Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing to nominate Super Mario Bros. (1985) for Featured Article status. As this is my first nomination, I would greatly appreciate feedback on the article’s comprehensiveness, sourcing, writing quality, and overall suitability for FAC. Thanks, CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no ambitions for this article so far as FAC is concerned (too few full-length published sources available for that) but I'm thinking of putting it up for GA, and comments and suggestions for improvement will be most welcome. Tim riley talk11:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have FAC aspirations for this former FA. I requested a peer review for this in 2023 and no one took it on. I am hoping for feedback now. I hope I have addressed the "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" concerns from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have been discussing ways we can get this character's article to featured article status in Talk:Rei Ayanami#Proposals for formatting to WP:FAC standards. @Tintor2: and I discussed some ways we could approach formatting the article to featured article status. I know @TeenAngels1234: worked on this article and nominated it for good article status in Talk:Rei Ayanami/GA1, but I was wondering if anyone else who is familiar with WP:FAC guidelines other than me and Tintor2 are willing to provide input for working on getting it to FA status.
In the talk page, I proposed we could do the following.
Move the Characterization and themes section to Conception section as a subsection.
Translate titles that are not in English into English. I proposed dividing the translation work with someone else, where I could focus on the Japanese and Chinese sources, and another person could work on the French and Italian sources. I am thinking about asking people in the French and Italian Wikipedias if they are willing to help.
I reviewed the images, but I am apprehensive about the license status of File:Aonami-line-ayanami-2020-2-1.jpg. It is licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0, but the train has a picture of the character as she appears in Rebuild of Evangelion, and I am not sure if it is acceptable for a potential FAC.
If I initiate an FAC, I plan to get consent from TeenAngels1234.
I'm not exactly sure about moving Characterization and themes into Conception. Regarding Valnet, I agree: while I situationally use them usually for GA-status articles, maybe for FA we can remove them. I can help with translating Italian and French titles: I'm a native Italian speaker and while not an expert I'm pretty fluent in Spanish and French. Last but not least, we can remove the train image: feel free to remove it if that is the case. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As we go through the sources and translate the non-English names to English, I am wondering if general audiences will read this without problems and not get confused before we potentially have an FAC. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on expanding and improving it, and I'd like to move toward GAC if possible. I'd like to know if it meets B-class article criteria at this point, and what else can be done to improve it.
Hi there, I'd like to potentially take a few articles from this season of Doctor Who to WP:FA. I wanted to bring this here first to get some general opinions on whether it's within that scope, and if so, anything that can be improved now to make the process less stressful later.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up toward GAC and then FAC. I had briefly submitted it (I guess ahead of schedule) to FAC at this link but it was suggested I withdraw. I thought I had taken it both through GAC/FAC level standards, but I guess not, or there's more than the listed requirements, or I missed something? How can I get this up to where it apparently still isn't? Thanks!
After a quick skim, I added a "citation needed" tag to the article. Once that sentence is cited this article is ready to be nominated at WP:GAN. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review on prose, and maybe language on this article before re-nominating to FAC.
Thanks, Santi (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Santi, the article is going to need more than a peer review to meet the standards of FA. I would strongly suggest seeking somebody fluent in English to directly rewrite the prose and maybe co-nominating with them. The PR would be more beneficial when just a few finishing touches are required.--NØ17:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pollosito: I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, and remove your entry when this is closed. I highly recommend that you also review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill among FAC reviewers, making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to see it become a FA-Class article and before I nominate it I would like to make sure it is as good as it can be!
I currently can’t give a full review with my schedule, but just from glossing over the article (as someone who knows nothing about Doctor Who other than that there’s doctors and supernatural stuff) I noticed that you name drop Doctor Who Annual but don’t elaborate on it. Could you include a sentence or two talking about what it is, it would make the article easier to understand for non-Who fans. Other than that, it’s a great article, I’m just sure that little tidbit will be brought up in the FA nomination. If you want me to take a further look and tell you of any other confusing parts you could elaborate on, I’d be more than happy to — Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hey, I went through the articles history and I don’t see any edits from you on it. Aren’t you supposed to be a significant contributor to the article before nominating it? Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from an outsider, but technically they can so long as they've consulted key contributors who have given the go-ahead and are able to demonstrate they understand the article they're nominating (Aka know the sources, what the content is, etc), at least if I read the criteria right. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: "The scenes at Wester Drumlins were shot in a derelict house in Newport." We do not know what "Wester Drumlins" means at this point.
