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.



Mosaics of Delos[edit]

After a successful GA nomination, I'm seeking some help in getting this article into tip-top shape for an FA candidacy. If you like history, ancient Greece, or ancient artwork in general, then this just might be the article for you! Step right up! Take a swing at her. I won't mind. :D I think the section on the Houses and city quarters could use some work, perhaps some more additions to beef up the small sub-sections, but I'm not terribly sure about it. The lead section could probably say a few more things, but I'm not sure what else that should be! Perhaps material should even be removed from the article for one reason or another. I don't know! I need some serious feedback, because it is hard for me to critique my own work. You know how it is. Unlike cooking, where too many cooks spoil the broth, I honestly would prefer to have as many decent and competent editors as possible looking over my shoulder and judging if certain material is crap or not. Hehe. So then, do your worst! Or best, I meant best. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it!

Thanks, Pericles of AthensTalk 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Claudio Monteverdi[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because as a level 4 vital article I felt its original state was unacceptable. Monteverdi is one of the true greats of European classical music; anong other claims to fame, he is a key transition figure between music of the Renaissance and of the Baroque, and one of the founders of the opera tradition. User:Brianboulton kindly undertook to join me in undertaking a rewrite. Now we would both like to get the views of other editors - have we got the right balance, have we missed things out, are we within sight of a GA, etc.? All and any constructive opinions would be very welcome.

Thanks, Smerus (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because as an aspiring screenwriter myself, I'm elated to hear from experts on the subject on what else could be added to attain comprehensiveness.

Thanks, Slightlymad (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary notes[edit]

The current article for Screenplay is a start article within the family of articles dealing with Filmmaking and production of films currently maintained on Wikipedia. Most of the articles dealing with filmmaking are at this rudimentary level of development. Filmmaking normally goes through several stages which lead to the distribution of films and profits at the end of the filmmaking stages. Writing a screenplay usually comes within the development stage of filmmaking quite early in the cycle. The Infobox on the filmmaking article linked above may be useful to you.

Within the articles dealing with filmmaking, there is a C-class article on Cinematography which has a level of article development which might be helpful in setting a course for improving the screenplay article. Some aspects of the article there might help to structurally set up an outline for the screenplay article which would at least help to move the article toward C-class. As you likely may know, cinematography comes in the filming phase of filmmaking after the development phase of filmmaking has been completed so the analogy to writing a screenplay has some limits.

Deciding on what form of outline you wish to use for this article for Screenplay in your wanting to improve it might be a first good step. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Part Two: Peer review of article[edit]

The start article here for screenplay uses the following outline:

1 Format and style

1.1 Physical format

2 Screenplay formats

2.1 Feature film

2.1.1 Spec screenplay

2.2 Television

2.3 Documentaries

3 Screenwriting software

4 Script coverage

This does not appear to be nearly as well organized as the article for cinematography which has a fully developed lead section and is at least a C-class article with the following outline:

1 History

1.1 Precursors

1.2 Film cinematography

1.3 Black and white

1.4 Color

1.5 Digital cinematography

2 Aspects

2.1 Cinema technique

2.2 Image sensor and film stock

2.3 Filters

2.4 Lens

2.5 Depth of field and focus

2.6 Aspect ratio and framing

2.7 Lighting

2.8 Camera movement

3 Special effects

3.1 Double exposure

3.2 Frame rate selection

3.3 Other special techniques

4 Personnel

These two outlines are included together since I think it would be useful to include a history section in the Screenplay article before getting into the material that is already there. Then include all the current screenplay material as the section two which would follow the new history section for an enhanced screenplay article. A separate section discussing the importance of the screenplay to all five phases of the filmmaking process might also be useful on a phase-by-phase basis as it is already discussed in the filmmaking article here at Wikipedia. Finally, the importance of storyboards needs to be addressed more adequately as a supplement to conventional screenplays used during production. The current link to the pre-production article at the top of Screenplay is a stub and not useful here. The main article is filmmaking from what I see. The infobox currently used on filmmaking should be included here as well. This peer review is completed for now; space is open below in case anyone wishes to supplement and add comments for the article's possible improvement in the future. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Watching the River Flow[edit]

Hello. This is an article Mick gold and I brought to GA in 2012, and have recently added to and polished. We hope to take this to FA, and would appreciate any and all feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Martha Elizabeth Burchfield Richter[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article I have submitted to Wikipedia. It was written collaboratively with multiple people, and advice on how to improve would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia has a ton of specialized formatting, which I have not been introduced to, so any advice on how to nominate this article for the various options "featured", etc., would also be very helpful.

Thanks, Erikaschoene (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Tracer (Overwatch)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after spending quite some time editing the article, having it go through a GA review and a copyedit, I would like to prep it for a Featured Article candidacy. Any feedback is much appreciated :^)

Thanks, Soulbust (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Soulbust! Going for the four award I suspect?
  • First of all, pictures have no alt text. This is quite a problem, because alt text is used for users unable to read the text and using other means e.g. listening to the article.
  • Second of all, you should really make a "See also" section. It will help interested users continue reading.
  • And lastly, you should probably move the real name part into the lead as it is done with other characters with pseudonyms (Darth Vader, Black Widow (Natasha Romanova), e.g.).

Hope you succeed! Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions on where to start:

  • Reduce overquoting throughout. Almost all of the quotes would be better off paraphrased, which lets you vary your sentence structure more too for FA-quality prose
  • Combine and reduce subsections in the Appearances section (oversectioning)
  • Parts like the character's "real name" and "country of origin" are all fictional, in-universe detail. Needs to be rewritten for out-of-universe tone with almost all of the lore/plot details clearly described as fictional elements, not "real".
  • You'll want to get a few ce passes on this before FAC—quite a few clunky sentences

I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Emotion (Carly Rae Jepsen album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review mainly because I believe Wikipedia is a valuable source of information and initiatives like these help to make it more reliable, and partly because I'd like to have my own editing skills assessed. I've firmly believed that Jepsen's work was especially underrated in pop discourse, but my interest in her heightened as new developments on her album were made regarding Ariel Rechtshaid and Dev Hynes's involvement in it; a beautiful intersection of my music taste. Naturally, I followed every bit of information that trickled out; interview, radio show appearances, reviews, think pieces and op-eds as it developed into the "mindie" lore it is now. I've contributed to this article here and there over the past two years, tripling it in size. Of course, as a fan of this given topic it would be natural for me to develop biases when contributing to it which should be identified and rectified in a timely manner.

Thanks in advance, diplomat’s son 08:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Anna F.[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article a good article, and I would appreciate your feedback on what you think would be good steps for this article to get that status.

Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My Everything (Ariana Grande album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what to do to improve the article to GA status. Any user's comments will be appreciated!

Thanks, LikeGaga (talk) 18:30 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

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: 20 June 2017, 18:24 UTC
Last edit: 23 July 2017, 22:06 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because… of recent improvement of its section and need feedback from other users of its structure and content.

Thanks, Vin09(talk) 10:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks much better now. I happened to read this article some 30 days ago. Abhinav619 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make this a featured article in tribute to Chris Cornell. If I'm going to get it on TFA before the end of 2017, I need to start work now. It's been a GA for seven years; what's next?

Thanks, dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

M. G. Ramachandran filmography

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 June 2017, 10:05 UTC
Last edit: 22 June 2017, 16:30 UTC

Segundo Romance[edit]

This is an article that I've promoted to GA back in 2014 and wasn't sure if it could ever achieve FA, but now I would like the article to be peer review to see if it has a chance becoming a featured article. I'm using both Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album), which are both FA, as references for this article.

Thank you in advance, Erick (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Gujarati cinema[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • The article is already nominated for GA review since January 2017. I want inputs and suggestions from other editors before full GA review starts.

