Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' 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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC and want to see areas for improvement to help streamline the process. Please see this section on my talk page.
I've recently raised this article to GA, and considering trying to get it to an FA. If passed, this would be my first, so I'm keen to get input on what could be improved.
Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…I've only submitted one article before. This member is considered famous and I would like to get his bio and wiki page approved. It's been up for a month and still no one has reviewed. Could use any advice, review or instruction.
Hi there. Wikipedia articles, particularly biographies of living people (BLP), need to be built around reliable, independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Looking at the article's current references, I see:
FunnymanGaitlin's TikTok profile
A link to his song on Apple Music
A YouTube interview
An interview in a local Atlanta publication where all of the content comes from Gaitlin himself
Another link to his song on Apple Music
Another link to his song on Apple Music
Another link to his song on Apple Music
None of these sources make a case for the subject's notability because they are not independent. The statements about his early life and personal life that are tagged with "citation needed" should be removed per the BLP policy. I see you have removed the proposed deletion tag, but unless you add additional sources that actually cover him in detail and are independent of the subject, I think this is headed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. DanCherek (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking to see if this article can be improved any further, as I think it's as exhaustive as it gets. Also, I'm curious if an article of this size could be nominated for GA. Nehme1499 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nehme1499 I am sorry that it has taken so long for someone to reivew this. Unfortunately, I don't think this is ready for GAN yet. I think more information needs to be added to the article to expand its scope. Try looking for more sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and using the academic databases provided by your local library system. Also, medium and soundcloud are not considered reliable sources so these need to be replaced. Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thanks for your reply. Given the very recent nature of the musical genre, it's not something that we can source through academic papers. Also, why are SoundCloud's yearly reviews not reliable? And what do you mean by "medium"? Nehme1499 16:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The Soundcloud sources are to blogs, and it is unknown who the author is. This makes the sources dubious and is sometimes considered unreliable. Ref 3 is to medium.com, which per WP:MEDIUM is not considered reliable. I did a quick search for "phonk" in JSTOR and found some sources that might be promising. Keep looking for more sources that talk about this subject as you never know where you will find reliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: The author to the SoundCloud sources is Soundcloud itself (author). I've replaced the medium source with another one. Thanks for your suggestion with JSTOR: I'll try looking for other sources. Nehme1499 16:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
My goal is to get this to Featured Article status within a month or two. The main things I could use help with are:
Identify any gaps in the coverage, especially in the company's years under Activision.
Identify any key employees other than the founders, to help describe the company's operations.
Identify any phrases that are confusing, so that I can WP:COPYEDIT for clarity and readability.
I did reach out to Cat's Tuxedo and OceanHok, for improving related topics like Skylanders, Crash, and Spyro. I don't mind doing the work, but I could use another pair of eyes to identify gaps and find sources. My hope is there will be two or three reviewers who can see what I missed. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't go in-depth yet but here are some issues I noticed on the spot:
The founding year is not sourced, nor does it appear anywhere in the body.
The infobox states Paul Reiche III is the studio CEO. However, he left in 2020. The key persons should be updated to reflect the current leadership. Also, before his departure, Reiche was the president and for a short time co-studio head with Ford, not CEO
The number of employees in the infobox is unsourced and undated.
The infobox should note the prior ownership by Crystal Dynamics and have timespans for both parents.
Use |class=nowrap for the products field UBL or drop the timespans to avoid the awkward "2010– 16" line break.
The legal name of the company contains a comma.[1]
The "Founding and name" section should be integrated into "History" at the correct timeline position. Having it as a separate, two-line section makes it feel out of place.
The "History" section should note how Terry Falls fits into the picture. At least according to the credits, he worked with Toys for Bob only from Pandemonium!, which would make him not a founder.
In the photograph of Ford and Reiche, who is who? Also, consider cropping the image to only show the two relevant persons.
In the awards section, none of the awards were awarded to the studio, but to individual
In the games table, make the year indicators plain row headers per MOS:DTT.
Overlinking in the "Platform(s)" needs to be reduced.
There is no need for MobyGames as an EL if the official website is present per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.
Please review the reliability of your references. Pixelkin? Charlie Intel? AusGamers? My Nintendo News? Game Rant is officially situational on WP:VG/RS but should be replaced if possible or removed if not necessary.