The third paragraph of the lead (as of this revision) is not flowing very well; various random facts stringed together.
Plot: "explores the abandoned house Wester Drumlins a second time" either tell us what happened the first time, or drop "a second time" if it is not relevant.
"an impounded fake police box" this is actually the TARDIS. Do they know it is "fake" at this point? I think all they know is that it is locked.
Why not explain the reason the episode is called "blink"?
Writing: is it worth spending a few words about the relevance of the game Statues?
Looking at this diff, it seems that there has been not a huge amount of additions since 2012. Make sure that everything is up to date and look at every single citation to see if any links are dead or can be replaced by newer material. Overall, this doesn't seem ready for Peer Review at this time, as you haven't tried to make it as good as you can. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that most of the prose are either one-liners or some bits of a paragraph. I'd suggest finding more sources and information so that you can link these sentences and make them flow better.
The sourcing could use a bit of work, I do believe "in:spire with..." isn't that reliable.
In the early life and education part, you could include his birthdate here so that it wouldn't be in the lead.
Speaking of the lead, you can expand it by adding more information regarding his career. The current state of the lead is one single sentence so that should be focused on as well.
"McKinney is President of the Penkhull Festival; he was born in Penkhull.", the born in Penkhull tidbit should be moved to the early life and education section of the page.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recently listed GA and I plan on submitting it for FA status. It currently could use some work in its production section, themes section, and potentially the reception section. My main concern is that the article may be difficult to follow due to its structuring (particularly in Production). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Is there any section in particular you feel could benefit from more secondary sources (Production, themes, etc)? I just went back a little bit ago and added some secondary sources to the production section in order to cut down on how many primary sources it uses. I’ve counted and there are 6 sentences in Production where I could not find another source and had to use a primary source, and one in themes (all coming from the DVD bonus features). Crystal Drawers (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: pinging again just in case you haven't seen my recent comment. I've actually gone back and removed all DVD sources, so I think the article is free from primary sources as of now. Are there any other issues or concerns you can see with the article? —Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there and remove this entry when this is closed. I also highly recommend seeking help from a FA mentor as they can provide help and reviews on what needs to be improved upon. Lastly, I recommend that you continue reviewing articles at WP:FAC now: this helps editors learn the FA criteria and builds goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making your article more likely to be reviewed when nominated. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status, but I am unsure about the structure, tone, flow, content, or other aspects. I’d really appreciate any feedback on the article as a whole, Thanks, Lililolol (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Below are some comments based on just the Musical style section.
"it offers a scathing anti-monarchist statement" This corresponds with "Searing, six-minute opener that splits venom at the monarchy" in NME 2016. I am hesitant to utilize "scathing" in wikivoice; consider replacing with the admittedly less eloquent "it is strongly anti-monarchist "
Adjacent to the above passage, the quote "useless, taxpayer-funded tabloid fodder" needs to be clearly attributed in-line. The same issue can be observed elsewhere in the same section with "obvious depression", "jaunty pop backing", "sprightly and carefree", "lightning-fast drum rolls", "shot of punk adrenaline" (unlink "adrenaline", as this is a common idiomatic construction), "lashes out at media and the world", "casual dismissal of gender norms", etc.
"Described by critics as one of his most poetic moments" is not supported by the corresponding "Rarely has Moz sounded more poetic" from NME 2016. This source presumably being the opinion of only one critic. The same over-application of a singular opinions as representing critical consensuses is evident elsewhere in this section.
Overall, Marr's primary-source perspectives might be overrepresented in the section. While it is important to consider his views, the extensive quotations are sometimes unnecessary or unrelated to any commentary on musical style.
