Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because dubious claims, weak or unverifiable sourcing, and possible promotional tone. Article may contain inflated information and lacks strong independent citations.
There are two backticks at the top of the article which should definitely be removed.
An image included in the infobox will greatly help picture out the main figure of the article. Upon seeing the body of the article, I can see some images that can be used for it.
"and musician from the Bronx, New York.", remove "the Bronx, New York"
There are tags that need to be resolved such as [better source needed] and [by whom?]
Speaking on the [by whom?] tag, it needs to be written out on who stated the exact quote.
The acting career section could be renamed as "Filmography" as it includes a reality TV show which isn't necessarily acting.
Mention his sexuality as it is mentioned in the categories but I don't see any explicit statements in the article stating such.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in the featured list status, but I am not sure what to do, so I am here to check if there're points can be improved.
"Cheonmak School" was not an official name of the school. The Korean wording just means the school started off with tent classrooms. Also, the Seoul Shinmun source is actually talking about the legal entity which owns Hanlim Multi Art School and not really the school itself. A quick google search in Korean says the school itself opened in 2009. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You are right on it. I think it is the school firstly established as a tent in 1960, then teaching wousewives, and now the place began training idols because he found that students cannot find a place dancing, right? Saimmx (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed FAC twice due to inactivity and it hasn't been thoroughly checked for sources. I am not comfortable nominating it yet one more only for it to fail once more. I want to be 100% sure it is ready to be nominated for FA.
I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Please also consider reviewing articles at WP:FAC, as it builds goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and helps clear the FAC list, making your nomination stand out for interested editors. Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this to FAC. Since the previous failed FAC mentioned the prose quality, I received help from WP:GOCE. I would appreciate to receive other feedbacks to improve this article.
Although K-pop is not my main era, it's so good to see that my native country idols are planned to be FA, thanks to nice contributors like you. I'm so proud of it!
I just quickly chekced some probs, and I found that:
I think Name section should be expanded more, or be integrated to other sections.
Time is linked twice but in different section. I don't think the wikilink in Artistry section necessary. (But not in Impact section; I believe it's useful in there.)
I didn't mention other duplicated links which is linked twice in different section, except Time. But you can download this script to detect DL and fix them if you think they're unnecessary :).
Stray Kids' music is inspired by hip-hop, dubstep, heavy metal, electroclash, and dance-pop. It has been described as "dark and experimental". Consider adding more sources and separatinf genres that are most commonly assigned to Stray Kids
After the release of the album Go Live, the public and some entertainment media outlets began calling Stray Kids the pioneers of "mala taste music" (Korean: 마라맛 음악; RR: Maramat eumak), a name they adopted from the hot, spicy mala seasoning, and it became a rising music trend among K-pop boy groups. Consider adding a brief describtion of mala taste music. Is it associated with any music genres?
During the showcase for Rock-Star During a showcase of Rock-Star EP or During a show in support of Rock-Star EP ?
stating in a 2023 interview during the Next Generation Leaders with Time ---> stating in a 2023 interview with Time
The first rwo paragraphs of 'artistry' have information that can be merged together ("dark and experimental" with expiremnal identity; mala taste related info
Consider distilling song descriptions into "Stray Kids' music has elements of psychontrance, trap, etc
Experimental music has been Stray Kids' identity since the beginning of their career, combining genres throughout their discography. -----> Experimental music and genre fusion have been the core elements of Stray Kids' music output since the beginning of their career
Their debut song, "District 9", is a hybrid genre that combines hip-hop, rock, and EDM with frenetic bass, sirens, EDM breaks, aggressive raps, and hip-hop dance moves. This one confuses me :). They combine hip-hop with hup-hop moves; EDM with EDM breaks?
Stray Kids is a "self-producing" idol group whose members have been mostly involved in songwriting and composing, and have sometimes assisted in arranging, even before the official debut. The band's in-house production team, which is called 3Racha, ---> Stray Kids is a "self-producing" idol group even before their official debut, whose members have been involved in majority of songwriting and composing, and have sometimes assisted in arranging. The band's in-house production team, 3Racha,
Consider putting invidual examples of lyrics (songs interpretations) into notes
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been getting prepped for FAC over the last couple weeks and I just wanted to get some extra eyes on it to get it further ready before it gets nominated. -- ZooBlazer05:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The story of the game follows Aloy, a young... -> The game follows Aloy, a young...
The player uses ranged weapons, a spear and stealth to combat... Is it correct to say the player uses stealth to "combat" enemies?
