lot to work with. A lot I don't understand right now. I'm dealing with my wife's health urgency that may keep me extra busy for weeks. Hope to get back to this. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151[edit]

I finally had some time to have another go at article writing again. This article has been substantially rewritten with a view of hopefully making it the first electric multiple unit article to reach FA status (however impossible it seems these days). The closest standard I could base it on is OS MX3000 (a GA). - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head: Two citation needed tags need fixing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. They have been newly added after the review was started. Will go through them slowly. - Mailer Diablo 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just fixed the cn tags. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO[edit]

  • is a type of train that is one of the four current types
This needs polishing.
  • four cars were purchased
By whom?
  • These trains were manufactured from 1986 to 1989 in batches by a Japanese consortium headed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries
How about, "The trains were manufactured in batches from 1986 to 1989, by a Japanese consortium headed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries"?
Tendering process
  • submitted bids for what they had nicknamed the "Big One".[
Drop "had"; no need for past perfect.
  • Competition for the contract was so fierce
"Fierce" is a bit loaded for encyclopedic writing.
  • However, analysts became concerned that a measuring
Avoid using "however" in formal writing.
Initial construction
  • during the 1984 National Exhibition held in November 1984 at World Trade Centre.[18]
No need to say 1984 twice.
  • The colour scheme of each adjacent car's interior is distinct to make car identification in cases of fault reporting easier for passengers
This confused me. What's fault reporting?
  • consume 50% less electricity
Should be "50 percent".
Second refurbishment
  • Why no cost estimate for the second refurbishment? It would be interesting to see if the move saved over the rolling stock.
Train Formation
  • Some of the details here appear to be uncited. Make sure everything is properly sourced.

It's a nice piece overall. Some sections, such as Operational details, are a little too technical, but maybe that can't be avoided. There are also parts that are a little dry with detail, but again, maybe that's the nature of this type of article. Seems pretty comprehensive, but it'd be interesting to know if they saved money by going the refurbishment route after those later repairs were made. Nicely done; keep up the great work! RO(talk) 20:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Thomas de Veil[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working a lot on this article, and I am now stuck. I can't decide whether I should add anything else or leave it as it is. My main problem, right now, is trying to decide whether I should add a section on his most important cases or not: I've tried to add some examples, but every time it felt as if I was getting out of topic. I definitely need help.

Thanks, 858rine (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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).

Bijeljina massacre[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was assessed as Military history A-class over a year ago, but has been subjected to quite a bit of disruption. That has finished now, and it has just undergone a Guild copy edit. I'm hoping to get some feedback on improvements to be made before nominating it for FAC.

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert. I did some copyediting in the lead per my standard disclaimer. Looking forward to seeing this one at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, very happy with your c/e. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Celtic F.C. managers[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've added a fair amount of material to the article and would like an opinion on how it currently stands and advice on how to further improve it.

Thanks, ShugSty (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Flash!

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 November 2015, 22:55 UTC
Last edit: 19 November 2015, 15:48 UTC

Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently expanded it with lots of new pictures and some new information.

Thanks, dllu (t,c) 02:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Modern Family[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because last GA reviewer recommended requesting a peer review for the writing quality, article structure, organization, and flow for the reader.

Thanks, Chamith (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

International Tennis Federation[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • I want to upgrade to FA level when others are reviewing GAN of this article:
    • Checking grammar errors.
    • Checking or adding some files.
    • Checking reliable sources.

Thanks, 333-blue 08:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ridge Racer (video game)

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 28 September 2015, 00:45 UTC
Last edit: 19 November 2015, 02:37 UTC

Richard LaBrie[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because why not

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • I think that, considering how short the article is, having sub-sections is unnecessarily complicating things. You can definitely get rid of the 'Editor', 'Emmy nomination' and 'Director' sub-sections and merge these four sentences into one paragraph, unless the sub-sections are considerably expanded of course. Other than that the only thing this article really needs is a good expansion. Where and when was he born would be a good start. Ping me if you have any queries. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Susan Gerbic[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want some feedback before I offer it for GA.

Thanks, Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • Typically the lead should be at least two paragraphs for GA. Also I think the information about where she was born, and possibly her education also, should be placed after the first sentence rather than at the end of the lead.
  • The lead should summarise information in the article, though information about her parents and when/where she was born is not mentioned outside of the lead (where she "grew up" is mentioned, but that's not the same). Information about her portrait studio and BA is also not mentioned outside the lead. I very much dislike the first section title 'Skepticism'; the article should open with a section title/informaiton along the lines of 'Early life'. Gerber was born in 1962 but by the fifth sentence of the article we're up to the year 2000?
  • Quote "It was very powerful when I started making edits." - You should give a time for this quote; what year was it made, and maybe also add where it was made.
  • Avoid contractions such as "aren't" as per MOS:N'T
  • Every paragraph should have at least one reference. The paragraph beginning with "Gerbic found it odd what friends said about her diagnosis" has none. The last sentence in the preceding paragraph ("I have breast cancer") should also have an inline citation
  • I think the sub-section on hats is, frankly, a bit silly. At best this should be merged with the cancer section. It doesn't need it's own sub-section.
  • Reconsider some uses the word "claim" as per WP:WORDS.

Hope this helps. Freikorp (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to start looking at this and see what I can improve. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

  • I concur with the above reviewer that the WP:LEAD is a bit short. Please make sure that a summary of each section is included in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that all content in the LEAD is a summary of content in the main article. E.g., her parents information should not be in the LEAD if it is not in the main body in at least as much detail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The article should be chronological unless there is a good reason for it not to be. The main body should begin with her early life (where she was born and raised, her parents and siblings, any notable ancestors). Work in the early life stuff that currently serves as the intro. It should then give us her early training like where she went to school. This should all be WP:V by WP:RS using WP:IC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand the point of the "Monterey County Skeptics" subsection is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Why "would manipulate" rather than manipulated?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What are "fictionally deceased persons"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "world of woo" a typo?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Highland cattle[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at FAC and I was wondering how it would swing now? Any help is appreciated!

Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Sagaciousphil

  • Just a quick drive-by comment: there are several sources that appear to be personal websites; these are not reliable sources so should not be used. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out! TheMagikCow (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are still several remaining. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ahhh... Sorry my fault. Just refs 15 and 17? TheMagikCow (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Should be fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There is still Willowbrook Park and ref # 4 is a blog. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel there is too much self promotion on the article and an editor with a COI is continuously editing the article to white wash away any negative connotations of the sequence of events that transpired, most of my edits were relative when it came to discussion of controversies with the subject matter, there is currently an edit war transpiring and I would just like some neutral points of view to discuss where to go from here, wikicohen is referencing glowing articles about herself from a source, events transpired and the same source is being referenced for some material that doesn't paint the subject in a good light which wikicohen then "polishes up" the COI is continuously "rewording" and reverting large chunks of text. Something I wish to note the editor wikicohen appears to be logging out and editing the article and slandering me in the process which I sure is not exactly encouraged on wikipedia. thank you for your time in viewing my request.

Thanks, I/O (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • Just some neutral observations at the moment, I haven't looked into the edit war of conflicts of interest.
  • The lead is supposed to summarise the article. The lead says she is known as "Snitchlady", yet no explanation of this is given in the body.
  • "Background" isn't really an appropriate section. This should be changed to 'Early life', and the information about her deportation should be removed as this is covered later.
  • It needs to be clarified that the men she exposed on social media were soliciting sex specifically from her, rather than just in general. This area could be fleshed out a lot. What were the relations to her exposing them?
  • Why is she refereed to as "Ms. Olukemi Omololu-Olunloyo", "Olukemi (Kemi) Olunloyo" and "Kemi Olunloyo" in the final section? This is confusing as all hell. You should just refer to her by the same, consistent last name after the lead unless there is a specific reason why you are referring to her by so many names, in which case this should be clearly explained.

Hope this helps. Ping me if you have any queries. Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

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)


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)

Pi de les Tres Branques[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've brought it as far as I think it can go and it would be good to get feedback on its quality.

Thanks, Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Soldado Rock[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially overhauled recently, and I would like some feedback on areas that it could be further improved.

Thanks, --  R45  talk! 15:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 October 2015, 14:47 UTC
Last edit: 31 October 2015, 18:33 UTC

Climate of Argentina

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 October 2015, 21:24 UTC
Last edit: 19 November 2015, 01:31 UTC

Utica, New York[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it for FAC at some point.

Thanks, Buffaboy talk 00:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. Footnotes in the Notes sect - please add in-line citations at ends of these to back up factual assertions.
  4. Checklinks tool - - shows lots of problems. Problem defined as anything other than rating of "0" or "200" or even a "200" but with side comment is not good. Recommend archiving at the very least those links to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate.
  5. Suggest instead of all the daughter sects for references, just 3 sects with each their own 2-level subheading, being: Footnotes, Note, and References.
  6. Lede intro sect is a bit imbalanced. Two-sentence-long-paragraph in lede for last paragraph is a bit short.
  7. This is a very long article. Recommend lede length of 4 paragraphs, 5 sentences each.
  8. Notable people - not sure if this needs devoted its own sect, and the pictures should probably go too. Comes off as a bit promotional in tone.
  9. Crime and public safety - quite a short sect to require its own subsection header, suggest just have it as paragraph within its parent sect.
  10. Copyvio Detector - - shows copyvio unlikely. Excellent job here, well done !!!
  11. Quite an excellent job with referencing and use of in-line citations, throughout the article, very well done here.
  12. Recommend posting to WP:GOCE to request a copyedit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
  13. Suggest placing neutrally-worded notice to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects linking to this Peer Review and asking for additional comments.
  14. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

I see quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this. Quite well done so far. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and constructive criticism! Buffaboy talk 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackburn Hamlet[edit]

Although I've been contributing a lot lately to Wikipedia, this is the first time I've majorly contributed to the prose of an article rather than just statistics and tables. I've referenced the hell out of it, added a few paragraphs and would really like to see how I did and possibly know if it's past its rating of start-class.

Thanks a bunch, Cepiolot (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • Why is one usage of "lands" in the lead capitalised, yet the others are not?
  • One sentence paragraphs be avoided where possible. The sentence "Blackburn Hamlet took its name..." should probably just be merged with the end of the first paragraph. Likewise the one sentence paragraphs at both the beginning and end of the 'History' section should be merged or expanded if possible.
  • I'm not sure if it's commonplace to wikilink sub-ection titles such as "Early Childhood Education". Also i'm not convinced they need to be sub-sections; can't you just bold-heading them? In my opinion since each sub-section only contains a few words all this is accomplishing is making the infobox a lot bigger than it has to be. I should mention, however, that I don't have any experience working on articles for towns, so apologies if this style is the norm.

Overall I think you've done a really good job on this article; well done. I'm upgrading this to C-class. Freikorp (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly

  • As Freikorp says, the one-sentence paragraphs aren't great. The first one logically belongs with the following paragraph. The last one feels unconnected to anything else: is it even something worth including?
  • Some of the content feels a little like "Here's something I can reference, let's include it." This leads to disjointed text without a strong narrative. Can you give an overall picture of how the place has changed over time? What is its character today? Who lives there? Why? Where do they work? What do they do?
  • I agree again that the education section has too many headers compared to content! You may like to consider the advice at WP:USEPROSE.
  • The references in the population table are a bit mad. You should try to combine them. See WP:CITEBUNDLE.
  • Most of the prose is fine, but there are a couple of points I'd pick up on:
    • The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is two entirely unrelated facts pushed together. Make it two sentences to make it more legible. Also, to an outsider, the point about the NCC/RCMP/CFCA lands is incomprehensible.
    • "Blackburn," should be "Blackburn", according to MOS:LQ.

