Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
Hello! First time sending an article to Peer review. I have been trying to upgrade this article for some time now, and would love to get some help.
A few things I'd love to get opinions on:
Lead. I don't know how to phrase the lead without it being too janky, I guess?
The development and character section. I feel like it's not really clear enough, but I have no idea how to fix it to make it clearer.
Reception. I don't know if it's because some sources are region-locked, but I haven't been able to find much sources, especially on reception. Also, I feel like it's messy.
But I'd appreciate any kind of help either way since it is a work in progress. Again, first time 😅
Thanks, Spinixster(chat!) 02:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggest expanding the lede to summarise/mention all sections in the article. See MOS:LEDE for more details.
The "Professional ratings" chart only has one entry. Try finding additional ratings/reviews at WP:A/S to add to this chart.
Personal credits needs a reference.
Any additional personal credits that can be added, like people playing instruments, co-producers or music editors/engineers?
The infobox says the song is "Cold Wave" but this is not mentioned in the body of the article, nor is it cited. I suggest that information about the song's genre is added to the article body (probably under background)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on what should/could be done to prepare the article for GAN then to a FA. Any comments would be appreciated.
Welcome to PR, SunriseInBrooklyn. Not sure if you've been here before, but we're glad to have you. Seeing as you are relatively new to the GA/FA processes, I will try to reminisce on my rookie days (not that long ago, if you're wondering) and make this as painless as possible.
File:Rodney Darkchild Jerkins (11149414586).jpg lacks tags on Commons.
Ditto with File:JanetJacksonUnbreakableTourSanFran2015 (cropped).jpg
If Never Say Never was released in 1998, why does the infobox say that "Angel in Disguise" was released in 1999?
"'Angel in Disguise' is a song recorded by American singer Brandy Norwood..." The "recorded" is superfluous here.
"...and produced by the former along with Norwood" It is unclear who "the former" refers to.
"...which became one of Norwood's most popular songs" This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article?
"...short-lived television series, Thea in 1993" The comma does not appear to be necessary.
"...Norwood began work on her self-titled debut album launched by Atlantic Records in 1994" Seeing as there has been a chronological jump, I would say: "...Norwood began work on her self-titled debut album, which was released by Atlantic Records in 1994"
"therefore" is a strange choice of wording; I would just remove it.
There is a space before the comma following LaShawn Daniels.
""And I love you baby".Never Say Never" Fix the spacing.
"...four minutes and forty-eight seconds (4:48)." No need for the numbers if you're just going to say it using words.
"By 1998, Never Say Never had been certified..." Why the past perfect tense?
"...BBC Music , was positive..." Fix the spacing.
The Track listings section is unsourced.
That is what I got from a quick skim of the article, specifically looking at the lead, infobox, Background and recording and Composition and lyrics sections. Evidently there are several issues with the article, especially in terms of readability. The sources are also quite sparce and of dubious reliability. Unfortunately I do not think this article is currently in shape for GA or FA; it is good that it was brought to PR for feedback. Good luck, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Unlimitedlead Yes, and I understand this article is currently not in shape for GA or FA yet, but did fixing that you mentioned. Sunrise In Brooklyn✉ 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, just checking. No rush at all; I just noticed that several of my comments had not yet been addressed. Take your time and good luck with writing this article. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on what should/could be done to prepare the article for FAC. Any comments would be appreciated.