As it stands, I would say that an overuse of quotations and the failure to adequately attribute subjective opinions/quotes in-line are significant barriers to this article being promoted as an FA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a peer review for the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. The article has been extensively revised to include a well-developed lead, restructured and fully cited sections (Production, Themes and analysis, Reception, Legacy, Home media), and is aligned with WP:FILM and WP:FAC standards.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- Comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Inline citations and reliability of sources
- Reception balance (Indian and international)
- Any prose, style, or formatting issues
@Thefallguy2025: It has been over a month and there hasn't been a comment here yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for comments at the Wikiprojects attached to this article and reviewing other PRs and FACs. I also suggest asking for feedback from a FA mentor If not, can you close this? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listed for peer review because I'm considering attempting to bring it to FAC (first time!). I'm fairly confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness but feedback on organization, prose etc. would be especially appreciated.
Please note that articles usually do not have an "Overview" section, because that is what the lead of an article does. I suggest moving this information to more appropriate parts of the article or renaming the section. Take a look at other good articles on rail stations for inspiration on what sections to have in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some grammar issues, and reworded a few pieces. I also cut the station layout part out of the introduction, because it’s a little too in the weeds for an introduction, and it is so clearly explained in its own section later in the article. Personally I think it’s a lot smoother that way, but that’s one thing you might want to change back if you feel strongly about it.Overall a really solid job though Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates in the infobox needs to have a citation, preferably from Japan's geographic database if possible (though at this stage it's acceptable to use Google Maps iirc)
Would like to see "Tōkaidō Main Line" used consistently with its diacritical marks per WP:DGUIDE
have fiercely competed I feel like "fiercely" can be omitted under WP:IMPARTIAL. If there's suitable consensus of "fiercely" being acceptable in this context then I don't mind
For the station numbering part in the history section, what about NH 01?
The bus terminal near this station seems to have a name, it's "Toyohashi Station Bus Center"
Would suggest adding platforms 9-10 to the platform diagram
Is it possible to wikilink "detention line" or explain it (though is it considered common knowledge? Don't think it's documented for Singapore)?
"since 8 August 2024.[1] ", couldn't this be moved to the body?
"The success of the Grameen microfinance model inspired similar efforts in about 100 developing countries and even in developed countries including the United States.[2] Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for founding the Grameen Bank and pioneering the concepts of microcredit and microfinance.[3] Yunus has received several other national and international honors, including the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.[4]", most of the sourcing within the lead can be moved to the body
"and his mother was Sufia Khatun.", would there be any sourcing on what she did?
"By 1949, his mother was afflicted with psychological illness.", By 1949, his mother was afflicted with a psychological illness.", + would there be a specific one?
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to improve it to reach GA status at some point. It's also my first article and I'd love some feedback in general.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve this article to FA. This would be my first FA (also my first PR), though not from scratch as this has been at GA since just after the last major update was released in Nov 2021.
Pinging @Panini!: who nominated this article at WP:GAN and who should have been consulted before this WP:PR was initiated. Also pinging @ProtoDrake: who was the GA reviewer. @JuniperChill: it is polite and in the collegial spirit of Wikipedia to consult long-term contributors (via personal contact on their talk page) before launching a PR request, especially when one of them has successfully nominated the article as a GA. 217.158.77.43 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @JuniperChill: I very much admire your enthusiasm, but please slow down and consult others in a generous collaborative spirit before charging into WP:GA, WP:PR or WP:FAC. This is especially important when other editors have put significantly more work into an article than you have (as applies here). 217.158.77.43 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have high-quality sources to become a FA, therefore I'd suggest removing sources such as Metro, Game Rant, TheGamer, and Express.co.uk. Additionally, most references seem to be from 2020, therefore I'd suggest looking for newer ones that talk about the legacy of the game. There are also scholarly articles about the game which should be incorporated into the article. There's also several {{citation needed}} tags that should be fixed. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this article to a B rating and need both to know what improvements are needed, and assistance with the implementation.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to potentially nominate this article for FA sometime in the future. I've already helped promote this article and Mario Party: Island Tour to GA, and I believe that the former is stronger in terms of reliable sourcing, citation amounts, etc. I previously requested a peer review for Yoshi's New Island, and I found it helpful to hear from a user unfamiliar with video game terminology. It would also be helpful to track down some international responses to the game; I've tried Famitsu without success. Any advice is appreciated!
I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there, and remove this entry when this is closed. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, which help get more reviews for your nominated articles. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to follow in a small pet project. It's a strong B class and I really need to know the vulnerable places.