Thanks, Nizil (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Barrio Fino

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: 16 May 2017, 01:32 UTC
Last edit: 24 July 2017, 15:54 UTC

Like a Prayer (song)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article, on one of the most controversial song and video feels like just appropriate for FAC, however there might be few tweaks and prose concerns that I might be overlooking. I would like to have a prose review and copy edit so that it can be taken through FAC. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Update so that it does not get archived. —IB [ Poke ] 09:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Update. —IB [ Poke ] 04:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

I'll kick this off with a media review:

The above shouldn't take long to fix. Might comment on other aspects later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you a lot Snuggums, I had somehow overlooked that you had commented. I will look into the concerns surely. —IB [ Poke ] 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fargo (season 2)[edit]

This article passed its GA nomination almost 10 months ago and not much has changed since. It's very clean and sharp, but I feel falls just short of optimal health. Eventually I would like to take this article for an FA review (only befitting considering how great season 2 was!) and some feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advanced, DAP 💅 20:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll give it a try:
  • Is the Prod Cod. necessary for casual readers?
  • Avoid short paragraphs like the first one from Development and Writing. Either expand it or merge it with the second paragraph (same with ratings)
  • Try to give more flow to the reviews like "X reviewer also" or "On the other hand, X reviewer"
  • Are there sales articles that could expand the home media releases?

Other than it seems well written. If you have the time could you review my own peer review? It's Wikipedia:Peer review/Yu Kanda/archive2. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Jacques Rivette[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of (non-recent) work has gone into it and I believe that it is ready for a GA nomination. All issues raised in the previous nomination have been addressed [1]. A good portion of the article was moved to Themes and style in the works of Jacques Rivette, which admittedly needs a lot of work and expansion and I plan to get around to it this year before I finally retire.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Lena Dunham[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like it's close to becoming a good article, it just needs more feedback.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

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: 29 April 2017, 07:10 UTC
Last edit: 24 May 2017, 20:22 UTC

Lydia Canaan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, classified as B-class, it's been half a year since the article failed GA after having been nominated, and all of the reviewer's recommendations have now been rigorously implemented. Though I did not author this article, I have done an extensive rewrite, and believe that it now meets the standard for Good Article class. In preparation for the article's renomination for GA, I would like to know if there is any way that it can be further improved. Thank you! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiEditorial101 are you sure all the recommendations have been implemented? According to the GA review (Talk:Lydia Canaan/GA1), one concern was the over-use of sources in the lead which is still evident in this latest version. I have written a few music-related GAs so I would be happy to give some suggestions. Usually in leads I wrote I summarize the artist's style, notable recordings, and other work if they are active in different notable ventures. Several quotes are typically frowned upon because, in some cases, it is unique information not written about in the body paragraphs and can be a little WP:Peacocky. I can review the rest when this is addressed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick thank you for the recommendations; I've implemented them (I removed all of the peacocky quotes) as well as implemented the recommendation by the GA reviewer that I'd overlooked. I would certainly appreciate your further review! Thanks again! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
WikiEditorial101 oh dear, I think there may have been some miscommunication. In the infobox, it is actually useful to have sources, for genres for example. The lead is the paragraph(s) before the actual body of the article. I'll read over your improvements because it looks like you are putting a lot of effort into this page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, there has indeed been a misunderstanding, but on your part; I'm aware of what the lead is, which is why I removed the excess citations from it as the other editor suggested. But I also removed the citations from the Infobox, because, if you'll see the WP article on Infoboxes, they aren't actually supposed to be sourced at all, as only information already contained within the article should be in the infobox to begin with; an infobox is meant to be an extremely brief summery of a few major factoids included in the article, it is not intended to host additional content that isn't in the article (thus, infobox citations are both unnecessary and frowned upon). Thanks for all of your advice, I think we're good. I'm going to go ahead and renominate the article for GA. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Flash vs. Arrow[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA, but would like feedback on what I can do to improve this article before nominating it, specifically what content should be added or expanded on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Brojam (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely Maybe[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Oasis' first album seems in nice condition and this was a great album. But because it was such a big hit for a debut album, I want to know if anything needs adjusted or if it needs more research before it becomes a GA. This album is older than me, and I've never had a successful 90's album nomination before, so I wanted to know.

And by the way, I'm sure there are dead links in the article, I have not looked at that yet.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee



  • "...and questioned Morris' mixing choices...": I think "Morris'" should be "his" – it's quite clear that "his" refers to Morris.

Release and reception

  • Who is Neil Strauss? One of the album's reviewers? From which publication?

Cover art

  • The 1st sentence doesn't need the commas ("... was taken, by rock photographer Michael Spencer Jones, in guitarist ...").
  • The 1st sentence needs to be sourced.


  • "In 2006, NME placed the album ...": suggest replacing "placed" with "put" to avoid repetition of "placed".
  • "rank" is repeated 6 times in this section.


  • The 1st paragraph and most of the 2nd paragraph has no sources.


Otherwise I think the article is looking good. I did a little copyediting here. —Bruce1eetalk 10:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Bruce! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Holby City[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after recent contributions made to the article, I would like to nominate it for Featured List. However, before doing this I wanted to receive a peer review. I'm also hoping this has been included in the correct category as there wasn't really one that covered media (television, film etc) except this.

Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


  • Usually, these types of lists include a sentence or two at the beginning of each award ceremony's section saying a little about the ceremony and who it is presented by, as well a sentence about how many awards and nominations someone or something has received. For example: The A awards are presented annually by the B Association and recognise accomplishments in film and television. Holby City has received C awards from D nominations. Done
  • You only need to link articles the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article.  Done
  • Why do you use rowspan for the years column but not the category and nominee column?  Done
  • You only need to link publications and their publishers the first time.  Done
    • Do you mean within references? Soaper1234 (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Dead links need to be replaced.
  • Maybe run something like autoFormatter on the article to fix some minor formatting issues.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit messy in my opinion. I would focus it on specific aspects or crew members of the show that have received the most acclaim.  Done - although this made need re-checking.
  • Overall though, this list looks very good to me! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback Littlecarmen. I will now go through and delink extra links, add a few sentences here and there, go through some formatting issues and edit the lead. In reply to the rowspan, I did previously do that in this version but I looked at other featured lists and they didn't adapt that format so I decided not to either. Thanks again. Soaper1234 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Littlecarmen: I am unsure of what to do regarding the deadlinks as I have searched for alternatives to no success, and I am struggling to understand how to use the autoFormatter. Aside from these comments I have mentioned, I am confident with the article but would like confirmation from yourself before nominating the article for Featured List. Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 15:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I applied the autoFormatter for you. I think you can nominate the list but I think the dead links might be an issue for commenters then as well. It's still worth a try though. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Littlecarmen: Thank you for doing that - I appreciate it. I might try and should it be an issue, I can atleast say I tried. Soaper1234 - talk 15:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Monnow Bridge

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 March 2017, 23:28 UTC
Last edit: 11 April 2017, 13:11 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like feedback about the article's development and direction.

Thanks, Joshuachasegold (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919

  • I support the tagged suggestion of splitting the article. An article about a play and an article about a real person are two very different things, and it is very awkward to have them joined together.
  • The list of scenes should be rewritten to a more conventional plot summary.
  • The section titled "Dulcitius and feminism" doesn't seem to have much to do with feminism. Perhaps it should be re-titled, or is there more material available to expand the discussion?
  • I did some MOS-based copy edits to the punctuation and capitlization.

This is an interesting item and a lot of my article work is on older plays (usually not quite this old!), so I would be happy to help you work on the article beyond peer review if you would like.