I hope that's helpful stuff: you've already done a decent job of this.

Relentlessly (talk) 22:28, 5 October 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)

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)


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.

Thanks, Im 2u (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Wendell Willkie[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm hoping for feedback pre-FAC.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 November 2015, 16:20 UTC
Last edit: 26 November 2015, 10:08 UTC

Nikolay Voronov[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs another set of eyes before a GA nomination. I need feedback on issues with the article. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "He reportedly showed personal courage": The difference between this and "He showed personal courage" is that the first expresses some doubt. What in the sources suggests doubt?
  • I copyedited down to World War II. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The problem is the only source for his personal courage, Kiselev, was written during the Soviet Union and could be ideologically biased. Kges1901 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That's a hard problem, and different Wikipedian writers will handle that problem in different ways. All I can say is, "reportedly" doesn't tell the reader what you meant ... they'll have to guess, and different readers will guess different things, so "reportedly" is ambiguous, at best. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Would it be better just to remove the sentence? Voronov doesn't say anything about it in his memoirs. Kges1901 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
            • That's probably what I'd do. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Dead link
  • Suggest expanding the lead to two paragraphs
  • Suggest listing awards in the infobox rather than listing some and having images for others, particularly multiples
  • Was his external degree in a particular subject?
  • What happened to his father? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Fixed dead link
      • There isn't anything in his memoirs about his father's ultimate fate
      • changed infobox to something like the FA Ivan Bagramyan
      • his memoirs say external degree examination for matriculation
      • If the lead is expanded, what should the second paragraph contain Kges1901 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Modern history of American football[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was an article which was split from the History of American football article which had FA status and has since been expanded upon and further improved since the split.

Thanks, ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Early history of American football[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was an article which was split from an History of American football article which had FA status and has since been expanded upon and further improved since the split.

Thanks, ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Murray[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it received GA status several months ago and I would ideally like to see it achieve FA in the next few months; I did the same for Murray's fellow archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler earlier this year. Any advice, particularly on how the prose could be improved, would be gratefully received.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998)

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 October 2015, 17:31 UTC
Last edit: 20 November 2015, 22:20 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it does not use encyclopedic language, is written like an essay and not from a neutral point of view. What the article should contain is an objective summary of the Greek political scene of the 1970s. What it does contain, among other things, is an essay comparing the Greek political scene of the 1970s to Ancient Greek drama. I have to admit that it is very interesting and well-written but the problem is that it does not belong to Wikipedia.


--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment What it does contain, among other things, is an essay comparing the Greek political scene of the 1970s to Ancient Greek drama. Could you please point to the location of that alleged essay? I do not see any essay. I see a section "Deus ex machina" with a few short paragraphs explaining how the media treated Metapolitefsi. These few lines can hardly constitute an essay. The next section under the title "Prelude to catharsis" makes no mention of any catharsis but includes factual information about the behind-the-scenes political moves that brought Karamanlis back to Greece. Ironically the "Prelude to catharsis" section was blanked by you in a wholesale fashion when you removed both sections, a whopping 17,314 bytes from the article, without so much as an explanation or even apology.

Again, the section you so blithely removed does not read like an essay as you allege. The background of how Karamanlis came back to Greece and the details of the first days after his arrival in Greece are at the heart of Metapolitefsi and your blanking effectively gutted the article. If gutting the article this way, and without acknowledging any errors on your part, is an example of your editorial judgment, suffice to say that it is a very poor one. The rest of your sweeping allegations are unsupported. I suspect it is because you cannot find any examples of unencyclopaedic writing in this well-written and extremely well-cited article. I will assume good faith and I will not speculate as to the reasons for your actions but I have to state that your approach towards this article needs considerable improvement starting with an acknowledgement that you erred in blanking the "Prelude to Catharsis" section. Dr.K. (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There's been more than enough edits to fix the problems you raise here. In fact, you've merely raised concerns about a single tidbit of information. That's not a sufficient enough reason to open a peer review. Moreover, let us not forget that I swiftly solved the 'unencyclopedic' issue with this edit. The nominee of this peer review hasn't mentioned any other "unencyclopedic" occurrences in this article, and has failed to do so at the TP as well. At any rate, I welcome any general improvements to the article through a peer review. But the assessment of this nomination is hardly a justifiable reason for such a review. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If there is a problem with a particular section, the best approach is to re-work the section. Blanket deletion is usually not a good approach and should be avoided in all but the most extreme cases. This does not seem like such a case. There does appear to be some minor encyclopedic language, but that can easily be fixed, certainly nothing that require wholesale deletion of the whole section. Athenean (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Literary Hall

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 October 2015, 00:32 UTC
Last edit: 1 November 2015, 00:03 UTC

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because because its neutrality should be checqued before its GAN. The previous peer review only concentrated on a minor aspect of the article.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999
  • The Kingdom of Hungary, a country in Central Europe, → This kind of sounds like it still exists
  • came into being → came into existence
  • urban lifestyle, habits and urban culture → Remove the second 'urban'
  • was affected by several cultural trends. → Sounds like it was a bad thing?
  • buildings, and literary works → Remove comma
  • the culture, but Orthodox, and even non-Christian ethnic minority communities also existed. → There's something about this sentence which doesn't sound right. It reads a bit awkward. I think it's the usage of the comma's and 'but'
  • number of tongues, → Is this encyclopaedic phrasing?
  • powerful magnates. → Wikilink magnate
  • After his death a period of interregnum interrupted royal power in the early 14th century. → What do you mean by this?
  • All the same, → Remove
  • prove that the Hungarians' way of life underwent fundamental changes in Central Europe. → Doesn't make sense.
  • middle of the 10th century. → mid 10th century.
  • December 25, 1000 → Comma after 1000 (Should American date formatting be being used? Or British?)
  • He prescribed that every ten villages were → He prescribed that every tenth village established was
  • Communers → Commoners
  • From legal perspective, → From a legal perspective,
  • freemen and serfs → Any Wikilinkage available?
  • but intermediate categories also existed. → I wouldn't use 'categories'. Perhaps 'groups' or 'classes'?
  • Last Árpáds (1242–1301) → I don't think there needs to be so many short paragraphs. I think some can be merged to make one paragraph. It's a bit of a style thing but try and make them the same size, it looks a lot more concise and professional.
  • I think the 'Aftermath' section is a bit brief and short.

