Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I thought the DYK nom might give a sort of review (I'd like to take the article to GAN), but it didn't.
Thanks, Mach61 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get the film to Featured status due to its relatively short and simple structure compared to my other failed nominations. Having a more seasoned editor to look this over for anything that might be problematic with prose or sources would be extreamly helpful in getting this passed.
There are passages in the article that lack an inline citation. The paragraph beginning with "In June 1927, producer Pat Powers" ends with a citation needed tag. I see a few paragraphs ending without an inline citation; outside of the lead (which summarizes cited content) and the "Plot" section (where the work itself can be presumed to be the source), most reviewers will expect each paragraph or section to end with an inline citation verifying the content. A other bits that I checked like "The music in the final soundtrack was performed by the Green Brothers Novelty Band and was conducted by Carl Edouarde." don't appear to be in the next cited source. The Broadway Theater caption should either be cited or (probably better) the Broadway=Colony explanation could be moved to the article's body plus cited. I would suggest either adding inline citations for the uncited portions of the article (outside of Plot and the lead) or if they're already used somewhere in the article reusing them. This is often the first thing checked at GA. In progressDavest3r08>:)(talk) 11:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:MickeyAngry.jpg was not published in 1928, and is likely not in the public domain. It shouldn't be used.
The text added in this diff [1] needs to be removed or rephrased. It was and nearly is[2] a direct quote from the LA Times.[3]Already doneDavest3r08>:)(talk) 15:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a couple one-paragraph sections, and many one-sentence paragraphs. This makes the prose come off choppy to me. Possible solutions are working them into larger bits, expanding them, or omitting them.
Most book sources have either pages or sections cited. The four below are cited to the entire books. Is it possible to add pages or sections to these references:
The Musical Comedy Films of Grigorii Aleksandrov
The New Illustrated Treasury of Disney Songs
Walt Disney (1994)
The 50 Greatest Cartoons: As Selected by 1,000 Animation Professionals
I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to get it ready for an FAC nomination. I'm just wondering what should be done since I have no experience with FAC yet. I do know that a themes and analysis section should be added, as well as italicizing titles in the refs. Beyond that I'm not sure.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created this page a while ago. I want to improve this to GA. The immediate issue I can see is the reception section is quite small which I plan on working so I was wondering if any other improvements could be made before my nomination.
Good to see you, OlifanofmrTennant! This article looks pretty interesting, and I know you've been super on top of those Arrowverse topics; I'll be around to contribute some comments soon. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey OlifanofmrTennant, I realized only once I came back from my wikibreak last week that I forgot to leave a message on this PR; sorry about that! I've actually been drafting some comments over the last couple of days, which I should have done either today or tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a very significant anniversary coming up, and I am wondering just how much more would be expected of it to be a featured article - the biggest possible goal being on the front page for its 20th anniversary. One of my projects I got promoted fresh out of high school and into college, I remember adopting this nomination as a drive-by who needed guidance, and pushed it the rest of the way there; I didn't write most of this, just polished it at the time.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did some citation clean-up before making this comment; I haven't looked at the prose.
#48 (Greenday.fm – a Green Day fansite) – needs better source
#81 (GNR Daily – a Guns N' Roses fansite) – needs better source
#90 (Stacker) – what makes this reliable?
#91 (Popdose) – what makes this reliable?
#112 (BuzzJack) – I see this copies its info from Music Week; you'll need to replace it with the appropriate MW link
#131 (Monsters and Critics) – what makes this reliable?
See, this one really sucks because the quote there is kinda important.
#135 (Virgin Radio Italy) – cites a video, which doesn't look like it was archived; needs replacing
#137 (Twitter fan account) – needs better source
#145 (Facebook) – I'm aware of WP:SOCIALMEDIA, but is there coverage of this post available?
#146 (Facebook) – see above
In external links, are the three fansites and The Internet Music Database links necessary? Otherwise, that's all I have on the sources. MusicforthePeople (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually put it forward as a featured article candidate. There are lots of sources on Stephenson, covering her career as a comedian, psychologist, writer, actress, food safety campaigner, and parliamentary candidate representing the Blancmange Throwers Party. Does the article have the right balance of coverage of these? Thanks in advance for any improvement suggestions.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: This has been open over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to take a look at this article -- will aim to give some feedback this weekend. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Yes, sorry about the slowness! I've had a quick look at the article but still need to pull together some comments. Will aim to do so over the next few days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @BennyOnTheLoose: -- sitting down to finish my comments at long last.