  • I agree with previous suggestions that the extent of the biographical info about Hrosvitha's life is unnecessary given the existence of another page about the topic. Beyond that, the page would benefit from a section for a synopsis of the play. While it's useful to have the scenes outlined there isn't any clear summarization of what the play is about or why it is, as noted in the lead, comedic in nature - this explanation is also absent from the Dulcitius as comedy sub-heading. At the same time, it's interesting to know that the play was written in the style of Terence, but if a reader doesn't know anything about that playwright they would have to click into the page for that work to understand the reference. A review of the lead and a consideration of how they align with WP:LEAD guidelines would also help. There is information presented - specifically that Agape, Chionia, and Irena are sisters - that isn't clearly outlined in the remainder of the page. I hope this helps with page revisions moving forward! I have a page submitted for peer review right now, as well, and would appreciate any feedback. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Everyday life[edit]

Stamper brothers[edit]

These guys are industry legends, famously reclusive. Would appreciate any leads on potential sources/refs. czar 05:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I had seen this—it's more about Dave & Bob Thomas, but actually had a few extra facts for other articles once I got to the end czar 05:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Tim (b. c. 1959) meant to be Tim's birth year? Because it is incorrect.
("circa 1959" as in year-of-article minus stated-age-of-Tim czar 05:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC))
Do you have a copy of these two Bloomberg articles? I remember reading them earlier but I can't access them now czar 05:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC),
  • At age 19, Chris was working at Zilec Electronics, British arcade conversion company.
  • Rare was cofounded with Joel Hochberg.
  • Chris built a prototype handheld system that could play NES cartridges and demoed it to Nintendo of America prior to the Game Boy.
And plenty more. Here's a scan:

--The1337gamer (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Kent is not always reliable. For instance, Joel Hochberg was not a co-founder of Rare, but rather of Rare Coin-It, a subsidiary company established to help the Stampers expand internationally. Indrian (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Incorporated all of the above (as much as applied to the Stampers—some was more company history) If you happen to have any more, do send it along czar 05:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Engineering and technology[edit]

Supermarine Spitfire[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a very significant topic about WW2 and it would be great to make this into an A-class article.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not really that good at reviewing other articles, but I think if you'd like to get this to FA or A-class, the first thing you should do is fix the citation needed tags. Also like you said at my Tracer peer review request, make sure there are alt text for the images. I'm not sure if there's any other things you should tweak, it looks all good aside from those minor issues.
Good luck with the article! Best wishes Soulbust (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Micro Devices[edit]

I have recently re-organized and cleaned up the article significantly. I would appreciate a review to find out how the article can be further improved. Eventually I would like it to get to GA status.

Thanks, Dbsseven (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Dolphin (emulator)

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: 3 July 2017, 00:52 UTC
Last edit: 25 July 2017, 11:43 UTC

Motor constants[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to be of low quality and contains original research... some things (like the kv - kt calcs) seem to be outright wrong.

Thanks, Leav (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Suddenlink Communications[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

1.) I'm interested to see if any improvements can be made the article previously sounded like an advertisement.
2.) To see what rating it would get on the assessment scale by an outside source or if it would be good enough for a GA nomination.

Thanks, ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Spitzer Space Telescope[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the is involved in the discovery of TRAPPIST-1, which has been on news and received a crazy amount of visits in February. I believe that this article is quite important and I need your feedback to promote this article to Good or even featured. I need feedback on improving the article based on GA criterion.

Thanks, FriyMan talk 07:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Smurrayinchester[edit]

  • "Unlike most telescopes that are named after famous deceased astronomers by a board of scientists, the new name for SIRTF was obtained from a contest open to the general public." - it's not clear to me what this means. Spitzer was deceased at the time of launch - I assume the difference is that it was named by the public. I'd reword this a bit.
  • I think there's too much info about Spitzer in the lead. I'd move it to later in the article.
  • I've given it a copyedit, but it still has some clunky sentences. "Additionally, the atmosphere is opaque at most infrared wavelengths. This necessitates lengthy exposure times and greatly decreases the ability to detect faint objects. It could be compared to trying to observe the stars at noon." is a good comparison, but it could be made smoother.
  • The Instruments section probably needs links - eg, to indium antimonide and spectrometer.
  • The Results section is quite "bitty". Minor discoveries could be lumped together, and the subsections should be consistent (there's nothing until "GLIMPSE and MIPSGAL surveys", which are program names, then there's "2010s", which is a decade, then "Spitzer Beyond", another program name, and then "Planet hunter", a generic description).
  • Images need alt text.

Smurrayinchester 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

  • Try to get as much information for citations as possible, including an access date when you verified the information was there.
  • Each paragraph should have at least a citation in it. It will not get past GA without it.


Voxman Music Building[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because.

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheWarOfArt you haven't provided a reason. The article does however seem well written and well sourced, so I'm not sure what I can add. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:KJP1[edit]

  • I think buildings/structures articles are much improved by a photograph.
  • In the absence of a photograph, or indeed with one, a building article really needs a description of the building itself. This article doesn't have one. Looking at images of the building online, it is certainly striking, and a description should be relatively easy to craft. This should include reference to architectural style, etc.
  • Something on the building's reception would be useful. Do architectural critics / its users (teachers/students/performers) like it or loathe it?
  • The lede is very short and will need expansion if your intention is GA.
  • Is an "academic building" a specific type? I know what you mean, but I'm not sure the "academic" isn't academic.
  • "located on the bank of the Iowa River" - does the Iowa River only have one bank? The left or the right?
  • "a new location for the new music building" - two "new"s in one sentence. An "alternative location"...?
  • "formally announced" - had it previously been announced "informally"? Suggest "announced" is sufficient.
  • "officially opened" - did it have a soft opening first? Suggest "opened" is sufficient.
Performing spaces[edit]
  • "700-seat concert Hall, a 200-seat recital Hall and a 75-seat organ Hall" - in each case, I don't think the capitalisation of "Hall" is necessary.
  • Link 6 appears to be dead.

Hope the above comments are of some use. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas C. Rowley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This is one of my first articles and am looking for any peer feedback. Thanks, BME917 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:KJP1[edit]

A few thoughts on what I think are the article's major issues:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - It isn't a Neutral article, reading much more as a publicity piece than a balanced appraisal of the subject's importance and career. A quick google search, [2] suggests a more balanced view of the subject's career could be written.
  • Citations - Many are not independent sources. Nearly half, including the first three, come from websites directly linked to the subject of the article. This includes the very first, which asserts the subject's notability. You really can't use the subject's own website as the source for the claim that he is "one of the most successful attorneys in United States history."
  • Photograph - I see you are the author of the photograph of the subject. This may suggest a personal connection, although it may not. If there is a personal connection between yourself and the subject, you should be clear about this to avoid any suggestion of a COI.
  • Use of subject's first name - to refer to the subject as "Nick" throughout the article comes across as informal and unencyclopedic, and again suggests a closeness between the subject and the author of the article.
  • Incorrect formatting - Four of the citations, 1, 9,10 and 15 are incorrectly formatted.
  • Citation 16 - This leads to a defunct website.
  • Broad Coverage - The bulk of the article comprises, in effect, two lists - his accolades and his notable cases. Where was he born, where educated, where does he live, does he have family, etc. etc.?
  • Prose - "awarded his family with a verdict of $40,000,000.00." I'm not a lawyer, but does a jury award with a verdict? And is $40M a verdict? Isn't the verdict the decision, i.e. the liability or otherwise of the company being sued, and the degree of liability; and the $40M the award?
Hope these comments are helpful. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Land Forces[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The listing of corps, divisions, and brigades is almost completely unsourced. That will need to be much better.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • For a successful GA nomination, you will need to modify commentary such as this (adding attribution): "The information below is unconfirmed and may be out of date; it seems likely now that the Training and Doctrine Command controls all the artillery and infantry training brigades."
  • I suggest adding a short paragraph or two to the Equipment and Insignia sections, which summarise the main articles
  • the bare urls should be formatted with author, title, publisher and access dates
  • the "page needed", "dead link" and "unreliable source" tags will need to be dealt with
  • every paragraph should end in a citation
  • suggest moving "Note a" out of the body of the article to the Notes section just above the References (currently empty)

Comments: I've browsed over the article and see a couple major structural issues that need to be tackledXavierGreen (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • In regards to the History section, details regarding Post-Cold War operations are noticably lacking, for example absent are mention of the several Turkish Interventions into Iraq attacking Kurdish forces there and most importantly, entirely missing is the [Turkish campaign in Northern Syria.](
  • The entire force structure section is reliant on a single source that is marked as potentially unreliable. I imagine there must be some source out there that gives a general order of battle on the brigade or regimental level
The only recent authoritative source, though dated 2004-05, appears to be Chapter 5, 'Turkish Armed Forces' in Umit Cizre (ed.), 'Democratic Oversight and Reform of the Security Sector in Turkey,' LIT/DCAF 2008, ISBN 978-3-0858-0969-0. This is written by a long-time Turkish defence journalist. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Euphoria Festival[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have followed the advice of the last reviewer, added new information and sources, and I'm looking to see what else needs to be done to make it eligible for publishing.

