Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Pr)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
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. 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 such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects.

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.


Species (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, as it stands, it's fairly substantive and I personal am a fan of this movie (my guilty pleasure, I must say). Since it has already been promoted to GA, I would now like to bring it first to the A-class and then FA. To do so, I need help from the experts (horror buffs and non-horror buffs alike) to provide me notes in order to attain comprehensiveness criteria, ranging from Themes to Reception. I have access to audio commentaries for this movie so I might be able to do something with the artice; meanwhile, this PR is open for anybody who is interested in helping me.

Thanks, Slightlymad 08:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nadodi Mannan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to take it to FA. In doing so it would be my second solo attempt at it. Constructive comments are most welcome. Thanks,  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • "..action adventure film, co-produced and directed by M. G. Ramachandran."
  • Try loosing few names of the cast from the opening para in lead.
  • Future king?
  • "..after he is abducted". It can be written as 'after getting abducted'.
  • Comma missing at some instances in the third para of lead.
  • I think the re-release bit suits in the legacy section.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Yashthepunisher. Do let me know if there is anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

I may have various comments, but I'd like to see the article add more info from this MGR biography, of which I got quite a few pages. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is as you say, a piece of gem, Kailash29792. I'll get around to it on the 11th January if that's alright as I'll be quite busy due to family matters for a few days.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I've added info from Kannan's books. Do have a look at it now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll give a good readthrough today, and post comments tomorrow. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, here are some comments for a start:

  • The writer field shouldn't have the dialogue writer listed. A good explanation behind this is given here.
  • Mention the film being MGR's directorial debut in the lead.
  • The infobox sources the film's release date, which is already sourced under "Release". Since the infobox is part of the lead section, you may want to comply with WP:LEADCITE.
  • You must mention how the film was a turning point in his later political career.
  • Don't you think there is some inconsistency here? Principal photography took place from 1956 to 1958 over a period of 156 days Because a year has only 365 days. Please re-read the source and edit.
  • Balakrishnan composed the songs - introduce him by his full name.
  • Please try expanding the critical reception section.
  • The "cancelled sequel" section is too small, so you could merge it with legacy.
  • Page 107 of MGR: A Life mentions Dina Thanthi calling the film "Komali Mannan". See where that can fit here.

More to follow soon... --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Kailash29792, Kantha mentions it like this: "Nadodi Mannan (The Vagabond King) was MGR’s grand project of 1956-57, and it was released on August 22, 1958." This indicates that principal photography occurred from 1956 to 1957. This line "Usually 40-50 days of shooting are adequate for a movie. But, for ‘Nadodi Mannan’, it took 156 days" indicates that a period of 156 days (possibly with intervals/break from shooting) was taken to make the film.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll expand the "critical reception" section soon. The rest of your comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Occult Classic[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Occult Classic is the largest page i've created and I want to know how to improve it.

Thanks, Micro (Talk) 06:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from dnllnd[edit]

Hey! Congratulations on creating your first longer form page. Here are a few general comments about the structure and style of the page:

  • The citations in the lead can be dialed back since there isn't anything present that's likely to be challenged. MOS:LEADCITE is a good reference for drafting a page intro.
  • Thoughtful and contextually driven quotations are a good addition to any article, but the number and extent of those included in the Background and composition section veer into quote farm territory. Paraphrasing what you've included into shorter digestible sentences will pull the page inline with the spirit of an encyclopedia and make it easier for people to scan. MOS:QUOTE includes suggestions about how and when to use quotations. In this case, it makes sense to include commentary about the album's development, but they would have a greater impact if used more judiciously.
  • Reception and release section: Make sure to include links to relevant Wikipedia pages to help explain who people and sites you reference are - not all readers are going to be familiar with the genre of music and related figures. For example, what is Who is Michael Sundius? What is Dancing Astronaut? If there aren't relevant pages to link to, include a brief note explaining who or what the are.
  • Alt Classic subheading: Italicize heading.
  • Generally the page would benefit from having more of a narrative flow. Right now much of the information is included as standalone nuggets rather than points that naturally follow each other. Cutting back on the use of quotes might help on this front. You may also want to consider comparing and contrasting reaction to the album as a way of weaving things together. It may also be useful to find a few pages that are more developed for other albums you like that can be used as guides.
  • Consider centralizing references you've used multiple times by naming them so that it's readily obvious to readers how many references come from each source. It can be done using the Cite menu in either the RefToolbar or the Visual Editor.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock

Article (edit | visual edit | 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 December 2017, 18:35 UTC
Last edit: 16 January 2018, 20:38 UTC

The Room (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed GA review and I hope to get this article to FAC status. It has been getting increasingly more views this last year because of The Disaster Artist film coming out in December and I think it is a bizarrely interesting topic.