Article wide, I think the basics are here for a good article. I just think it needs polishing and tidying up a bit. I think it reads a bit conversational and not encyclopaedic enough at times, a bit informal. The prose needs to be tighter than what it is now. I've given a few examples where 5 words are better than 10, for example. I think some more but brief info about what happened post 1301 is needed just so that a complete timeline is present of what happened before, during and after; it ends rather abruptly with just one sentence about the young pretender in 1301 then a few sentences for Aftermath. It doesn't need loads more, but I'd say one, perhaps two, decent sized paragraphs so that a complete overview is there for the reader. Ping me with any questions.  — Calvin999 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree with most of them and I will change the text in the next few days. I will ping you after I finished my homework. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999, I made several changes in the article based on your comments. I would highly appreciate if you could dedicate some time to checque them. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Selena[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to bring this article to featured article status. I have worked on this article for over a year and it since has been copy-edited by three different GOCE members.

Thanks, jona(talk) 21:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Dead links
    Fixed jona(talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't use contractions outside of direct quotes
  • Who holds copyright to the engraving on the gravestone? Or the Selena memorial?
    Are saying that the engravings on the gravestone and the memorial must be attributed to its owner, and not the person who actually took the photos?
    Both. In the US, freedom of panorama does not cover sculptures, so we need to account for both the copyright of the photographer and the creator of the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done. I have added Seaside Memorial Cemetery as the owner and original sculptures of the grave site and H.W. Tatum sculpted the statue and is owned by the Corpus Christi Convention & Visitors Bureau. Best, jona(talk) 12:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, that's a good start, but what is the copyright status of the works? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well since these are in the US and were erected in the mid and late 1990s, I guess they should be placed with a not-free-US-FOP template? jona(talk) 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    (edit) There is currently a discussion about deleting the statue pictures. So should I just remove them here anyways? jona(talk) 15:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    Your options are (a) find a reason why one or both of the statue and engraving are in the public domain or freely licensed; (b) move one or both to Wikipedia and claim fair use; or (c) remove the images. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    They are not freely licensed and were taken by those who uploaded them, there is already a non-free image in the article, and I have removed the statue and grave site photos from the article. Is the prose up to standards btw? Thanks, jona(talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Did the fan club have a name?
    No, just the "Selena fan club". jona(talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Bullet caption needs a citation
    Yes check.svg Done jona(talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair-use rationale for screenshot could be more expansive
    Yes check.svg Done jona(talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Rossler massacre is currently a redlink, could we briefly summarize here?
  • Make sure your citations are consistently formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I have successfully completed the issues you have pointed out, except for the quotations which I will work on as well as the Rossler massacre (since I never heard of this event), and re-format the citations. Thanks, jona(talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

American Civil War

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 21 September 2015, 10:13 UTC
Last edit: 26 October 2015, 19:46 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I need some advice on how I can improve it so I can later nominate it to become a GA.

Thanks, HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Suggest making the lead more expansive
  • Do we know who his father was?
  • Generally, this is a bit hard to follow without background knowledge - suggest providing a bit more context for the reader
  • What is the source for the information about Jalula? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO[edit]

  • I agree with Nikkimaria. The lead needs expansion.
Family and early life
  • However, this is most likely wrong
Avoid using "however" in formal writing.
  • According to Pourshariati
For one, avoid using "according to" whenever possible, and two, casual readers might not know what this is referring to, so explain or link, or both.
  • he was part of the Parsig (Persian) faction which played a major role
"which" ought to be "that", since this reads as a restrictive clause.
  • Hormuzan owned his native place Mihragan-kadag
Is that a country or region?
  • but order was soon restored by a certain Ruzbi
Drop "a certain".
The Arab invasion of western Persia
  • The first sentence of this section needs a citation.
  • raising an army which included
"raising an army that included".
  • The Parsig faction under Piruz Khosrow, Bahman Jadhuyih and Hormuzan. The Pahlav (Parthian) faction under Rostam himself and Mihran Razi, and a Armenian contingent under Jalinus and Musel III Mamikonian.
This needs some polishing.
  • During the battle, the Sasanian army was defeated, and Shahriyar, along with Musel, Bahman, Jalinus and Rostam, were killed. The Arabs then besieged Ctesiphon.
Needs a cite.
  • The Sasanian army was once again defeated and Mihran Razi was killed. Hormuzan then again withdrew to Hormizd-Ardashir and this time chose to stay there in case the Arabs should invade his domains.
Also needs a cite.
  • began raiding in Iraq
Was it called Iraq at the time?
  • who had been making incursions Fars and Khuzestan
I get the sense that there's a missing "into" here.
  • However, he soon stopped paying tribute
Avoid "however" in formal writing.
  • under a certain Hurqus ibn Zuhayr al-Sa'di
Drop "a cerain", and be sure you aren't using more anmes then necessary, because it's getting really difficult to follow all these characters.
  • Meanwhile, Hormuzan fled
As with "however", "Meanwhile" is too informal.
  • he was once again defeated
Wow. Lots of defeats in a short time. Did he win any major battles?
  • Nevertheless, he managed to reach the city
Avoid "nevertheless"
  • The Arabs then laid siege to the city
For one, it needs a cite, and for two, it's confusing because why are the Arabs laying siege?
  • Fortunately for Hormuzan
This is editorializing/POV. Don't sympathize with Hormuzan.

