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... This article is really close to fulfilling the FA criteria. I would've put it up for FAC right away but knowing the past four attempts from two years ago I wanted to find all of the ways I could possibly improve the article beforehand. I will keep this open for at most three weeks before closing.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm currently making a complete overhaul of the article. My goal for this article is to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page, within a year or two.
While this seems to be a good faith PR request, I would like to reference our discussion here. As I suggested, a peer review should be requested after the re-write or overhaul you are currently working on the article is complete.
The goal of a peer review is to improve articles that have already received dedicated attention, major issues should be resolved before PR. Looking at the editor contributions, it appears you have very minimal edits at 2%. The article is significantly underprepared, and our peer reviewers are stretched advising the "nearly-theres" how to get their work over the line. Concurrently having this peer reviewed while you are re-writing would be a waste of the reviewers time and efforts, as well as yours, since it would entail a great deal of work both on the prose and with inline-citations which is an intensive undertaking and should be done off-PR.
Key areas: there are a lacking citations in the prose, which needs work. Proper formatting of the citations is also critical as well as looking through a lense whether they are high-quality and reliable sources. I also see unnecessary interruptions to the flow, some issues on peacock language, which can be addressed with a clean-up of MoS thoroughly. I would also suggest, as I did in my response to your message, a copyedit once you complete the re-write. It seems you have only revised the lead and small portions of the body.
At a glance, I've found a few issues with the references. Additionally, the citations undergo spot-checks for avoidance of close paraphrasing and plagiarism in the GAN and FAC process. It is the responsibility of the editor/nominator to make sure that these have been addressed prior to nominating. I also suggest that this should be done before putting at PR.
Ref 2 - citing a YouTube video which is a user uploaded copyrighted material
US-Asians Tripod is considered a blog and should not be used as a citation
What makes Filipino Web, AfterEllen, Soap Central, NewsFlash reliable sources?
Some citations do not have work or publisher parameters
Article titles should consistently be in either sentence case or title case, irrespective of how they appear in the original, per MOS:TITLECAPS
Some websites/works are linked, others are not. It should be consistent. Link only on the first instance or link every instance.
Unfortunately, doing a PR now would not be beneficial as the article overhaul barely started. I suggest to close this and complete the re-work off-PR. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The plot section is quite long for the length of the article: Is there a way to reduce this?
The "Development and release" section is quite long. Can this be split up, or use level 3 headings? Done
I see why you have split up the reception by chapter, but the reception for Chapter 1 is much longer. Is there a way to split this up by type of information, or reducing the number of words in this section? Done
Much of the reception falls into the "X says Y" pattern, with lots of quotes used. Consider reading WP:RECEPTION and finding a way to eliminate the quotes.
I'm not finished yet, just asking for feedback. — Davest3r08>:)(talk) 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Reception" suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. Each section with a heading should be about 2-4 paragraphs long, not one. The other edits look good. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Z1720, as for the Chapter 1 reception, do I just remove some of the reviews? — Davest3r08>:)(talk) 01:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "remove the reviews". What I would do is focus more on blanket statements like "several reviewers praised...." and then cite all of the reviews that mention that praise. A recent featured article that can show how a reception can be written is Doom (1993 video game). Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Z1720, I think I might request a GOCE copyedit request for the reception and plot sections (after I significantly contribute to the article, of course, I'm still finding sources). — Davest3r08>:)(talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have rewritten the article to include elucidative details, additional characters significant to the plot of the series, and to point out differences between the original manga and the anime adaptation. This edit also brings the page up to snuff with Wikipedia’s quality standards.
Now you can help by making improvements and fixes to proofreading, cohesion, and clarity, as well as checking the article for accuracy, tone, style, and relevance (that is, remove any information deemed excessive or trivial). You can also review the manga chapter/volume and anime episode citations provided, and you are welcome to correct them where needed.
@Nebulous2357: Peer review is for editors who are looking for suggestions on how to improve an article. Are you interested in making the changes to the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to put this through the FAC process sometime next year, but I have never worked with a video game article on that level before so I wanted to make sure that everything was as ready as possible before that time.
Apologies for all of the peer reviews I have done for this article in the past. I have recently rewritten the article completely to the best of my ability, and I will leave this peer review open for a few months (ideally if there is enough commentary to support that amount of time) to avoid rushing anything and to make sure I give this the amount of time it needs.
Thank you in advance. I really do appreciate any help to better improve this article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to hear a variety of opinions on its prose style and comprehensiveness, with a focus towards aiming for FAC if possible. I have mined every source I can find but would like to test the waters before going to FAC with a shorter 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. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk
I wonder about the tense of the first sentence: "A [For 100 Cars] was a minimalist composition..." typically, compositions exist in the present tense, since they don't disappear, but I understand how this one is unique. Perhaps "A [For 100 Cars] was a minimalist site-specific project..." is more fitting, though that doesn't mention the music part
For the American audience, might be worth linking car park
Rod Emory, a creator of "Outlaw Porshes" - is "Porshes" misspelled intentionally?
Make a new redirect called LA: Cars + Music that points to the subsection of this article
The sine waves were generated digitally using the "Magic Circle" algorithm - what's the "Magic Circle" algorithm? If the following sentence defines it, draw that connection
all drivers were given a pair of headphones - I assume noise-cancelling?
The performance of A [For 100 Cars] took place on 15 October 2017 at a multi-storey car park at 131 South Olive Street, Los Angeles.[2] This location is opposite the Walt Disney Concert Hall. - merge: "The performance of A [For 100 Cars] took place on 15 October 2017 at a multi-storey car park at 131 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, opposite the Walt Disney Concert Hall."
Make sure that works names in citation titles are italicized too (e.g. A [continuum] in ref 1 and the name of this work in ref 12)
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.
Also, since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest getting a mentor who can help guide you through the process. Mentors can even comment on the article at this PR. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC to build goodwill amongst the editors and help familiarise yourself with the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am requesting a review of this article before nominating it for FAC. To summarize the topic, Hotline Miami 2 is a 2015 video game that is a sequel to 2012's Hotline Miami. It is particularly notable for being banned in Australia due to a scene that features sexual assault, and is still refused classification in that country to this day. I recently got the article through GAN, and if all goes well, it will be my first FAC sometime in 2024. Any comments are appreciated.
