Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
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.
 | The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to the Good Article nominations soon. I've rewritten practically the entire article and have tried my best to elevate its quality to that of a GA, but I don't have much experience with Wikipedia so I am unsure how close it is to reaching that. I'd appreciate any input from more experienced editors for what can be changed to help it qualify.
Thanks, LBWP (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @LBWP Alright! I am going to do a quick read of the article to see its current state. Consider this a bit of a trial-run for GA. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the article, I found a few issues :
- The image appears to have no appropriate reason justifying its fair use. Copyright is taken especially seriously on Wikipedia, and the image must meet the WP:NFCC criteria with adequate explanations. I suggest looking at other images that have explanations, such as a screenshot from the FA God of War III and use that as a basis.
- Many sections appear to have MOS:WTW. I suggest reading the entire article and taking out these words.
- Refer to the player in the gameplay section. Say something like “The player’s base transversal abilities include a jump, wall jump, etc.” This section should be written from the player’s perspective first, with Spark acting as the player’s extension.
- Some of the article could be written better. I suggest reviewing the prose and making sure it complies with grammar consistencies.
- The review section seems somewhat biased. Universal praise is not a given when only four reviews are included. I suggest cutting down the review section somewhat when only four reviews are included. Doing so would assure that the viewpoint of a few reviewers is not overly represented. See WP:DUE
- The development and gameplay sections seem fine for a GAN. I suggest creating a different section in gameplay for Fark, and making sure that the Active voice is used properly per MOS:VG
Overall, Spark is doing quite well so far. Just skim through MOS:VG again just to double check that the article is meeting the style for Criteria 1 of WP:GA?. Reach out to me if you have any questions. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 3 June 2022, 09:30 UTC
- Last edit: 5 June 2022, 08:02 UTC
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 2 June 2022, 18:05 UTC
- Last edit: 9 June 2022, 18:21 UTC
I want a peer review because I've been working on biographies of women, but was way out of my league on this one to write about art curation, and many of the sources are in French. If someone who knows about art curation could take a look at this that would be awesome.
Thanks, Zaynab1418 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zaynab1418: Just checked the article and I did minor fixes. Infobox is missing. "www.inha.fr" and "www.bookforum.com" are not names of websites (it's just taken from url address which is incorrect). For example "facebook.com" website is called "Facebook". There are categories such as "Berber Algerians", "Berber writers" but from the article we know she is just "Berber heritage" so she is not Berber. From the lead we know she is "French-Algerian" but there is no category for Algerian novelists etc. Every sentence in section "Art curation" starts with "Rahmani" - it is possible to add some other variations? Would you review Basshunter in return? Eurohunter (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've been editing this page for past few days and want to know how-far it has improved.
Also, I expect your valuable comments for further betterment of the article particularly in the production and references section.
Thanks, AvRam (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 23 May 2022, 13:16 UTC
- Last edit: 10 June 2022, 19:14 UTC
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get this article to FA-status. All constructive comments welcome.
Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article looks great but I am not a Wikipedia expert so I wanna make the article super good. Every other Radiohead album is good or featured so I just want Pablo Honey to catch up
Thanks, WeInTheUSA (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WeInTheUSA: I just checked the article and I did minor fixes. Would you review Basshunter in return? List of issues of found:
- Where is there 1,520,000 in reference number 89?
- Why there is "UK" and "US" everywhere? It looks for me like these countries has no its names.
- "and reached number seven on the UK Singles Chart when EMI rereleased it in September 1993" - "rereleased" than "re-released"?
- Reference number 20 to be removed or replaced if needed - it leads to Wikipedia article (not a source).
- "They also opened for PJ Harvey in New York City and Los Angeles." - is this correct sentence?
- "Critical reception" - I think there is chance for less direct quotations.
- "Clash argued that it "points towards everything that [Radiohead] would go on to be"." - "Clash argued"? I would add Editor from Clash argued" if the author is unknown. Same for "In 2007, Pitchfork wrote that".
- "In 1996, Colin Greenwood said" - from? He is from Daily Herald? Just noticed it's one of band members - add link for his biography and mention it that he is from the band. Same for the next reviewer.
- "O'Brien felt the album was derivative of Dinosaur Jr. and the Pixies,[61] and said in 2020" - if the first paid was said in 1997 I think it would be worth to mention t and noticed it.