Apologies in advance as I will be unable to do a full review of this article, but I believe this iteration of the character has received academic/scholarly coverage, and I do not see that represented in this article (unless I a missing it). I fully admit that I have not done any deep dive in this area, but have you looked on areas like Google Scholar for this kind of information? Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I haven't looked into that yet. I definitely will check it out to see if there's something to add. Thanks for bringing that up. -- ZooBlazertalk 04:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am glad that I could help. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to FAC in consideration of the bronze star. I have considerably expanded/rewritten this article and meticulously examined the available sources to craft the current prose. Any and all comments are very much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA states in time for Tsuburaya's 122 birthday. I've been working on the page for some time now and expect the lengthy information that has been added to the page to pass the well-written standard. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2023 (NZDT)
I suggest nominating this article at WP:GA first, as that is a step towards FA status and allows more thorough feedback. One comment after a quick skim: Multiple sections in the article are quite long, making the article less appealing to the reader. Try to removing unnecessary information or breaking up the article into more sections. Typically, I think the average section in an article should be 4 paragraphs. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, for your advice. Do you have any suggestions of what "unnecessary" info should be removed? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eiga-Kevin2: Remove any info that is not directly related to the person's life or the reader's understanding of this person. You can rely upon wikilinks to pick up some of the explanation if needed. Also, read through WP:REDEX to remove redundant words, and remove editorialised words (ex. in "In 1933, Tsuburaya saw the groundbreaking American film King Kong," remove groundbreaking). Hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pamzeis: This has been open for more than a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting to Wikiprojects attached to this article and reviewing other PRs. If not, can we close this? Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to upgrade the article status to a featured article, while the previous peer review was not as helpful as I wanted.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Howdy! I'm chiming in real quick based on my first impression on the lead.
Phrasings such as "while", "as well", "additionally" etc. are almost always bad wording. Try to minimise them as much as possible. To demonstrate, I present some crisper alternative wordings as follows,
"Lyrically, "NDA" speaks about Eilish's battles with fame and for privacy, as well as touching on her relationships." → Inspired by her relationships, "NDA" has lyrics about Eilish's struggle with fame and fight for privacy.
"The track's production and vocal performance were acclaimed, while its themes left some critics divided. Additionally, in some reviews, issues were taken with the song's lack of relatability or placement within Happier Than Ever." → Critics acclaimed the production and vocals, but some took issue with its themes and said it was a misplacement on Happier Than Ever's track list.
Passive voice is a no-go. Some examples to demonstrate this point better,
"The track's production and vocal performance were acclaimed" → Critics acclaimed the production and vocals
"issues were taken with the song's lack of relatability" → some took issue with its themes...
""NDA" was promoted by a self-directed music video," → Eilish self-directed the music video for "NDA", which...
"Similarly to the song, the visual also was dubbed as dark, eerie, and moody" → Critics said the video's atmosphere effectively accompanied the song's production and described it as dark...
@Ippantekina: Hi, thanks for those suggestions. I already applied them to the article, and I might start to re-write the article to make it better. It's definitely not the third time I'm going to do this haha. infsai (talkie? UwU) 16:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know prepping for FAs is daunting and the prose is a major criterion. I suggest taking a look at this piece of advice which helped me tremendously. All the best, Ippantekina (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's interesting and has a lot of room for improvement, I'm rewriting it and I'm interested in nominating it to GA or DYK. i haven't finished it yet, but there are a few points I'd like to get anyone's advice on:
Images. This should be the most troubling issue for me, and the only one I can think of is Tucker Carlson's Fox News which is available and useful (used by a Chinese media), but I'm afraid it's hard to do anything to the refugee crisis of 2015 or the pictures of Chinese netizens.
"Other sections". I'm only going to leave three big sections at the moment, Etymology, "Three Times Proliferation", and Similar Situations in Hong Kong (this one will probably be deleted), and I have to admit that I am inspired by the Covfefe, but I'm really bad at organizing (or at least the English wiki - although my past edits on the Chinese wiki weren't much better).
A further rewrite of the Trump situation. The current article is somewhat overly focused on conservative liberal reactions, but I haven't found a good academic source to analyze the specific ideas of nationalists.
The images in #Play overview are tiny (like a dwarf, y'know) and would benefit from being bigger
#Play overview is really long, taking up about 16% of the article. I think the article would benefit from focussing more on the out-of-universe stuff. I know this is a complex game, but this section probably needs a trim.
#Edition history is also super long. Does the reader really need all this when they can read the actual article about the editions if they're interested?
What is the structure for #Reception? If you hadn't read them already, WP:RECEPTION and User:Panini!/Copyediting Video Game Reception Sections (I know this isn't a video game, but... it still helps) can really help with this. Quotation usage should also be reduced 'cause they appears to take up more than 60% of the section
I'm surprised nothing is mentioned about how the alignment system is used outside of the game, as I've seen it come up a lot, even on WP.
