Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Review)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.
"WP:REVIEW" redirects here. For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see WP:REVIEWING. For the review of new pages, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol.
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, 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.



Yesterday's Enterprise[edit]

Hoping to get this to FA. Main concerns are prose-based, but if there are parts of the article that are unclear to a lay reader or any other issues, let me know. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Impossible Princess[edit]

Previous peer review

Over the past couple of years, there has been a significant change within this article's grammar, punctuation, referencing, etc. This article is the sixth studio album by Kylie Minogue, whom I am a fan of and heavily dedicated to this (personal matters aside...). I have already achieved several GA with the corresponding singles, remix albums, and other releases from this album, and this article, to, is registered as a GA. However, since its change when it had achieved GA status, more facts and information started to flourish and it has slightly changed the article, for better and for worse. I am wanting to nominate it for FA, but first I need help in correcting any errors, grammar errors, spelling, formatting, etc. as much as possibly so I can achieve this. I would appreciate any comments below, soft or constructive, so I can improve it towards my goal (I do my editing and sight-seeing real quick, so once there's a comment, they'll bound to be a change). Thank you and ping me for each comment! Face-smile.svg

Thanks, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Justin Bieber videography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I drafted the article solely by myself and need another's eyes. Specific sections that need suggestions are the lede and the descriptions of the music videos. Also, if someone could check over the references, I would appreciate that. Or if it's ready to be nominated as a featured list candidate.

Thanks, Chase (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Euphoria Festival[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article has not yet been edited by anyone other than the author. I believe the content is sufficient and valid, but it could use a second opinion!

Thanks, Hkkelly (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Love, Inc. (TV series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to nominate it as a featured article sometime in the future. Any tips of regarding anything of the article are welcome! If you add comments or review this for me, I will gladly repay the favor. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Der 100. Psalm

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 September 2016, 07:17 UTC
Last edit: 21 September 2016, 06:05 UTC


Missamma is a romantic comedy film which dabbles with the social issues of unemployment and freedom of worship. A bilingual production (in Telugu and Tamil languages) released in 1955, Missamma has been well received. I and Kailash29792 have aimed to make this article a FA and hence are expecting some constructive comments to improve the article.

Yours Truly, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No Russian

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: 21 August 2016, 04:01 UTC
Last edit: 22 September 2016, 17:35 UTC

This Is What the Truth Feels Like[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to nominate it as a featured article by the end of the year. Any tips of regarding anything of the article are welcome!

Thanks very much, Carbrera (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because…I have worked on this important Latin music article and would like to bring it to FAC once this peer review is complete.

Thanks, – jona 18:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Sia Furler[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of editing has been done to this article and @Another Believer: and I were discussing about nominating this article as a featured article. Extra peer reviewing would be a lot of help for the both of us.

Thanks, Javila200084898 (Talk)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The list is in good shape but I noticed some issues:
Other than that, I see no other issues. Also, I requested a peer review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive2 and I would appreciate feedback if possible. Cheers.

Top Gear: Patagonia Special[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote this article to GA in the future. Before doing so, I want to be aware of any issues that are within the article at the moment.

Thanks, Aria1561 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Andha Naal

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: 6 August 2016, 12:49 UTC
Last edit: 19 September 2016, 15:52 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I've been involved with this article for a while, and would mainly like to know what issues need resolved for GA-class. In the past year, I've provided some citations and notable content to expand sections, and also had this article copyedited last November. I got caught in other projects for a while, but now I find that I can just put this on PR to see exactly how much work it needs.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee
  • The 2nd occurrence of "Abe Cunningham": no need for "Abe".
  • "It showed a transition away from the band's earlier nu metal sound; rather, it transitioned into a more experimental direction of alternative metal": to avoid repetition of "transition", how about: "It showed a transition away from the band's earlier nu metal sound and into a more experimental direction of alternative metal".
  • "Its completion was also delayed by Moreno's drug addictions and the dissolution of his marriage, and its material was also influenced by these events": suggest something like: "Its completion was delayed by Moreno's drug addictions and the dissolution of his marriage, which also influenced the album's material".
  • "in 2010 and 2012, respectively": no need for the comma.

All Yes check.svg Done.

Early years (1988–1993)
  • When did the Cunningham interview take place – I presume it was some time after the band was formed?
  • When was the band formed? The band is referred to twice ("that allowed the band to purchase equipment", "the band acquired Chi Cheng in 1990") with no mention of when it was formed.

I knew this might prove problematic. The band's early history is obscure; but I have an idea of how to fix it. I think I might model Powderfinger's method for members. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Adrenaline (1994–1996)
  • "Teething" is referred to as a "non-album track". Was that an outtake?
  • "The album spent 21 weeks on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, reaching a peak position of 23": when did peak?
  • "in recognition of ... units sold" is repeated twice in the same sentence. Do you need to even say how many units were sold – surely "gold" and "platinum" is sufficient?
White Pony (2000–2002)
  • "An interview with the band ...": this paragraph repeats the word "explained/ing" four times.

Yes check.svg Done

Saturday Night Wrist (2006–2007)
  • "Abe Cunningham": no need for "Abe" here.
  • "there were tensions involved with the recording of Saturday Night Wrist": suggest replacing "Saturday Night Wrist" with "the album" because only in the next paragraph is the album's title revealed.
Eros sessions and Cheng's car accident (2008–2009)
  • The last paragraph is unsourced.
Diamond Eyes (2010–2011)
  • "most likely due to the entire album having been leaked onto the Internet": is this speculation, and by whom? This statement isn't sourced.
  • s'/s's (eg. Deftones'/Deftones's): the article should use one or the other, not both.
  • Quotes more than 40 words should be blockquoted.
  • Check whether picture captions should end in a period or not: see MOS:CAPTIONS
  • Check caps for band names starting with "The". See WP:BANDNAME ("The definite article at the start of a band name should be lowercased in running prose").
This is just a content review – I haven't checked any of the sources. Overall a nice and interesting article, and I don't think too much more work is required to take it to GA. —Bruce1eetalk 10:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Soul Asylum discography[edit]

I've listed this discography for peer review because after working on it recently, I believe it's now close to meeting FL. I would appreciate feedback regarding prose, reference formatting, or any other details that would further improve the list before I take it to FLC.

Thanks,  Gongshow   talk 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has successfully gone through the Good Article review process, however is not yet at a standard to become a feature article. General comments would be appreciated, if you are willing to look for any other suggestions, that is welcome also. I am very active with this page if you need to contact me. @Casliber: and @Dweller: - if you are interested in continuing discussion begun at the Feature Article review, please feel welcome to do so. If not, I completely understand!

Thanks, SatDis (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Fish Heads Fugue and Other Tales for Twilight

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 2016, 23:10 UTC
Last edit: 29 August 2016, 04:38 UTC

Sue van Geijn[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the artist just had a large exhibition in Amsterdam and there was no article yet to be found on Wikipedia about her. So please have a look at it.

Thanks, Kvdstelt (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

One paragraph? The English needs tweaking, but is comprehensible. An image, of a work discussed enough to justify fair use, would help. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
@Kvdstelt: First, I would like to say that it is great that you created a page about this artist. I always think it is wonderful to see users expand the content on here. As Johnbod has stated before me, this article requires a rather large amount of expansion. I would highly recommend that you read through the "Tips for writing biographies", which can be found here, and look at other articles about artists for guidance on structure and other matters.
There should be at least a section covering her "Early life" prior to the start of her artistic career and a section tracking her professional career. A section informing the reader about her artistic style would be helpful if there is enough reliable sources/scholars/art critics that have commented on it to support this. An infobox would also be very help (or just an image of the artist if you are opposed to using infoboxes for whatever reason.) An image of one of her works would also be very helpful. The two things you should focus on is 1) expansion as this article is still in the very early stages of development and 2) look to other articles for guidance on how to expand. Hopefully, you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Editør

Without questioning the quality of her work or her potential as an artist, the article needs some independent sources that establish her notability, so it will become apparent to the reader why her article is included in Wikipedia. A mention on the website of an organizing gallery is obviously not independent, especially not when she runs it herself in the case of W139. See WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST for more information about establishing notability. If notability cannot be established at this time, the article should be removed. If notability can be established in the future, an article can be included at that time. – Editør (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Kazuma Eekman[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Kazuma is an artists with many publications and exhibitions in the Netherlands, please have a look at my article.

Thanks, Kvdstelt (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, one peer review at a time is allowed. Pick one and stop the others. JerrySa1 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because the w139 is one of the most influential art spaces in the Netherlands and deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia. With ten thousands of visitors each year people need to be able to find additional information about it. So please review my article.

