Wikipedia:Peer review

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


MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

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

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

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

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

Contents

Arts[edit]

Jamiroquai[edit]

Previous peer review

Hello.... again! This is again an article about the English band Jamiroquai. I failed to get the article to featured status twice for minor reasons, for not getting a PR done first and for nominating it too early. A reviewer stated in the second nomination that the article needed more pre-FA work done but they didn't clarify the problems. I would like to know about any issues or more that may reflect on what they meant so I can improve the article further.

Thanks, 100cellsman (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


Leah LaBelle[edit]

Previous peer review

Hello everyone! The above article is about an American singer who unfortunately died around this time last year. I have expanded the article from this version, and it has received a very helpful GAN review and a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Ideally, I would like to try to put this through the FAC process in the future. I would greatly appreciate any feedback/suggestions for this. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


James J. Hill Sapphire[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I decided to have some fun and get this article sourced and improved, and I'm wondering if I can perhaps bring it to a higher status.

Thanks, Stilistic (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Gioachino Rossini

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 17 January 2019, 09:13 UTC
Last edit: 17 February 2019, 14:53 UTC


David Miedzianik[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in seeing what other Wikipedians think of the entry so far.

Thanks, Heepman1997 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • He is unemployed, but writes about how he wants to work and find love. Miedzianik writes about specific examples pertaining to those desires. could be written formally. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Mullum Malarum[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed two consecutive FACs, despite my best efforts (the first time, I withdrew it to rework). Before I take this to FAC for the fourth time, I want to know what is wrong and fix it. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • Fix the green links.
  • Was the NFAI poster different from its theatrical release one?
Dunno, it looks that way. The caption "NFAI poster" was chosen after much deliberation; I wonder why no-one was okay with simple captions like "poster" or "film poster". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You should also mention the editor's name somewhere in the lead's second para.
Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is "Directormahendran.in" a RS?
It certainly should be, since it appears to take excerpts from his book. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yash, I removed Directormahendran.in since it basically takes content from his book which I have already used as a source here. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

  • which Mahendran read only part of better as only partly read
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 3,915.46 metres (12,846.0 ft) may be a bit over precise?
That's because I used the {{convert}} template. Any problem with that? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oedipal doesn't really apply to brother-sister, but if that's the quote...
Agreed, or maybe there's a mistranslation by the editor. The original book was in French, and I cited the English edition. Would it be fine to put {{sic}} anywhere? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

perhaps more later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


Baby Driver[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am eyeing an FA candidacy in the future. I’ve put a lot of work into this article, now a very recently promoted GA, but feel it falls just short of meeting the FA criteria. I think presently, barring minor prose issues in the rest of the body, the critical response section is the biggest issue standing in the way of a successful FAC because of sentence rhythm and overall structure. This was a similar issue I had with another article I was successful at getting to FA status (with the help of Mike Christie, and also after seven attempts!). Some feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, DAP 💅 00:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Going to take this up, hopefully will get the review up soon! Stilistic (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn't it be that it was a longtime project rather than is, considering it is now released?
I’ve gone back and forth with it, but I believe either is appropriate.
  1. "However, Doc threatens him back into a life of crime, threatening to harm Debora and Joseph if he resists." I feel this could be condensed a touch.
Revised.
  1. Is there anything that can be added with respect to the casting of Kevin Spacey?
He wasn’t active in the film’s press tour barring less than a handful of interviews, in which he speaks about his character’s motivations and praises Wright for his artistic vision. Unfortunately, as a result, I was unable to find any useful information about his casting.
  1. Is "R. Marcos Taylor as gun runner Armie" necessary, given that the actor has no article and the character is not otherwise mentioned in the article?
Revised.

Gonna add more later. Stilistic (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. Thank you for taking up the task! DAP 💅 16:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


Mass Manipulation[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate this article for GA status sometime in the future. The peer review is to help me see what to improve, focus on and to see if the article is even ready for a GAN.

Thanks, Micro (Talk) 23:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help with verification. The main aspect I would like help with has to do with the year 2000. It is, unfortunately, the only year that I haven't been able to find a single reference detailing the nominees. I was able to find one for that year's winner—from GLAAD itself—which at least proves that Strangers in Paradise was one of the nominees (and winner), but that's it. While it isn't necessary, it would also be great to include some more reliable sources regarding the 1990s nominees; as the current references are all press releases.

Thank you in advance. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, this is much more difficult than I anticipated. After quite a bit of searching, I've had no joy. A frustrating hair away from it: archive.org has GLAAD's home page from 2000, but didn't capture the page it linked to with the nominees; similarly, the Advocate lists nominees in other categories, but the second part of the nominations, which probably had the comic books, didn't get saved to archive.org. Variety may have seen the category as the equivalent of those technical Oscars they don't show on TV. The only youtube video from that year's awards is of Elizabeth Taylor.