"D&D also had a large impact on modern video games" — how so?
The last three paragraphs of #History of criticism seem to be a bit disorganised, and have a bit of fluff and trivia in them. They should probably be trimmed and read through to make sure everything is relevant and significant
Check the sources' reliability; some sources seem questionable, e.g. Geek Native, www.gametopiastudios.com, Nerdarchy and more (there are actually more but I'm too lazy to list them all)
Make sure all (known) parameters are filled in sources
Make sure the citation style is consistent; some are just a paragraph of text (e.g. "According to a 1999 survey in the United States, 6% of 12- to 35-year-olds have played role-playing games. Of those who play regularly, two thirds play D&D."), while others are formatted using {{cite web}}, etc.
Overall, I feel like this article needs some work to stay an FA. And I didn't even really read the article, lol, just skimmed through. I think FAR reviewers would find a lot more issues than me... so good luck with this! Pamzeis (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with all of these points, particularly the overuse of quotations. Beyond the copyright concerns, quotations can be an NPOV issue—they sound good but are often cherry-picked passages that may not summarize the entire source. Like sound bites, they have their place but should be used sparingly. Woodroar (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this up to Featured Article status. The article is a new GA that went through a fairly rigorous GA review, and I'd like to see what sorts of things need improvement before diving into the FA process. This would be my first FAC, so please feel free to provide general tips and/or point out any common mistakes in the article.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: This has been posted for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in getting comments? Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I suggest posting requests for people to review this at Wikiprojects attached to this article, or review other articles in the hopes that someone will return the favour and review yours. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to try and get it to Featured Article status. I put it up for this in 2020 and it was rejected, after which Mark83 and I collaborated in an effort to improve it to a standard where it could potentially be successful. We've now gone through this and I would like to give it another go, but it would probably be a good idea to get someone else's opinion on it before submitting it.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC. Just want to make sure I clean up any gremlins before heading there. Any suggestions/changes are more than welcome.
I'm honestly not entirely sure, but you could go into "Edit source" and blank it. There's probably some fancy way I don't know about. :) Spaceeditor123 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My name is Zac Bond and I work for Pure Storage. It appears 4 years ago a prior employee disclosed, made some minor edits, and requested larger ones on Talk, which were implemented by a volunteer. The tag alleging Terms of Use violations was added because of user AaronEndre's incomplete disclosure when he started the page 11 years ago. This page has been re-written since then, but the tag was left up due to neutrality/tone concerns.
It's possible I'm not summarizing correctly, but that's what I've gathered. In a nutshell, it appears the current page is still not considered neutral as a result of Talk page contributions from a former Pure Storage employee. I'd like your feedback on how I can fix that, where and how the page sounds promotional, and how for me to best assist. ZacBond (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Hi Z1720, sorry for taking a while to respond. Thank you for the feedback! Here is how it’s coming along:
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
Done I do have one question, though— do you think should I restore the citations which backed up the genre (quasi-documentary)? KH doesn’t get referred to as this throughout the rest of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
Done Not controversial at all; I’ve gone ahead and removed the excess citations. Also, quite a few of those sources appeared to be unreliable, so we’ve just killed two birds.
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
Working on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
Done I also merged a relatively short portion of Reception with Release. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any available info about how the film did at the box office when it was first released. The only numbers I found were those of the 2022 re-release. It seemed more appropriate to merge.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Done by Awkwafaba. Thank you; I was struggling to get the bot running.
If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.
Done Oh yeah! I’d forgotten all about TWL. I signed up and poked around for a bit, but sadly didn’t find anything. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I now have the time and willingness to take it through FAC once more and want to make sure the article remains in good shape.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for listing this article for reassessment. I'm not well-versed in the FAC assessment process so these are just general observations, but I hope they're helpful to you in some way:
The article is succinct and well-written. Some minor recommendations would be to include the genre of the game in the headline paragraph, and using signpost statements to have a clearer structure to paragraphs about the gameplay. Generally though, it reads very well.