I think so. You sneak up on enemies and attack. -- ZooBlazer
Despite being in a post-apocalyptic setting, the game used vibrant colours to depict its world and... -> Despite being in a post-apocalyptic setting, the game utilizes vibrant colours and...
The article flip-flops between utilize and utilise
...however, its role-playing mechanics and lack of originality in its gameplay design received some criticism. -> ...however, its role-playing mechanics and unoriginal gameplay received some criticism.
She can use a variety of weapons to defeat enemies. -> She uses a variety of weapons to defeat enemies.
In addition to a spear for attacking enemies in melee range... -> In addition to a spear for melee combat...
Weapons can also be customized with mods... Should be unlinked if I'm correct in assuming these weapon mods don't refer to video game modding
Hunting animals also provides materials to expand Aloy's inventory, allowing her to carry more arrows and consumables. How do the materials expand Aloy's inventory? Does she use them to craft a bigger inventory?
From advice I've received from a peer review at Rain World, you're going to have to explain what "save points" and "fast travel" are.
Save points and fast travel can be accessed by interacting with campfires, once discovered
I'm planning to make this article in FA, but once I failed to gather comments and reviews on the other article, I decided to conduct Peer review first. Thanks, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Putting myself down to offer a review. I used to listen to Banks but didn't really enjoy this album. Here's hoping I can help readers enjoy the article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added all the information I can find on it, organized the sources accordingly and expanded greatly. I would like to submit this for GA review but I started this from scratch and would like a look-over before doing so.
I've listed this article for peer review as I have recently made some improvements and would like feedback on the article as a whole. I think it should be close to GA class and hopefully too much more isn't required to get it there.
Overall, the article has good shape, but I recommend:
In Chart and sales performance, I found {{citation needed}}. This must be addressed first before you nominating the article to GA or FA. Also I believe section name is kinda long for me
Per WP:LEADCITE, citiations in lead section are usually not welcome.
The section name, "Anyway, here's Wonderwall meme", is kinda awkward to me. I would just name it as "Usage in other media".
For GA and FA status, |alt= is always required in every picture in the article.
In Awards and accolades, why don't you describe them as prose format rather than list?
I added some citation needed templates to the article.
Multiple sources seem to be the same and can be merged together. I added a yellow banner at the top to help identify these refs. This can be removed when the issue is resolved.
"Awards and accolades" should probably be either in a chart or written as prose.
The "Critical reception" falls into the "X says Y" formatting. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION and reformatting this section.
Hi all, I wrote this article a bit ago and it was recently promoted to GA. The prose feels pretty in-depth to me, and I'm considering taking it to FAC, but would like to gather any other suggestions for improvement that I can first.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to nominate the article for GA status, but want to know if I should add to or improve parts of it prior.
In answer to your question: yes I think information should be added to the article because it is quite short. Additional sources for the article can be found at Google Scholar, [www.archive.org archive.org], WP:LIBRARY or databases that your local library system has access to.
If any sources analyse his artistic style, I would add a section that describes that.
I'm not sure why there is a quote in the "Enigma Variations" section. I suggest removing the quote or giving it context.
Ref 25 adn 28 are the same ref, so I suggest merging them.
Ref 23: "Padgett, Robert W. (2016-06-13)." seems to be a wordpress website. Why is this a reliable source? If it isn't reliable it should bee removed.
An interesting article, containing much I didn't know. The prose could do with a bit of work to meet Wikipedia's standards.
First WP:OVERLINK: you should not have blue links for everyday terms:
architect
architectural work
artist
London
painting
piano
secretary
Spain
treasurer
And you should avoid linking more than once to any other page as you do with Edward Elgar (three links) and Malvern (two links)
Individual comments:
""Troyte," by his friend, Edward Elgar" – Wikipedia uses logical punctuation, and so the comma after Troyte should come after the closing quotation mark.
"October 27th, 1883" – In Wikipedia the mandatory format for dates in BrE articles is day month year. No st, nd, rd or th or commas. Thus 27 October 1883.
"painting abroad in Spain" – I think your readers will realise without being told that for an English person Spain is abroad.
"In Malvern, 1896, Griffith was employed " – missing a second "in"?
"He would work there until 1935 … he would remain there until his death" – repetitious use of "he would". A plain past tense would be better in one or both cases.
"he design the Toposcope" – past tense needed for the verb.
"a number of local houses" – woolly. How many? If the precise number is unknown some indication of how many would be an improvement – a few, quite a lot, many…?
