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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm kinda confused about its current status. This was written years ago when the notability guidelines were not that strict and tried researching more about the character so I'm not sure what material should I get rid of. If anybody finds a more useful source for the reception, I would appreciate it.
i've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status. after a thorough review by @LastJabberwocky, i'd like to take this to the next level, especially with the upcoming 2025 remake by spike lee! also tagging Eiga-Kevin2 who kindly signalled they may have time to look over this when they're less busy.
given it would be my first time promoting to featured article, i need a general lookover in all technical and MOS aspects. image size is something i'm aware needs to be addressed, and will get to it soon. generally the sources cited are high quality (with a couple of exceptions) and the cited material is itself correct and close to the source. i also plan to request a copyedit beforehand. please let me know my shortcomings!
this is a new article about the comic book series Grim by Stephanie Phillips. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like outside opinions on ways of improving this article, particularly in the structure, referencing, and tone.
I'm a relatively new Wikipedia contributor so please forgive any obvious mistakes or omissions i might have made. that being said, any one feels thay can contribut should freel free to edit or leave a comment on the articles talk page.
I am requesting a peer review for the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. The article has been extensively revised to include a well-developed lead, restructured and fully cited sections (Production, Themes and analysis, Reception, Legacy, Home media), and is aligned with WP:FILM and WP:FAC standards.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- Comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Inline citations and reliability of sources
- Reception balance (Indian and international)
- Any prose, style, or formatting issues
I've listed this article for peer review because its a new article about the american comic book series Rogue Sun by Ryan Parrott. i noticed there was no article on the comic book and wanted to make one.
every aspect of the article is up for review, things like:
grammar ans spelling
structure improvements
fact checking/story and lore correction and inacuracies
proper reference citing
and any other improvement
Heyo. I'm just gonna skim the prose. Note that I'm not experienced with FAC so don't take me too seriously.
...but decided to release them as they were after full-band renditions were deemed unsatisfactory. Can't tell if this is a typo or if I'm just reading this wrong. From how I understand it, it could be ...but decided to release them after full-band renditions were deemed unsatisfactory.
...and folk music when writing the Nebraska songs. ---> ...and folk music when writing Nebraska. For conciseness.
"...the tracks tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collar individuals who try..." ---> "...the tracks tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collarworkers who try..."
...praised the album as brave and artistically daring and Springsteen's most personal record up to that point." ---> ...praised the album as brave and artistically daring as it became Springsteen's most personal record up to that point.
"The songs on Nebraska tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collar individuals who try to succeed in life but fail at every turn." ---> "Nebraska tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collar workers who try to succeed in life but fail at every turn." Same as the lead, plus conciseness.
...or letting him go, ultimately going with the latter. ---> ...or letting him go, ultimately choosing the latter.
"Used Cars" uses Springsteen's childhood to describe his own experiences with his father and differences in social classes growing up. Perhaps "Used Cars" describes Springsteen's childhood experiences with his father and differences in social classes growing up.
I've recently created this article and would like to have it Peer Reviewed. I would particularly like to know how it ranks on the Content Assessment scale, and would love any feedback on how to improve the article.
This article is regarding the American death metal band, Ripped to Shreds.
Taking a few seconds to look at the article, I'm noticing several issues. First, having single-sentence paragraphs are discouraged as poor prose, and in my opinion looks more like a list than article prose to me. Second, the article appears to be missing a lot of content, which seems to be the cause of the single-sentence paragraphs. You should focus on adding more content (from reliable sources) when possible. Please don't interperet this as harsh, this is just my earnest advice. This is just my first look at the article, and I plan to look harder into the article when I can. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 21:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because another fellow editor and I believe it's close to FA status. However, we feel it could benefit from some refinements. We'd really appreciate feedback from other editors to better understand how the page can be improved.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review on prose, and maybe language on this article before re-nominating to FAC.
Thanks, Santi (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Santi, the article is going to need more than a peer review to meet the standards of FA. I would strongly suggest seeking somebody fluent in English to directly rewrite the prose and maybe co-nominating with them. The PR would be more beneficial when just a few finishing touches are required.--NØ17:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to potentially get it to Featured article status - or, failing that, merely get it to as good as it possibly can be. Mainly looking for prose suggestions and structural improvements.