References for the article are sufficient but on the light end. When you take into account the sources for Fortune Winds, the article has ten sources for the game itself overall. Further, the references are heavily reliant on the Eurogamer review of the game. There's not too much else out there, but you may find some additional sources at:
Reviews from minor outlets, such as [Seen], [Daily News].
Some links to references need cleanup, such as [this one].
More clarity could be provided around the provenance of the developer's name. The name 4Kids Games is unusual as the [site] doesn't use this name - only Levius'. It's also easily confused with distributor 4Kids Entertainment, who played a minor role in distributing some Xbox 360 games including Viva Pinata. [IGN] states 4Kids was a co-operation between talent from Levius' immediate network and Slovak development studio Games Distillery. I'm assuming it's just an unfortunate name and it was released under this entity as a developer. Does the game itself have a splash screen or credits from 4Kids to solve this mystery?
The citations need to specify more clearly what the source is. For example, reference 18 is currently:
"El Día (Madrid. 1916). 19/5/1919". Hemeroteca Digital. Biblioteca Nacional de España. 19 May 1919. p. 5. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.
But this doesn't really tell us that usefully what the source is. So instead, I would recommend this (there is no need for an access date for a newspaper source:
Martin Fernandez, A. (19 May 1919). "El "Arenas Club", de Bilbao, Campeon de España" [The "Arenas Club", from Bilbao, Champions of Spain]. El Día (in Spanish). Madrid. p. 5. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022 – via Hemeroteca Digital, Biblioteca Nacional de España.
All facts need citations to back them up. So, for example, the first paragraph of the Route to the final would need citations for the information provided.
I also can't see a source for the line-ups.
Opinions like those given in the first sentence of the match Summary"Barcelona used a more patient, technical style of play while Arenas relied on a brute-force method of reaching the opponent's goal. The latter's physical advantage and consequent endurance was a major influence on the result" need to have inline attribution. This can be as simple as: "According to Martin Fernandez, Barcelona used a more patient, technical.."
A bit of further context would be useful. How successful were the teams in the subsequent years? When was La Liga formed, and were the teams part of that?
The prose would also need some tidying prior to a FAC, but finer detail like that can be worked on after getting the structure right, I think. Harrias(he/him) •talk 18:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to attempt to get the article to at least C class so I Could possibly consider a GA. It's a game I quite enjoy and could definitely benefit from some work being done on it.
@Blaze Wolf: For starters, the Reception section could definitely stand to be more in-depth, and should ideally be made up of paragraphs individually summarizing responses to the gameplay, visuals, and audio, along with perhaps some other notable aspects. If a bunch of reviews say essentially the same thing about a particular aspect, a cluster of sources can be grouped together in an {{efn|}} template, and more specific observations by one or two reviewers should stand alongside that. Here are some examples to study so you can get an idea of what a Reception section should look like: one, two, three
As for the Gameplay section, I can safely assume there's no official instruction manual for this thing, so for sourcing the gameplay mechanics, you might have to use the game's reviews to verify the details. And for information on Development and Marketing/release, I'd suggest scrounging up any and all news, previews and press releases you can find. Hope this input was helpful. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate in the near future as a FAC. The article has been expanded and revised over the previous months and recently has received a thorough copyedit from WP:GUILD.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made a bunch of changes and expanded the article quite a bit. I would like some help with cleaning this article up a bit, get some nudges in the right direction, and get shown somethings I might have missed.
Ref 177: According to WP:RS/P, this is a deprecated source and should probably not be used. Y: Found a book on EU law and the history of areas like Clipperton so it's a much better source. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Jost, Christian H. (1 July 2005).", "Jost, Christian H. ", "Pitman, R.L.; Jehl, J.R. (1998).", "Skaggs, Jimmy (1989)." and "Tamburini, Francesco (2008)." are listed as sources, but do not have any inline citations pointing to them. Either they need to be used as inline citations, or if they already are the sfnp template needs to be fixed. Y: I forgot all about this clean up task. Went though and all but one of them weren't being used in the article so they were removed. Going to go back over the rest of the sources in the list and just get rid of it as they're not highlighting anything important are are just a hangover from the import from the French version. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 00:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Aside from the lagoon and water caught from rain, no freshwater sources are known to exist." needs a citation Y: Good catch, went back and added the two best sources that explain this. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 20:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:LEDECITE, citations are usually not needed in the lede as the information is in the article body.
