MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

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.

Arts

Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song)


I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about taking it to FAC soon, and I want to get some reviews on it as this will mark my first time nominating an article about a song this recent. Since the song has now peaked on almost all national charts, I expect this article to remain stable and hopefully move towards an FAC soon after some reviews. Advice on everything from prose to references is welcome and I would like to thank everyone who will take out their valuable time to provide reviews here! :)

Thanks, NØ 11:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47

I am unsure if I will be able to commit to a full review, but I wanted to bring up a quick comment about the article. Currently, the article only addresses the Kim Petras remix in the "Release history" table, but I believe this release should also be mentioned in the prose. I did a quick Google search and found the following citations (Rolling Stone, NME, and American Songwriter) that discuss this remix. I would also add information about the remix's lyric video to the article, even if it is just mentioning its existence.

Again, I am not sure if I can do a full review, and I am sorry for that, but I still wanted to bring this to your attention as it was something that I noticed. I might make some time in the future to try and help, but I cannot guarantee it. I am glad to see you bring this article to the peer review space with a potential FAC in mind. This song is a more recent release (as you've already mentioned) so props to you for all the work on this! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for pointing this out and for hunting the sources! I'll work on the remix part soon. I do think the article would benefit greatly from a full peer review from you but please only do it when and if you have the time.--NØ 11:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take as much time as you need to add the remix information to the article. I will try my best to make some time, but I just wanted to be clear that I cannot fully guarantee that I will able to. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar standard note

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) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Aguilera (album)


I created this page last year right after the album's release. Seeing as the album was being released in three EPs, it was difficult to keep the articles independent without the material of all the pages overlaping. Now this page is totally independent from the pages for La Fuerza and La Tormenta (EP), and its material is well written, sourced, and separated into well defined sections. I think the album is deserving of its B-class quality assessment, and could be a great GA nominee in the near future. This peer review would be beneficial for the article, as it's already a good article.

I'm aware that a few sources need to be archived or swapped for better ones. Additionally, the album will not be released in physical format until later this year, so some of the credits might not be complete or entirely correct, while information on its recording locations is very limited to what has been said in passing, or what has been posted by the official account of the studio itself. This information will need to be cross referenced with the album's liner notes after its release in June. Another problem is that the physical release seems to change repeatedly, as it was originally slated for a December 2, 2022 release, was later pushed to January 13, 2023, and now it's expected to release on June 2. Despite this, I hope you will take the time to review this article, hopefully improving it until further informaiton is released, bringing the article as close to GA status as possible. Thanks, 204060baby (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Some comments after a quick skim:

  • "The album is scheduled to be released in CD format on June 2, 2023." Needs a citation
  • "Five singles have been released from Aguilera; three of them are featured on La Fuerza, one on La Tormenta and one on La Luz." Needs a citation
  • All the "Notes" in "Track listing" need citations
  • I think "Personnel and credits" needs a citation, even if it is to the liner notes of the album.
  • Suggest expanding out the YouTube citations to the format described in WP:VIDEOLINK
  • Per WP:FORBESCON, Forbes sources written by contributors should not be used as sources (ref 79)
  • "Critical reception" section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Consider [WP:RECEPTION]] for tips on how to avoid this.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


King James Version (album)

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… several rewrites later from the last peer review, I have made the page MUCH better than it used to be, with better formatting. I need this checking out with regards to; 1. things that don't make sense/grammar? 2. any glaring mistakes 3. any things i should include/mention/say. Aiming for FA/GA status, though it isn't completely there yet.

I am aware that I need to do rewrites of the composition, and the aftermath/legacy section is not complete. Any suggestions on how to do the legacy section will be useful. Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Transfer Pak


I've been working on our coverage of this subject for the last couple of months, first when it was a subsection on the greater Nintendo 64 accessories article before splitting it off and further fleshing it out. I've attempted to make sure no content is missing, with everything being adequately cited with reliable secondary sources, supplemented by first party sources via various game instruction manuals in instances where the former doesn’t explicitly detail the accessory's functionality for a given game. I don't know that it's good enough to reach GA status (and unfortunately I'm not sure it ever will be, given its overall lack of reception in verifiable sources beyond those already cited; believe me, I've looked), but I wouldn't mind if someone gave it a look to see if it's worth trying anyway, or at least if there are any obvious problem areas that can be fixed. It would be nice if I could at least get it reevaluated to B-class. Thanks much. Cyberlink420 (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Third paragraph in "History" is quite long. Any way to split it up?
    •  Done. I split off the mention of Cabbage into its own paragraph describing cancelled games intended to have Transfer Pak support, while the rest was separated into one about games that were announced to have Transfer Pak support at one point before it was removed.
  • Suggest archiving references using IABot, use this link to run it on this page
    • yellow tickY Partly done. Will let it run later tonight.
  • Is there any information on the accessory's impact on the gaming community? Did it inspire or lead to other technology?
  • Try looking for more sources on Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, or your local library system.
    •  Not done. Still need to set up a WP:Libary account. I'm not super optimistic about my odds of finding anything though.
  • I think the lede can be expanded to two paragraphs.
    •  Done. Last sentence was separated, and the new paragraph was expanded with brief mention of games that had their support removed, along with a mention of how it inspired later connectivity efforts.