I was honestly not expecting a topic like this to be an potential FAC. I think it's a great article, but it may be a deadend to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". TzarN64 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that’s a very very short featured article that I was not expecting. That gives me a lot more confidence that this Wario advertisement could potentially be a featured article one day. TzarN64 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... at this rate,, I might as well make this a featured article. In the two years of trying/failing to write this thing up, I've essentially scoured the earth for sources and I feel it now covers most if not all bases in terms of content: however, I know I have likely overlooked some things or am aware of things I am struggling to address that I desperately need an outside opinion/comment on, especially on gender (having tried and failed to address this for 2 years and i am tired/head done in). the last two years of versions until the recent march 2025 rewrite have all sucked because I was still processing things whilst trying to write, instead of thinking about the quality of my writing. I need outside comment, because I just want to be over and done with this and I think i can actually do it now, for once.
Stuff I'm aware needs doing
reduction of quotes and rewriting in my own phrasing
reducing number of citations where possible (i.e. random online blog interviews: reviews, in composition and reception, are currently all from reliable sources) to most important ones
i need to check up on some more touring citations: i.e. for sevendust february 2000 tour and i think there was some other tour towards the end of the year
Need to change "Choke" sample because it is citing the band's press kit. Will likely replace this with "Brackish".
Stuff I'm stuck on how to address
Gender issues/gendered writing: pervasive issue in reviews/media that the band didn't like, morgan/mercedes say the media reception to album led to stigma later down the line
Neutrality especially on gender; again because it is a contentious issue. especially in legacy/aftermath section(s) per above point. also the third paragraph of music and lyrics overview which deals with misconceptions about lyrics and song titles and the band's contemporary denial of feminist associations to their lyrics (or smth). either way, i don't know if i'm making a big deal out this than it should be.
Idk. I want to actually get this right for once. I want reviewers to call me out in the bluntest and harshest of tones so I can actually get this right. I am tired of failing and want do succeed at this for once, since I basically don't plan on doing another FA (that isn't an fa list; i.e. discography) after this. // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon your peer-review request never having looked at the peer-review list before. I don't possess the skills to provide criticism, and I have yet to figure out how to separate one person's work from another's in the context of a review, but I'd still like to thank you for reminding me of this album!
I saw "Spit (Album)" in the list, giggled to myself and thought "hah, the Kittie album was awesome, I wonder what album the article actually refers to!" and then realised that it actually was about the Kittie album! What're the chances, eh?
I had the fortune of seeing Spit played live at Fryshuset (in Stockholm, Sweden) in early 2002. It was a rather heartfelt concert (all things considered), the band seemingly feeling somewhat "at home" in the Stockholm winter climate. I recall nearing the end of the concert, someone (probably Morgan) mentioning the snow, and someone in the audience screamed back "We fscking hate snow!", leading to the band and crowd to erupt in laughter. I also recall that someone in security made me remove photos I'd taken with my (very new at the time digital) camera, which was a bit if a bummer; otherwise I'd have some cool photos to share!
I don't think you desperately need opinions/commentary - the article reads just fine in my opinion and - at least for this reader - it evoked lots of good memories. Thank you for the work you've put in, maybe one day I'll be able to correct something! ;) Gammy (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it did lmao
I kinda do need the opinions because of how long I have been trying/failing to fix this (2 years+) to the point I no longer feel able to rely wholly on myself. It's more a content issue mostly, I have the prose (or at least, style) just about nailed down now, and found pretty much all useful sources. I did a very bad job when I first started out and though I have improved I still feel like I should get advice/outside opinion for prose and potential bias reasons (the latter bc its been 2 years... yeah i hate this)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article had just passed GA and I am taking a shot nominating for FA. It's been six years since I last successfully nominated an article for FAC. Kind of nervous actually, but you never know until you try right?
"It is a pop album that features ballads and uptempo numbers. Unlike Más, El Alma al Aire focuses more on the ballads." - "It is a pop album that features more ballads than its predecessor, as well as uptempo numbers."?
"The album was produced by Emanuele Ruffinengo, who worked with Sanz on his previous albums, while several musicians, such as Vicente Amigo, who worked with the artists on Más, collaborated with him once more." - this could be worded/structured better. Perhaps "The album was produced by Sanz's frequent collaborator Emanuele Ruffinengo, while other musicians, including Vicente Amigo, returned to collaborate with the artist following Más."?