Thanks, Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I archived all references using archive box but there are still some issues that might bother reviewers:

  • Avoid references and quotes in the lead per the manual of style. Focus on generalizatons in the lead as it is meant to introduce readers to the article rather than pinpoint certain facts.
  • Avoid small paragraphs.
  • The video game appears to be fanmade so I suggest removing it unless it is notable. Same with music.
  • "In popular culture" might be the trickiest section. While there are many people who know of the Nostalgia Critic, general readers might not care about the reviews, among others. Unless any of these mentions are notable I might advise you to remove them.

That's all I see. If you have free time could you check my peer review? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Beatriz Romilly[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because whilst I have listed the subject's career and a brief overview, I feel it might require some further input from editors more experienced in writing articles about actors.

Thanks, Osarius - Want a chat? 11:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

First, the strong points. The article's well structured and "well-cited", in the sense of having a decent number of citations. The absence of a photo is a pity. But the key problem's already been identified in the tag - there are nowhere near enough reliable secondary sources used to indicate that Ms Romilly warrants an article. To elaborate:

  • Source 1 is her own, self-published cv;
  • Sources 2 and 3 are commercial, promotional, casting websites;

I really don't think these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources.

  • Source 5 is the Globe advertisement for the show and does nothing but list Ms Romilly as a cast member;
  • Which leaves Source 4, the Guardian review. This describes Ms Romilly's performance as "feisty" and "peppery". It's exactly what you need, but it is the only cite, amongst about 57, that, I would suggest, meets the criteria for reliability and notability.

In a nutshell, there's not nearly enough to justify an article on the grounds of notability. If you can find more like Source 4, then throw them in. But a quick Google search suggests that will be a struggle. In which case, I just don't think the article is warranted. Can I ask why you think that it is? KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from dnllnd[edit]

I agree with @KJP1:. The page lacks reliable secondary sources, relying too heavily on Romilly's CV and third-party aggregate sites. The page would benefit from better sources and, if possible, more biographical information. Possible areas of interest that would align with biographies of living persons guidelines might be family history, upbringing or training. I did a quick Google search and didn't hit on anything promising, but I wonder if there may be more substantive coverage in Spanish media that could be used in keeping with WP:NOENG?--Dnllnd (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyday life[edit]

Eliza Acton

Article (edit | visual edit | 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: 18 January 2018, 17:57 UTC
Last edit: 21 January 2018, 17:44 UTC

Pavel Bure[edit]

Previous peer review

It was reviewed years ago, and sent to FAC, which it didn't pass. I recently cleaned up the article, removing over 2000 excess words, and then having it sent through WP:COPYEDITORS, with the hopes of sending to FAC in the near future. But before then I'd like one more review if possible.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | 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: 5 December 2017, 22:16 UTC
Last edit: 20 January 2018, 13:05 UTC

Engineering and technology[edit]

DNS Certification Authority Authorization[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to nominate it for GA. I'm very familiar with content policies in an administrative context, but I'm unexperienced in actually writing content, and this is something I'm trying to work on. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Essential Phone[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want advice before nominating for a GA.

Thanks, Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


University of Oxford[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's potentially a candidate for WP:FA status. A peer review is a step towards it becoming WP:FAC.

Thanks, Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Aquarium

Article (edit | visual edit | 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 January 2018, 00:55 UTC
Last edit: 7 January 2018, 04:37 UTC

Indian Administrative Service[edit]

Article is a WP:GA nominee, any and all critique is welcome.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

Level Mountain[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe in terms of structure and content, this is very close to the FA standard. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Volcanoguy 21:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because most parts of the article have been exhaustively rewritten and rechecked over the past month and I'm looking to have it re-listed as FA.

Thanks, Horserice (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


Nicholas Exton

Article (edit | visual edit | 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: 8 January 2018, 13:07 UTC
Last edit: 15 January 2018, 11:16 UTC

Presidency of George Washington

Article (edit | visual edit | 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: 7 January 2018, 23:48 UTC
Last edit: 20 January 2018, 22:33 UTC

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to upgrade it to at least a "good article", maybe even a "featured article". The last time, nobody bothered to do a review, so I am submitting it again. And I'm going to keep submitting it, again and again and again, until someone has the courtesy to review it. Please, help me out, I would be very grateful.