"After the proposed length of it surpassed that of the base game, the project was turned into a standalone sequel after ten days and was confirmed to be in development via Twitter." -- This feels a little off to read. Maybe rephrase.
Done.
I don't think you need to repeat the release year twice in the lead.
Removed 2015 from the first sentence.
Linking the genre in the gameplay is wise.
Done.
"Shortly after the release and success of the first game, which sold 130,000 copies in it's first seven weeks," - "Its", not "it's".
Done.
Some rephrasing to make sure citations aren't just stuck in the middle of sentences might be advisable.
Unless you count using some citations at commas, I could only find one reference that was in the middle of a sentence.
Ref 16 is used twice back to back, when both sentences could just use the same reference.
I assume you meant Ref 12 (now 11 since I removed an earlier reference that did nothing) since 16 was only used once in the entire article.
The release section feels a little plodding due to the recitation of dates/events.
Went through and tried to make dates repeat themselves less, though not too much happened in the games marketing and release anyways.
Reduce quotes in the reception section.
I'll have to do this at a different time, but I'll do it eventually before I go to FAC.
"Referred to as "another powerful thing the game gets right" by Thurster of PC Gamer and as "your partner in flow-state induced crime" by Burns of VideoGamer.[22][6]" - Refs wrong way round.
Fixed.
Left some comments for you. Taking up the GANs (FFXVI, TR:Chronicles) I've got not required, but appreciated if you want. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review, I've done all of them right now except lowering quote usage in Reception (which I'll do before FAC, I just can't do it at this exact moment). As for Final Fantasy 16 XVI and TRC, I'll review either one after I review Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors. NegativeMP1 00:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been working on this article for a long time, and I am trying to get it to GA status. I am new to this stuff and not too confident in my writing, so it would be great if anyone went through it to see if it reads well, give recommendations on how to improve it, and so on.
I had a chance to review the article and thought it was well written, well sourced and detailed. If I were to add any feedback, I would suggest being a bit more concise when giving details about the plot. It would help the article read a bit better as every detail about the plot is not needed, just an overview. Great job on spending the time to create this article. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll see if I find the time to give this a thorough review, but here are at least some comments about the "Box office" section for starters:
As of October 22, 2023 – I would wait to nominate this at WP:GAN until the initial theatrical run has concluded and made this "As of" unnecessary.
Why mention both the projected opening gross and the actual one? Do the sources comment on the difference?
over its first five days of release – box office figures are typically not reported for this time frame. There is actually a good reason to do so in this case, but it is not made clear to the reader.
I don't see a strong reason to name the three movies the film opened behind—it seems like excessive detail to me—but it's not prohibited or anything.
An entire paragraph is devoted to the box office performance in the US and Canada, but the rest of the world does not get any such treatment. This is a pretty clear example of WP:Systemic bias and would be an immediate showstopper at WP:GAN if I were to review the nomination there.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not been peer reviewed/nominated in ten years, and has significantly improved since then. I want to bring it to FA status but also want some advice first. As a Doctor Who fan myself, I struggle to be neutral when it comes to the article's quality.
A couple of thoughts with an FAC hat on. 11:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
A small thing: it's considered impolite to strike others' comments - it makes it difficult to be sure of what I've seen, and gives a false impression that I've withdrawn whatever suggestion or issue it was. The usual form is to indent and reply "Done" or similar underneath. UndercoverClassicistT·C 19:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:LEADCITE: in general, it shouldn't be necessary to cite things in the lead, since they should be included and cited in the body text.
The series is listed in Guinness World Records as the longest-running science-fiction television series in the world, as well as the "most successful" science-fiction series of all time, based on its overall broadcast ratings, DVD and book sales, and iTunes traffic: I'd put this into the perfect tense ("has been listed"): we haven't shown that it's listed in the 2023 edition, for example, and the reference to iTunes traffic feels rather dated now.
A few areas seem light on citations: this is particularly noticeable in the "Missing Episodes" section. I would always cite at the end of a paragraph, even if that same citation will be doubled in the next one.
Image captions that contain factual claims should be cited.
The show should always be named in italics as Doctor Who.
There's a lot of Further Reading mentioned. My general view is that FAs rarely have room for such a section: if the sources mentioned there have anything useful to say that isn't already in the article, they should be cited and so moved to the bibliography: if they don't, they don't offer the reader very much and should be removed. I did notice, reading the article, that there seems to be very little on the academic reception of the series: perhaps two birds could be killed with one stone here?
The formatting of titles in references and Further Reading is quite inconsistent.
Nit-picks:
Icons of science fiction exhibit: should be "Icons of Science Fiction", I think.
Map of countries that have or currently broadcast Doctor Who in either its current or its classic incarnation: could be trimmed considerably to something like "Map of countries that have broadcast Doctor Who.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm considering taking it to FAC but would like some input as I know it's not there yet. Pinging Ceoil who requested it.