Thanks, EuphoriaMarketing (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)EuphoriaMarketing

My main concern with this is each yearly event simply lists the acts, but contains hardly any information. Plus, each section has acts that have not been listed, so it's not fully comprehensive. I'd suggest doing away with the lists completely and turning into prose, so each section does not look so bare. Then perhaps discuss the acts that appeared in more detail if possible. Aiken D 12:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ben Ricciardi[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new page.

Thank you, MarkDaddy (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Newcastle Interchange railway station[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to fetch opinions on this article I wrote; feedback from a third party on what can be improved, mistakes I've made, ect.

Thanks, Philip Terry Graham 17:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review once before and it was closed to soon. When I nominated it for FA, I came to understand that much more improvments needed to be done first.

Stuff that needs to be improved are some of the short production subsections, they need to contain more information, another thing is the unreadable sea-of-blue links in both the Cast and characters and Awards and accolades section. So I just need someone to review the article and tell me what other changes should be made for this to finally be a Featured article. Thanks, AffeL (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

2014 Champions Professional Indoor Football League season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am doing this on behalf of a newly registered user, who has recently created the page as part of an effort to edit pages related to his homestate of Iowa.

Thanks, Jd02022092 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Datone Jones

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: 16 June 2017, 20:48 UTC
Last edit: 19 June 2017, 23:46 UTC

Tim Mohin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new Living Person page for a CEO that contains biographical information.

Thanks, Tatter Software (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

ShanghaiTech University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should be re-evaluated from stub to a higher rating. Also I'd like to receive comments on how I can improve the article. I have a COI (I am a Professor at ShanghaiTech)...

Thanks, Blaklumm (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've re-assessed the article to class C. It will need better referencing to be upgraded further. Thanks for improving the article! -Zanhe (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Didsbury Campus

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: 30 June 2017, 21:02 UTC
Last edit: 1 July 2017, 10:22 UTC

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to GA soon, but given the size of the game, I want to make sure I've covered all the main points. Sections like development may need some expanding, and any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A few quick thoughts:

  • Breadth looks adequate to me, but I'm not familiar with the sources
  • Anything to say on its legacy? How it affected other games, the genre, the medium? Its records for concurrent players, etc.
  • Gameplay has a lot of jargon to be explained and/or rewritten for a general audience
  • Reception section is clunky with "A of B said X" format (recommend Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections)

I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 19:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

A59 road[edit]

I chose to develop this article during April, giving it an overhaul and adding considerable content. I do find now that it would benefit, in it's current state, from the feedback of others. Whilst someone with knowledge in roads/transport would be desirable, that isn't essential, with the aim to list it for GA once it's in a state that could be considered thorough.

Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 17:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Willimantic, Connecticut[edit]

I want to see the changes needed in the article to get it to GA status. — JJBers 16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! Give it a go, this article is well sourced and written --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a second opinion before nominating this article for GA status.

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that you've got a few unsourced paragraphs, particularly in the Architecture, Music and nightlife, Media, Sports and recreation, and Greenest City sections. SounderBruce 19:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Elcor, Minnesota[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have edited this article as much as possible. It is well-sourced, but occasionally I've added an additional source if it provides relevance to the article (which can be tough if you're writing about a ghost town). I know there is some "fluff" which could be re-worded or perhaps eliminated, but I think its beyond a "C" article at this point.

Thanks, DrGregMN (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Further comments

A fascinating, well-written and engaging article. I suggest you try state for good article status and even featured article status in the future. Really interesting. Great use of images, very easy to read. One suggestion is that there are sometimes a few too many sources. I would suggest trimming citations down to (at most) 1-2 per sentence, rather than the mammoth 3-5 as currently. Other than that, I suggest give it a shot. Sorry for your long wait, DrGregMN --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the author strays just a bit from Wiki's encyclopedic tone but it certainly gives the article some zest and makes it more interesting to read; e.g., the stubborn smokestack. Overkill on the citations agreed.--Eagledj (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


Emily Davison

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: 20 July 2017, 04:28 UTC
Last edit: 25 July 2017, 11:07 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article going for a "Good article" status. I am looking for people to review it for, like, discovering errors like grammar mistakes.

Thanks, LeGabrie (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Murshid Quli Khan[edit]

Previous peer review

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

Thanks, RRD দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Gongsun Hong[edit]

Article uses sources currently available to me (I could possibly add a background section, but non-specific research would be a project in itself) and has been incorporated into the Confucianism and Legalism templates, but has no rating or incorporation into WikiProjects yet.FourLights (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I decided to be bold and fixed some of the parts that I thought were problematic, hope you don't mind. The "Discourse" title is not conventional, I was tempted to change it to something like "Political beliefs" to re-organize it after "Career", but I will leave it to your discretion. Many of your writing are incompatible with the style manual, I hope you can review the guidelines if you haven't had the chance to do so. Great work with the article overall, thank you! Alex ShihTalk 21:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

History of money[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as I believe that there are multiple problems both with structure and with content, especially with the quality of the references. See here for details. I would appreciate opinions on whether it's a good idea to adopt a chronological order and suggestions of good overview sources dealing with the subject.

Thanks, Alæxis¿question? 21:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Lucius Neratius Marcellus[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because while I'm confident that I've included practically everything known about this personage, I'm concerned that I may have lapsed at times into either jargon or expecting the kind of person who uses Wikipedia to understand what I'm talking about. I may have also left out details about Marcellus' life that the average Wikipedia reader would expect to find; while there may not be any facts to base an answer on, sometimes it is important to indicate to the reader "nothing is yet known about that". I'm hoping feedback I get here will help me in writing/improving other articles about lesser-known Romans. Thanks -- llywrch (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again! Figure I should return the favor after your review of Drusus Julius Caesar. Some things I noticed:
  • Thanks for the comments. Some responses inline. (All by me, llywrch (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC))
  • There's no image for him, but you could include images of Roman Britain, or of the Dacian Wars which he contributed in.
    • I'll look for some. I thought about adding an image of the inscription referenced, but I could not find a PD/CW-Free one. (When it comes to providing images for articles, that is my weakest point.)
  • While the article is broad and covers all known aspects of his career, this is not reflected in the article's lead. It is a short article, but I feel like there is just enough to justify a couple extra sentences in the lead explaining why he might be considered noteworthy (his consulship, relations, and role in the war).
    • Er, Marcellus wasn't involved in any war, far as I know. Yes, he had to handle some unrest in Britain & reorganize their defenses, but those were more on the line of "dealing forcefully with brigands", not an actual war with units of cohort size or larger & pitched battles.
  • "We lose track of the consular after that. Since he was obviously elderly by this point, it would likely that he died soon after." This is true, but using words like obviously without a citation might come off as un-encyclopedic. The sentence before that begins with "Our next evidence..", which could be changed to "Further evidence..", again, to maintain an encyclopedic tone.
    • Good point. My initial intent was to find a way to tie off the biography, assure the reader that yes, Marcellus eventually did die. A bit further reading alerted me to some speculation about Marcellus being forced to commit suicide -- although at least one other scholar thinks the primary source that states the fact is referring to another person with the cognomen of Marcellus. Anyway, I fixed that bit up.
  • The Family section might be better merged with the Early life section as both deal with relations, but this is a matter of taste. Also might want to consider referencing the Family section.
    • Yikes! Fixed that, & in a few other articles. I'm amazed I missed that, since I'm always grumbling about articles that confidently claim relationships between people, when the experts either see no such connection, or admit the relationship is inferred or speculative.
  • At the French wiki (L. Neratius Marcellus) there's an image of a family tree that you could use in the article here. I am familiar with the family tree template and would be happy to draw one up.
    • I'm a bit wary about the information in the family tree on the French Wiki: it introduces a few people about whom I have no idea where they came from. Having been dealing with the mess left by some incompetent/fantasizing contributors (one of whom was banned years ago, but his mess still remains), I'm leery of using content from other Wikipedias unless I verify where the information came from first. But I do want to take you up on that offer: there are at least 5 more members of the gens Neratii deserving articles, & at least one family aligned with them: unless one is willing to dig through the technical literature, these relationships are not always visible. And some of them are purely hypothetical.
You did a good job explaining the Latin terminology regarding the posts he held, and although not every aspect of his life is covered, the article covers everything we do know (I went to other wikis, did a google search, and couldn't find anything omitted). Overall, you did a fine job bringing together information on a relatively obscure figure. SpartaN (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Gaius Caesar[edit]