- No reference for tracklist, credits and personnel section.
- I think it would be worth to mention double platinum from Canada in section "Release and promotion" and "1,520,000" number for sales in the United States as well.
- "Weekly charts" why there are "1993–1994" and "1996–1997"? You add just highest peaks for one year otherwise it was number 56 in 1996 and 1997 in Sweden?
- Links to redirects
Eurohunter (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like it could have the "completeness" it needs to become a Featured Article. I'm not going to work on the article immediately, but at different time when I have the motivation to do so. Otherwise I'd love to hear some insight on how else it could be improved or what is missing.
Thanks, 웃OO 03:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like for the article to be more refined before it becomes a FAC.
Thanks, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because despite the FAC having gathered a lack of support or any sort of traction in general, I took on the suggestions there mostly and also expanded the article somewhat myself. Nominating for FA right now would quite premature though, so I thought a peer review would be appropriate to see if there are still any withstanding issues that I missed.
Thanks, K. Peake 13:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like an honest assessment of this article's current class-rating as well as what could be done to improve it (though I have not been able to find any further sources than the those currently used).
Thanks, The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring the article back to GA status. I've tried to address the concerns raised at Talk:Exo/GA1 but I'd like some help.
Thank you, Poirot09 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Poirot09 There are a few bits of unsourced content, for example: "Following Tao's lawsuit, Exo promoted their albums as a full group rather than in two sub-groups.", "The band did not publicly promote the album." "Exo was awarded Best New Asian Group at the 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards and the Newcomer Award at the Golden Disc Awards." I would fix these and bring it back to GAN, where you're more likely to get in depth feedback. We're doing a backlog drive in June, increasing the chances the article will get picked up quickly. Ping Whiteguru for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Buidhe I'll add those refs and, now that I'm reviewing the article more carefully, I've seen some unreliable refs which I hope I'll be able to replace before June. Thank you for your feedback! Poirot09 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome! (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Metro is considered unreliable, according to WP:RSP— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate this article for FA status. This was the first article I got to GA status almost 10 years ago and has been stable since then. I haven't yet worked solo on getting an FA status, and I would love to push this article to the next level.
Thanks, ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 12 April 2022, 15:02 UTC
- Last edit: 2 June 2022, 11:00 UTC
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 27 March 2022, 10:23 UTC
- Last edit: 10 June 2022, 11:46 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded and revised this article significantly, and would like to receive feedback on how to improve it so that it could eventually be upgraded to a GA.
This is my first PR so thanks for your help. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @VickKiang thanks for working on this article. It's as lovely to read as the endearing movie and you should put it straight up for GA. I think it would satisfy most of the requirements straight off the bat - it's well written, well sourced, with very relevant images. Good luck! Tom (LT) (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply! VickKiang (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that the quality of Death Grips articles is usually somewhat lacking, even including their discography page which was promoted to a featured list but later got deformed after Year of the Snitch was released. I'd like some suggestions on how to improve this page as it appears to be salvageable. Getting it to a B-class or higher would be great.
Thanks, Miklogfeather (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Miklogfeather: I just checked the article and I did minor fixes. Would you review Basshunter in return? List of issues of found:
- Why is "online media groups" linked to online magazine?
- Reference number 4 - Pitchfork should be linked. Same with the other references and websites.
- "A sticker was included in the physical release of The Money Store that read: "No Love. Fall 2012." on the reverse side." - no reference.
- "The song "Artificial Death in the West" features an audio sample from the song "Being Sucked in Again" by English post-punk band Wire from their 1978 album Chairs Missing." - no reference
- "as well as being made available on iTunes and Spotify." - just write "as well as being made available digitally? There is no reference for iTunes anyway and there is no websie parameter for refernce number 24.
- "No Love Deep Web was met with controversy related to its album cover, which depicts the image of an erect penis with the album title written across it." - from the lead we know it was pensis of Zach Hill. Why it's not mentioned in "Artwork and controversy"?
- "Due to the explicit album artwork, Death Grips were forced[by whom?]" - template
- "The 2013 Harvest release features the original artwork packaged in a black slipcase with a disclaimer stating that the artwork is explicit. The slipcase has to be removed before the album cover is shown.[citation needed]" - no reference.