Hi Zmbro. Great work on one of my top 5 favourite albums. Reading through and comments soon. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey there. Just so you know the article needs a LOT of work before it can be brought to FAC. The reception sections need to be completely reworked and I need to summarize more in music and lyrics. It's certainly doable – I made great progress the other day – but just know the revision you look over now will be very different from when we're over. Best. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 17:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get that - do you want me hold off comments until you are ready? Either way, looking forward. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ceoil Sorry for the late reply; been dealing with issues over at Aladdin Sane. If you had some tips on where I could take things or possible sources to use I'd appreciate it but let's leave strictly prose comments for later when it's more finalized :-) Thanks. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CeoilMoisejp Hey all. it should be all set for comments now. I bought a new book that will arrive tomorrow in hopes of getting some more useful info but other than that it should be all set. :-) – zmbro(talk) (cont) 21:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ceoil No rush, I just wanted to get a status update after a few weeks. Thanks. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 22:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can try to have a look at this but will probably be more useful when the prose is more finalized, if that's cool. I'll probably be able to make more suggestions about the prose than the content or sources. If you want to ping me then, please do, and (although I can't absolutely promise) I expect I'll likely have time at that time. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Zmbro, sorry I have been tardy to look at this. I hoped I'd have time this weekend but it looks like it didn't happen. Next weekend is a long weekend, and I have fewer overall commitments, so I'm optimistic I should be able to get started on it then. Thanks for your patience. :-) Moisejp (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I'm about a third the way through my first reading. So far it is reading well and I haven't noticed any big issues. I'll try to finish my first read-through in the coming days. :-) Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments:
(Songs section) "and music white soul": Is this a typo? Moisejp (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Biographer Marc Spitz said the album does not showcase "Bowie does black music", but rather "Bowie and black music do each other"." Doesn't seem very clear what this means. Without more context, consider taking it out? Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More context for these two sentences would be good if possible. They also seem somewhat contradictory without any attempt at bridging the gulf between them. "Lyrical themes throughout the album include loneliness, despair and alienation.[37] Biographer Christopher Sandford writes that the album is "a record of high spirits and lively, colliding ideas"." Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can this be expanded on? It suggests Lennon didn't strictly speaking do any of the songwriting on "Fame". If there are any more supporting details available, they'd be welcome. "Bowie later said that Lennon was the "energy" and the "inspiration" for "Fame", which is why he received a writing credit." Moisejp (talk) 04:12, 27 November 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) 02:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually put it forward as a featured article candidate. There are lots of sources on Stephenson, covering her career as a comedian, psychologist, writer, actress, food safety campaigner, and parliamentary candidate representing the Blancmange Throwers Party. Does the article have the right balance of coverage of these? Thanks in advance for any improvement suggestions.
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) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: This has been open over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to take a look at this article -- will aim to give some feedback this weekend. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Yes, sorry about the slowness! I've had a quick look at the article but still need to pull together some comments. Will aim to do so over the next few days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I worked hard on it, exhausted all online resources I could find and would like to know what other people think. Any advice on what else can be done and where else to look for sources would be appreciated. I'd also like to hear feedback on what class it falls under.
I've submitted this article for peer review in response to feedback from an editor who identified certain issues. I've made enhancements to address those concerns, and I welcome any further suggestions for improvement.
I've submitted this article for peer review in response to feedback from an editor who identified certain issues. I've made enhancements to address those concerns, and I welcome any further suggestions for improvement.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring this article to GA status in the near future. This article has already appeared as DYK in October this year so I believe it can be further improved to become a GA.
In addition I'd like to ask the reviewer to check whether source 16 satisfies WP:SPS. A previous source I used was a slight point of disagreement during the DYK process (see [[1]]) but then I changed it and the promoting admin decided to WP:IAR. I want to ask whether this source may interfere with the GA process.
I've listed this article for peer review since I would like to take a stab at bringing it to FAC early next year (think Jan/Feb tentatively). Any feedback for improvements are appreciated :) Thanks, Sohom (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what the exact etiquette is here, but this should be removed. This editor is blocked, has made virtually no contributions to the article, and doesn't have the basic Wiki knowledge to understand the PR process or feedback yet. No peer review is necessary at this time. Sergecross73msg me 14:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: The user is only blocked for a week, so this PR can probably stay open. If Equalwidth can address comments upon their return. If their block is extended, we can close this until their return. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, I'm the one who blocked them. And the whole reason I blocked him is because he's a very new editor who keeps on making disruptive edits in more advanced areas that he doesn't understand. Bad AFD noms, giving bad advice at the TEAHOUSE, inappropriately warning other editors, etc. If you guys want to leave it up, so be it, I just know these things take time and effort, and I didn't want someone wasting time going through all the work for someone who wouldn't even know what to do with peer review feedback. He should be taking the WP:WIKIPEDIAADVENTURE, not taking advanced feedback from a peer review. Sergecross73msg me 21:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it lacks structure and needs updating. It has previously been described as poorly written. There is also a proposal to move the topic to X (social media) which may be inappropriate given it's current condition.
@CommunityNotesContributor: Your above nomination indicates that you already know some of the problems in the article. If comments are given, will you be fixing up the article? If not, then this PR should be closed as PR is for editors to get comments on how they can improve articles they are writing. Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since applying for this review I've addressed some of the issues, and now there's just "the rest" to deal with which I'm more or less aware of. Apologies, please close close the PR as wouldn't want to waste anyone's time. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it to WP:FAC. I'm pretty sure that all major details relevant to the article are covered, but I'd like to get it checked over for anything that may be missing before nominating it, or any gaps that may disqualify it. Copyediting-related suggestions aren't necessary; I'll take it to WP:GOCE before nominating it.
I reviewed the article and thought it was well written, sourced with reliable sources and appears ready for publication to WP:FAC. The one question I had after reading the article is whether the goverment paid the ransom as the request for money was taken down and the suspect who was prosecuted does not seem to be the one who instigated the data breach. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really experienced with WP:FAC but I do want do a bit of a review since this falls under the "related to cybersecurity" category.
noting the lack of a secure mail/messaging contact or bug bounties Was there no contact information at all? or no security specific email address/contact ? This statement is a bit ambigious :)
believed to be legitimate by some cybersecurity experts, - I think this is implied, it might instead be usefull to point out that some cybersecurity experts thought this might be a hoax, if there was a significant minority/majority of them
some cybersecurity experts btw, who were they? can we name names?
The government could not assist with the clean-up following the breach, or compel Optus to give government services information. why, what stopped them ?
including a new cyber office - Can you explain what "cyber office" is and what it's duties were ?
a second number to driver's licenses were fast-tracked - How does this relate to cybersecurity/making drivers licenses more secure, maybe that could be explained?
This were the nitpicks I found on a initial read through. Sohom (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it. I don't plan to nominate to GA but it was way too small some days ago and I decided to give a push similar to the Persona subseries article. Is there any notable issue that needs to be solved? I've tried to search for sales but Capcom tends to put only the individual ones rather than the series in general.