Unlink "music critics" and "singles" as these are common terms (WP:OVERLINK).
"Sanz received several accolades" - wasn't *the album* instead of Sanz?
"it topped the Spanish albums charts" - "it topped the Spanish albums chart"
"where it was the best-selling album of the year" - which year?
I think the copies could be removed from the lead and left for Commercial performance.
"with music videos being filmed for all three singles" - "with music videos accompanying all three singles" to clarify that they were also released.
Is the set list of the tour relevant for the lead section of the *album*?
"Sanz moved to Miami and began working on his next disc" - I have seen "record"/"album"/"release"/"project" being more used than "disc" in this context.
"Recording took place at the Hit Factory in Miami, Florida, with Emanuele Ruffinengo handling the album's production. Ruffinengo had previously produced Sanz's last two studio albums" - "Recording took place at the Hit Factory in Miami, Florida, while Emanuele Ruffinengo handled the album's production; he had produced Sanz's previous two studio albums"
"The album's title, El Alma al Aire, was announced on 7 July 2000, and it would feature ten original songs." - this reads a bit off for me. Try "On 7 July 2000, Sanz announced the album's title, El Alma al Aire, and revealed that it would feature ten original songs."
"In addition, he also" - these two are redundant.
I think the quotes could be trimmed a bit in Composition.
All quotes you leave should be properly attributed, e.g. "flamenco-tinged", "the latter being described as "nostalgic"". According to who?
"El Alma al Aire is a contemporary pop album" - this can be outdated so, per MOS:RELTIME, just remove "contemporary". By the way, the sentence that it starts has a lot of information so it could be separated.
"and has a little bit of swing influence" - just "and contains influences of swing music".
After working on this article for the past month I and @PSA: think it is almost ready for FAC but we'd like to get some feedback for the nomination. Best, 750h+10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[4]: It says he was a video producer during his time at CNN, not an editor. Other than that source is OK
[48]: OK
[46]: "On last year's 'Teen Spirit,' her first single under the auspices of Top Dawg Entertainment, she added a couple more tags: 'Glitter Trap' and 'Not R&B.'"
I apologize for making you wait so long. I'm afraid I won't be able to review this anytime soon due to limited time. FrB.TG (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of listing this as a peer review to hopefully move to FAC. Describes what went on the Philippine delegations' stint before, during, and after the games. Comments are much appreciated! Arconning (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything about the closing ceremony that could be added?
The closing ceremony's first iteration would be held at these games but there's no information regarding the Philippines' participation here, nor do we know if they even attended the ceremony.
Could you find B. Minelle's full name.
Nada, no online sources nor archives on Newspapers.com or NewspaperArchive would find B. Minelle's full name. Neither does the official report.
I know it is just a flag but I think it still needs alt text.
Done.
Could you explain how something that was not an NOC still organized an Olympic delegation?
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating this article into a good article, and I would appreciation comments and suggestions on improving before the nomination.
Hi, @Z423x5c6. If you want to get this to Good Article status. Here are some things you must do.
Add details about the athlete; age, how many times he has been in the Olympics, etc.
Expand all shortened month; February not Feb.
How did Lui get both 5th and 30th?
Add the time he got to the text so it is not just in the table.
Explain what a quota place is or link it.
Add when the Games happened in the background section.
"Three officials will also be a part of the delegation." is outdated because the word will implies future tense even though these games were 11 years ago.
Add flagbearers to the background section.
You switch between referring to the athlete as Barton and Liu. Do his full name the first time in the lead and the first time in the body, for everything else, use his surname only.
Mr. and whatever SBS and the other acronyms mean are not nessecary.
PANG Chung does not need to be caps locked on the first word.
There shouldn't be a space after "one short-track speed skater, Barton Lui Pan-To."
Times of India should be used with caution as they "use paid advertorials which may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment, and may have published at least one AI-generated article."
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to ask what improvements I can make to this article. I'm aiming for C class, but in a perfect world, possibly GA.
I'm sorry I wasn't been able to get back to you immediately, as I've been drowned in a swamp of schoolwork and my personal life, but I was able to finish all of your comments. Footnotes are also given.