You asked about the balance of coverage. In terms of personal curiosity (as a reader), I wish there was a little more content about her psychology and political activism work -- those sections are interesting, but sparse. But you probably know the source material pretty well at this point. If her career as a performer has simply gotten the most coverage, it's fair to have a larger focus on that throughout the article.
Her sexual advice column in The Guardian (15+ years) seems like a publicly prominent part of her psychology career -- maybe it deserves inclusion in the lead?
"Media scholar Leon Hunt suggested that one scene, where she played a nurse who has a live hand grenade retrieved from inside her blouse by one of the leads, epitomises the programme." --> Is this sentence referring to The Professionals, or another show? The way it starts a new paragraph by itself is a little confusing (not sure what it's describing).
In "Performing career": there is an awkward jump from "1980s and 1990s" to "2010s and 2020s". Did Stephenson not perform at all between 1993 and 2010? If she took a complete hiatus from performing during that time, it may be helpful to include a brief mention of her transition to psychology at the end of the "1980s and 1990s" section.
I'm certain FAC reviewers will be able to offer more suggestions for improvement, but this article seems like it has a solid foundation to me. It reads well overall, and it feels like it offers insight into the different key aspects of her life. Best of luck with it! I'm going to raise this peer review again with other WiG members tomorrow to see if anyone else would like to add comments. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of the few GAs I've worked on that was nominated for that by someone else, therefore I didn't put it up for PR first like I usually prefer to do.
We have slightly more than a year till the 10th anniversary of this accident, the deadliest in the history of Metro-North Railroad, and I think this could be an FA in time to run on the Main Page the day of that anniversary. So I will be listing it in that sidebar as well.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I worked hard on it, exhausted all online resources I could find and would like to know what other people think. Any advice on what else can be done and where else to look for sources would be appreciated. I'd also like to hear feedback on what class it falls under.
@Eric Schucht: From a quick skim, I can see a few things that you might want to improve:
"Steve Hungerford is a Nebraska-native". (from the Origins section) Does that mean that he was born in Nebraska? Or has he lived in Nebraska his whole life, etc.?
The beginning of the Origins section might be better worded as "Country Media, Inc. was founded by Steve Hungerford, a Nebraska-native, who earned his bachelor's degree..."
In the sentence "soon after the newly-formed company based in Scottsbluff, Nebraska purchased 18 weekly newspapers" there should be a comma after the "soon after". It would also be nice to know how soon after.
"Included in the sale were South Dakota newspapers based in Sturgis, Deadwood, Newell, Lemmon and Belle Fourche; North Dakota newspapers based in Hettinger, Langdon, Killdeer[.]" It should be worded to "Included in the sale were South Dakota newspapers based in Sturgis, Deadwood, Newell, Lemmon and Belle Fourche; and North Dakota newspapers based in Hettinger, Langdon, Killdeer..."
I was a bit confused by the sentence that read "A little over a year later the company acquired The Headlight Herald in Tillamook and The News Guard in Lincoln City in April 2007." Were both newspapers purchased in April 2007? Because if so, then saying "a little over a year later" from October 2006 would be incorrect, as April 2007 isn't even a year later. If only The News Guard was purchased in April 2007, then it probably should be placed as a separate sentence.
"That same year in October, Country Media purchased the Seaside Signal." This probably should be changed to something specifying specifically what year.
Would it be possible to add an image?
"left is job" Should be "his job"
I looked at the WP:LIBRARY and could not find any sources for this article. I also checked Google Books and the only thing that I could find was this [4], which I doubt has any significance since it refers to the company as Mosley v. Low Country Media, Inc.
"Its closure marked the end of County Media's business operations in the midwest." There's no citation connecting to this statement. Does that mean that Country Media is no longer going to ever operate in the midwest? Or is it just closed for now?
Again, this was after a very quick skim and it would be helpful if anyone else would add anything. Cheers~ Relativity 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more thing; I'm seeing duplicate links for EO Media Group, Seaside Signal, The Umpqua Post, and Lee Enterprises in the Oregon/California business operations section. You only need to link these once each. Relativity 22:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I have re-written the article as you suggested for the most part. I left in the phrase Nebraska-native as that's how it's written in the original source. The term is used to describe someone who grew up in Nebraska or who spent much of their youth there, but not necessarily born there. So I think it's fine as is. I don't know what to do about images and don't know how to use User:InternetArchiveBot, but I have gone ahead and archived as much of the sources as I can on the Internet Archive. Eric Schucht (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like a peer review of this article because I plan to include it in a future good/featured topic. Thanks, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 19:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and thanks for writing this article. I may have used some strong language in my editorial comments but please trust that I respect and want this article to improve.