There's a lot of information in the history section. Is it all needed? Anything that can be removed as insignificant events, or reduced down? Try to merge one-sentence paragraphs.
Per WP:GALLERY, the photos and media section probably should not be there.
The first line on the main page of WP:PR says an editor can ask for a review even while working on an article. The current stage of the ongoing expansion should give an idea of the direction that this article is taking. Comments and suggestions in relation to any aspect of the article are welcome, including major reshuffles of sections and headers, and improving usage of the maplink template. It is still far from featured article status and I don't think the coverage is even adequate in that aspect.
Thanks, FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have the article eventually considered for GA status. I have made substantial updates to the entire article and would appreciate feedback on any and all areas.
After taking a quick skim of the article, I think it is ready for GAN. My only concern is that the lede is quite short and I think another paragraph should be added to give other details about her, like her marriages and depiction in literature and art. Z1720 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long time since I've listed a PR but I think it's warranted in this case. I successfully took this article to MilHist A-Class some time ago but since then I've added further detail and re-organised somewhat the History section, with a view to finally taking it to FAC. The challenge with this entity is that although there's a wealth of relevant data around, there’s no comparable detailed history that I'm aware of (although it does at least score a brief entry in the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History). Given the Air Board essentially ran the RAAF between 1921 and 1976, a highly detailed history would amount to a de facto history of the service for that period, so I've tried to restrict the information to origins, purpose, changes in composition, major or representative decisions, and dissolution, as well as highlighting those times (inevitably during international conflict) when the Air Board did not exercise complete control of its assets. I'd like input from experts and non-experts alike on how successfully it fulfils that goal, and of course anything else that strikes the reader. The subject might sound a little dry but if you're into professional rivalries and inter-departmental intrigue, you should find enough to keep you interested on those scores alone... ;-) Thanks in advance! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I've listed this article because I'm a newbie and want to make sure my work has been worth it. I wanna get this page to featured-level quality eventually
Especially uncertain of:
Formatting refs, especially those in other languages
Quality of current refs, especially Monthly Chosun Ilbo refs. I think I need more peer reviewed print book sources, but they're usually unavailable as ebooks and unavailable for print in the US :(
If copyright on current images looks fine
Minor confusion on:
Level of detail so far
If I should split any sections into separate articles
Some FYIs:
Still WIP, missing 1945-1949 bio, expanding death/legacy section, also second pass on early life section
I haven't gotten around to cleaning up ref info yet, but I do appreciate suggestions on how I should do it (or best of all, help doing it 🙌🏻)
Grateful for detailed feedback or help editing. I've already put around 1.5 months of time into it but feel like there's still months of effort left.
I suggest bringing this article to WP:GAN before going for WP:FAC, as that process is a lot easier. Some comments after a quick skim:
Ensure that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
Bibliography section should be below the references.
Delete the selected quote section, it is not needed and can be transferred to Wikiquote
Personal life should be placed before death to keep the timeline.
Formatting of references is a little wonky, as you point out. WP:CS has information about this, and I highly recommend using the templates (as they contain the information that you need and will format everything for you.)
Images need to have a US public domain tag, in addition to the South Korean ones. See this link for more information] on which banner you should add to the images.
For splitting sections, typically for bios you don't need to split off, but if there is information about an event you might create a separate article for that event. This article should only document what this person has done and avoid extra information.
Rosée is a slightly ephemeral figure in London history. He lived in London between 1651 and 1658 and little is known about him outside those dates. Not too much is really known about him inside those dates either, except that he opened a coffee shop. It was the first one in London, and probably in Britain, and we've not looked back since. A trip to FAC is considered at some point in the future. SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw this in draft, and was very happy with it then. Nothing much leaps out at me on a further perusal.