Thanks, Kvdstelt (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kvdstelt: Only one peer review is allowed per user. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Neri Oxman[edit]

A GA attempt for an american artist/architect/academic. I am working on getting images of each piece. Thoughts on both format and content are welcome, including overall structure - since this bridges a few fields. Pinging @Secretlondon:, @Warofdreams:, @Aude:, @Bishonen: for good measure :)

Many thanks, – SJ + 08:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Some passing comments: Make "Early life and career" into its own level two header, same for Mediated Matter. Your call where philosophy would end up. Shalom Life looks like a dubious honor—the site's dead for me right now but offhand I doubt it's a reliable/noteworthy distinction. Usually a different secondary source will cover it if it's a distinction worth calling out. A bit heavy on the CV details—I'd go for a few selected works rather than the catalogue raisonné. Perhaps limit to the works that are discussed in secondary sources, same for gallery shows/exhibitions. I'd wrap the talks into the career section and only cover them via secondary sources (not primary source links). Publications may be better off in its own bibliography section, depending on her body of writing. Photos: make sure we have email verification of author permission (OTRS) for both the photo and the 3D work (also mind the non-US copyright, if the sculpture is in Israel or another country). I didn't see Creative Commons permission for the images culled from her site, and I don't see separate photographer/artist permissions on most of the images, so something to check czar 07:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'll work on rebalancing to focus on selected works. Image releases were via email; I'll get work permission as well. + Interesting pointer to Natalie Jeremijenko. – SJ + 15:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, I've cleaned up the early life & other sections a bit. I left Education separate from Career for now. Working on improved secondary sources for the works, and papers in other fields citing the cross-disciplinary work. – SJ + 01:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it for FA and would like to get feedback first, to catch any issues before then. Thank you. U990467 (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SSTflyer

As this is a list, not an article, this should be nominated for WP:FL, not FA. You may want to rewrite WP:Proselines currently in the lead section, and fix the dead links. SSTflyer 03:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

@U990467: As someone who loves Avril Lavigne, I definitely want to help as much as I can. Here are my comments below:

  • Just to restate what SSTflyer has commented above, this should be nominated for WP:FL, not FA. I would recommend looking at FL discography articles to get an understanding on what is expected for this type of article.
  • I would combine the first two paragraphs in the lead. I do not see any reason to have a one-sentence paragraph.
  • For the lead, you will need references for each time you mention an album or single's sales or chart performance. You reference a majority of this, but there is still some left undocumented. For instance, the last sentence of the second paragraph and the last sentence of the third paragraph needs citation.
  • I have typically seen the videography separated into its own article, such as it is done for Madonna videography and Lady Gaga videography (I chose this two as examples since they are FL quality articles) so I would recommend that this be separated into its own article. The new Avril Lavigne videography page would not only include her music videos, but also her video albums, filmography, and television appearances. I know this would mean more work, but I think this would be better than forcing videography and discography into the same article.
A lot of great work has been done for the actual body of the article. The only two things I would focus on is adding the additional citations to the lead (and combining the first two paragraphs) and splitting the videography into its own article. I hope you find this to be helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Post (Björk album)[edit]

Hi! I recently worked on the article for Vespertine and I succeeded in it becoming a Good Article. A peer review of the Post article would be appreciated. Kind regards, Bleff (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain


  • "Moreover, Björk co-produced every song on the album." Suggests she did not do so on previous albums. Is that correct?
In Debut, she only co-produced "Like Someone in Love", and produced "The Anchor Song" solely by herself. The rest was produced by Nellee Hooper.
  • I see a mix of spaced and unspaced em dashes, along with at least one em dash followed by a colon. Please review style guidelines at WP:EMDASH.
I spaced every dash. You mean comma instead of colon?
No you're using the dashes wrong. Em dashes are never spaced, and should never be followed by other punctuation.

--Laser brain (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I believe I fixed the issue.--Bleff (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "the album is considered an important exponent of art pop, avant-pop and experimental pop." Art pop seems supported here, but you're suggesting the album is an important exponent of each of these genres. You mention avant-pop only once in the body, and the source given calls the album an "avant-pop wonderland" in the title only. That genre is neither defined nor mentioned in the cited article. I'm not too much of a stickler for genres, but you want to limit the ammunition you give genre warriors to argue with.
  • Don't hypenate "fast-pace" unless using it as an adjective like "fast-paced".
  • "The clips that accompanied every single heavily aided Björk's success" I'm not sure what you mean here by "clips". Do you mean music videos?
I wrote "clips" so as to not repeat the words "music video" in the sentence. I rewrote it to avoid confusions.

Back with more later. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Background and production

  • "Björk's embracement of England's dance culture also extended to her looks, with her style at the time now considered representative of 1990s acid house fashion." In constructions like this, you don't need the "with", and "now" seems odd. Try: "Björk's embracement of England's dance culture also extended to her looks, her style at the time considered representative of 1990s acid house fashion."
  • "Although One Little Indian estimated that Debut would sell a total of 40,000 copies worldwide" I don't think "a total of" is adding any additional meaning to the sentence here.
  • "American critics were nonplussed by its lack of rock content" I'm not sure what you mean by this. Why would they be expecting it to be a rock record? I checked the citation provided and it doesn't mention rock music. It reads "American writers didn’t know what to make of the sound of Debut when it came out" but I'm not sure how you interpreted that the way you did.
Because of her previous band output, which was post-punk and alt-rock. I changed the sentence.
  • "creatively autonomous fashion" I'm not sure what this means.
Björk saw Debut as a way to release her compositions from the past ten years, for the first time as a solo artist and with her own singular vision and identity, in contrast with her band work.
  • "The picturesque locale inspired the singer to meld the recording process with the exotic natural environment." Phrases like this can be difficult to paraphrase and keep enough distance from the Pytlik book. If you take this to WP:FAC, be prepared to provide some access to pages from the book so it the article can be checked for close paraphrasing.
Ok, thanks. Luckily, the pages are available at Google Books.
  • Remember that quotation marks within quotes need to be single, not double. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Song titles as well?

Keeping Up with the Kardashians[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been promoted to GA-status not so long ago and I wish to further improve the article. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, Mymis (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mymis: This is only a minor qualm, but I believe that the photograph is a violation of fair use. It could be replaced by a collage of the casts faces a la The Doctor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Also "Keeping Up with the Kardashians links to 4 redirects which point back. ##Kourtney and Khloe Take Miami (redirect page)##Keeping Up with the Kardashians ##Kourtney and Khloe Take The Hamptons (redirect page)##Keeping Up with the Kardashians ##K and K Take (redirect page)##Keeping Up with the Kardashians ##Malika Haqq (redirect page)##Keeping Up with the Kardashians" via Perhaps decide what to do with these links. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions, I removed the links. However, I am not sure how to do the collage. Mymis (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the links. If you do not how to do a collage, then you could submit a request at the Photography workshop. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The Alt viewer suggests that some images lack captions or alt text. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ben Affleck[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA and eventually FA status. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Passing Comment

As much as I would have liked to help review this I don't seem to have the time currently. As it stands at present, it is way too detailed and trivial in places. I'll see if I can help with certain sections, but you could try inviting editors who are familiar with editing related articles to help in PR. NumerounovedantTalk 07:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

General comments from DAP

The skeleton is certainly there. Balanced POV, references are correctly formatted, and the prose is tight and polished. Certainly very near GA quality if not at it, and not too far off from satisfying the FA criteria. Well done on that note!

With that being said, I echo Numerounovedant's sentiments. The most glaring issue facing this article is its size. At over 193 KB, it is much too big. There's too much trivia and it looks more like an attempt at completeness, which Wikipedia articles should not aim to do. The article needs a good trim, and especially so if you intend on prepping it for an FA review. Unfortunately I do not have the time to complete a comprehensive review, but hopefully these general comments will get you somewhere to start. At first glance:

  • By far most of the trivia I've observed in the article is the "Personal life" section. Individual subsections about Ben's rehab stints, ancestry, and so forth are completely unnecessary. The only things of note in that section should be about his family, relationships, and religion, and perhaps gambling since he played professionally. You could perhaps mention his ancestry in the "Early life" section, in no more than a sentence or two.
  • Much of the article's immense size is due to its 527 references. Not even the longest featured article has that many references. Not every possible referenced fact needs to be in the parent article.
  • Likewise, there is a lot of irrelevant information in the "Early life" section that detracts from the subject matter. There's no reason to go in depth about Affleck's grandfather or dedicate an entire paragraph to his father.