I hope this helps. I reclassified this as B-class. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! I updated the article and addressed each of your points individually. I'll continue to keep an eye out for more sources I could potentially use to expand the article. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from CactiStaccingCrane

For an article this niche, consider asking for help in WikiProjecr Video Games for more advice. Other than that, disregarding sourcing and accuracy concerns, I think that this article is good to go at WP:GAN. CactiStaccingCrane 15:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Tomb of Philippe Pot


One of the most impressive pieces of Funerary art have come across. The hope is to create a poignant and visually comforting article, however need input from people better able to spot gaps and wield English better than I can. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SC

  • I made a few small MOS tweaks here and there in these edits; you may wish to check I've not changed anything I shouldn't have.
Lead
  • "dressed in black hoods and act as pallbearers carrying Philippe towards his grave: this doesn't quite work. "who act" would be better
  • "running along each sides of the slab: either "each side" or "both/all sides", but not "each sides"
Life and death
  • "there-after" isn't hyphenated, according to the OED
  • "Philippe's tomb follows": can just be "The tomb follows"
  • "Tant L. vaut, était": probably worth a translation here
  • "locations within his chapel, and the tomb was": I'd full stop after chapel and go with a new sentence – it's on a different point and the comma splice jars a bit
  • "Philippe' commissioned of his tomb in 1477 some 14 years before his eventual death 1493, reflects his desire to convey to prosperity his change in allegiance from the Duke of Burgundy to Louis XI after the battle of Nancy that year." I'm not sure what this is say as it stands. Possibly trimming v slightly and tweaking to say "Philippe's commissioning of his tomb in 1477, some 14 years before his death in 1493, reflected his desire to convey his change in allegiance from the Duke of Burgundy to Louis XI after the battle of Nancy."
  • "over his grave Cîteaux Abbey": "over his grave at Cîteaux Abbey"
Description
  • "a tunic and silver armour covered with a": a comma after armour would help, I think
  • "and the black": no need for the def article
  • "mourners with black hooded": "with black hoods", not hooded
  • "Dagobert (d. 1235)e": a rogue "e"
Condition and restorations
  • "the 19th century, as evidence by": "as evidenced by"
  • "There are records of Philippe's feet and the resting animal beside them that were repaired before 1816.": Probably needs a little tweaking along the lines "There are records that show Philippe's feet and the resting animal beside them, were repaired before 1816."
  • I think you need to rework "The sculpture transformed the conventional size and placement of pleurants, which since the tomb of Philip the Good had been relatively small figures standing in a niche in the sarcophagus' lower register." a little – it's not entirely clear what you're saying
  • "it was photographed": Needs a capital, although as it's the start of a new para, I think I'd be tempted to open with "The tomb was photographed".
Good article – I've been round the Louvre a dozen times before but can't recall it: I'll keep a special eye out for it next time.
I'll leave the spotting gaps in sources to those with a better grasp of art history than me; this is only a prose review, but I hope it helps. Cheers- SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent thanks, very helpful. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane

I've spotted a potentially unreliable source: http://lesmusardisesdesushi.over-blog.com/article-tombeau-de-philippe-pot-musee-du-louvre-paris-1-63847798.html as a blog by a non-expert (see the author's credentials at https://www.over-blog.com/user/1500706.html, which is concerning). In terms of comprehensiveness, I think that the article is full of details and seems authoritative. Here're a few ideas for finding more sources: full transcription and translation of the tomb's inscriptions, materials used to construct the pleurants and the tomb itself (not the effigy), and how well-known is the tomb to the public. Overall, this is a great article that deserves recognition. CactiStaccingCrane 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:CactiStaccingCrane, the suggestion re the inscriptions is v. good....going back through sources. Ceoil (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps, have removed lesmusardisesdesushi.over-blog.com - the sources wasn't sanying anything many other earlier sources had clamed. Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Next Day

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 19 January 2023, 03:48 UTC
Last edit: 6 February 2023, 02:50 UTC


Hair (musical)

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been designated as an GA for about 15 years and in my perspective has exceeded that recognition and is worthy of FA status. I would like some peer review to cover my blind spots before I officially nominate it for FAC status Thanks, Jaydenwithay (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Fest i hela huset