I'm looking for a peer review so that, afterwards, I may nominate it for GAN (Good Article Nomination). Any general corrections or suggestions, significant or minor edits, are greatly welcomed!
I've listed this former GA for peer review to ensure it meets all GA criteria before resubmitting. A prior peer review and an unsuccessful GA nomination raised some concerns, which I believe have now been addressed. I'd greatly appreciate feedback on any remaining issues to help make this a strong candidate for GAC and potentially FAC. Many thanks in advance for your time and input!
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love for this article to pass FA review the next time around. I feel as though it has improved greatly in my 16-hour editing marathon but I need more opinions.
I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, and remove this entry when this PR is closed. I also suggest that you seek the help of a mentor who can help with getting a successful nomination. Lastly, I suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making your article more likely to be reviewed when it is nominated. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What's been your approach to sourcing this article? There appear to be a number of other references available, eg [1][2][3][4]
To be honest, my approach in sourcing this was to scour the internet, google scholar, and the Wikipedia Library. I will 100% be looking at the sources you attached.
I can do that for every source but one, which I'm trying to find an alternative for. (LORAN History)
It's for the most part in the order they are used, but I plan to alphabetize.
Got it.
I'll have to look into this, image tagging is not my forte.
I figured it would warrant its own section because it is one of the major factors making the island notable.
Not that I could find.
Couldn't find anything exactly about that, but I'll keep digging.
The article does say shrubs and vines, just wondering if there's anything more specific.
Do we know what minerals are represented in the gravel?
Some of the terminology in the lead tends towards jargon - eg haul-out
The infobox says the highest elevation is 2.3 m, but the article body says that's the mean - which is correct? Also why is this number metric-first in the infobox but imperial-first in the body?
Given that the current area, length and width don't match what's in the infobox, I'd suggest at least adding an explanatory note. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I'm finally back in town! The islands infobox doesn't have a mean elevation parameter, so I'm not sure whether to just not include that data in the infobox. It does seem important though. MallardTV Talk to me! 07:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because earlier this year I translated the Polish article (an FA there) and expanded it per the tag that had been on it for years (actually, it's more like I used the Polish article as raw material ... it wouldn't be acceptable here as a word-for-word translation). Since so much of the Polish article relies on Polish sources that do not seem themselves to have been translated into English yet, this article is the first time, I think, that the details of this grim event have been published in English.
So, I am thinking about a GA nomination down the line with this.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare it as a Featured Article Candidate. I overall think it is one of my best-written articles and am looking for overall feedback. It is already a Good Article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for WP:Featured article status soon, and want to make sure it is ready. In May user Spookyaki did a Peer Review, and in June user Eddie891 did an informal review. But I think one more review would be helpful, because the article subject is rather nuanced. Any help is appreciated ... but I'm mostly looking for input on prose quality and Manual Of Style compliance. Thanks!!
This seems to me a first-rate article, clearly suitable for FAC. A few very minor comments on the prose:
First, I wonder – but do not press the point – about the capitalisation of North and South. In the first place you are inconsistent: "many Northern intellectuals disagreed" but "Opponents included northern intellectual W. E. B. Du Bois" etc , and more to the point why would either Northern or Southern be capitalised anyway?
The rule is North/Northern/South/Southern are capitalized when discussing the regions of the US in the context of the US civil war or its aftermath - which is the case in this article. The rule is stronger for the nouns North/South (vs the adjectives); and stronger for the South (vs North). Thanks for pointing out the lowercase "northern" which is an error. Noleander (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"W.E.B Du Bois" – should (if you believe the Manual of Style) have spaces as well as full stops between his initials in the image caption.
Not making an issue of this, but in "favored leaders that endorsed confrontation ... leaders that relied on subtlety" wouldn't "who" rather than the somewhat biblical "that" be more in keeping with modern usage?