Summary: this is a long way from GA in nearly every category
"From 2007 to 2010, Brichter founded his own company, Atebits, in 2007, and released a small drawing app for Mac known as Scribbles." How many employees? Did it make money?
" In 2009, he was the recipient of the Apple Designer of Year award" why? was the a monetary prize for this?
"During this time, he sold Tweetie along with his whole company in 2010" this is a horrible sentence
What is the target market for Letterpress? Why did he decide to make this?
The split of information between this section and the subsequent ones is confusing. I would just divide his work by company
Yet again information from the Tweetie section is mixed in here. If you don't keep information in its proper section it gives the reader too many questions.
"Although Letterpress is one of Brichter's more recent creations,[3] he only managed to get to work on after he left Twitter." This is a terrible sentence. It is 2012 so its only more recent in the sense that it happened after the others. What notable thing are you really trying to convey here.
"Brichter, Loren (April 21, 2016). "Email Interview with Loren Brichter" (Interview). Interviewed by Samantha Lee; Sijia Zhang; Jenna Choo." Where can I find this source?
I didn't write this article, but thank you for your advice. I need all the constructive criticism I can get. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate for GA review soon. Feedback of any type is welcome. A few places where I'd like to get outside input are: [a] Some licenses/cases have the primary source cited as well; does that help others with verification, or should I just omit those? [b] Are there places where I've over-explained anything? [c] And are there places where a deeper explanation is needed.
I've submitted this article for peer review in response to feedback from an editor who identified certain issues. I've made enhancements to address those concerns, and I welcome any further suggestions for improvement.
@RN.IN: The article currently has two concerns listed in the orange banner at the top of the page. Have these been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Yes, the necessary edits and improvements have been made to the article to ensure accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your attention! RN (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were you the editor mentioned as having the close connection? If not, since the issues have been resolved can you remove the orange banners? Z1720 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure! I've taken care of removing the banner. I wasn't the editor mentioned, but I'm glad the issues have been sorted out. RN (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring this article to GA status in the near future. This article has already appeared as DYK in October this year so I believe it can be further improved to become a GA.
In addition I'd like to ask the reviewer to check whether source 16 satisfies WP:SPS. A previous source I used was a slight point of disagreement during the DYK process (see [[5]]) but then I changed it and the promoting admin decided to WP:IAR. I want to ask whether this source may interfere with the GA process.
Considering that source 16 is a non-English source, it might be difficult to find someone who can check this. I suggest that you seek out someone who speaks the language, perhaps from a Wikiproject from that language's country.
"Criticism" sections are not used anymore because it implies a POV of negativity. Instead, I suggest renaming this as "Reception" and include all commentary about the subject, no matter how positive or negative it is.
Retitled. I'll check if there are reports for positive reception later on. S5A-0043Talk 07:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm surprised at how few sources there are. Consider finding more sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, DOAJ.org, or your local library system.
I'll try to look for more, but Chinese media isn't exactly that much of a source machine & also since I'm not in Shanghai right now (and I'll probably not return in the near future) it might be slightly tough. Nonetheless, I'll try. S5A-0043Talk 07:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review since I would like to take a stab at bringing it to FAC early next year (think Jan/Feb tentatively). Any feedback for improvements are appreciated :) Thanks, Sohom (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sohom Datta: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still interested in recieving feedback :)
@RoySmith Would it be possible for you to take a look at this article and provide some/any pointers wrt to any further improvements I can make ? (Asking since you reviewed this article for a GA as well) :) Sohom (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, I think it would be better if somebody else took a look. The kind of things I pointed out in my GA review are pretty much the same kinds of things I would point out in a FA review, so getting input from another set of eyes is really what you want. RoySmith(talk) 14:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why, hello there, Sohom Datta! :) Now here's that interesting peer review I've been looking for. Keep in mind that I have very little expertise in the web design and security areas, but hopefully I can provide a bit of perspective as an outsider looking in. Citation numbers from this revision.
Is it industry standard to write the term "XS-Leaks" with a capital L?
Why are "CSS attributes" and "HTTP Cache" piped the way they are? CSS can just be linked normally, and it's not implausible that a layperson may not know what HTTP is, so I would just leave the second one at "Web cache".
The lead is a little too brief to accurately summarize the prose, in my opinion. I absolutely understand that you want to keep the technical language to a minimum in this section, but not at the expense of abstracting away important information. For example, the types of attacks that can cause a leak are not mentioned at all.
To isolate different web applications..." What does "isolate" mean in this context?
There's inconsistent usage of "web application" and "web app" throughout the article. As you may have guessed by the colors, I would go with the former.