"Fest i hela huset" appeared on Wikipedia's main page in the Did you know? column and passed GOCE. This article will be nominated to GA. Eurohunter (talk)

Comments from Z1720

Some comments after a quick skim:

  • ""Fest i hela huset" is a song by Swedish musician Basshunter, during the Swedish edition of the reality television series Big Brother." I don't understand the connection to the television show. Was it written during the show as the person was a contestant? Was it the theme song of the show? This should be explained.
    •  Done. Added "recorded" due to context changed after GOCE edit. Basshunter was invited to Big Brother to record this song with participants. Eurohunter (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am surprised that the article doesn't have a reception section. What did critical commentators say about the song?
    •  Comment: There are only two opinions from contestant and manager already included in the text. Of course would be perfect to have reviews from Swedish magazines but I wasn't able to find them now or 10 years earlier but recently I discovered Swedish review of Now You're Gone – The Album by incident. Eurohunter (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any additional information on the production/creation of the song?
    •  Comment: Unortunatelly no information available. Sources only duplicate the same information. Eurohunter (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review. Eurohunter (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another place you can look for sources is WP:A/S, a list of music sources deemed reliable by the community, and WP:CHARTS for information about the song's success on music charts. There's also WP:LIBRARY for various databases and your local library system might have access to databases that Wikipedia does not. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: I think I have checked it all and even more:) Most of the time if there is no information in one or two search engines, there is no information. Eurohunter (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Otto Klemperer

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 23 December 2022, 18:20 UTC
Last edit: 22 January 2023, 20:43 UTC


Shin Ultraman


I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed to meet GA states as it didn't meet the reasonably well-written standard. According to the reviewer, the major problem with the article was that the Critical response "lacks cohesive narrative"; but I've now deleted one of their reasons why it failed, which was the sentence reading: "Many reviewers have praised the film for Higuchi and Anno's ambition to introduce Ultraman to modern audiences and the film's direction, characters, editing, cinematography, visual effects, musical score, and action sequences." (also it was unsourced). Can someone please give some suggestions on what still needs fixing in the Critical response section and the overall article? Note: I may not be online much from after Christmas until late January 2023. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2022 (NZDT)

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Is the long block quote in "Development and writing" necessary, or can some/all of it be cut and summarised?
Its the film's screenwriter explaining the film's target audience and intentions so I think it's certainly necessary. I've just trimmed it down a bit for now. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2022 (NZDT)
  • The "Critical reception" section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Consider reading WP:RECEPTION for ideas on how to reformat this section. Specifically, I suggest grouping the critiques by theme instead of by positive/negative reviews.
Fixed - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2023 (NZDT)
  • Reference titles should not be in all caps, per MOS:ALLCAPS.
 Done - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2022 (NZDT)
  • Consider removing some links in the "External links" section per MOS:ELNO
 Done - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2022 (NZDT)

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's completely fixed now and ready to be renominated for GA. @Z1720: Is there anything else or did I forget/not fix something? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2023 (NZDT)
"Overall, the film has grossed approximately $33,823,581 worldwide." Needs a reference. Other than this, I think this is OK for a GAN, where someone will do a deeper review of the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for this helpful review! Btw, that sentence is derived from information provided by Anime News Network and Box Office Mojo; Box Office Mojo says it only grossed $31,199,952 in Japan instead of $33.5 million, with the latter making the worldwide total $33,823,581 (I can discuss this with the GA reviewer if you wish). - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2023 (NZDT)

Comments from Alaney2k

While these are not part of the 'well-written' discussion, I noticed a couple of things. Nothing major, but things to keep in mind before nominating an article. I've noticed GA articles that have these problems, but it looks good to consider these.

  • The article was a 'sea of blue'. (WP:SEA OF BLUE) These were duplicate wikilinks, sometimes repeated several times and more than once in a paragraph. There is a script that detects duplicate wikilinks, so I used that to clean that up. The basic rule is one wikilink for the prose section and one per the lede section. Tables, citations and image captions are not counted in the total, although I usually try to keep down the duplication as a whole in tables and cites myself. Something to keep in mind for the future before a GA nomination.Alaney2k (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You should complete the 'alt' tags for all of the images. Something to keep in mind for the future before a GA nomination. Alaney2k (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Degrassi

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 14 September 2022, 05:13 UTC
Last edit: 22 January 2023, 04:47 UTC


Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt


I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get promoted to featured article status, and indeed for the article to appear on the main page - again (it has been a DYK? and is currently a GA). I admit that I do like the idea of an article entitled "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" to appear on Wikipedia's main page. I'm not entirely sure which bits need improving before it should be put up as a candidate.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (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. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from mujinga

