Wikipedia:Peer review

"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 Peer review Editing articles Start a new article Develop the article How to write a great article Manual of style Current reviews Full Unanswered List Log by Wikiproject Archive Peer review process Instructions Discussion Tools Other Conclusion policy Volunteers list 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. Arts Virgo (album) Hello, a peer review would be much appreciated, as I intend for this article to reach GA status despite the small amount of sources around its subject. Thank you! Bleff (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I'm not too familiar with the wikiproject of music but I found somethings that might be addressed to make it GA.Tintor2 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Avoid unsourced sentences like the final one from "Background and production" Same with the first paragraph of "release and reception" Why is "release history" unsourced? Is it not necessary according the project's manual? Also I started my own peer review here. I would appreciate feedback. The Big Room I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to nominate it for GA but would like some feedback first as I am the only major editor. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC) The article looks in good shape but there are some things bothering before thinking of nominating to GA. Expand this the lead to at least two paragraphs per WP:Lead Release and promotion is quite big. I'd recommend to split thinking what is each paragraph about (imagine you are writing a formal letter) Since critical response seems to be mostly positive I would suggest with an intro sentence like "The album received positive critical response with x" Other than that, I didn't notice other issues. Any doubt just ping me. Also, I made my own peer review here. I would appreciate feedback. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to address all these concerns. Freikorp (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC) The General (1926 film) I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a lot of work on it and although I do not think it has enough content to be a B article I would like to see it in great shape and simply needing more content added to it. Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry for the late response. All the issues with the articles seem to be tagged but I would like to point others: Remove citations from the lead WP:Lead I would merge the two versions section due to small they are. "In 1989, The General was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". It made it into the registry in the first year it was enacted, along with such films as The Best Years of Our Lives, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Singin' in the Rain, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Sunset Blvd, and The Wizard of Oz." That is also unsourced. Try formatting the two sources Other than that, I can see this article becoming a GA if its issues are solved. Also, I made a peer review request here. I would appreciate any sort of feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Evanescence Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because… Evanescence's articles were in decent shape when I found its articles. At the time, I had only listened to Fallen, but as I edited their articles and learned about them more, I listened to them more at the same time, and found them very enjoyable (I have all three of their studio albums now). Now, I noticed this article is delisted from GA. Maybe we can fix that. But first, we'd need to go here. I know there are links to archive and tags to resolve but we're pretty close...at least it looks that way. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC) I'll give a review. Don't feel obligated but I have my own music related PR request open here. Freikorp (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Intro "Evanescence No. 71 on the Best Artists of the Decade chart". When were they ranked? Considering you don't specify the full date for the first two albums, I don't see why you need to give it for the third (October 11, 2011). The year alone should be sufficient. "their new album" - maybe it's time to drop 'new'. It's clear which album they were promoting. There's no indication in the lead of what the band has been doing since 2012. That's a long time. History Consider wiki linking Amy Lee and Ben Moody in the first sentence. It's the first time they appear in the body. "The band eventually appeared live". When? Obviously the open citation request is a problem. The first appearance of 'Bring Me to Life' is not wiki linked, but the second is. 'My Immortal' is wiki linked twice. "The equally popular" - Consider rewording, they were both popular, but I don't think any two songs are exactly equally popular. Remove hashtags as per MOS:HASH Can you find a reference that each song was "promoted by a music video"? Official music video links themselves should be sufficient but third part coverage is always better. Perhaps some commentary on the music videos themselves. "In addition, Fallen is No. 6 at the "Top Bestselling Albums of the Last 10 Years". After selling more than 7 million copies in the United States alone and 17 million worldwide." This is unsourced. It is also too short to be a stand alone paragraph. Consider merging, and consider dropping 'In addition'. "The music video for "Call Me When You're Sober" was shot in Los Angeles and is based on the fairy tale Little Red Riding Hood. The Open Door became available for pre-order on the iTunes Store on August 15, 2006; the music video for "Call Me When You're Sober" was also made available." No sources at all for this. The band played a "secret show". What is a secret show? What made it a secret? "Between April and July 2012, Evanescence toured in Europe and North America, with additional stops in Africa and the Middle East." Unsourced. "Wind-up Records" is wiki linked three times. In other media "It later received wide release as a digital download on February 23, 2010.". Source? Also how well did the single perform? No indication is given. That's all the issues I see. I have not checked sources. Freikorp (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Yesterday's Enterprise 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) Just noticed there is a marginal more info on the creation of the physical Enterprise-C model, as well as its later reuse in [1]. Trying to track down a decent source for Star Trek Online having a sequel to the episode in the mission "Temporal Ambassador", but haven't found one yet. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Very, very brief mention of it here [2] - although only says "Three years in, and just over a year after our Free-to-play launch, Star Trek Online celebrated its 3rd Anniversary. This time, we brought in Denise Crosby to reprise her role as Tasha Yar in a wonderful story, “Temporal Ambassador” - a sequel of sorts to the beloved Next Generation episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise”." Miyagawa (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Impossible Princess Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 22 September 2016, 02:29 UTC Last edit: 20 October 2016, 04:01 UTC Euphoria Festival 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) Sorry for the late review User:Hkkelly. There were some issues about this article that motivated me to write: First of all, avoid Carson Creek Ranch's reference and move it to external links. Secondly, add refrences to every section. You might also remove the reference from the lead per WP:Lead Lastly, this might be the most difficult but can you create an "origins section"? Other than that, I think the article could become a GA once its issues are solved. Good luck. Also, if you have free time, could you check my own peer review? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Der 100. Psalm Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 3 September 2016, 07:17 UTC Last edit: 21 September 2016, 06:05 UTC No Russian Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 21 August 2016, 04:01 UTC Last edit: 26 October 2016, 11:03 UTC This Is What the Truth Feels Like 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) There is not much I can say User:Carbrera since I don't know too much about music articles. The article is in nice shape to be nominated to FA unless you want a copyedit first from the Guild. Only thing I would avoid is removing the reviewers' scores from the prose since the box already lists them. Still, isn't Metacritic's "62" a bit "mixed" based on other things you can find in the site with scores of 80 onwards? Also, if possible could also take a look at my peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Tidus/archive1. Regards and good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Suavemente 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) Sorry for the late review, jona but I'll try to point some issues. The article uses some red links which might bother reviewers. The professional ratings box seems pointless since there aren't any more reviewers other than Allmusic. After that, I think the article is looking pretty good. If you want more reviews, you could exchange reviews with other ones like Wikipedia:Peer review/This Is What the Truth Feels Like/archive1. Also, I listed a peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/Tidus/archive1, and I would appreciate feedback. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC) List of songs recorded by Sia Furler 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: From my experience with leads, they can avoid reference if it is a GA or FA. However, when it comes to FLs, the lead might need them. I notice too many overlinks in the table. Reference 13 needs formating "Highs Nobility http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/03/09/wiz-khalifa-beautiful-people-sia/. Retrieved August 11, 2016. Missing or empty |title= (help)" Reference 33 "Pascuzzi, Carmine. "Sia – Colour the Small One". Mediasearch (Carmine Pascuzzi, Andrew Donald ). Archived from the original on 4 March 2008. Retrieved 14 July 2013." Carmine Pascuzzi is mentioned twice. Reference 61 " https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/titanium-remixes-feat.-sia/id694188408" needs formatting 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. Comments by Ssilvers (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC) I agree that the lead section needs to be thoroughly referenced. The song "The Greatest" is listed as being from an album called We Are Your Children, but there is no such Sia album. In fact, the song was first released as a single and will be included on the Deluxe version of This Is Acting. "One Candle" from the Racing Extinction documentary is missing We Are Born: What do you mean that this album was "made available"? The Lead does not give much idea of which songs were the most important or popular in Sia's career. You need to cite reviews or accolades that give the reader an understanding of which songs are Sia's most famous ones, and the relative importance to Sia's career of the songs that are noted. There are other singles from This Is Acting that are missing, I believe. Andha Naal Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 6 August 2016, 12:49 UTC Last edit: 19 September 2016, 15:52 UTC Soul Asylum discography 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) 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 20 July 2016, 23:10 UTC Last edit: 29 August 2016, 04:38 UTC Kazuma Eekman 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) W139 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) Astronomica (Manilius) Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 1 June 2016, 15:33 UTC Last edit: 21 July 2016, 16:17 UTC Sept haï-kaïs 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 [[3]] 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) Dirrty Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 20 April 2016, 05:53 UTC Last edit: 17 July 2016, 12:19 UTC Palais Rohan, Strasbourg 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 ([4]). 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) LynwoodF 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 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 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 Huskies de Rouen 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) Hi <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>>, sorry for the late review but like you say the article is need of clean up: Try referencing every statement about the article. Format referencing into cite web or cite book. Some sections are really small like uniform. I'd suggest you could merge it with another one. Try searching in Wikimedia Commons a free image that could be used for this article. Any doubts just ping me like this "@Tintor2:". Also I started my own peer review here and I would appreciate some feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Arsène Wenger 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) 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. NOTE: Please respond, below the entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! 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) 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.) There are quite some red links remaining: six. Either I would omit the links, either I would create a stub for them. 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. All honours in the Honours section should be referenced; at this moment you have to look up references for these achievements in the text. At the part of individual honours, I would add the number of times he achieved them, just like this was done for the clubs. In the managerial career, to be consistent I would either start all three subsections with the years, either with the club names. "first-team" -> "first team", "last minute goal" -> "last-minute goal" No spaces between period and reference For readability, instead of 75000000 I would write 75,000,000 or 75 000 000 or 75 million Put notes and comments after punctuation (periods or commas, but not words) A single time the order of the references is to be changed: 17&16 ->16&17 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. You might want to add a box at the Talk page indicating that this article is written in British English. A couple of images have a rather blurry appearance; consider using sharper ones if possible. Consider adding a translation of the (limited number of) reference titles that are in a foreign language. 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 20 June 2016, 15:00 UTC Last edit: 1 September 2016, 12:38 UTC Engineering and technology Cortana (software) I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article to FA. However, I have not made any FA articles. Could anyone give comments/help/guide me? Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Hello, I checked your article and found some things that might bother reviewers: There are too many images. Even if they are free the clash a lot with each others as well as the text. The lead has some citations. See WP:Lead; unless you are citing controversial info, I recommend you removing them since they are mentioned in the body. Avoid short paragraphs like the ones from Expansion to other platforms. You could also combine or expand some sections from Functionality like Design which is really small. Same with Technology and updating. In Regions and languages, I would suggest removing the flags. They are quite redundant as we already see country right next to them. Also, they could be WP:Undue weight Lastly, some citations are lacking accessdate. I hope my comments helped you. I also put a peer review here so I would appreciate you could give me feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Razer Naga Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 24 October 2016, 08:07 UTC Last edit: 13 November 2016, 09:45 UTC Binary search algorithm 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) Comments by Mike Christie Making my way through the article; this looks in good shape. Some comments below. I'd suggest linking to Big O notation the first time you use it. A related point: most people won't know that notation, so could it be avoided or explained in the lead? I can imagine many readers wanting to learn about binary search without having a maths background; if we can introduce the technical terms gradually that would help. Non-technical readers aren't going to get to the end of the article, but they should be able to get through the first section or two, if they're motivated. Why is the information in the performance section about pre-storing certain locations in an invisible comment, rather than a note or part of the text? It seems like useful information. You explain the floor function, but by that time you've already used it in the algorithm. It's linked there, but it might be better to avoid using it in the algorithm, so you can explain it on first use. In the algorithm just paraphrase what it does. Similarly you explain "amortized" on second use. I see you're using "log" for log2, after defining it in the lead. Unless the sources don't do this (perhaps because "log" always means "log2" in the literature?) I think the subscript would be helpful. In any case the information should be repeated in the body, since the lead shouldn't contain anything not in the body. Any reason not to put the arguments in parentheses in expressions such as "log n - 1"? "no search algorithm that is based solely on comparisons": how about a footnote that links to an article about algorithms that are not based solely on comparisons? It's not immediately obvious what these might be, but perhaps the information doesn't belong in the main text. The Judy array sentence isn't really very informative as it stands; if these are worth mentioning, a few more words of description would be helpful. Also, the sentence is unsourced as is the following paragraph, and at least one later paragraph. I'd suggest thickening the line in the Fibonacci search illustration; on one of my two screens (1920 x 1080) the line looks OK, but on the other (1280 x 1024) it's almost invisible. "interpolation search is slower than binary search for small arrays, as interpolation search requires extra computation, and the slower growth rate of its time complexity compensates for this only for large arrays": does Knuth give any specifics on the minimum array size at which interpolation search becomes more efficient? In the history section, I'd rephrase the mention of fractional cascading -- you describe it in the paragraph just above so it can be referred to as something the reader has already been told about, rather than as something that needs an explanation. I found the note about the overflow bug in Bentley's (and other) implementations fascinating, particularly because I read Bentley's original article thirty years ago. I'd suggest changing the start of the following paragraph to make it clearer that you're about to explain the problem; as it stands I thought the new paragraph was going on to another topic till I was halfway through it. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Toshiba T1000LE 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) Ok, so... To start with, this article does not have a proper lede. The lede should be a quick and simple overview of the body that follows. In this case, however, the lede is filled with numbers and trivia that really belong in a separate Description section. The lede should also try to what makes this topic notable. In this case, the important quality of this laptop appears to be that it had a hard drive and a battery. That fact and the launch and discontinue dates would make a nice lede. Also, the topic of the article should be in bold in the lede. Next, anything list-like, like Specifications, should go below the body of the article. So move that down. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Budd Rail Diesel Car 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 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) Amplifier 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 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) General The Concrete Herald Hi everyone! I ask to peer review this because it ended up to be my first in-depth article. (I planned another topic for this role, but attempts to delete this article prompted me to save it by going deep.) I like to go deep into topics, so your kind feedback should be helpful for me to go forward. Thanks, 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Impressive work in expanding the article after it was almost deleted. There are some issues I noted if you want to make the article become a GA or FA. First of all, the lead. Per WP: Lead, it should be at least 2 paragraphs long and no use citations since it will be covered in the body. Avoid unsourced statements like "The newspaper maintains dedicated sections to local news from Darrington, Clear Lake, Hamilton, Lyman, Marblemount, Newhalem, Rockport, and Sedro-Woolley." The image in distribution really clashes with the prose. I would recommend merging the two distrubution sections and leave the image below them. That's all I found. Great work. If you fix some of this issues I believe it could become a good article which is a lot for its almost deletion. Also if you have free time, I also made a peer review here. Could you give it a look? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Tidus I've listed this article for peer review because I think I managed to expand much more the out-of-universe information from this article to the point I think it is more than the in-universe information. Like I did with Allen Walker, I modeled this article after FA Lightning (Final Fantasy). I would like to nominate this article to FA if possible, but I know it still has some issues like its weak prose. I would like to request a copy-edit too. Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Just calling out fellow users I worked with: User:Aoba47, User:Jaguar, User:ProtoDrake.Tintor2 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC) I'll give a few comments. Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC) "He also said there were things he would change about his performance if he could do it over again." Can you give an example of what he would have changed? "Tidus is then taken by Sin and Jecht's friend, Auron, to the world Spira." How is he taken there? This is not explained to the reader. Perhaps mention the year 1UP found him to be the worst dressed character (2008). Incidentally I also used that source when writing Jill valentine; she is ranked as fifth worst dressed on that list haha. I would strongly recommend taking the article to the guild of copyeditors prior to FA nomination. I am in the habit of archiving all URLs prior to FA nomination. I strongly recommend it to ensure the article has the best chance of keeping its status as either a good or featured article. It tends to go down well with people commenting on FA nominations as well. Well done on the article. I enjoyed reading it. As far as i'm concerned FFX is tied with Ocarina of Time for the greatest video game of all time. Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the review. I tried addressing your issues. I also requested a copyedit some days ago. Now I'll focus on archiving the sources.Tintor2 (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Update. I think I managed to find sources for almost all articles, but some from 1UP are beyond dead.