"held those position" – plural noun needed.
"in which he was elected secretary and treasurer in its inaugural meeting" – strange choices of preposition: one might expect "of which" and "at its".
"February 28th, 1899." – date format.
"he was elected the club's president after the death of member Hugh Bennett" – hideously clunky false title, and moreover unclear. Was Bennett the incumbent? Better to say so if so: "the death of the incumbent, Hugh Bennett".
"Griffith died on January 17th, 1942" – date format
"His funeral was held 4 days later, " – usual to use words for numbers up to at least ten.
"January 21st" – date format
" the tempo Presto," – capital letter not wanted
"in their eighteenth century home " – "eighteenth-century" needs a hyphen
I've listed this article for peer review to know if the it needs improvement and if it is also ready to be nominated as a Good Article candidate. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑(𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔)04:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D.18th: Comments after a quick skim: I think the "Cast" section can be trimmed to just the main cast members (and maybe supporting) while the "special appearances" section is removed. The "listicles" section can also be removed as unencyclopedic. Once those are resolved this can probably be nominated at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D.18th: Looking at other television good articles like 30 Rock and Awake (TV series) I do not see the same list of guest actors. I think the list can either be removed or the cast section can be put into more prose, with the guest actors and their significance explained in more detail. Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to Featured Article status. It is currently a GA. Anything is welcome! From my GA, I thought I had addressed everything, but let me know if some things are lacking in terms of an FA. For specific sections to look at: I'd appreciate looking at the Football section, I don't know much about football so I only hope it's accurate and comprehensive per the sources and in relation to his professional football stint. I also hope the tone is not too positive, or too biased for him.
sallam alaikum. i do know a bit about football (or soccer, i prefer calling it football), and i think the football section is pretty good, and quite comprehensive for what is a relative blip on this article. the tone's not too bad, the sources are good, too. unfortunately i don't have much else to add here, sorry =( but i hoped this helped =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, thanks for reviewing :) yes football is not the reason he's famous at all lol but considering he joined a team and almost bought a club, I guess it's a pretty big deal, so wanted to make sure it was alright. jolielover♥talk04:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi jolie, a few notes on sourcing at an FAC standard:
What makes the Evening Standard, Spectrum Culture, Euphoria, Talent Recap, Culted, TBHonest, Hypebeast, United By Pop, Access All Areas, Endole, and Vicehigh-quality reliable sources (WP:HQRS and WP:FA?)?
Consistent reference title casing and linking of parameters will need to be sorted (WP:CITESTYLE).
Album titles and other major works should be placed in italics in reference titles, just like with normal text (MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE).
Simmilarly, songs and other minor works should be placed in quotes – single or double, alternating with other quotes (MOS:MINORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
178 is 404-ing, so url-status should be set to dead.
My overall impression is that this is might not be a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature (WP:FA?). While there are a lot of quality newspapers and entertainment publications cited, I see a lot of zines and websites of questionable reliability and quality. I know that entertainment (especially teen entertainment) sourcing can be hard to come by, but is this the best sourcing available for this subject? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va?18:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in taking this article to FAC, after a successful good article nomination. This is my first time at PR, but don't hold back if you notice anything awry with the article. Thanks in advance :) Leafy46 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RedShellMomentum: Thanks for your comments here! I have applied all your suggestions, except for the last one (I learned early on to link it only the first time a website appears, to avoid overlinking). Leafy46 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment that while it is still optional, linking websites in citation templates more than once is permissible per MOS:DUPLINK: "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". TheDoctorWho(talk)19:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured article. It is already a good article and I would appreciate feedback on what's necessary for it to merit FA status.
I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar, where hopefully it will get more reviews. I recommend that you review other articles at WP:FAC to help get an understanding of the FA criteria and to build goodwill amongst editors. I also recommend that you seek a FA mentor who can give comments and advice on achieving your first successful FAC. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I want to try to get this to FAC so I wanna see what else can be done before taking it to there. Any suggestions would be great. GamerPro6401:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are several references that are difficult verify because they are not digitised (e.g. "Captain Novolin". Super Control. and A-Z of Games
Captain Novolin is a 2D side-scroller. Is obviously looking at the screenshot but it would be nice to add an extra ref
It is nice practice to have consistence letter case in the ref titles (either all words capitalized or only the first capitalized). In our case most refs use the former but some use the latter
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on its overall structure, sourcing, and clarity, and to identify any issues that should be addressed before a potential Good Article nomination.