In § Mechanism: "URL" is linked on the third appearance of the word. However, linking on the first appearance will require a slight rephrase again per SEAOFBLUE.
Also, there's no reason to give this statement an expiration date; why not just say that they've been known since 2000?
This section has a lot of statements that go "researchers published an article in year " that are then cited to the article in question. The reader doesn't need to know about how the information was published, just that the information exists. I would rephrase these statements so that they more broadly describe the development of knowledge in the field.
Un-italicize "Sudhodanan et al." and the like; the italics make it look like the researchers are the title of a work.
Ctrl+F for as of phrases and replace them with {{As of}}, throughout the article.
Link "APIs". I'd also prefer a brief explanation of what they are, as I'm sure they're an important piece of the puzzle with these kinds of attacks.
Link "Google Chrome".
HTTP Cache → HTTP cache, in multiple places.
What's "multi-keying"?
I would restrict the use of code blocks only to text that actually appears in the source code somewhere, so the "example websites" should be italicized instead. Also, what's preventing us from using a phrase like "victim application" or "victim website" here instead?
I would append |30em to the {{reflist}} and {{refbegin}} templates so that the sources are rendered in consistent columns.
Someone has to say it, but the sources need to be sorted in alphabetical order by last name.
I've listed this article for peer review because of its planned featured article candidacy (FAN). This is my first peer review submission and any comments to improve the article are appreciated.
Still got this on my to-do list, but it is getting a little busy for me right now, so it may take until Thanksgiving weekend to get some detailed comments in. So sorry for the wait. I'll try to get them in when I can. The Night Watch(talk) 23:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are the notes that I've got so far:
The sourcing is from reliable sources as far as I can see, and is likely good enough to hold up during a source review. There are some minor inconsistencies with the citations (some publications with Wikipedia articles are blue linked, while a few others like Destructoid and one of the OpenCritic citations are not) but overall the sourcing is in good shape and will pass unless the spot-checks find anything.
Troy Leavitt is mentioned as the lead designer twice, I think you only need to mention his role in development once. Done
The section about Rowling’s viewpoints and the boycott appears appropriately neutral. Though some FA reviewers may have different opinions, balancing this section would not have been an easy feat, and I’m impressed you were able to do so.
I think the section about arachnophobia is more suited to release, as it is not very relevant to how the game is played, and moreso something added after release. Done
The biggest hurdle that I can see is getting the prose up to scratch. That'll be hard considering this is a big 123K byte article, but it is in good shape already and can get to "engaging quality" with some work. I'll try to make some copyedits to help some sections, though I’m not the strongest copyeditor and some FA reviewers might be able to give some better advice. Some essays that helped me a bit with copyediting are WP:REDEX, User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, and WP:ELEVAR
There are some scare quotes in critical response that could be paraphrased to make the section flow better (Happened to me the first time, took a little bit of time to fix)
No worries about delays, I am glad someone is providing input. I will look into the things you stated so far. I assumed the recent GOCE visit was sufficient, but maybe the FAC process will bring up more to improve the prose. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vestigium Leonis I've taken another look and I can't really detect any major problems beyond the ones that I listed above. It may be a result of me having looked over this article several times in the GA review beforehand, but I think more meaningful feedback may come from another user involved in WP:VG who hasn't reviewed this article yet. As such, I would either seek out other users on their talk pages for feedback, or go on ahead to FAC and see what happens. Fair warning there are already two video games over at FAC, so feedback may or may not be timely. Though I will postpone the current FAC that I had planned so that you can submit this one for review should you wish. The Night Watch(talk) 03:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article's already achieved GA status, but I'm curious as to how close it is/how much work it might need for FAC and would appreciate any feedback. TheKip 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I'm hoping to take to FAC sometime in the future (when that may be, I am not sure...). I have previously taken the article to GOCE for copyediting, with thanks to Miniapolis for their assistance in completion of that process. Any help/improvements to get it nearer that FAC request would be greatly appreciated – no rush, especially if other PRs take primacy. With thanks, Craig(talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been working on this article for over a year now, and I believe it is well-cited, has the necessary content, and needs an outside perspective/review. This term came up in a course I was teaching a few years ago, and got me interested in the history and origin of the subdisciplines within geography (specifically, the overlap of terms like GIScience, geomatics, geoinformatics, etc.). As a graduate student, diving deep into the history of geography has been a fun exercise in my literature review skills, as the competing terms within geography are hard to untangle.
Copy-editing, suggestions on format, content suggestions, etc. are appreciated!