That's all from me on the prose. The present text seems to me scrupulously neutral in tone and emphasis, which can't have been easy, and it is a jolly good read, too. Please ping me when you go to FAC. Tim riley talk18:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely piece of work. I made a couple of minor changes in these edits, but nothing too contentious. The only other comment I’d have is that in the sources you need to add spaces between Du Bois’ initials, to keep it consistent as much as anything. Please let me know when you go to FAC with this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the kind words. Agree that spacing in "W. E. B." needs to be uniform in both prose and sources ... I'll double check that. Noleander (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bringing this to PR under the advisement of my elders (possibly) and betters (certainly!). I don't honestly think there's any more information on this in any one place than what's in our article (it's pretty niche), but I'm interested in structural issues—does it flow, is there sufficient context? Views appreciated. —Fortuna, imperatrix17:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting a peer review for the First Jewish–Roman War article as I plan to nominate it for FAC status in the future. It recently received GA status (review), and it’s currently under ongoing WikiProject Military History A-Class review. Any feedback on structure, content, or citations would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
I've been watching you work on this for a while now, and I'm glad it's time for me to look at it like I wanted to. Remsense 🌈 论00:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my second PR listing for this article. The first one didn't draw any comments, but I did get a bunch of useful feedback later on the talk page from MSincccc, Gog the Mild, and Rollinginhisgrave for which I am grateful. Having incorporated their suggestions, I'm coming back here to see what else folks can spot before I send it off to FAC.
There's a tie-in to my first FA, Fleetwood Park Racetrack; the oddly crooked West 167th Street, which makes up the southern side of the Home of the Daughters of Jacob property is shaped that way because that's the path the old racetrack took. I got into all this because one day as I was riding my bicycle through the area, I wondered about the unusual street and the even more unusual building. As I dug into the history, I discovered both the race track and Abramson.
Sorry for the delay. I’m presently busy academically but will try to give the article another read before further suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"After leaving Duncan's employ, Abramson moved to Seattle but did not stay there for many years.", maybe rephrase the sentence as "did not stay there for long"?
References are missing in the first paragraph.
If possible, find more information regarding his education: when did he attended Cooper Union and the Mechanics Institute, and why didn't he graduated? Life hardships? Lack of funds?
When he began working for Duncan and when did he left the job? And why did he left Duncan?
Is architectual lettering same as Technical lettering? If so, there should be a wikilink.
Good question. I'm not convinced it's the same thing; from what I can tell from a bit of reading, architectural lettering is more of an art form. I might change my mind later, but for now I'm going to leave it unlinked.
Larger examples might include a gymnasium and a swimming pool. What kind of gymnasium are we talking about here? I'm from the region heavily influenced by the Austrians, and to me a gymnasium is a sort of a high school.
Was Abramson invovlved in creating the "shul with a pool" style? Was he a contributor or a pionir of the style or he "just" used the style himself?
All in all, I'd say there's a lack in his biography, with several essential data missing. Depending on sources, I believe this can be fixed. The structure of the article itself is otherwise good. Considering the person the article is about, MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL obviously wouldn't work for the second part of the article (Abamson's achievements). I would love to read more about his influence on the New York's architecture though. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I'll work on these items as I find time (I'm not in any rush). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything else so far about his personal life, but I'll keep looking. RoySmith(talk)20:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA, and if possible FA (FA seems like a bit of a stretch considering I have never gotten one before).
Sorry for the delay, I've just gotten time to review this. Here are some initial comments. I will review the bulk of the article and the sources next. Thanks for your patience. Kimikel (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042:: I've finished the next section. Sorry for the piecemeal way in which I'm reviewing it but I don't have too much time for Wikipedia. I should finish the next two sections by Saturday. 01:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the lead sentence could be a little longer, e.g. the FA Battle of the Bismarck Sea: "The Battle of the Bismarck Sea (2–4 March 1943) took place in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA) during World War II when aircraft of the U.S. Fifth Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) attacked a Japanese convoy carrying troops to Lae, New Guinea." At a minimum, adding the belligerents, and perhaps briefly how/why the battle began, would help contextualize it a good deal more with just a single sentence.
Afterwards the Anzac troops > Afterwards, the Anzac troops
could provide their navy > I would switch to "the Royal Navy" to make the sentence less ambiguous
heavy equipment > what kind of equipment? or does the author only give us "heavy equipment"?
(Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH)) > breaking out the translation and acronym like this seems unnecessary, since the acronym isn't used again in the article
CretZe landing strip > perhaps a typo for "Crete"?
