Wikipedia:Peer review

"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.

"WP:REVIEW" redirects here. For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see WP:REVIEWER. For the review of new pages, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive Peer review Editing articles Start a new article Develop the article How to write a great article Manual of style Current reviews Full Unanswered List Log by Wikiproject Archive Peer review process Instructions Discussion Tools Other Conclusion policy Volunteers list Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking. Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, 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 such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects. To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on. A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's 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. Arts Billie Jenkins I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been promoted as a GA and has received an extensive copyedit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I would appreciate any constructive criticism and comments as I would like to nominate this article for FA in the future. While this particular character was not well received by critics or fans, I hope that promoting this article to FA will draw more attention to the show and inspire people to work more on its related pages on here. Thank you in advance, Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Title TK Previous peer review This is the second peer review for this article. After the first peer review, I brought the article to FAC—Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Title_TK/archive1—but one editor identified that the article needed more work outside of FAC. I have used that editor's feedback to polish the article as much as possible. Of course, I look forward to all other editors' feedback as well. Thank you very much. Moisejp (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Ben Affleck I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA and eventually FA status. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Passing Comment As much as I would have liked to help review this I don't seem to have the time currently. As it stands at present, it is way too detailed and trivial in places. I'll see if I can help with certain sections, but you could try inviting editors who are familiar with editing related articles to help in PR. NumerounovedantTalk 07:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Sydney punchbowls I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been made GA, and I and other editors would like have it reviewed for its potential for FAC Thanks, JamesMcArdle 08:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC) List of songs recorded by Madonna I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this is a comprehensive list of all the songs recorded and released by Madonna, I have also never taken any list for featured promotion by myself and I had great help on this from Calvin999 also. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 12:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Comments by AJona1992 Overall the article is well-written and complete but there are problems with repetition throughout the article with the usage of the word "song" in the lead as well as recycling image captions for Antonio Banderas, Jonathan Pryce, Diplo, and Avicii. There is redundancy with the for template atop the article (remove "the"), the Bjork image caption should change the song to title track to avoid repetition, not sure why you decided to write "Cuidado con mi Corazón" like that, and can you provide the number of songs Benny Benassi actually wrote? Best – jona ✉ 02:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Habits (Tove Lo song) Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA, but I want to get some feedback first. Thanks, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Titanic: Adventure Out of Time I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been re-writing the article for months now (since Nov 2015) and I'd like suggestions for further improvement to possibly get the article to GA status. Thanks, κατάσταση 23:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Good use of general audience tone, overall, but why is the plot twice the length of the gameplay? Should be put into proportion. Also the reviews should be paraphrased—they should include quotations only when the language cannot possibly be put adequately in your own words. You can probably find more historic reviews in an academic/newspaper database. Watch for consistency in CyberFlix CamelCase. Publications and works in citations should be wikilinked whenever possible. Might do well to get a WP:GOCE copyedit.  czar 18:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC) @Czar: Thanks for the details. Any suggestions of a database to find more historic reviews? I always have a difficult time locating sources in print. If you could also suggest an academic database to find more sources on the development, that would be much appreciated. CyberFlix (with capital F) seems to be the correct form from sources and the game itself. About the plot, the game has a lengthy and relatively complex storyline, so I doubt it's possible to keep it as short as the Gameplay section. I'll try to trim as much as possible, but some significant details might be left out. κατάσταση 18:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Astronomica (Manilius) Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 1 June 2016, 15:33 UTC Last edit: 29 June 2016, 14:15 UTC Spirited Away Previous peer review This project took about a few years in the making (with some breaks due to real-life situations) and the first peer review was withdrawn because of that Richard Wagner PR for FA. Now, I've listed this article for peer review again because I am planning to take the article to FAC and would appreciate comments to improve it further. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC) The plot section's awfully long—there's a hidden comment that it should be between 400 and 700 words long. It's 855. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Has the literature been re-consulted since the last review? I note that FAC requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The French article (promoted to FA in early 2016) seems much more comprehensive than this article at present, and seems to have some English-language sources that this article does not, such as "Heart of Japaneseness". --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Not yet, as I was busy with other things actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Thanks. The citation style varies widely in the article, and images do not have Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. What makes the HSC source a reliable source? At present, the article needs more depth - for example, there is no section on the music album associated with Spirited Away, although it has apparently attracted some critical attention in the British Film Institute's film classics entry on Spirited Away. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC) I didn't realize that a music section should be included. I plan to include it when I get the chance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Can you read the French article? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Hammerwood Park I've developed this article considerably over the last year and think it's now ready for peer review. Hammerwood Park was the first work of the architect (Benjamin Henry Latrobe) who would later design the White House and the Capitol Building. It was later owned by Led Zeppelin and was subsequently rescued from dereliction to become one of the largest private restoration projects in Europe. Your views welcome. Many thanks. Zadradr (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Sept haï-kaïs A setting of Japanese poetry to modernist French music. I've just made a translation of this article from the French FA. I don't pretend I have a native-level undertanding of French, nor expertise in classical music terminology, and would appreciate help cleaning things up. I probably won't nominate the article for FA, but still aim to bring it to that level of quality. I've also corrected a couple of errors in the original, removed some PEACOCKery, and have tried to track down the original Japanese versions of the poems—I haven't had luck with threetwo of them, one of which (purportedly by Matsuo Bashō) has stumped others looking for it as well. Thanks, Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Evanescence discography If I'm ever going to get the band's studio albums to GT, I'll need the anchor page at featured list status. That said, I have no experience with list articles. I'll need some help to get this there. Thanks, dannymusiceditor Speak up! 18:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Jessica Chastain My first FAC attempt on an American actress. Would be glad to receive constructive criticism on how to strengthen the article. Thanks, Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Comments by Caeciliusinhorto I know nothing about Jessica Chastain, so these will probably be mainly comments on style/prose. Lead: "Chastain is reticent to publicly discuss aspects of her troubled childhood.": I can't explain why, but this sounds wrong. "Chastain is reticent about aspects of her troubled childhood" or "Chastain is reluctant to publicly discuss aspects of her troubled childhood" would both be OK, but "reticent to discuss" just sounds incorrect. "gained her an Academy Award for Best Actress nomination": per WP:SURPRISE I would reword this to "gained her a nomination for Best Actress at the 2012 Academy Awards". As it is, I thought on my initial reading that she had won the Oscar until I got to the word "nomination", which is jarring. "Chastain is the recipient of several accolades, including a Golden Globe Award and has been nominated for two Academy Awards and two British Academy Film Awards.": Too much "and"ing here. I would write something like "Chastain is the recipient of several accolades including a Golden Globe; she has also been nominated for two Academy Awards and two British Academy Film Awards" to avoid the repetition of "and". Early life and background: "Her parents were both teenagers when she was born, and while reticent to publicly discuss this aspect of her childhood, was estranged from Monasterio and has claimed that no father is listed on her birth certificate." A few things here: this "reticent to" construction again. we know from the lead that it is Chastain who is reticent about this, but in this sentence it is unclear who "reticent" is referring to. There are two sources given for this sentence. One is