Feel free to make another comment if you think I've missed something.
The lede of the article should not have any info that the article body doesn't, it also should have no references as it should be a summary.
Could an infobox be added.
Any awards other than from Michelin.
"Their brand identity has been characterized by high-end dining experiences and elaborate restaurant designs." is very promotional sounding and should be removed.
The founders should be added to the article body.
All souces should have access dates, source dates, archive links, archive dates, and consistent date formatting.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to Featured Article at some point in the future, and wish to get a gauge for what more I need to add or rewrite before making a nomination. I've done a few FLs before, so I have a few ideas of what I need done, but I wished to get some more input since FA is a whole new beast for me as an editor. Please feel free to tear into any and all parts of the article with this, and all advice is appreciated!
I'll start a source review in 2 weeks' time. Please trout me if I don't.
This is unrelated, but I fear the admittedly funny image of Toby Fox covered in foam has to go. MOS:IMAGEREL issues have arised over its use on his article, and the same issue seems to persist here. An image of someone covered in foam is ambiguous enough to not be properly illustrative. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 14:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse 5 is a wording error; the sentence is discussing abilities the mounts can use that can be unlocked throughout the game. Changed word from "tools" to "abilities" to clarify, let me know if I can make this more clear. For 96, which ref do you mean? In editing mode ref 96 is Game Revolution, which lists the 6/10 score at the bottom, while outside of editing mode it's VG247, which lists the 4/5 score at the bottom as well.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made significant contributions and would like to further improve its quality. As the primary contributor actively working on this page, I'm hoping someone can take the time to review it and offer constructive feedback.
I've listed this article for peer review because it does not have information about the grading systems used by any of the other educational board in India, and the article itself is poorly structured, even though it is about a very important subject regarding education in India.
I recently helped the article achieve GA status, and I'm hoping to eventually nominate this for FA, perhaps at the end of June or in July. Any suggestions on how to improve the article for a future FAC nom would be appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in promoting it to FA. I don't think I have the time to go through the process right now, but am interested to hear people's thoughts, as I have never promoted an article to FA before. Would particularly appreciate feedback about any more obscure MOS stuff and prose. Thank you!
My goal with this article is to take it to FAC (this would be my second). I would especially appreciate help rewording any awkward phrasing and assuring that the article is fully on-topic (I'm worried it may be a bit too long, but I may be overthinking). Of course, any type of feedback at all would be excellent.
At some point, I would like to nominate this article for FAC. I have not nominated one before, so this would be my first one. I would like a second set of eyes that would be able to give me feedback on anything that can be improved and if it will have a solid chance at FAC.
helloo mind if I just put one picture on Dan Caine article.? If previously is too many and too detail, is it oke if I just put one.? thank you very much and look forward Bettylamerdelaverda (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first article I created. I'd like to sense-check my understanding of community standards and policies, and understand what can be improved about the article. I'd appreciate if it could be graded as well (e.g. B, C, etc.).
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working on improving this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Operation_Majestic_Titan. I want to list it for review on Good Article status, but as I've never done anything like this before, I'd appreciate feedback on the article. I'd also like to get feedback on improvements that could be made to get it past GA (e.g. to A-Class or Featured Article status.) Thank you very much! DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
increasing Should this be past-tense? Similar issues thoughout the article
Upon completion on 19 February 1916, under Captain Maurice Woollcombe, Valiant joined the recently formed 5th Battle Squadron of the Grand Fleet. Having this sentence detached from the rest if uncomftable. Can it just be merged with the section below Construction and Career?
Aircraft carried 2 (capacity) Does the text state the number of aircraft? Also, no need to state that 2 was the capacity
Hipper He should be introduced before he is mentioned, such as what is done with Jellicoe and Beatty
reached a distance to attack could be had the German cruisers within range
While there, the battleship narrowly escaped a torpedo fired by U-38. Can this be elaborated?
Since British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was very worried that the French ships might fall into the hands of the Germans and did not believe the Vichy government's assurances that it would prevent the Germans from seizing the ships, he intended to give the French an ultimatum. I think this is a run-on sentence
decoded by ULTRA ULTRA should be explained or reworded to just state 'decoded'
They were kept Who is they?