I've listed this article for peer review because of its planned featured article candidacy (FAN). This is my first peer review submission and any comments to improve the article are appreciated.
Still got this on my to-do list, but it is getting a little busy for me right now, so it may take until Thanksgiving weekend to get some detailed comments in. So sorry for the wait. I'll try to get them in when I can. The Night Watch(talk) 23:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are the notes that I've got so far:
The sourcing is from reliable sources as far as I can see, and is likely good enough to hold up during a source review. There are some minor inconsistencies with the citations (some publications with Wikipedia articles are blue linked, while a few others like Destructoid and one of the OpenCritic citations are not) but overall the sourcing is in good shape and will pass unless the spot-checks find anything.
Troy Leavitt is mentioned as the lead designer twice, I think you only need to mention his role in development once.
The section about Rowling’s viewpoints and the boycott appears appropriately neutral. Though some FA reviewers may have different opinions, balancing this section would not have been an easy feat, and I’m impressed you were able to do so.
I think the section about arachnophobia is more suited to release, as it is not very relevant to how the game is played, and moreso something added after release.
The biggest hurdle that I can see is getting the prose up to scratch. That'll be hard considering this is a big 123K byte article, but it is in good shape already and can get to "engaging quality" with some work. I'll try to make some copyedits to help some sections, though I’m not the strongest copyeditor and some FA reviewers might be able to give some better advice. Some essays that helped me a bit with copyediting are WP:REDEX, User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, and WP:ELEVAR
There are some scare quotes in critical response that could be paraphrased to make the section flow better (Happened to me the first time, took a little bit of time to fix)
No worries about delays, I am glad someone is providing input. I will look into the things you stated so far. I assumed the recent GOCE visit was sufficient, but maybe the FAC process will bring up more to improve the prose. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs more information, and needs to be peer reviewed as it is a small article, and prone to error.
Thanks.
How is it prone to error? signed, Willondon (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up to featured article standard. I'm a Notts County supporter and while I've tried to be neutral I may have slipped up in places by being biased or overly wordy. All comments and suggestions greatly appreciated.
- The first three paragraphs are completely unnecessary, and all this information should go into the National League article. This is way out of scope. The fourth paragraph is excellent, well sourced and explains the background well up to the club's first season back into the national league after relegation from League Two.
Notts County brought in five players on loan during the 2022–23 season. Leicester City goalkeeper Brad Young joined on 26 August. Intended as a season-long loan, an injury forced his return to Leicester in January. I think these three sentences could be merged to Notts County brought in five players on loan during the 2022–23 season, starting with Leicester City goalkeeper Brad Young, who joined on 26 August. Intended as a season-long loan, an injury forced his return to Leicester in January
- this sentence September ended with Notts in third place, with 21 points from 10 matches. can be improved to 'September ended with Notts in third place, taking 21 points from 10 matches.'
- this sentence "By coincidence, Notts hosted Wrexham in their first meeting of the season three days later. The match attracted 10,741 spectators, and was won 1–0 by the Magpies through a 13th-minute goal by Langstaff, who was able to finish a well-worked free kick routine. This victory put Notts top of the table." can be merged, 'By coincidence, Notts hosted Wrexham in their first meeting of the season three days later. The match attracted 10,741 spectators, and was won 1–0 by the Magpies through a 13th-minute goal by Langstaff, who was able to finish a well-worked free kick routine, with the victory putting Notts top of the table.'
The Magpies finished December with two home matches, the first a 2–0 win over Gateshead in which leading goal scorer Langstaff sustained an injury which kept him out of the following game. Notts fared well without their most prolific forward, defeating Oldham Athletic 4–1 on 26 December. this can be changed to
The Magpies finished December with two home matches, the first a 2–0 win over Gateshead in which leading goal scorer Langstaff sustained an injury, keeping him out the following match; the second a 4–1 victory over Oldham Athletic on 26 December, playing well without their most prolific forward.
when Jones's speculative effort from the edge of the penalty area found its way past McDonnell. Notts County won the match 3–2. when Jones's speculative effort from the edge of the penalty area found its way past McDonnell, giving Notts County a 3–2 victory in agonic fashion
when Notts were caught in possession, and Roarie Deacon fired into an empty net from 45 yards. change to when Roarie Deacon fired into an empty net from 45 yards, after Notts were caught in possession.
this article is in good condition and i think it has GA or even FA potential.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this, it is much appreciated. I'll get working through your suggestions as soon as possible. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article's already achieved GA status, but I'm curious as to how close it is/how much work it might need for FA and would appreciate any feedback. TheKip 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am an Italian editor on it.wiki, living in Rome near to the Stadio Olimpico.
I rewrote and updated (for the statistics part) the article using the sources I already used for writing the article in Italian.
I am not a native speaker, thus I opened this peer review both for checking the writing and correct possible errors and also for receiving suggestions for the improvement of the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have the goal of improving it to a state where it could pass a GA nomination. A year ago, it was a mess of content of questionable value, crudely organized, and outdated. It might still be, so I’m looking for feedback, insight, and suggestions on where my effort is best spent with the goal in mind.
Thanks in advance for wading through this lengthy article! ZsinjTalk 01:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lede).
The "Geology" section is quite short. Can this be merged with another section, or expanded?
Avoid short paragraphs that are one or two sentences long, and try to merge them together or expand them.
"Social services" should be expanded.
"Economy" section still needs to be updated with the latest stats, per the orange banner at the top of that section.
"Banking" "Retail" and "Private charities" should be expanded, merged or removed as it is too short.
"Former place names" should be expanded upon with examples.
"Sports" should remove the level 3 headings and merge this together.