No Royal Air Force (RAF) units were based permanently on CretZe landing strip at Rethymno, all on the north coast, were ready and another strip at Pediada-Kastelli was nearly finished. > This whole sentence seems a little unclear and might need to be broken into two.
and the only one with a concrete runway, was at Heraklion > wikilink Heraklion
It was still improvised in nature, with the fuel store located outside the positions defending the airfield for example. > It was still improvised in nature; for example, the fuel store was located outside the airfield's defense positions.
space of a week 27,000> space of a week, 27,000
Greece, many lacking any equipment other than their personal weapons, sometimes not even those. > Greece; many lacked any equipment other than their personal weapons, and some lacked even those.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a vital article, and is in poor condition. I have done some editing on this article, but still needs lots of work and guiding.
Doesn't look all that bad to me. A few thoughts from a quickish skim-through:
We could do without the load of citations in the lead: a lead should summarise the detailed and cited material from the main text and doesn't need citations of its own except for quotations in direct speech.
On the other hand a few more citations wouldn't go amiss in the main text: penultimate para of Early life; first para of Crimean War; second para of Literature and the women's movement, and footnotes c and k.
For date ranges, as in "Collected Works of Florence Nightingale (2001-2012)" the hyphen should be an unspaced en-dash (MoS)
Duplicate links, once taboo, are now, I gather, no longer regarded as a capital offence. All the same, you might like to revisit those for Crimean War, Ottoman Empire (twice), Mary Clarke, Eliza Roberts, BBC (twice), The Times, Crimea, coxcomb, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Florence Nightingale Museum (twice), St Thomas' Hospital, Claydon House, Alexis Soyer, Aldershot, Lytton Strachey (twice), Eminent Victorians (ditto), Charles Dickens, Mark Bostridge and Church of England.
And my biggest complaint about the article in its present state: there are just too many images crowding each other out and sandwiching the text between them. There are examples of the latter in Early life, Crimean War, Biographies and Other. As you have a nice Gallery at the end of the article you could move a few images down there to relieve the overcrowding in the main text.
My goal with this article is to take it to FAC (this would be my second). I would especially appreciate help rewording any awkward phrasing and assuring that the article is fully on-topic (I'm worried it may be a bit too long, but I may be overthinking). Of course, any type of feedback at all would be excellent.
@Kimikel: I recommend asking for comments on the Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC now in order to continue learning about the FA criteria and to build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, causing your nominations to be reviewed more quickly. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the advice. If I have more time for Wikipedia I'll try to be more active in getting this reviewed. Thank you for leaving your comment. Kimikel (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He was a free mulatto of Portuguese and African descent; his African ancestors were brought to Portugal as slaves" can either be two sentences, "He was a free mulatto of Portuguese and African descent, and his African ancestors were brought to Portugal as slaves" or "He was a free mulatto of Portuguese and African descent, whose African ancestors were brought to Portugal as slaves".
I am attending to a request to peer review, alongside nominating a DYK's hook for featuring on the main page, for improvement according to WP:FACR. Hopefully, this article will become a potential for FA. Any feedbacks would be appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently gave the article a significant rewrite and am trying to get it to GA status. I think I have most of the information needed presented and reliably sourced, but I'm unsure about how the article flows and transitions between subtopics.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review of copyediting or grammar issues, which was the main reason for the first GAN's quick fail. Previously, I have requested a copyedit, and it was partially done. But, since English is not my native language, I would like to submit a peer review before submitting another GAN.
I am trying to familiarise myself with the notability of an independence list, which looks more lenient than the Chinese one, so it takes time to split her work.
And, I would like to ask why podcasts done by TBS Radio in the article are still unreliable? I know the WP:SPS guide said podcasts are unreliable because it is close to self-publish, but the podcast in the article is done by TBS Radio, a mass media group in Japan. Do they still unreliable? Is Today in Focus by The Guardian are unreliable here as well? Saimmx (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done most of them, but still some tricky tasks:
Japanese translation: I tried my best to do it, but most of works were only published in Japan.
Too many references: Its original entry has, actually, over a hundred of citations. Even though I have kill one in third, looks like it is still not enough.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for guidance on how to restructure the article to improve flow, coherence and readability. I'm also looking for guidance on what editing can be undertaken to resolve the maintenance tags.
Another Olympic article from me to put at peer review, hopefully shall go to FAC as well. Shall respond to questions once I have the time, do ping me! Arconning (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to edit it for a GA nomination in the future. I have written all statements and research from sources on this page. I just require technical advice on Wikipedia criteria and reviews.