- There are only 3 reviews mentioned in "Reception" but there is a lot of them in table with revews. This section should be expanded.
- No reference to tracklist.
- No credits for tracklist available?
- No personnel section?
- "Pitchfork Media" - website of online music magazine is named just "Pitchfork".
- Links to redirects.
Eurohunter (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to
- No reference to tracklist.
- No credits for tracklist available?
- No personnel section?
- WP:TRACKLIST says that tracklists for released albums have an assumed primary source which does not require a citation. The liner notes for the album only credit Death Grips as the artist, with no further personnel or writers. A personnel section would just list the band members. If that's preferable over nothing, I'll do that. Miklogfeather (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Miklogfeather: Maybe if it's done only by band members it's not needed but it would be good to have information in the text that whole album was prepared just by band members - something like that. I don't know this album and as a reader I would like to have reference so I can easly verify it. Digital version of release would be prefered if available. Eurohunter (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring its grade up to B-class (and, sooner or later, GA).
Thanks, Hwqaksd (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyday life[edit]
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got it promoted to GA status, and I'm looking to get it promoted to FA status soon. I've contributed to most of the content in the article, and it looked close to a start article when I began working on it. Specifically, I'm looking to get feedback on the Professional career section, as it's full of sports jargon that I feel makes it harder to read and flow through. Feedback on any part of the article is welcome as well.
Thanks! NSNW (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Engineering and technology[edit]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think there are uses of technical terms that could be improved and I hope to improve the quality of the article.
Thanks, 0xDeadbeef (T C) 08:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's only my third biography of a living person and I'd love advice on how to improve!
Specific help wanted:
- How good (or bad) is the WP:NPOV right now, and how could it improve?
- Is the amount of attributed statements and quotes in the current article OK? How could it improve?
Thanks, Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General[edit]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's my most substantive new article to date and I would like a general review.
Thanks, PKAMB (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @PKAMB: - please fix the unreferenced statements that I have tagged with the citation needed template. Please also specifically cite a source for each table. starship.paint (exalt) 08:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations added. Thanks for the review. PK-WIKI (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually get it to GA. I'm fairly new to this process, so any suggestions on how to improve it would be welcome.
Thanks, Perfect4th (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some general comments:
- Check for duplicate links, it's cool to link in the lead and once on the first appearance in the main body of the article, but not really needed after that.
- Avoid emotive, NPOV terms like "thrashing", "rout", "cruised", etc.. Let the bare facts talk for themselves.
- e.g. grammar: "for Bayern as Bayern Munich won 4–0 over Indian National Football" avoid such quick repetition, and we would normally say "the Indian National..."
- Imagine reading this if you're not a football fan. Do you think "slotting home after work" makes any sense to non-experts?
- Mix up the prose a bit, like "Gómez scored two goals. On 16 December 2011, Gómez scored" is really tiring to read.
- "sub"? substitute, this is an encyclopedia.
Done
- Link all "technical" terms, like "substitute", "corner", "pass", "cross", "header" etc etc, whatever is there. Never assume the reader is an expert in football.
- Gets a bit proseline, like one- or two-sentence paragraphs, not elegant.
- ? I'm afraid I don't understand.
- Done
- "his final half-season" is this a European football thing, like after a winter break? I don't recognise the idea of a "half-season".
- Done ("In his final half-season at the Volkswagen Arena, Gómez scored only once in 15 appearances." -> "Gómez scored only once in his last 15 appearances at the Volkswagen Arena")
- Is EU-football.info a reliable source?
- I would individually reference all his honours. And don't put references on section headings.
Hopefully some of that helps! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! That will definitely help. Perfect4th (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article on a former British swimmer/diver not long ago and have expanded it to the point that I feel it's close to being taken to GA. I'd like a peer review beforehand to iron out any obvious errors or issues and think it would benefit to have another set of eyes read over it. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a great amount of content over the last few weeks and would love to double check if I'm on the right track! I also want to make sure I am not missing any huge pieces of information or making any obvious errors.
Thanks, Lucy :) Lwinterrrrr (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on this article for a while and I am requesting for a general review on the article to see what improvements could be made. I’m looking to nominate this for GA so that is the main reason for this review. Kindly, inform me on my talk page once the review has begun.