cited to the Telegraph, but is actually in the Independent, and doesn't appear to back up any of the sentence whatsoever; the other supports that no father is listed on her birth certificate ("has claimed" seems to me to imply a doubt (see WP:CLAIM) which is not backed up by the source, however. "has said" would be more neutral.). Neither support the claim that she is reluctant to discuss her biological father. Career: "Having struggled for a breakthrough in film for a number of years, the year 2011 was noteworthy for Chastain. She had six film releases that year and gained wide acclaim and recognition for her roles in several of them." This can just be one sentence, something like "After struggling for a breakthrough in film for a number of years, in 2011 Chastain had six releases, gaining widespread aclaim and recognition for her roles in several of them." The "the year was noteworthy" is just unnecessary editorialising. "which she filmed back in 2008." this reads as colloquial/informal to my ear; I would put "which she had filmed in 2008" or "which had been filmed in 2008". "the film premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival to a polarizing reception from the audience". I suspect it was the film which was polarizing; the reception would have been polarized (or simply "mixed"!). "...and eventually won the Palme d'Or prize." I don't think "eventually" or "prize" are necessary in this sentence. "...and won the Palme d'Or" is fine. "which marked the third installment of the lucrative Madagascar franchise". "which marked" is unnecessary, I suspect "lucrative" is too. "Zero Dark Thirty received critical acclaim but was controversial for its depiction of enhanced interrogation techniques". "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a non-neutral euphemism. The article also masks the fact that the film was not so much controversial for its depiction of torture per se as the fact that it portrays torture as "valuable in finding Bin Laden" when it wasn't. I suggest something like "was controversial for portraying torture as effectively contributing to the search for Osama Bin Laden, which Glenn Greenwald called a 'false assertion'". The subsection on 2014-15 is subtitled "success in science-fiction films", but discusses only two scifi films versus 3 non-scifi films, and the only one of the five films to get an entire paragraph to itself is A Most Violent Year, not one of the scifi films. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Basshunter Hello. I think I could made this article good. I need a feedback. Eurohunter (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC) The "Other" section in his personal life is unsourced '''tAD''' (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) That right. I forgot to addd it. Eurohunter (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Added. Eurohunter (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Anbe Sivam Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 17 May 2016, 01:07 UTC Last edit: 12 June 2016, 08:58 UTC True Detective (season 1) Previous peer review After four unsuccessful FA nominations, I've decided to list this article for peer review. Although I do think the article is in top shape, feedback was limited in said nominations, and thus I was left unsure of what to do to meet the FA criteria. I would like some feedback and to perhaps build a rapport so as to bring attention to a future FAC. Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC) American Pie Presents: Beta House I've listed this article for peer review because it's a good article that I want to make a featured article. I think the Plot section needs some re-wording but otherwise I think the article is ready to be nominated as a featured article candidate. Thanks, New9374 (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Final Fantasy Type-0 Online I've listed this article for peer review because…it is required if Fabula Nova Crystallis is nominated for Good Topic status this unreleased online game from Square Enix needs a looking over. Thanks, Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Since gameplay and synopsis are quite small I would suggest merging the two into a section known as "overview" or "feature." Also, has Square Enix released a gameplay image? It could be helpful. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Ok! I added a gameplay image and consolidated the sections under the umbrella of "overview". Thanks Tintor2 (talk · contribs)! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Good work. I don't sense many issues we could ask help from the Square Enix Project.Tintor2 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Gill Sans One of the most iconic pieces of applied art ever designed in Britain. I've been working for the last couple of months to get it to Good Article status, which Sainsf awarded it just this morning, and I'm looking to move on to Featured Article status shortly (unlike Garamond, which I've put on hold for FA due to need to get some better images, I think the sourcing here is probably complete enough to move forward). Advice on content or formatting much welcomed. I'm going to ping @Cassianto:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton: and @Ealdgyth: as people recommended to me by Casliber to discuss on the Garamond peer review project. Also @Tphinney:, @Stewf: - any thoughts? Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Comments from Tim riley I have only two suggestions: You should rearrange the illustrations so that slabs of text are not sandwiched between them. With so many different shapes and sizes of screen now in common use it is impossible to please everybody with your placement of images, but keep them to one side or other of the text as best you can, rather than on both sides at once. There is a clunky tabloid-style false title in the lead:"from calligrapher and lettering artist Edward Johnston...". Adding a definite article will solve the problem. This is a fine and immensely thorough article that I look forward to seeing at FAC in due course. Tim riley talk 09:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC) I've listed this article for peer review because… I have listed this article for peer review because I have recently nominated it for FAC and received feedback that it needs further revision. Any comments on writing styles / references / etc. are really appreciated. Thank you in advance, Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Dirrty Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 20 April 2016, 05:53 UTC Last edit: 19 June 2016, 16:18 UTC Let's Get Married (TV series) I've listed this article for peer review because there is not very many article on Russian media and society on wikipedia. I would like to get this article to featured article status then start building more Russian articles on Wikipedia, particularly about Channel One. Thank you so much for your time! Moscowamerican (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC) @Moscowamerican: First, I think it is great that you adding more articles on Russian media and society to Wikipedia, but this article definitely has a long way to go before reaching the level of a Featured Article. I have listed some of my comments below: I would encourage you to check out the Manual of Style for Television articles here as it provides a lot of helpful information that I will be referring to in my review For the infobox, add the genre (Reality television), the creator, the hosts, and the number of episodes. Also include the executive producer(s) and production company if known the picture and audio format. If the show has theme music, make sure to include that as well. Include an alt for the image in the infobox. I would recommend adding a Production or Development that discusses either the origins and development of the show or the production elements behind the show. I would rename the current “History” section to “Hosts” or “Presenters” as it primarily deals with the changes in hosts or presenters. Turn the lists into prose and expand on each point if possible. I would suggest you look at the “Judges and hosts” section of the page for American Idol as a model. If there were any notable episodes or contestants, make sure to discuss them in this article (only if there are credible and reliable sources to back this up obviously) I would recommend adding a “Reception” section if there is enough information available. If there is anything notable about the “Broadcast history”, then it may be beneficial to make a section on that. You can look at the “Broadcast history” section in the article on Keeping Up With the Kardashians for some ideas. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about my review. This is what I gathered from a cursory glance at your article, so I can provide more detailed feedback if you would like. The primary advice I can give you for this article is to expand on everything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC) The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise survived both a proposed deletion tag, and an articles for deletion discussion. It was reviewed by Maile66 and successfully promoted to good article quality, and subsequently Twofingered Typist helpfully provided a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I bring it here to help further along the quality improvement process. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Talk:The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise, User talk:Twofingered Typist, User talk:Maile66, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Comments from Fourthords I don't know if I'm doing this right, but here's my input. I think it's great! It's well-written, and has a great ratio of plot to reliably-sourced third-party information. As a huge Trekkie, I enjoyed learning about this pop culture perception of the show. It has a wonderful diversity of references, something I'm always impressed with! It's an excellent article; I daresay one of our best. I only have a question about the image of Mr. Belushi leading the article in the infobox: does it meet WP:NFCC#8? I didn't read anything in the article that needed that image to better understand it. The IDP cites The Current Cinema as saying that the portrayal is iconic, but that doesn't equal, to me, saying that Mr. Belushi's specific appearance was iconic. It's something I would consider if I were writing the article. Oh, that and I don't think the 'upright' sizing specifications are necessary. Especially when the Belushi/Michaels images are being displayed at what appears to be a standard thumbnail size. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks very much for your comments, Fourthords, I'll have a look at tweaking the article with these in mind. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Done. I've modified the images to remove the "upright" sizing, as recommended, above. As for the infobox image of Belushi parodying Shatner as Kirk -- the article presents sourced info saying Belushi modeled his very appearance after Kirk, for example the sideburns -- and this can be seen comparing the two images. Thank you for your participation in the peer review ! Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Comments from David Fuchs Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Kalki Koechlin Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 9 April 2016, 20:04 UTC Last edit: 4 May 2016, 16:06 UTC Aries (album) I had just got this article GA recently and I was wondering if this article has a shot of getting FA. I am open to any and all critiques of the article. Thanks, Erick (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Palais Rohan, Strasbourg I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status ([1]). Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate. Thanks, Edelseider (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC) LynwoodF I was asked by one of the principal authors, who is not a native English-speaker, to review the wording of the article, in order to ensure that the English is idiomatic. I have done this and made a number of minor changes. I am now going on to look at the article from the point of view of content. I am familiar with the building, having lived near it for a while, but had only a sketchy knowledge of its history. However, the contents of the article are consistent with what I already knew. The lead section is longer than some, but it summarizes the history of the building and the uses to which it has been put, without going into excessive detail. The main body of the article is divided into logical sections and a great deal more detail is included in these. The definite article is used in two of the section headings, and while this is generally frowned upon, its use seems natural in both contexts and I am not prepared to condemn it. I am reminded of an old adage: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise." There are a number of images and these are mostly grouped into small galleries in the relevant sections. Given the specialist nature of the images, this seems to me to be the sensible way to handle them. The sources seem appropriate, but are largely in French. However, I am not aware of any English-language source which has this amount of detail. The authors of the article have perhaps done the English-speaking community a service by extracting and translating the detailed information. All the links appear to be in working order at the date of this comment. LynwoodF (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Viking metal I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking that this article is a likely FA candidate. I've tinkered with it since 2012, gradually expanding it to the point of reaching GA status. With the the plethora of scholarly literature that's come out since around 2010/2011 onward, I think that this article has become very comprehensive and is able to summarize a rather complicated musical genre. I'd like comments to see what issues would hinder this becoming an FA. Thanks, 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Comments from DannyMusicEditor The TeamRock ref for Amon Amarth denying viking metal is giving me an internal server error. A couple of these links throw me redirects that Checklinks somehow fails to catch. For example, Eduardo Rivadavia's article on Bathory's Blood Fire Death ref from AllMusic is throwing me a redirect to the band's bio, and it doesn't keep any of the claims written in the article. Chad Bowar's 2014 article also throws me a redirect. Check for errors in the URL or add some archives. For the music samples, I would suggest putting "by (x)" after the song title, or "(x's)" "title" rather than simply the song's title. Speaking of those song samples, their sound quality is too good to fall under fair use. Try somewhere between 60-80 kbps rather than 100-130. Who's that accordion player in the picture? (Actually, I know it's Korpiklaani's Sami Perttula.) Might want to add that somewhere. - dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 15:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Somewhere in an update way back, Audacity changed how it converted sound files. I'll have to continue tinkering to get the right quality. I'll work on the link issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC) The Blood Fire Death link probably got misdirected when being converted to Sfn format or something.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @DannyMusicEditor: I reduced the sound quality for the samples down to 48kbps through Audacity (for some reason, exporting to .ogg doesn't let you choose the bit-rate, so I exported to .mp3, than re-exported to .ogg). I also re-titled the examples to include the artist name.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Everyday life Arsène Wenger Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take this to FAC in the coming weeks. The article has been expanded almost threefold since I last worked on it years ago, and I'd be grateful for feedback/advice – particularly to do with prose. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted an opinion of an experienced user before nominating it for FA status. Please @ping me if news concerning this may appear. Thanks, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Rare Replay As a break from the retro games, let's look at the crown of the Rare Replay project continues. It's the most thorough page on the compilation on the Internet and, I believe, complete by the FAC criteria, but I'd appreciate any preliminary comments before it goes up for nomination. Thanks, czar 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Teresa Lewis I've listed this article for peer review because… I want feedback with suggestions of improvements that can be done to make it a possible FA status article in the future. I could need some comprehensive suggestions. Thanks, BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Engineering and technology Ontario Highway 418 I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article on a subject that is incomplete and missing information that is unobtainable at this point. As such, the project it is rated under utilizes a special assessment of Future-class. However, I have 400-series highways nominated for a good topic, and as such require a peer review of this subject. Muchos gracias, Floydian τ ¢ 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Amplifier I'd like to get this to GA status, but my ideas for improving it are starting to stagnate. I'd especially like comments from people both more and less knowledgeable about the topic than me, for accuracy and readability respectively. Generally, how much needs to be done to get it to GA, and where is a good place to start. Thanks, —  crh 23  (Talk) 19:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Community Transit I'm hoping to bring this article up to FA status in time for the upcoming 40th anniversary of the beginning of service (October 4). A recent GA promotion that might need some slimming down and possible splitting for the history section (which is very detailed) and written somewhat more organically that what would would fly at FAC. SounderBruce 03:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC) General LeBron James Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because it was first approved as a Good Article a few years back and since then has grown a lot. I think it might need some trimming, or reference clean up. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Ktmartell (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 I've listed this article for peer review because the same was suggested during the 2nd FA nomination. I have addressed the main issues brought out during the nomination, and am now requesting a peer review for improvement of the article to FA standards. Thank you. Thanks, Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC) I'm aware of this and will be leaving some comments in a few days. Please forgive me, I leave Thursday on a trip and am trying to get some research in while I have access to the books. I've given it a read-through, though. Let me start you by saying this: I think you are mistaken in covering this as a cricket match, primarily, as that leads to dull reading, like a cricket match report. The fact that it was played, the first significant intercolonial match, is far more important than how many LBWs there were. The lede should focus on this as a historical event. Right now you have to dig through the lede to figure out why it is important this match was played. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Will do that. Thanks and looking forward to working on this with your suggestions. Thanks so much. Lourdes 16:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC) I've done some reworking on the talk page of this review. Do tell me if I'm on the right lines. Thanks. Lourdes 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Fallout 4: Far Harbor Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 19 June 2016, 02:18 UTC Last edit: 29 June 2016, 08:41 UTC Priority Sector Lending Certificates I have listed this article for a peer review in order to improve it and subsequently seek FA/GA grade for this article. Thanks, Amgodbole (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC) The Godfather Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because… it is one of the greatest films of all time and I would like to see this article obtain Good Article status. I've been editing the majority of the article for the past years or so. At this point I do not know what else I need to the article, but I'm combing through books right now to make sure I'm not missing anything critical. I'm also looking at advice for the cinematic influence section. I do not really know how to tackle it. I've posted on the talk page of the godfather with my idea for the section, but I have yet to receive any real feedback. My idea is to scrap the "In film" and "In television" sections as they really don't hold much value and seem like something IMDb would have, and is overly trivial. In addition, more and more examples will be continued to be added to these sections as the years go by and more forms of media imitate the film, making it even more unnecessary. Any and all comments are welcome! Thanks ahead of time! I do know some refs are out of order, but I'm planning on fixing that once I've removed more sources and whatnot. Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Dungeon Keeper I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working heavily on this article lately, and have only managed to get it up to C class (from Start class). I've tried to make the prose the best as I can get it, but I'm still not sure if it's good enough. I also haven't been able to find any reliable info about Dungeon Keeper Premium other than the guide book and what was on EA's website, nothing about the differences from non-premium or anything. I still think it's worth a mention, but readers will naturally wonder why it's called Premium (and so do I come to that). I haven't been able to reliably source what the Japanese article says about it either. I also haven't been able to find archives for a couple of the reviews, and had to make do with using Bullfrog's website as the reference. Is this good enough? I'm also wondering if I should go into a bit more detail about the level editor, and explain about the script language, but does that venture into WP:GAMECRUFT territory? I reckon that if it wasn't for these obstacles, this could have the potential to be a GA. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC) If you can't find info on "Dungeon Keeper Premium", keep it to a minimum, or what you can source. Perhaps it's just a sentence of mention. Alternatively, don't mention it—it's not mentioned in the sources. Which reviews do you need help finding? ({{ping}} me?) What's the question about using Bullfrog's site? As for the rest, remember that you're writing for a general audience. If a general audience would be interested in more detail, go for it. I'll add that the superscript page citations are really a mess... very hard to read (and I believe the standard format is ("[1]:99" not "[1](p99)"). Any reason why you wouldn't use {{sfn}} with those instead? czar 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC) @Czar: Sorry for the late reply, I have this page on my watchlist and didn't see any response until now! The only info I can find on Dungeon Keeper Premium is EA's site and the guide book, and for the article to be broad, I think it should be mentioned. There are three reviews on Bullfrog's site, and I only have the actual source for one of them (The PC Gamer one). I have been unable to find archives of the other two. Bullfrog is a primary source; aren't secondary sources preferred? As for the citations, this doesn't use Harvard. Is there something wrong with the {{rp}} template? I've gotten two articles up to GA that both use that template. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) If you link the sources, I can try to help recover the originals. Primary sources should only be used rarely: see self-published sources. Depends on the claim it's making. Is there anything technically policy-breaking about {{rp}}? I haven't double-checked but I doubt it. Does it make the text very difficult to read? Yes, which is why I'd recommend using a citation format easier for the reader to view. czar 01:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @Czar: What do you mean by linking to the sources? The PC Zone and PC Format reviews are cited to Bullfrog's website. I've found archives of those magazines, but not the issue I need. I'm not aware of anything wrong with using the RP template, and it's better than cluttering the references section with umpteen references to the same books. I've found out that all I had to do was delete the page(s) parameter to get rid of the ugly Ps, is it better now? Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) I meant that it's easier to link what you have rather than having me search through links in the article. I think most will agree that footnotes like [2]:26,33[4]:92[5]:22–24 are very unwieldy, which is why we use short footnotes in the first place—much less distracting to read the main text (most people won't read the footnotes) but the specifics are there for those who want them. I think that's the last I'll say about that. czar 02:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @Czar: Still not sure what you mean... Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Tuineau Alipate I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to weigh whether it's worth taking to GA. It's right on the bubble of what I would consider worth such a classification. It's comprehensive in the sense that I've incorporated everything available from sources (except some details of family, which I'm going to include shortly), but any advice on how to improve this article to meet GA criteria or even whether it's a worthwhile nomination at all would be helpful. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 16:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC) CSI: Miami I've listed this article for peer review because this article is currently a B-class article, however a lot of work has been done to increase its encyclopedic value, and I feel it should be upgraded to A class. Thanks, Unframboise (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC) International Hat Company I've listed this article for peer review because I am requesting editorial review of content and presentation in reaching good article status. Thank you for your time and consideration, Belshay (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl I've listed this article for peer review because it is something that I have been working on for months. It was recently promoted to a good article, and I would like to improve it so that I am confident when it goes into featured article candidacy. It is not too long of an article, but I believe that it is well-referenced and quite comprehensive. Additionally, the topic is a bit controversial, so I want to get rid of any kind of information that would seem biased. Let me know what you think. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Medieval Faire (Canada's Wonderland) This has been a Good article since 2012, so I'd like to see how viable it would be to submit this for featured status. The article is about a section of a Canadian theme park. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Geography and places George Town, Penang Any constructive improvements/advice/questions about the capital city of Penang are greatly appreciated. Thanks, - —User:Buonkee Buonkee (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC) I live near George Town (I'm actually on the other side of the Malaysian peninsular) and have been to Penang. I recently wrote the Seri Rambai article. 1. Start by looking at the article for Sarawak (which has also been put forward for peer review). By comparison, the George Town article is messy and poorly structured: there are lots of one sentence paragraphs (see the Health care section, for example), too many photographs and uncited claims. All paragraphs should end with a citation. 2. The introduction highlights some of the repetition in the article. For example, the first sentence tells me the city is "currently a UNESCO World Heritage Site"; the third explains that is has held this status since 2008. Content such as this needs to be combined and edited. For the time being, I think you should concentrate of copyediting. Take a look at this this: As the Dutch East India Company had dominated the Far East spice trade in the 18th. century, the British were determined to establish their presence in the region to control the trade route between China and British India through the Malay Archipelago, and to set up a base to repair Royal Navy ships.[6][18] Because of this, Captain Francis Light, a trader for the British East India Company (EIC) was instructed by his company, Jourdain Sullivan and de Souza in Madras, British India to establish trade relations in the Malay Peninsula.[19] Light arrived on Penang Island on 17 July 1786.[18] As Penang Island was still under the control of the Sultan of Kedah, Light needed to negotiate with the Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah to grant the island to the EIC in exchange for protection of the Sultanate against Siamese and Burmese intrusions.[19][20] The early negotiations were problematic because the Sultan did not want to cede the island to the British, but the threat from Siam grew as Kedah was forced submit to Siam as a vassal state by offering bunga mas annually.[20] The Sultan was aware that he needed an agreement with the British for protection against the Siamese, although he did not realise Light had acted without the approval of his superiors.[18] a1. "As the Dutch East India Company had dominated the Far East spice trade in the 18th. century, the British were determined ..." a2. The wording here is wrong. The British were not determined to do ABC because the Dutch dominated XYZ. In a similar vein, the Dutch did not form regional alliances in the early 1600s simply because the Portuguese controlled Malacca. The British and Dutch were motivated by greed ONLY. Their determination to control regional trade was not inspired by rivalry. b1. "Light needed to negotiate with the Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah to grant the island to the EIC in exchange for protection of the Sultanate against Siamese and Burmese intrusions" b2. He did NOT need to do this. He made an offer. As you say, it was made without his superiors' approval. c1. "the threat from Siam grew as Kedah was forced submit to Siam as a vassal state by offering bunga mas annually" c2. This is incorrect. The threat from Siam lessened once Kedah accepted Siamese suzerainty. Kedah sent the bunga mas in recognition of Siam's status as the suzerain. The correct wording you need here is quite tricky! I'll add more later. I think you should be able to get this article to GA/FA level. There are lots of sources out there, and the best will be easy to access. For example: 1. The Journal of the Siam Society 2. The Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 3. GWHI 4. Penang Heritage Trust 5. The Straits Times @Singora: The user was recently blocked for block evasion. The master account known as Polopaladin who known for inserting non-neutral content with hidden political agenda, messed paragraph and inserting too many bare links. I have restore the article into the last stable version. Regards. Herman Jaka (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC) OK -- but the previous version, though messy, was better than what you've got now. To be honest, this new version is dreadful. Cambridge Previous peer review Article is now reasonably stable, and without tags (I think). It seems like a good opportunity to try and push towards GA status. Thanks, Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Looks like it'll soon be ready for a GA nomination to me. There's a contraction ("weren't") and some dead links in the references (c.f. this page), but with those items fixed, in my view this would resemble other good articles. Nice work.