The lead should be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Every level 2 heading should be summarised in the lead.
The "Development" and "Reception" sections are quite long. I suggest summarising the text more effectively and using level 3 headings to break up the text
Suggest using [iabot.toolforge.org/index.php] to archive the websites. You might also want to expand out these citations by adding access dates and author last names.
As someone that accepted this article, these are my suggestions:
The text in the lead During development, Miju Games shared two roadmaps in 2022 and 2023 outlining planned features and updates. and The PC version holds a Metacritic score of 81 out of 100. could be removed. Same could be said about citations in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, provided that the information in the lead is repeated elsewhere in the article.
Perhaps the definition of "overwhelmingly positive" and "very positive" should be clarified as not all readers have Steam.
Also, if you haven't already, please feel free to read the good article criteria, and take a look at existing GA video game articles (perhaps those released after 2015) to get an idea of what it should look like. Otherwise, I feel this could be ready for GA! JuniperChill (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended following FA nomination. The introduction and “structure” and “gardens” section of the Description were already fixed. Everything else was recommended to be reviewed for grammar and phrasing.
One thing that jumps out at me is that the article starts with some relatively unimportant facts. I would start out the Description section with more basic information. Think Elevator pitch. Imagine the following conversation: "Hi, what have you been working on?" "I'm writing about the Santos Passos Church" "I've never heard of it, tell me about it". You have my attention for one more minute, what do you tell me? I assume you wouldn't start by telling me the elevation.
You'd probably start with something like "It's an 18th century Catholic church in northern Portugal designed by André Soares" Then I imagine you would give a general description of what the building: it has bell tower and a side chapel. There are three rectangular gardens in front with a stone fountain and four granite statues. These seem like the most important things. Telling the reader that it's at an elevation of 571 meters seems like it would be way down on the list.
Nowadays, five Oratories remain, nowadays should be replaced with {{asof}}
By the early 18th century, the chapel was ruined and a safety hazard the juxtaposition of "ruined" (a verb) and "a safety hazard" (a noun) is strange. Perhaps "... had decayed into ruins and was a safety hazard".
seven Oratories were constructed across the city by the Irmandade; only five remain to this day this repeats what was said earlier in the Oratories section.
Hi @RoySmith: I’ve made the changes you suggested, although I disagree with the elevator-pitch example for the description section, for that section is meant to... describe. That approach would be more applicable to the opening paragraphs of the article, even though I believe they already serve that purpose well enough. Still, I’m open to further suggestions, thank you. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"In front of the church are three rectangular gardens..." This whole sentence is sourced to this. However, that source gives nothing related to that content, instead only containing information about the planting of pansies in the garden one year.
The aforementioned source and this one suggest that the garden in question is actually the municipal square's garden, rather than the church's. The status of this garden should be clearly explained with a proper source.
When writing something like "St. John", utilize to prevent the "St." from hanging separate from the name; see MOS:NBSP.
The materials section is primarily a verbatim copy-and-paste of the Google Translation of the section on materials in this source. The article needs to summarize, paraphrase, or use quotations. It can not simply translate a source and then repeat it verbatim–that's plagiarism.
Oratory and oratories are not supposed to be capitalized in the contexts that they are used in within the article. Only capitalize Oratory when it is used as part of a proper noun.
If you have the date of 1594 in the sentence, "It was later replaced" is not necessary.
I'm not seeing a compelling reason to not translate "Irmandade" to "brotherhood" after the first mention.
Many of the citations identify that sources are in European Portuguese or Portuguese; all European Portuguese sources should be properly labelled as such. Relatedly, some Portuguese sources are not identified as in Portuguese, European or otherwise.
"it was blessed the same year." Is this simply a blessing of the church, a liturgical rite, or the church's formal consecration?
These is a CS1 error appearing for the citation currently number as 18.
Hi! He is kinda badass in RE9 that's why I have thought about this. Thank you! I'll take a look at this further in Saturday or Saturday. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It always nice to get consistent letter case in the ref titles (e.g., refs 40 and 45)
ref 30 cites an IGN video posted on youtube. You can add 'via=YouTube' and some quotes or timestamps for accessibility.
the bundled refs (e.g. ref 88) display a harv error. Consider adding 'ref=none' to remove it
These author has inconsistent 'first name/last name format' consider switching to 'last name/first name': Obi Ony Anwu, Rafael Antonio Pineda, Michael McWhertor
This part is really painful. I've seen other newly promoted FAs that isn't really consistent. It was mixed with author= and first name/last name. I'm not sure if this is required at FAC tbh.