Thanks, Seiya (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh, bag WP:PR. I'm taking Bengal Famine of 1943 to WP:GA, where they may or may not give the best advice, but at least they will do something.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Seiya: Personally, At the current state of the article, I'd just go ahead and GA nominate it. If you really want, I'll do a review, but I'd recommending GA nominating, then PR nominating, as generally those tend to get more response. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC eventually. I think the prose needs some fine-tuning, and I want to ensure that it's fully comprehensive.

Thanks, ceranthor 21:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891[edit]

Comments are coming soon. Don't be disheartened. Ping me if I forget to comment in the next few days.Eddie891 Talk Work 16:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because it's got arguably the most interesting history among the four newest elements (Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og) and I'd like to get it to FA.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Galobtter[edit]

There seems some over-detail of irrelevant to Nihonium stuff:

The now-confirmed discovery of element 114 was made in June 1999 when the Dubna team repeated the first reaction from 1998. This time, two atoms of flerovium were produced; they alpha decayed with a half-life of 2.6 s, different from the 1998 result. This activity was initially assigned to 288Fl in error, due to the confusion regarding the previous observations that were assumed to come from 289Fl. Further work in December 2002 finally allowed a positive reassignment of the June 1999 atoms to 289Fl. During and after this confirmation of the new element 114, the Dubna–Livermore collaboration sought to bolster its discovery by cross-reactions, producing elements 116 and 118 in 2000 and 2002 respectively to identify known isotopes of element 114 as their daughters and verify the observed decay properties: this was done by retaining the calcium-48 beam and changing the targets to curium-248 and californium-249 respectively.

The whole quote looks like it could be summarized as "The Dubna team produced elements 114, 116, 118" (or thereabouts - may have gotten it a bit wrong, but I think you can get the idea) with no real loss towards the history of the discovery of element 113. The same is true in the early indications section - not tightly or clearly enough related to Nihonium but rather seeming generic history of discovery of synthetic elements. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the early indications section, what I mean is that one has to read the entirety of:

Flerovium was first synthesized in December 1998 by a team of scientists at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, led by Yuri Oganessian, who bombarded a target of plutonium-244 with accelerated nuclei of calcium-48:

+ 48
* → 290
+ 2 1


This reaction had been attempted before, but without success; for this 1998 attempt, the JINR had upgraded all of its equipment to detect and separate the produced atoms better and bombard the target more intensely. A single atom of flerovium, decaying by alpha emission with a lifetime of 30.4 seconds, was detected. The decay energy measured was 9.71 MeV, giving an expected half-life of 2–23 s. This observation was assigned to the isotope flerovium-289 and was published in January 1999. The experiment was later repeated, but an isotope with these decay properties was never found again and hence the exact identity of this activity is unknown. It is possible that it was due to the metastable isomer 289mFl, but because the presence of a whole series of longer-lived isomers in its decay chain would be rather doubtful, the most likely assignment of this chain

Before one has the slightest indication that it's in anyway related to Nihonium - leading with along the lines of A possible first report of a decay chain from an isotope of nihonium was.. would help; so would cutting down on the unneeded details and converting it to say two sentences or so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I've tried to address this concern. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Definitely addressed for the dubna-livermore section; I still have some problems with the early indications section but I'll give some proper feedback later (tomorrow perhaps) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Language and literature[edit]

Sasuke Uchiha

Article (edit | visual edit | 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 December 2017, 20:39 UTC
Last edit: 12 January 2018, 01:20 UTC

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Mohammad Hamid Ansari[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA. I am facing some difficulties in expanding the article primarily because lack of sufficient information for GA standards. This is because, Mr. Ansari was a diplomat and there is hardly any coverage of him. Also though he became the vice president of India, since it is merely a ceremonial post, not much is to add about. So I need some suggestions to improve this article.

Thanks, RRD (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Social sciences and society[edit]

Lèse majesté in Thailand[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a potential good article. I would like to receive general suggestions and suggestions per GA criteria.

Thanks, Horus (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nibiru cataclysm[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has more than doubled in size since it became a good article and I'm pondering if it's ready for FA consideration.

Thanks, Serendipodous 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Loss of MV Darlwyne

Article (edit | visual edit | 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: 5 January 2018, 15:54 UTC
Last edit: 15 January 2018, 19:57 UTC

Phillips Exeter Academy Library[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to prep it for FA nomination.

Thanks, alphalfalfa(talk) 02:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


Kollegah discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to get help. My goal is to get this article promoted to a Featured list.

Thanks, Lee (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Song of the Year[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a featured list.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

List of countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

This article has been improved drastically since April this year to emulate the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. I rolled out the changes a day ago and I believe that this article is potentially suitable for a featured list nomination. The relevant updates have been listed here. If you review the article, feel free to ask me to edit an article of your choice in return. Thank you. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 03:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]