I will probably deep-dive at FAC if I find the time. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because following Sillyfolkboy's helpful review last year when I nominated this as a GA, I'd like some pointers on improvements required to get it ready to nominate as a featured article. Are there any important sources that I've missed? Any sections that need expansion or trimming? I'll try and fill in the gaps in the tables wherever possible, now that it's easier to get into the British Library.
Thanks in advance for any improvement suggestions, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring it to FAC in the near future. I have never nominated an article for FAC before, so I am looking for feedback on how to improve the article first. I am the sole author of almost 100% of the article, so having another set of eyes looking over would be a great help. I'm willing to answer another peer review request in return.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
Given the length of the article, suggest expanding the lead
That's a good suggestion, I will work on that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have significantly expanded the lead section, though it may need a bit of copyediting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Suggest adding a location map to help situate the yard in its larger geographic context
Surprisingly enough, adding a map went without a hitch. Now done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Why are the 1954 facilities in a separate section? How does the structure of this article compare to FAs on similar topics?
That's the thing - unfortunately, there are no FAs on similar topics. I cannot find a single FA (or even GA, other than this one) on a railroad yard. I thought it might be an interesting way to demonstrate the layout of the yard, and I happened to find statistics for the entirety of the yard that year. It could be removed potentially, but there is some mention of some of the individual yards later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the content needs to be removed, but I do think the organization of the article could be reworked to avoid having a standalone section mostly taken up by this table. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The 1950-1969 subsection is pretty empty, and fits with the time that the content is from, so it could be incorporated there. If it causes space issues, I could default it to collapse. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the table into the 1950-1969 subsection. It seems to fit okay there without needing to be collapsed or rearranged further. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
One of the "several proposals in recent years" is dated to 1986 - that isn't really recent
Good point, I will change the language to reflect this. The yard had heavily declined by 1980, so it would be fine to say "since the 1980s, proposals...". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Some work needed on making citation formatting more consistent - for example, some refs use all-numeric date format while others use mdy
Check that the article is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge. For example, what is a roundhouse?
You raise a good point here. I have wikilinked some less general terms, such as "roundhouse" and "switcher" and I will look for more such terms that could use wikilinks or descriptions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Check for style issues - for example, Meriden Record should be italicized in "1920 to 1950"
Suggest providing conversions for measurements and present-day values for dollar amounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Will do, that is a relatively easy fix. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe I have all of these done now, but I will do a second read through tomorrow to make sure. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a high importance article for the Nintendo and Japan WikiProjects. I also want to review this article and do some work on it before it gets nominated for GA status
I've listed this article for peer review becaus I am looking to get it to FA status. Several years ago, I worked on this article and got it to GA status; as it has been some time since it was last reviewed I would like someone other than me to take a look at it and give feedback before I nominate it for FAC.
@Balon Greyjoy: Looks like this place is pretty empty for a while, so I just gonna step in and review it :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take thas article to WP:FAC. This is the first time I am attempting such a thing and would like to get a review to see what would need to be done to get that done.
Thanks for your work on this article. Some general comments from me on ways that the article could be further improved:
I would recommend requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors to firm up the prose.
There is some inconsistency between the lead/infobox which say it is 75 seconds long, and the external link box which says it is 1 minute and 16 seconds long.
The infobox says it was released on 22 November 2013, but that's not consistent with the Variety source, which says 13 November.
I don't see the point of putting Volvo's website in the infobox
Production agency and director should be moved up earlier in the lead
The commercial itself didn't "cause" parodies to be made, people made them in response to the commercial
I would add a brief caption to the infobox image indicating that it's a still from the commercial
"The commercial then states" is kind of vague wording, and without watching the actual commercial I would have thought that it was a voice-over saying that. If you're going for a comprehensive description of the commercial, I would make it more clear that it is just words on a screen.
Background could use some expansion. Maybe some more information on the "Live Tests" series in general, some background on the Forsman & Bodenfors agency and their relationship with Volvo, how Van Damme became involved, etc.? I have not looked at all the sourcing so I'm not sure if some of these suggestions are actually sourceable, but it would be a beneficial addition if they are.
"Volvo Trucks has appointed the advertising agency" this was kind of vague and Forsman & Bodenfors have not been mentioned since the lead, so it would be good to name them again here.