Mining at Alexandria The timeline is a bit off in this section. The first sentence should not be a repeat of the following paragraph
Sicily and Italy More context should be added as to what the Allies were doing off Italy
As a result, the drydock was over-stressed at its ends Would Sagged be better?
Lieutenant Commmander Peter Keeble Is there a point in naming him if there is no article/no other notability reasons?
Imperieuse stoker mechanics' training establishment Could be benificial to state what kind of training was done onboard
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if there are any issues with the sources I have cited or if there should be any additional content covered in the article. I'd also like any constructive criticism you can give me in regards to whether or not the article meets the good article criteria. I'm interested in the whole article, but would appreciate extra input on the criticism and reaction sections.
The Implementation section says Eichmann was "drunk" when he boarded the plane from Argentina to Israel. The Adolf Eichmann article says he was sedated by a Mossad doctor. Which is correct? Muzilon (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review in possible preparation for Featured Article Candidacy. Now that a few years have passed since the events of the article, I'd like some fresh eyes on it before going any further.
The article is about a 9th-century archdiocese in Central Europe where Old Church Slavonic liturgy was introduced. I've listed this article for peer review because I need input to improve its prose, comprehensiveness and neutrality. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Would benefit from a map of the region covered by the archbishopric .. even if it is not 100% certain what the borders are, any kind of map that shows approximately where in Europe it was is essential. The red/yellow/green map of Carol. empire is nice, but doesn't tell the reader where this archbish. was
Duration/dates: When did the archbishp begin and end? That should be in the Lead, very near the beginning.
Conflict not made clear: The article mentions a conflict: Since they refused to obey, Wiching captured ... and .... did not put an end to his conflicts with the German clerics. It sounds like the conflict is important; but the conflict is not made clear to the reader. Is the conflict about the language used in church services (latin vs local language)? Or is it a simple power struggle between ambitious clergy?
Collapse contradicted by appointment of archbishop? ... asking him to restore church hierarchy in Moravia. The Pope agreed and sent his three legates to Moravia who consecrated an archbishop and three suffragan bishops. This section is about the "collapse" of the archbishopric ... but the end of the section says a new archbishop was consecrated. That seems contradictory. Doesn't "collapse" mean that thea archbishop position was eliminated, and the region merged with a neighboring archbishopric?
Best to restate important facts: Methodius quickly convinced the pope of the orthodoxy of his views in early ... There are a lot of people and events in this article: casual readers will have a hard time tracking them all. In this sentence (green above) the article should remind the reader what "his views" are, by restating them with a few words, inside this sentence.
Overall: the article has good prose, spelling, grammar and MOS (style).
The biggest improvement that can be made is helping readers see the big picture. The article is a rather dense list of facts (names & dates) ... and many readers may become confused. Each section and paragraph should have some more "top level" words reminding the reader what is happening in the overall narrative. Words like "... continuing his efforts to satisfy the pope's request ..." or "... attempting to enlarge his personal power at the expense of .." or " .... contrary to what the neighboring Germany archbishop wanted ..." etec. [note that I'm making those facts/words up ... they are simply to illustrate the kind of wording needed].
As a history article, it should tell a story, so try to string it together more by linking events & thoughts together throughout time. Noleander (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing this article for peer review due to an admitted COI, as described on the Talk page. I'd like an objective opinion whether I should improve this article towards a high rating. Much thanks -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I can't follow the rules strongly recommended for COI editing -- it's impractical for me to limit myself to suggesting changes on the talk page -- however on the other I am concerned I may be giving undue attention to one unit or action in this operation because my father was a combatant. At this point, I really can't leave articles related to the 10th Mountain in WWII untouched because I'm probably the only Wikipedian with access to much of the source material. (If Wikipedia existed 40 years ago, when there were many more WWII veterans alive, COI would prevent untold contributors from directly contributing to many WWII-related articles.) Nonetheless, I'm invoking WP:IAR to create & edit these related articles. To which no one should object as long as I follow the usual rules of citing sources & NPOV, but I'd like the help of someone to avoid undue emphasis on details &/or unconscious bias. -- llywrch (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what specifically I should improve on this article to get it up to an even better rating than it is now. Any sort of feedback is appreciated. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a review for neutrality, scope, and MOS covering the entire article in preparation for a potential FAC (which would be my first one), and in general any other advice to prepare this article for FAC. Thanks. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PizzaKing13: I suggest that you get a featured article mentor, since you are still working on your first successful FAC. A mentor will be able to comment here on the article. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the featured article criteria, build goodwill amongst the FAC community (which will help your article get reviews later) and demonstrate to the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Z1720 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out sections in articles of this length. I suggest doing this in sections such as the lead, sections in his presidency, and the 2024 re-election campaign.