This is a nice little piece overall, and it was enjoyable to read. My biggest issue is that it has lots of names, so it gets a little difficult to follow what's going on. I think this is what Nikkimaria was talking about above. I also got confused over the many losses, so see if you can rework some of this narrative to make that aspect easier to understand. For example, after reading it I'm unsure if Hormuzan ever won a battle. Nicely done; keep up the great work! RO(talk) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • The lede is definitely in need of expansion.
  • There are sentences which lack references; this definitely needs to be remedied.
  • No page number for Rawlinson?
  • There are prose problems; for instance "according some sources," should be "according to some sources".

I hope that these suggestions for improvement prove useful to you in advancing this interesting article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I did some copyediting per my standard disclaimer. Feel free to revert. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Sexuality after spinal cord injury[edit]

Disabling conditions like spinal cord injury do not erase a person's sexuality but do have profound implications for most injured people's sex lives. I'm hoping to improve this article for an eventual FAC, so any thoughts on what it needs would be much appreciated. Please let me know if there are any shortcomings in terms of clarity, comprehensiveness, organization, focus, accuracy, or anything else. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it for you. I am not sure how to assess the referencing, this format is not one I use. But I will double check the links, spelling, grammar and such. Good luck-this article has the potential of doing a lot of good. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Terrific, thank you so much! delldot ∇. 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Notices left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. delldot ∇. 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Gisbert Hasenjaeger[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm not sure, since this is my first peer review. I think I'm trying to determine the quality of the article compared to other and better bio articles. Thanks, scope_creep 18:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Third fundamental form[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article was recently created and its author requested a peer review in the talk page.

Thanks, Mecanismo | Talk 17:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Right now it isn't useful because the content is beyond the knowledge level of the vast majority of readers. I'd suggest that the author take a look at WP:TECHNICAL and WP:CITE. Praemonitus (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Polio vaccine[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback regarding the possible submission of this article for consideration of FA status.

Thanks, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS), just a few thoughts for the moment:

  • I think the wording is too technical. Imagine a 7th or 10th grader reading this to get a first idea of what the vaccine is about. If you use a term like viremia, linking to the article is great, but also add a brief explanation in the sentence, that way the reader doesn’t have to stop reading and visit another article to understand. In some cases this is already done well, e.g. “using attenuated or weakened poliovirus.” Also you could replace words like immunocompetent with simpler synonyms.
  • I’m not clear on why the section “Inactivated vaccine” is not a subsection of types.
  • I think it would be a good idea to give a sentence or two about what polio is and how it infects the individual in or near the lead. e.g. in the inactivated section it says it “protects the motor neurons”, so it might be good for the reader to understand that the motor neurons are what gets attacked. This sentence is also a good opportunity to describe post-polio syndrome briefly.

Those are my comments for now, let me know what you think and I’ll come back with more later! delldot ∇. 23:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Such excellent suggestions! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your opinion on this. It is so nice to have a fresh pair of eyes take a look at this. When you read something for so long...well you stop seeing the forest and the trees! If you would like to come and take another look in a week or so, that would be great. If not, that is also fine. You have turned me to the right direction. The Very Best of Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You're very welcome! Ping me whenever you've had a chance to address these and I can give it another look. delldot ∇. 23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Second look
  • Let's work on expanding the lead. The idea is for it to be a standalone mini-article for anyone who wants just a brief overview of the whole article. So anything worth devoting a section to in the body will probably be worth a sentence or so in the lead. A couple things that pop to mind are the contamination concerns, the risk of iatrogenic infection, and an explanation of the different types. This is an introduction to the topic (experts don't need to read the encyclopedia!).
  • By the same token, anything mentioned in the lead should be covered in greater depth in the article, so the Syria thing should be addressed.
  • I think the History section needs some reworking. e.g. there's some repetition about Salk's work. e.g. in 1952-53 it mentions "Jonas Salk's polio vaccine (a dead-virus injectable vaccine) had reached the market" and then in the next section it says "The first effective polio vaccine was developed in 1952 by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh, but it would require years of testing", as though that's the first we're hearing about it. In my opinion those two sections should be merged, since they both mention Salk and they both mention 1953. Maybe just "1950s"?
  • These sentences are great, but belong far nearer the beginning of the article, not in the Hx section. Maybe even in the lead: "In generic sense, vaccination works by priming the immune system with an 'immunogen'. Stimulating immune response, via use of an infectious agent, is known as immunization. The development of immunity to polio efficiently blocks person-to-person transmission of wild poliovirus, thereby protecting both individual vaccine recipients and the wider community."
  • I think the Hx subsections should be renamed to decades. And maybe add a couple sentences so it doesn't skip from the 60s to 1987.
  • The source by Sorem is marked unreliable, and I agree. The best sources for medical articles are literature reviews from respected journals, and I bet the FAC crowd will hold you to that with a topic this important and well-known. If you can find a Cochrane review, that's pure gold.