Thanks, Hamza Ali Shah Talk 20:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for a peer review to identify issues or objections that would be brought up during a Feature Article nomination. In the time since I have written it, I have periodically revisited it to give it a critical read to see where it can be improved. At this point, I think it is ready. Do you? Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and places[edit]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to prepare this article for Featured Article candidacy. I have never gone through the process for FA before and I'd like feedback on the article from people who are experienced with the FA process. I'm also pinging Dudley Miles, a user I have recently reached out to as a potential FA mentor.
Thanks!
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "The boulder, which is the namesake of the town". Namesake usually implies something which happens to be the same. Maybe "which the town is named after".
- Refs 1 and 3 need page number(s).
- "As of December 1971, the Glen Rock measured forty-four feet wide" Why the date? Presumably any changes in the size of the boulder since then have been minimal.
- "glaciers receded during the recent Ice Age". It would be more accurate to says "glaciers receded at the end of the last Ice Age". Also, it would be better to link to Wisconsin glaciation.
- "the 2009 report by the Borough of Glen Rock suggests that the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" I do not think that you need to keep saying the 2009 report. "the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" with the ref is fine.
- "As late as 1910, about half of the rock remained submerged under soil". "As late as" does not say anything useful. I would say "Until 1910".
- The main problem with the article, in my view, is the exccessive reliance on newspapers. They can be OK for current events but are not reliable sources for geology and history. The newspaper articles probably have errors, but are presumably based on books and articles. Your refs on geology look OK, so you probably need just to delete the newspaper refs for statements about geology. The referencing for history is weak, apart from the Encyclopedia of New Jersey. In Britain you can borrow academic books and journals through inter-library loan from your local library. Is there any way you can get access to more reliable sources for the history? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dudley Miles: Thank you for the pointers. I think that my recent edits have fully addressed everything but part of the last bullet. There are inter-library loan systems in the United States, but I'm not sure that my local library is connected to a national network. I'll look into seeing what resources libraries local to me have access to through interlibrary loans or I'll start making requests on WP:RX to get access to more academic sources and/or historical monographs. And, while newspapers will inevitably have some errors and it is generally better to cite mainstream scholarly sources over mainstream newsorgs, I think there are parts of the cultural history section that newspapers are adequate sources for (i.e. the sign theft saga). The geology section has been culled of direct references to newspapers. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History[edit]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on getting the article to a GA grade.
Thanks, JoleBruh (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to send it to FAC. Some aspects of the tomb clearance were politically controversial at the time, and their treatment in the sources is changing as academia reassesses the impact of colonialism (I've put some more information about that on the talk page), so I'd like to have as much input as possible to make sure the article meets NPOV.
Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 02:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get this article to FA and it's already failed FAC twice (due to low participation). I can't think of any other ways to improve it beyond what it is now.
Thanks, — Golden call me maybe? 07:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest that you seek a mentor, who can help provide feedback on the article, and post on various applicable Wikiprojects asking for help. I also suggest that you review FACs right now: this will allow you to get to know the FAC process and criteria, as well as build confidence among the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Many FAC reviewers, myself included, prioritize reviewing articles from nominators with high review-to-nomination ratios. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it to Good Article.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I recently contributed a significant amount of information to this stub. I'm nominating for review both to receive some feedback and suggestions on the contributions and as well, to hopefully remove the template for "additional citations" and if possible to reassess the article's classification.
Thanks in advance :) OK872 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello OK872 - I am by no means an expert of archaeology, but here are some suggestions. (First, thank you for contributing and improving the article!) I recommend that you "cheat"! Find an article on a different archaeological period that has a Good Article or Featured Article rating, and pattern Subneolithic after it. TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In the mean time, here are things I noticed with very little effort. The intro should be a quick summary of the entire article. Your introduction should be two or three paragraphs with no citations. Any facts in the intro should be backed up by cited text in the main body of the article.
- Some sections appear too small. Not required, but any section should be at least two paragraphs.
- Wikilinks: Could use more of them. In the Infobox, Mesolithic and Neolithic should definitely be Wikilinked. There has to be a few other terms that can be Wikilinked. As always, do not have any duplicate links—although the Intro and text for images do not count for duplicate links.