I would suggest continuing to find sources to add to the article, and considering removing anything that you cannot find much information for. Hamilton, Ontario is a great article to use as a template. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate the areas to expand since I’ve kind of been focused on pruning seemingly unencyclopedic material from the article. ZsinjTalk 00:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to get this topic peer reviewed because I want to bring it up to GA standards eventually. The topic is very niche, and I did my best to collect all the sources that I could on it. Many of them are from old newspapers, so there are lots of opinions and proposals to cover. What concerns me the most is the wording I may have used to detail the contents of each source. I want to try and cut down on anything that reads like original research or as though it is expressing an opinion. Additionally, I would also like to know if the article is formatted well and if the images do well to add to the content.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured article candidacy in the near future and I want to ensure that this article is not missing anything major which would fail any of the featured article criteria. Anything copyedit related shouldn't be necessarily as it went through the GOCE earlier this year.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a translation from a Spanish Wikipedia article and I'd like a second pair of eyes on the translation and general formatting.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that I found all information that needs to be said for this page that is credible except for a few that I don't know how to word it or it should probably not be in the article since it's pretty vague. I fully remade the 11th millennium BC page, so I can't really respond to the previous GA's because of that. There is some things that are probably a little too specific, but it's better to record everything in the subject than being sparse like what I did a year ago. I'm also submitting this here so there can be a higher chance of the 11th millennium BC to have a GA since I want it to have the same quality has the 9th and 10th millennium BC's.
Recently promoted to GA. I want to move this to FA in near future. Please keep an eye out for neutrality and NPOV; I want to be sure this issue is presented as fairly as possible, as it's contentious.
I'm a bit too sleep deprived to do a deep dive into the article, but I can spot a few things you'll want to address before bringing it to FAC. Lots of the parameters for the citations in the article are poorly filled out. For example,
"www.kukmindaily.co.kr", "kpopherald.koreaherald.com", "www.thecrimson.com", etc. should be replaced with the names of the publications.
Titles like "Press Conference: "One Japan Community's Bid for Reconciliation With Korean Residents" | FCCJ" should be fixed to remove the extraneous tagline.
Wish I could be a bit more of a help in terms of content, but I'm way too tired, I just spotted this and thought I'd leave a comment. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, will get on fixing that. Any help is appreciated, even sleep-deprived 🙂 toobigtokale (talk) 03:24, 15 November 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.
Also, since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest getting a mentor who can help guide you through the process. Mentors can even comment on the article at this PR. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC to build goodwill amongst the editors and help familiarise yourself with the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I'm seeking peer review for this article on a 1992 California wildfire because I plan to nominate it for FA shortly and would like to check my blind spots, so to speak. I am specifically most interested in any feedback on points 1f ("free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing") and 4 (is it too detailed?), but any and all suggestions regarding any Manual of Style guidelines I've missed, poor wording, or wider organization/content issues would be welcome feedback.
@Penitentes: It has been over a month since this PR has been posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, sorry for the late response—Thanksgiving kept me busy. I'm absolutely still interested. Penitentes (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Penitentes: If you are interested in comments, I suggest asking at the Wikiprojects attached to this article. In addition, I suggest that you find an FA mentor since you are still working towards your first successful FAC; the mentor can comment in this PR, too. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I've posted about it on the Wikiproject Wildfire talk page, I'll see where else I can ask—and contact an FA mentor. Penitentes (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
As the Abbey is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, I really think it deserves to be an FA, and I'd like to help get it there. Any comments that you think would help it get its star would be much appreciated. Something that I think might need a particular look at is the references/ sources: I get a bit stuck with the formatting.
Thanks, JRennocks (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few general comments:
"File:Saint Peter Westminster Abbey Flag.svg" also needs alt text. Actually I'm not certain if the Flag of St Peter is necessary, and I would suggest centering the multiple images and moving it up.
I don't think you need the citations in the lead per WP:LEAD unless the text is not cited in the body.
"At least 16 royal weddings have occurred at the abbey since 1100." – "At least 16 royal wedding were held at the abbey..."
"by the mid-10th century, housing Benedictine monks." – remove comma
I don't have much issues with the current layout. However, I might merge "Dean and Chapter", "King's Almsmen", "Schools", "order of the bath" under Organisation.
I might move the "Bells" and "Organs" subsection into the architecture. Mostly following per Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral. But feel free to disregard.
I find more problems with source formatting. As this is your first FAC, the source review will be under greater scrutiny with someone cross-checking the article with original sources.
Source formatting is inconsistent. Refs 6 and 88 are from BBC, but why is ref 88 using "publisher" parameter?
It's also not recommended to use domain names (e.g. westminster-abbey.org, Royal.UK, www.classicfm.com or www.thegns.org) as the website parameter. Such as Ref 102, which I would use publisher=Open University Geological Society instead of "ougs.org"
Likewise for Ref 211, it will be The Independent
Refs 1, 207 I believe also uses the same domain as Refs 183 and 184, and hence I would just go with publisher=Westminster Abbey. I can't find how the website page is attributed to the Dean
Also, I would be cautious with the use of primary sources (especially right from the church's website), per WP:PRIMARY.
Thank you! This is good stuff. I've been using [[Wells Cathedral]] as my model, but I'll have a look at those other articles too. JRennocks (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a quick skim, looks pretty good, but rather long. You might think of devolving some of the later sections, on the people etc. FAC will probably want this.
The sourcing isn't great - too many short guide books, non-specialist refs, and very old ones. Expect this to be raised at FAC. You should try to get hold of:
Westminster Abbey - A Church in History (Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art), ed. by David Cannadine, 2019
Wilson, Christopher, Gem, Richard, and others: Westminster Abbey, Bell and Hyman, London, 1986, ISBN713526130 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: length (art history)
some of the many specialized studies of aspects of WA from the last 30 years
Some of the paragraphs are much too long, & need breaking up.
Strictly speaking, what we call Westminster Abbey is only the abbey church plus a pretty tiny precinct. The medieval abbey was a far larger area, plus non-contiguous areas such as Covent Garden. Really there should be much better coverage of this.
You should mention the period after the death of Edward IV, when his queen and daughters took sanctuary in the abbey for an extended period from Uncle Richard III (also covered in historical novels and a tv adaptation).
I like mini-galleries, but not after very long prose sections with no pics. Put 1 or two up into the prose.