Hope this is helpful, let me know when you've effected or rejected these suggestions! delldot ∇. 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Language and literature[edit]

Kamiya Kaoru[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate this article to GA. I know it requires copyedit but I would like to find more issues

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wugapodes[edit]

So first of, thanks for the review over at my open peer review. I've reviewed my fair share of GA noms so I'll give you my two cents on how close it is to GA.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
  • The creation and conception section could be written better. It has a lot of quotes mixed in with the prose which hurts the quality of writing (see WP:QUOTEFARM) particularly when it can be paraphrased. (criteria 1a and b)
  • That same section also feels like it spends a lot of time talking about the manga itself rather than the character which is not focused or concise (criteria 1a and 3b)
  • I feel like some major aspects of the character are missing like her personality or traits, her actions in the manga, various information about her. It seems largely focused on her creation and appearances in other work but gives me very little about her as a charcter (criterion 3a)
  • I'm not sure the fair use rationale for the image is sufficient. Particularly "Low resolution" is simply "No" without any further explanation. If a low resolution image isn't being used, you should explain why, namely, a lower resolution image would harm understanding of the material while not reducing possibility of infringement as it is only a part of the work.
Final thoughts
I think this is actually a very well done article. It needs more work before being a GA in my opinion, but it's not impossible, just try to cover a bit more on the character and tighten up the prose and it should do very well. Wugapodes (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 October 2015, 04:45 UTC
Last edit: 21 November 2015, 21:00 UTC

X2 (film)

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 August 2015, 17:09 UTC
Last edit: 15 November 2015, 01:59 UTC

Philosophy and religion[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because of the variety of errors and content disputes that have been raised in a recent RfC. I would like to try and save the article but there is a very real possibility of either deleting the article or starting over from scratch. Comments and suggestions should be based around content inclusion/exclusion and references/referencing, though all constructive criticisms are welcome. Please also try to provide an example of how to fix the content text, if possible, to avoid "general comments".

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Important Background Information: Over the past few months, I have been working on Heathenry (new religious movement), an article which I have recently nominated at GAN. "Odinism" is a term preferred by certain practitioners of Heathenry, particularly – although certainly not exclusively – by those who adopt a racialist perspective to the religion and seek to restrict it to white individuals. This is well attested in the academic studies of the subject (by Mattias Gardell, Jeffrey Kaplan etc). Given that "Odinism" is therefore a partial-synonym for "Heathenry", in June 2009 the Odinism article was originally established as a Redirect that took the reader straight to Heathenry (new religious movement), which was then going under the title of "Germanic neopaganism". It was later expanded into an article of its own right. Over the past few months, an Odinist editor known as User:ThorLives has been very active over at the Heathenry article; their contributions were recognised as WP:Disruptive Editing, and myself and other editors put a stop to their behaviour before I initiated a community discussion as to whether ThorLives should be Topic Banned. Their edits at Heathenry thwarted, ThorLives turned to editing the Odinism article, turning it into a WP:Coatrack. After ThorLives disappeared amid a looming Topic Ban, the very next day Holtj appeared, and continued right where ThorLives left off. I have initiated a sock puppet investigation, at which Holtj has made the (dubious) claim that he is not the same individual as ThorLives, but is in fact his son. Regardless, if should be made clear that the vast majority of the Odinism article consists of the contributions of ThorLives and Holtj.

There are very serious problems with the Odinism article as it stands. As I see it, the main problems are a) the inclusion of un-referenced material, b) the inclusion of excessive information cited to non-reliable, primary sources in contravention of our reliable sources policy, and c) the use of reliable sources about pre-Christian religion to cite claims being made about the new religious movement, which is totally unsupportable from an academic or outsider standpoint and is a clear case of religious advocacy. On each occasion that I removed the problematic information, Holtj turned to Edit Warring to restore the article to their preferred revision. Ultimately, this material has to be removed wholesale for the article to meet Wikipedia standards; given that that entails the basic deletion of the entire article, I would continue to urge that it be restored as a redirect to the Heathenry (new religious movement) article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Update: Given that the ThorLives/Holtj sock puppet has now been blocked for abusively editing, I am going to go ahead and remove all non-referenced material and all material relying purely on primary, self-published sources. I am also going to remove all of the material in which that user had cited reliable sources in a manner that was totally inappropriate and constituted their own religious advocacy. I will not try to convert this article into a redirect, although I do believe that that is the best course of action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have also added some additional academically-referenced information to the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

Previous peer review

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)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote the article to GA

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I tagged the article. A POV issue should be fixed as I explained there. Mhhossein (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article of GA level. Mahavira was the last tirthankara of Jainism and occupies significant place in jainism. I have tried to improve the article in last few days with help of other editors and upgrade the quality of article. An assessment will help further improve the article for the objective of GA level.

Thanks, -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There are some high-level problems with this article:

  • The lead section should be completely re-written.
    • The article begins with "Mahavira (599 BCE–527 BCE)". It should be clearly noted that this is the "traditional" dating and not the one believed by scholars to be true. In the source that is referenced, Shah clearly mentions that "Although tradition dictates that Mahavira was born about 599 bce, many scholars believe this date to be as much as 100 years early, in that Mahavira probably lived at about the same time as the Buddha, whose traditional birth date has also been reassessed."
    • Technical words like "tirthankara" and "avasparini" should either be clearly explained in the lead itself or not be used at all.
    • The lead should be clear on whether it is describing real historical figure "mahavira" or is it stating what the tradition believes him to be. It mixes mythology with historical facts.
    • Heinrich Zimmer is quoted in the lead. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to quote an author in the lead. Even if we are quoting something, I believe it should be a more recent scholarly work. Zimmer seems to be outdated.
  • Too many long quotes: The article's renunciation and legacy sections contain too many long quotes. This does not seem encyclopedic.
  • Important differences between digambara and svetambara sects regarding mahavira is not reflected in the article. For example, Swetambara believe that mahavira was transfered from the womb of devananda to trishala.