@Popeye191: I hope I was able to help. Feel free to ask me any questions. Good luck! DAP 💅 23:43, 17 July 2016 (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: 1 June 2016, 15:33 UTC
Last edit: 21 July 2016, 16:17 UTC

Spirited Away[edit]

Previous peer review

This project took about a few years in the making (with some breaks due to real-life situations) and the first peer review was withdrawn because of that Richard Wagner PR for FA. Now, I've listed this article for peer review again because I am planning to take the article to FAC and would appreciate comments to improve it further.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The plot section's awfully long—there's a hidden comment that it should be between 400 and 700 words long. It's 855. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Has the literature been re-consulted since the last review? I note that FAC requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The French article (promoted to FA in early 2016) seems much more comprehensive than this article at present, and seems to have some English-language sources that this article does not, such as "Heart of Japaneseness". -- (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, as I was busy with other things actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The citation style varies widely in the article, and images do not have Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. What makes the HSC source a reliable source? At present, the article needs more depth - for example, there is no section on the music album associated with Spirited Away, although it has apparently attracted some critical attention in the British Film Institute's film classics entry on Spirited Away. -- (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a music section should be included. I plan to include it when I get the chance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you read the French article? -- (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

One comment: why is there a picture of a place that has been proven not to have been an inspiration for the film? Perhaps it deserves a brief mention in the prose if this is a common misconception, but showing an image of something that has nothing to do with the film seems inappropriate to say the least. Hpesoj00 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sjones23:Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yo! First of all the lead uses some references which tend to be against WP:Lead (although 8, 9, 10 seem important). The lead's last paragraph has a small sentence (bare url) which should be removed or moved to reception.
Can the voice cast be turned into a prose to reduce unnecessary weight like "Chihiro Ogino (荻野 千尋 Ogino Chihiro?)/Sen (千?) Rumi Hiiragi Daveigh Chase." It could be explained with who are they or any development information from the cast like the ones from Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children
In Development, what is the Dōgo Onsen? Could a brief explanation be added and should be it written with italics since it's not an English word?
English adaptation lacks a citation.
Themes have some small paragraphs. I would recommend to combining them.
Reference 69 lacks formatting
  • That's all I could find. If you have free time I would like if you could comment on my own peer review. Good luck with this article.

Sept haï-kaïs[edit]

A setting of Japanese poetry to modernist French music.

I've just made a translation of this article from the French FA. I don't pretend I have a native-level undertanding of French, nor expertise in classical music terminology, and would appreciate help cleaning things up. I probably won't nominate the article for FA, but still aim to bring it to that level of quality.

I've also corrected a couple of errors in the original, removed some PEACOCKery, and have tried to track down the original Japanese versions of the poems—I haven't had luck with threetwo of them, one of which (purportedly by Matsuo Bashō) has stumped others looking for it as well.

Thanks, Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi CT. I wanted to help you find the one of the missing Akiko Yosano poem but unfortunately was unsuccessful. At first I thought this [[1]] was her complete works, and searched it for key words such as 秋 and 月 but unfortunately no poems came up that seemed to match the French. (Now looking at the title more closely, I think it may only be her complete "psalms", not necessarily her complete works, and from skimming the introduction I think it says poems were selected for the book—hence, again, not her complete works I guess.) I'm including the link here in case the poem actually is in there and I just missed it. But my other suggestion is, I see you live in Japan, have you tried your library system there for other of her poetry compilations that you could look for the poem in (i.e., even if not in your local library, maybe you can order some of her books from other libraries). That's what I would try if I were in your shoes. Good luck! Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp: Sorry, somehow I missed your comment until just now. Thanks for looking! I think I'll have to look into inter-library loans (never done one in Japan before). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 April 2016, 05:53 UTC
Last edit: 17 July 2016, 12:19 UTC

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status ([2]). Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate.

Thanks, Edelseider (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


I was asked by one of the principal authors, who is not a native English-speaker, to review the wording of the article, in order to ensure that the English is idiomatic. I have done this and made a number of minor changes. I am now going on to look at the article from the point of view of content. I am familiar with the building, having lived near it for a while, but had only a sketchy knowledge of its history. However, the contents of the article are consistent with what I already knew.

  • The lead section is longer than some, but it summarizes the history of the building and the uses to which it has been put, without going into excessive detail.
  • The main body of the article is divided into logical sections and a great deal more detail is included in these.
  • The definite article is used in two of the section headings, and while this is generally frowned upon, its use seems natural in both contexts and I am not prepared to condemn it. I am reminded of an old adage: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise."
  • There are a number of images and these are mostly grouped into small galleries in the relevant sections. Given the specialist nature of the images, this seems to me to be the sensible way to handle them.
  • The sources seem appropriate, but are largely in French. However, I am not aware of any English-language source which has this amount of detail. The authors of the article have perhaps done the English-speaking community a service by extracting and translating the detailed information.
  • All the links appear to be in working order at the date of this comment. LynwoodF (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is a very fine piece of work, a pleasure to read and highly instructive. The proportions are apt, the sourcing is wide and evidently authoritative. All I can offer are a few tiny drafting points:

  • Spelling: English or American? At present we have BrE "favourable" and "splendour" alongside AmE "center" and "realized" (the latter is technically BrE as well as AmE, but "realised" is much more usual).
  • Empress Joséphine – it seems anomalous to give Josephine her aigu while denying Napoléon his. Common English usage? Perhaps, though a quick rummage in the archives shows that The Times has never given her the acute accent.
  • "the right wing was the used as the stable" – needs tweaking: either "the right wing was the stable" or "the right wing was used as the stable" – not sure which you intended.
  • "who later offered it to the Marquis of Cinq-Mars" – did Cinq-Mars accept it? If so, I'd write "gave" or "presented" rather than "offered".
  • "the main foci" – according to Fowler, "The pl. of the noun in general use is focuses, and in scientific use most often foci" (the latter pronounced with a soft "s" it seems). I'd follow Fowler's lead and go for the everyday "focuses".

Those are my few gleanings. This is an excellent article, and I hope to see it promoted to GA or FA in due course. – Tim riley talk 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick comments by Johnbod[edit]

I've raised one query on the talk page. Generally seems GA standard, but maybe not FA yet; the referencing would need work for one thing, as I doubt all are WP:RS. I'd move some images out of the mini-galleries to beside the text. The section on the "structure" says next to nothing about the architecture and should be improved. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyday life[edit]

Huskies de Rouen[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is in serious need of cleanup but has been quite neglected. Several anonymous editors have been adding largely non-encyclopedic information to the article, which the edit history shows. For example, they have been listing upcoming games (against WP:NOTCRYSTAL) and posting results of every single match played (against WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). Filtering out all this inappropriate information is pretty time-consuming. Unfortunately there aren't that many page watchers who are willing to tidy everything up (even with maintenance templates in a hope to draw attention), but clearly I see the notability criteria this article meets for inclusion in the encyclopedia (as they have repeatedly been national champions, so a deletion request would almost certainly not go through) and so I have decided to list it for review.

Thanks, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for PR because I am about to re-nominate it as FAC. I think it is ready for that, but want to rule out that major issues are still unsolved. The first FAC nomination raised mainly questions about prose flow and references. In response to that, efforts went to further improval of the text (including one copy-edit by a GOCE member) and the amount and quality of the references (28 more than last FAC nomination, more reliable and straightforward, + extra footnotes where needed, + accessdates, + title translations, + archived when possible). The benchmarks for this review should of course be the FA criteria and the first FAC discussion.

Thanks in advance, Kareldorado (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Arsène Wenger[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take this to FAC in the coming weeks. The article has been expanded almost threefold since I last worked on it years ago, and I'd be grateful for feedback/advice – particularly to do with prose. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

During upcoming 5 days I will try to have a look at this article, i.e. read it once entirely and share general views with the FA criteria in mind. Know that I am not an expert regarding making reviews, neither a football expert but I am quite familiar with the sport and will give it my best shot to provide helpful advice. If you like, you can also have a look at my football-related nomination for peer review, Belgium national football team (also an FA attempt soon). Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments (1)

  1. First of all, my greatest respect for all the efforts you made to improve this article; this expansion is very appreciated! IMO the main strengths are the thorough referencing, the rich word usage and the fair amount of suitable images. The narrative style makes it amusing to read. I was not familiar with Wenger, but for a trainer with such a long career in the Premier League – and it is not over yet – this care seems deserved.
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below the entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. A general issue when the current article is nominated as FAC might be the length... the readable prose size is 65 kB, while the rules of thumb say that those > 60 kB should probably be divided (not black-and-white, of course)
  4. In the captions, you should let the proper sentences end with a period, and the mere word groups without a period. (Five corrections are needed.)
  5. There are quite some red links remaining: six. Either I would omit the links, either I would create a stub for them.
  6. The Playing Statistics table has many empty cages. Do these indicate that he didn't play, or that the exact numbers are unknown? You might consider either an em dash (—), either a question mark.
  7. All honours in the Honours section should be referenced; at this moment you have to look up references for these achievements in the text.
  8. At the part of individual honours, I would add the number of times he achieved them, just like this was done for the clubs.
  9. In the managerial career, to be consistent I would either start all three subsections with the years, either with the club names.
  10. "first-team" -> "first team", "last minute goal" -> "last-minute goal"
  11. No spaces between period and reference
  12. For readability, instead of 75000000 I would write 75,000,000 or 75 000 000 or 75 million
  13. Put notes and comments after punctuation (periods or commas, but not words)
  14. A single time the order of the references is to be changed: 17&16 ->16&17
  15. Lay-out guidelines suggest that the text should never be 'sandwiched' between two images (or quote boxes). At this moment, this is the case four times.
  16. You might want to add a box at the Talk page indicating that this article is written in British English.
  17. A couple of images have a rather blurry appearance; consider using sharper ones if possible.
  18. Consider adding a translation of the (limited number of) reference titles that are in a foreign language.
  19. NOTE: Please respond, below the entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Soon I will try add a second set of comments, in which I try to give more advice mainly about the prose itself. (Hard, because I'm no native English speaker and it appears to be written in a professional style...) Kareldorado (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

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 2016, 15:00 UTC
Last edit: 1 September 2016, 12:38 UTC

Engineering and technology[edit]

Binary search algorithm[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because while this is a GA, there may be some prose and style errors present in the article as much of my focus while improving the article was summarizing the research, not the quality of my writing.