I may take a deeper look later. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! The retable is mentioned briefly in Artworks and Treasures, but we could expand it a bit. Elizabeth Woodville is mentioned in Royal Occasions, but I agree that she should go in History, too. Thank you for your solid advice- I'll get on it! JRennocks (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maxim Masiutin: Wikipedia editors are not too concerned about rankings until GA. Are you interested in fixing up the article? If so, I would address the orange banner at the top of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please peer-review the article? If you think I can fix it up somehow, please let me know what exactly should I improve. You also wrote "I would address the orange banner at the top of the article". Can you please specify what exactly do you mean by "address", i.e. which steps exactly should I take to "address" the banner? Do you mean that I should remove the banner? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another question is whether you can assign the "A" rating to the article, and, if not, what should I to in order it to be qualified for "A"? As far as I know, the "A" rating can be only obtained during a peer review. I got a couple of articles to the "GA" rating. I assigned the "A" rating to one of the nominated articles myself. Still, during one of such evaluation, the reviewer warned my that I should not have assigned the "A" rating myself because it was the reviewer's job.
Thank you very much for your attention and for your help! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The orange banner says "This article needs attention from an expert in genetics". I would suggest fixing up the article as best as possible, then posting on WP:SCIENCE to see if an expert can help ensure that the information is correct.
There should be a citation at the end of each paragraph.
An A rating usually occurs after a WP:GAN. I recommend that you do the GA review first. Also, many projects are not doing A-class reviews anymore, so after this achieves GA status you might want to consider an WP:FAC.
Additional sources can be found at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, or your local library system.
I've listed this article for peer review (17 years after the first) because though I am not an expert in mathematics, I feel Wiles’ article has become high-quality enough in the intervening years to receive an upgrade, or more importantly, an assessment of what needs to be fixed to make it featured status; I should note his influence on mathematics is powerful enough to perhaps warrant “today’s featured article” status for 19 September 2024, the 30th anniversary of his key insight that led to his correction of his greatest proof, so consider this the start of a yearlong campaign to improve the article to featured status.
@Jarrod Baniqued: If you are interested in making it a featured article, a good first step is to bring it to WP:GA. Here's some comments to address before you nominate it:
I don't think the block quote of the Royal Society certificate is needed, as it raises copyright concerns.
@Z1720: Thank you very much for the insights. I will carry them out sometime in the next week. Please bring an editor with a second opinion, too, preferably with suggestions on how to get started. My initial idea is to, for lack of a better word, rephrase parts of the TV Tropes Useful Notes article on Fermat’s Last Theorem. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have implemented this idea. I used IABot, but apparently due to some fudging with user permissions, it hasn’t directly edited the citations. Someone else will have to use IABot on the article.
I also have written a rudimentary lede, though I have yet to figure out how to implement the last recommendation for sections. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to promote it to featured article status. Bradley was an important journalist throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, and I'd be particularly interested in additional feedback on the Illness and death, Legacy, and Personal life sections.
@M4V3R1CK32: It has been over a month since this PR has been posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd still like to receive comments, but if no one is interested I can just go through the FA process without them. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@M4V3R1CK32: Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest that you seek the help of a mentor who can comment in this PR. You can also ask for reviewers in the Wikiprojects attached to this article. Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I condensed the opening line since it seems weird to just have two sentence of introduction and nothing else in lieu of a complete paragraph. It'd be kind of nice to have a line covering his early life and getting into journalism, considering that has its own section in the article that isn't covered by the lead.
Infobox:
Article says he graduated from Cheyney State College, infobox says Cheyney University of Pennsylvania; if it was called the former when he went there, that should be what's used.
Infobox says the years active were '64 to 2006, but {{infobox person}} suggests that the field is used for active in the primary field they are notable for, which to me means you have to pick a later date, say 1967.
Dates of marriage are given for spouses, but that content isn't in the article body (and doesn't appear sourced.)
Body:
As an aesthetic thing, if you've only got short, sub-100 word subsections, I'd just fold them into the larger heading (things like funeral and memorial.)
On the subject of organization, the "style" section feels like it straddles personal life and his career, but doesn't feel like it fits between his journalistic legacy and honors. I think this material is better split up to germane sections (like the mention of his coolness and unflappability leading to his 60 Minutes job seems like it should be mentioned when he gets the job, earlier.) Whereas his personal style feels like it can go better with his hobbies and personal life details. (The earring thing also comes up in the biography and then gets repeated in the style section, where I think it really needs to be less repetitive in how it's presented.)
Given that he died a decade before the award, I feel like you need to clarify the 2017 Emmy nomination (presumably he was credited because of archival interviews, etc.)
he was raised in a poor household by his mother, Gladys Gaston Bradley, and spent summers seems odd to me we mention his mother by name but not his father.
Media:
Images are freely licensed and fine.
References:
You need to do some work consistently formatting references; for example sometimes the news source is wiki linked (New York Times) sometimes it's not (Variety)
As a nicety, refs should be ordered (e.g. He was noted for his ability to get interview subjects to divulge information on camera with his body language.[22][28] not He was noted for his ability to get interview subjects to divulge information on camera with his body language.[28][22]
Sources used look fine, nothing stood out as falling below the quality threshold needed for FA. I do think there might be neutrality concerns, though. While it certainly looks like a lot of the coverage of his career was congratulatory, a quick search pulled up criticism of some of the stories (e.g. [2][3]) I also found additional content that speaks to his legacy as a black newscaster a la Slant [4] that I think could be used to flesh out the legacy. The legacy section I think does need some work beyond the issue with organization outlined above.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to put for GA nomination and would appreciate suggestions for improvement or maybe even expansion
Thanks, FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be doing this review in bits and pieces due to my schedule (that's allowed, right?), so I'll be making piecemeal comments over the next few days. Don't bother to wait until I'm done, feel free to fix anything I mention along the way. Liu1126 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources There are a couple sources that seem a bit dubious. Could you demonstrate their reliability or replace them with other sources?
From what I gathered, LitCharts is somewhat similar to SparkNotes, which lacks consensus on its reliability at WP:RSP.
The GraduateWay source appears to be a sample paper without an identifiable author. Consequently, I don't think this meets the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and may even be WP:RS/SPS.