"It was the sixth advert released in the series called Live Tests" this information is repeated in both the background and production sections, you probably only need it in background
Be consistent about capitalizing "Van" in "Van Damme" – there is a lowercase "van" in the Production section
Be consistent about whether you are referring to the commercial as "The Epic Split" or "Epic Split" (the former is probably best), and whether it's in quotation marks, italics, or unadorned (the first is probably best).
"advert" is an informal term
I don't think the first sentence of the Reception section is quite consistent with the source if you're looking at the details. It was watched by over a million people within a week, and over 41 million (or 48.5 million per Visible Measures)
"the advert received six prizes" it would be good to be more specific here and discuss what prizes it won
"in causing immediate action of the viewer" not sure what this means. Action = purchasing a Volvo?
I am a little skeptical of the neuroscience claims about "high memory encoding effectiveness" in the Analysis section – this is veering into scientific claims that have not been peer reviewed
"late-2014" hyphen not needed
Source states "$3–4.7" million, so you should be specific about that rather than rounding to 4
"a face-swapped variant was distributed" this is currently vague – was it like an officially distributed parody or an internet meme?
"mayor" can be in lowercase
Lots of passive voice in the Parodies section making it unclear who created these parodies
"would go on to film" → "filmed"
"featuring the real Chuck Norris" – the previous sentences did not make it clear enough that the 2013 parody did not actually feature Norris
The Further Reading link looks to be a bachelor's thesis, what makes it scholarly enough to merit listing in the article?
Hope these are helpful. I enjoyed learning about the commercial. DanCherek (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I've been editing this page fairly continuously since early June. Apart from some contributions from User:Sadads, regarding industry lobbying, everything here is essentially my work. I don't usually edit in this way and my own experience of large single-editor pages is that they can be idiosyncratic. I'd really like to avoid that here. I consider this an important topic and I'd like to see it done right. Primarily I'd like some feedback on what I've done wrong and what improvements or gaps need sorting.
Thanks for getting in touch. I think I can address the first and last points. The middle one is a bit tougher, detailed statistics aren't often open access (the few that are have been endlessly recycled). I'm also trying to avoid WP:SYNTH by not combining different data sets, which in places has made it necessary to rely on older but more complete data. Obviously, as newer stuff becomes available I'll try to update, the whole area is evolving each year. Can I ask how easy you found the technical bits to follow? --Project Osprey (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Wretchskull: to ensure they saw the above question. @Project Osprey: are you still working on this article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. My plan had been to wait until a number of comments had come in and then make the changes all at once - in case there was overlapping or conflicting advice. I remain active. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Project Osprey: Sorry for the delay! Regarding your points, I dare to say the article is readable to the average Wikipedia reader, and you're right that avoiding WP:SYNTH should be kept in mind. I forgot to mention a few other things about WP:MOS, though I am sure you have already have that considered: In the "Electrostatic separation" section, a "main article" should be used and not a link of it in its prose, plus "Energy recovery" has a parenthesis in the first sentence where commas should be. Feel free to ping me and ask any other questions. Wretchskull (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I've written such a comprehensive article since I co-wrote Halo (Beyoncé song) 10 years ago. I would like to turn it initially into a GA and maybe later into a FA. Right now (excluding minor grammar and syntax errors that may exist) I think my main hesitation is the overall structure of the article. While everything is arranged chronologically, I sometimes feel that some things can be omitted or placed elsewhere, or that some sections can be mixed up. I also have a problem with a paragraph in "Immediate aftermath" ("The current and former heads of government of Mexico City, Sheinbaum and Ebrard...) as I feel the paragraph is out of place (I did not add it and it exists since May) and while it is true what it says, I do not think it will affect the candidacies of the politicians, especially since none is (nor will be) under investigation.
If possible, I would also like advice on what could be summarized, omitted or added. Thanks in advance, (CC)Tbhotch™ 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important historical part of computing history (and 470 other pages link to it). also i feel it shoukd be listed as importance "Top", it is that fundamental to computer science, however that is something that definitely needs some consensus and feedback on, you don't put computing articles at "top" without a good reason and careful consideration.