All the sources seem to be reliable per WP:VG/S and the publishers are wikilinked
A female fan once said, "The women developers at Capcom did a really good job." said by Director Koshi Nakanishi. Is it relevant enough? Do we have more reception from critics/women players?
Unfortunately not. But if you think it's irrelevant, we can remove it.
'Riley McShane (Dead by Daylight)' is uncited. I found only this cite but not sure it is the best one; even DBD official announcement would be better
Consider adding older Kennedy models; or adding pictures of 1-2 voice actors who portrayed him the most/most prominently
On that note, do we have reception for different portrayals?
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I want to pursue nomination for this article to be good article and needs feedback for it
Thanks, Agus Damanik (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are "citation needed" tags in the lead. If these are cited in the article, they don't need to be cited in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. If they are not in the article body, they should probably be added to the article body or removed from the lead.
I added a "citation needed" tag to the "Controversy" section. Also, typically Wikipedia doesn't use that section heading anymore due to POV and neutrality concerns (as it implies that there is something controversial). Instead, I would give it a title that explains what the section is about.
Ref 12 and 15 from the New York Times are the same source and can be merged together.
I've listed this article for peer review, so that I can get editor feedback before re-applying for FAC. I will also review other articles looking for PR. Any feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering putting it forward for Good Article status, but it would be nice to have some feedback first.
I added some "citation needed" templates to the article. These will need to be resolved before a GAN.
For the "Fictional portrayals" section, I would only include mentions where the book/movie/piece of media has a Wikipedia article. In other words, if it is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is probably not notable enough to be included in this list.
Duggan seems to be first mentioned in the list, but then his full name and the wikilink isn't given until the following paragraph. I might add the link in the list instead.
Every night, Social Crediters drove to the Fort Saskatchewan Penitentiary, where the men were being held, to show their support. ... Every night for how long? Was it for the entire duration of their imprisonment?
The incident was part of a series of events that decreased Aberhart's political influence in Alberta ... a bit more detail about what those events were and how they relate to this wouldn't hurt.
Added info about the events. I don't think there's much to add about them as greater information can be read on their respective pages. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your ISBNs are formatted inconsistently. However you prefer to space them out, they should all be done the same way.
Some ISBNs use the 10-number and others the 12-number. I have been told in the past on Wikipedia that the number used is important and not to change it without good reason. I see that they all have dashes, so I think they are formatted correctly. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, looks great! I just went over it again and fixed some nitpicky things that might have come up at your FAC. The only other thing I noticed is that University of Toronto Press is wikilinked in the references, but no other publishers are. I'd either remove that wikilink, or add links for the rest. I like to link them myself but some people think it's clutter... As far as the article content itself goes, I think it's quite well-polished. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this historical event on the island of Hispaniola explains the reason behind its division. I understand it is an episode of Caribbean history that is vital to know and emphasize, which is why I want to ensure it meets the highest quality standards.
This article is too long. I would like to reduce it in size by 10 to 20%. I'm looking for suggestions on content that is not needed—and content that definitely needs to be in. Do not worry too much about other things. In the meantime, I will be checking each citation, running archive references (when it is not so busy), and running reFill. Also open to other suggestions, but the size is my main issue. The goal is to get the quality up to Good Article.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some fairly axe-swinging cuts to the early parts of the article -- I think this might be a case where it's easier to show rather than tell. Obviously, feel free to revert, rework, etc, particularly where I've muddled up the facts. A few general observations:
It's usually best to start from the key story and work up from there. When looking at the forces involved, for example, the reader wants to know how many soldiers were involved and roughly what sort of equipment they had -- did one side have artillery and the other not? The previous version got quickly bogged down in what seemed to be small details, such as whether a particular regiment of cavalry had a particular sort of carbine -- in the context of 16,000 soldiers or so on a side, that's probably not information to put in the main summary of the forces.
Similarly, we often get bogged down with the different commanders and things get difficult to follow -- we probably only need the overall commanders until we get into the narrative of the battle. You can always introduce e.g. a brigade commander or a regimental commander if his role becomes important.
Try to keep things in chronological order as much as possible, and there's no need to continually say that something was "then" a certain distance from somewhere else -- again, think about what's important for the reader to understand this story.
In general, I think it would help to "zoom out" a bit -- think about what the broad strokes of the overall narrative are, then make sure the article foregrounds those key moves before getting into the weeds of the smaller details. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have tarted my work on the Trafalgar campaign, starting with this. I don't have any of the main sources, and have only just updated the sources.