I'm looking to have the article promoted to Good Article status, and am looking for areas in need of improvement. I've been working on the articles of lesser-known members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and Gaius played an important role in the early succession scheme of Augustus. I will be able to respond any day but Fridays. SpartaN (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Martha Hughes Cannon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to go over grammar, consistency, neutral tone, and correct information

Thanks, Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


The article deals with a post-WW2 lobby group formed in West Germany by former Waffen-SS members. The topic is multi-faceted, dealing with the post-war integration of veterans into society, politics, historical revisionism and the impact of the organisation on the contemporary popular culture. I'm looking for feedback that could help bring the article to a successful FA nomination in the future.

Thank you, K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to identify any areas of improvement needed with a view to eventually working towards Good Article status.

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice article. A number of common terms such as conservative, do not need to be wikilinked.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The subject is very much a surprise to me, especially as I was reasonably attentive to the events of the 2016 election & this is the first I heard of this assassination attempt! While the numerous sources cited do enable this article to pass the Notability standard, IMHO it still feels to be a subject that does not merit the title, especially when compared to the equally unsuccessful actions of, say, Squeaky Fromme. Then again, if there are other attempts to assassinate Trump, the article title would then be used to collect all of those events under one rubric, as was done with Assassination threats against Barack Obama, none of which I was aware of. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to expand the BBC section a bit more? It's quite small, and if it has more coverage it definitely warrants more than two sentences. Nice article though. Jdcomix (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Edict of Torda[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be chequed before its GAN. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tom (LT)

@Borsoka. This is a really interesting and well-written article, very well sourced. I don't have major concerns about neutrality. The background sections I find very long (this may just be me) and maybe could be truncated using WP:HATNOTEs for ease of reading. Also I note the citation needed and self-published tags in the final paragraph. I encourage you to address those citation-related issues and then directly nominate. It's overall a very good article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Borsoka. Thank you for your review. You are obviously right. The "Background" section was very long, so I shortened it. For the time being, the using of hatnotes would be difficult, because at least two new articles should be created (one about the disintegration of the Kingdom of Hungary, and one about the Reformation in Hungary). Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign

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: 1 May 2017, 10:05 UTC
Last edit: 19 June 2017, 15:46 UTC

Murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It has been new and unreviewed for a while now. Thanks, TheBD2000 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I read the article and no problems with grammar, prose, or referencing, but couldn't help but notice: what actually happened during the shooting? In events, you have: "On February 2, 2013 Kyle, along with Chad Littlefield, took Routh to the shooting range." And then what? Presumably, Routh shot them both to death, but the entire reason for the article seems to be omitted here.

For the Trial section, maybe give more information on the trial itself (multiple hearings, outcome, whether or not it's still ongoing). I see he was given life imprisonment in the infobox, but can that be included in the trail section itself?

Information in the perpetrator section is good. Overall, the article just needs to be fluffed out more. I'd check the Death section of Chris Kylie's article for more on the trial. SpartaN (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Arab Agricultural Revolution[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because to my surprise this quiet, well-cited article has met with out-of-hand rejection at GAN. Having considered what is needed I've found nothing I wish to alter, but would welcome the independent thoughts of other editors.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:Anotheronewiki[edit]

This is my first peer review, so bear with me. Also, I'm not an expert, so I might have missed some problems, or some of what I point out may not be problematic. Here goes.

  • The first sentence in the lead section seems a little unwieldy. It might be a good idea to split it into two or three sentences, or to rearrange it so that the meaning of "Arab Agricultural Revolution" comes before the info on who coined the term.
  • It's best to have the lead section act as an overview of the article as a whole. Try rewording some of the lead so it's broad enough that you need no (or fewer) citations (as long as the info is restated in the body of the article, with citations there).
Moved the list of alternative names out of lead, with their citations.
  • I don't think it's necessary to name specific scholars who disagreed with the idea in the lead. Perhaps you could simply note that some scholars disagreed in the lead, so people can go down and read the "Reception" section if that's what they're interested in.
Watson's paper[edit]
  • The first paragraph is really good. I see no blatant issues with it.
  • Three of the four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Watson." I think it would be OK to refer to him as "he" a couple of times, since he's the only individual mentioned in the section.
  • For conciseness, I think you could reword the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the 2nd paragraph to read "according to Watson, had not previously grown these plants; he listed eighteen such crops."
  • The first sentence doesn't sound quite right. Maybe "Watson's work was met with some early scepticism, for example from the historian Jeremy Johns in 1984" could be reworded as "Watson's work was initially met with some scepticism from historians including Jeremy Johns in 1984" or something like that. When you say the skepticism was early, it sounds like the skepticism came before the paper was published.
  • The following sentence, in the 3rd paragraph in the reception section, feels a little too complicated: "In the case of cotton, which the Romans grew mainly in Egypt, cultivation remained minor in the classical Islamic period, the major fibre being flax, as in Roman times." There are so many dependent clauses that it takes a couple of reads to understand the sentence. I'd recommend either splitting it into 2 sentences or rewording it to combine clauses.
  • The rest of the reception section looks pretty good. I can't see anything wrong with it.

Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-researched article. I learned quite a bit from it, and I think that with a few minor changes, it'll have no trouble passing GA Assessment. Good luck! -Anotheronewiki (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Very many thanks for taking the time. I'll see what I can do to incorporate your suggestions and will post details here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Herbert von Dirksen[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… As the last diplomat posted in the UK before WWII it seems that this person has got very little written about them here on Wikipedia. However, there are an abundance of sources on the article’s subject so this could be turned into a fantastic article. Shamefully, I simply do not have the time to do any more than I have done so far with it so would like to get some history wigs working on it. Cheers.