Khanya seems to be a personal blog, and I couldn't confirm if the blogger is an expert in the field, so I'd say this source fails WP:RS/SPS.
The bracketed word (pictured) in the image caption is probably unnecessary.
I don't see how Yabancı in the "See also" section is related to the article.
thanks for having a look and comments. I will remove the challenged sources or seek alternatives. Yabancı is the same slang in Turkish FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. In that case, it might be better to link to the Wiktionary entry yabancı instead, since readers might get confused at seeing the movie article. Liu1126 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't noticed any other glaring issues, so I think this article in its current state stands a fair chance at being promoted. One last thing is that it may benefit from a copy edit, as there are some odd words and phrases lying around. Normally, I would do it myself (since I'm also a guild member), but given that the article has already been nominated and I'm a quite busy IRL right now, an immediate request at WP:GOCER will hopefully get the job done in time. Good luck to both you and the article at WP:GAN! Liu1126 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to launch an FAC for this article in the next month or so. I've had a couple editors provide informal commentary over the last few months since the successful GAN, but I have yet to go to FAC and would like to walk in knowing a bit more than I do now.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was long since last review, need to know what can be improved to make it a GA.
Thanks, J.Stalin STalk 04:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Severians continued to recognize Severus as the legitimate miaphysite Patriarch of Antioch until his death in 538, and then proceeded to follow his successors." Needs a citation
"The Emir demanded translations of the Gospels into Arabic to confirm John's beliefs, which according to the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian was the first translation of the Gospels into Arabic." Needs a citation
"Transfer to new locations" Why is this heading bolded instead of a level 4 heading?
The "Transfer to new locations" has a citation after 1160, but not at the end of the paragraph. Does this citation verify all of the information here? If so, I recommend that it be placed at the end of the paragraph.
Instead of using bolded titles, use level 4 headings.
"Also in the late 1800s, the reformation faction of the Saint Thomas Christians in India left to form the Mar Thoma Syrian Church." Needs a citation.
"In the early 1920s, the city of Qamishli was built mainly by Syriac Orthodox refugees, escaping the Syriac genocide." needs a citation.
"Maphrian or Catholicos of India" section needs a citation.
"A bishop is a spiritual ruler of the church who has different ranks. Then there are metropolitan bishops or archbishops, and under them, there are auxiliary bishops." Needs a citation.
Priests section needs citations.
"Deacons" section needs more citations.
Every paragraph needs a citation at the end of it to verify the information. I found lots more passages that need citations.
There are lots of sources listed in "Bibliography" that are not used as inline citations in the article. Ensure that if a source is listed here that it is used in the article.
It's been awhile since I've been able to get any feedack on the content of the page. One user left a tag on the top of the page, but gave no feedback. In terms of whatever problems, I am at least attempting to get feedback. I am not saying the page is entirely done, it's not. The current introductory sections however, have been recently compiled to their present state.FourLights (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FourLights, Hi, I think that was me! I put those tags there in part for my own sake to circle around later, since it seemed you were chugging away at it and I wanted to wait until you were done to dig into it. This is not my forte in ancient Chinese philosophy, but I'm eager to take a pass over it now that you've gotten a good chunk of work in. :) — Remsense聊 13:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, if you needed me to wait for you to finish, I could cut back when you start and work in the background.
I think that is potentially too harsh. I think FourLights needs help from an editor who can appreciate the research better than I can, otherwise I would take it on. I've been watching them iterate on this article for a bit now, and I feel bad that I can't properly help. Remsense留 22:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on possible additional sections that others would be interested in and to see whether the current contents make sense to audiences.
Thanks, Stran20 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After working on this article for months, I want a fresh pair of eyes and suggestions for where it goes next. I want to get to where it is ready for a GA review, but before that I think the readability, structure, and scope of the article need review. It is difficult to be comprehensive because this is an abstract concept with a huge literature. On the other hand, a large proportion of the literature that comes up when you search for "cultural diversity" is about cultural pluralism, cultural heritage, or multiculturalism, which are related but different concepts. It's important to get this right: Wikipedia itself is a cultural diversity project, and the past version of the article was weighed down with legalese, vague language, or specific local issues rather than an overview of the concept.
I am surprised at how short this article is, considering how big of a topic this is. I suggest expanding out the article, especially the sections with only one paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback @Z1720:. I guess my question is if the article is going in the right direction. If you're saying that it needs a lot more of the same content, then that's an affirmative. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking at nominating this article as a Featured List. I welcome suggestions for improvements to the article to get it up to FL quality.
Thanks, ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, I'm glad you're looking at taking this to FLC. I'm working on taking Premiers of Western Australia to FLC as well.
I think that the content at User:GMH Melbourne/Premier of Victoria should be added to this page. The current consensus is for there not to be a separate List of premiers of Victoria page, so given that, this article should contain all information at User:GMH Melbourne/Premier of Victoria. A split can be investigated later.
@Steelkamp: Thank you for your comments. I was planning on expanding the history section of the article in my user space to include more about post-federation history of premiers, as well as other details (similar to your Premier of characteristics section for the WA premier). I will merge the articles now and work on expanding the history section over the next couple of days. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to get it to Featured Article status. It has recently passed Good Article, and I'm not sure what else needs to be done to get it to Featured. Any advice and suggestions for improvement are hugely appreciated!
The lead could be edited to be a bit more comprehensive regarding the body contents. The body has two policy subsections, refugees and food allergies, and only the first is covered in the lead. I would also suggest a brief mention of the period between election and speakership, although this only gets a single paragraph in the body. A bit more could also be added about her time as speaker, even if it was short, as reading the article this seems to be the main claim to prominence. Specific items of trivia, such as "after Joan Child", should not be in the lead (but this could be in the body, which it currently is not).
"The couple have a son and a daughter; in 1999, Burke became the second woman to give birth while a sitting Member of the Australian Parliament when her daughter was born.[7] Burke had her second child in 2002.[8]" "son and a daughter" to me reads chronologically, but the text suggests the daughter is older.