Hi @Lkcl: I am sorry that it has taken so long for someone to respond to this. Typically, articles are assessed as "Top" importance by the Wikiproject. An article's condition or prose does not usually contribute to this designation. I suggest reaching out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing and asking someone from that project if its importance can be upgraded. As for the article, please ensure that everything is cited; there should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum. You can also reach out to people on Wikiproject Computing for additional help on this technical article, as I do not have the expertise to evaluate this. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Lkcl: are you still interested in getting comments for this PR? Have you reached out to any editors? Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because...Though I have tried to improve the article recently, not much information is available about the living person. I need to know more about what can be added / removed to avoid future GA failure. I welcome all inputs. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 06:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's some quick observations I noted on a skim, to start off. Zetana (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Gandhi was adamant on creating a professional career before joining politics. I don't see a citation for this claim
Gandhi has been a strong proponent of harnessing the scale and dexterity that technology can lend while amplifying the power of citizens. This sentence reads as promotionalism, I don't quite understand if it's necessary. If it's to describe what Gandhi did while in the private sector, it needs a citation
I think the image with Hillary Clinton should be removed, as the other one is from the same year, and seems like it's more relevant to what Gandhi does (natl. politics, rather than intl.)
The "Farmers' and Land Agitation" section is a bit unclear to me, what's the importance of this? And what is it about? There's a lot of information here about what appears to be just a series of comments over a few months, and seems like it should be merged into the "Political career" section instead.
A strong advocate of women's rights and empowerment... The citation doesn't seem to support the "strong advocate" claim
This is all I have for now, more to come in a few days as I continue to read it over. Zetana (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Mostly I think the article could use some prose work but I will address that later. I don't think the article is missing anything important, just curious if there's any additional information you've found about Gandhi's political stances. Mitch McConnell, for example, has a lot of content about his political beliefs, both in Mitch McConnell § Political positions and in a sub-article Political positions of Mitch McConnell. It's a bit long/overweighted in McConnell's case (especially because he's a senior political figure), but perhaps there's stuff about what Gandhi thinks about the economy, foreign policy (beyond just national security), health, etc. other hot-button issues in India... have you seen anything about that? Zetana (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@25 Cents FC: to ensure they saw the above comments. Are you still interested in editing this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it was used as a reference by Youtube to determine whether certain channels were government funded. However, according to Webtekno, Youtube later stated that the information in the Wikipedia page was wrong.[2] By the way although Webtekno is an unreliable source per tr:WP:GKDP#Webtekno.com, many mainstream outlets cited their content.[3][4][5] I want to make this article as accurate as possible. Please tell me if there are any mistakes in it.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get this article to GA status. I have had a look over it and it seems to be ok, no citation needed or general clean up tags. However, it is a large article and I may well have missed something. If others could have a look and give me an idea of what would be needed to bring it to GA status it would be much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was a split article from Yuzuru Hanyu during its GA review process, and since then it has been updated and developed to be a stand-alone article. As the other split article, List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu, has reached FL status, Henni147 and I are thinking to bring this at least to GA level as well. Since there hasn't been an article on a skater's Olympics seasons like this on Wiki, we don't have any standard to follow and I'm thinking peer-reviewing would be a good chance to gather other ideas before nominating it for GA or FA.
Thanks, Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
First impressions are that it's very good, and complete in content. I will just review for prose to help tighten up the writing. It'll take me a few days (busy IRL and onwiki) but I should be able to get you a first batch of comments by this weekend. Zetana (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Looking forward for your comments. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
apologies, i've been very busy, so i haven't managed to get around to this. i will leave you comments tomorrow as soon as i can. Zetana (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Zetana: I checked and polished some sections (the 2014 Olympic programs and Winter Games amongst others). The 2021-22 season section is expected to change in the upcoming weeks, but the rest should be ready for review now. Henni147 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for Good Article. I am new to this process but because this is a subject I like, I would like to get involved by working on an article I'm interested in.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for Good Article. I am new to this process but because this is a subject I like, I would like to get involved by working on an article I'm interested in.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for Good Article. I am new to this process but because this is a subject I like, I would like to get involved by working on an article I'm interested in. Please review the article and categorize it to a suitable category. The article is about an 21st century Indian singer-songwriter. The article may also be categorized into the articles for Karbi people, musicians from Karbi Anglong.