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Comments from Iazyges Most of these are prose suggestions. "He was first introduced as the protagonist of the role-playing video game Final Fantasy X in 2001 by Square. Tidus is introduced as a 17-year-old expert in the fictional sport blitzball from the city of Zanarkand." I don't think the double usage of introduced is roughly the same place is good, perhaps "When Tidus is first introduced as a 17-year-old expert in the fictional sport blitzball from the city of Zanarkand." "After killing the corrupt deity " Perhaps corrupt god, unless they call them deities in the game. "though his appearances in the sequel are few" Perhaps "though he had few appearances in the sequel" or "Though he rarely appeared in the sequel" Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks. I did those changes except one from Yu Yevon he is actually a human whose spirits went insane.Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Star Wars: Jedi Arena I have listed this article for peer review because the article appears from my perspective to be largely complete based on all the available resources that I can obtain. After finding all the available reliable sources that I could, I am looking for further ideas about how to improve this article. Thanks, Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Comments by IDV Just some quick notes. "Game box front cover art" can be simplified to "Box art" or "Cover art" Add alt text to the images - something like "The cover shows the character Luke Skywalker deflecting a laser blast from a seeker ball using his lightsaber" and "Animated footage of typical gameplay, showing two lightsabers deflecting laserblasts from a seeker ball from an overhead perspective" (you can go ahead and copy those exact examples if you want to, I don't mind) Don't link Parker Brothers twice in the infobox The lead seems a bit short - perhaps add an example or two of what aspects of the game critics liked and disliked "and finally the opponent himself" assumes that player 2 is male - I would suggest something like "and finally directly at the opponent" The GameTrailers ref should have GameTrailers in |work=, IGN or Ziff Davis (IGN's parent company) in |publisher=, and YouTube in |via= Similarly, the Google Books refs should have Google Books in |via= The "development" and "release" sections are both quite short - I'd probably combine them into a single section titled "development and release" to avoid the article looking shorter and choppier than it has to be Similarly, I'd advise against splitting reception into multiple sub-sections before the section is of a certain length - I'd just remove the "legacy" section heading Maybe this is obvious, but how is Warlords related? Add archive links to your refs whenever possible (we can't do it for youtube or google books though - although it wouldn't even be necessary for the latter, as the physical books exist independently of the website...) --IDVtalk 20:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I have addressed all of the given issues. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Billy Cannon I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured Article status. The article was GA reviewed and promoted in April by Jaguar, who said he found nothing wrong with the article. Any suggestions for what I can do to increase its FA worthiness would be appreciated. Thanks, Lizard (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC) The Cambridge Union I've listed this article for peer review because it has been transferred over following a name change and has lost its previous reviews. The article has also been worked on substantially from different sources. Thanks, Om285 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Checking it User:Om285, the issues I find are: Four citations in the lead section. If you are citing controversial info, I'd recommend you to change to something more general or indirect. The third paragraph of modern developments lack citations. 2016 development project has two one-sentence paragraphs. Try expanding or combine them. In past speakers and debates there is a link to an official website. That might fit better in sections like further reading, see also or external links. Some citations are also lacking formatting. I hoped this helped. Good luck with the article. Also I made my own peer review here so I would appreciate feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC) 2003 Cricket World Cup Final 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) Giants2008 comments – Even after reviewing many cricket articles over the years, I'm still not literate in the sport. While I can't help much with match summaries and the like, here are some pointers from throughout the article: Just for my own knowledge, is "where as" British English or Indian English. We usually have that as one word in the U.S., but it it's normal over there than no problem. "Australia entered the match as firm favourites, which was watched by a crowd of around 32,000." The part after the comma should go before "as firm favourites", as the crowd refers to the match and not Australia's status. We don't need two Sachin Tendulkar links in the lead. Background: "where each qualifier from either of the groups played each qualifier of the other group exactly once." "exactly" strikes me as redundant, and you can remove it without affecting the meaning. A few prose tweaks like this will help at FAC. Group stage: A good half of the second paragraph is unsourced. This will need to be rectified for the article to have a chance at FAC. Super Sixes: Check for a double "margin" in the second paragraph. "Zaheer Khan took career-best...". This needs "a" after "took". Second semi-final: Should the first word of "Man of the match" be capitalized? Build up: Italicize Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. "Simon Wilde called the venue as one of the most...". Remove the apostrophe at the end of South African airlines'. "and who the Indian fans had high expectations." Feels like this should have "of" at the end. "he released a statement saying that team...". This needs "the" or "his" before "team". Also, "is" should be changed to "was" to reflect past tense. Summary: "Gilchrist in particular hit both Khan and Srinath for a lot of runs." "a lot" is going to sound vague to FAC reviewers. How about trying "many" instead? Aftermath: The first paragraph is unsourced. "Even Ganguly called such a result would be 'tragic'." "called" → "said". "Australia were rewarded with a prize money of US$2,000,000." Remove "a" from this bit. Minor, but the Wisden link could be moved to earlier in the article, where it was in Build-up. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC) The article looks in good shape but there somethings that bothered me Avoid short paragraphs like the third one from the lead. Every paragraph should be the same more or less. Either expand them or merging it with others On the other hand, the lead's second paragraph it's huge. Try trimming it a little. In Scorecard, I don't see the need of flags. Aren't flags common knowledge? The first sentence of Aftermath is unsourced. Reference it and if possible expand it or merge it with another paragraph. Considering the age of the paragraphs I suggest archving using webcitaion.org or finding them in web.archive.org Anyway, I hope that helped you. I also made my own peer review here and I would appreciate feedback. Regards. Linda Lovelace 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) Comments by llywrch Despite the subject -- or perhaps, because of the subject, I think this is a deserving candidate to bring to GA status. I remember that during the 1970s Linda Lovelace was widely considered as a non-standard celebrity for helping to mainstream pornography; when her story of abuse & exploitation emerged, it was quite the shock. First step would be to double-check all of the facts & references in this article. No matter what this article states, it will be controversial so you want the facts correct. I notice that her autobiography Ordeal is barely cited. Yes, using this work might introduce some COI issues, but it is the primary source about her life -- especially her allegations about Chuck Traynor. I'd study that book carefully, then compare what the other sources say against what she wrote. Even if you don't make much further use of the work, it will help you understand her: while there are several sections that seem to be untrue, they read more like fantasies a trauma survivor would create to indirectly talk about what happened to her than outright lies. This emphasizes that the facts about Lovelace are often more complex than they might appear -- in some ways it is hard to accept her as a victim, because some of the things she says about herself seem to be lies. However, she was an under-educated girl from a working-class background who clearly suffered from some kind of trauma living with Traynor, so sometimes she is her own worst advocate. As a further comment about her career, Harry Reems wrote either an autobiography or a memoir about his career in the porn business where he discusses working with Linda Lovelace. IIRC, he confirms some of what she claims about Traynor, while also claiming that she liked sex at the time. Some solid facts about her marriage to Traynor would be helpful: A person on the Talk page notes that Lovelace discovered that she was never legally married to Traynor. This may be the truth, or it may be a lie she was compelled to tell herself to distance herself from her abuser. By now someone must have done the research to determine if that marriage actually happened. FWIW, I like the head shot of Lovelace in the Infobox. It is a good picture of her. A last point: another person on the talk page notes that in the first section there is a sentence with an unclear referent: "At age 20, she gave birth to her first child, which her mother gave up for adoption" -- as the commenter notes, it is unclear whether the baby was Linda's or her mother's. This will doubtlessly prove a complex story to cover in a Wikipedia article. Do it right, & you will have something to truly be proud of. Good luck -- llywrch (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Surgical Care Affiliates 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) Sorry for the late review Lisacatherine. The prose in the article looks good but there are still some issues that need to be covered. Per WP:Lead there should be between two or four paragraphs. Also, remove the references from the lead as according to the guidelines they are used in the body. "In 2016, SCA announced its inaugural Physician Advisory Board to provide feedback and direction on SCA's innovation and growth initiatives." Is it sourced? Now, the biggest problem I found with this article is the formatting. Depending on the type you can make a "Designated title". Retrieved November 5, 2016. . Additionally, you can add author and date if possible Is there a free image you could use? Lastly, if you think the prose needs working, submit it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you do it, be patient as it can take time. I hope I was helpful. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC) McLaren MP4-30 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 Images 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 The FIA needs to be spelt out with the acronyms in brackets Power unit — Honda RA615H "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 Do the same for drag reduction system Asian and American rounds 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. References 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 Probably, but I don't know how to do it. See:Help:Using_the_Wayback_Machine. WP:CHECKLINKS can be helpful too. Tvx1 00:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 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 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 I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC and need ideas on how to improve it. Are there any obvious or not so obvious omissions? Is the article sufficiently accessible to a lay reader? Are there any items that need clarification or expansion? Are there any images that would significantly improve the article (I can produce reasonable quality graphics)? Any other advice that might lead to improvement welcomed. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Principal, Ecuador 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) Well, this is not a place to ask for improving an article, but for comments on how it can be improved. Quickly: it does not follow WP:EL (has external links rather then interlinks in body), does not have a proper WP:LEAD, has only one section that merges two concepts (Culture and Tourism), so is poorly structured, and is poorly referenced. In fact many elinks seem to be added as a form of advertising of some local tour businesses. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 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 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 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 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) @Disc Wheel: I think this is an important issue, could you please reply? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Lead 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) Geography and places Portsmouth Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 16 October 2016, 12:46 UTC Last edit: 14 November 2016, 21:33 UTC South Stoneham House 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 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) Dubai 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 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) Comments 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 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. http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cache/wikipedia:en:New_England#view:0.0.0.0.1.1 shows several dead or possibly dead links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_England/to_do 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) https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=New+England&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 (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) The secon paragraphs of #Town Meetings seems completely plagiarized. History Iazyges I've listed this article for peer review because, as my namesake article I am interested in getting it to GA (and hopefully FA), hopefully the peer review gets the page to a point where I can bring it to GAN, Thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC) It looks good but I found some issues. Expand the lead a bit. Considering how big is the article, at least the first paragraph could use some expansions. Avoid small sections like name and merge it with History. Same with small paragraphs like "In 50 AD, an Iazyges cavalry detachment fought alongside the Suevian King Vannius, who was a Roman client king of the Quadi.