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.
Hey there! I'm nominating this article as I would like some advice from fellow editors in my journey to bring it up to GA, which will be the first time I am attempting this. The article is currently B- to C-class, and needs a decent amount of cleaning up before nomination. I've been doing some research over the past few weeks to find some better references, and just wanted to be pointed in the right direction in terms of any other things I should be focusing on ahead of a GAN. I'd appreciate any help, thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been over eight years since this article was last assessed and 13 years since its last peer review. A lot has happened in her career since then, including two studio albums, a return to touring, and a residency. The article has also gone through some format changes, with sections being reorganized and split to focus on specific topics. The article suffers from a lot of problems that need to be addressed, and I feel that this peer review will be very useful. Some sections are bloated, and the wording can be very awkward. Further more some sources might be outdated, since it's been so long since the last time this article was reviewed. However, I still think this article is close to being a GA candidate. Thanks, 204060baby (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lede is quite long, and can possibly be shortened
Done
"She attended Marshall Middle School in Wexford, Pennsylvania and North Allegheny Intermediate High School in McCandless, Pennsylvania before leaving the school to be homeschooled and avoid bullying she experienced there." Needs a citation
"Aguilera starred in the romantic science fiction Zoe, which was premiered at the Tribeca Film festival in April 2018, and was later released on July 20 by Amazon Studios." Needs a citation
Done
Does the book in the Further reading section need to be there? It doesn't seem to do with Aguilera directly and might be promotional.
Forbes contributors are not considered reliable sources, per WP:FORBESCON.
Suggest expanding the lede to summarise/mention all sections in the article. See MOS:LEDE for more details.
The "Professional ratings" chart only has one entry. Try finding additional ratings/reviews at WP:A/S to add to this chart.
Personal credits needs a reference.
Any additional personal credits that can be added, like people playing instruments, co-producers or music editors/engineers?
The infobox says the song is "Cold Wave" but this is not mentioned in the body of the article, nor is it cited. I suggest that information about the song's genre is added to the article body (probably under background)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to FAC in consideration of the bronze star. I have considerably expanded/rewritten this article and meticulously examined the available sources to craft the current prose. Any and all comments are very much appreciated.
@Ippantekina: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for feedback on the Wikiprojects attached to this article or from regular FAC nominators in music topics. If not can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Z1720, thanks for the ping. Let me ask for feedback from FAC contributors and if I see little chance I'd close this soon. Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to upgrade the article status to a featured article, while the previous peer review was not as helpful as I wanted.
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) 02:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Howdy! I'm chiming in real quick based on my first impression on the lead.
Phrasings such as "while", "as well", "additionally" etc. are almost always bad wording. Try to minimise them as much as possible. To demonstrate, I present some crisper alternative wordings as follows,
"Lyrically, "NDA" speaks about Eilish's battles with fame and for privacy, as well as touching on her relationships." → Inspired by her relationships, "NDA" has lyrics about Eilish's struggle with fame and fight for privacy.
"The track's production and vocal performance were acclaimed, while its themes left some critics divided. Additionally, in some reviews, issues were taken with the song's lack of relatability or placement within Happier Than Ever." → Critics acclaimed the production and vocals, but some took issue with its themes and said it was a misplacement on Happier Than Ever's track list.
Passive voice is a no-go. Some examples to demonstrate this point better,
"The track's production and vocal performance were acclaimed" → Critics acclaimed the production and vocals
"issues were taken with the song's lack of relatability" → some took issue with its themes...
""NDA" was promoted by a self-directed music video," → Eilish self-directed the music video for "NDA", which...
"Similarly to the song, the visual also was dubbed as dark, eerie, and moody" → Critics said the video's atmosphere effectively accompanied the song's production and described it as dark...
@Ippantekina: Hi, thanks for those suggestions. I already applied them to the article, and I might start to re-write the article to make it better. It's definitely not the third time I'm going to do this haha. infsai (talkie? UwU) 16:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know prepping for FAs is daunting and the prose is a major criterion. I suggest taking a look at this piece of advice which helped me tremendously. All the best, Ippantekina (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infsai: it has been over a month since the last comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infsai: I suggest asking for comments in the Wikiprojects attached to this article. Since you are also still working on passing your first FAC, I suggest finding a FA mentor who can help by leaving comments for this article. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this up to Featured Article status. The article is a new GA that went through a fairly rigorous GA review, and I'd like to see what sorts of things need improvement before diving into the FA process. This would be my first FAC, so please feel free to provide general tips and/or point out any common mistakes in the article.