Is "Mizo Chieftainship" a proper noun? The C seems to be mostly lowercase in the article, including in the lead sentence, but there are a few exceptions. This should probably be standardized either way, and the article can be moved (renamed) to match if necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering that, since it was the first article I made, I didn't take into account of wiki naming conventions. I have hesitated to move the page because I'm not sure if it has to be page reviewed again and does that affect the search engine index? I would probably uncapitalize chieftainship across the article I feel. Taitesena (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved the article. Moving an article does not generally have any effect on its review/patrol status or whether or not it's indexed by search engines, so no worries on that! I would recommend a pass through the article to make the capitalization consistent. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article can become a FA, but I do not have enough experience in the realm of crime and law articles to properly determine if it is missing something.
Please inform me if this article is missing anything important from it. Comments regarding its writing style and prose are also requested.
Why is there a source in the infobox when it's sourced within the body? This should be removed unless there's another explanation for it.
" It was theorized that Jeschke's murder was connected to the murder of Roger Atkison and Rose Burkert, but police in Iowa found no connection.", the site of the murder was in Missouri then it mentions Iowa. Could this be reworded to make it flow better? "was connected to the murders of Roger Atkinson and Rose Bukert in Iowa?, but police in the state..."
"During her guilty plea Hemme stated", "During her guilty plea, Hemme stated"
"The hair in Jeschke's bed sheets, which was from a black man, was alleged to be from Vernon Burris, the only black officer who came to the crime scene, but the FBI reported that it did not match Burris' hair.[54] This information is relevant as Holman was also black", shouldn't mentions of "black" be "Black" as we're talking about people who are African-American?
This article was recently promoted to GA. As this is the first article I've created that's gone beyond start-class, I'm keen to carry on improving it as much as possible. Any feedback at all is welcome!
I'm already aware of a couple of issues, which we discussed in the GA review:
The article doesn't currently have any images/media, but I'm in contact with Everyone Hates Elon to arrange for some free images to be released, so hopefully the article will soon be illustrated.
The article doesn't include discussion of reactions or feedback to the group's campaigns (for instance, any "critical reception"), as this doesn't currently exist, as far as I can tell. Likely given the contentious topic area, and the risk of attracting drama, sources tend to keep to discussing the facts rather than giving opinions. I'm keeping an eye out for "critical reception"-type sources, and if any do emerge, I'll incorporate them into the article.
I've also posted some thoughts about the WP:RS status of Left Foot Forward (which is the origin of four sources cited in the article) at Talk:Everyone Hates Elon, so I'm interested to hear what others think about this.
@Pineapple Storage: I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles on that list. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst other FA reviewers, thus making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Lastly, since you are working on your first successful FAC nomination, I recommend getting a mentor to help give comments and guide you through the process. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Okay thank you for this! I wasn't actually sure about aiming for FA with this article straight away, as I don't think it's quite ready yet (eg. no media) but I guess there's no harm in trying to get it FAC-ready anyway! :) I will try and get involved in reviews too, as you suggest. Thanks again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to achieve FL status. I've never gotten content to FA/FL so would appreciate some advice on how to improve this article. I followed the structure of another FL, List of songs written by Harry Styles, so I think this article is also on its way there. Let me know if there's something I have overlooked, or should expand on.
I've listed this article for peer review because as a participant in WikiProject Spain this will surely help with its FL status nomination that I want to propose.
Hello @Earth605, I decided to do some look over the article and I think I have a few suggestions that could help improve it and give it a better chance at an FL nomination.
I've noticed some redlinks, such as under headings "Law and order in Spain", "Culture of Spain", and "Economy and infrastructure of Spain", and there may be more. Your best bet is not necessarily removing these links, but, creating redirect pages and redirect them to wherever that information may be on another, existing artice. If you have the time and will, you can also create these articles and retain the links. Another option is, instead of removing bullet points/headings that don't apply, you simply add a colon and clarify that there are "none", for example.
As suggested by the guide I posted above, I think adding a map for the "Adminstrative divisions" and "Demography of Spain" section would greatly for visualization purposes. For this, you can check Wikimedia Commons for free images.
a "Location" subheading under "Geography of Spain" would work better instead of the current plain text with a colon.