Thanks, Esquivalience (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Worms Armageddon[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review because the article apparently is mostly complete based on all of the available information on the Internet, but I believe that there are areas that can be improved, and I just need to know what.

Thanks, Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is just some brief comments:

  • The lead is way too short
  • I don't think you should break the gameplay section into so many subsections. It isn't necessary. 1 to 2 subsections are enough.
  • The paragraphs are way too short. You should try to expand them/merge them together
  • [3] This may be useful.
  • Using subsections in a short development section further shows that there isn't much content.
  • I don't recommend this style of writing the reception section. It is better to split it up by concept (e.g. graphics was praised, gameplay was criticized etc.)

AdrianGamer (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am having trouble with addressing the last issue. I know how to split up the reception section by concept, but I have added so many reviews for various platforms that it is confusing and makes me wonder what I need to put down. Can you help? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I was able to fix some other problems, but not this one, and I have no idea as to what could be added to the article based on the interview; I seem to be focusing on the really important parts of the interview and not the just important parts. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: Pinging in case he has not read my comments. Anyway, as I have said, the last problem to address is quite confusing in that I have added so many sources of various versions of the game that I do not know which ones to select. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that I have just found use of the interview. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have just added the source and am now rerating the article as B. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Toshiba T1000LE[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This is my first article, and I wanted to know how I was doing at writing it. I also wanted to make sure I was doing everything properly, as in not breaking any rules, etc. Thanks, T1000LE Man (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, T1000LE Man. You've done some good work on the article so far. It's well written, and everything on the article is referenced (although I'd suggest moving the first reference to the end of the first paragraph, since it can be used as a source for all that technical info). You can also look to similar articles - like Toshiba T1000, Toshiba T1200 and Toshiba T3100 - for tips on the article's formatting and aesthetic. I've also taken the liberty of doing a few things that you may want to keep in mind when creating articles in future, such as adding the topic's template to the bottom of the article, adding your article to the template and listing the article at relevant WikiProjects on the talk page. These sorts of things really boost the articles visibility - making it more likely that other users would pitch in. Otherwise, the work you've done so far is stellar. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Budd Rail Diesel Car[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's expanded to the point where I'm thinking about good article status, but I've had trouble striking a balance between global coverage and summarizing the topic adequately. I've tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to avoid burdening the article with railfan jargon and I'd welcome an outside perspective.

Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you're thinking about GA, here are some thoughts based on the GA criteria. I'll add comments as I go through; might take me a day or two to finish.

  • The lead seems a little short at just one paragraph.
  • You have citation needed and page needed tags in the "Derivatives" section which will need to be cleaned up.
  • Uncited sentence in "Brazil".

That's everything I can see for GA. The article is in good shape and I think it would pass pretty easily. A couple of other points occurred to me, not necessary for GA.

  • Can any comment be made about why Budd stopped making RDCs in 1962 but didn't consider a replacement design till the late 1970s? Was there little market for DMUs?
  • You mention in one or two places that RDCs are still in use by some railways; I'd suggest qualifying these with "as of 2016", e.g. in the Brazil section.
  • You don't need to include anything in "See also" that is already linked in the article, such as the Roger Williams, or SPV-2000.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! I don't recall a source making an explicit comment on this, but new orders of passenger equipment in the United States (outside of subway/rapid transit) dried up after the mid-1950s. I suspect there simply wasn't demand until the RDCs began needing replacement and the growth of state and federal support created a new market for passenger equipment. For whatever reason, DMUs have had trouble gaining acceptance in the US. Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 418[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article on a subject that is incomplete and missing information that is unobtainable at this point. As such, the project it is rated under utilizes a special assessment of Future-class. However, I have 400-series highways nominated for a good topic, and as such require a peer review of this subject.

Muchos gracias, Floydian τ ¢ 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • As a Brit, I didn't know what the term freeway meant until I looked it up. You could say "a future tolled freeway" or otherwise indicate that freeway is synonymous with controlled-access highway.
  • The article is lacking decent inline citations. References 2 and 3 are dead links. References 1 and 4 do not support the text they are accompanying. References 5 and 6 are fine, and could probably be used to support some other parts of the article.
I also edited the article to improve the grammar and flow. Hpesoj00 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • First issue should be cleared up. Dead links fixed, and what I assume wasn't in the reference for c.1 is (that it was previously the East Durham Link). Not sure what is missing from c.4, could you point me to it? - Floydian τ ¢ 03:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hpesoj00 - Floydian τ ¢ 17:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Citation 4 is now citation 5. Citation 5 says this:
CONTRACT AWARDED FOR PHASE 2 OF HIGHWAY 407 EAST PROJECT – Blackbird Infrastructure 407 General Partnership (Blackbird Infrastructure Group) has signed a fixed-priced contract to design, build, finance and maintain the Highway 407 East Phase 2 Project.
This doesn't support this part of the paragraph:
which would begin construction of a portion of Highway 418 from Highway 407 to Taunton Road, to finish by 2017. The remainder of the highway is scheduled to be completed by 2020.
Perhaps details of phase 2 are provided by one of the other citations? Also, it would be good if paragraphs 2 and 3 of the future section had citations to support them. Hpesoj00 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hpesoj00 All fixed up. turns out the main 407E website covers not only what was missing, but also the bit that was covered by the existing source. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It all looks good to me now! Hpesoj00 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to get this to GA status, but my ideas for improving it are starting to stagnate. I'd especially like comments from people both more and less knowledgeable about the topic than me, for accuracy and readability respectively. Generally, how much needs to be done to get it to GA, and where is a good place to start.

Thanks, —  crh 23  (Talk) 19:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by StarryGrandma[edit]

You are brave to tackle an article that has so much information added in to it in random fashion over the years. I've wanted to see Computing become a Good article but haven't known where to begin. Amplifiers is at least a much less expansive topic. However, as you will see below, there were once two articles and it got complicated.

  • Lead
The lead should summarize the article, not be the only place where information is in the article. There should be an article section that explains what an amplifier is. Move the history material into a history section.
  • Topic
The article needs to be a high-level view of electronic amplifiers in general. Amplifiers can amplify current, voltage, and power. Currently the article is mostly about power amplifiers (see lead sentence). The article was reorganized in 2008, and the power amplifier material was moved out of an article then named "Amplifier" into the "Electronic amplifier" article, with the plan that it would then be moved into a power amplifier article in summary style. But that didn't happen.
In January 2013 the then named "Amplifier" article was split up into various parts, and the remainder moved to Amplifier figures of merit. So the older history of "Amplifier" is under that name. The discussion Talk:Amplifier figures of merit#Amplifier topic organization (which happened when the article was still named Amplifier) shows what happened. Then "Electronic amplifier" was moved to "Amplifier".
I hope this history isn't too confusing. I think a good start would be to put the power amplifier material, especially the classes, into its own article. (This should be separate from the Audio power amplifier article which is something else.) Then look at Amplifier (disambiguation) for other material which should be summarized in the article.
  • References
As with much older technical material the article's references aren't clear. For GA the material in an article needs references, but they don't have to all be inline. There isn't a reference list at the end to indicate the remaining references. Perhaps some of the external links are really references, but this isn't indicated.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments or need some more suggestions. This is a very interesting topic and I wish you well with it. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's given me a pretty good idea on how to start a serious reorganisation of the article. Is it correct to call a device that doesn't amplify power an amplifier? It seems that a device that amplifies only current or voltage would instead be a electric power converter, does this need clarification in the article? Splitting off certain sections may be a good idea, but to what degree? Electronic amplifiers are a pretty wide ranging topic, so it seems that their classification and categorisation would be a good subject for the article, but I'd say in its current state it is too detailed at many points. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The article could definitely be improved with inline references. Particularly in technical matters, it would be excellent to have a source directly after each claim. This seems to be the biggest challenge in the article - matching a source for each claim. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


Fallout 4: Nuka-World[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have plans to take it to GA. I think the Synopsis section may need a bit of reduction and I'm just about to list this at WP:GOCE/R for a copyedit. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Scribolt

Been going through the Peer Review pages looking for things that interest me. Nicely written, looks good to me. I'm not familiar at all with standards for the different article classes, but here are my thoughts:

  • Maybe trim the lead a little. There's quite a lot of gameplay related stuff in there and I'm not sure that the bit about the rumours need to be up top.
Done. I trimmed some of the gameplay related content.
  • Gameplay: Again, maybe a bit of a trim. There's a lot of repetition here of the standard Fallout gameplay, VATS etc. It would be better to remove or at least shorten the things that hadn't changed since Fallout 4, seeing as we already have a link to that.
Removed the V.A.T.S paragraph.
  • Synopsis: Yes, I'd agree with you. I'd remove the characters section and merge a reduced amount of detail relating to the gangs into the narrative. Then, maybe a short section for locations at the end, this might also be reduced.
I'll be able to trim it a bit myself, but pinging the primary editors for those sections: @Prisonermonkeys and Shadeblade11:.