Thanks, ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 11:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Russian military deception[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article to be thorough and well-sourced on a significant and coherent topic, but it appears to arouse passions among some readers. Since it was reviewed in 2015 I have revised it for tone and selected a more neutral title than the one popular in the West. Encouragingly, the text has barely changed since May 2016. I would be interested to know what other editors now think of it, with a view to taking it to GAN when ready.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, Chiswick Chap, nice work with this article. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations (I mainly looked at the citations):AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "Glantz 2006" appears in the citations, but there doesn't appear to be a corresponding entry in the Sources section
  • "Glantz, p. 3" --> which year?
  • "stated that "Surprise has a stunning effect on the...": you can probably silently decapitalise "Surprise" here
  • same as above here: "claimed early in November that "The Russians no..." (for "The")
  • "Khitrost' means a commander's...": is the extra apostrophe needed here?
  • same as above for: "vnezapnost', so the two are naturally..."
  • there are a few short citations that don't link properly to long citations (for example, "Alʹbat︠s︡ & Fitzpatrick 1994"). This script can help highlight these for you: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js (if you install it in your monobook, such as I have here: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js)
Thanks, and fixed.
  • there is some mixture of US and British English variation. For example: "armor" and "armour"
  • there are some overlinked terms: David Glantz and Ivan Konev
  • Citations 72 to 80 should have accessdates added to them
  • "The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote that...": it should possibly be attributed in text that this is being cited by Glantz?
  • Also, the above quote seems to end in a quote mark, but not begin with one
  • Good luck with taking the article further
Many thanks, I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from S Khemadhammo[edit]

Great article! I didn't know that the Russians studied Sun Tsu as well. Although I have little knowledge about the subject, I think I can give a few humble comments on the subject, from an outsider's perspective:

  • "surprise was achieved despite very large concentrations of force, both in attack and in defence." This sentence took me a moment to understand. Though the meaning is clear, its structure feels a little unusual. Perhaps using more verbs and less nouns will solve it.
Can't think of a clearer and more compact phrasing: maybe one will come to me.
  • "Civilians within 25 kilometres of the front were evacuated..." No spacing between reference and sentence.
  • some numbers such as 20 can be written as words instead per WP:MOS.
Have tried to use words for small numbers and digits for large ones.
  • The concluding sentence "Regular Russian troops were...implausible." has too many references and some should be deleted or merged per WP:CITEKILL.
  • If at all possible, considering the nature of the subject, one could consider adding more from a Russian perspective, therefore increasing neutrality, though the nature of the subject makes this rather difficult.
Indeed. However, the Moscow Times is in there.

I hope this helps.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, just entering GAN but will try to action your suggestions now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, good luck with it! Meanwhile, may I ask you to take a look at an article i just submitted for peer review? It's here. Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you. I'll see if I can say anything on your article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school system[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone extensive revision over the past several months to improve overall content and presentation of information. The topic is of significance importance and I believe it is a candidate for good article, or possibly, feature article status. Any and all input as a means of achieving either rating would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Dnllnd (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This appears to be a well-researched, comprehensive and attractive article on a very important subject. I think it needs a little more clarity on the importance of the subject, particularly for readers outside Canada.
I'd like the intro to talk more about the rift between natives and non-natives and to capture what the controversy is. This isn't something everyone always agreed was bad or that everyone knew about (I was about 12 when the last school closed and never heard a word); much of the work lately has been to raise awareness and reconciliation
Comments on writing (generally good!):
I'd avoid : and ;s- "cultural genocide: 'killing the Indian in the child.'" would read better as "cultural genocide, by 'killing the Indian in the child.'"
Should be written in Canadian English- ("centred" rather than "centered" under History header)
Headers lower case: "Religious Involvement" should be lower i
Inconsistent use of "%" and "percent"
Vatican section- "The audience was funded"- say what?
History between 1945 and 1969 appears to be lacking- no developments? Not even proliferation in schools?
References appear to be thorough, a combo of secondary and some primary (the Commission report) where appropriate
"Details of the mistreatment of students were published numerous times throughout the 20th century. Following the government's closure of most of the schools in the 1960s, the work of Indigenous activists and historians led to greater awareness by the public of the damage the schools had caused, as well as to official government and church apologies, and a legal settlement." - Citations? (high priority)
"At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease." - Citation? (low priority)
" It continues to operate today as the Blue Quills First Nations College, a tribal college." - Citation? (low priority)
"In March 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The Foundation was provided with $350 million to fund community-based healing projects addressing the legacy of physical and sexual abuse. In its 2005 budget, the Canadian government committed an additional $40 million to support the work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation." - Citations? (high priority)
Lasting effect section- "collective soul wound." - whose phrase?
"The ADR process was created by the Canadian government without consultation with Indigenous communities or former residential school students. The ADR system also made it the responsibility of the former students to prove that the abuse occurred and was intentional. Many former students found the system difficult to navigate, re-traumatizing, and discriminatory." - why would dispute resolution be re-traumatizing or discriminatory? I realize I'm asking for a lot of detail for a summary, but would a subarticle be appropriate?
Media portrayals section- a header with no text
I'm a bit out of step with what constitutes a FA or GA in history and legal articles today. Ten years ago this would be featured. Today, with a little polishing, I think this would be worthy. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ribbet32: Thanks again for the feedback. I think I've addressed the bulk of what you flagged, but will continue chipping away at things over the next while. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

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: 24 April 2016, 13:07 UTC
Last edit: 17 July 2017, 02:36 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Marine mammal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this to FA. I'd have to say I'm most worried about the In captivity section

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because this article has now passed GA, and improved keeping in mind for a possible FA-hood. It is of level-4 importance, and would be great if could be peer reviewed. Thank you very much in advance. Face-smile.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this. I'm not an expert on birds by any means, so most of my comments will be about prose and organising the article. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The lead seems very short. Ideally, it should summarise the whole of the article; things from the Behaviour (e.g. Breeding) and Relationship with humans sections could be added for a start. Looking at some bird FAs (e.g. Common raven), it seems the lead should probably be three or four paragraphs long.
Expanded it. Referring to White stork, and a few other birds, I did not include the relationship with humans section in the lead, though (white stork contains a cultural section not included in the lead). Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Removed all the countries linked, although kept the other geographical regions such as cities, continents, and other regions. This is because I have seen it in most bird articles (even in common raven). Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, removed. Face-tongue.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The prose generally seems OK (though there are mistakes; "in" is missing after "described" in the first sentence of the first section). I would note that there are a lot of sentences in the passive voice, though I appreciate that it is sometimes appropriate. One example is the very first sentence of the first section.
I think it looks good now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The In art section has repetitive sentences; three start with "mallards" and two with "the mallard".
Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the In children's stories section needs a lot of work. The prose is quite weak ("it is the story of"), and I'm not sure whether the last story mentioned is notable enough to deserve inclusion.
Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as you're aiming for featured status, I would personally recommend a copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors as preparation, but I am not an experienced reviewer, so that may be unnecessary. Overall the article seems very good, and I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to get it promoted fairly soon. I hope this review has been helpful. I might add some more comments later. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@N Oneemuss: Thank you very much for picking it up for a review. Face-smile.svg It has now gotten a copy-editing from the GOCE, and hopefully all the issues so far have been resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems

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: 28 June 2017, 18:03 UTC
Last edit: 25 July 2017, 13:03 UTC

Rotating locomotion in living systems[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for a possible attempt at FA. Please note any areas that are likely to be a problem there. Thanks!

Thanks, —swpbT 14:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Soil pH[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently made extensive edits, and think that the article is significantly better. I am looking mainly for comments on the overall structure and possible omissions - I am fairly happy with the details.

Thanks, Alandmanson (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Kyle MoJo (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Great article, I like it a lot.

Here are some comments (sorry, including some details...):

  • You've used the word "alkalinity" as a synonym for high pH in the lead, in the section Soil pH#Sources of alkalinity, and in Soil pH#Determining pH, but this is not correct, or at least is ambiguous. Alkalinity as I know the word describes the acid neutralization capacity, which is a different thing to pH. I would suggest to avoid the word altogether. Maybe just open the lead with "Soil pH is a measure of the acidity of a soil".
  • I think Soil pH#Determining pH would be better closer to the beginning or at the end (depending on how much importance you think it should get). At the moment it sits in the middle of discussion about pH effects and implications, which interrupts the flow a bit.
  • Soil pH#Sources of acidity mentions the low pH of rainwater as a side issue, but I would argue that this point should be turned around, since the carbonic acid in rainwater is the key active player in the leaching processes. In a sense all the acidity of leached soils derives ultimately from this source.
  • Soil pH#Sources of acidity could also include plant roots as CO2 sources, alongside microbial decomposition.
  • In Soil pH#Sources of alkalinity, I'm not sure about the sentence "Weathering of silicate, aluminosilicate and carbonate minerals containing Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and K+". This seems to suggest that a soil with carbonate, for example, will increase in pH over time. Alternatively, if the meaning is alkalinity in my sense, above, that the soil solution will have greater buffering capacity after weathering than before. By my understanding, weathering of carbonate minerals could maintain a high soil pH, but not increase it (assuming the carbonate as parent material and not amendment).
  • Aluminium toxicity is discussed under "acid soils" and under "nutrient availability", which is an unnecessary repetition.
  • Soil pH#Determining pH sounds like the E horizon of a podzol is caused by limited incorporation of organic material from the surface, which is misleading.
  • Also in Soil pH#Determining pH, the most common quantitative method of using a pH electrode in soil slurry with water or CaCl2 solution is not mentioned (e.g. here). Since water or CaCl2 lead to substantially different results, it might be worth expanding on this a bit (source, e.g. here)
  • The style of the bullet list in Soil pH#Changing soil pH is less encyclopedic and more "how to" (WP:NOTHOWTO).