Possibilities: the Gay League may have the information tucked away somewhere, or it might be in Out in Comics, but the easiest thing (and the most reliable source) would likely be to contact GLAAD themselves. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for trying @BlackcurrantTea:. I understand it must have been hard. And yeah, I was aware of archive.org having GLAAD's website from 2000 but not the nominees list; still pisses me off to no end. I'll try some of your suggestions. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Art Ducko (student magazine)[edit]

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

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

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

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


Animal Farm[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think is a pretty good article and just wanted to see what others think can be improved. It was last reviewed in 2006, which is a lifetime ago!

Thanks, Superegz (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Some issues that I noticed:
    • MOS:CITELEAD is not followed
    • There are a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged into longer ones.
    • Some things are missing inline citations. Some examples of this:
      • The brief alliance and subsequent invasion may allude to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa.[original research?]
      • In his London Letter on 17 April 1944 for Partisan Review, Orwell wrote that it was "now next door to impossible to get anything overtly anti-Russian printed. Anti-Russian books do appear, but mostly from Catholic publishing firms and always from a religious or frankly reactionary angle."
    • Although not required, I personally would try to reference the plot inline to reliable sources. This step improves verifiability.
    • The citation styles used are a total mishmash. Pick one style and stick with it.
    • A considerable amount of the references are to online WP:UGC or WP:SPS, therefore not qualifying as RS.
    • File:15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).jpg What makes this PD-US?
    • File:Animal Farm artwork.jpg needs the appropriate PD-UK and PD-US tags.
    • Captions on some of the images are far too long. Try to keep them to 3 lines. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Pod (The Breeders album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 November 2018, 05:48 UTC
Last edit: 13 February 2019, 03:45 UTC


Scottish jewellery[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed the drafting process for the article. I think that the references are not strong as the the majority of the information came from online blogs because of lack of official resources on the topic. I would also like to improve the sections that are slightly lacking in information, mainly the history section and the modern section, although I would also like to improve the traditional examples category. I would also like to add more images such as of the Lorne jewels and the Stewart jewels but have been hindered by copyright restrictions.

Thanks, Dream8047! Dream8047! (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm! It's not that impressive. There are plenty of "official" sources, and I'm sure quite a few online, but you haven't found them. The History section is pretty poor. This is a selection of Bronze Age Scottish jewellery from the MOS, some from about 1,000 years before you suggest it started. These beads from Skara Brae are from "Between 3100 and 2400 BC". If you scratch around on the MOS site (not the easiest to navigate I know) you will find tons of information on all periods. I changed the date you had - misinterpreted from what is anyway not a WP:RS - as no "Celtic-style" metalwork appears in the British Isles before about 300BC. Most of the time Scottish jewellery is not all that different from English, Irish, or indeed European styles, which it would be good to see recognised sometimes. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cinadon[edit]

Interesting article but here are my two or three suggestions on how to improve: The article is broken into too many subsections, consisting of a sentence or two- there is no need for that. The series of the sections can change. I 'd prefer history section go first. And something must be done about sources, I am not certain that visitscotland.com or kilt society or claddaghdesign.com] meet RS criteria. On the other hand, nice photos and a lot of space for improvement! Cheers,Cinadon36 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit]

Fred Keenor[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe there's a chance that this could potentially make it to FA one day. I've also requested a copyedit from the WP:GOCE and I'm actively searching for a statistics source for the missing seasons in the stats table. Look forward to any comments. Thanks, Kosack (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


India national football team at the Olympics[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This following article is well written piece, thoroughly researched and presented without neglecting any important information. By FA Criteria, I hope it meets all 5 points, that is (a) well written as summarised as prose and hope of professional standard

(b) comprehensive as it does not neglect any vital or important information as the article leans to history, it accounts all sphere of events,

(c)well researched, almost every part is provided with consistent citation with high quality reliable sources

(d) neutral and a stable article as no edit wars or conflicts or vandalism or any such things happened till date.

With that, it is well structured with a good lead and summary along with photographs of events and is not lengthy and but covers all historical events happened. I hope the article is well maintained and deserves a FA status. Please do review and assess the article status. Thanks, Dey subrata (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Empires of Eve[edit]

I really want to take this article to GA status. I need exact advice on all the steps to take to make it reach GA. Don't be general either, be very specific. Please help me.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by ImmortalWizard

  • The game met his criterion for uniqueness because of its focus on causation. What is causation? Could be wikilinked?
  • I will come with more comments but overall, the article looks to be written for gaming experts. It should be understandable by the general audience.