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. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: This has been posted for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in getting comments? Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I suggest posting requests for people to review this at Wikiprojects attached to this article, or review other articles in the hopes that someone will return the favour and review yours. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rephrase the opening sentence to be something to the effect of "The road network of Madagascar, comprising about 4,500 unique roads spanning 31,640 km (19,660 mi), is centered on roads to and from the capital Antananarivo."
Remove the footnote reference to Wiktionary.
Remove the footnotes to the French singulars unless they differ from either Standard French or, as in the first note, common English usage.
Separate the history stuff into a dedicated history section.
Remove the caption reference to Commons, instead using {{Commons-cat}} in the "References" section.
If you're referencing a book or multi-page source, split off the references to incorporate page numbers; use {{sfn}} for footnotes, and separate the long forms (the actual book citations) into a separate "Works cited" section. This particular issue sunk my first ever FAC way back in early 2019.
Thank you for the feedback. I've modified the first sentence, removed the footnote to wiktionary, removed the footnotes to French singulars, and moved the commons interwikilink to the references section. With respect to Separate the history stuff into a dedicated history section, I'll take a crack at doing that today.
With respect to If you're referencing a book or multi-page source, split off the references to incorporate page numbers; use {{sfn}} for footnotes, the article currently uses {{rp}} in line with WP:IBID. It's my preferred citation style and that's fine per WP:WHENINROME, and it doesn't cause issues with the visual editor (sfn does cause problems), so I'm a bit confused as to why this would constitute a problem. Do FAs have to use sfn instead of any other citation style? Alternatively, am I missing page numbers for certain citations where one would expect them? — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 17:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not notice the RP, that is also acceptable. I have not performed a thorough source review, but I trust the sourcing is adequate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Red-tailed hawk: I added three 'as of' templates to the page where I think they would be good, but as for the wording of the article itself, it looks good to me! I am also working on my first FAC, so my review will not be the most helpful compared to other editors here, but I wanted still help out where I could. Best of luck on your first FAC and becoming an administrator on Commons. Cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to try and get it to Featured Article status. I put it up for this in 2020 and it was rejected, after which Mark83 and I collaborated in an effort to improve it to a standard where it could potentially be successful. We've now gone through this and I would like to give it another go, but it would probably be a good idea to get someone else's opinion on it before submitting it.
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) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My name is Zac Bond and I work for Pure Storage. It appears 4 years ago a prior employee disclosed, made some minor edits, and requested larger ones on Talk, which were implemented by a volunteer. The tag alleging Terms of Use violations was added because of user AaronEndre's incomplete disclosure when he started the page 11 years ago. This page has been re-written since then, but the tag was left up due to neutrality/tone concerns.
It's possible I'm not summarizing correctly, but that's what I've gathered. In a nutshell, it appears the current page is still not considered neutral as a result of Talk page contributions from a former Pure Storage employee. I'd like your feedback on how I can fix that, where and how the page sounds promotional, and how for me to best assist. ZacBond (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Hi Z1720, sorry for taking a while to respond. Thank you for the feedback! Here is how it’s coming along:
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
Done I do have one question, though— do you think should I restore the citations which backed up the genre (quasi-documentary)? KH doesn’t get referred to as this throughout the rest of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
Done Not controversial at all; I’ve gone ahead and removed the excess citations. Also, quite a few of those sources appeared to be unreliable, so we’ve just killed two birds.
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
Working on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
Done I also merged a relatively short portion of Reception with Release. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any available info about how the film did at the box office when it was first released. The only numbers I found were those of the 2022 re-release. It seemed more appropriate to merge.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Done by Awkwafaba. Thank you; I was struggling to get the bot running.
If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.
Done Oh yeah! I’d forgotten all about TWL. I signed up and poked around for a bit, but sadly didn’t find anything. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citations need to specify more clearly what the source is. For example, reference 18 is currently:
"El Día (Madrid. 1916). 19/5/1919". Hemeroteca Digital. Biblioteca Nacional de España. 19 May 1919. p. 5. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.