I'll go trimming it over time
Daily Sabah (ref 222) is considered an unreliable source and will need to be replaced.
Replaced
Forbes Contributors are not considered reliable (WP:FORBESCON) so will need to be replaced.
Replaced
The sources listed in "Further reading" should either be used as inline citations in the article or removed.
"Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." from Wikipedia:Further reading?
WP:FA? 1b "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1c "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;" If Further reading has sources listed that can be used in the article, then it puts into doubt whether the article is complete. These further reading sources can be used to replace lower-quality sources in the article, or removed if there are higher quality sources already used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the political views, it would be good if there is less emphasis on Bukele's own interpretation of his views. For instance, in the paragraph on Soros, it's not clear if this is the standard antisemetic criticism of Soros, or if Soros actually has a large impact on Central America's press. Are there academic sources you can draw on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listing this because I've been encouraged by some editors to get it through FAC. Not sure if I have it in me, given my only other FA is a super niche plant. But if I do submit it, I figured this would be a good place to start.
I've listed this article for peer review in the hopes that I can get this up to FA quality by May 21. On that date, I expect to see an uptick in coverage on the tornado (yes, I had this at FAC less than a year it happened - I'm lucky it was so well documented!). I've addressed much of the original scrutiny from the FAC, and want to get this as high of a quality as I can by the time people come back here for its first anniversary.
I removed the coordinates as inappropriate for a linear event. Other tornado articles tend not to have them, and I hope that those that do were short runs or point to a town that was destroyed or something. Abductive (reasoning)15:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are few things I can directly point to with coordinates without synthesis; there's really only the tornado's touchdown and lifting points, Greenfield itself, and various points of damage. It's not too important to the article itself so the coordinates are probably best left out. Departure– (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the content, have the sources fixed if there are any formatting errors, and I would also like the article to be ranked.
I've listed this article for peer review because I’m looking to make this a featured list, and if not that then I just want to see how it can be improved.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate this for FA eventually and would like to know what changes, beyond some expansion, are needed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on improving it and want to bring this to GA someday. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks! Relativity ⚡️19:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CMD
Some redundancy in the lead about the lack of description. Saying "undescribed" with a link, probably fine. However, the "although this has yet to be published" is out of place. Firstly, a bit redundant if that is all it is trying to convey. Secondly, surely almost everything is yet to be published, rather than just that fact? "a scientific name has yet to be given" is a similar redundancy. Perhaps a lead rewrite should consolidate the implications for a lack of description into one paragraph.
"The name "Bosavi woolly rat" is still provisional", no source for this, or an explanation for how a non-scientific name can be "provisional".
History seems to mix together information about the crater with the chronological history. It is probably worth separating those topics. There is some location information in the Description section too.
"As of 2025, the Bosavi woolly rat does not have an official scientific name, but it is thought to be in the genus Mallomys, within the family Muridae". These are not exactly linked points, not having an official name is not quite the same as not considered a species, which is what would be the relevant information for genus inclusion.
"It is to be named by Dr. Kristofer Helgen" raises further questions. What does that mean? Is there a timeframe? We are a decade and a half from the initial discovery, so the "it is to be named" could have been an intention 15 years ago or last year.
This was delisted in 2008. One of the issues raised was that the lead needed to be expanded, so I'll start there.
who contributed to many fields in mathematics and science You've already listed four fields, so this seems redundant. Maybe "also contributed to many other fields"?
It's a little odd to start with his professorship at Göttingen and then follow up with his studying there. I'd introduce those in chronological order, something like "He studied at the University of Göttingen and went on to hold a professorship there".
proving the law of quadratic reciprocity and proving the triangular case => "proving the law of quadratic reciprocity as well as the triangular case ..."