--Rahul (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments till Birth section only:

  • Lead sentence: The part "of present Avasarpani era (ascending half of the time cycle as per Jain cosmology)" is confusing. Generally, he is introduced only as the 24th tirthankar
  • Lead: father and mother is WP:UNDUE info here
  • "Bharat (which was larger than today's India)": confusing. change to "all over South Asia/Indian subcontinent/ancient India", whatever is accurate
  • Reduce jargon in lead: kevala jnana -> enlightenment; moksha -> died
  • Remove quote about Parshva from lead.
  • Add teachings of Mahavira and legacy in lead
  • "His childhood name ... " : Never start with he. -> "Mahavira's birth name..."
  • Remove bold in non-lead parts
  • What does "achieving omniscence" mean?
  • Add meanings of other epithets
  • Add alternate dating in Histrocity. Some date to c. 500 BCE etc. Move dates from birth. Move birth places to Birth
  • King Siddhartha: state his kingdom and dynasty

Overall, lot of work is needed to take it to GA level. Major issues summary:

  • Quality of language
  • Too many quotes: WP:QUOTEFARM
  • Missing topics:
    • Iconography
    • Worship
    • Temples
    • Sources about Life: Texts like Kalpa sutra, oral traditions (if any)

--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Simeon of Verkhoturye[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to hear your suggestions and comments. It would be interesting to know if the article is understandable for English readers, or is there something you would like to know?

Thanks, Orel787 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO[edit]

  • (Russian: Симеон Верхотурский, born 1607, died 1642),
I think those commas ought to be semicolons.
  • The main feast day of St. Simeon is the 18 December (OS), or 31 December (NS).
That second article (the) is superfluous (not needed).
  • Legend has it that Simeon was born to a noble boyar family in the European part of Russia.
I might be wrong, but I'm not sure "Legend has it" is an encyclopedic turn of phrase.
  • (about 53 kilometers, or 33 miles, from Verkhoturye),
It's a good idea to put figures like this into the convert template, like this: {{convert|53|kilometers}}
  • You linked righteousness in the lead, so maybe do the same here at the first occurrence after the lead.
  • He died in Merkushino in 1642 and was buried in a graveyard by the church
Identify the church here.
  • Translation of the relics
  • The first paragraph in this section is uncited, so please source it properly. Same with the second half of the second paragraph in the section. Paragraphs should always end in a citation.
  • Legend has it
Maybe this is acceptable given the topic, but it seems to informal for an encyclopedia.
  • the church was burnt down by a fire
Since a fire is the only thing that can burn down a building, this is redundant.
  • The Brotherhood of the Righteous St. Simeon
It seems this is a monastery, but you don't make that explicit enough at the start.
It was a bratstvo, linked
  • The last paragraph of this section, and all others, should end with a citation.
  • Opening, withdrawal and return of the relics
  • The first, second, and last paragraphs of this section need citations.
  • "some hooligans of white guards, in spite of my order as archimandrite, took away my horses and left their nags, on which nobody could ride".
This quote is currently uncited.
  • on the feast day of St. Simeon with over fifteen thousand pilgrims gathering at the monastery
The proper verb form here is gathered, not gathering.
  • but the costly shrine was seized for the hungry
Dis the Soviets confiscate the shrine to feed the poor?
Of course not.
  • On 30 May 1929, the relics were seized from the monastery and given to a museum in Nizhny Tagil for anti-religious works.
What's an anti-religious museum/works? I'm not sure how this was used for anti-religious works. Please expand and explain.
I added a quote.

Not bad for a start, but it obviously needs a little TLC in the way of citations and copyediting. It's an interesting topic and the foundation of a fine contribution. Keep up the great work! RO(talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I made most of the corrections, I will do the citing later. Regards.--Orel787 (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: It's very difficult to judge the reliability of the cited sources because of the lack of details in the citations. What are you citing? Are they peer reviewed journals, newspapers, personal websites of experts, random blogs? Fuller citations (citation templates can be very useful) would help with this issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Social sciences and society[edit]

Global financial system[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it reached GA-status and could be improved after a peer review.

Thanks, Lbertolotti (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 25 September 2015, 18:11 UTC
Last edit: 26 November 2015, 08:16 UTC

Jevons paradox[edit]

Previous peer review

I'm planing on taking this article to FA status. Before listing it as a FA candidate, I'll appreciate it if someone could give it a look over and point to what should be improved.

Thanks, LK (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is not my sphere by any means, but the article was perfectly comprehensible even to me. The prose is clear and generally elegant. Some minor comments:

  • There was, I thought, one phrase with a slightly stilted textbook feel: "causing resource use to increase" could be, in everyday English, "causing more resources to be used." That's my only quibble on style.
  • You need to decide how to punctuate the abbreviation e.g. (or e.g, – both logically justifiable, but consistency is wanted).
  • There is a handful of duplicate links in the article. The Manual of Style bids us limit ourselves to one link to any article from the lead and another link to it from the main text. You have two links from the lead to demand and two to sustainability. In the main text there are duplicate links to green taxes and ecological economics.
  • "cost (or price) of a good or service" – can you really have a singular good in this sense? I consulted the OED but lost the will to live about five pages in and never found the relevant bit. I see the word crops up twice, and so I take it that it is a pukka term in economics.
  • References
    • As the Jevons book is a book, it would be as well to give its OCLC number in lieu of the ISBN for which it is too ancient to qualify. The OCLC is 464772008.
    • There is a guideline – how authoritative I know not – that would have us use the 13-digit forms of ISBNs. If you are minded to follow it, there is a handy tool here.
    • When you get to FA, some bright spark is highly likely to ask what the point is of your "Additional reading" list, saying that if the stuff is worth reading it should be used in the text. This is nonsense, but I suggest you have your counter-argument nicely honed and ready.