But this doesn't really tell us that usefully what the source is. So instead, I would recommend this (there is no need for an access date for a newspaper source:
Martin Fernandez, A. (19 May 1919). "El "Arenas Club", de Bilbao, Campeon de España" [The "Arenas Club", from Bilbao, Champions of Spain]. El Día (in Spanish). Madrid. p. 5. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022 – via Hemeroteca Digital, Biblioteca Nacional de España.
All facts need citations to back them up. So, for example, the first paragraph of the Route to the final would need citations for the information provided.
I also can't see a source for the line-ups.
Opinions like those given in the first sentence of the match Summary"Barcelona used a more patient, technical style of play while Arenas relied on a brute-force method of reaching the opponent's goal. The latter's physical advantage and consequent endurance was a major influence on the result" need to have inline attribution. This can be as simple as: "According to Martin Fernandez, Barcelona used a more patient, technical.."
A bit of further context would be useful. How successful were the teams in the subsequent years? When was La Liga formed, and were the teams part of that?
The prose would also need some tidying prior to a FAC, but finer detail like that can be worked on after getting the structure right, I think. Harrias(he/him) •talk 18:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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) 01:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to attempt to get the article to at least C class so I Could possibly consider a GA. It's a game I quite enjoy and could definitely benefit from some work being done on it.
@Blaze Wolf: For starters, the Reception section could definitely stand to be more in-depth, and should ideally be made up of paragraphs individually summarizing responses to the gameplay, visuals, and audio, along with perhaps some other notable aspects. If a bunch of reviews say essentially the same thing about a particular aspect, a cluster of sources can be grouped together in an {{efn|}} template, and more specific observations by one or two reviewers should stand alongside that. Here are some examples to study so you can get an idea of what a Reception section should look like: one, two, three
As for the Gameplay section, I can safely assume there's no official instruction manual for this thing, so for sourcing the gameplay mechanics, you might have to use the game's reviews to verify the details. And for information on Development and Marketing/release, I'd suggest scrounging up any and all news, previews and press releases you can find. Hope this input was helpful. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: I would highly recommend expanding the Development and Reception sections. Also, a little more info on the DLC and more sources in the Gameplay section would be appreciated. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll see what I can do, though I'm not sure how much I can do for development and info on the DLC for gameplay with needing reliable sources. I might just do a complete rewrite of the Gameplay section since I (stupidly) decided to wrtie the section first and gather citations later... which was a bad idea. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) 14:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've decided to list this video game article because I want to improve it. I want to at least get this article to a B-Class assessment. This is my first article that I've fully worked on.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I have revamped the article, as the geographical boundary corresponding to it was created in April 2022, following the geographical reorganisation of Andhra Pradesh. As WikiProject India assessment task force is not active, I am submitting it here.
Comments after a quick skim: I think each section needs more information. Try looking for more sources and information from Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, and your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am reaching an impasse as to how to continue to add to and improve the article and would greatly appreciate outside input into what can be done next or potential sources for further information on the village. Input on the demography and geography sections as well as recommendations for additional sections that would help the article along would be most appreciated! You may notice that this is a rapid-succession peer review request for the same article, and it is. The previous request was fulfilled by an editor using ChatGPT to generate feedback, which, though done in good faith and with good intentions by the editor, was of questionable value.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate in the near future as a FAC. The article has been expanded and revised over the previous months and recently has received a thorough copyedit from WP:GUILD.
Hey, Sanglahi86. I'll look into the sourcing and references in a bit, with the standards of featured articles in mind. I hope you'll find my feedback helpful. Tayi ArajakateTalk 00:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look into those issues. I will try searching for better sources for those that you mentioned. For the book sources, since most book sources in the article use direct referencing, would using {{rp}} to cite different page numbers be better than {{sfn}}? (most FAs I have seen have used {{sfn}} though) Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, citation format is inconsistent. Some books are listed under bibliography while others are directly cited to and present under citations. Used direct references (with {{rp}} for different page numbers)
Duka 2008 (ref 100, 110) appears to be a high school level textbook. While college textbooks including undergraduate ones can be good tertiary sources for history (although depends), high school level ones dont generally undergo scholarly peer review and are usually too simplified, gloss over complexity and can occasionally represent misleading and/or outdated ideas. This would most likely not be considered a high quality reliable source necessary for the FA criteria if considered reliable source at all.