Nintendo 3DS[edit]

Would like to run this through GA and then maybe FA but I need suggestions on how to get this article ready to meet those criterias. So give me specific exact advice on how make this a GA and then FA article. Thanks.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

:{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • High-level thoughts:
    • I don't know if this is a project-wide choice or not, and feel free to correct me, but the tense for large swaths of this seems a bit weird. This model isn't produced anymore, so to describe its competition as the Vita (which is imminently not going to be produced either) and as "succeeds" the DS rather than "succeeded" seems off.
    • Likewise, "The handheld offers new features"—"new" to what? It's years old at this point.
    • The background section is waaaay too long a section considering it's not talking about the 3DS specifically but rather Nintendo's previous efforts. That should get condensed down to a paragraph at most and merged with development.
    • Other spots of excessive detail include: listing all the games given to ambassadors in the "Launch" section, detailing rumors of the XL model which turned out to be true, and so should just be covered in a line or less; the game card having its own subsection; the paragraphs of detail for system software when there's a separate article for it; etc.
    • There's a lot of useless dates and figures cluttering up the article. Frankly, exact dates are not all that useful or relevant and come off as supremely repetitious when used repeatedly. At the very least, stuff like The Nintendo 3DS launched in Japan on February 26, 2011, priced at ¥25,000. On March 25, 2011, the system launched in Europe, with pricing set by individual retailers. On March 27, 2011 the Nintendo 3DS launched in North America, priced at US$249.99. On March 31, 2011, the system launched in Australia and New Zealand, priced at A$349.95. The system originally launched in all regions in both Aqua Blue and Cosmo Black color variations. can and should be rephrased to not repeat "2011" after every single territory launch, because it should be understood. Do I need to know the exact length of the stylus?
  • Prose:
    • The prose needs a major overhaul. In addition to the tense and dating issues, there's a lot of sections that just read like the fossil record—sequential layers of "on date X Y happened", and are about as exciting.
    • A particular problem with this article is unneeded and redundant phrasing or bits, such as It is also pre-loaded with various applications including these:, The XL version however, is 156 mm (6.1 in) wide, 93 mm (3.7 in) broad, and 22 mm (0.87 in) thick., and The Nintendo 3DS input controls include the following: a round nub analog input [...] There are times when you quote whole lists but still use "include" at the end like you haven't mentioned everything. WP:REDEX would be helpful practice here.
    • Why does the reception section discuss the original SKU and XL model, but not any of the other ones you included in the hardware section earlier?
    • The "legal issues" section at the end feels very much like every controversy section: ungainly, not integrated into the rest of the article, and weirdly stuck at the end. This should go somewhere else, and it should be cleaned up (it appears to reference an entirely different court case before the next sentence talks about the previous one.)
  • References:
    • There's a lot of unreferenced statements, or statements that are cited to a ref but is not covered.
    • Inconsistency in citation schema that should be addressed.
  • What makes Modojo.com, Nintendo World Report, Vooks.net, IndustryGamers, BrightSideofNews, WirelessGoodness, Game Usagi, or COGconnected reliable sources?
    • Some of the archive links (e.g. [1]) don't actually work and thus don't cite the material in question.
    • Weasel words: Some sources claim that an 8 GB version could be produced should a game ever require it.—given that an 8GB card apparently never came out, and the fact that only a single supplier is being used here, a) I think you need a better source for the previous info, and b) I'm wondering why this is relevant.
  • Images:

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


PlayStation Portable[edit]

  • I want to take this to GA and then FA but I need very specific feedback. The FAC reviewer told me "Sources in spots need to be fully formatted, and archiving them would be a good idea as well", can someone point out each source which needs to be fully formatted and tell me how to do so? He/she was too vague.
  • Tell me which concerns from the FAC reviewers that I addressed and which ones I didn't address? I tried to address all of them but if I didn't please tell me
  • Please give me feedback about anything else that needs fixing in the article to bring it to GA/FAC. Specific and exact, don't be vague, I only thrive off of specific and exact feedback. thanks.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Engineering and technology[edit]

Console game[edit]

Due to it's wide scope I believe some direction and focus from a PR would help in improving this article further. I'm aware of the need for some more citations but any feedback is welcome.

Thanks in advance, CrimsonFox talk 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


General[edit]

SAI Global[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the company has undergone _significant_ change since the then-current Wikipedia entry. To avoid potential whole-page reversion, I've pasted in proposed changes to the talk page. Please review and comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAI_Global https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SAI_Global

Thank you! Kainleb (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

I suspect you want comments on your proposed revision, rather than on the article as it stands. I'm not sure as to the etiquette of peer-reviewing a proposed draft, but some observations below:

  • The draft's completely unsourced which is an absolute no-no.
  • I'm not seeing anything that suggests the company is Notable, as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
  • It's way too detailed, mini biographies of board members, long History list, etc.
  • It's promotional throughout and reads like a company brochure.
  • To me, your editing has all the hallmarks of an undeclared Conflict of interest. I see it's the only article you've worked on. Do you have a connection to the company? If so, this needs to be declared and you need to follow our guidance on COI editing.

All in all, I'd have serious concerns about accepting your revision wholesale. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Digital dependencies and global mental health[edit]

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


Unisound[edit]

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

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


Electronic Arts[edit]

I am currently improving or rewriting this article because I have an enormous amount of energy for this. I notice that some areas need a rewrite, a few areas need a source, and of course, the Criticisms section is evidently being considered for its own article. The reason for a peer review is that I need advice on how this should be formatted. There are so many areas needing fixing that even know I know how I can fix them, I am not entirely how they should be fixed, specifically reformatted. Any help would be appreciated. Gamingforfun365 23:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

Newberry Volcano

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 17 January 2019, 18:44 UTC
Last edit: 7 February 2019, 01:32 UTC


Interstate 30

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 December 2018, 02:27 UTC
Last edit: 5 January 2019, 06:06 UTC


History[edit]

History of anarchism[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I 've been working on it since November 2018 and I would like to know the community's opinion. I 'd like to (gently) push it for GA status.