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC) I can offer a few drive-by comments: I'm mainly looking at the Geography-related section here, but I think there is still a bit of work to do to reflect the natural environment of Cambridge. There is only a very brief mention of geology, but none at all on the key ecological/biodiversity features of the city. I suggest this is a significant omission, though even some WP:FA articles such as Bristol and Bath are let down on this front. It doesn't have to be a huge section, but to easily rectify this, try sources such as local conservation strategies/LBAPs, like this one, pp5-4; 25-26 which give an overview of key sites such as SSSIs, or even city local nature reserve lists, such as this. Quite often Local Plan documents give good ecological overviews which are sound third-party sources. Check for correct hyphenation and links in the article e.g. low-lying, non-league/ water-meadows etc., and beware use of the hyphen or dash in the climate section after '...highest national temperature in any given year' which could be taken as a minus sign. the presence of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge seems a significant organisation worthy of mention, and perhaps the Category 'Organisations based in Cambridge' should also be added. The sentence The River Cam flows through the city north from the village of Grantchester. is a little unclear unless one knows that Grantchester is on the southern side. Maybe The River Cam flows northwards through the city from the village of Grantchester., or something similar. For information on flood risk and reduction in the city see here. There could be a sub-section well worth adding in the 'culture' section on the very important museums within the city, such as the nationally and internationally important Sedgwick, Fitzwilliam and Whipple museums, plus 15 others. I'm not confident that the single mention of museums (a link to List of museums in Cambridge) does this aspect of culture in the city full justice, especially compared to the quite large emphasis on sport. The caption for the Ward map probably ought to give the date (2010) Despite the high use of cycling, I was surprised to find that much of the city centre seems to be designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), so this could well relevant to include. see here. Dead links - there are quite a few non-functioning links which need fixing. Try this tool to find and fix them. (Note that the Suds link is reported as functioning, but it doesn't actually retrieve the Landscape Vision document.) Finally, you could consider adding alt text to images, though this is not a requirement of Good Articles, though it is a useful step to sort out now, en route to WP:FA. See this link. All-in-all, this looks to be a good, sound article, though I am quite new to this process myself, so could well be bringing a biased perspective! Parkywiki (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Accokeek, Maryland Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 18 April 2016, 13:15 UTC Last edit: 9 May 2016, 13:30 UTC History J. R. Kealoha I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to nominate this for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and I'd like the most critical peer review possible to work it up to FAC presentation. Thanks, KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Gail Halvorsen I've listed this article for peer review in order to receive and implement feedback before nominating for FAC. Thanks, Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Mr. Dooley I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd be grateful or feedback before the FAC. Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC) A few minor comments Lead picture caption – it might be as well to indicate in the caption that Dooley is the one on the right "full name Martin J. Dooley" – one knows about Harry S. Truman, but even so, can a name with only a middle initial normally be described as a full name? It is possible Mr. Dooley's middle name is J. but I doubt that would have gotten by the priest in Roscommon. Adjusted. "proper English" (here and in footnote a) – a touch of value-judgement there, possibly? Perhaps "regular" or "standard"? Genesis "barkeep" – a word new to me; it occurs four times. For the benefit of those outside the US you might consider making it "barkeeper" or similar, recognisable in all varieties of English. Local man of wisdom (1893–98) "He is suspicious or hostile towards men" – "suspicious towards" seems not quite right; I'd be inclined to add "of" after suspicious" "The fictional Malachi Hennessy, more typical of Bridgeport than McKenna as a laborer with a large family (McKenna was a bachelor), became his replacement" – I got in a tangle with this and needed a couple of goes at it. Perhaps something like, "He was replaced by the fictional Malachi Hennessy, who, as a laborer with a large family, was more typical of Bridgeport than the bachelor McKenna." Mr. Dooley in peace (1898–1900) From the context it appears at first sight that the Journal refers to a British publication. It might be clearer if you called it the Chicago Journal here, repetition notwithstanding. Slow decline, apparent ending and brief resurrection "Suggested critic Gilbert Seldes of Dooley" – rather an unexpected word order. Something like "Critic Gilbert Seldes suggested of Dooley" might flow more smoothly. "and did not write any more Dooley pieces prior to his death in 1936" – implying, some might feel, that he wrote more pieces after his death. Language and technique Not sure we need the duplicate links to Upton Sinclair and The Jungle, though I don't greatly object to them. Legacy and remembrance "brought him fame and money, neither of which were enough" – "were" should be "was". "In 1938, The New Republic" – an inconsistency in capitalising, italicizing and piping the definite article in the titles of journals. We have The New Republic here, but the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Times etc earlier. I assume our articles on the periodicals are correct and follow them, as I have here. "targets that Dooley might skewer" – does one skewer targets? That's my meagre gleaning of quibbles. I pondered your novel decision to rephrase and part-Anglicise the quotes in your text, printing the ipsissima verba in the notes; the more I pondered the more I thought it wise, and helpful to the reader. I shouldn't be surprised if someone carped about it at FAC, though; if so I'll be glad to rally to its defence. A delightful and hugely readable article. – Tim riley talk 14:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. I gave the question you mention some thought and did not come up with a better way. There's no way to put much of the dialect into the text without great risk of sending the reader fleeing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC) At first reading I thought, "Hold on! What's all this?", but the more I read the more I agreed with your editorial decision, and I'll be glad to carry a spear in its defence. After all, we are required by the MoS to translate other languages into English for WP articles, and where exactly does the boundary come between the Queen's (or President's) English and variants of it so variant as to be effectively a foreign tongue, incomprehensible to ordinary English speakers like thee and me? Tim riley talk 13:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Nelson Mandela Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because it reached GA status several years ago, and has recently undergone further edits to improve the coverage and scope of the article. A Peer Review to bring up potential prose improvements would be gratefully received, with the hope that the article could be taken to FAC in the near future. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Bonville–Courtenay feud I've listed this article for peer review because it has been greatly expanded (by 1000s %). Thanks, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Thoughts from Hchc2009: (many rather minor!) "between the Courtney family (earls of Devon since 1335)"... "this was not confined to just the (more well known) antics" - I don't think the brackets are adding much here, you could just use commas. I'm not sure about some of the later bracketed bits either - again, commas might be softer. Is "antics" the right word? " while the king remained unfit" - worth checking out WP:JOBTITLE for the capitalisation here. "The incapacitation of Henry VI by mental illness in 1454 had led to the recall to court of Richard of York, his closest adult relative, who had been banished to his estates after a failed rebellion in 1452, and his appointment to govern England as Lord Protector and First Councillor of the realm while the king remained unfit." - a monster sentence! The quotes should be in double speech marks (as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS) Consistency of "south west" and "south-west" "including military marches which led to them both being summoned before council." - I was uncertain how a march would end up in summons... Might be worth clarifying " the Family seat of the Courtenays" - capitalisation of "Family" "Powderham Castle, west front, viewed from under the Victorian gatehouse. The leftmost tower dates from 1390–1450 as does the main high central block, which originally housed a full-height great hall. The central entrance tower was built between 1710-1727. The single-storey projecting room built between the two towers, with three tall gothic-style windows, is the Victorian Dining Hall.[39]" - unclear what the post "great hall" bit is adding in this particular context "and Baron Bonville in the south-west of England" - a particular baron? More than one baron...? "William Bonville" - link on first use "Coat of Arms of Sir William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, KG" - not sure you need the KG here "Michael hicks " - capitalisation of Hicks. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Done Awaiting further instructions! Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Final bits on the ce side... "This prevented, by preventing recogntion, an official inquest being held into Radford's death." This final bit of the para appears uncited at the moment. Some of the quotes are still in singles, by the way! :) "with the Cathedral" - consistent capitalisation "Martin cherry" - "Cherry" "and Bonville ally, Sir Philip II Courtenay (d.1463); " - consistency of use of death dates in line (this seems to be the only one) "The fight at Clyst" section - the brackets should really be converted to commas here "However decisive devon's victory had been, " - "Devon"? "The King was inacpacitated," - sp "One Chronicler states that following his defeat," - capitalisation "as the protectorate was soon to come to an end:" - colon should be a full stop "Commissions of Oyer and terminer were issued in August" - capitalisation of oyer? "but both parties to the feud were effectively elimiinated through the wars over the next few years." - "effectively"? or "killed in the wars"? They both seem to have died... Hchc2009 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Done and hopefully caught all thse bloomin' quote marks! Thanks for your help, Hchc2009, much appreciated! If anything else occurs to you- Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Coloman, King of Hungary I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be checqued before its FAC. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Karl G. Maeser I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it for good article status. This is the first article that I have worked on that i have gotten peer reviewed, so I am new to this process. I would like feedback on how to better the page to get it approved as a good article. Thanks, Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Comments Given the length of the article, I would recommend expanding the lead The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, so the BYU statue will need a licensing tag for the copyright of the work itself as well as the photo "is considered its true founder" in the lead: it's not clear at this point in the article what is meant by that. Suggest rewording or omitting Usually non-notable children are not listed in the infobox, just a number given Why did he lose his sight? Why was he unfit for military service? Who forced him to leave Germany? A number of questions are raised and not answered by the text throughout Work titles should be italicized in references - Deseret News, BYU Magazine, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing my article! I have gone back through and made your suggested changes. However, when you said that there were a number of questions raised that weren't answered, did you have any other questions in mind besides the ones that you listed? Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Who called him to serve as a missionary? Who asked him to be the conference president? Who appointed him to head church meetings? What is a Norman Department? Why was the spelling of his name altered for the school named after him? "Although no one was baptized while Maeser was president, he did help create friendlier public-relations between Utah and California" - how are these facts related? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Done. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Women in Classical Athens Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 27 April 2016, 20:54 UTC Last edit: 23 May 2016, 09:28 UTC Balfour Declaration I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured Article status prior to the 100th anniversary next year. At this point I am specifically looking for feedback regarding how to ensure that this article meets the requirement that it should be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (WP:FACR 1.c.) Thank you, Oncenawhile (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Comment: There are some sources in this bibliography which might be useful to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Western Airlines Flight 2605 I've listed this article for peer review because… The article clearly isn't a stub anymore and needs reassessment at the very least. It could probably use additional visibility and improvements from interested parties. It maybe close to GAN article status. Thanks, Skybunny (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Comments by Caeciliusinhorto In the lead, the article specifies that Los Angeles International Airport is in Los Angeles, and Mexico City International is in Mexico City. Is that really necessary? I could understand if the airport was one of the "London" Airports which aren't actually in London, but as it is it reads oddly. In the section on the accident, the article says that the plane was cleared for a '"Texpepan" approach', but never explains what this means; later we read about an "ILS approach" (which is at least wikilinked) and then a "visual sidestep approach" (redlinked). The article should probably explain this for the general reader; I have absolutely no idea what any of it means. The initial death-toll was 71; the final death-toll was 72. Was this because of an error in the initial accounting, or because one person later died of their injuries? The article contains many very short paragraphs; you might want to consolidate some of them into longer paragraphs. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC) I did some work based on Caeciliusinhorto's suggestions. Looking at other similar articles, like Pan Am Flight 103, I moved the full expansion of airports and where they are, to the infobox. This should help readability. The remark about the specific approach was well taken; I generalized this to talk about instrument (and ILS) approaches, and added a sentence about what a visual sidestep approach is in the article, also linking to where it is discussed in Instrument approach. (One of the problems with discussion of this accident is that it does involve a somewhat technical maneuver going wrong.) I did a bit to consolidate paragraphs where I could see to do so. I'm pretty sure that the reason for the death-toll being raised from 71 to 72 is that a person later died of their injuries, but this difficult to find and cite. There are reports of the accident on the day it happened, and then it basically disappears from the media. After that, what's available are the final reports of the accident, where by then the number of passengers on the aircraft who died is one higher. I was able to discover the reason for the fatality discrepancy through the Mexico City Spanish language newspaper El Informador. A passenger died of his injuries 18 days after the initial crash, which explains the 71 number in early news reports, and 72 listed in the ICAO and NTSB reports. Skybunny (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC) edited 02:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 1970 Bhola cyclone I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to nominate this article for GA status. Thanks, Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Comments by Dudley "one of the deadliest natural disasters in modern times" "in modern times" is an unnecessary qualification. List of natural disasters by death toll lists as the fifth most deadly of any time. I think you should say in the lead that it was named after Bhola Island, and explain in the main text why it was named after this particular island. "the prototype benefit concert, to raise money for aid, in 1971." This needs explaining. How was it the prototype, and what was its effect? (I assume you explain below, but I think more is needed in the lead). "No country in the region had ever named tropical cyclones during this time, so no new identity was given". This does not sound quite right. Maybe "The storm was not named as at this time it was not the practice of countries in the region to name cyclones." "the storm warning system that existed in East Pakistan was not used properly" In what way? "Gordon Dunn, the director of the National Hurricane Center at the time, carried out a detailed study and submitted his report in 1961. However, the government did not carry out all of the recommendations Dunn had listed" The US or Pakistani government? "and there have been at least six cyclones to hit the region. While it is unsure how many people were killed, it is estimated to be 300,000 to 500,000 people in total" Over what period? Also "not known" would be better than "unsure". "This was one of the first times that a natural event helped to trigger a civil war." This is very dubious. There are many cases where natural disasters are believed to have helped trigger civil wars - e.g. it has been suggested that a volcano in Iceland caused a famine in France which helped to trigger the French Revolution. Also I could not access the archive source. "The Soviet aircraft, which had drawn criticism from Bengalis" Why criticized? "In 1971, ex-Beatle George Harrison was inspired to organize The Concert for Bangladesh, in part from the 1970 Bhola Cyclone, and from the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide and Bangladesh Liberation War" I am not clear what you are saying here. Also you say in the lead that Ravi Shankar was also involved. "Although it was the first benefit concert of its type, it was extremely successful in raising money, aid and awareness for the region's plight" Why "Although" "In December, the League of Red Cross Societies drafted a plan for immediate use should a comparable event to the cyclone hit other "disaster prone countries" December which year? "In 1966, the Red Crescent began to support the development of a cyclone warning system" If it was back in 1966 you should say "had begun". The last two sections are mainly unreferenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Comments by Jason Rees The Meteorological History needs some work and ideally needs to mention that Bhola would be an Extremely severe cyclonic storm if it occurred today. It would be nice to find a classification for the system on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale. I think that it would be worth combining the preparations and impact sections. The Indian government received many ship reports from the Bay of Bengal that were giving meteorological information on the cyclone, but as Indo-Pakistani relations were generally hostile, the information was not passed on to the Pakistani government. The source only specualtes that the information was not passed on. I may help work on some of these bits and pieces.Jason Rees (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Natural sciences and mathematics Thorium I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FA. I worked on it two years ago to GA-level and I would like to know what is still needed. Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Mammal Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see this article reach GA-class, and possibly FA. I've been working on it over the (Memorial day) weekend and it was already a well-developed article, so it just needed some references and some expansion (which was easy considering this is a summary of a bunch of other articles). Copyediting and some reference work are needed here before I can nominate this for GAN. Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 2011 Super Outbreak I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article should end up being featured. It is very informative and detailed on the topic it discusses. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I'd like to point out there is an {{expand}} tag   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Life Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it reach GA and eventually FA. I have been working to improve the article and would like to know what the community thinks need to be done before i nominate the article to GA. Thanks, MartinZ02 (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Comments by UN Appreciate your interest in this. Even giving a decent PR is going to be tough. Structure: As mentioned before in the GA review, I too find the present structure confusing. Keep watching this point till I can think of a better way to organise it. I'm seeing a lot of small sections having the main article links. Per WP:DETAIL, that would imply that we have to expand those sections, making it likely be out of scope. See below. This is probably a controversial change and cannot be done in one go without first making sure the content flows smoothly. Also it would be nice if the other article contributors could pitch in here. Definitions Biology Alternative definitions (Viruses could just be another para here, instead of having its own section. DETAIL.) Biophysics Living system Theories: (what are Living system theories? This section goes straight to the examples without introducing the term.) (Each definition could well be in embedded list form like how it's for the main Biological definitions. The sections are too small to be there, again DETAIL.) History of study Materialism Hylomorphism Spontaneous generation Vitalism Origin Cells: (move this here for better context) Environmental conditions: (same here) Range of tolerance Extremophiles Chemical elements Classification Other: (perhaps an intro for this?) Extraterrestrial life Artificial life Death: (Again, I don't see why there should be sections for Fossils and Extinction, they are a bit out of scope). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Since this isn't titled Life (biology), any reason why the non-scientific viewpoints aren't mentioned? Is it covered in Phenomenological life? Size: getting 37 kb, that's low enough, looks like there is lot of room for expansion, given that this topic mostly will be summarising other articles. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Translational glycobiology I've listed this article for peer review because this isn't my field of expertise, and thus far I've been the only contributor. Considering the somewhat esoteric nature of the subject, I am looking to have my additions checked over and possibly improved upon by editors more familiar with the field. Thanks! ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 11:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Good work Erick Shepherd! I've done a little copyediting. Overall the article is clear and precise, with relevant examples. Useful additions would be: Some history (e.g. when was the first?) Some comparison (e.g. are there significant differences to other drugs?) Non-drug uses (e.g. diagnostics, biotech uses?) Hope that helpsT.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Termite Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 26 December 2015, 14:34 UTC Last edit: 2 May 2016, 04:50 UTC Language and literature Sword Art Online I've listed this article for peer review because, given how popular the series is, and how well-written the article is, I feel that, with just a little more work, the article is ready for GA status. I'm requesting feedback on how GA status can be attained. Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC) The article looks well written but there are something that could be explained like in the light novels section where the reader might not understand the word dōjinshi. Also, the manga's last sentence is unsourced. In anime, the theme songs could be taken to the episode list. Lastly, weren't the light novels licensed for English release? Since they are the primary media, I think critical reception about them could be added. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Also, I would suggest you to go to the main peer review page and exchange reviews User:Narutolovehinata5.Tintor2 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Woman's Home Companion I've listed this article for peer review because…I've recently made some substantial edits to an existing article. Thanks, Jaldous1 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Hello Jaldous1. The article could become a GA but there are somethings that bothered me. The lead feels like a spam of wikilinks. Try avoid by writing "It had multiple famous editors" Again with the lead. I would suggest expanding considering how big is the body of the article. There are several sentences unsourced. I tagged some for you to see. "Stats and lists about the magazine" feels quite empty. If you can't reference such large section, I would suggest removing it. Other than I'm also making a peer review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive1. I would appreciate responses. The Dark Fields I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded the content significantly and would like to hear the community's appraisal of my work. Thanks, Eddie morra brian (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Hello Eddie. The article looks good but there are somethings bothering me. Try expanding the lead to mention other stuff such as the premise and other stuff. Normally, well-written articles have two paragraphs in the lead. Could you make a reception section? Sales would be good. The Film adaptation section feels like WP:Original research. Maybe you could trim it and leave it like a legacy section alongside tv spin off. One last thing, the making of the novel (inspirations, author's comments) could be helpful. Other than that, I also made a peer review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate feedback. The Left Hand of Darkness I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC eventually. I would appreciate feedback on any portion of it, but in particular I would like to hear about anything necessary that I have left out. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Probably one of the best articles I've seen today. Really possible to pass to FA but there are somethings that I have doubts. Starting with the lead the paragraphs could be reorganized. For example, the first paragraphs talks about the premise, the second and the third could be trimmed and merged, whereas the last could talk about the reception without going too far about all the awards. References are normally avoided in the FAs I've seen in their lead and infoboxes. I would only keep them if I am quoting something or I'm writing controversional info that other users might change. Moving on to the body I would make the primary characters as subsection of the plot since they are quite related. The same goes with setting. What surprised me about reception is that while it is well written, it has no mentions of sales. I would question them if I were reviewing the article. Other than that, good work in the article. On another note I also requested a peer review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate some feedback. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Tintor2, thank you for your suggestions. Point 4 is spot on; this is information I need to find. You are also correct about point 2: I only used references for very specific facts, which might also be matters of dispute. I'm a little hesitant to merge setting and characters into the plot section, partly for aesthetic reasons, partly because the weight that reviewers tend to give the setting in their analyses, often quite separate from specific plot points. I believe the MOS for good articles about fiction also suggests a separate "setting" section. Finally, can I ask you to be a little more specific with respect to the lead reorganization? I tried to be as brief as possible while mentioning major highlights; I'd appreciate suggestions as to specific things I could remove from the lead. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC) I would suggest to make it like "the novel won several awards and has been well-received by critics for...." "Left Hand was among the first books published in the feminist science fiction genre and the most famous examination of androgyny in science fiction" feels like a good generalization so I would remove the reference from the lead. Also, you could a bit of creation in the lead next or before the reception. The reason why I said if you could leave the characters next to the setting and plot is that all of that is in-universe information.Tintor2 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC) I have made some tweaks per your suggestions. I haven't gone as far as you suggested, because the multiple rankings are something that a lot of reviewers mention, but I've trimmed it. I've also swapped the order of the sections. The sentence you point to is a generalization, but it is also an exceptional claim, so I'd rather leave the reference when it actually says exactly that. I will get on the issue of sales soon. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC) There is nothing much for me to say. There are too many FAs that use references in the lead but I would recommend you using El Señor Presidente as a model (at least the lead). I would also suggest you to check more peer reviews to get more feedback. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Commenting to prevent automatic archive: Ideally, I'd like another user to comment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Philosophy and religion Lynn de Silva I'd be very grateful if I could get some assistance with editing this article to get it up to FA quality. It has been a GA for 6 years now, and has had over 1,200 revisions in total by over 80 editors. When I nominated it to be upgraded to a FA, I was basically told to "review WP:WIAFA and spend some time ensuring all statements are cited and that WP:MOS is followed". Thanks! Ldesilva (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Hello Ldesilva. The article looks well-written but there are some parts that left me confused. For example: The lead has some references which is something other FAs avoid. I think I really like WP:Lead considering how I follow that guide. Maybe if you remove some doubtful information you could remove the sources and move them to the articles' body. There are some sentences in the article unsourced like the first one "Hugh de Silva died whilst studying to be ordained." or "He also took a study course in Mahayana Buddhism at the Vidyodaya University in Sri Lanka. During his studies, Lynn and Lakshmi had their second son, Lalith Chrishantha de Silva, on 16 September 1954." The same goes for the second paragraph of Thanatology. Also, I have requested a peer review for Allen Walker here so I would appreciate some feedback. Still nice work in the article. I hope it becomes a FA.Tintor2 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Comments Image Review: File:Lynn and Lakshmi.jpg - There is no proof by the description ("This picture was given to me by one of their children") that the uploader holds the copyright. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission needs to be used. Similar issues for the other photos attributed to The de Silva family. All dates like birth of his children needs references The whole generic Intro of "History of Buddhist-Christian relations in Sri Lanka" from the 16th century seems WP:UNDUE. Most of the content is relevant to Christianity in Sri Lanka. Only the most relevant part to de Silva needs to be retained. The article can contrast de Silva's attitude to Buddhism with older Christian attitudes, for example. "He died soon afterward, having continued to work until the end." The tone is more wp:peacocky rather than encyclopedic. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Jainism Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because… midnightblueowl suggested to do so here for getting GA. Thanks, -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Capankajsmilyo: Have you cleaned up the issues and Copyvio allegations against you on 100s of articles, filed on 11 April 2016? @Diannaa:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @Midnightblueowl: should we request @Capankajsmilyo to focus on first cleaning up WP:Copyvio and WP:Plag issues in the 1-100 list, before submitting articles for "peer review, GA, or DYK" or creating new articles/content? @Capankajsmilyo: Have you checked every line and every source cited in this article for WP:Copyvio and WP:Plag issues? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC) I am trying to do that work as well as mentioned here in my reply to SpacemanSpiff. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Social sciences and society David McDowall (criminologist) I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what other editors think needs to be added/improved before it can have a chance at becoming a GA. Thanks, Everymorning (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Corps of Army Air Defence (India) I've listed this article for peer review because I wish propose this article to the good article nominations. Please suggest me edits and improvements to take this article to good article level. Thanks, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 04:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Comments: G'day, I will try to take a bit more of a look tomorrow after some sleep. The main issue that I see which you will need to address prior to GAN is referencing: at a bare minimum each paragraph should end in a citation to a reliable source. Additionally, there appears to be a whole section missing (where the empty section tag is). I think also that the coverage is lacking. For instance is there anything that could be said about the corps' role during the various wars that have been fought with Pakistan in the post independence period? Finally, a good copy edit is needed as the article's grammar could be improved (I will try to help with this tomorrow). Anyway, it is time for bed for me. I will come back later. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Okay, I did a quick copy edit, but I wasn't sure about the spelling variations. The article uses a mixture of US and British English spelling. I'm not sure what Indian English prefers, but for instance compare "defence" and "defense"; there are a couple of other examples, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner I've listed this article for peer review because I believe there is good reason to see it as biased, and clearly anti-Kirchner. To be frank, it appears to me like it could need a partial rewrite, by someone other than the article contributors so far, that including myself. I'm no expert on Kirchner; I simply noticed the unserious language used in this article. The user who has so far refused revisions – and who has been the main writer behind the article – has stated, among other things, the following: "The supporters of the Kirchners are proud of their blind loyalty to their leaders" "... I will ignore the fact that you claim in your user page to be a socialist, a political movement that is well known for harboring authoritarians and populists" Furthermore, the article is in my opinion little other than a rant about everything said user perceives as wrong about CFK, and he/she fails to employ encyclopedic language. Naturally, there have been multiple contributors, but said user is of concern, as he/she actively blocks the article's revision. This (very much unfinished) draft for a rewrite has been rejected by the user, due to its use of the word "alleged" when referring to allegations against Kirchner, as he/she would prefer such allegations to be stated directly as facts. It's clear that something must be done about this. Thanks, Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC) As I have seen in the discussion, it seems that the problem is that this user prefers to use "politically correct" language, while I prefer to call a spade a spade. For instance, the sandbox version talks about an "Alleged cult of personality" and cites the BBC as a reference; but the BBC says "there is undoubtedly a personality cult centred on the current president herself" (note that by "current" they were talking about Cristina Kirchner, who was president when that article was written). So, who says that this is something "alleged"? Who disputes the existence of that cult of personality? See WP:ASSERT. Note that every sentence of the article is referenced to a reliable source. I have asked this user to focus on specific points, so I can provide any clarification required, to no avail. I also find it unfair to say that I'm "blocking" the article. I'm the main contributor, so of course that I will explain my edits as needed. But this user deleted huge blocks of texts and asked for some time to write a new article, and I accepted that. I only restored the contents when a week had passed and the user had made absolutely no edits about the topic, neither in the article or elsewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Hands Across Hawthorne I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get a sense of whether or not this article meets FA criteria. This article has been promoted to Good status and received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I am wondering if I should try taking it to the next level... Any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks for your consideration, --Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Tony Benn Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article for FA status. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thanks, – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Comment – A look through the references would be a good step to standardise on the formatting for the author/editor fields. Either use first/last or last/first consistently. Some of the references are also missing the accessdate information. Keith D (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Furry fandom Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 28 April 2016, 09:14 UTC Last edit: 29 June 2016, 10:52 UTC Coinage Act of 1965 I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FAC in due course. Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Comments from BB Well, here we go. Not the easiest reading for non-numismatists, I have to say, but I've done me best – sorry if at times the review is a mite superficial: Lead "government stocks of silver were being rapidly reduced, and might run out by 1968" – are you sure of tense consistency here? It seems slightly off to me. It looks OK to me. Possibly it is an ENGVAR thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "Dimes and quarters": believe it or not, some (lots) of us don't know what they are. Appropriate pipe-links would assist us. The final sentence is enigmatic. It reads as though the Eisenhower dollar was silver – is that the case? Background I am struggling with the sentence: "The metal in a silver dollar was worth more as metal than as money above $1.292929 per troy ounce; the smaller coins would be attractive for the melting pot above $1.38 per ounce". Does it mean "more as metal than as money when the price rose above $1.292929 per troy ounce? And what is the reason for the differential between the dollar and the small coins? Coin shortage I'm not really clear as to why a coin shortage should have arisen in the late 50s and early 60s. If I read correctly, the Mints were working at full capacity but still couldn't meet demand. Was there some particular economic factor at work? I can understand that people wished to hang on to their half-dollars, but why the reluctance to part with the rest? "Clad coinage" worth a pipe Strictly speaking, "Great Britain" is a geographical entity rather than a nation (although the term is often misused as such). "United Kingdom" would be safer' Legislation "Were any to be struck, the silver dollar would be unaffected, but there were no further plans to issue any". The first five words could easily be taken as referring to the coins mentioned in the previous sentence, so I'd suggest a minor rephrasing to avoid any ambiguity. "depleted by 1968" – did he mean "exhausted"? The bullion was being depleted all the time. Minor, but two successive sentences begin "Johnson..." "with the opponents being..." – the word "with" is superfluous Provisions My mind tended to glaze over with the legal phraseology, so I skipped to Aftermath Aftermath A "holiday season" beginning in November is strange to Europeans. Perhaps specify Thanksgiving? "stated that that many quarters" a bit clumsy. Possibly "stated that this number of quarters..." I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph, which I can't reconcile with what I read in the lead, concerning the Eisenhower dollar. On presentation, a few coin images will certainly brighten things up. I'd also suggest columnising the reflist. Otherwise neatly and professionally done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you. I think I've followed all of your suggestions. Sorry for my long neglect of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Lists List of Presidents of the Philippines I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to featured status. If you please, comment if you find anything that could be done to further improve this list. Thanks, — Mediran [talk] 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC) List of Cardiff City F.C. seasons I've worked on this article to improve it's standard in the hope of taking it up to a featured list in future hopefully. This is the first time I've nominated an article for this so all suggestions are very welcome Thanks, Kosack (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC) WikiProject peer-reviews WikiProject Military history: International Hat Company • Balfour Declaration • Corps of Army Air Defence (India) • Nelson Mandela • Gail Halvorsen • J. R. Kealoha