Scribolt (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scribolt: I've trimmed the article, would you say it's a good improvement? Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Azulaloi

I'm also not familiar with standard practice for DLC pages, but to me it seems like the article focuses too heavily, in some respects, on gameplay mechanics of Fallout 4 itself. For example, the second paragraph and most of the Gameplay section. Perhaps it could simply detail how the DLC integrates into the game, as that is not explicitly stated and may be unclear to those unfamiliar with Bethesda games or DLC in general.

Regarding the synopsis section, while it could use some reduction and organization, I would be careful not to lose too much information about the plot as that is a significant purpose of the page. I could make edits if you'd like or I can leave it up to you (I am new to protocol here, but it seems like you are working on this yourself and I don't want to cause any problems.) I can also move to the talk page there for more detailed suggestions. Azulaloi (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Azulaloi: Take a look at my reply above regarding trimming the gameplay. I'm not too familiar with the synopsis of the Fallout 4 expansions (never actually played them), so any help there would be much appreciated. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: The new trims look much better. I haven't played Nuka-World so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the synopsis personally, unfortunately. A few small notes are the citations being after punctuation, which doesn't look quite right to me but the style guide says as long as it's consistent, it's fine, so I'll just point it out rather than change it. Second is the spelling of "Story-line". I went to change to to "Storyline", but my autocorrect didn't think it was a word. It also doesn't think "gameplay" is a word, and most dictionaries I found spelled it as a single word, but once again I'll just point it out. Lastly is the end of the second paragraph where you state that upon completion of quests, the player gets bottlecaps. I have not played Nuka-World, so this may be true for this DLC, but in the main game you do not always receive bottle caps from quests directly like EXP, but only occasionally, when it makes sense narratively for someone to have given you the bottle caps as a reward, sometimes as a result of an action. For this reason I think that the part about bottlecaps may not be fully accurate. Azulaloi (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

2003 Cricket World Cup Final[edit]

Previous peer review

I'd like to take this article to FAC; it was promoted to GA almost a year back. I've tried to incorporate a few suggestions from the previous peer review. I'm still lost because we don't have an appropriate model to follow. Suggestions pertaining to structure and prose are most welcome. Thanks, Vensatry (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing of the opening paragraphs. Please take a look and let me know if they were improvements (or not)! I'll have a look at other parts of the article later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Linda Lovelace[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the subject is personally intriguing and I want it nominated for GA status; Lovelace was one of the controversial figures of the 70s for her involvement in the pornographic industry, especially in that porno flick Deep Throat. I need to know if this article needs more improvement before I submit it for nomination.

Regards, Jebbiex talk 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Surgical Care Affiliates[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a topic I'm interested in, having had medical procedures, and want to ensure it's done right! This is one of my first major edits and I'd love to make it better. Thanks in advance!!!

Thanks, Lisacatherine (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Bastards

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: 22 August 2016, 16:29 UTC
Last edit: 20 September 2016, 04:06 UTC

McLaren MP4-30[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it become a Featured Article some day. It has been accepted as a Good Article and has had content included as part of a DYK in June. I am looking for anything that the article needs to make it viable as a Featured Article.

Thanks, Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96[edit]


  • All images will need alt text per WP:ALT
    • The only images that do not have captions are included as multi-images; the captions apply to all images in the group.
      • There was no issue with the captions. The images need alternative text to be added. Tvx1 00:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a query, why are all the images all placed at right-hand side of the article?
    • That's just the way it has always been done in similar, related articles. I never really had a reason to question it.

Early development[edit]

  • The FIA needs to be spelt out with the acronyms in brackets

Power unit — Honda RA615H[edit]

  • "Honda introduced several radical concepts to the engine that allowed them to develop a smaller engine that weighed just 145 kg (320 lb)" -
  • reptition of engine
    • Fixed.
  • Remove the acronyms for kinetic entergy recovery system since its only used once in the article

In-season development[edit]

  • Do the same for drag reduction system

Asian and American rounds[edit]

  • Wikilink safety car for non-racing readers
    • Fixed.
  • "Pits" is slang. Reword to pit lane
    • Working on it.
  • Remove the wikilink for Felipe Massa on the second occassion he is mentioned
    • Fixed.
  • Do the same for Pastor Maldonado
    • Fixed.


  • Ref 94 is missing the work
    • Fixed.
  • The work in Ref 121 has a second .com which needs removing
    • Fixed.
  • It would be a good idea to archive the sources to prevent link rot
  • Is F1 Today and This is F1 reliable sources?
    • I wasn't aware that they were being used. Will look into it.
    • Okay, they're fixed.

That is what I found. Overall a good work. MWright96 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@MWright96 — updated as needed, others in progress. Thanks for the tips. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Rodgers[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what needs to be improved before a possible GA nomination. I've done a lot of work over the years with it but I'm not even sure where to start.

Thanks, Church Talk 06:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never done a peer review before so don't expect anything too fancy. Just a few comments. I gave the article a good once-over and did some edits.
  • I added citation needed tags to statements for which references would likely be requested if the article was to be GA reviewed. As such, I was pretty strict with my tagging. Although the tags do dwindle down later in the article, mostly because I think the 2011–2015 part of the article needs a complete re-write from scratch. On that:
  • The article suffers from major WP:CRUFT, especially the 2014 season. Readers aren't interested in a game-by-game breakdown. There's also too much on the Packers and not enough on Rodgers. This is an article for Aaron Rodgers, not 2014 Green Bay Packers season. It appears a fan or someone else (or multiple elses) followed along during the season and came in and added a bit about each game. This is also evident with how choppy the prose is, e.g. "Rodgers did this. Rodgers did that. Rodgers broke a record. Rodgers ate a waffle."
  • Appears to be lots of original research. If the text reads "Rodgers had a great year, as he passed for xxxx yards." and the reference is to a cite that merely shows stats, that's original research. No amount of yards is inherently equal to a "great year." Free thought and conclusion-reaching is not allowed here.
  • There are more inline citations for the fact that Rodgers graduated high school than there are in the last five seasons combined of his NFL career. Not sure what to say about that.
Anyway, hope I could help. Lizard (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Definitely good advice all away around @Lizard the Wizard:, I have begun a complete rewrite of the 2011-2015 sections in which I plan to make the article about the player, not the team. This can be found at User:Church/Aaron Rodgers Rewrite Thanks for taking the time to review this.--Church Talk 20:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Diving cylinder[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC and need ideas on how to improve it.

  1. Are there any obvious or not so obvious omissions?
  2. Is the article sufficiently accessible to a lay reader?
  3. Are there any items that need clarification or expansion?
  4. Are there any images that would significantly improve the article (I can produce reasonable quality graphics)?
  5. Any other advice that might lead to improvement welcomed.

Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Principal, Ecuador[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it needs verification and minor editing Thanks, Jameson Jameson Foulke (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be sure everything is OK and up-to-date with policy before I nominate this article for featured status. It is already a good article and a did you know article, but even with two independent reviews, I just want to see if anything else needs to be cleaned up before a featured article nomination.

Thanks, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jonesey95[edit]

  • Citations need attention. Inquistr and Daily Beast and Boston Globe citations are missing authors. Author name format is inconsistent.
  • Some MOS work needs to be done before FAC. I straightened curly quotation marks. Initials for people should have a space after the period (e.g. S.I. Rosenbaum).
  • The "Name change" section could be tightened up. Right now, it looks like something that was written by many people over a period of time. It should read as one coherent whole.
  • When you haven't mentioned dates for a while, provide some context, e.g. instead of "March 14", write "March 14, two weeks after the segment first aired". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Jonesey95: Thanks for the feedback. I'll fix these shortly. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • In the lead, we read "The segment, which is the show's most popular to date,[3] popularized the term Donald Drumpf..." Can this be rephrased to avoid repeating "popular... popularized"?
  • "Within one week of the original broadcast, the YouTube video of the segment had surpassed 20 million views, making it Oliver's most watched segment." Except that "John Oliver Sells Out of ‘Make Donald Drumpf Again’ Caps" says eight days and 19m+ views, and "Forget ‘Donald Drumpf.’ This new John Oliver segment is well worth a few minutes of your time." says nearly 20m views in a week.
  • If you're going to take this to FAC, your citation formats really need to be consistent. Some of your articles cited are undated, some have the dates in parentheses after the name of the author, and some have the date after the name of the website the article appeared on. Some don't appear to have author names.