Thanks, Cinadon36 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This article has major problems with the references. The following short references do not link up with any full sources:

  • Adams2001 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Avrich1970 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Avrich2005 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Bakunin1873 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Barclay1982 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Benedict2004 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Billington1998 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Bookchin1995 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Carlson1972 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Chicago_Historical_Society doesn't point to any citation.
  • Critshley2007 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Dirlik1991 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Dodson2002 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Engel2000 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Firth2019 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Forman2009 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Foster1886 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Goodway2006 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Goodway2014 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Graham2005206 doesn't point to any citation. (this is missing a pipe in the sfn template)
  • Graham2005206-08 doesn't point to any citation. (this is missing a pipe in the sfn template)
  • Graham2019 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Igariwey1997 doesn't point to any citation.
  • IgariweyMbah1997 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Joll1975 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Laursen2019 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Lehning2003 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Marshall1933 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Marshall1993497 doesn't point to any citation. (this is missing a pipe in the sfn template)
  • Marshall1993498 doesn't point to any citation. (this is missing a pipe in the sfn template)
  • Marshall1993499 doesn't point to any citation. (this is missing a pipe in the sfn template)
  • McElroy1981 doesn't point to any citation.
  • McElroy1996 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Miller1987 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Most1885 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Muhsam2001 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Netlau1999 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Nyberg2012 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Ossar1980 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Pernicone2009 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Philip2006 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Ramnath2019 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Rapp2009 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Schofield1991 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Sheehan2004 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Thomas1980 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Wilbur2019 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Yeoman2019 doesn't point to any citation.

I fixed a few of them, but there are many more to fix. Also, the sources should be alphabetized. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Jonesey95:, I will see what I can do. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
MUCH improved. Here's what's left:
  • CITEREFBakunin1873 doesn't point to any citation.
  • CITEREFBenedict2004 doesn't point to any citation.
  • CITEREFCritshley2013 doesn't point to any citation.
  • CITEREFIgariwey1997 doesn't point to any citation.
  • CITEREFLaursen2019 doesn't point to any citation.
  • CITEREFMcLaughlin2007 doesn't point to any citation.
  • CITEREFNyberg2012 doesn't point to any citation.
Well done so far. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jonesey95! May I ask how you generate that list? Because I am checking the references manually! Cinadon36 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have a script installed in my User:Jonesey95/vector.js file. It looks like this:
// Show sfn and harv reference errors
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
You can see information about it at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. If you are using the Vector skin (check your Preferences), you can copy those two lines into your own vector.js file (you may have to create it). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, seems too complicated for me...Thanks anyway! I think we 've cleared the issue with references. I am using online app to generate the code of the source, app and many of the problems were because of it. (and I wasn't paying too much attention) Cinadon36 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I left comments on the talk page last week, including the script that fixes the ref errors mentioned above (it's pretty straightforward to install) czar 21:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I 've made an attempt addressing the issues raised. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


Bengal famine of 1943

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 January 2019, 01:51 UTC
Last edit: 16 February 2019, 16:43 UTC


George Camocke[edit]

Looking to see what changes that this article needs in order for it to be a Good Article.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

Some suggestions below:

Prose - although I'm aware this has had a copy edit, there are a number of instances where the meaning is unclear, at least to me. In particular;
  • "He repeatedly appealed to and glorified the admiralty";
  • "but instead, Camocke transported Spanish soldiers from Palermo to Alicante via Madrid";
  • "Camocke had wanted to acquit himself by pleasing the lordship with his zest for his Majesty King George's service";
  • "this was once intended for him by the King of Britain";
  • "as opposed to a loan reimbursal that was made to Charles XII from the English Jacobites";
  • "he left behind his king's commission for making admiral of the white along with his treasonable papers".
Sorting these will also address the "clarification" tags.
Phrasing - the phrase "favour had run out" reads rather oddly. "Fallen out of favour" would be more common, but it's not particularly encyclopedic.
References
  • ISBN numbers - you've a mixture of styles, where you should have consistency.
  • Source 4 - "he has some" - don't think you need this in the title.
  • Not sure why some sources are listed in the References section while others aren't? And what are the two Leslies doing? Are they Further reading? And why is he knighted in one and not in the other?
  • Source 3 says he died in Rouen, though you have Cetua? Also there's a 35% match on this source, which suggests there may be some instances of too-close paraphrasing. I think that's the explanation for "pleasing the lordship with his zest for his Majesty King George's service".
  • Sources 3/10/11 don't have publication dates.
Infobox - not obligatory by any means but I'd suggest it would work here. If it's good enough for Nelson...