Halili 2004 (ref 72, 76, 98), same problem as the one above. This one is an even more generalised than Duka 2008.
Lazo 2009 (ref 295, 299), same problem as above, this time in relation to polsci. Comment: This seems to be a college textbook; the publisher, Rex Book Store, specializes in law books, so I am unsure if a better source is required.
McAmis 2002 (ref 45, 47) is published by a religious publishing house and the author appears to be a theologian. This too would not be considered a high quality reliable source if considered reliable source at all. Topics on religion need academic sourcing. Used better sources
Rottman 2002 (ref 135) appears to be a popular history book being used to source a death estimate during WW2, much better sourcing can be found for this.
Ref 136, same issue as above and for the same material.
Rowthorn et al. 2006 (ref 255, 622, 736) is a travel guide being used to source facts on topics related to biodiversity, architecture, etc. There are much better sources available for these topics, once again needs peer reviewed academic works. Done for refs 255 (biodiversity) and 622 (architecture)
Sulit-Braganza 2005 (ref 238), another high school textbook, this time on earth science. Some of the material it is cited for is alongside peer reviewed work while for other material it is only cited alongside a primary source. Sourcing could be improved. Comment: Not sure what to do here. The textbook cover page says it is a tertiary-level textbook; not a high school one.
Tofighian 2006 (ref 117, 680) is a dissertation which are not generally considered reliable unless it has gone through peer review and published in a reputable journal.
Zibart 2001 (ref 722, 723) is a generalised book on cuisine by someone who appears to be an enthusiast. I understand that the same standards for topics related to cuisine may not be easily applicable but any author should at least be widely considered to be an expert or an established critic (preferably specifically with regards to Philippine cuisine), which doesn't appear to be the case here.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made a bunch of changes and expanded the article quite a bit. I would like some help with cleaning this article up a bit, get some nudges in the right direction, and get shown somethings I might have missed.
Ref 177: According to WP:RS/P, this is a deprecated source and should probably not be used. Y: Found a book on EU law and the history of areas like Clipperton so it's a much better source. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Jost, Christian H. (1 July 2005).", "Jost, Christian H. ", "Pitman, R.L.; Jehl, J.R. (1998).", "Skaggs, Jimmy (1989)." and "Tamburini, Francesco (2008)." are listed as sources, but do not have any inline citations pointing to them. Either they need to be used as inline citations, or if they already are the sfnp template needs to be fixed. Y: I forgot all about this clean up task. Went though and all but one of them weren't being used in the article so they were removed. Going to go back over the rest of the sources in the list and just get rid of it as they're not highlighting anything important are are just a hangover from the import from the French version. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 00:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Aside from the lagoon and water caught from rain, no freshwater sources are known to exist." needs a citation Y: Good catch, went back and added the two best sources that explain this. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 20:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:LEDECITE, citations are usually not needed in the lede as the information is in the article body.
There's a lot of information in the history section. Is it all needed? Anything that can be removed as insignificant events, or reduced down? Try to merge one-sentence paragraphs.
Per WP:GALLERY, the photos and media section probably should not be there. Y: Done! Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 22:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first line on the main page of WP:PR says an editor can ask for a review even while working on an article. The current stage of the ongoing expansion should give an idea of the direction that this article is taking. Comments and suggestions in relation to any aspect of the article are welcome, including major reshuffles of sections and headers, and improving usage of the maplink template. It is still far from featured article status and I don't think the coverage is even adequate in that aspect.
Thanks, FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The map in the lead should be replaced, it's too crowded and needs a different format, at least a smaller indicator for each lake.
"Other lakes have reduced in size and are in various stages of deterioration." It should either be "have become reduced in size" to match the past participle form of the verb "reduce" in the previous sentence or it could use an alternative word such as "shrunk".
In the sentence "There are six cascading lake series- Varthur, Puttenahalli, Hulimavu, Byramangala, Yellamallappa Chetty and Madavara", the hypthen should be replaced.
The sentence "In 1986 the Lakshman Rau committee (under a retired administrative officer; see N. Madhava Rao)" shouldn't use "see", even the paranthesis is unnecessary, please re-word.