Hope these help. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Seems reference formatting is an issue here. I've formatted the references in the "Description" section (including the "Make Donald Drumpf Again" subsection) and will try to help with the remainder of the article when I have time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the same was suggested during the 2nd FA nomination. I have addressed the main issues brought out during the nomination, and am now requesting a peer review for improvement of the article to FA standards. Thank you. Thanks, Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and will be leaving some comments in a few days. Please forgive me, I leave Thursday on a trip and am trying to get some research in while I have access to the books. I've given it a read-through, though. Let me start you by saying this: I think you are mistaken in covering this as a cricket match, primarily, as that leads to dull reading, like a cricket match report. The fact that it was played, the first significant intercolonial match, is far more important than how many LBWs there were. The lede should focus on this as a historical event. Right now you have to dig through the lede to figure out why it is important this match was played. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Will do that. Thanks and looking forward to working on this with your suggestions. Thanks so much. Lourdes 16:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I've done some reworking on the talk page of this review. Do tell me if I'm on the right lines. Thanks. Lourdes 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I think Wehwalt is spot on here, we need to make much more about why this match was a big deal. I'm not convinced that the revised lead on the talk page does that either. The lead needs to include more about the background to the match. A good model, I think, would be 1877 Wimbledon Championship which is about the first Wimbledon, and might give some pointers for the first Australian first-class game. A few other points, but I will do a full review later as well:

  • In the background section, we need much more detail. I think we need to go more into general cricket in Australia, even how it got there. And I'd have much more about the growth of cricket in Tasmania and Victoria.
  • How "big" was cricket in these days? How many watched? How many played? How big were the names? How did it compare to cricket in England, for example?
  • It is worth remembering that first-class cricket did not arise as a concept for a long, long time after this game, and we need more about how it was viewed at the time. If possible, we could also say when it was retrospectively made first-class, and why? What made it so special?
  • Most of the sources are online. Are there any details in printed sources, such as histories of Australian cricket? To reach FA standard, we need to be certain that we have looked at everything important: the FA criteria state "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I think we might need to be a bit more robust here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I shall work on these points in the coming days. Let me ping you once I've driven through these changes. Thanks so much . Lourdes 12:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Ping me as well once Sarastro is done, and I'll go at it as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I shall do that. Thanks. Lourdes 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure. One quick point, I'd try to take "Aftermath" to try to show the development of Australian cricket reaching the "maturity" of the first competitions against England, in 1877 as I recall. Trying to show they were on the same road. Intercolonial competition yields eventual intercolonial team, take on England, and certainly full cricket maturity at that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Any progress on this one? I have a bit of time over the next few days. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: hi. Was busy on some gigs (I have to tour in my course of work) and logged on only now after a taxing schedule. I would get into this in another week. Thanks for leaving the note. Lourdes 01:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Godfather[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… it is one of the greatest films of all time and I would like to see this article obtain Good Article status. I've been editing the majority of the article for the past years or so. At this point I do not know what else I need to the article, but I'm combing through books right now to make sure I'm not missing anything critical.

I'm also looking at advice for the cinematic influence section. I do not really know how to tackle it. I've posted on the talk page of the godfather with my idea for the section, but I have yet to receive any real feedback. My idea is to scrap the "In film" and "In television" sections as they really don't hold much value and seem like something IMDb would have, and is overly trivial. In addition, more and more examples will be continued to be added to these sections as the years go by and more forms of media imitate the film, making it even more unnecessary.

Any and all comments are welcome! Thanks ahead of time! I do know some refs are out of order, but I'm planning on fixing that once I've removed more sources and whatnot. Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Emir of Wikipedia[edit]

Can you please clarify how this image is in the public domain? It appears to be copyrighted by The Basic Training of Pavlo Hummel.

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


The first paragraph of the lead looks good. It states the genre, director, producer, and source material clearly. Furthermore a brief plot is given. The second paragraph doesn't seem as good. It starts by discussing pre-production aspects, and then randomly jumps to the composer. The third paragraph seems to be better, but perhaps the final sentence could be moved to the end of the next paragraph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

CSI: Miami[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article is currently a B-class article, however a lot of work has been done to increase its encyclopedic value, and I feel it should be upgraded to A class.

Thanks, Unframboise (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments by Aoba47
  • The information in the "Main cast and characters " subsection needs to be cited.
  • The section of the adaptations needs to be expanded. More information should be provided about the comics, novels, and video/mobile games.
Aoba47 (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

South Stoneham House[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it broadly meets the FA criteria but I'd like some additional comments before I submit it for a full FA review.

Thanks, WaggersTALK 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fayetteville, Arkansas[edit]

The Fayetteville page has been on the cusp of being a good article before. The city is a landmark in Arkansas, and I'd love to see the article's greatness match the city's. Scrutinize to your heart's desire. I believe more content can be added; I'm just unsure what can be added.

Thanks, HairTalk 20:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want advice on how to improve it before resubmitting it for a featured article review.

Thanks, Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Carbon Canyon Regional Park[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to someday take this article to GA status and I want to see what can be done to further improve the quality of the content included in this article.

Thanks, MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


  • The details given are very brief. Are there no sources for a fuller description? This applies especially to the section on the redwoods. Is there no information available on other aspects of the ecology?
  • The section on history is one that could be expanded using the source given. The reference should be at the end of the paragraph rather after the word "flooding" to show that the source supports the whole paragraph not just the text up to the citation.
  • A section on access would be helpful. What roads are the entrances on?
  • Many sentences are unreferenced. All should be. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: By "Many sentences are unreferenced. All should be," do you mean literally each one should have a <ref> tag associated with it or just a ref tag near it (like at the end of a paragraph if it encompasses all the details in the paragraph? -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry I was misleading. I should have said that all need referencing, but not separate refs if several sentences have the same source. There should be at least one ref at the end of each paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

New England[edit]

Previous peer review

It's been a couple of years since the last peer review, and the article has been edited heavily since then. Would be nice to get a few other sets of eyes. The goal is to eventually get this article to GA status.

Thanks, TimothyDexter (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Using the peer reviewer, I've already fixed a few issues. Looking at the article, I see that the accents section has a few citation needed signs to fix. shows several dead or possibly dead links. shows a few other things to work on. More to come later. JerrySa1 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Looking forward to your suggestions and contributions. Cheers. --TimothyDexter (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
More on the way after points are met. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Which points? TimothyDexter (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC) (warning, loads slowly) shows that much of thw town meetings section is plagiarized and needs a rewrite.
The ones about dead links and citation needed. I will do another check today. JerrySa1 (talk
Images need to comply with image policy. File:NewEngland_koeppen.png is the one in mind. JerrySa1 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


H. H. Asquith[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… we intend to take it to FAC. On behalf of self, KJP1, and Tim riley.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Keith D
  • The short references without dates are confusing where there are more than one entry for a specified name, such as Grigg, which has dated entries and non-dated entries. Keith D (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have amended the first Grigg to Grigg 1985, which I hope removes the confusion. I think the other doubles, Margot Asquith, Martin Gilbert and HHA himself, have dated entries throughout. We are grateful for the pick-up. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Deva Victrix[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important article, in that it is a roman fort that turned into a town, it is a good article, both in class and quality, I plan to put it on FAC, (I actually already did before mistakenly before putting it through PR now.)

Thanks, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by P. S. Burton

  • What information is the artistic rendering of the fortress and the outlines of the temples based on? A source should be given as to not constitute WP:Original research. P. S. Burton (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I believe the normal layout of forts, but the problem with that is they randomly threw in exceptions, so Ill see.
@P. S. Burton: I checked the image, the author has not edited in a couple years, however I think it may be safe (Based on the copyvio, unclear copyright etc notifications on his page) to say there is no source and or he stole it, as such I will look for a better one, if I dont find one, I will remove it entirely, good catch. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@P. S. Burton: I believe it may be based off of, which he may have used for lay out, it is different enough to avoid copyvio, but Ive asked them if its ok. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If this discussion includes File:DevaMinervaPlan(bq).jpg it is a model from the Grosvenor Museum on permanent display. That means it falls under freedom of panorama, and as it's a museum piece we're ok as far as original research is concerned. It would be nice to know roughly what period it is meant to depict, but I can't find details online. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Make sure to include full citations for your sources, and make sure the formatting is consistent across sources
  • Suggest doing a sweep for MOS issues - duplicate links, fixed image sizes, etc
  • Citation-needed tag should be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Transformation of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

This is a new article I've written on a very important topic for Ottoman history, I'm interested in knowing if people find it readable and informative, what deficiencies it might have, and what it might need in order to reach good article status. Given how it's a new article, there's no particular section that needs special attention, rather the article as a whole.