Please don't be offended, but this needs a LOT more work to reach GA-class. At the moment all the article says is that he is a singer, a list of his records, one line about the musicians that influence him, and a nomination for a non-notable award. There's almost no information about his life, or detail about how his career developed. I think this is much too early to be considering a GA... he's 17 and just starting on a career, and so far he's only released three singles and a mini-album. It also needs more reliable sources - you have included his birth date for example, but that needs to be verified from a reliable source. Compare the article for another Indian singer, Shreya Ghoshal, which is a good article... look at the amount of text and sources that Ghosal's article has, detailing her life and career. That gives you an idea of the level required to reach good article status. Richard3120 (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
When I first edited this article, I had no intention to take it anywhere except GA. But, here I am, requesting a peer review pre-FAC. This is currently an WikiProject Military history A-class article, also a good article. I have tried to include all major reliable source, keeping the article comprehensive, but concise. Though I do want to take it to FAC, I will do so only if reviewers here agree that (1) it is comprehensive (2) sources are reliable. Appreciate any comments. Thanks – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have done a little copy editing. Revert or query anything you don't like.
Everything seems fine to me! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
"issued an internal memo at Columbia University for release". "internal memo" and "for release" seem contradictory to me.
Removed 'internal', because it was indeed for release. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
"who had later bolted the Democratic nomination". 1. Would this read better if "had" was removed? 2. What does "bolted" mean in this context? (Is it US English?)
(1) Removed had (2) Reworded 'bolted' to 'walked out' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
"called and encouraged Eisenhower to run". "called" as in 1. visited 2. telephoned 3. publicly called for? I think we should be told.
That a really good question. Scanning through the book and newspapers, it appears to me that Thurmond publicly called for Ike's nomination. Specified in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have. Fine work indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Gog, thanks a lot for c/e and comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
the article structure solid enough & enjoyable to read
PoV neutral enough
it have scholarly commentary
Thanks, Ahendra (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ahendra, peer review is for editors who are looking to get feedback on their article. Did you mean to nominate this for Good Article status? If not, what would you like reviewers to comment on, or give feedback for? Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Z1720, i only looking for further feedback, since for WP:GA the arcitle still lacking inline citations. Ahendra (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The "In Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "In popular culture" sections require inline citations. Also, per WP:OVERSECTION I think they can be combined together.
The "Analysis" section relies too much on quotes. Instead of copying what someone has said, it is better to summarise the information.
References should have specific page numbers, if possible.
Every source should be used as inline citations in the article, not just listed at the bottom. Currently there are no inline citations for "de Crespigny, Rafe (1990)", "de Crespigny, Rafe (2003)." "de Crespigny, Rafe (2004)" "de Crespigny, Rafe (2004)." and "Zhu, Ziyan (2010)". It's possible that the citations are used, but because there is missing information for the inline citation they are not pointing to the correct source.
Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I've made some initial copy-edits and prose work (Special:Diff/1047110912), feel free to revert some or all of them if you disagree. I'll post some more feedback in a bit; I'll go section by section. Zetana (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Overall, I think the article has most information that a reader would be looking for. Personally, I'd switch the Electoral system and Background sections so Electoral system is first, followed by Background. I don't know anything about Serbian politics, so I'd be interested in having some summaries of the parties in the running (did they campaign on any specific issues?). I also think the Background and Results sections could use more information (why'd Preševo's city council get dissolved in 2017? what did Movement for Krajina campaign on? what were the results of the "multiple elections"? etc. / was there any polling information predicting election results? what did political parties say about the results? etc.) as well.
Thank you for the cleanup and for the comment. I'm going to expand the article by the end of this week and on top of that, I will add more summaries of things that you have suggested. I'm also going to look through the featured articles since they will probably help me while writing. I appreciate this and thanks again, Cheers --Vacant0 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course, no problem. Let me know when you've finished expanding the article, and I can leave more detailed feedback to help refine the prose. Zetana (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, looks much improved from when I first read it! Just asking again if you found any information about what the parties campaigned on, otherwise I don't have much else to add. I'll take a couple days to read the article again and think, I'll ping you to let you know if I've come up with anything else. If not, then I'll start on some more prose comments. Zetana (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I haven't found any information regarding campaigns. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I'll take some time to think over the article again, but I should be able to get back to you by Friday or so. Zetana (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
sorry I haven't gotten back to this, I will leave some more feedback tomorrow as soon as I can. Zetana (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I think the article's pretty complete and isn't missing any major details. Regarding comments on prose: how would you like me to give them? I can make my edits directly to the page and you can revert whichever ones you disagree with. Or, I can copy the page over to my sandbox and make prose edits there, and you can pick and choose the ones you prefer (for example, this is what I did for Pan Am Flight 7). Zetana (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, feel free to make any prose edits on the article itself. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to pursue turning this into a Good Article and would like the article to be in good shape before I list it at WP:GAN. Primarily, I'm seeking two things:
Feedback on the extent to which the article is of decent breadth, as evaluated by someone who's unfamiliar with this specific individual, as well as ways to improve breadth; and
A proofreading of the document to ensure that there are no spelling mistakes, ambiguous phrases, or grammar/syntax errors.