  • Overall this article seems to be in pretty good shape
  • Not sure about "aftermath" as the name of the last section?
  • In order to flesh this out as a featured article, you could consider giving a bit more info on Kunt and the Gang. And also who did get the xmas number 1 in 2021? (a question i thought i would never ask)
  • "All money made from sales from the single will go": thats past tense now
  • Music Week can be linked
  • As can all instances of Billboard
  • "Cassetteboy again supported him, releasing a mash-up video of Johnson performing to "Killing in the Name" by Rage Against the Machine with a message to support the stream.[36]" - it would be nice to have a better source here. You can probably argue in favour of beyondthejoke.co.uk but it appears to be a blog
  • For the rest the source seem pretty good
  • Best of luck with the article Mujinga (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ISD: to ensure that they saw the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)\Reply[reply]

Commments from Eurohunter

@ISD: Just checked the article and I did minor fixes. Would you review song "Fest i hela huset" in return? List of issues of found:

  • Music group was actually named "The Kunts" while release of single from what I see in cover and it would be good to introduce it in the lead. Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ""Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" was originally released as a track on the album Kunts Punk in Your Face in July 2020.[1][2]" - there could be exact release date if there is any source for it and the date is actually known. Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Safe-For-Work Sausage Roll Remix" - is capital at "For" needed? Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The single's artwork is a parody of The Sun newspaper." - reference? Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "All 23 versions of the song were later released as a single extended play." - what is name of this extended play? 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • If "UK Singles Downloads Chart" and "Official Audio Streaming Chart" are mentioned in the text they should be also included in "Charts" section. Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The band made all three songs available for free on BandCamp, with Kunt instead suggesting that people should donate money to Mind." - what is "Mind"? It's linked above but this is the other section and it should be linked again. Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ISD: It has been over a month since comments were posted above. Are you still working on these, or can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to close. ISD (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Everyday life

Ken "Snakehips" Johnson


"Snakehips" was an intriguing figure. A swing band leader who had an early influence in British swing music who promised to have a bigger impact on the style, but his life was unfortunately cut short by a German bomb on the Café de Paris at the age of just 26. A trip to FAC is considered, unless there are good reasons not to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

  • Consecutive sentances begin with "he" are jarring - (lead) He showed some.... He was schooled
  • "He was schooled in Britain" - its not 1920 anymore :) - educated
  • He returned and set up the West Indian Dance Orchestra - returned to where
  • legally took over the band, causing Thompson and several musicians to leave - not sure about this, was baffled on first reading but took control of?
  • the band began broadcasting alliteration
  • The article is on a musical period have a real love for; more later. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All things being equal, I think I probably agree about losing the moniker from the page title. And does 'My Husband' need upper casing? A shame perhaps to have three images crammed into the first section and then no others (e.g., Café de Paris seen in 2013). The first blockquote begins with a l/c ("was amused by...") unlike all the others. But it's well-written and a sad story. It made me cry a bit. Nice work SN54129 17:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Just a placeholder for now, but more shortly. Tim riley talk 16:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few comments

Not much from me. Clearly of FA quality in my view. A few carps and cavils, more meo:

  • Lead
  • "his attraction to dancing was opposed by his father" – this reads a bit oddly. Can one oppose someone else's attraction to something? In the main text you write "His early interest in dancing was opposed by his father", which seems to me better, but still not ideal. The point is, I take it from the context, that Johnson senior opposed the idea of dancing as a profession for his son.
  • "1937 he control of the band" – word missing
  • "As an all-black orchestra ... Johnson was seen as a pioneer" – There's an odd form of dangling modifier here: Johnson was not an orchestra. I think you want "As leader of an all-black orchestra..." or some such.
  • Early life
  • "Through Bradley, Johnson was recorded" – Makes Bradley sound like a microphone. Perhaps "Through Bradley's influence..."?
  • Professional career
  • "form an all-black jazz band ... which made its debut that April" – you generally use plural verbs and pronouns for "band", "group" etc, which is of course fine (see p. 161 of the current edition of Fowler) but it might be as well to stick to that convention throughout rather than have the occasional singular, as here.
  • "seen as an all-black ensemble.[17][8][18]" – the order of the citations needs a tweak.
  • "Leslie Perowne, the BBC's Head of Music" – oh no he wasn't! The BBC's head of music throughout the 1930s was Sir Adrian Boult. At the time you're writing about, Perowne was working in the BBC's Variety Department (of which he later – 1942– became head). See Times obit 6 Nov 1997, p. 23. Best just to call him "Leslie Perowne of the BBC's Variety Department".
  • "It was the first of several broadcasts they were to make" – as you have detailed them all below, you can easily give the precise number rather than "several", and I'd be inclined to do so. There are eleven "several"s in the article and it wouldn't harm to have one less.
  • Impact and legacy
  • "Al Bowlly, the singer who sometimes accompanied the band" – I doubt if Mr Bowlly looked on it like that: I imagine he thought the band was accompanying him. Perhaps "the singer who sometimes performed with the band"?
  • Notes
  • "many new talents were had their breaks there" – a word too many.