Thanks, Chamboz (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Classis Germanica[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the classis germanica were historically important, it is a long article, and even though long doesn't necessarily mean good, has a lot of potential.

Thanks, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I can't attest to any of the content, but I've tried to re-write as much as possible into readable English. Some is still a bit mangled by translation, but I've gone a bit goggle eyed from looking at it. It was interesting though. I've had to remove a bit of content that was total gibberish when it was imported, but I've tried to mark as much as possible in the summaries which edits removed something substantive. You're welcome to use those to verify what was originally in the German text. Still lots of work to do on it though... Scribolt (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Cecil E. Harris[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed B-Class review in MilHist on the grounds of poor referencing. I'm looking for feedback concerning ways to improve existing references—quality, quantity and formatting. Additionally, if there are any other criticisms to be made I'd love to hear other ways I can further improve this article outside the realm of references/citations.

Best Regards, Finktron (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment A good general rule with reference formatting is you want the article to be internally consistent - in other words, similar refs should look similar. You've currently got a mix of templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc) and hand-written citations, which makes consistency difficult. I'd suggest normalizing to one or the other (keeping WP:CITEVAR in mind). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yarnell Hill Fire[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in hopes of ultimatly getting it to WP:GA status.

Thanks, Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Freeway Complex Fire[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for WP:GA status.

Thanks, Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

M. P. T. Acharya[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to obtain ideas to improve the article on a relatively lesser known but important figure. The aim is to get ideas to improve it to GA or FA level. Many thanksrueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Legalism (Chinese philosophy)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like it reviewed because I'm probably not doing it right. Of course the article still needs a lot of work. I suppose I'm requesting a review of... style.

Thanks, FourLights (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Pleydell[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I wish to take this article for FA review, having had it promoted to GA status and subsequently copyedited.

Thanks, Curlymanjaro (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nisi Mac Niata[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because

       I have improved the article quality so would like rating to be reviewed.
       Its my first wikipedia article!

Thanks, Nmclough (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Devon and Cornwall County Division[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as I have expanded it over the last few months from a stub to at least a B-Class article. I am looking for comments and suggestions in preparation for making a push for GA status. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, great work as usual. I have a couple of observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I made a couple of minor tweaks, please check you are happy with those changes.
  • I found this sentence a little awkward: "In this capacity of a coastal defence unit..."
  • Were the division's recruits hastily trained, or partially trained because their role? If so, I suggest maybe adding this.
  • "were around 10,000 men strong...": I wonder if this could be contrasted with the size of regular divisions?
Thank you for the review. I haven't had much spare time the last few days, but will look over your edits and respond to your comments hopefully soon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 August 2016, 16:03 UTC
Last edit: 31 August 2016, 16:45 UTC

John C. Calhoun

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 August 2016, 16:13 UTC
Last edit: 20 August 2016, 14:28 UTC

Tom Wills[edit]

This article was successfully nominated GA two years ago, and has undergone significant improvements since then. I think it's close to reaching FA quality, and would like some feedback and suggestions on how to get there. I'm also open to collaboration. For those who don't know, Tom Wills was Australia's first celebrity sportsman, and is marked high-importance by both the cricket and Australian rules football WikiProjects. His life off the sports field is also fascinating and unique in the history of world sport.

Thanks, HappyWaldo (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Wytheville Raid

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 July 2016, 12:32 UTC
Last edit: 11 September 2016, 19:13 UTC

Ballymacarrett rail crash[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is fairly complete. However, there is only one newspaper used as a reference (only one from the area readily available). I welcome all general comments!

Thanks, Arg342 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll add notes here as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two to complete the review. You don't say whether you're planning to take this to GA, but I'll point out anything I see that I think would be an issue for a GA nomination. Please feel free to revert my copyedits if I mess anything up -- I don't know much about trains so may make some obvious mistakes.

  • No citations on the second paragraph of the "Background" section, or on the second paragraph of the Ministry of Commerce investigation section.
  • What does "bunker first" mean? Maybe "bunker" could be linked to an appropriate article?
  • Why "so-called" railmotor? It's a standard term, isn't it?
  • If the railmotor is being pushed, then presumably the driver is at the back, but then you say the lead car has the driver in it, so I'm confused about which is right.
  • Any chance of a map, showing the station, Ballymacarett Junction, The Oval, and the location of the collision, and anything else close enough to be useful in the description -- perhaps Victoria Park station?
  • There are a couple of technical terms that could use some inline explanation to make it easier to read -- I had to click through to find out what a "block" was; same for "interlocking" and "outer home signal".
  • I linked "Inspector of Railways" to Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate; not sure if there's a better target.
  • Generally I think the prose is a little weak; there's nothing glaring, but it could do with a copyedit and polish if you plan to take it to GA. If you'd like more specific details on the prose I can give you some examples.
  • Searching for sources, I see a few that might be relevant -- have you been able to consult these?
    • Rail Versus Road in Ireland, 1900-2000, by Michael Collins
    • Steam Over Belfast Lough, by Robert Arnold
    • Broken Rails, by Brian Aongusa
    • The Belfast & County Down Railway, by Edward Patterson

The article seems well-structured, with the sections I'd expect, and it covers the ground fairly well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Siege of Arrah[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have created this article and I would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Given the length of the article, I'd suggest expanding the lead to two paragraphs
  • Not sure we should be using the East India Co flag to represent a group mutinying against the company
  • Publication names should be italicized
  • There is a tendency for sentences to be long and complex - suggest varying to improve flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Redtigerxyz

Judging by WP:GA? criteria:

  • Page numbers are missing in most references
  • There is over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. Most references are accounts by officers of the East India Company, rather than WP:NEUTRAL accounts by historicans.
  • [4] Kipling's tale on the Siege needs to be added in Aftermath/Legacy
  • It is very difficult to comprehend the flow of events, due to the long sentences.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Several military units on such as the 7th, 8th and 40th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry have no links, but overall it is well written.
  • As redtigerxyz said, the sentences are in some parts needlessly long.

Iazyges (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges

"The Siege of Arrah was the eight-day-long defence" Shouldn't it be the eight-day-long-siege. "After an aborted attempt" Shouldn't it be failed? "a second relief was successful in dispersing the forces surrounding the house and the men of the besieged party were able to escape." The line before this makes it sound like the defenders tried to attack the siegers, but this line makes it look like an outside army attacked the siegers, which one is it? "7th, 8th and 40th regiments of Bengal Native Infantry" Could use a link. " The local zamindar," Could use a short explanation of what that is. "a railway engineer, began to fortify a two-storey tall and 50 feet square outbuilding belonging to him (intended to be used as a billiard room)" link? "leaving loopholes in the walls for defenders to fire their weapons through." Believe it should be turrets not loopholes, those are for arrows. "outbreak of unrest in the town." Weak sentence, should be either outbreak or unrest. "He faced scorn from his fellows" Such as? "Throughout June rumours, " June rumors never explained, if its not explained just call it rumors. "Arrah following the relief of the Siege of Cawnpore describing a massacre there and from other" Should be restructured like this "Arrah following the relief of the Siege of Cawnpore describing a massacre there. From other..." "Throughout the following seven days the besieged party faced daily musket fire, joined by fire from two artillery pieces after the 28th. Attempts were made to drive the men out of the house by the creation of a large fire of furniture and chilli peppers but at the last moment, a change in wind direction blew the smoke away from the house." This makes it sound like this happened multiple times, did it? "the expedition arrived at a large island " Which one? End of constructive criticism. Iazyges (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States

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 July 2016, 18:54 UTC
Last edit: 2 August 2016, 03:55 UTC

Nelson Mandela

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: 13 June 2016, 18:09 UTC
Last edit: 21 August 2016, 18:21 UTC

Bonville–Courtenay feud

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 2016, 16:46 UTC
Last edit: 22 July 2016, 15:35 UTC

Coloman, King of Hungary

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: 13 May 2016, 06:29 UTC
Last edit: 15 August 2016, 05:14 UTC

Women in Classical Athens

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: 27 April 2016, 20:54 UTC
Last edit: 11 July 2016, 20:34 UTC

Balfour Declaration[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured Article status prior to the 100th anniversary next year. At this point I am specifically looking for feedback regarding how to ensure that this article meets the requirement that it should be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (WP:FACR 1.c.)