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit this article WP:FAC. Last year Tcr25 and I worked to bring this article up to WP:GA status. More improvements have been made and I'm looking for an extra set of eyes to help elevate this article.
The mention of "eroded coral heads" in Lagoon has no context, it has not been explained what coral heads are, why they are eroded, and what they are doing in the Lagoon. I'm curious as to why coral heads are worth mentioning instead of a simple shallow bottom, are they quite substantial?
Some tense fixes might be in order in the crab vegetation section, "is virtually a sandy desert" seems to contradict later info suggesting the grass has expanded following rat introduction.
"The population of sharks in the waters around the island was noted to have increased in both density and size of individuals in a 2019 expedition" compared to when?
The paragraph about The Sea Around Us estimates notes the estimate includes illegal fishing, but does not note what the legal fishing is (implicitly legal and taxable per that paragraph).
Anything about the 1999/2000 fishing wrecks that could also be included in Environmental threats?
Similarly, surprised there is not more information about rats and potential interactions with nesting seabirds. There is a small mention in Fauna & Flora (perhaps it should be shifted?), but it focuses mainly on vegetation without mentioning specific impacts on birds.
The Politics section notes a shift of jurisdiction from French Polynesia to the national government in 2007, but no context before that (although the lead does mention it was initially under Tahiti, so my assumption from that is it was the responsibility of French Polynesia since that point). It is probably also worth explaining whether the area was part of Tahiti/French Polynesia, as implied by the History section on its annexation, or merely administered by it, and if it was, at what point it became not part of French Polynesia (2007?) and why. The history section mentions a 1981ish shift as well, unclear how these all connect.
Similarly, the "La Passion–Clipperton" name is mentioned without coverage of the previous (standard?) name of île de Clipperton.
I am personally cautious of the widespread description of Clipperton Island as "private property"; it has always seemed a somewhat misplaced interpretation of 'directly under the French government' or similar that has spread unchecked online. State land is not usually described as private property, and I've not seen anything explaining why Clipperton is different. (Aside, if you have a quote from the Murray 2012 chapter, I'd appreciate it on personal interest.)
Mexican claim subsubsection is a bit confusingly placed, as it is short and ends with its resolution when later subsections deal with various Mexican assertions of sovereignty.
Reading the history section, the lead mention of Álvarez seems a bit of an overegging of what happened.
"France formally took possession of Clipperton on January 26, 1935." What does this mean? If they already claimed it, surely they state they took posession in 1858.
"In February 1945, the U.S. Navy transported French Officer Lieutenant Louis Jampierre to Clipperton out of San Diego[211] where he visited the installation and that afternoon returned to the United States." makes it sound like a one day trip, which seems unlikely so thought worth checking.
"evaluate potential rehabilitation of the World War II era airstrip" is the first mention of this airstrip, previous mentions seemed to be mostly about the possibility of an airstrip but with no progress towards one.
Should the castaways section include the 1999, 2000, and 2010 shipwrecks?
I've listed this article for peer review because, the article has been cleared of cleanup tags and if any more are necessary for quality improvement towards FA-level, please feel free to share in this first PR.
Looking through the article, there are a few places where the prose and text could use tightening up. Many areas are clearly unsourced, even if they have not been tagged, and other areas may need their sources checked. For prose there are areas with a lot of choppiness and short disconnected sentences. Some of this may be related to a common occurence which is additions that are not integrated with existing text. The article is approaching 13,000 words and has 43 content sections/subsections. Partially this is the History section, a common locus for these issues, which currently has over 3000 words and gets choppier towards more recent times. Another common area of issue is the Culture section, where subsections get larger and become small lists while the overarching synthesis information is not covered. This article does better than some, having an overarching section with some relevant information. It could be improved with more sources. Regarding subsections, there are a few list issues and Sports stands out as being mostly disconnected points. Among the most clear areas of missing sourcing, Geography and Politics both open with unsourced paragraphs. The lead has a few sources only used there, which suggests it may be slightly out of line with the body. Source quality may need a look as well, there is one twitter source, a few Britannica sources, and quite a few primary/government sources that aren't integrated within context from secondary sources. Best, CMD (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your detailed review, I’ll try to improve on sourcing and coherence points aforementioned with other editors. Kornkaobat (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about nominating it for GA-status one day. This article did underwent early copyediting, but this article has long ways to go before being considered a GAN. I think a peer review would be a good start.
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
The "Government" and "Roads and paths" sections are uncited and this will need to be rectified
There's an orange banner on top of "Neighbourhoods". Has this been resolved? Considering that many paragraphs don't have citations, I think the banner will need to stay for the time being.