[8]" Try to balance a bit the size of the paragraphs like in After the Dacian Wars I'm mixed in regards to redlinks unless users are developing article about the,- Other than I think the article could become a GA. Also, I made my own peer review here. I would appreciate feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Virginia Conventions Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 9 October 2016, 10:43 UTC Last edit: 8 November 2016, 07:15 UTC Vandenberg Air Force Base I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is need of cleanup and I would like to get it to WP:GA status. Thanks, Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Comments by Iazyges "with a mission of placing satellites into polar orbit from the West Coast using expendable boosters" Perhaps "Whose purpose is placing satellites into polar orbit from the West Coast using expendable boosters" "The base is named in honor of former Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg." Perhaps an expansion, such as why it was named after him. " Operations involve dozens of federal and commercial interests." Needs expansion. "In 1941 the United States Army sought more and better training centers for the rapid development of its armored and infantry forces." This could be taken to mean either in order to allow for rapid development, or else in order to start the rapid development. The title "Known United States Army Units at Camp Cooke", seems a little weird unless it means concurrently, perhaps "Known United States Army Units That Were Stationed at Camp Cooke" " In January 1956, a select committee was formed that examined more than 200 potential sites before Camp Cooke was chosen," Is the name of the committee known? "The initial mission of Cooke AFB was to serve both as a training site for" training site sounds a bit weird, maybe "served as a base for the 30th space wing to train on" Going back to "The base is named in honor of former Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg." the lead makes it appear as if it were always called this, perhaps the piece talking about its renaming should be moved into the lead. End. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC) First look by Lineagegeek Adding a bibliography would permit shorter citations for books. It would also highlight the lack of page references in these books. What does the date of redesignation of units have to do with the base? Also if you are going to list some squadrons as "major' units it would seem that all squadrons should be listed. Limit major units to wings and above. Demographics. If 2010 is listed, why not 1990, 1980, etc.? Delete this and note changes between 2000 and 2010. Dead links need to be repaired. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Deva Victrix Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 21 September 2016, 02:25 UTC Last edit: 10 October 2016, 20:48 UTC Transformation of the Ottoman Empire 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 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) Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, nice work so far, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC) in the References, I think that you will need to provide more details to meet the verifiability requirement as currently there probably isn't enough information to allow the casual reader to find the sources. E.g. details like the date of publication, title, publisher etc should be included if known. to take the article up towards B class/GA, at a minimum each paragraph probably needs to have a citation at the end of it, which fully references the content contained in the paragraph (if need be multiple references/citations can also be provided); is there a link that could be provided for "equestrian order"? in terms of structure, I think that the Role section would probably work better if it was presented before the Fleet operations section. Cecil E. Harris 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) Comment: G'day, thank you for your efforts with this article. Overall, I think it is quite well done, but I think for higher levels of assessment you will face some concerns about how detailed it is. Also, some of the language is probably a bit florid for an encyclopedia article. I made a couple of changes to try to demonstrate some of the issues, but I don't want to change the article too much as it will potentially cause some angst. As such, I leave it for you to consider the best way forward. These are my changes, anyway: [5] If you wish to take it towards GA or beyond, I think requesting someone from WP:GOCE to take a look, might be the way forward, Anyway, best of luck, whatever you decide. Sorry if this sounds disparaging, I don't mean it to be. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Yarnell Hill Fire 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) The article looks in good shape. Just a couple of points: "Frisby and McDonough moved the crew's vehicles to a safer location, which they were doing at the time of Granite Mountain crew entrapment": I'm not sure what "which they were doing" means; can you rephrase? There are a couple of uncited sentences. The comment about the Diamondbacks needs a date on it (when they started, whether they're still doing it). I haven't looked at the sources in detail, but I saw no source issues in the ones I looked at. I think this would likely pass FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Freeway Complex Fire 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) A couple of comments: "The preliminary cause of the Freeway Fire was thought to be": needs to be rephrased; this was a preliminary estimate or guess, not a preliminary cause. The last sentence is uncited. I think the lead could be expanded a little with one or two more facts from the article. The sources seem sound, and the image appears to be correctly licensed. I think this would pass GA with the minor points above fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC) M. P. T. Acharya 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) 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 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) Looks good; some comments below. Do we need the parenthetical dates of his MP stints in the lead? Seems a bit distracting, and the details are available below. "Gabriel received the remainder of Midgehall's 95-year lease 11 years after Tobias settled in Chipping Faringdon": I don't follow this. Do you mean that the date he received the lease is unknown, but it's known to be 11 years after Tobias settled in Chipping Faringdon? I think you mean that Tobias gave up the property at that point, so Gabriel inherited (or just took possession?) but I wasn't clear on this. I would suggest naming Oliver and Agnes when you mention that he had two children; I wasn't sure who Oliver was till I read on. "On this basis, the constituency was abolished by the Reform Act 1832": I don't think you need "on this basis", and I think the rest of the sentence could be moved to a note. "Surviving parliamentary records note Pleydell by his Christian name as returning to Parliament with, identifying him outright" -- some editing debris here? Perhaps include a note at the first appropriate point that lets the reader know that a constituency returned two members at that time. "he brought a charge against several men in the Star Chamber": presumably should be "he brought a charge in the Star Chamber against several men". "Allegations of forgery were brought against Pleydell in the Court of Chancery": this phrasing can mean either one charge, or multiple charges, so I would suggest amending this to "Multiple allegations" or "Several allegations". "(historically described as "scoundrels")": I think this needs a bit more inline attribution -- does the source say their contemporaries considered them scoundrels? Or is this from a single contemporary source? "keeping in mind that Pleydell's grandson Charles (then a minor) would inherit a considerable fortune": what's intended by "keeping in mind"? -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks again for picking this up Mike Christie, it's much appreciated. I've addressed your suggestions for improvement and hope I've fulfilled them adequately; a confirmation of this wouldn't go amiss. Cheers! Curlymanjaro (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC) The fixes all look good, except that you might add "at that time" or "until <date>" to the note about two