I recommend moving "Population", "Area of...", and "Atlas of..." under heading "Geography" rather than under "Location".
"Ecoregions in Spain" redirects to "List of ecoregions in Spain", so it's redundant and can be removed.
There could be some specific elections listed under "Elections in Spain", like general elections in Spain, etc.
There's a weird glitch at "Judicial branch of the government of Spain", with a bullet point next to another, just a minor fix you can make.
"Terrorism in Spain" under "Law and order in Spain" can be linked to terrorism in Spain.
"Laws of Spain" (unlinked one) can be removed since it's already under "Law of Spain", and its bullet points can be simply moved under the linked "Law of Spain".
"Freedom of the press in Spain" can be added under "Human rights in Spain" and linked to freedom of the press in Spain.
A lot of subheadings under "Art in Spain" could be simply bullet points, as per the template, but I do think how it is currently isn't an issue.
Similarly to above, there are some created headings under "Culture of Spain", like "People of Spain" for example, but, as I stated, I don't think it's necessarily an issue and honestly is good how it is.
The "fifteenth" next to 15th is unnecessary.
"List of companies of Spain" can be listed under "Economy of Spain", linking to list of companies of Spain.
"Communications of Spain" and "Transport in Spain" both deviate from the template, but again, I think it's better the way it is now.
"Health in Spain" heading can be removed and its bullet points moved under "Health care in Spain" under "Economy and infrastructure of Spain".
Spain under "See also" can be added as a bullet point rather than without one.
Considering it's a "name" article, you should probably shoot for GA, see Femke. This article itself has a lot of potential so there's a lot to be done.
The origins of the name (etymology, language) should be added.
The history behind the name should be added, if there is any.
The name's popularity over the years should be added, you could gather information from census data and from other relevant statistics
Adding on, the article needs more prose, if you can find information outside of its history and popularity such as its variations.
I apologise for the harshness, but this is nowhere near FL status, or as Arconning stated you should aim for instead GA status. See Waering as a GA name example. Here are some major issues.
There are absolutely 0 sources in the article right now.
There is no prose.
Etymology and history section is necessary.
Images should be added. (Not excessive amounts like one for every person named Alex)
Any alternate spellings should be added if there are any.
Usage of the name through time, (e.g. did it used to be spelled differently).
Other languages' variants should be added if there are any.
The fact that it is commonly used as a nickname for Alexander should be added.
I would like to add that instead of saying things like "American baseball player" (example) since there are so many of them, you may want to add something that makes them stand out among the other baseball players named Alex e.g. ("American baseball player for [team here]") or something like that. Gommeh🎮00:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this list for peer review because I'm a Morgan Wallen fan and would like to bring this list up to FL-Class. I would eventually like to bring all four of his studio albums to GA-Class so that this could become a good topic. It would consist of Morgan Wallen discography and then his four studio albums. I believe this list could be considerably better than it is now, however, I'm not sure what could be improved at the moment. Maybe the lead section.
Just wanted to quickly comment that there appears to be a few discrepancies in the infobox. For one, it claims that Wallen has 13 music videos, where I only count 9 in the section. It also claims that Wallen has 27 singles, where I count 22 not counting features and 29 otherwise, and 7 promotional singles, where I count 11. Leafy46 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be eligible for featured list quality, but I am unsure whether there needs to be anything else added to the article. Would a sentence in the lead describing the radio series' plot be required? Do plot summaries for the individual episodes need to be added? Do cast members need to be mentioned in the lead? Anything else I'm missing?
Your prefatory prose looks fine to me, though it wouldn't hurt to add the names of the main cast members, as you suggest. But I boggle at the header of the last column in each table: "viewers" – for a radio programme? Tim riley talk08:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The following is a list of episodes for the radio series of the British television sitcom Dad's Army.", this should be removed and instead introduced as "Dad's Army is a..."
Adding on, it should be introduced first as a TV series then mention the radio part.
"The radio series, which was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 from 1974 to 1976, was written by Harold Snoad and Michael Knowles, based on the scripts of the television episodes written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, and was produced by John Dyas.", this could be separated into two or more sentences.
"The television equivalent is the combined episodes", I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct?
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.