The article is largely based off of news pieces that span some ~75 years (the article subject lived into his nineties), so it may be difficult for individuals without access to newspapers.com (and/or subscriptions to North Jersey Gannett-owned papers) to verify that my work is WP:OR compliant. If you can do this, then that would be great, but if not it's no big deal.
the New York state archaeologist — Was this an official title, i.e., he was the official archaeologist for the state of New York?
Yeah, the post is through the New York State Museum [6], officially "state archaeologist" as titled by the state education department, however it doesn't seem to have been ever created by a state law [7]. Clarke himself may be notable... I will redlink
had been changed — Any more details on how this happened? Someone with a chisel? Weathering?
They honestly aren't sure. Case's article suggests that the state archaeologist basically didn't notice the alteration until 1937 and the mentioned fire would likely have wiped out virtually all earlier records, unfortunately. I've emailed the New York State museum but heard nothing back, not that it would be permissible either way. Since it was on display in the museum, it was probably someone who actually altered it. Clarke wrote the Onondaga Historical Association, a letter I've actually seen, which Case quotes him as saying "I am at a loss to give a reason for this unless in the years since its discovery someone has made an attempt to restore the faint lines by scratching them deeper and in doing so lost a part or erred in the date." I could quote that or add a sentence along those lines if it would help?
History
It was moved to the nearby village of Manlius — When/by whom?
Honestly not sure by whom, but after about six months
essentially directly after a year in Manlius. I perhaps have clarified?
"better facilities for the inspection" — Whose words?
Attributed
What happened after 1880?
The structure I'm envisioning is the description section first, followed by the 'creation, discovery and early display', then 'analysis and discovery as hoax' and ending with later display. I've re-titled the sections does that make it clearer?
Analysis
an article republished — Where was it initially published?
Sadly all the paper describes is "An United States' Paper" and I've been able to find nothing else. I kept this in because it's the earliest analysis that I've been able to track down.
The first sentence is confusing and a bit of a run-on.
Attempted to clarify, now two joined by a semicolon.
Barber and Howe theorized — In a journal?
Book, clarified.
1847 work — Book?
book
Lots of names in the second paragraph without descriptions of who they were.
added
The publications mentioned in the second paragraph should all be long in the public domain. I'd cite each of them as well, along with links to them (e.g., on Hathitrust or the Internet Archive).
I think I've cited virtually all of them to their gbooks now
submitted a paper to — Was it published?
Corrected error
The sentences in the second paragraph feel fairly unconnected. Are there any ways to tie them together more?
I'll come back to this one, shortly
More later. Generally speaking, the article seems to follow the chronology of the scholarship on the stone, rather than the chronology of the stone itself. For instance, the part about Sweet letting on that the stone was a hoax is buried deep within the article, when arguably this information should be the very first part of "History". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I've moved some of it but left mention of Sweet's letter later for clarity. How does that flow? Eddie891TalkWork 17:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your comments to date! Eddie891TalkWork 20:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
i'm planning to nominate this article for FA, i'm looking forward for any suggestions. thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Drive-by comments
The following sources are cited under the Bibliography section, but are not used in the prose as in-line citations. If they have some significant work on the topic, better to cite them. If they provide certain mention of the topic or closely related topics, better move then to "Further reading" section. Else remove.