"There are various boundaries and methods that have been considered when counting lakes or tanks." should be "methods that have been considered for counting lakes or tanks".
It should be "Greater Bangalore has seen a reduction in water coverage" instead of "Greater Bangalore has seen a reduction in water cover."
"The expansion of the city's limits has resulted in the transfer of lakes from the rural district to the urban district over time" instead of "Over time, the expansion of the limits of the city has resulted in a transfer of lakes in the rural district to the urban district."
"In 2015, a survey of all lakes in Bangalore Urban totaling 834 was completed" instead of "In 2015, a survey of all lakes in Bangalore Urban totaling 834 were completed."
"A study published in 2008 found that in the heart of the city only 17 good lakes exist as against 51 healthy lakes in 1985." Should use the actual study as the source. If the study is from an RS and is uncontested, the attribution isn't required and if it is contested then it should attributed to a specific entity instead of "a study".
"pre-defined water quality" doesn't need a hypthen.
The following sentence, "A number of factors impact measurements and interpretation of water quality and pollution" is practically superfluous and doesn't say anything. The actual factors and the impact(s) need to be described.
In sentence, "Water hyacinth, and other macrophytes and phytoplankton, are bioindicators of certain characteristics of water quality. Using satellite imagery between 1988 and 2019 (see #Ecology)" shouldn't use see, the entire part in parenthesis is not required.
"...varying in coverage of the wetland according to lake, season and other factors." What are the "other factors"?
"A study conducted by the same group in 1989..." should be replaced with something along the lines of "The Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore observed in 1989...", otherwise it is unclear what group is being referred to here. Also suggest abbreviating here.
"waterfowl census" appears like an arbitrary term to wikilink.
The article needs to describe which lake belongs to which cascade.
The article also fails to properly distinguish between cascades and individual lakes. Sometimes it is unclear whether there is a single lake or a cascade being referred to it.
Kaggadasapura redirects to the same article, the wikilink should be removed.
Same as above for Kempambudhi.
Several terms are repeatedly wikilinked, please avoid this.
Citation format is inconsistent, some studies are listed under "Works cited" while others are directly cited and present under Citations.
Hello FacetsOfNonStickPans, I have left some comments above which could help improve the article. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi ArajakateTalk 10:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on articles about the Oval Office desks for a few years now and this is the first one I believe I have brought to a Featured Article quality. I have gotten lists to Featured List statues before but never an article to Featured Article. I look forward to suggestions and comments on the articles quality in preparation of nominating this at FAC.
Listing for peer review with a view towards an FAC nomination. In many ways this is similar to my recent nomination of Panagiotis Kavvadias: Pittakis was one of Kavvadias' predecessors as head of the Greek Archaeological Service. However, where Kavvadias was a master politicker, bureaucrat and administrator, Pittakis was more rough-and-ready: my favourite anecdote from this article is how, frustrated by the high cost of carrying out restorations 'properly', he and a friend decided to get a ladder and a large saw and shorten an ancient column themselves - nearly collapsing the building and jamming the saw inside the column for two centuries.
Hi, I have been working on this article and want to see if it is comprehensive and readable enough for FA. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Cplakidas and @Borsoka, two very thorough and knowledgeable reviewers. Any reviews are totally optional, but I would appreciate even just a few comments! Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will gladly review the article but I need some time to start the review. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise, it will take me a few days to get going due to other ongoing concerns. Constantine ✍ 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borsoka I have pinged you at the FA nom at Henry II, so please take your time on this PR. Please do not feel obligated to do either one of them if you do not have the time or desire to! Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) 17:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this to FAC sometime soonish, within the next couple of months. Before then, however, it needs a deep copyediting cleanse, with consistency in act titles, terminology, linking, and most importantly making sure citations are in tip-top shape. I decided to go for a peer review rather than going directly to GOCE, however, to also receive feedback on the direction of the article and whether there was anything barring it from FA status other than copyediting and a few citations I still need to take care of. To this end I'll ping some relevant Brits @Sarastro1, HJ Mitchell, TrottieTrue, and Iridescent.