I think in the lead I might tinker with the punctuation to help the reader's eye along: in "Christopher "Kitt" Bowman, a freeman of the City, join Rosée..." I'd change the commas into parenthetic dashes.(In the main text at the same point the commas are fine.)
"left London for a misdemeanour" − perhaps "as a result of" or some such?
"While Edwards's servants prepared his food, Rosée prepared his coffee" − We are verging on "While the Bishop preached the sermon the Dean read the lesson" territory here. I might turn "while" into "although" or similar.
That's my lot, except to mention the resonant phrase, "the first coffee house opened in London ... the taste, it's thought, was unspeakable, but people liked the effect it had..." (from BBC's In Our Time (here). A pleasing line, though not necessarily for mention in the article.
Tim riley, apologies for not healing with this more promptly: sheer foolishness on my part in that I hadn't watchlisted the page when I opened the PR! (And I was just about to drop you a line asking if you could open the batting for it too) Is there still an issue with the Klemperer PR? If so, point me in the general direction and I'll have a look. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently made large additions to this article, mostly relating to it's history in sugar mills and plantations. Due to the small amount of people involved in this topic, I was unable to get an impartial review from WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda, or WikiProject Caribbean.
The lede is quite short. I suggest expanding upon it to include all major parts of the article.
The prose of the History section is very disorganised, promotional in nature, and too long. I suggest reading featured articles on similar topics like Hamilton, Ontario or Weymouth, Dorset to see how geography articles can be written in Wikivoice
Ensure that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (currently no citations in the Education and Geography sections)
I've listed this article for peer review because it may need significant improvements before nominating it as a FAC. As Raymond was a controversial figure just before the crusaders' catastophic defeat at Hattin by Saladin, I think neutrality can be a potential problem. Thank you for your time.
A first perusal reveals a mixture of English and American spellings. Among the former are defence (twice), neighbouring, organise and rumours, and among the latter, advisor (twice), defenseless, favor (twice) and jewelry. Before going to FAC you need to standardise on one or the other: either is fine, but a mixture is not. The above are the spellings I spotted, but I recommend you check the whole text for other inconsistencies. I'm sure I don't need to add that my comments refer only to the main text, and that quotations should remain in the original spellings whether BrE or AmE.
I noticed a large number of "however"s in the text – fourteen, I think (two in one paragraph). The word is seldom necessary, and often impedes the flow of the prose. I suggest you remove as many as you can. For instance, in "the enemy forces, however, seriously outnumbered their retinue" and "His praise was tempered with criticism, however", the howevers add nothing of value and would be better removed. There are even more "also"s in the text, and a fair few of them could advantageously be removed.
You mention your concern about neutrality. I got no impression that it was a problem on my first read-through, but will reread and comment further. Tim riley talk 12:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a second reading I can still detect no sign of bias, and to my mind the article appears impeccably neutral. It seemed a trifle long, and if it is possible to trim it a little that would be a good thing, I think, though I know how hard it is to prune one's own prose. Other reviewers may have thoughts on this point. That apart, I can't think of any suggestions for improving the article, which strikes me as pretty much ready for FAC. – Tim riley talk 16:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your review. I hope I could address most problems you raised above. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has the potential to be an FA-class article. I would like some comments on where it can improve before I submit it for FAC.
Unclear sentence: "Tantalum's heavier analogue was later found to be the transuranic element dubnium – which, however, does not react like tantalum, but like protactinium."
Dmitri Mendeleev's 1871 periodic table should be bigger so we can read Th and U.
Physical properties: there is a comparison, but no values given in the text. Most values are in the infobox, but not all. Please add the numeric values of properties to text. Especially since the infobox is mostly devoid of references, it is important to have text with references.
Please use chem2 and not chem template.
Poor English usage in "allows to improve" and "allowed to reconstruct"
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it back to FA and it has undergone a vast amount of work between its delisting and my arrival, so I would like a road map as to what needs to be done.
Article looks good for GA, and I've almost no experience with FA, so I hope my comments would be useful.