- Citations: I always use the Harvard Style. That means there is a Notes section with Footnotes, Citations (author-year-page for book, cite web, and cite newspaper), and References (the books). That does not mean Harvard Style is the best. In your field, it may be more common to use a different reference style.
- Images: Good images can make a difference, especially for less informed people (like me) that may have a short attention span. The ‘Artemis’ of Astuvansalmi is really good.
- Once you do this minimal amount extra work on the article, someone from WikiProject Archaeology or Anthropology may be willing to do a quick review, and could give it a B-class or C-Class rating on the Quality Scale. This is all I can contribute. Good Luck! TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for the feedback, any suggestions are always welcome! :) OK872 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 11 May 2022, 13:34 UTC
- Last edit: 10 June 2022, 17:04 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because that can help to take the article to GA level.
Thanks, Jonathansammy (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- On a quick look, some rather over-long paras, and seems to use American rather than Indian English ("center", watercolor", "theater"). Perhaps too weighted to the modern period. The lead is too short. But at or near FA level, & certainly should bwe ok for GA. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I will work on fixing the issues you have raised. Best regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a quick look, I see:
- "generic name" errors in the References for 3 Gautam, 38 Kadekar, 89 Kosambi, 117 Alison, 122 Mills, 125 Jackson, 126 Mills, 127 an-Naim, 149 Marinos, and 179 Rao.
- Numerous duplicate links, such as Tughlags, Baiaji Vishwanath, Madhavrao I, Parvati hill, Ganesh, The Peshwa rulers, Peshwe park, and 10 or 20 more. Remember that the Intro and image captions do not count, but everywhere else does. TwoScars (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have removed most of the duplicate links, and will work on the generica name errors. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has major improvements as per the previous peer reviews requirements which noticed the article's problems, including:
- reducing some WP:Oversection problem which not solved for more than a decade
- improving the pupular culture legacy section with each of quotation reference by @KeeperOfThePeace:
- summarized the "analysis" section.
- reference now has page numbers or at least the link to the page in each books/journals
- inline citations improvements, including the quotation from secondary sources such as modern time academic figures & universities researches which gave commentary to the primary sources by @Z1720:
i humbly asking for senior member of wikipedia 3kingdom project too for this review @Benjitheijneb:, @Jftsang: @Underbar dk:
Asking fellow peer reviewer volunteers too @Vice regent: @Goldsztajn:
Thanks before, hopefully this page can be improved to GA. Ahendra (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ahendra, I'm happy to leave some comments but see that you haven't edited in a while—are you still working on this? Please ping me if you get a chance to respond. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 27 May 2022, 14:57 UTC
- Last edit: 9 June 2022, 18:00 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent the past couple weeks revising and improving the article significantly, adding more information, reputable sources, finding supporting evidence for previous claims, removing erroneous or unsupported claims, reorganising, and other general cleanup. I've more than doubled the article in size and I hope I've managed to raise the article from its current grade of "Start-class".
Thanks, -- Primium (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Primium, that's a pretty solid article. I don't know whether the article is comprehensive enough, other than that, I think that the article is worthy for good article status other than a few minor cleanup edits. Do try your best there and good luck. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane, I really appreciate the review. I'll try to see if I can find more information on taxonomy, at least, as that's an area I wanted to expand / include but could find little about. As for minor cleanups, is there anything or any sections in particular I should consider? -- Primium (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Primium, I think that the article only need minor copyedits at this point. I honestly don't see how this article would fail at GAN instantly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two more sections, Taxonomy and Resemblance to Carinotetraodon imitator, because I do agree the article could be more comprehensive. I also went through and fixed every minor issue I could find. If you see any more, please tell me exactly where, because I've been staring at the article so long I'm now blind to them 😅. Thank you. -- Primium (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through the article, it generally looks in great shape but I have a couple of comments:
- One thing that stands out to me as a non-expert in fish or zoology in general is the extensive use of technical/rare words that are just not accessible to the average reader. Most of them are linked to explanatory entries, granted, but if I have to leave the page several times to find out what words mean, I'm probably not going to bother reading to the end. There's nothing wrong with using these terms by the way, but a few subsequent words in plain English to explain what they mean would be a good addition I think. Here are just a few of the terms I had to double-check the meaning of: polyphyletic, emarginate, congener (which by the way is a dab link), spination, potamodromous, euryphagous, demersal, infusoria.