There’s this one sentence mentioning gentrification in the lead summary and I would like to know what’s the best section to talk about the gentrification process?
Also for the film section paragraph, I’m trying to update the link and find a new link that talks about the travel fees but this one is the only one I could find. Anything I can do?
I was just trying to use IA BOT but it wasn’t working for me. Anything I can do?
@The Cadillac Ranger: Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. I recommend looking at Hamilton, Ontario, which was recently fixed up by an experienced FA writer. I suggest using Hamilton as a model for this article's Economy section. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to submit it for Featured Article Candidacy. Last year I contributed to the expansion of this article, culminating in a successful Good Article Nomination, which was reviewed by Mujinga. Since then most of my adjustments have been minor, dedicated to tightening up citation formatting and improving the quality of the images. Now I am confident it is ready for FAC, but before I submit it, I would like to hear what my peers have to say about this article. If you can offer any comments, suggestions and/or critiques, I'd be more than happy to see about putting them into action.
Looking to prepare the article for WP:FAC, and it could use a review of prose beforehand. A more general look would also be good, to ensure it's readable for someone not familiar with hockey. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe post this to sports rather than to history? Jim Killock(talk) 14:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not yet gotten a rating on the content assessment scale. Furthermore, in case there are any issues, please point them out.
This article is off to a good start, but it is missing a lot of information. Take a look at Battle of New Carthage, a recently promoted featured article, to see what information is typically included in a battle article and how it is formatted. For your article, I would say that the lede is too long and information other than "Background" should be in the article body. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking to nominate this to turn it into a GA someday, and I'd like to know what else I can improve in this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured article candidacy in the near future and I want to ensure that this article is not missing anything major which would fail any of the featured article criteria. Anything copyedit related shouldn't be necessarily as it went through the GOCE earlier this year.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a translation from a Spanish Wikipedia article and I'd like a second pair of eyes on the translation and general formatting.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that I found all information that needs to be said for this page that is credible except for a few that I don't know how to word it or it should probably not be in the article since it's pretty vague. I fully remade the 11th millennium BC page, so I can't really respond to the previous GA's because of that. There is some things that are probably a little too specific, but it's better to record everything in the subject than being sparse like what I did a year ago. I'm also submitting this here so there can be a higher chance of the 11th millennium BC to have a GA since I want it to have the same quality has the 9th and 10th millennium BC's.
My only comment is that as it's a long article more illustration would be helpful. Crops, early domestic animals, archaelogical finds? Do any of the open access journals provide anything like this that could be used? In general, something as specialist as this needs an expert to check through IMO - I would be inclined to reach out to an academic who could read it through for a sense check. Jim Killock(talk) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recently promoted to GA. I want to move this to FA in near future. Please keep an eye out for neutrality and NPOV; I want to be sure this issue is presented as fairly as possible, as it's contentious.
I'm a bit too sleep deprived to do a deep dive into the article, but I can spot a few things you'll want to address before bringing it to FAC. Lots of the parameters for the citations in the article are poorly filled out. For example,
"www.kukmindaily.co.kr", "kpopherald.koreaherald.com", "www.thecrimson.com", etc. should be replaced with the names of the publications.
Titles like "Press Conference: "One Japan Community's Bid for Reconciliation With Korean Residents" | FCCJ" should be fixed to remove the extraneous tagline.
Wish I could be a bit more of a help in terms of content, but I'm way too tired, I just spotted this and thought I'd leave a comment. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, will get on fixing that. Any help is appreciated, even sleep-deprived 🙂 toobigtokale (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Also, since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest getting a mentor who can help guide you through the process. Mentors can even comment on the article at this PR. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC to build goodwill amongst the editors and help familiarise yourself with the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toobigtokale: It has been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Are you still interested in receiving comments or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If my goal is to move to a FA nom; do you think I need to get a peer review? If not maybe we can close and I can find next steps toobigtokale (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toobigtokale: Since you are working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest getting feedback from a mentor, who can comment here on this PR. You can also ask for feedback from the Wikiprojects attached to this article. Z1720 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may not have time/energy to do this until late January; do you think we should close this for now if so? Maybe I can reopen a request around then? toobigtokale (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I'm seeking peer review for this article on a 1992 California wildfire because I plan to nominate it for FA shortly and would like to check my blind spots, so to speak. I am specifically most interested in any feedback on points 1f ("free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing") and 4 (is it too detailed?), but any and all suggestions regarding any Manual of Style guidelines I've missed, poor wording, or wider organization/content issues would be welcome feedback.