There's also some confusing changes of tense here "made ... formulating ... proving ... proving ... developed". Perhaps this could be rephrased? Maybe start a new sentence with "He also developed the theories of ..."?
he propounded several mathematical theorems I had to look up "propounded". I suggest using a more commonly understood word here. OED says "There are ten meanings listed in OED's entry for the verb propound, seven of which are labelled obsolete."
he was one of the founders of geophysics The article says "Gauss influenced the beginning of geophysics in Russia"; it's not entirely clear what that means. Does it mean "Gauss influenced the beginning of geophysics and he was in Russia when he did that"? Or "There was already a field of geophysics which Gauss helped bring to Russia"?
He developed a fast Fourier transform The article says "discrete Fourier transforms". Somebody who is better at math than me should weigh in here, but I'm not sure that "fast Fourier transform" is exactly the same as "discrete Fourier transform".
Gauss confessed to disliking teaching, but some of his students became influential mathematicians I don't think that's a legitimate use of "but".
Reading though the article, I recognize several different styles of writing. This is, of course, because the article has been written over many years, by many different authors. Harmonizing these styles is not easy, and looking at WP:FACR 1a ("its prose is engaging and of a professional standard") I'm not even convinced it's required, but it sure would be nice. That being said, some of the writing exhibits a"choppy" feel, which does need to get fixed to be considered "engaging and of a professional standard". For example:
Gauss was born on 30 April 1777 in Brunswick in the Duchy of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (now in the German state of Lower Saxony). His family was of relatively low social status.[5] His father Gebhard Dietrich Gauss (1744–1808) worked variously as a butcher, bricklayer, gardener, and treasurer of a death-benefit fund. Gauss characterized his father as honourable and respected, but rough and dominating at home. He was experienced in writing and calculating, whereas his second wife Dorothea, Carl Friedrich's mother, was nearly illiterate.[6] He had one elder brother from his father's first marriage.[7]
is a classic collection of simple declarative sentences with no overall flow connecting them.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a while since the last review. Me and @Warriorglance would like to send it to GAN and could use the feedback. Any specific advice would be very useful!
On reference 47, there is a Harv error that says: link from CITEREFDonabedMako doesn't point to any citation.
There are more of these harv errors. CITEREFAkgündüz2012, CITEREFArmbruster2002, CITEREFAtto2014, CITEREFAydin2000, CITEREFBardakciFreyberg-InanGieselLeisse2017, CITEREFBarsoum2008, etc. I would suggest installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js
The article mixes using SFNs and full references please only use one.
The lede should have no references as they should be in the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as part of preparing it for FAC with the goal of a Main Page appearance on the 40th anniversary of the crime early next year, I have substantially revised the article with material from a 2019 book about the case, and I cannot say it is similar to the version that was reviewed previously nor the GA version.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it get to GA then FA status.
Some of the areas I think need discussion/work are:
Citation needed and any other tags to be dealt with.
Make sure all the cited material in the lead is covered in the body and then take any citations out of the lead. (Unless there are any statements in the lead that need citations per MOS:LEADCITE.)
Images. The 1968 images were uploaded as "own work" by an editor who on their user page says "I was born ... in the mid-60s." Sadly, I don't think that image is freely usable.
The 1970s and 1980s sections might need bit of expansion. I find Williams & Gadsby to be a good reference for what to include. Are there any particular matches/tournaments/incidents that are clearly missing? (Some seem to merit more than the current brief mention, e.g. 1983 UK Championship.)
The Playing style/Other media appearances/Personal life/Illness and death/Legacy sections may need some re-organisation.
I'm pretty sure there should be more to add about Legacy. I'll have a look around sources.
Performance and rankings timeline. WP:SNOOKER has sometimes talked about changing the format of these. A few different versions have got through GA/FAC reviews. What about the version here?
There may well be more to do that isn't covered in the points above. Pinging Armbrust who took this to Peer Review back in 2010, and Andygray110, Rodney Baggins, LowSelfEstidle and HurricaneHiggins who are also among the top authors by percentage. Also Lee Vilenski, AlH42 and Canary757 who have active snooker GA nominations. Apologies if the ping is unwelcome.