I've recently completed a draft rewrite of the article on cation exchange capacity. If you'd like to give it a read, I'd welcome comments: User:Kyle MoJo/CEC draft

Edits in response to review by Kyle MoJo[edit]

Thanks Kyle; just what was needed! I have made changes in response to most of the comments, and I think the article is greatly improved. The Soil pH#Sources of alkalinity section still needs attention - it probably needs a complete rewrite! I will have a look at your CEC draft. --Alandmanson (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ice core

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: 3 June 2017, 18:44 UTC
Last edit: 17 June 2017, 22:25 UTC

Bill Nye[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its undergone some extensive edits and I would like some more input to help improve it even more so that it can be soon listed as a Good Article.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi The lorax. I am not seeing much wrong with this article. Some points from a read through.
  • There is a dubious-discuss tag that needs to be resolved
  • The Following his stint on Almost Live!, from 1991 to 1993, he appeared in the live-action educational segments of Back to the Future: The Animated Series in the nonspeaking role of assistant to Dr. Emmett Brown (played by Christopher Lloyd), in which he would demonstrate science while Lloyd explained sentence could use some better wording and a reference wouldn't hurt.
  • The non-free rational for File:Bill Nye Speed Walker Almost Live 1990.jpg is pretty weak.
  • Too much WP:Proseline in other media appearances
  • Same with awards and honours
  • Some of the referenceing is not that strong. Google patent search, Twitter and youtube are all used and while that might be alright for some information we generally prefer better sources if they exist.
All in all it is not too far away from being of good standard. AIRcorn (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bhut jolokia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like a good topic and overall an interesting article. I would like to improve the article and bring it to GA stage.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 07:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi FriyMan. This is an interesting topic. First the lead probably needs some work so it is a better overview of the article. Do we need all the bolded alternative names? None are mentioned in Etymology. In fact Bhut jolokia is not even in etymology. We generally don't use unencylopaedic sentences like The images on this page show examples of both the rough and the smooth fruit. It would be better to say that they come in rough and smooth and have a accompanying picture demonstrating this. Image captions need some work as they should relate somewhat to the section and tell us something about the plant. Prose in defense could be improved. It is also missing quite a lot of information on the plant itself. Habitat, evolution, varieties, taxonomy, cultivation, pests, diseases, nutritional information and production information are all lacking. While the hotness issue is interesting this is still an article on a crop and needs to cover the typical details found within these types of articles as well. Also the Dorset Naga section seems to fit within the Scoville rating section. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aircorn: The article captions definitely need some work. For example, some of the captions use different capitalization for "Bhut jolokia" (like "Bhut jolokia" and "bhut jolokia"). Plus, several of the images in the article gallery do not have any captions; maybe some can be added. Name goes here (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

North American beaver[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently a B-class article, and I'd like to get some specific ideas on how to eventually bring it up to FA-class.

Thanks, Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leptictidium. I don't usually have much to do with FA, but I can offer some ideas on improvement. First the lead is too brief. It should summerise the article and I feel it needs quite a bit more information to reach that point. Most of it covers the naming, which is only a small part of the whole article. Sourcing is a little light for an article looking to be considered a FA. While there is only one [citation needed] tag, other sentences could also be tagged. The ecology section is massive and possible a little WP:Undue. I would consider WP:Spliting it off into a new article and condensing what is here. The sentence New Zealand has giardia outbreaks, but no beavers, whereas Norway has plenty of beavers, but had no giardia outbreaks until recently (in a southern part of Norway densely populated by humans but no beaver) seems a little WP:Synthy. Although it is probably accurate I would prefer a source that makes the connection. Prose is generally very good. Nothing jumps out as missing. If you haven't already you might like to look at some articles under Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Animals to see what standards are required. They are pretty strict on reference formatting so that will probably need to be checked. Also you may have to explain why this is a reliable source. Other than that it is a pretty good article and not a million miles off being considered a great one. Good luck going forward with this one. AIRcorn (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Leptictidium, as the article is currently rated at B-Class, I would suggest aiming for WP:GA before WP:FAC. Therefore, your first step would be to ascertain which of the currently listed WikiProjects on the Talk page the article most falls under, and ensure that this article meets their quality criteria for GA first. I would suggest either Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. I cannot see what value the other projects bring to this article other than "badging" - that is not the purpose of adding WikiProjects onto a Talk page. (Personally I would remove the other two but it is not my call). My best wishes to you in this worthy undertaking. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd have to say that it needs a section that discusses taxonomy, specifically taxonomic history (like who's the species authority and stuff like that). Also, in some parts, it's seems like the images are clumping together and stacked on top of each other, and other parts don't have a picture.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Homogenization (climate)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I mostly wrote this page and it got a grade-C. I work on the topic and the homogenization of climate data is important in the US climate "debate". Thus I would love to make it better, but would need outside input to know what is apparently missing or unclear or badly formulated.

Thanks, VVenema (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi VVenema. Thanks for your work. I am not an expert in this area, but will offer some of my opinions. First off I feel it is more a B than a C grade article. These grades can be somewhat arbitrary so don't get too caught up on that. The lead can be improved however. It should summarise the article much the same way an abstract would. It could use some fleshing out. I also found it a little technical for me. We usually write for the widest possible audience and this can accomplished somewhat through wikilinks (i.e linking technical terms to other articles on those can keep this article focused). It can also help to start really simple and then expand further down. If you lose your audience in the first few sentences then it can be hard to get them back. Diagrams and graphs can also help if appropriate. In your article I feel this is only an issue in the lead and first section. After that it was explained really well.
It probably needs a few more references. In particular sentences that read a bit like an opinion. For example From the perspective of global warming, such local effects are undesirable, but to study the influence of climate on health such measurements are fine. and but parallel measurements are unfortunately not very often performed, if only because the reason for stopping the original measurement is not known in advance, but probably more often to save money. There are other examples as well. By not doing so you can easily cross the line to original research. The sources you do use are excellent however.
It is well written, the pictures look good and the topic is important. You might want to drop a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force to find someone more able to help with technical aspects. AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Nader El-Bizri[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs improvement through the input of editors who have some knowledge in philosophy, Arabic-Islamic thought, etc. Thanks, AcademeEditorial (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to soon take it to FAN. Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi is a fourth-century AD Latin poem, which was arranged by Faltonia Betitia Proba. The work takes verses extracted from Virgil and rearranged them so that they tell stories from the Old and New Testament of the Christian Bible, focusing on the story of Jesus Christ. This is a rather important poem, because it is likely the first Christian poem penned by a female author (I also just find it fascinating).

It received one peer-review almost two years ago, but has been greatly expanded since then. I have also had it copy-edited. I would love some more feedback to make it even better.