@Penitentes: It has been over a month since this PR has been posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, sorry for the late response—Thanksgiving kept me busy. I'm absolutely still interested. Penitentes (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Penitentes: If you are interested in comments, I suggest asking at the Wikiprojects attached to this article. In addition, I suggest that you find an FA mentor since you are still working towards your first successful FAC; the mentor can comment in this PR, too. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I've posted about it on the Wikiproject Wildfire talk page, I'll see where else I can ask—and contact an FA mentor. Penitentes (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Penitentes: It has been another month without comments. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Regardless, I highly recommend reviewing articles at WP:FAC so you can get a better understanding of the FAC process and build goodwill amongst the FAC community. Z1720 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am still interested, but if you think it's unlikely it will receive any feedback I am happy to withdraw it—regardless, I'll take your advice and focus my efforts on reviewing GANs and FAs so as to build up exposure to the process and and meet the community. Penitentes (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Penitentes: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get reviews. If you are interested in comments, my suggestions above about Wikiprojects and getting a mentor are still applicable. Before nominating my first FA, I reviewed several articles at FAC and this helped me really understand the intricacies of the FA criteria. I look forward to seeing your name pop up in reviews. Z1720 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've taken this article to GA, and I would one day hope to carry this article to Featured Article status. I tried to implement as many of the recommendations once the article was delisted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sei whale/archive1. Your feedback is much appreciated, and I'm prepared to return this to FA status. 20 upper (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because as a person with a degree in nutritional biochemistry, I want to know if the content is understandable to people without an advanced science /medical/health background. FYI - I raised this article to GA back in 2017 and have been working on it starting in December 2023 with intent to nominate to FA.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article to be FL-class. All of the changes before I substitute them to the original article are in my sandbox User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1. I appreciate someone who wants to review and give suggestions for the sake of improvement. Thanks, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review (17 years after the first) because though I am not an expert in mathematics, I feel Wiles’ article has become high-quality enough in the intervening years to receive an upgrade, or more importantly, an assessment of what needs to be fixed to make it featured status; I should note his influence on mathematics is powerful enough to perhaps warrant “today’s featured article” status for 19 September 2024, the 30th anniversary of his key insight that led to his correction of his greatest proof, so consider this the start of a yearlong campaign to improve the article to featured status.
@Jarrod Baniqued: If you are interested in making it a featured article, a good first step is to bring it to WP:GA. Here's some comments to address before you nominate it:
I don't think the block quote of the Royal Society certificate is needed, as it raises copyright concerns.
@Z1720: Thank you very much for the insights. I will carry them out sometime in the next week. Please bring an editor with a second opinion, too, preferably with suggestions on how to get started. My initial idea is to, for lack of a better word, rephrase parts of the TV Tropes Useful Notes article on Fermat’s Last Theorem. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have implemented this idea. I used IABot, but apparently due to some fudging with user permissions, it hasn’t directly edited the citations. Someone else will have to use IABot on the article.
I also have written a rudimentary lede, though I have yet to figure out how to implement the last recommendation for sections. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Spy Who Loved Me is an anomaly among the Bond novels. It's the only one written in a first-person narrative - and it's not even Bond's narrative, nor does he appear until two-thirds of the book is done. It wasn't well-received by the critics or public, for whom there was not enough Bond in the book, but it still have some points of interest. This has had a bit of a polish recently, adding in some new sources and bringing it up to what, is hoped, is FAC level, which will be the next stop after PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a level 4 vital article that is of 'top' or 'high' importance to 6 different Wiki projects. IMO, articles like this should represent the very best of Wikipedia, so I would like to take it to FA. I know that will be difficult for an article of this type, so it needs all the skilled and knowledgable help it can get. I am inexperienced at FA, so I too need all the help I can get.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to start a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get some feedback on its current status and possible improvements.