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) 17:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article became a Featured Article back in 2007, when it was promoted by SandyGeorgia (talk). It was stricken after a review in 2015. I have rewritten the first couple of sections, and gone through the article and fixed up the most obvious issues (ie referencing). However, I think it probably needs more work beyond that. Pinging @DrKay, Hchc2009, and Nick-D:, who commented on the FAR, and @MisterBee1966 and Hongooi:, to see if we can generate a list of needed changes. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not a FAC delegate until 2008 :) But I'll peek in here this week as I find time; if I forget, pls do not hesitate to re-ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't on Wikipedia at all, hence no FACBot. Instead, the promotion work was done by the GimmeBot. I don't understand what triggered it; there is no mention of a coordinator. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back then, Raul did all promotions, and closes before GimmeBot were just a template on talk. Then GimmeBot, Maralia and I worked an AH on every single FA in 2008. Then later in 2008, GimmeBot added in which person had promoted. But anything before early 2008 is Raul654. An article was officially an FA when Raul added it to WP:FA. That switched in 2008 to addition to the Featured log by a delegate or Raul, which triggered GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This is a complex topic, above my level of expertise. I will make an attempt to support. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long time since I've listed a PR but I think it's warranted in this case. I successfully took this article to MilHist A-Class some time ago but since then I've added further detail and re-organised somewhat the History section, with a view to finally taking it to FAC. The challenge with this entity is that although there's a wealth of relevant data around, there’s no comparable detailed history that I'm aware of (although it does at least score a brief entry in the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History). Given the Air Board essentially ran the RAAF between 1921 and 1976, a highly detailed history would amount to a de facto history of the service for that period, so I've tried to restrict the information to origins, purpose, changes in composition, major or representative decisions, and dissolution, as well as highlighting those times (inevitably during international conflict) when the Air Board did not exercise complete control of its assets. I'd like input from experts and non-experts alike on how successfully it fulfils that goal, and of course anything else that strikes the reader. The subject might sound a little dry but if you're into professional rivalries and inter-departmental intrigue, you should find enough to keep you interested on those scores alone... ;-) Thanks in advance! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I've listed this article because I'm a newbie and want to make sure my work has been worth it. I wanna get this page to featured-level quality eventually
Especially uncertain of:
Formatting refs, especially those in other languages
Quality of current refs, especially Monthly Chosun Ilbo refs. I think I need more peer reviewed print book sources, but they're usually unavailable as ebooks and unavailable for print in the US :(
If copyright on current images looks fine
Minor confusion on:
Level of detail so far
If I should split any sections into separate articles
Some FYIs:
Still WIP, missing 1945-1949 bio, expanding death/legacy section, also second pass on early life section
I haven't gotten around to cleaning up ref info yet, but I do appreciate suggestions on how I should do it (or best of all, help doing it 🙌🏻)
Grateful for detailed feedback or help editing. I've already put around 1.5 months of time into it but feel like there's still months of effort left.
I suggest bringing this article to WP:GAN before going for WP:FAC, as that process is a lot easier. Some comments after a quick skim:
Ensure that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
Bibliography section should be below the references.
Delete the selected quote section, it is not needed and can be transferred to Wikiquote
Personal life should be placed before death to keep the timeline.
Formatting of references is a little wonky, as you point out. WP:CS has information about this, and I highly recommend using the templates (as they contain the information that you need and will format everything for you.)
Images need to have a US public domain tag, in addition to the South Korean ones. See this link for more information] on which banner you should add to the images.
For splitting sections, typically for bios you don't need to split off, but if there is information about an event you might create a separate article for that event. This article should only document what this person has done and avoid extra information.
I've listed this article for peer review because it may need significant improvements before nominating it as a FAC. As Raymond was a controversial figure just before the crusaders' catastophic defeat at Hattin by Saladin, I think neutrality can be a potential problem. Thank you for your time.
A first perusal reveals a mixture of English and American spellings. Among the former are defence (twice), neighbouring, organise and rumours, and among the latter, advisor (twice), defenseless, favor (twice) and jewelry. Before going to FAC you need to standardise on one or the other: either is fine, but a mixture is not. The above are the spellings I spotted, but I recommend you check the whole text for other inconsistencies. I'm sure I don't need to add that my comments refer only to the main text, and that quotations should remain in the original spellings whether BrE or AmE.