@Protoeus: This is an ambitious article to have as your first GA. Perhaps consider an article with a smaller scope. Here are some comments if still interested:
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lead and other exceptions). The article currently has some uncited text.
At over 14,000 words, the article is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest spinning out text that can go into other articles and summarising what is left more effectively.
"8 Spies Who Leaked Atomic Bomb Intelligence to the Soviets"." is not considered a reliable source and should be replaced or removed.
I am not a fan of block quotes, and I think these can be removed and summarised instead.
This is an important topic, and the amount of research invested in the article is evident and greatly appreciated. That said, the text is currently too long and should be reduced by at least 15%. Certain sections — for example, the discussion of the Pan-European Picnic — could be substantially shortened without any loss of substance.
I would also like to raise some concerns regarding the sourcing. While the article cites a very large number of references, many of these address only specific (and often marginal) aspects of the Cold War rather than treating it as a coherent whole. In order to reflect the subject as it is presented in peer-reviewed scholarship, the article should rely predominantly on sources that are directly specialised in its core topic. Without this focus, it is difficult to ensure that each aspect of the Cold War is presented in proportion to its scholarly significance. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually make this article reach Featured Article status and I'm asking people's opinions to see if there's any problem to fix.
@GrenadinesDes: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Please also consider reviewing articles at WP:FAC. This will help build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help clear the list, making your nomination stand out to potential reviewers. I also suggest seeking a FA mentor who can leave comments here and help give advice on getting your first FA. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aquilegia, also known as columbines, are a large genus of plants with a number of interesting properties—including being my favorite flowers. I hope to take this article to FAC once this review is complete. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The word cyanophore appears to be misused in the article. Wiktionary agrees with my understanding the word applies to cells/structures rather than organisms. I also don't find it obvious that blue flowers should be correlated to the presence of cyanogenic glycosides; a citation is needed to support that position that in Aquilegia cyanogenic glycosides are restricted to the blue-flowered species. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, but a few sources (they're translations) seem to have made the same error I made. Thanks for teaching me this. I don't know if there's any implication that the only blue-flowering Aquilegia have cyanogenic glycosides, but indicates that cyanogenic glycosides are known for sure in the blue flowers. I've fixed it in the article. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The association of columbine with the 1999 Columbine High School massacre has led to use of the names aquilegia and granny's bonnet used in horticultural circles as a means of avoiding the stigmatized name" — I'd be hard put to find a reference from that long ago, but the use of "aquilegia" as a vernacular name (particularly in horticulture) goes back long before 1999 in Britain. The low profile of the school massacre outside of the USA also makes the case for concluding it had any lasting stigmatisation effect on name usage hard to prove. The Guardian column piece cited doesn't give much of a basis for it; it is just one author's opinion. I'd be inclined to drop it as irrelevant trivia. - MPF (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. In the US outside of gardening circles, columbine almost exclusively refers to the shooting (besides in Colorado, where the flower was sufficiently well known under that name). I'd like to source that, but nobody seems to have written this self-evident reality. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: see my review below. I mentioned in the Talk page: size is a unique topic which could use more coverage.
The section "Properties and structure" has two introductions: three paragraphs below that title and "Physical parameters". Mass is discussed three different places in that section. I would reorg. The first paragraph is Definitions. The next two are "No hair theorem". Mass being the most basic property should be first; I would rename "Physical parameters" to "Mass" and "Mass" to "Mass ranges" underneath Since the no-hair section used angular momentum, so should the section title.
Some sentences here have too many sources. More than two sources always makes me wonder what is going on. One reliable source and one popular source is enough. For example "It is unlikely that black holes with masses greater than 50-100 billion times that of the Sun could exist now, as black hole growth is limited by the age of the universe." had four sources. None of these sources verify the claim. I deleted two and changed the content to match the sources.
Review I've read the article and verified many claims, fixing a few that were a bit off. From the technical point of view the article is solid to a general physics reader. I've posted a number of Topics on the Talk page suggesting improvements or additions. If we can address (or decide not to address) these I would a recommend Featured Article. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Shocksingularity - If you still want more input I'm happy to do a peer review... I'm a big fan of black holes. I have not looked at the article in depth, but I note that it is over 13,000 prose words which rather large. The WP:SIZERULE guideline suggests 9,000 .. for important topics like black holes, maybe 10,000 or 11,000 is understandable. But 13,000 suggests the article is not making appropriate use of sub articles per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I've had to trim a couple of my FA nominations, like James Cook, down to 10,000 words and I know how painful it can be, But it's the right thing to do for the reader's sake. Noleander (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: That would be awesome, thank you! I'm really not sure what else to cut.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the level of GA-class. As this is the first article I've ever created (which is done by draft), I currently do not have experience on how to improve a C-class article to B-class, let alone meet GA standards. Therefore I'd like some suggestions and guidance for improving the article.