It's a good start but I think there's some work to be done before it's ready for GA. KJP1 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is anything more known about his life before joining the navy?
  • "Camocke's explanation for his actions was considered unsatisfactory, and he was told that he was suspended until he could be cleared by a court-martial. " - source?
  • "Camocke's had fallen out of favour with everyone" - not sure what is meant here
  • Are any images available to illustrate the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


Camp Fire (2018)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status but can you give me suggestions on how to upgrade it? Face-smile.svg

Thanks, I love rpgs (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple suggestions:
  • You can move the lists in the Timeline section into a table or something, because the list breaks up the prose.
  • Good job on the loss of life & structural damage tables!
  • Oh, and, on the photo of the Bay Bridge in this section, you can add the smog explanation to the caption.
I hope these suggestions will give you some ideas! Face-smile.svgBen79487 (talk contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


Kargil Review Committee[edit]

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

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

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

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


Taj Mahal[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because we are thinking to prep it up for FAC and make it the best. With about 4 million annual readership, this is a Top Vital level article.

Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment

If FAC is the ultimate goal, I would suggest significant attention on the references. Citations should be complete and consistently formatted, and at the moment we're a ways off from that. You'll also want to check that references are of high quality, and that they represent a reasonable survey of the literature on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @The Herald: I'll happily fix all your references etc. if I can convert them all to my preferred format (see Bengal famine of 1943 for example). We'd have to put a notice ("Proposed change to references format") on the article's talk page and wait a while first too, though. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • DONE. I had to delete a couple dead references and some copyvio. It isn't 100% perfect (I have real life things to do), but it's 97 or 98% better. I think you are still weeks of hard work away from FA. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Darwin High School[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is detailed enough and if any improvements can be made upon it. There may also be grammatical changes required which were over looked upon the editing process.

Thanks, Rofl2018 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Rofl2018, thanks for your efforts so far. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC) * the article needs a lead section, which summarises the whole article

  • an image or two if possible would be great to break up the text. There are a number of images on Commons that could be used. They can be found here: [2]
  • the language is not neutral in some areas, for instance: "Students with a passion for literature will analyse difficult texts using sophisticated language to formulate complex pieces of work that is of a high calibre". If it is someone's opinion, it should be attributed as such, and also referenced, otherwise it should be rewritten in more neutral terms
  • where the same reference is used multiple times it can be combined into a WP:NAMEDREF
  • don't use all caps in titles per WP:ALLCAPS
  • the External links section should be removed as it currently has no relevant links
  • the article needs more internal/wikilinks per WP:WIKILINK

<s?* I have added the article to a category, but if possible I suggest trying to find a few more categories that might be relevant and adding the article to those as well

More general than WP:ALLCAPS, MOS:CAPS says to use sentence case rather than title case except for proper nouns. This includes sentence case for section headings. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Originalmess: This review and the original requester haven't been active since November. I'll try to copyedit/fix the references, but this might be worth closing soon. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 19:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. It's in much better condition now and I've removed the NPOV tag and added one on sourcing. Striking out suggestions I've completed. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 20:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Military history of Nigeria during WWII[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is now a stand alone-history for Nigeria throughout WWII. Any feedback on the Homefront/after the war sections would be appreciated.

Thanks, J.Hohne (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

  • My main observation is that this article is largely limited by the sources it uses. Generally speaking, website posts and articles will only give a cursory amount of information about topics as a large and deep as this one.
    • Pulse and Vanguard News are both online Nigerian newspapers and can be considered to be generally reliable. South African History Online is of limited usefulness, but it's reliable.
    • I share Peacemaker's concerns about worldhistory.biz being of dubious reliability.
    • The airpower.airforce.gov.au source does not at all discuss the information that it's supposed to be supporting in the article.
    • The British Military History website was once apparently "affiliated" with some reliable publishing houses, but I'd be reticent in relying upon its information, as it appears to be the research of a hobbyist.
  • In order to properly flesh out certain sections of this article, book sources are essentially a must. I recommend Africa and World War II and The British Empire and the Second World War. These books include discussion on:
    • Nigeria's relations with neighboring colonies during the war, especially Vichy territory
    • War production, including specific commodities and figures
    • The opinions of the Nigerian intelligentsia
  • This article hints at WWII shaping nationalism in Nigeria, which is incredibly important. More specifics on this matter need to be discusses, such as which group became the most motivated by the war to seek self-determination (e.g. the veterans, the farmers, or the intelligentsia, etc.).

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, J., thanks for your efforts so far. I have made a few minor tweaks to the article, and added some tags where I think references are required. I have also recommended on the talk page that the article be listed over at WP:GOCE for a more thorough copy edit. In terms of referencing, one improvement that I think you could make is to include the page numbers for the book citations you have provided. For example, take a look at how it is done in the Military history of Australia during World War II article.