- Do we know how long this fish lives for?
- Any information on when/why the fish inflates? Any predators?
- Carino- comes from the Latin for "keel" as mentioned in the article, but the "Resemblance to C. imitator" section says this fish lacks a keel. Is this correct?
- The lead section should be expanded to include information from each section of the article.
Hope this helps! Cheers, BigDom (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, BigDom, this is really great feedback. I'll try to address these issues and get back to you.
- Some information, like lifespan, I could not find from reliable sources. I've also not seen anything reliable that says we don't know its lifespan, so I'm not sure how to include that information. The best I've seen is a magazine article from a hobbyist who said his would usually die after around five years of age, and he presumed from old age. If you have a suggestion, please let me know. -- Primium (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not in the literature then no problem, better to omit it than include unverifiable or dubious information (I had a look myself too and couldn't find anything). If it's a reliable magazine then maybe something how anecdotal evidence suggests a lifespan of around five years in captivity? BigDom (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, BigDom. I've published the last of my changes based on your suggestions. Let me know if there's anything else to address. -- Primium (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article, and I would like to receive a general assessment
Thanks, AndersenAnders (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please note that English is not my first language and this is my first article of this length so bear with me.
- The article appears to provide a good overview of the Vera hypothesis. I find the article lacking in that it includes very little about competing theories or how widespread acceptance of the alternatives are. Birks and Mitchell are barely referenced. Birks has said that the high-forest hypothesis "has been widely accepted by forest ecologists and conservationists."[2] The article focuses more on dismissing critiques than it does in acknowledging the valid points that are made by critics. Please see WP:NPOV in particular WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. I appreciate the work that has been done to thoroughly document this topic but I believe that our readers need additional context to put the ideas in an appropriate perspective. This is especially relevant given that wikipedia lacks an article for the alternative interpretation of the high-forest hypothesis. --mikeu talk 23:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you sincerely, @Mikeu, for your time and your honest and valuable thoughts. Actually I already thought that a section dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis and its history might serve the article well. I attempted to do this in this section, but realise that expanding it into its own, more detailed section could improve the article's quality and provide perspective to readers. Admittedly this is a topic that I myself am not entirely familiar with, so I'll research that better.
- I think there are two major issues in relation to the topic as a whole that I find challenging to address properly: Firstly, that it's not always entirely clear which period exactly researchers are referring to, the Holocene or Pleistocene, yet, because of its interconnectedness with the Quaternary extinction, I think it is of paramount importance to distinguish between the two, a distinction even scientific publications do not always seem make. Then, secondly, that the high-forest hypothesis is indeed so widely accepted that the general public doesn't seem to question it, or even see it as questionable, which confines the debate virtually entirely to the academic community. And wikipedia's lack of an article dedicated to the high forest hypothesis only illustrates this lack of public discourse.
- I will therefore provide two more sections, one dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis, its history and the fact that it indeed represents the more widely accepted viewpoint of the two, interlinking to this article to better represent the common viewpoint, and one dedicated to critiscism raised by Birks, Mitchell and others. It may take me some time, but I'll do my best.
- Thanks--AndersenAnders (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the existing text is well written and covers the topic in an understandable way. I had never heard of it before reading the references and searching for more information. I'll check back after you've added to the article and let you know if there is anything else I can think of. BTW, you can ping me with {{reply to|User:Mu301}} as my username differs from my signature. --mikeu talk 22:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I will leave you a note here once I think I'm done --AndersenAnders (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a vital article in chemistry, and I wish it to improve to GA status.
Thanks, Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keresluna, I like your ambitious goal! Overall, I found that the article, to be honest, is very messy; improving the layout also make the article more appealing to readers and reviewers. The article is also missing on a lot of info about such a common compound, so I suggest reading books, review articles, and websites to add and source the information in. Here are some stuff that I think the article may miss: NaCl tastes salty, NaCl is present in ocean and seas, role of NaCl in biology, NaCl in space (Europa for instance, see [3]), refining NaCl to higher purity, osmosis, and so on and so on. Good luck on your journey! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cati, I am not sure that I agree with you here. We already have Salt. Taking for granted that we wish to have separate pages for the two topics, I do not think it is necessary for the NaCl page to go beyond the scope of its chemistry. I think it is hard to draw the line between these topics. Maybe two pages are not needed? Czarking0 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 23 February 2022, 06:15 UTC
- Last edit: 27 April 2022, 07:00 UTC
Language and literature[edit]
I've listed this article for peer review because i've recently expanded it by 6000 bytes and I want to improve it but don't know exactly what there is about the article that needs attention, and I think it would be very cool if I could expand my local library's page even more than i already have.