Thanks, --Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dhammakaya meditation

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: 10 May 2017, 13:53 UTC
Last edit: 18 July 2017, 12:04 UTC

Proto-Indo-European religion

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: 9 May 2017, 20:17 UTC
Last edit: 1 June 2017, 23:51 UTC

Astronomica (Manilius)

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: 9 January 2017, 21:01 UTC
Last edit: 17 July 2017, 16:17 UTC

Social sciences and society[edit]

Government of India[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to get it to GA or FA status which ever it will be ready for. All comments are welcomed

Thanks, RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Brief comments, since the article is in rather poor shape and concerns over details are likely to be rendered irrelevant by any later improvements. The article is far too short, and what is currently there is often unsourced. The "Issues" section appears to be synth at best; there is little evidence that the points listed there are considered to be the most serious issues with the government by reliable sources. There is absolutely no reason to give the details of a specific, recent budget in the finance section. The "PIL" and "Cabinet secretary" sections are probably undue weight. Much of the content is in the form of lists, rather than substantive prose. Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93I have addressed you concerns about undue weight and the inclusion of the budget details. Please take a look.Hopeful to adress the other issues within the nxt two days -RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 05:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Legalism (Chinese philosophy)[edit]

Previous peer review

I previously had information on the figures of the subject dispersed throughout the article. But this leaves the reader in the dark on them, isn't how it would it would typically be done in a book, and being advised against it put it in the front.

But now I essentially go over the same figures three different times in the first half of the article. So I am looking for suggestions on organization of the page, or whatever else.

I don't claim the page to be perfectly refined.FourLights (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

David Benac[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this to show up on the google search page. :)

Thanks, Nicool9 (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Nicole9

Women's sport in Saudi Arabia[edit]

Since I created this article back in 2012 it has received scant attantion from other editors. I believe the subject deserves attention as a serious social issue in a major country. Recent changes to government policies pertaining to women's freedom of movement in Saudi are an indication that further changes in women's rights may be possible which could affect the topic of this article. As I am not a specialist in women's rights, sport, or Saudi social policy, I'm hoping others who are better versed in these topic areas could help to develop the article to reach at least a B grade now, then I might push for GA at a later stage.

Thanks, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a link from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia maybe the article will get more traffic and revisions then. Sorry I can't do more, I am not very knowledgeable on the topic.Fred (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

National Health Service[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think some of the sections (especially the funding section) are far too long and are WP:UNDUE. The article, especially about such a major topic, should be a broad overview of the topic, whereas currently it seems to be a collection of all the negative articles that certain editors can find.

Thanks, Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tom (LT)[edit]

I agree with your assessment, Absolutelypuremilk, and would support the removal of vast chunks of text... this article reads like a newspaper piece and has far too much quoting and original synthesis (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). So I support the truncation and summary of tracts of text as you propose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2015 party spending investigation[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… The topic has a material bearing on the current UK general election and it would therefore be good to ensure it is balanced. Previous edits also imply disagreement about whether it is appropriate to name members of parliament who are known to be under police investigation (where suitably extensive mainstream media reporting attests to this), so it would be great to get feedback on that! Thanks, Alarichall (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in preperation for a future Good article nom.

Thanks, Jerry (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Tom (LT)

Fascinating and engaging article, well-written with sources. I can't seen any issues that would prevent a nomination and suggest you give it a go. Let me know if you have any specific questions, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I haven't done much work on it, so I wasn't sure. Thank you. Jerry (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively edited since its beginning (2009) as such I would appreciate knowing what needs to be done to better it.

Thanks, StephenTS42 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • suggest removing the ROK icon from the infobox as it seems confusing for a US Army unit
  • this sentence should be referenced: "At the end of the war (1945), the 38th Anti-Aircraft Brigade was inactivated in Germany"
  • this should be referenced: the paragraph ending "...were collocated at Osan Air Base"
  • this quote should either be rewritten in your own words, or attributed in text: "On 15 July [1981] the 1st Bn, 2nd ADA..."
  • there are too many images in the Inactivation section. I suggest removing the files and rewriting the information in your own words
  • the "Force Planning and Budgetary Implications..." entry is not an internal link and shouldn't be listed in the See also section (potentially it might be in a Further reading section, though, or could be worked into the text as a reference)
  • the bare urls (refs 9 and 14) should be formatted to include title, publisher and access dates
  • anyway, good luck with taking the article further

Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because: I created this article in 2013 about a breaking scandal involving the former mayor of Toronto which attracted a lot of media coverage at the time, well beyond normal coverage for Toronto mayors. I chose the timeline format as what I thought was the best way to present the topic. Several other editors joined me in keeping it up to date. Since then, the mayor left politics and has passed away, and there are no longer any active investigations.

This was an important topic, and I would be interested to see, after the elapse of time, whether it is presented in a neutral and informative manner. I am also interested to know whether the choice of a timeline format was best.

The only disagreement I had with other editors was over the extent of direct quotes from newspapers whether than summarizing what they said. I would be interested in any input on that.

Thanks, TFD (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


John Ford filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because John Ford is arguably the greatest movie director of all time. He deserves a filmography listing that is worthy of FL status. A peer review seems the first logical step in achieving this.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

List of box office records set by Deadpool (film)[edit]

I am listing this for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured List soon, and personally feel that it is ready, but want some other opinions. Is there anything I need to do before I go for FL? Thanks in advance guys! - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Fifth Harmony[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added, removed and changed information that has made the article appear more presentable for readers wanting knowledge on this topic. Every award section is correctly formatted, cited and explicitly defined. The introduction gives a substantial amount of information as well. I hope to gain any feedback from this Peer review and help determine a consensus on whether or not this article fits the guidelines for a Featured list candidate.

Thanks, De88 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Governors of Maryland[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it ready to go through the WP:FLC process. I think the article has come a long way since its last attempt at the process (almost exactly 10 years ago), and I think that the article has especially come a long way in the past few months. I'm definitely open to any suggestions for improvements.

Thanks, Slon02 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Ohio[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I believe that this is a well written and encyclopedic article. However, AndyZ's automatic peer reviewer says that the lead needs expansion, and I can understand why. Furthermore, I am uncomfortable with the overall lack of content outside of the table.

Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

List of UK top 10 singles in 2002[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on improving the lists of UK top 10 singles for each year since 2000, adopting a consistent style and making the content more thorough (background information, sections on chart debuts etc.). I hope this list will eventually become featured and serve as a model for lists on the UK singles chart. A few years ago I played a big role in getting List of UK number-one singles from the 2000s to featured list status. Any feedback on this list would be appreciated. I know I need more references, and a few more images, so comments on the content and the look of the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, 03md 23:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Abasyn University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have made major changes to this article and should be ranked higher on the quality scale. Currently it is ranked as stub-class Thanks, Xafariqbal (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Zafar

Hi Xafariqbal, I have remove the mission/ vision and list of programmes. We don't usual include such sections on articles as they are promotional, it would be better to include a list of faculties instead. I will re-assess the article class as it is no longer stub-class. Thank you Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

List of United States tornado emergencies[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before nominating it for featured list status.

Thanks, Ks0stm (TCGE) 12:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • My notes:
    • Way, way too many "cities" listed, especially in 2011, such that many are redlinks, despite us having articles for pretty much every place in the country. Also, some of the "cities" are simply part of counties. I would remove the city column altogether and just use county.
    • "N/A" means something is not applicable; "Unconfirmed" tornadoes have no rating, but that column is still applicable to them. Needs something other than "N/A", maybe just "Unk."
      • What makes "N/A" different from "EF?"
    • Right now, this isn't a list of emergencies. This is a list of dates, with some emergencies linked to them.
    • Why cannot sort by "Event link"?
    • Why can sort by "Ref"? That's never going to be useful.
    • If a tornado impacted multiple states, rowspan it, so that you don't awkwardly deal with counties from multiple states in a single cell. So, row 1: alabama counties, alabama, rowspanned tornado. row 2: tennessee counties, tennessee.
    • Rowspan the "event link" cells when possible.
    • April 28, 2014, needs work. Black text, misplaced refs, and somehow an "N/A" for a ref and a city; did this tornado exist or didn't it?
    • Ref 265 is unhappy.
  • So it needs quite a bit of work. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]