Additionally, I think some of the images may need the licencing or sourcing adjusted. For instance File:Nigerian recruits.jpg. You have listed this as your "own work", which is essentially stating that you were there at the time and physically took the photograph yourself. Unless this is actually correct (which seems unlikely given how long ago it was), then you need to adjust the source to list the book or website you have taken it from. Additionally, the licencing will probably need to be adjusted if it has come from somewhere else, as in that case you aren't the copyright holder, so cannot use the "self|cc-by-sa-4.0" licence. The same applies to File:Nigerian Cocoa Farmer.jpg. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Cretoxyrhina

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 15 February 2019, 16:56 UTC
Last edit: 17 February 2019, 05:48 UTC


Ruby Payne-Scott[edit]

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

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

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


1257 Samalas eruption[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to send it to FAC once Allison Guyot passes/is archived, and Mike Christie recommended to do a PR in the interim.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy to post comments for this. Making a note to myself to get to this ASAP. ceranthor 15:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Jennie Smillie Robertson[edit]

Passed my first GA nom and my reviewer recommends a peer review! This is a biography of Canada's first female surgeon. Mostly looking for feedback on how the wording looks to a general audience, although familiar with biographies or medicine is appreciated. It's not too long of an article.

Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Article looks good, though reading through I believe there are a few issues with the prose that could do with improvement. As this is what you were asking to be reviewed, I have left them as is so you can decide whether you agree with my view or not.

In the introductory paragraph, you say "...Jennie Smillie, was the first Canadian female surgeon. She also performed the country's first major gynecological surgery". I believe this could changed to "Jennie Smillie, was the first Canadian female surgeon and also performed the country's first major gynecological surgery"; they are both talking about her notable achievements, and so by linking them I feel the stiltedness introduced by the "She also" is removed.
In the section on career, you include "woman surgeon". I believe "female surgeon" would flow better - the word here is being used as an adjective, which is suitable for female and male but not woman and man. Same with "women physicians" to "female physicians".
There is also the sentence "The hospital was first located inside rented houses before a building could be built, and its early financial difficulties led the founders to gather vegetables from farmers' wives to feed their patients." I believe that "Prior to a building being built, the hospital was located inside rented houses, and its early financial difficulties led the founders to gather vegetables from farmers' wives to feed their patients."
I would also recommend switching "At the Women's College Hospital, she was chairman of the Gynecology Department from 1912 to 1942. Smillie mainly performed abdominal and gynecological surgeries until her retirement in 1948." to "At the Women's College Hospital, she was chairman of the Gynecology Department from 1912 to 1942 and mainly performed abdominal and gynecological surgeries until her retirement in 1948." - we know that the subject is Smillie, and so it doesn't need to be restated, unless she did so outside the WCH? Indeed, this issue pervades the article; the subject is restated to many times and this interrupts flow.

-- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
NoCOBOL I've made the suggested changes and a few more – how does it read now? originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I meant to come back to this and then it slipped my mind. I would change this sentence "Born to farmers, she worked as a teacher to afford tuition for medical school, enrolling at the Ontario Medical College for Women, which was merged into the University of Toronto medical school during her time there." to "Born to farmers, she worked as a teacher to afford tuition for medical school before enrolling at the Ontario Medical College for Women which was merged into the University of Toronto medical school during her time there." - I feel it flows better, though that is mainly down to personal preference rather than a hard and fast rule.
In the first paragraph, you refer to her as Jennie, but after that you always refer to her as Smillie. I would suggest sticking to one or the other.
I would also suggest going a little further on switching how you refer to the subject away from her name and towards "she" or other less explicit references; for instance, in this paragraph, "After Smillie's second return to Toronto, no hospital would allow her to perform surgery. Instead, she performed her first surgery (an oophorectomy to remove an ovarian tumor)[3] using daylight on a patient's kitchen table,[4] which made her the first surgeon to perform major gynecological surgery in Canada. As a result, Smillie became the country's first female surgeon recorded in the field's modern era.[5]", there is no need to state Smillie again, and instead I would suggest sticking with the she you used in the second sentence after the first explicit reference to her.
Apart from that, it is looking very good. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Parrot[edit]

I wanted to get this to GA a long while ago, but then I forgot for some reason I don't remember. How is the article, do you think?

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to this, but have noticed that one of the paragraphs under trade (which is under relationship with humans) ends without a citation.Qwerty number1 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm a major contributor and I think it's solid but still a ways off. There is still some missing content, for example there is nothing about wings and flight in the morphology section; distribution and habitat is just distribution at this point; breeding is pretty thin, in fact there is more content seemingly for relationship with humans than behaviour. I think with some work it could get there and it's worthwhile (I've always thought its an important article which is why I've added quite a lot to it) so am happy to work on a more comprehensive work needed if you'd like (and also help with it). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Something’s just come up in real life so I’m gonna be a little slow to edit for the foreseeable future, but I’m happy to work with you   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well on flight, I got this on New World parrots, but I'm not exactly sure what to make of it, and I assume flight isn't that different from other birds? Flight's specific to habitat, I should think, so it should vary from species to species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There's some general observations in HBW that I'll add. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As for the Distribution and habitat and Breeding sections, they seem complete to me. Anything more would just be overkill I should think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If I am right, the Rose-ringed parakeet is found, albeit not natively, in Britain and other European nations. Isn't this further north than South USA? Qwerty number1 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
to explain I am referring to 'have lived as far north as the southern United States' , which seems an odd wording, since this seems to suggest this is basically the furthest north, while it is nowhere near? Qwerty number1 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Typically when describing distribution it is done so in terms of natural range. The New World quails are endemic to the Americas, even if a few species have been introduced to various places. Thusly the natural (former) northernmost point of their distrubution was the southern US. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Elektron (satellite)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This is my first ground-up, complicated article. It is now substantially complete, with illustrations, infobox, and as much information as could be useful to the layman reader. I don't know if "Low Importance" articles can become "Good Articles," but I'm at least shooting for "B" with, perhaps, an understanding of what it might take to get "GA." Once I have gone through this process at least once, I will have a better understanding of it and can start helping to review other pages.