First of all, this a redirect so it cannot be improved. However, if you are meaning to ask for a peer review on the target page, I can do that.
All images should have alt text.
YouTube is not a reliable source.
All sources should be archived.
All sources should have access dates and source dates.
The paragraph about Tsundue's poem seems unnecessary, and possibly copyright infringement as it just says his poem.
"This overall sentiment conveyed in the quote illustrates the internal conflict of being a refugee, grappling with the desire for a consolidated identity amidst the challenges of statelessness and the relentless pursuit of freedom for Tibet." is WP:OR.
There is a CN tag.
"Most of those staying are children to attend Tibetan Children's Villages school." makes no grammatical sense.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created it, and a second pair of eyes would be invaluable on any issue, e.g., prose, content, structure, templates, etc. The primary aim is to get GA status. Any advice for beyond (A-class or FA) is also welcomed, as I have limited experience with what is needed beyond GA status.
This article is about a controversy that happened in 2019 in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where the Minister of Education of Brazil tried to remove controversial information from his article and made legal threats over it. I believe it would be very interesting to see this article getting to FA level, so I've opened this peer review to get opinions on what could be improved before an FAC. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk07:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"protected the page against edits from inexperienced users" define inexperienced
The source mentions that users needed to have at least 10 edits and their account be at least 4 days old. This is autoconfirmed. However, I don't know if I can say "autoconfirmed" if the source doesn't mention it specifically. That being said, I've explained it in a footnote. I don't know if I could cite the protection itself.
Twitter is linked twice under "background"
Fixed
I don't think "(TJ-SP) is needed as the acronym is only used the one time.
Fixed
"It also mentioned" what did?
Fixed
May be worth linking to Weintraub's page similar to how Rodrigo Padula page is
If you refer to the {{ill}}-like link, it's because Padula doesn't have a page on enwiki while Weintraub does. {{ill}} wasn't used because Padula's page redirects here.
"marked Weintraub's page as needing review" define what this means
"Needing review" is a template on the Portuguese Wikipedia which was placed here [1].
Thank you! I understand, but I don't think I can define it further in the article; the template literally means "needing review", and it is what the source says. Skyshiftertalk 18:34, 1 April 2025 (UTCT
Link Wikipedia administrator in "Background" like the lead.
"Before and during the controversy, the article listed multiple controversies where the minister was involved..." ---> "By then, the article listed multiple controversies where the minister was involved..." For conciseness.
You can probably link "progressive" and "conservative".
"Chronus posted the email on the Portuguese Wikipedia forum on July 1..." The Portuguese Wikipedia forum or a Portuguese Wikipedia forum?
"...asking other editors for help on how to proceed." ---> "...asking other editors for help on how to proceed."
"However, after new vandalism edits, it was..." ---> "However, after further vandalism, it was..."
"'This is serious, it is not republican, and it is unworthy of a position..." You can probably link republican.
Interesting article. Good luck with getting that brown star!
I think I got this article as far as I can apart from a few minor things, but I'm not super experienced with writing, nor was I super familiar with this topic before I started researching. I was hoping to get some feedback to bring up the quality of the article.
Thanks, Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks generally good, and ready for a formal review process like GA, which I've kept in mind while reading it. My only comment is that the title chosen is somewhat odd. By the looks of it, there are four names for the "playlist", but no actual playlist is known to have existed and the songs seem to have been more semi-randomly chosen by guards. In addition, most of the article is not about anything that can be called a "playlist", but instead about the mechanisms and reception of the torture. I would thus suggest renaming the article to "Auditory torture at Guantanamo Bay" or something similar.
The title apparently came about from someone copy pasting a bunch of text from a newspaper to start this article, but I wouldn't be opposed to changing it. However, by a very rough count, only about half of the sources focus on Gitmo specifically, while the others generally lump it in with the other detention centers. Maybe it should be renamed to something like "Auditory torture in the War on Terror" (which should be as simple as moving some info from background to use and changing a few words around)?
Per MOS:ALLCAPS, titles in a citation probably should not be in all caps.
Some paragraphs are quite long, making it hard to read (especially on a mobile device). I suggest splitting up some of the paragraphs: my recommended target length is 4-6 sentences per paragraph.
Wikimedia Commons might have some images that could be added to the article.
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.