Ping me when you get to FAC, please. – Tim riley talk 13:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Efren Reyes


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually take this article to FA. Aside from the uncited early life para, I'm reasonably happy with this article, but it needs more eyes before I'd feel comfortable nominating it at FAC. Anything you can suggest would be apprciated.

Thanks, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2022 (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. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: It has been almost two months since this was posted, and no one has comments. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest posting a request on the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are attached to this article. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As always, Peer Review just doesn't work. If there had been a large base of people working on such articles, I would have asked there in the first place. Happy to close. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Engineering and technology

Wikipedia

Previous peer review


I'd like to get this article back to FA at some point- after nominating already and getting a quick fail, it seems to consensus was that a peer review would be best, so here I am!

Thanks, MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Weesperplein metro station


Hi. I'm thinking about getting this to FAC. I've made some minor improvements since it passed the GAN. Going to PR first since it would be my first time in FAC lands.

Thanks, ~StyyxTalk? 20:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


KITE Kerala


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what this article lack and weather there copy edit is neede

Thanks,

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede could be expanded to cover more aspects of the article
  • The article suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, with many sections only one paragraph long. Try to merge these together or expand upon them.
  • Merge citations that are the same, like citations 30-35. Help:Footnotes has information about this, or look at some other articles and copy their code.
  • Suggest archiving your websites using the IABot. The link to do that is here.
  • Many of the accolades might not be notable because they do not have their own wiki-articles. Wikipedia is not for promotion and not a database so if the award is not notable, it should not be in the article.
  • A copy-edit is definitely needed, especially with punctuation. The Guild of Copyeditors might help with this.
  • Are you connected to this organisation? If so, please read WP:COIE (and if you are paid by the organisation, please also read WP:PAID) and if you have any questions, please ping me.

That's all I have for now. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Pure Storage


My name is Zac Bond and I work for Pure Storage. It appears 4 years ago a prior employee disclosed, made some minor edits, and requested larger ones on Talk, which were implemented by a volunteer. The tag alleging Terms of Use violations was added because of user AaronEndre's incomplete disclosure when he started the page 11 years ago. This page has been re-written since then, but the tag was left up due to neutrality/tone concerns.

It's possible I'm not summarizing correctly, but that's what I've gathered. In a nutshell, it appears the current page is still not considered neutral as a result of Talk page contributions from a former Pure Storage employee. I'd like your feedback on how I can fix that, where and how the page sounds promotional, and how for me to best assist. ZacBond (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Costa Concordia disaster

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 11 November 2022, 12:55 UTC
Last edit: 25 January 2023, 17:00 UTC


Interstate 40 in Tennessee

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 6 November 2022, 07:28 UTC
Last edit: 23 January 2023, 04:06 UTC


Rust (programming language)

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 3 November 2022, 16:07 UTC
Last edit: 31 January 2023, 15:57 UTC


General

Iron Gwazi

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 4 November 2022, 18:07 UTC
Last edit: 18 January 2023, 16:30 UTC


Kamikaze Hearts (film)


Hi! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to turn it into a GA.

Thanks, ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
  • "Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
  • The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
  • The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
  • "SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
  • The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
  • Suggest archiving the citations, using IABot. Here's a link to this.
  • If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Z1720, sorry for taking a while to respond. Thank you for the feedback! Here is how it’s coming along:
  • The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
 Done I do have one question, though— do you think should I restore the citations which backed up the genre (quasi-documentary)? KH doesn’t get referred to as this throughout the rest of the article.
  • "Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
 Done Not controversial at all; I’ve gone ahead and removed the excess citations. Also, quite a few of those sources appeared to be unreliable, so we’ve just killed two birds.
  • The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
 Working on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.
  • The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
 Done I also merged a relatively short portion of Reception with Release. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any available info about how the film did at the box office when it was first released. The only numbers I found were those of the 2022 re-release. It seemed more appropriate to merge.
  • "SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
  • The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Still  Working on these two.
 Done by Awkwafaba. Thank you; I was struggling to get the bot running.
  • If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.
 Done Oh yeah! I’d forgotten all about TWL. I signed up and poked around for a bit, but sadly didn’t find anything. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ancient Trader


I've listed this article for peer review because I now have the time and willingness to take it through FAC once more and want to make sure the article remains in good shape.

Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 19:33, 29 January 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. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Geography and places

Lakes in Bangalore


The first line on the main page of WP:PR says an editor can ask for a review even while working on an article. The current stage of the ongoing expansion should give an idea of the direction that this article is taking. Comments and suggestions in relation to any aspect of the article are welcome, including major reshuffles of sections and headers, and improving usage of the maplink template. It is still far from featured article status and I don't think the coverage is even adequate in that aspect. Thanks, FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article as put out for peer review was gutted by another user not wanting, or knowing how (see edit history to view user) to participate in the peer review process. Hence, this request for peer review is no longer valid. Please see edit history to view the original article put out for peer review.

Withrow, Minnesota


This article is about Withrow, Minnesota, an unicorporated community which once existed in Washington County, Minnesota and was absorbed by the respective communities of Hugo, Grant, and May Township in Minnesota. The community was platted in 1915, but failed in a petition to incorporate in 1947 as the community lacked the requisite 50 residents required. I began research for this article in 2016, and have ammased a lot of time and resources obtaining information regarding the veracity of the community before finally compiling the article in the sandbox and transferring it to the main page. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this to be a comprehensive history of Withrow. It is the longest article I have written about a Minnesota ghost town since in some respects, portions of Withrow still exist. I have tried to assure no resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article (in fact, it may be over-sourced), and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one location. The article is modeled loosely on the FA Pithole, Pennsylvania, and the articles Elcor and Manganese, Minnesota, which I helped promote to achieve FA status. The article both reads and flows well thanks to revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors.

Thanks, DrGregMN (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The first paragraphs in "Establishment and community" are quite long. Any way to split it into two paragraphs?
    • Done
  • "Withrow formerly had a Girl Scout troop, #1292[62] and a Boy Scout troop, #169.[63] Withrow also had a baseball team, the Gophers,[39][64][65][66][67] a Woodmen of the World Camp,[68] a Mothers club,[67][69][70][71] a 4-H club,[66] and a Community Club.[69][70][72][73][74] " Are this many citations needed in these sentences? If so, maybe WP:CITEBUNDLE.
    • Removed duplicate citations.
  • Theres a when tag before the sentence listed above.
    • Removed. The tag was placed by my favorite copy editor, Jonesey95. I've incorporated his suggested sentence to lead off the paragraph, and moved the scout troops to the end. The problem stems from not knowing when the individual scout troops were formed and dissolved: I could attempt to call the individual scouting organizations, but this would be construed as WP:OR and the citations would be personal interviews, neither of which is acceptable in Wikipedia; it's also not a guarantee that they would even have the information. I've incorporated the dates of the articles in the sentence to reflect that scout troops were in existence at least for the individual years published.
  • "Railroads" has a lot of short paragraphs. Any way to have longer paragraphs?
    • The paragraphs were originally longer. I intentionally broke them up so as not to confuse the readers with the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the Canadian National Railroad, both of which currently converge at what was once Withrow. It did not read well with too many "Canadians" in one paragraph.
  • "selling the Ballroom at auction in 2017 to Laura Miron Mendele.[130][131][132][133][134][135] Lawrence Xiong purchased the facility from Mendele in December of 2019, who rebranded the ballroom as the Keystone Wedding and Events Center.[136][137][138][139][140]" Again, are this many citations necessary here?
    • Removed duplicate citations, some of which were relocated in the section about the Withrow Ballroom as supporting citations.
  • Ref 103 is to IMDB, which is generally considered unreliable on Wikipedia.
    • I'm going to leave it for now. I have not been able to find a more reputable source citing the former Withrow Elementary School as a location for the film Killer Movie.

Those are my thoughts. I think this article is close to ready for a GAN, and with some more work could be nominated for an FAC. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the delay in responding to your criticisms; they have been most useful. Please feel free to have another look. I know Peer Review has many articles waiting for review, so I don't intend on closing out the review process just yet: it's always helpful when there is more than one set of eyes looking at an article. Thank you, Z1720! DrGregMN (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


History

23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article. It would also serve as a "template" for improvements to several similar regiments or battalions. In general, I have found that information for Confederate regiments/battalions can be more difficult to find compared to Union units.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

After a quick skim, this article looks to be in amazing shape. I would post a request at WP:MILHIST for comments, as editors there are fairly active. Some comments below:

  • "Ainsworth, Fred C.; Kirkley, Joseph W., eds. (1902)", "Armstrong, Richard L. (2017). The Battle of Lewisburg. Charleston, West Virginia: 35th Star Publishing)", "Johnston, David E. (1906).", and "Scott, Robert N., ed. (1891a)." are listed as references, but is not used as an inline source. Either it should be used or moved to further reading.
  • Suggest archiving links using IABot here

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Maurice Duplessis


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to solicit feedback for improvements of the article before undergoing successive GA/FA reviews. This concerns both this article and Premiership of Maurice Duplessis, which I had to spin out because of the breadth of material concerning this politician. The starting version of the article in question was this one.