Thanks! :) Neopeius (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • "Low Importance" is completely irrelevant w. respect to FA/A/GA etc. Will look a bit but you might wanna make friends at wikiproject spaceflight to help you more. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Siddiqi, Asaf (1989). Challenge to Apollo. p. 240. Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
    • Garland, Kenneth (1989). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology. p. 127. Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
    • Both missing Location of publisher. This is optional, but some people really care (most don't perhaps). Safest thing to do is add it. OH, the one thing that IS kinda required is consistency, so do your best to have either ALL with Location or NONE with. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks much. :) I am having difficulty getting Wikipedia to take any ISBN I give it. Please take a gander at the Bison Books ref in this article and advise? --Neopeius (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I left a msg on your user talk page. BTW, you're supposed to put images at the top of the relevant section, not the bottom. I believe that as per WP:ACCESS or similar. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Jaekelopterus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 30 November 2018, 08:35 UTC
Last edit: 27 December 2018, 09:53 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to be a good article. This is the third article I've done a plot summary for, and I feel that I've done really well for that part. I have found reliable sources and balanced out real world coverage. I would like to see if other people like this article as well.

Thanks, Scrooge200 (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Saint symbolism[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for a featured list and would appreciate help reviewing it. --evrik (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, --evrik (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Evrik, thank you for your work on this list. I've done a few quick changes, such as fixing the table for the apostles, but nothing major.
The first thing I noticed was the images; they way they are offset to the side of the tables, and not inside them, leads to an inconsistent appearance. The style guide does not require it, but general practice with featured lists are to put them inside of them (see List of Mesopotamian deities), and I believe that it would increase the readability of the list and its chance to be accepted for FTL. If you choose to leave the images where they are, then they have two issues; one, they should be framed, and two, they should better specify which saint they belong to. As it stands, images captioned with "Man with lions", for example, can be determined to belong to "Daniel", but the requirement to read the list carefully, and compare the symbols of the saint with the caption of the image detracts from the readability and usefulness of the article.
Second, the tables themselves. Their disparate sizing detracts from the appearance of the article, and so I would suggest ensuring, even across tables, that the column size is the same. I would also suggest merging the section split into A, B, C, ... , Y, Z into one table, but I do not believe this to be essential.
Third, expanding information on the Saints and their Symbols. Additional pictures would be a benefit to the article, but I see with the section on "Flowers" you include a reason. Perhaps including such a reason for each of the saints symbols would be of benefit? However, when adding information make sure to be careful that you are not creating a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of Saints or similar lists.
Finally, I would recommend creating a section heading for each section outside of the alphabetical ones. While this is not explicitly required, in the context of this list I believe it will be necessary for featured status, especially in areas such as the Flower section where readers may be left wondering about the relevance. This also follows general practice seen in other expansive featured lists, such as List of French Monarchs.
To sum up and expand, I would suggest the following:
  • Placing all images inside the tables, in a row corresponding to the saint in question
  • Unifying the tables of saints sorted by alphabetical letter into one table. (Though this is more personal preference; if done right, the current format should be fine)
  • Maintaining column size consistency across tables
  • If the depiction varies across Christian Branches, I would suggest noting which branch the depiction belongs to. If this variance occurs frequently, then I would suggest splitting up the "Symbols" column into major branches.
I should also note that I haven't assessed all images for their relevance and usefulness to the article, but you may wish to consider this.
-- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 15 January 2019, 22:16 UTC
Last edit: 12 February 2019, 18:07 UTC


Mahavira[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA soon and was suggested to get a peer review done prior to that.