"pre-selected" is a bit of jargon, a bit more explanation may help those unfamiliar with Australian politics. It's worth keeping an eye out for other bits of jargon, like "2PP", although in that particular case this could be helped just with a link to Two-party-preferred vote.
Is the speaker technically a part of government? The lead states she was a member of the government, and the body states she was a "government member".
I think the lead should be reorganized - in addition to the points raised by CMD above, it currently comprises several short choppy paragraphs that could be presented more cohesively
The structure of the whole article could also use reviewing - at the moment everything personal is in the Early life section, which doesn't make sense given the timescale involved
Before FAC this could use a thorough going-over for MOS issues. For example, a number of wikilinks are repeated, even within a single section.
Similarly the citation style needs editing for consistency
Per RSP there is no consensus on reliability of HuffPost for politics-related topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can improve it so that it may eventually WP:GA status. To keep it brief, Marcus Rediker is a historian best known for his works on sailors and pirates which typically follow a people's history type narrative. I have expanded the page significantly over the last few weeks, and I now believe it's ready for peer review. The main things I'm concerned about are some of the references, as there are a number of Twitter links. I've replaced them when possible, but the ones left over are posts I consider worthy of being on the page, as they are all sourced from Rediker himself and are non-controversial, which is consistent with WP:RSP.
After a quick skim, I am surprised at how often block quotes are used in the article. Wikipedia encourages summarising information instead because of copyright concerns and to use quotes sparingly. I suggest that these quotes be reconsidered and possibly summarised. Z1720 (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted. Is it fair to keep some of his interview quotes though? I think his comment on the impact of slavery in particular would be difficult to summarize and is better incorporated as a direct quote. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pac-Man PHD: Sorry I did not respond to this sooner. If a quote cannot be summarised, then block quotes can be used, but they should be used sparingly. Also, quotes should have their context explained, not be used to give information to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, ok. I deleted most of the quotes and replaced them with paraphrasing. The one blockquote I left in now has context provided. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I request a review of this article before I nominate it for WP:FAR. To explain briefly, Desmond "Etika" Amofah was a gaming YouTuber known for his reactions to Nintendo games like Super Smash Bros. Between October 2018 and May 2019, Etika went through numerous public controversies stemming from struggles with his mental health, before sadly taking his own life in June 2019. Alongside other editors, I helped bring it to GA status, and now I plan to improve it to FA status so it can appear on the front page on May 12, 2024 - Amofah's birthday.* Assuming this PR goes well, I would like to nominate it for FAR in January 2024.
Preliminary comment - In my opinion, the most pertinent criteria I mainly worry about is the sourcing. Although most of the sources used are high-quality reliable ones, per WP:RSPSS and WP:VG/RS, there are some situationally reliable sources that I'm concerned may be held to scrutiny in the FAR. I already posted my two cents on The Daily Dot and Newsweek on the talk page, but I sparsely used sources like Heavy and Inside Edition for what I saw as non-controversial facts. I wish to inquire if they would still be okay to keep in the article for FA-status. As for the WP:SPS, it's kind of complicated to explain. I would like to note that I followed WP:BDP and a bit of WP:IAR for the article, but I can explain why I and other editors used a particular source in context. That being said, I already anticipate FAC reviewers questioning the use of some of the gaming/internet sources. However, considering the article's scope - a gaming personality - I feel they should be suitable enough.
Comment - courtesy pinging @HappyBoi3892, Vaticidalprophet, Couruu, Masem, and Z1720: it's been a month and there still hasn't been any feedback. I know it's a long read especially with the subject material. But I would still genuinely appreciate it if anyone could find any concerns needed to be addressed before FAC. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PantheonRadiance: I suggest posting a request for reviewers on the Wiiproject projects attached to this article, asking for feedback. Also, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC nomination, I suggest getting help from a mentor, who can comment in this PR. Z1720 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks for your suggestion. I posted already on the YouTube WikiProject, but I'll post later today for an FAC mentor. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some quick drive-by comments based on reading just the lead. Some may also apply to the rest of the article.
The lead seems a little long in proportion to the article.
IMO the lead should be two or three paragraphs, not four.
The third paragraph seems to give undue detail. It could be summarised in a sentence or two. The final paragraph also seems a little over detailed.
Use {{circa}}, not c.
In several places in the lead the language needs tightening up. Eg:
"He garnered popularity following the release of Super Smash Bros. 4, with such a rise in prevalence". "He garnered popularity" and "a rise in prevalence" are saying the same thing.
"Between late 2018 and 2019". There is no period "between" these two dates.
"Amofah's death was met with expressions of both shock and grief by fans and fellow YouTubers alike". Delete both "both" and "alike".
"with many citing his case as an example of the indifference typically expressed towards mental health – many observers have commented that the signs of Amofah's mental deterioration were either downplayed or ignored prior to his suicide." Is "with many citing his case as an example of the indifference typically expressed towards mental health" not just a summary of "many observers have commented that the signs of Amofah's mental deterioration were either downplayed or ignored prior to his suicide."?
"Several memorials and murals were set up around New York City". Can a mural be "set up"?
"New York City, U.S.". Consider deleting "U.S.", as I suspect New York City does not need disambiguating.
As you have not previously had an FAC nomination, consider closely following the course of several through the process. This is a good way of pickling up tips and tricks to ease the passage of your nomination. An even better way is to also review several of them.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it quite a bit and I'm seeking feedback on the writing style and whatever else may be relevent to a future content assessment. I wasn't sure which topic to put this under.
I've been working on this article for a while now and I want it to improve better. I know there's alot to improve so I want to know if the lead is okay and/or if the sections are okay too. Looking forward to your comments.
One little thing that may help out your list article, for the Colorado State Quarter I thought it may prove useful to readers to see a visual representation. I created a fair use rationale for your article on the file page, before you insert it into the article you may want to wait. The bots and admins are quite fickle on the fair use rationales. We should wait and see if the rationale runs into problems.
I wish I could help you more, I am going to keep pondering over this article and see if there is any real improvements you can make. Lists and State Symbols aren't really my specialty.
Best of luck, I'll be back with more suggestions soon! --Trey Wainman (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