Update. I've added a new section about the properties of the number. Hopefully this improves the quality of the article closer to B-Class. Electorus (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Electorus. Have you ever thought of rewriting them into prose and adding more sources for each? Also, since the article is ridiculously obnoxious, you could truncate the section "Selected 13-digit numbers (1,000,000,000,001–9,999,999,999,999)" off. You could also try what the number 1,000,000,000,000 is by explaining its predecessor and successor and writing its properties, given the reliable sources you have found, as long as you need to follow the WP:NUM/G. You can see some samples of GA about numbers like 1 (number) and 69 (number). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I wrote this article in a way based on related large number articles like 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, so it looks more like a list of numbers in an order of magnitude rather than an article focusing on the number specifically. I'll try to adjust the structure and find more sources according to your advice. This may be harder than both GA articles you suggested though, because both 1 and 69 are more common in real life than this number. Electorus (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially expanded and sourced.
Feedback on structure, sourcing, neutrality, and overall readiness for future assessment processes (e.g. GA) would be appreciated.
This article's already gone through a peer review once, but now considering that it's considerably different from the peer-reviewed version months ago, I request another peer review for this.
Several things that I kindly want reviewers to inform me include coherence & cohesion, whether some sections should be grouped together, and potential sourcing problems.
In 1998, South Carolina repealed its interracial marriage ban, which had been unenforceable since the 60s following a Supreme Court ruling. The repeal of the defunct language faced 38% opposition.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make the push from good article to featured, and I would like to know if it is up to that standard.
All state legislators should be redlinked (notable per WP:NPOL).
For FA, I don't think the Background section is sufficiently comprehensive. I'd add a map of who voted yes/no/didn't vote (like I did here).
I'd add a table of the polls to the polling section (keep the prose, but present it as a table also; again you can see the article I linked as an example).
Somewhere in the body should explain that this was held alongside the 1998 South Carolina elections on November 3 (currently, the date is in the infobox but not cited in the body anywhere, and the connection to other elections on the same ballot is not mentioned at all).
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for a potential Good Article nomination and would like feedback on:
NPOV balance – The article documents significant criticism (2023 National Academies findings on lack of outcome data, eight legal cases) alongside official FAA/ALPA positions and a "Support and endorsements" subsection. Does the balance feel appropriate?
Source quality – Sources include National Academies reports, federal court decisions (D.C. Circuit), EEOC press releases, DOT OIG reports, major newspapers (WSJ, Seattle Times, Reuters, Washington Post, NYT), and peer-reviewed journals. Any concerns about reliability?
Structure and prose – Article covers history, economic justification, program structure, criticism, testing protocols, legal cases, international expansion, and legislative reform. Is the organization logical and readable?
Lead section – Does it adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD?
Any gaps – Missing aspects that should be covered?
Provisionally assess as a C-Class and Mid-importance article: has sufficient information, sources, sections, image. At least 250 words of text. This is part of my ongoing project to re-assess all Legal stubs. Will gladly re-assess after a few days to allow for others' input. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Credentials language: Consolidated the repetitive "no credentials" mentions from individual entries into the Key program personnel introduction, now attributed to named reform advocacy sources (Pilots for HIMS Reform, FAA HIMS Program Information Center) per NPOV. The concern is relevant because these non-physician authored documents (Recovery Contract, Last Chance Agreement, Monitor Guidelines) govern career-ending decisions affecting pilots' medical certifications.
Duplicate citations: Resolved.
Article length: Acknowledged. The Legal cases section (~2,500 words, nine cases) is the most logical candidate for a spin-out to HIMS program legal cases or similar. Will address after other GA criteria are met.
Also added Park v. FAA (2024), an NTSB ALJ reversal of FAA certification denial, bringing Legal cases to nine total.
I've listed this article for peer review because the upcoming presidential elections in Iraq is going to be hosted near the end of this month. Since this is the first article that I have created, I would like some feedback on what I could improve on.