members being returned; I don't know when it changed but your wording might leave a reader unfamiliar with British politics thinking this was still the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Further detail added, Mike Christie; I hope this clears things up. Curlymanjaro (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Looks good; I tweaked it a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Nisi Mac Niata 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) Comments by David Fuchs {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Hey, sorry for the long delay. Things got crazy in the real world. Anyhow, some thoughts on the article: The use of Irish templates for proper nouns in this gets kind of out of hand and interferes with reading. I would strongly suggest axing them and putting wikilinks where crucial, because this is the English Language encyclopedia. Likewise, there's extensive use of italics, and it confuses things rather than making it clear. Are they being used for foreign words, emphasis, or all of the above? See MOS:ITALIC for some guidance on this—probably the biggest takeaway is don't use quotation marks along with italics for emphasis. For such a short article, it's very dearly missing some context that makes the text flow better and contextualizes just why this person is worth an article. The article mentions He was probably a close associate of Caillin, as they were siblings in the same Túath, and travelling companions when Nisi died. yet doesn't tell me who Caillin is, and doesn't mention anything about the possible dates when he died. If some of this info is missing, then it's probably best to tell the reader so they aren't feeling like they're missing the complete story. As it is, the article says they stayed at a guy's house and he killed him, with no indication as to why that was or if anything happened to him afterwards. Attribute quotes when you use them, such as This patronage would help the viability of "a famous monastic settlement at Fenagh". If it's not important who said it reword the sentence to remove it. When was the Book of Fenagh written? File:E124055.jpg seems like it's being use for extraneous decorative purposes (it's not actually the subject getting brained with the axe.) I don't necessarily think you can't have this image, but it probably shouldn't be in the infobox and should be more clearly labeled so people aren't confused about what it depicts. Overall it could use a prose overhaul and some additional information to assist readers who aren't intimately familiar with Irish folklore or terms. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Devon and Cornwall County Division 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) Comments: It's always intesting to read about these units. I have only a couple of comments: "During the summer, the Battle of Britain dampened this threat" - minor point, but perhaps tweak to note that it was the British victory in this campaign which reduced the threat It would be interesting to expand on this division's disbandment: eg, to note that the 77th initially had the same role and units, and to discuss what eventually happened to its personnel and units (eg, were the battalions transferred as formed units, or broken up?) Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Crusades Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 11 August 2016, 16:03 UTC Last edit: 3 October 2016, 09:54 UTC John C. Calhoun Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 4 August 2016, 16:13 UTC Last edit: 20 August 2016, 14:28 UTC Tom Wills 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 28 July 2016, 12:32 UTC Last edit: 11 September 2016, 19:13 UTC Ballymacarrett rail crash 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 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) Comments 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. [6] 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) Comments 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 27 April 2016, 20:54 UTC Last edit: 11 July 2016, 20:34 UTC Balfour Declaration 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: Shlaim, A (2009), ‘The Balfour Declaration and its Consequences,’ in Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations, London: Verso Rhett, Maryanne A. (19 November 2015). The Global History of the Balfour Declaration: Declared Nation. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-31276-5.  Renton, James (15 November 2007). The Zionist Masquerade: The Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance 1914-1918. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-54718-6.  Fromkin, David (1990). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Avon Books. ISBN 978-0-380-71300-4.  Friedman, Isaiah. The Question of Palestine: British-Jewish-Arab Relations, 1914–1918. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-3868-9.  Rose, Norman (2010). A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine, 1890s to 1948. Pimlico. ISBN 978-1-84595-079-8.  Albert Hourani; Malise Ruthven (30 November 2010). A History of the Arab Peoples: With a New Afterword. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-05819-4. Retrieved 23 December 2011.  Said, Edward W. (1979). The Question of Palestine. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-73988-3.  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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 22 April 2016, 18:24 UTC Last edit: 7 July 2016, 15:58 UTC Natural sciences and mathematics Crater Illusion Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 5 October 2016, 01:49 UTC Last edit: 1 November 2016, 14:28 UTC Cloud Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I have been trying for quite awhile to upgrade it to at least a GA-class article. I have implemented to the best of my ability suggestions that were offered during an unsuccessful GAN (I was not the original nominator) nearly 2 years ago. However I think the article still needs to be made a bit shorter and more concise, but I'm not sure where to make any further cuts. Also, I'm still open to more suggestions to improve the organization and wording of the article. If it's still not ready for a GA-grade, I would like to see if it can be upgraded to a B-status for the time being. Thanks, ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Overall it looks pretty good. There are a number of short sections, which normally should be avoided per MOS:BODY. Organizationally, shouldn't the "Formation and distribution" section be in the "Throughout the homosphere" section? Since "Throughout the homosphere" applies to all the above sections, shouldn't that section appear before "Tropospheric"? I think that would serve as a useful lead-in introduction to the remainder. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC) No doubt, the biggest challenges I've had with this article have been with how to organize the sections and how long they should be. I came up with the current sequence of sections during an unsuccessful GAN nearly 2 years ago which I did not initiate because I didn't think the article was ready for it then. The senior editor who was assisting me at the time suggested that after the etymology and history of cloud science sections, the article should go straight into Tropospheric classification because that was what most readers checking out the article would want to read about first. Prior to that, I had put the sections about formation and distribution just ahead of classification for each of the 3 major layers of the atmosphere. If you're suggesting returning to that sequence, I wouldn't need much persuasion to do so. However, I think an editorial consensus might have to be arrived at if there are currently conflicting opinions about how the sections should be sequenced. As for putting the section "Throughout the homosphere" ahead of those that deal with the troposphere separately, this again raises the question about which topics should lead the article. The pan-homospheric section deals with subjects like coloration and effects on climate which may or may not best be placed ahead of classification. Again, I'll need an editorial consensus to make any major structural changes since I seem to be getting conflicting guidance about this. There is also the problem of the length of some of the shorter sections. The length of each current section is dictated by how much verifiable information I and some other contributors have been able to come up with for each. The sections about the polar stratospheric and mesospheric clouds might be combined to form a longer section. However the methods of classification used in each of these 2 levels are radically different from each other and both are radically different from the method of classification used in the troposphere, so combining any of these sections for reasons of length alone would be very awkward at best. So I'm gratefully open to any more suggestions, or to any clarifications of suggestions already made. Many thanks. ~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Article restructure I've decided to remove the "throughout the homosphere" section altogether and merge its parts with the tropospheric, polar stratospheric, and polar mesospheric sections. The introductory sections of the article remain pan-homospheric in scope, but the sections that follow are now arranged in the sequence of tropospheric, stratospheric, mesospheric, and extraterrestrial. I hope this creates a more logical structure and flow. ~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Jean-Pascal van Ypersele 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 , his personal website (which could be cited) or his interview with CarbonBrief Thanks, Pmarbaix (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Thorium Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 25 June 2016, 04:53 UTC Last edit: 12 November 2016, 10:05 UTC Language and literature Analog Science Fiction and Fact I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it at WP:FAC and I'd like to get more input before doing so. Thanks, Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC) The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. 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) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 10 August 2016, 22:58 UTC Last edit: 6 September 2016, 00:42 UTC The Dark Fields 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. 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. Could you make a reception section? Sales would be good. 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. 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. More sources are needed. Try: THE DARK FIELDS. By: Zaleski, Jeff. Publishers Weekly. 11/19/2001, Vol. 248 Issue 47, p48 Time Is 'Limitless.' By: GLYNN, ALAN. Publishers Weekly. 5/16/2011, Vol. 228 Issue 20, p76 No Glamour Backstage, No-Frills Trading Room. New York Times. 1/13/2002, Vol. 151 Issue 51997, Section 14 p5 The Dark Fields (Book). By: Kaufman, King. New York Times Book Review. 3/3/2002, p16. --maclean (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Philosophy and religion Vedanta I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article, with some more work on the basis of suggestions from experienced editors, can be nominated for being recognized as a Featured Article. Thanks, Nrityam (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA (and possible FA) one day. Since this is basically listing many criticisms and rebuttals of those criticisms, I thought it would be best to have someone else read over this article and see if anything is too POV. I have also, to the best of my ability, gone over everything to make sure that it reads well and that there are no typos, but a quick look-over would also be great. Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Comments by Emir of Wikipedia @Gen. Quon: If you're still interested then I'll pick up this peer review. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: I would much appreciate that!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC) I might be a while as I'm busy the next few days, but I hope to be helpful. 18:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC) No worries. I'm in no real rush with this project, so you can take your time!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Lead The lead has a heavy amount of citations. Could these be moved to the article about the book, or the body of the text? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Several of the citations aren't really necessary, as what they are sourcing is covered (and sourced) in-depth within the article itself. I have removed those. At the same time, I've kept the citations for the direct quotes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for that edit. I like the use of the image and the caption about it, the article is well summarised by it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Background Analysis and translation of the papyrus by Egyptologists The "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" The facsimiles Other criticisms Defense of the book Astrodatabank 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) Gospel of John 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 Notifying editors from the previous FA discussion: @Maunus, Johnbod, Caeciliusinhorto, Brianboulton, Laser brain, and Gerda Arendt:. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) 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) Social sciences and society Ishaq Dar I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article which I would like to bring up-to GA status. Thanks, Saqib (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Pashtuns I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to re-add it to featured article list. Thanks, Saadkhan12345 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Global citizenship education I've listed this article for peer review because someone may have some ideas for ways in which it could improved. Thanks, Mark Osan (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Racial wage gap in the United States 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 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 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) Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 26 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 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) Sorry for the late review User:Johnsoniensis. Some issues I found are: Clean up the lead to at maximum four paragraphs with each one having two or three sentences focused on the same subjects. The last sentences from Contents are unsourced. Same with Library buildings. You could also merge Partial refurbishment with Libary buildings unless you are going to expand the former. 1851–1936 is too long for a single paragraph. Try splitting them to at least two with each keeping references. Moses Tyson is unsourced "Frederick Ratcliffe to Jan Wilkinson" is unsourced. Same with "Former librarians" Anyway, good luck with the article. I'm also doing a peer review here so I would appreciate some feedback. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC) David McDowall (criminologist) 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) Lists List of Georgetown University alumni 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 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 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 WikiProject Military history: Balfour Declaration • Nelson Mandela • Siege of Arrah • Wytheville Raid • Crusades • Devon and Cornwall County Division • Cecil E. Harris • Classis Germanica • Deva Victrix • Vandenberg Air Force Base