That's my lot. Please ping me when you take the article to FAC. – Tim riley talk 13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's all very useful, thanks very much! I'll implement your suggestions and then submit to FAC. LK (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Center for Indoor Air Research[edit]

I want to get feedback on how this article can be improved, as I am hoping to bring it up to GA status in the future. Everymorning (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO[edit]

  • Looks a little thin. Be sure it properly summarizes all the article's sections.
  • founded in March 1988 by Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and Lorillard
Wikilink these companies.
  • This agreement required the tobacco industry to disband the CIAR
Why? This would be better if explained.
  • However, according to Alisa Tong and
Avoid using "however" in formal writing.
Stated mission
  • including the health effects of ETS
You haven't explained what ETS is in the article body.
  • However, in 1992
  • "special-reviewed" projects
Who conducted these "special-reviewed" projects?
Funding of scientific research
  • many scientists, although unwilling to accept funds directly from the tobacco industry, were willing to accept funds from the CIAR.
This implies that scientists didn't know who funded CIAR. Was that the case?
  • This study was based on the hypothesis that particles transported indoors from outdoor air, rather than ETS, were responsible for a significant proportion of indoor aerosol concentrations.
You need to make the connection between ETS and indoor aerosol concentrations explicit, as this is confusing. Do cigarettes really contain aerosols?
  • However, after some of his studies found that this exposure
Avoid "however" in formal writing.
  • authored by Johns Hopkins
Wikilink Johns Hopkins.
  • that some cases of lung cancer previously attributed to passive smoking might actually be caused by other factors, such as diet.
The lead says that CIAR funded research on indoor air pollution, but this says that also studied diet as a cause of illness. Add this to the lead to better summarize the content of the article.

This seems like a work in progress, as I assume there must be much more detail than what's currently presented here, particularly negative reaction to the studies. For example, you mention the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, but you don't detail it's direct impact or explain what it is in the article. In fact you mention it in the lead, but not the article, which is wrong. Every detail in the lead must also be in the article body, so if it's not explained in the article it should not be included in the lead. I think this is a ways off GAN, but I'd strongly recommend another peer review after you make another attempt at comprehensiveness, before taking it to GAN. Keep up the great work! RO(talk) 19:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Ennis Cosby

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 July 2015, 05:41 UTC
Last edit: 30 August 2015, 04:53 UTC

Elmer Ernest Southard

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 June 2015, 01:36 UTC
Last edit: 28 August 2015, 19:53 UTC


List of submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this list provides a overview of the submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. I look forward to the helpful comments on how to improve it. =] Poon (Talk) 11:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Yugoslav Olympic medalists[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have started it a few years back with the intention for it to become a featured list. Since then the development of it has stalled a bit, thus I am now wondering what this list needs to get that star. I am aware that more sources would be preferable and are needed, but for this kind of topic it shouldn't be hard to find them. I am more interested and wondering if the prose and the tables are good enough and appropriate and if something needs to be added. Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999[edit]

  • Olympic games → Wikilink to International Olympic Committee
  • Yugoslavia → Wikilink
  • distinct national entities → distinct states
  • The entire lead needs sourcing. There are a lot of facts and info here which are not sourced or cited which is not repeated elsewhere in the list. Info like "Yugoslavia was a multinational state with six constitutive ethnic groups (Bosniaks, Croatians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenes), and significant ethnic minorities in Vojvodina (Hungarians) and Kosovo (Albanians)" is one example of info which needs to be sourced.
  • The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and is consistent with IOC convention in its published medal tables. By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes have won in individual competitions. The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals. If athletes are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed chronologically, as when the medals have been won. → I'm not sure this is necessary?
  • The 'Rank' column needs to be marked up for WP:ACCESS (so that it is shaded grey)
  • The table shows the number of individual Yugoslav Olympic medals, won per region. By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes have won per region in individual competitions. The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals. If regions are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed chronologically, as when the medals have been won (athletes who have won Olympic medals are listed below alphabetically). Regions used are the Socialist Republics that were in use in Yugoslavia from 1944 until 1991 and the breakup of the country. All six Socialist Republics have since become fully independent nations and are members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The table uses place of birth of the athletes to determine the number of medals per region and not their nationality or ethnic group. → Again, I don't think the first few sentences are needed here.
  • Same applies here for the 'Rank' column for access.
  • Also, I think their names should be showing in a column of their own, and shouldn't have to click 'Show'
  • Same for the 'Rank' column as previously mentioned in Team section and their names.
  • Again, I don't think the paragraph about gold being first then silver etc. is needed. It's getting repetitive now too.
  • As such, the list looks really good and structurally well laid out as a whole, but I'm a bit concerned that there are only three references and practically no citations in the article at all.

Ping me with any questions.  — Calvin999 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your review. I will look into it and try to resolve the issues pointed out. For the sources I am well aware they need to be added and will provide them (shouldn't be a problem with this topic). I will try to do this during the next couple of days. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

List of National Democratic Alliance members[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to nominate it for Featured list status but I feel that it might need some more work. It will be helpful if experienced editors can tell where this list needs to be improved upon.

Thanks, Bharatiya29 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rwxrwxrwx[edit]

  • That's a really nice-looking list. The automated tools show up some areas for improvement, though since this is a list article some of the recommendations do not apply. Relevant pages are [1] (problems with external links) and [2] (missing alt text in images). Now a few suggestions of my own. I would bold the party's name in the first sentence. Mention the country's name in the first sentence. Did all the parties (past and present) join the alliance at the same time? Link Bihar in the ECI Status column. For the parties that are missing "symbols", is it because they have no symbols, the symbols are unknown, or there is no uploaded image? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I will fix the external links and add the alt text soon. I have not bold the party name as per MOS:BOLDTITLE. As of the symbols, only the LJP symbol (Bungalow) is not available on commons. The other parties (with a hyphen in the symbols column) are not recognised parties and therefore they don't have a fixed symbol (some of them do have a known symbol which they generally used, but still they are not the official symbols). If possible I will add a "Joining year" column to the present members list. Thanks for the review! Bharatiya29 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]