Al Davod, Ali (Winter 2001). "دخمه ارغون" [A look at Tomb of Arghun by Habib Yaghmaei]. Nashr-e Dansh (in Persian) (102): 57–58. ISSN 0259-9090. OCLC 607709011
Amanat, Abbas (1997). Pivot of the universe : Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831-1896. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520914056. OCLC 44964072
Anosh, Abolhasan Fayyaz (2011). "پديدة رست مالتواريخ؛ تأملي بر شخصيت محمد هاشم آصف و اثر تاريخي او" [Rostam Al- Tavarikh An Analysis of the Character of Mohammad Hashem Asef and his Historical Work] (PDF). Tahqiqat-e Tarikh-e Ejtemai (Social History Studies) (in Persian). 1 (1): 97–122. ISSN 2383-0484. OCLC 7854919621
Ostadi Moghadam, Kazem (2015). کتابشناسی خط فارسی و تغییر خط [An Encyclopedia of Persian Calligraphy and It's Changes] (in Persian). Tehran. ISBN 9786000437336. OCLC 1243881046
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on expansions and improvements to the article, hoping to (eventually) get it to GA status.
Looking for feedback on all aspects of the article which would need to be fixed or improved to have a feasible chance for GA.
This is my first time posting a peer review, apologies if I got anything wrong!
Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
User:D.Lazard Thanks! I agree that the current set of 3 articles should be merged. If you believe there is still a consensus for that change, I can do it. Should I first merge into Constant-recursive sequence and then add a TODO to rename, create the article Linear recurrence with constant coefficients and copy over, or something else? FWIW the article name I would prefer is Linear recurrence sequence, but anything which avoids "recursive" I am happy with, and I don't think having the name of the article be the sequence vs the relation makes such a huge difference. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
None of the above. MOVE, do not copy-and-paste, this article to the better title, and then merge. Be sure to leave {{R from merge}} templates on the other merged articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a major expansion on the article and wanted to get second opinions on whether the new version is OK to people. I was also thinking of sending this article to FAC or GAN [after some cleanup] but I have never written an astronomy article before so I'd like to get some assistance from editors with experience in that field.
I've listed this article for peer review because… submission for GA , main issues are grammar errors and potentially unsourced material. besides this, I would like to see the article improved in general. I think a vital article should be as high quality as possible.
Thanks, RJJ4y7 (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded fairly extensively from stub class. It is an old article that had no content and isn't likely to be found and reviewed by chance. It is the first article I've attempted to write and I would like any kind of constructive feedback and to hopefully move it out of stub class and in to something more accurate.
Thanks, Mycellenz (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article certainly can be organized better. For example, the question of cannibalism is discussed in great detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Age and taphonomy; fire is brought up in a lot of detail in taphonomy, palaeoenvironment, and its own section fire; and most sections are incredibly long and could use some subdivisions but I can't think of any logical ones. Also, comments on general grammar and readability would be appreciated
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on getting it to GA at some point and as it was last rated as C want some clarification on what could be improved to get it there. I contacted an expert in the area via email to get some feedback but am still waiting on a response.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks good enough to be nominated. the structure us well done so far. grammar good enough. inline citation doesnt lacking.
Thanks, Ahendra (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Are you satisfied with state of the article? I've listed this article for peer review to find out areas of improvement and seek help in references and the article expansion.
@Bookku: I think this article could use major expansion. I found several books on this topic[8][9]. There are some articles[10][11] on how Western courts treat Islamic marital contracts. So I think there's much room for expansion. I'd say the article is currently not far from being a stub.VRtalk 23:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an assessment of the page. I would like to know what would be a grade assessment of the page and how to improve the article towards a GA article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of nominating it for Good Article status, but would like it to be checked by reviewers beforehand.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try to nominate it for a good article. I don't think it is there yet but I am not sure where to get started and where it would need the most help. Anyone who might pull up sources would also be helpful. Jorahm (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I can help with the sources, Jorahm. Take a look through this Google Scholar search: there are lots of relevant law review articles that discuss the case in detail. I have free HeinOnline access (through WP:TWL), so I can send you PDFs of any of these. Just email me the names of any articles that you're interested in, and I'll send you copies. Oh, and I'll try to leave some comments on the article itself sometime soon. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer! I found these [12][13][14][15][16] from the more recent times. These older ones may offer equal but different value [17][18][19][20][21]. What is the best way to get these from you? Jorahm (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Jorahm, the easiest way would be for you to send me an email through the "Email this user" interface (which you can read about here) so that I can reply with the attachments. If that doesn't work for you, I can try to come up with another way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on the content, particularly with respect to WP:NPOV, and that it is up to par with other articles on non-profit organizations.