These include:
1. What I could do instead in general next time
Did I do something wrong with the references?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Anything else that I may need to focus on?
2. What I should've done instead specifically with the article
Did I leave out some important details?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Did I leave out some important details?
Did my writing tone contradicts WP:NPOV? Any other reasons on why it may be considered as "bad"?
I've listed this article for peer review because it has disastrously failed a FAC nomination and the reviewers recommended me to take this to peer review for prose. All comments will be appreciated. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 05:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had a chance to look through the article in detail. But I think we all know that first impressions are important. The first impression I had was that the image was not what one would call "professional" or high quality. Changing that would be a good 1st step. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yesterday, all my dreams... and thanks for your feedback. Cognition is a very abstract and general term so it is difficult to visualize it in a representative manner. The presentation of different cognitive activities, as the current image attempts, is one approach. Do you have an idea about how the image could be modified to improve it? As an alternative, we could also simply remove the image: lead images are not required and no image may better than a bad image. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Yes, it is a very abstract issue, as you said. And I wish I knew what it is! In the late 1970's a young yours truly attended a meeting with several professors discussing the issue. They reached no agreement. I have since thought about it in the consciousness context, but still in the woods. Any way, regarding the image please take a look at [1]. I like this one [2] but please choose any high quality one you like. Cheers Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote this article yesterday based in large part from journal articles and dug-up sources from around the time. Looking for feedback to make sure it's accessible to a layperson, informative about the election (i:e, doesn't gloss over any necessary attributes while focusing too much on small details), and doesn't contain too much jargon or waffle. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a solid B-Class article. I don't do FA or GA reviews because it's contentious and I'm too stressed out in real life. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to most of these comments later, but I will say, is the issue with the county maps that no direct citation is provided in the "Results by county" description? The results by county are linked to at the file page, and cited in the Results and reaction section (at the table header for each result). I did not include a table for results by county as I figured this would likely clutter up the page, though I could include it if necessary. LivelyRatification (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant: I have acted on most of these comments, with a few exceptions. I'm not sure what change you wanted for the county maps as said above, I have tried to fix the MOS:DASH violations but I may have missed some, and I'm not sure how to add Gingrich's home state as none of the sources I have relating to this directly state it. Would it be good to just find a basic, unrelated source about Gingrich that says this? --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Olliefant: As I said, the county results are cited further down in the article (though not explicitly stated in the article, they are referenced at each of the result tables), but I have added a citation to the infobox as well. I am happy to make this more visible if necessary but not entirely sure how/what I'd need to do. Gingrich's home state has also been added with a citation to another LA Times article. LivelyRatification (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am in the process of a slow, but steady, work in making a 'good/featured' topic for Wikipedia involving the Memphis Chicks of the Southern League, similar concept to my mentor, NatureBoyMD as a way to promote minor league baseball talk on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this page can't be featured due to its list but having this peer review will help with the process.
"He made his first screen appearance in Siete Infantes de Lara (1949)", source? Can't find any in either of the two sources. + The movie was published in 1950.
" He is regarded as the most awarded Filipino actor in history.", please supply a source or a quotation from either of the two sources as I can't find any information regarding this.
"Far East Film Festival named him one of the most prolific actors in Asia." to "The Far East Film Festival named him one of the most prolific actors in Asia."
I'm thinking of promoting this article to featured list status, given there are plenty of sources and information for that to be possible. However, I have not promoted a featured list before, so I'd appreciate some tips on how to improve the current article, particularly with the placement of sources. I'm also pretty sure there is no "good list" category, so hopefully I am reviewing this correctly. :)
My thought process is the following: I'm currently working on getting every franchise to have at least one high-quality reliable source (most notably replacing all of the Game Rant sources). I think the table formatting is fine, but my only suggestion might be to remove the "reference" column in the table and move all of the sources to either the initial/latest game release to verify those claims, or to verify what the series is about. While the reference column is nice, it doesn't directly confirm what is stated in each section of the table, so moving the references could potentially fix that issue. Otherwise, all franchises in the table seem good to me. The only one that I have the slightest bit of doubt for is the Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball series, as the best source I could find is from Operation Sports, a source that I have no basis for reliability. Also, any suggestions to improve the lead section as a summary for ALL of Nintendo's franchises would be greatly appreciated, whether it is adding information or rewording part of it to be more professional.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have contributed significantly to it, and would like to know how else I can improve this article, and what issues persist within. I would like to nominate this for featured list status soon.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AA_se_photographie.jpg){kind=link}