I noticed a large number of "however"s in the text – fourteen, I think (two in one paragraph). The word is seldom necessary, and often impedes the flow of the prose. I suggest you remove as many as you can. For instance, in "the enemy forces, however, seriously outnumbered their retinue" and "His praise was tempered with criticism, however", the howevers add nothing of value and would be better removed. There are even more "also"s in the text, and a fair few of them could advantageously be removed.
You mention your concern about neutrality. I got no impression that it was a problem on my first read-through, but will reread and comment further. Tim riley talk 12:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a second reading I can still detect no sign of bias, and to my mind the article appears impeccably neutral. It seemed a trifle long, and if it is possible to trim it a little that would be a good thing, I think, though I know how hard it is to prune one's own prose. Other reviewers may have thoughts on this point. That apart, I can't think of any suggestions for improving the article, which strikes me as pretty much ready for FAC. – Tim riley talk 16:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your review. I hope I could address most problems you raised above. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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) 01:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borsoka: It has been over a month since the last comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your note. I will close it in a couple of weeks. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has the potential to be an FA-class article. I would like some comments on where it can improve before I submit it for FAC.
I suggest using {{sfn}} citations for Greenwood source. Source [7] is a bare URL PDF that needs formatting. Sanglahi86 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the lead image? is it a ball or a microscope image? We need a caption.
Unclear sentence: "Tantalum's heavier analogue was later found to be the transuranic element dubnium – which, however, does not react like tantalum, but like protactinium."
Dmitri Mendeleev's 1871 periodic table should be bigger so we can read Th and U.
Physical properties: there is a comparison, but no values given in the text. Most values are in the infobox, but not all. Please add the numeric values of properties to text. Especially since the infobox is mostly devoid of references, it is important to have text with references.
Please use chem2 and not chem template.
Poor English usage in "allows to improve" and "allowed to reconstruct"
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it back to FA and it has undergone a vast amount of work between its delisting and my arrival, so I would like a road map as to what needs to be done.
Article looks good for GA, and I've almost no experience with FA, so I hope my comments would be useful.
A prominent result of this is the Great Red Spot, a giant storm which has been observed since at least 1831. - "prominent" and "at least" look strange in the lead
Callisto is the second largest; Io and Europa are approximately the size of Earth's moon. - the Moon could be linked here
There are several problems with the grand tack hypothesis. - reads a bit strange, though maybe it's ok
Jupiter's departure from the inner solar system - "Jupiter's departure" - can it be paraphrased?
The average density of Jupiter, 1.326 g/cm3, is about the same as simple syrup (syrup USP),[37] - the comparison should help, but for me it's very confusing. Is "simple syrup" a common term known to everyone? If not, better no comparison than bad comparison.
Does my comments have any sense? I can continue, so please tell me if you find it useful. Artem.G (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks :) I've made a few adjustments- not sure if I made them better or worse. Serendipodous 18:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have run out of ideas for improving the article and I would like input from another editor. I think some of the prose is a little clunky and I would appreciate input on how to make the prose flow together in a more natural way. I'm also not sure if the final paragraph containing reception or praise for the show is good or not. Should the quotes be shortened or paraphrased? Are there general themes of praise or criticism throughout the sources that could be compared or contrasted?
I've listed this article for peer review because this article that I created has two requests for improvement tags at the top placed there by others, and I'm looking for third-party evaluations to see if any such problems remain. These two tags currently in place are:
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (February 2023)
This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (February 2023)
Of course, any other ideas for improvements would be much appreciated as well.
Update: another editor removed the encyclopedic tone cleanup tag, so that the cleanup tag of "undue weight to certain ideas" is the concern remaining in place. Of course, all improvements with a peer review much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"He felt unwell on his last operation on 14 April 1945, jettisoning his bombs over the North Sea and returning to base." Needs a citation
Move the death information into "Later life"; since there is a lot of information about his legacy, this can be its own section.
"Comments on his life" I don't think it section is necessary and relies too much on quotes. Instead, incorporate this section into other parts or remove it.
"STRACHAN, WILLIAM ARTHUR WATKIN (ORAL HISTORY)"." Should not be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS
The article relies upon one source. I suggest looking for other sources in WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar and archive.org.
Dear @z1720 , I've gone through all your feedback which has helped me slightly improve the article.