Cheers love, the cavalries here, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy and religion[edit]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because a previous peer review disappeared into the weeds and the article really needs a fresh pair of eyes, or pairs of eyes, to move forward. What it needs is actionable suggestions for improvement please rather than opinion, sourcing suggestions are always welcome as well. It is a contentious subject and there have been frequent widespread debates across this article and Crusades that frankly prevent improvement & cause experienced editors to avoid the subject.
You may question why this is raised in Philosophy & Religion, rather than History. This is because this is not about the MILHIST; the various campaigns are more than covered in other articles. It is about the movement that lasted centuries, the instituitions of that movement, its philosphies and historiography.
All help and advice would be gratefully received.
Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @Gog the Mild:—from your Talk it looks like you are away, hope you had a good time. As an editor whose opinion I value, do you think you can have a quick look over this one and give some possible notes on improvement? If not thanks anyway, love your work on the Hundred Years War.
- Hey @Dr. Grampinator:—any chance or some more actionable improvements on this one?
- Hey @Johnbod:—would appreciate any advice you could give on this one?
- Hey @Dominic Mayers:—would you like to add some reasoned works as you usually do?
- Hey @Ealdgyth:—appreciate this request might fall into the lifes too short/lions mouth category, but I would be grateful if you could give some notes on this one. I think it way have gone as far as I can take it without outside input?
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Johnbod
- On a first look, though the lead mentions crusading outside the Middle East, there is very little on other crusades below.
- I must admit I thought this was covered sufficiently, but obviously not. To help me bridge the gap what sort of thing/details would you touch on? The MILHIST is largely out of scope as this is about the movement.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The economic pressures and motivations should be covered. The attitude of some, notably the Italian mercantile republics and their sailors, was pretty frankly commercial.
- The motivations of non-knights should probably be covered more. Among the cause of the failure of the ME movement was surely that it struggled to attract women, enough farmers, and professionals like lawyers.
- Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 21 March 2022, 22:15 UTC
- Last edit: 9 June 2022, 08:07 UTC
- Previous peer review
Hi there! I'm requesting a second peer review of this article after a year since the last review. I've fixed many issues in the article; references are improved, many Manual of Style issues are fixed, and the article is much cleaner overall. However, I'd still like some extra eyes to look at the article before a GAN. I don't have anything in particular this time - just a general sweep would be nice! Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (formerly known as DoggieTimesTwo)[reply]
Social sciences and society[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 10 June 2022, 00:02 UTC
- Last edit: 10 June 2022, 21:56 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be thoroughly checked/edited for paragraph cohesiveness, sentence flow, tone, and possible grammatical errors.
Thanks, Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 28 May 2022, 22:14 UTC
- Last edit: 10 June 2022, 23:02 UTC
The article has been listed for peer review as there has not been much interaction by other users and due to the controversial nature of the article's topic. Assistance is also needed with any issues regarding neutrality and WP:BLP, as edits should not be made in a damaging manner.
Thanks, WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to enhance the article to reach featured-article quality
Thanks, SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SecretName101: This PR has been open for over a month. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest seeking a FA mentor or asking for feedback on applicable Wikiprojects. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 3 April 2022, 19:30 UTC
- Last edit: 19 May 2022, 18:43 UTC
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 9 January 2022, 20:02 UTC
- Last edit: 19 May 2022, 03:45 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thanks, ADWC312 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ADWC312 the article looks great! I think you should put it through WP:GA. It was well written, well illustrated, well sourced, and interesting to read. Thanks for your contribution. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… it is being presented in an interesting way for the readers; clean, neat, orderly-fashion mode, with lots of information for each of Chaminade's musical pieces. I think she deserves better than what she had from us so far. One more thing, please, I would like your input, not correction, but complementary advice and smiles. If this community believes this list should go straight to FA then... so be it.
Thanks, Krenakarore TK 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]
Done