Thanks, Varavour (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review as it has had substantial revisions and additions (by many different editors) since being assessed as Start-class in the schools (high-importance), education (mid-importance), and Wales categories 8+ years ago. Would appreciate any pointers to how best to improve the article, and external eyes to highlight where there might be gaps in the content. (ps - not sure what the best "topic" is for this peer review; an educational institution seems to feel loosely within "Social sciences and society" but happy to adjust if there's a better home for it, or if it would be better off in the general list.)
Thanks, Dotx3 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dotx3, I am sorry that it has taken so long for someone to comment on this article. Here are some suggestions, based on a quick skim:
Each paragraph should end in a citation to verify the preceeding information.
Ref 5 is for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia should never be used as a citation in Wikipedia articles.
The notable alumni and students section is too long. I suggest trimming out the less-important people.
The second paragraph in Academics needs citations.
The second paragraph in College needs citations.
"Students from over 90 countries participate in Atlantic College's rigorous two-year programme" Delete rigorous, as that is subjective.
Once these are addressed, please ping me and I will add additional comments. If you are concerned that you might be missing information, I suggest looking at featured articles about schools, such as Texas A&M University. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Dotx3 are you still interested in fixing up this article, or do you want to close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720 I am! I'm working through the comments above in a sandbox; will push to the main article soon. Thank you for your feedback and your patience - and for checking in! Dotx3 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: I think I've fixed up the issues listed above and a handful of additional things (Among other things, I cut down the alumni list significantly, but - would you suggest trimming further?). I would welcome any further PR suggestions. Dotx3 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Dotx3: I suggest putting the list of alumni in paragraphs, with brief descriptions of their accomplishments. I would also suggest trimming the list to the most important people in each category. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been considering nominating it for GA eventually, but I don't have a lot of experience in politics or language-related articles, so I'm having difficulty assessing any gaps or weaknesses. I've also been the article's only major contributor since I performed an overhaul in 2016, so it would be grand to hear a second opinion, especially because the subject matter is politically charged.
I'm generally looking for a broad second opinion, but I am a little concerned about the weight being given to various elements and about the competency of my summarizations. Some advice on usage examples—whether there's too many, there could stand to be more non-fiction literary, some literary could be swapped out for older ones, more other political speeches—would be appreciated; the wikisource texts on the talk page may be of use there.
Thanks, ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi TenTonParasol, I am sorry that no one has responded to this PR yet. I am the wrong editor to look at this because I know very little about ships. However, there is an active Wikiproject at WP:SHIPS with lots of editors that are writing GAs and FAs at the moment. I suggest posting a message on that talk page asking someone to review this article. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi TenTonParasol, did you reach out to anyone to review this? Are you still interested in getting comments? Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh! I got totally distracted and forgot to. I'm wondering if WP:SHIPS is the best place, considering the bulk of the article and my concerns don't actually have to do with the nautical usage of the term and more its usage in political rhetoric. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
If you are looking for politics people, consider WP:POLITICS I also suggest going to WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and databases provided by your local library system to get more sources and information. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not a problem with sourcing information, because I am indeed aware of those resources (and have indeed used most of them to build this specific article). My concerns are largely about balance and treatment, but I will indeed ask at the WikiProject. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I mention the sources because it is a shorter article, and there might be more information out there to add to its prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've finally finished updating it with every ballot measure and I'd like to eventually list it as an FLC. I know that the biggest problem is probably the lead, which isn't my forte - any advice there would be greatly appreciated.
The table needs a caption. In the table code, change "|+" to "|+ <caption_text>". If the caption would duplicate nearest section heading, better use "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}".
Column headers need colscopes/rowscopes. Example, "! Episode" should be "! scope=col | Episode"
Assuming good faith on reliability of all foreign sources.
Else, it is ready for a run at FLC! Any remaining issues would be minor enough to be resolved during the review itself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh thank you for the comments. I have fixed the issues that you highlighted. I'm unsure if the alt texts that I added are suitable. And also, a list of reliable Korean sources can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. EN-Jungwon 11:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The ALT text is all-in-all fine; nothing major stands out to me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