Second paragraph in Education needs a citation.Done
"He felt unwell on his last operation on 14 April 1945, jettisoning his bombs over the North Sea and returning to base." Needs a citationSentence deleted, refers to actions described later in article
Move the death information into "Later life"; since there is a lot of information about his legacy, this can be its own section.Done
"Comments on his life" I don't think it section is necessary and relies too much on quotes. Instead, incorporate this section into other parts or remove it. I don't 100% agree, but perhaps at a later date
"STRACHAN, WILLIAM ARTHUR WATKIN (ORAL HISTORY)"." Should not be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPSDone
The article relies upon one source. I suggest looking for other sources in WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar and archive.org. I assume you mean David Horsley's 2019 biography of Billy Strachan? I believe it is the most authoritative source on this subject. However, I have ordered more books which mention him and will increase the diversity of sources :)
This article failed the last GA review. The main flaws pointed out by the reviewer were that "the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV)". I've made various changes to the article in an attempt to address these problems. I wanted to get some feedback before I renominate it, specifically on the following points. (1) Have these two problems been solved? (2) Are there other problems that should be addressed before a renomination?
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that we have changed this article enough from the previous peer review for featured list status.
I've been rewriting this article for the last couple of months in the hope of getting it to WP:FL level at some point in the future. Currently, no political timelines have yet been promoted to featured list status, and I'm hoping that, if this article is, it will set a precedent for others to follow. However, given that the list is on such a divisive subject, I thought it would be best for the article to go through the PR process before I nominate it. My main concerns are the level of detail (is it comprehensive without being indiscriminate?) and its bias (is it neutral, or does it have a recentism bias?), but I welcome any and all feedback. Thank you. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare for a FLC nomination in the future. The list was forked from Nathan Chen to reduce size of the main article.
I greatly expanded this article a year ago now, almost entirely by translating it from the it.wiki equivalent I personally wrote. I would like to propose it as a candidate for FA status, but before a FAN it is certainly better to hear how it can be improved. Note: I am not a native English speaker, so any advice on prose, grammar, syntax or exposition is especially welcome. Thanks, TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conception:
There seems to be a clash between the Sadamoto concept art and the quote.
Remember to wikilink in the first paragraph of the body
Explain what is Nadia
Is there a translation to what does Kikakusho means?
I would move the image to the first mention of Sadamoto since he is the one made them.
Characters:
Since Shinji and others have their own articles, I would suggest trimming these sections
Remember to reference voices or change them to prose.
The one story characters from a single game or other project might not be needed here.
Reception
The quote from popularity seems kinda random and a bit of undue weight that could parahrased.
I would recommend giving each paragraph each own main topic to make them stand out. Maybe one paragraph could be a general approach, another could be Sadamoto's designs, another could be psycholgycal approach.
BTW, I am also having a peer review here for a movie that I'm sure you have seen its related articles. So I'd appreciate any related feedback. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'm currently workin' on them.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because, I've been working on it for some time and I think it might be a good candidate for a featured list. The FL process recommended peer review.
Hi, I'm investigating using GPT-4 for ChatGPT-assisted article reviews. After feeding the lede of this article for analysis (haven't figured out how to get it to read the tables yet), I asked it: "Can you suggest any information that should be added?"
"The current lede provides a good overview of the Nansen Refugee Award, its purpose, history, and the prize associated with it. To make it more comprehensive, consider adding the following information:
Mention the nomination and selection process for the award.
Briefly discuss some notable laureates or organizations that have received the award over the years and their contributions to the cause.
Include any significant changes or developments in the award's history or presentation over time, if any."
Let me know if that was at all useful. Esculenta (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just took a stab and rebuilding the table to be more efficient; certainly can be further improved. Separately, I want to note that the lead section was much more clear at the moment you requested peer review last December. The changes in the intervening months have left it muddled and riddled with editing errors. I haven’t done a careful review of intermediate versions looking for the absolute best starting point, but I’m pretty sure that if you were simply to restore the lead section from the version from Dec-08, that would be a big improvement. —jameslucas▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One quirky point I wanted to flag: Ted Kennedy died in August 2009, so it’s probable he was awarded posthumously. Whether or not he was alive when he was shortlisted or even chosen is probably worth looking into.
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.
Done
Working on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.