Thanks, Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Dali (goddess)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 December 2018, 01:55 UTC
Last edit: 23 January 2019, 23:50 UTC


Jainism[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a level 3 vital article and deserves GA. I've been trying to promote it to GA since a couple of years now. It would be highly appreciated if you could pinpoint improvements or tag them in the article itself, whichever can prevent GA rejections. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 06:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • In the lead itself there is a missing fullstop, before the fourth citation. (I would correct it but you really can't be missing out such things, that too in the lead.)
  • In the second paragraph in the lead, why do "non-violence", "many-sidedness", "non-attachment" etc have quotes?
  • There are three citation needed tags near the bottom of the page that need to be sorted out. There is one 'page needed' tag.
  • The last paragraph about Mahatma Gandhi seems out of place. If if is there for wrapping up an article, then it is not needed and can be placed elsewhere, even removed. If you are relating it to the modern era, it needs expansion.
  • The history section is only till the colonial era? Why not include a small subsection related to more recent history too. And here I am not talking about just demographics kind of data listed under the heading "Jains in the modern era". So either the history section should have a new subsection, or the modern era section needs expansion.
  • Maybe a small line can be added somewhere explaining the word "Jaina" as opposed to merely "Jain" and "Jains". They are being used interchangeably. So here I am referring to "Etymology". This is more of a suggestion to be considered an not a necessity, an "Etymology" section.
Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The sisterproject box needs to be adjusted. Not all the links work. !--evrik (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Social sciences and society[edit]

Murder of Rachael Runyan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to a Good Article, if not Featured Article.

Thanks, Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


Digital media use and mental health[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of its high importance and multidisciplinary nature.

Thanks, E.3 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Alabama v. North Carolina[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to get some feedback about the general article. I'm thinking about nominating it for GA, and this is the first article I've really written. All feedback/constructive criticism is welcome.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare the article for a GAN but have never taken an article through that process before. Also, I believe that the article could benefit from being reviewed by someone with more legal expertise than myself.

Thank you, ebbillings (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


2018 Kentucky Senate Bill 151[edit]

Even though I’ve started this article, I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what people think about what I did so far. One day I would nominate it for GA but as of now I’m focusing on improving the article itself. Thanks, KYschools1 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


West Midlands Serious Crime Squad[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has considerable importance as one of the worst examples of systemic abuse by UK police; I have much expanded it but need some feedback about how to get it to a decent level.

Thanks, Jim Killock (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

This is just my impression from a very quick look. Since this article contains contentious material about living people, it's important that all facts are referenced with a citation at the end of each paragraph. In addition, you need to use ref={{sfnref|publisher|date}} with some of your citations (those with no author) in order to make the sfn template link properly (see my article Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz for examples).

The lede needs to be edited to fit MOS:LEDE (no more than four paragraphs). Some of the sections are quite short; consider adding information or merging sections. (Sometimes it is suitable to have a paragraph on each subtopic, rather than different sub-sub sections.) I suggest that you split off the lists into a different article, perhaps List of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad cases. Catrìona (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Catrìona, I have made most of those changes including moving the lists to a new page, shortening the lede and merging sections and adding information. I will do the citations later, this is simple enough. If anyone has further feedback I would be very grateful. Jim Killock (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I have done what I can here. All the references seem to be working on this page. I have further merged sections and removed subheadings. Does anyone else have feedback? Jim Killock (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@JimKillock: Sorry that no one has replied to this PR for awhile. I would just go ahead and nominate for Good article nominations, where there are more reviewers. You might also consider requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors. buidhe 08:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


Lists[edit]

List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis[edit]

How can I improve this article for FAC?

Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Harrias talk
  • Look at other Featured lists of the same sort and replicate their table format. List of international cricket centuries by Ross Taylor is a relatively recent example. Making the table sortable and accessible is a good first step.
  • Then the lead needs tidying up. Language such as "was came earlier than" is not of Featured quality. It needs to flow as prose, and reflect the key information from the table.
  • The article should be supported by references from multiple reliable sources. While ESPNcricinfo is a great source, it would need other sources too. Harrias talk 11:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to seek improvements to this page.

  • Details are being copied from San Francisco Municipal Railway.
  • Most of the content (with exception to the links to the route maps and schedules) can easily be moved to the parent article (San Francisco Municipal Railway). Would a merge be a good option? It will allow only 1 page to be maintained instead of 2.
  • Removing Garage Column (bus goes different yards, so it changes rapidly) and Removing Links column (time machine does not help as it bring outdated info in) should be replaced with small history info column for reach bus/train line (cited with sources).

Thanks, Colton Meltzer (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Black Clover (season 1)[edit]

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

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

Just made a brief check up so I would recommend:
  • Wikilink stuff in the lead.
  • The section of the lead exploring the plot could be tone down a bit using only the premise of Asta's journey.
  • Explain what are some names: What is a Wizard King? This is important for casual readers.
  • Some of the latter episodes are quite long? Does too much stuff happen?

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


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

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

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

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

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


Arjun filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate this article for Featured list in the upcoming days. I'm new to wikipedia and this is my first list/article and I hope to improve my writing and editing skills to contribute to the community

Thank You, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
  • Spicyonion is not a WP:RS. Please replace with anything else.
  • Do not use rowspans. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider changing the title from Arjun to Arjun Sarja. Add reference for debut movie. Key indicates yellow background for unreleased movies. Can you change the background color in the table as well. Add reference to his song list as well. Kalyan (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Basshunter discography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 6 December 2018, 14:22 UTC
Last edit: 1 February 2019, 20:10 UTC


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]