A prominent result of this is the Great Red Spot, a giant storm which has been observed since at least 1831. - "prominent" and "at least" look strange in the lead
Callisto is the second largest; Io and Europa are approximately the size of Earth's moon. - the Moon could be linked here
There are several problems with the grand tack hypothesis. - reads a bit strange, though maybe it's ok
Jupiter's departure from the inner solar system - "Jupiter's departure" - can it be paraphrased?
The average density of Jupiter, 1.326 g/cm3, is about the same as simple syrup (syrup USP),[37] - the comparison should help, but for me it's very confusing. Is "simple syrup" a common term known to everyone? If not, better no comparison than bad comparison.
Does my comments have any sense? I can continue, so please tell me if you find it useful. Artem.G (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the Light We Cannot See is a war novel that was commercially and critically successful, won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and is currently being adapted to Netflix. This article passed a WP:GA nomination and a WP:DYK nomination a few days ago. I plan on nominating this article for WP:FA soon in preparation for a WP:TFA for either the release of the adaptation or the tenth anniversary of this novel, whichever one is sooner when the candidacy succeeds. Any suggestion would be helpful.
The sources here are pretty much all media sources - there do appear to be some academic publications, eg, that could be considered for inclusion
It would be helpful to provide a bit more contextualization in terms of the author's biography - for example, how this fits into his oeuvre, whether this was his first or fiftieth book, whether he typically wrote historical fiction, etc
It appears the work has been translated - that would be worth discussing
"Although applauding Doerr's attention to detail, Carmen Callil writing for The Guardian considered the novel too long and the dialogue too American; though she forgave Doerr for these" - suggest reorganizing this sentence for clarity, and any idea what is meant by "too American" here? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article that I created has two requests for improvement tags at the top placed there by others, and I'm looking for third-party evaluations to see if any such problems remain. These two tags currently in place are:
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (February 2023)
This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (February 2023)
Of course, any other ideas for improvements would be much appreciated as well.
Update: another editor removed the encyclopedic tone cleanup tag, so that the cleanup tag of "undue weight to certain ideas" is the concern remaining in place. Of course, all improvements with a peer review much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article failed the last GA review. The main flaws pointed out by the reviewer were that "the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV)". I've made various changes to the article in an attempt to address these problems. I wanted to get some feedback before I renominate it, specifically on the following points. (1) Have these two problems been solved? (2) Are there other problems that should be addressed before a renomination?
I've listed this article for peer review because I finally feel confident in the page after nearly a month of gradually improving it from when I originally published, and would like to see what else needs to be added/fixed/changed. The article is GA status now, but I would love to see it become a Featured Article, so any and all feedback is welcome 🙂 Thanks! Johnson524 (Talk!) 07:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Johnson524, I just have a one quick note, below. I also made a few minor edits that I was confident in, feel free to let me know if I made a mistake in any of them!
In the sentence "This was not always the case though, as findings from a survey taken between 1948 and 1950 showed the juvenile population in the prison and the nation as a whole decreasing", is the end saying that there were fewer juveniles in the nation overall, or that there there were fewer juveniles in prisons across the nation overall? I suspect it means the latter but when I initially read it it sounded like the former, and I'm not very confident in my interpretation. Assuming that it means fewer in prisons only, not in total, I think something along the lines of "the juvenile population in Mandera in particular, and the national prison system overall, was decreasing" would be clearer.
skyvine 🏳️⚧️ (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Skyvine, and thank you so much for your reply! Your edits look great, and I've gone ahead and implemented the one you discussed above. Cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare for a FLC nomination in the future. The list was forked from Nathan Chen to reduce size of the main article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this a featured list. Specifically, I would like some guidance with the lead and any suggestions for adding/removing columns. Also, I was wondering if my referencing is adequate. If not, what should I do to improve it.
Hi, I've been working with GPT-4 as a reviewing assistant. I asked it: "This is the lede of a Wikipedia article titled "List of medical schools in the United States". What can you suggest adding to make it more comprehensive, encyclopedic, and engaging?"
"To make the lede more comprehensive, encyclopedic, and engaging, you can consider adding the following information:
Briefly discuss the history and development of medical education in the United States.