Thank you, Oncenawhile (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: There are some sources in this bibliography which might be useful to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The article seems very comprehensive to me, representative of relevant literature, and in compliance with WP:POV. However, there are very few (only two?) Arab and Palestinian sources cited in the article. Perhaps, in order to avoid POV accusations because of the touchiness of this topic, it's best to add a few more citations of Arab and Palestinian sources, if they exist and are on par with the quality of the existing citations. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Based on the above comments, and those of User:FunkMonk, there are the sources I propose to add:

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice, I was going to suggest Edward Said as well. Good to have respected writers from all sides. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So the next step would probably be to incorporate the new sources. One issue I noticed that may become a problem at FAC is the amount of long quotes used here (including in the source section). Due to copyright issues, you should probably select the most relevant quotes, and summarise the rest. Also, there should probably not be long quotes in the intro, which is just supposed to be a summary of the article. Also, the non-citation text in the source section should rather be placed in a footnotes section. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This is one of those rare cases where I'm going to disagree. The quote in the lead is only one sentence, and I think it serves the purpose of clearing up some of the mythology about the Balfour Declaration. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If the quotes can be demonstrated to be in the pubic domain, there may not be a problem. But still, I think the intro needs to be longer, regardless of the quote. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There is quite a bit of duplicate linking throughout as well, I just noticed. Notify me once you have expanded with the new sources and are ready for a read-through, Oncenawhile. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Western Airlines Flight 2605

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: 22 April 2016, 18:24 UTC
Last edit: 7 July 2016, 15:58 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because:

  • I think that the "Controversies" section is not balanced, especially the second line in relation with István Markó. Solving this most probably needs some knowledge of climatology as well as what involved people wrote and did. I am convinced that this is no genuine controversy. I explain more on the talk page associated to the article and do not want to intervene myself due to what could be perceived as "interest".
  • Adding content would be welcome, as the page is still incomplete. Possible sources of information include [1], his personal website (which could be cited) or his interview with CarbonBrief [2]

Thanks, Pmarbaix (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is in good shape and I want it to become a GA sometime this year or next year.

Thanks, JerrySa1 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 25 June 2016, 04:53 UTC
Last edit: 3 September 2016, 16:42 UTC

Language and literature[edit]

The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I would like to take it to FAC. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks, —Bruce1eetalk 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Allen Walker

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 August 2016, 22:58 UTC
Last edit: 6 September 2016, 00:42 UTC

The Dark Fields[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded the content significantly and would like to hear the community's appraisal of my work.

Thanks, Eddie morra brian (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Eddie. The article looks good but there are somethings bothering me.
  1. Try expanding the lead to mention other stuff such as the premise and other stuff. Normally, well-written articles have two paragraphs in the lead.
  2. Could you make a reception section? Sales would be good.
  3. The Film adaptation section feels like WP:Original research. Maybe you could trim it and leave it like a legacy section alongside tv spin off.
  4. One last thing, the making of the novel (inspirations, author's comments) could be helpful.

Other than that, I also made a peer review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate feedback.

Philosophy and religion[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because, I wish to improve the article as a GA and, as FA for future.

Thanks, Junosoon (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the Book of Abraham[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA (and maybe even FA) one day. I recently moved all of this content from the Book of Abraham page to a new article, but if you count the old article, I've been working on this for about a month now, adding sources, cleaning up tags, and moving things around. I know that in all the 'construction' some things may have been spelled wrong or written out in a funny way, and I would love it if someone wanted to go through and give me an honest appraisal.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Gospel of John[edit]

I had recently nominated this article for FA, but other editors pointed out some serious flaws that need to be resolved before it's ready to be promoted. I would like to work on these issues. I'm transcluding the failed FA nomination below. EDIT: Transcluding created problems, so I'm replacing it with a simple wikilink. Thanks, —Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC), edited 21:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

FA candidacy page
  • I said "I'd recommend a Peer review, after a period of improvement", but you've launched it straight away. Personally I think the various FAC comments gave you plenty to work on, so I'll come back later, probably in a week or three. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, you should work on the points identified in the FAC, in particular the straightforward ones such as uncited statements, bullet-point prose, and sorting out the sources from the general bibliography. I'll be watching the article page, and will comment here when some of these issues have been tackled. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Regarding your last two bullets in the FA review:

  • The editor who inserted the claim actually mis-paraphrased the source. I've corrected that. The evangelist was always called "John", according to the source. In any case, saying "the evangelist" doesn't imply "John the Evangelist" or any other particular identity—the word "evangelist" simply means "author/writer of a gospel", whether he be named John, something else, or truly anonymous. A capitalized "Evangelist" might in certain contexts, but this form isn't used in the article.
  • I'd like to know, too. That notice was here when I first arrived (albeit somewhere else, IIRC), and I haven't been able to figure out which part of the text it refers to. But I haven't removed it in case there really is something from CE that I've missed.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I think that the lede in particular could do with some work. At the moment I feel that it presupposes too much prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. For instance, we don't mention the part of the world in which it was written, or the rough date in which this happened. These is the sort of essential information that really needs to be in the lede. Still, I wish you all the best with your revisions to the article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 July 2016, 17:18 UTC
Last edit: 9 September 2016, 16:50 UTC

Social sciences and society[edit]

Racial wage gap in the United States[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because we need to address the neutrality of the article.

Thanks, Lbertolotti (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Downtown Eastside[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it through to Featured Article status. I haven't found any FA-level articles about a similar urban region/phenomenon that could serve as a model for this one. It's been a challenge to select and organize a huge amount of source material into a something that will give the reader an overall grasp of a very complex and intractable set of issues. Comments on prose, MoS compliance, sourcing, clarity, and any other aspect are welcome. Many thanks in advance!

Thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disability in North Korea[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a fairly new article I wrote, but I'm not at all familiar with North Korean topics. In spite of my attempts to solicit contributions from topic specialists, no other editor has made any substantive contributions to the article yet. From various discussions, on and off WP, I've become aware that many apparently reasonable sources about human rights in North Korea are regarded as discredited or unreliable. Thus, the main purpose of this review is to check the sourcing, neutrality and overall "fairness" of the article.

Thanks, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yo! I will give my comments about the issues I find

First of all, the lead is quite unbalanced. I would recommend to use a two long paragraphs lead without a source (unless it's controversial info) per WP:Lead
The use of dates are inconsistent. Decide between day-month-year or month-day-year.
Also, avoid short sentences. Think like you are writing a formal letter.
Sections "Alleged infanticide of babies with birth defects" and "Sport" feel really small. Try expanding them or merge them with other sections.

That's all I could find. If you have free time, I would like if you commented on my peer review. Regards.

Thanks for the input so far, Unfortunately I'm under some pressure in my academic work so I might only get around to these improvements in a few weeks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

University of Manchester Library[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…: the stable version of the article in existence for a long time was changed to a version which I believe is less historically accurate so it would be useful to hear what other editors think about those changes.

Thanks, Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

David McDowall (criminologist)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what other editors think needs to be added/improved before it can have a chance at becoming a GA.

Thanks, Everymorning (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If I were reviewing this for GA, here's what I'd say.

  • The lead is too short -- it is supposed to summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. That in turn means that the body needs to include everything in the lead, which is also not the case right now.
  • The prose is fine; sources seems good, though I haven't checked to see if they support the information in the article.
  • Everything is cited.
  • It's neutral and seems to have no editorial bias.
  • It's stable.
  • No images, so no image problems.

The only remaining thing I'd look at for GA would be broadness of coverage. I did a little Googling and I don't see any obvious omissions. The article is short, but if you correct the lead issue I don't see any reason this wouldn't pass GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I have expanded the lead. Let me know if you think there's anything wrong with it now. Everymorning (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well, the lead shouldn't include anything not in the body, but the body doesn't say he is a criminologist and doesn't give his birth date. How about starting the Education section with "David McDowall was born in 1949. He received his B.A. ..." and then adding "of criminology" to whichever of his academic positions supports that title. If they are all sociology professorships, and not specifically criminology, you'd need another source for "criminologist". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    I have tried to change the article to correspond to your suggestions; please let me know if you think it's good now. Everymorning (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that does it. Good luck at GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


List of Georgetown University alumni[edit]

This List of Georgetown University alumni is a list article that has been considerably overhauled. It is now a quite comprehensive list of the notable alumni of Georgetown University. Each entry on the list has one (or more) references specifying their affiliation with the university. The list's categories are alphabetized (except for some of the sub-sections that follow a more logical content-based organization) and are formatted in a sortable table. There is a lede section that is cited and accurately describes the list, there is a captioned and alt texted picture, and there are appropriate internal and external links and navigation templates. If this list passes a favorable peer review, I intend to nominate it for Featured List status.

Thank you, Ergo Sum 02:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

List of films featuring time loops[edit]

Please assist in forming consensus about how list items should be added to this list, through discussion here or, preferably, on the article talk page. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Romanian football champions[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what other fellow wikipedians think of the lists quality before nominating it for FLC.

Thanks and cheers, BineMai 16:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Some tables are just too big and I had to click to the right in order to see the content.
  • Reference 62 is a bare url and needs formatting.
  • Are flags really that important?
  • Also there are some overlinks like in Liga I where Steaua București is linked three times.
  • Neverthelesss, the article looks good.

I'm also making a peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive2 and I would appreciate feedback.

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

  1. ^
  2. ^