Looks good already, very well done. in the see alsos, it's got Knowledge falsification – Deliberate misrepresentation of knowledge, and Knowledge transfer. perhaps discuss, integrate, these into the article. intelligence is only in the see also, discuss the difference between intelligence and knowledge in the article? a few more images might bring it to life for some readers e.g. younger readers. See WP:BRITANNICA; I use it but you don't need to as much as you often have more reliable references alongside? Tom B (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Tom B and thanks for the improvements to the article and the review! As I interpret WP:BRITANNICA, the main problem is with entries that do not have a named author. It's a tertiary source but this is usually not a problem for very general claims that aim to give broad summaries of topics as is often the case for this type of overview article. I'll try to replace the problematic references and implement your other suggestions in terms of see also links and images. I'll ping you once I've addressed the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tom B: Ok, I hope I got the main points. I didn't include Knowledge falsification in the article since, as a technical term, this seems to be a rather recent invention that is not yet widely discussed. I added one image and I'm sure that more could be added but we currently have 14 images which seems sufficient to me. Please let me know if this was roughly what you had in mind and if you have further ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nice one, thank you. the lead has a lot of the things you'd expect in it. It also gets technical quickly with a specific reference to Gettier in the first para. about two thirds of readers don't go past the lead so worth putting disproportionate effort in there e.g. simplifying and removing any unimportant detail where possible? this is more about accessibility for the general reader than FA. i'd not planned to read the 8,000 words, i'm not an FA expert! and you don't have to message me back. Feel free to switch to something else other than Wittgenstein, i just like him, Tom B (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the Nagel paper on what is like to be a bat relevant or is that more to do with something else? Tom B (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are probably right that the lead does not need to mention Gettier by name. I slightly changed your formulation but I think your suggestions would work fine as well. Nagel's paper is more about the nature of experience than about knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on possible additional sections that others would be interested in and to see whether the current contents make sense to audiences.
Thanks, Stran20 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to get it to Featured Article status. It has recently passed Good Article, and I'm not sure what else needs to be done to get it to Featured. Any advice and suggestions for improvement are hugely appreciated!
The lead could be edited to be a bit more comprehensive regarding the body contents. The body has two policy subsections, refugees and food allergies, and only the first is covered in the lead. I would also suggest a brief mention of the period between election and speakership, although this only gets a single paragraph in the body. A bit more could also be added about her time as speaker, even if it was short, as reading the article this seems to be the main claim to prominence. Specific items of trivia, such as "after Joan Child", should not be in the lead (but this could be in the body, which it currently is not).
"The couple have a son and a daughter; in 1999, Burke became the second woman to give birth while a sitting Member of the Australian Parliament when her daughter was born.[7] Burke had her second child in 2002.[8]" "son and a daughter" to me reads chronologically, but the text suggests the daughter is older.
"pre-selected" is a bit of jargon, a bit more explanation may help those unfamiliar with Australian politics. It's worth keeping an eye out for other bits of jargon, like "2PP", although in that particular case this could be helped just with a link to Two-party-preferred vote.
Is the speaker technically a part of government? The lead states she was a member of the government, and the body states she was a "government member".
Regarding your last question, the answer is a confusing form of 'sort of'. The speaker in Australia is supposed to be non-partisan, and with one massive exception, this is true. They also don't sit with the government and don't attend party room meetings, but usually retain their party membership and vote with their party if the House of Representatives is tied. With the sentence in question, maybe something like 'where the Labor Party, which Burke was a part of, was defeated,' would make more sense. JML1148(talk | contribs) 08:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
I think the lead should be reorganized - in addition to the points raised by CMD above, it currently comprises several short choppy paragraphs that could be presented more cohesively
The structure of the whole article could also use reviewing - at the moment everything personal is in the Early life section, which doesn't make sense given the timescale involved
Before FAC this could use a thorough going-over for MOS issues. For example, a number of wikilinks are repeated, even within a single section.
Similarly the citation style needs editing for consistency
Per RSP there is no consensus on reliability of HuffPost for politics-related topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I made some of the changes already but admittedly not many so far. Thank you for the reminder, I will make some progress on these soon. GraziePrego (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it quite a bit and I'm seeking feedback on the writing style and whatever else may be relevent to a future content assessment. I wasn't sure which topic to put this under.
I've listed this article for peer review because, even though it is recently created (by myself), I think it meets the standards of a 'featured list'. But, naturally, as the creator, I would be bias so this peer review is to see if this page needs any more improvement before it can be nominated for as a FLC.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need to know what part of the page needs improvement and if it is ready to nominate as a Featured List candidate.
Another major Latin music list, this time on Latin albums. I plan to nominate this for FL after getting List of best-selling Latin music artists promoted to FL. I could use any advice for this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want an outside perspective on how to make it best align to the featured list standards. Specifically, the lead section and sources.
I've been working on this article for a while now and I want it to improve better. I know there's alot to improve so I want to know if the lead is okay and/or if the sections are okay too. Looking forward to your comments.
One little thing that may help out your list article, for the Colorado State Quarter I thought it may prove useful to readers to see a visual representation. I created a fair use rationale for your article on the file page, before you insert it into the article you may want to wait. The bots and admins are quite fickle on the fair use rationales. We should wait and see if the rationale runs into problems.
I wish I could help you more, I am going to keep pondering over this article and see if there is any real improvements you can make. Lists and State Symbols aren't really my specialty.
Best of luck, I'll be back with more suggestions soon! --Trey Wainman (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