Mention the variety of programs and specializations offered by medical schools in the United States, such as research-based programs, primary care-focused programs, or dual-degree programs (e.g., MD/PhD or MD/MPH).
Include information on the application and admission process for medical schools in the United States, highlighting the competitive nature of medical school admissions.
Discuss the role of medical schools in shaping the healthcare workforce and their impact on the US healthcare system.
Note any recent trends or developments in medical education, such as an increased focus on diversity and inclusion or the integration of technology and telemedicine into curricula. Here's an updated version of the lede incorporating these suggestions:
"This list of medical schools in the United States includes current and developing academic institutions that award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) or the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degrees, either of which is required for comprehensive practice as a physician in the United States. MD-granting medical schools are accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, while DO-granting medical schools are accredited by the American Osteopathic Association Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation. There are currently 158 accredited MD-granting institutions[1] and 37 accredited DO-granting institutions in the United States.[2]
Medical education in the United States has evolved since its inception in the 18th century, and today, medical schools offer a variety of programs and specializations, such as research-based programs, primary care-focused programs, or dual-degree programs (e.g., MD/PhD or MD/MPH). The application and admission process for medical schools in the United States is highly competitive, often requiring strong academic performance, standardized test scores, and relevant experiences.
Medical schools play a significant role in shaping the healthcare workforce and impact the US healthcare system. In recent years, there has been an increased focus on diversity and inclusion in medical education, as well as the integration of technology and telemedicine into curricula to better prepare future physicians for the evolving landscape of healthcare.
Although Delaware, Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming are the only states that lack independent medical schools, Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming are served by the University of Washington School of Medicine through the WWAMI Regional Medical Education Program. Maine and Idaho are served exclusively by one DO-granting school apiece. New York has the most medical schools at 17.
The landscape of medical schools in the United States continues to evolve to meet the changing needs of the healthcare system and to address emerging challenges such as physician shortages and the demand for more specialized medical professionals. As medical education adapts to these ongoing developments, the list of medical schools in the United States will continue to expand and diversify to meet the country's healthcare needs."
I have no personal opinion about validity or worth of these chatbot suggestions; let me know if they were useful for helping you improve the article. Esculenta (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I greatly expanded this article a year ago now, almost entirely by translating it from the it.wiki equivalent I personally wrote. I would like to propose it as a candidate for FA status, but before a FAN it is certainly better to hear how it can be improved. Note: I am not a native English speaker, so any advice on prose, grammar, syntax or exposition is especially welcome. Thanks, TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conception:
There seems to be a clash between the Sadamoto concept art and the quote.
Remember to wikilink in the first paragraph of the body
Explain what is Nadia
Is there a translation to what does Kikakusho means?
I would move the image to the first mention of Sadamoto since he is the one made them.
Characters:
Since Shinji and others have their own articles, I would suggest trimming these sections
Remember to reference voices or change them to prose.
The one story characters from a single game or other project might not be needed here.
Reception
The quote from popularity seems kinda random and a bit of undue weight that could parahrased.
I would recommend giving each paragraph each own main topic to make them stand out. Maybe one paragraph could be a general approach, another could be Sadamoto's designs, another could be psycholgycal approach.
BTW, I am also having a peer review here for a movie that I'm sure you have seen its related articles. So I'd appreciate any related feedback. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'm currently workin' on them.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because, I've been working on it for some time and I think it might be a good candidate for a featured list. The FL process recommended peer review.
Hi, I'm investigating using GPT-4 for ChatGPT-assisted article reviews. After feeding the lede of this article for analysis (haven't figured out how to get it to read the tables yet), I asked it: "Can you suggest any information that should be added?"
"The current lede provides a good overview of the Nansen Refugee Award, its purpose, history, and the prize associated with it. To make it more comprehensive, consider adding the following information:
Mention the nomination and selection process for the award.
Briefly discuss some notable laureates or organizations that have received the award over the years and their contributions to the cause.
Include any significant changes or developments in the award's history or presentation over time, if any."
Let me know if that was at all useful. Esculenta (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Done
Working on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.