This article is, in part, a translation of the French article () of the same name, but it was significantly restructured and enhanced with new information (the only one I omitted is about the music pieces that mention Duplessis, for which I could not find adequate summary in reliable sources. The French version simply refers to each song separately, which I think is an instance of WP:OR). The information I need is this:
  1. Compliance with the Manual of Style, and catching basic grammar/vocabulary inconsistencies
  2. Finding exact pages for quotes within this book and fulfilling WP:RX requests I posted the previous month.
  3. Finding if I twisted anything from the French language, which I don't know that well (reviewers are expected to know French in this case)
  4. Whether indeed some sections are too detailed in scope, as one user indicated when putting a cleanup template (I try to be comprehensive but I may sometimes overdo it)

Obviously, other suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Jean Joseph Marie Amiot


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it up near GA standards before I nominate it as so.

Thanks, —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 08:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Marianne Bachmeier


I've listed this article for peer review because… This article receives a lot of views per day (almost a top 25 article) and it will be wise to make sure it is up to Wikipedia standards. I have spend time improving the article and would like a second opinion and how to make it better Thanks, FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Lede can be expanded so that it is a summary of the whole article.
  • Suggest expanding the article using more sources from WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Archive.org or your local library system.
  • WP:VIDEOLINK has an example format of how to cite video links. I suggest using this to clean up the YouTube references.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Oak Ridge Military Academy


I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for a while now and my goal is to get it up to GA status, but first I want someone with a bit of experience editing wikipedia to check whether the article fulfills all of the requirements for B class. The two requirements that the original article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oak_Ridge_Military_Academy&oldid=1098428422 failed were Referencing and citation and Coverage and accuracy. To remedy the Referencing and citations, I added 10 new citations. To remedy the Coverage and accuracy, I added content to the history section, and Oak Ridge Today. I also added the Extracurriculars section.

Thanks, Surfinsi (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Take a look at Amador Valley High School for ideas of sections that can be added to this article.
  • A citation is needed at the end of the last paragraph in "History".

Done

  • I'm not sure what the "Oak Ridge Today" section is about. It is about the operations of the school? A history of modern-day activities?

Fixed it by reoganizing the structure of the article

  • Combine refs 20 and 21

I don't know what you mean by this, Red Hayworth and Ray Hayworth are two different people. Is there a way to have one citation to one cite even when they are two different people?

  • I suggest looking for additional sources on WP:LIBRARY, Google, archive.org or your local library system.

I hope this helps. I updated the article to B-class. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for responding so quickly to my peer review request! I'm happy you think that the article is good enough for B-class. I fixed the problems you pointed out and added 6 more sources. I've been thinking about putting this one up for a GAN but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on it? Thanks, Surfinsi Surfinsi (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Ian

Hi, I went to the article after seeing it listed on the MilHist requests for assessment page. I've copyedited for prose and style but I couldn't agree with B-class as yet if only because several of the notable alumni are uncited; I've tagged the section as such. I haven't checked reliability of sources or image licensing as yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added citations to the last half of the Notable Alumni Section. Thanks for helping! You said that the only reason why the article wasn't B-class because of the referencing and citation so I'm going to re-rate the article as B-class, but if you disagree with that rating then don't hesitate to let me know and I'll fix it. Thanks. Surfinsi (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I said it wasn't B-class for MilHist "if only" because of missing citations, I wasn't trying to imply that was all there was to it -- as I mentioned I haven't checked source reliability or image licensing, and would want to do that before rating B-class. In any case MilHist assessments require an independent editor to rate for B-class, not someone closely involved with the article like yourself, so would you mind reverting yourself and I'll look at those elements when I get a chance? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


10th millennium BC

Previous peer review


Hi! I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering applying for this article to get in the FA, but first I need feedback on improving the 10th millennium BC page. I feel like it can be in the FA if there is more information and sources, but I want to see what someone thinks about the page so far. You can review any section, but it would be really appreciated if you looked through the whole article. I didn't really change anything that was made before. So far, I just added some things to the page, so there can be a bit more content in some parts. Right now, the page has 30k bytes which is not bad imo. This is the first time I have ever done a peer review so hopefully, I can improve on helping Wikipedia over time. Thanks for reading this review application.

Thanks, FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane

User:FerdinandLovesLegos I would suggest contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Years for more advice on how to improve the article. No "years" or "millennium" have been a featured article/list yet, but you can take a look at 1346 and 9th millennium BC for inspiration. CactiStaccingCrane 15:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright. I will contact the Wikiepdia:WikiProject Years for more advice on how to improve the article I'm working on. I did notice that no Year pages reached FA yet, but hopefully, that will change soon. Thanks for letting me know! FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.

Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright. If this article somehow gets into the FA, I will be shocked tbh. Also, I'm working on getting the 8th millennium BC page to Good Article quality soon as well. FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Edgar, King of England

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 21 January 2023, 09:22 UTC
Last edit: 5 February 2023, 10:26 UTC


Supermarine S.4


I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate as a FAC. All comments are, as always, very welcome.

Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Peru–Yale University dispute


I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like feedback on overall structure and scope. However, all comments are welcome.

Thanks, GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 13:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Great work on this article. I think this is really close to being ready for a GA nomination. Try to avoid short paragraphs like at the end of "Difference of opinion" and expand the sections that are a bit short. Can you incorporate the articles listed for Further Reading? That might give additional information for the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Z1720! Thanks so much for your comments. I agree there are short punchy sections which can be expanded. I'll look to the Further reading section to pull in more content of interest to the reader and flesh out the short sections. Thanks again! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Airship

If I were reviewing at FAC, I'd note:

  • that citations seem to be a bit over the top. If two sentences are sourced to the same reference, the first one doesn't need a citation unless it quotes the source. At present, at least one sentence cites the same source twice.
  • There are too many single sentence/short paragraphs, and three short level-2 sections. I'm not convinced that significance needs to be a section by itself.
  • The sections seem oddly organised. The Chronology section should be ordered chronologically, but you have these weird "Difference of opinion" & "Changing sentiment" sections in the middle.
  • I'm also unsure about the necessity of the quotes, especially considering their profligacy in the body. Are there any reasons that these quotes in particular have been selected? In any case, the first quote (Bingham's letter) needs to be sourced.
    • On that note, does Colin Renfrew's full job title really need to be given?
  • The tenses need to make sense. The present tense should not be used to describe a view ("points out", "states", etc.)

If you have any questions, please feel free to ping me here or on my talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Henry II of England

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 January 2023, 22:12 UTC
Last edit: 28 January 2023, 13:37 UTC


Hatshepsut

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 January 2023, 19:49 UTC
Last edit: 17 January 2023, 02:08 UTC


Hammurabi

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 8 January 2023, 20:47 UTC
Last edit: 17 January 2023, 15:48 UTC


Abdel Halim Mohamed


I've listed this article for peer review because… to prepare for the GA review as this process was recommend to me by another editor

Thanks, FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede is five paragraphs, which according to WP:LEDE is longer than is recommended. I suggest trimming this and ensuring that all of this information is in the body of the article.
  • Lots of the citations have been put at the end of the paragraph that they are verifying, which makes it hard to figure out which sources verify which sentences. I suggest moving references to be beside the sentence they are verifying.
  • In "Literary and political activism", the final three sections are quite short, causing MOS:OVERSECTION. Can these be merged or expanded?
  • Please add the author of the source to the references, if possible.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720 thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hungarian nobility


I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it as a FAC. The article is about a social class that dominated the political and economic life of present-day Hungary and significant regions in the neighboring countries for almost a millenia. I think the article is comprehensive but I need further imput to improve its style.

Thank you for your time, Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2022 (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. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misc. notes:

  • The allods wikilink goes to a video game?
  • Consider adding a image above the jump for use as a thumbnail internally—also the navbox is suppressed on mobile which is how many readers access Wikipedia
  • This sounds weird but what happened *after* the legal abolition of the nobility? Were they all killed? What happens to their fancy houses? Are any portion of the contemporary Hungarian elite related to the old nobility?

jengod (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Thank you for your comments. I am searching for sources to expand the article about nobility after 1947. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Borsoka: It has been over a month since the last comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback, or is this ready to be closed? Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Thank you for your query. I am still interested in receiving feedback. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Södermanland Runic Inscription 113

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 24 September 2022, 03:43 UTC
Last edit: 5 January 2023, 16:15 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics

Beibeilong


Took interest for Baby Louie so I decided I'll go and expand the article. Now that the article has grown quite a bit I'll try to get it to FA status. Feedback is greatly appreciated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'll see if I can get time to review it, though regular peer review is always archived quickly, so WP:paleopr is maybe more reliable if that happens. At first glance, there is a bunch of WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! I'll give it a try. I was sure there was paleo peer review but couldn't find it, much appreciated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Watch out for WP:Image sandwiching, where text is squeezed between two images.
    I have tried to split up the text so that it doesn't look so sandwiched. Maybe downsizing one of the images could work. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Nearly complete Macroelongatoolithus nest (specimen 41HV003-16)" I'm sure it's from source, but how come the identity in the caption is different from in the Commons image description? Should be modified there too if the sources say otherwise.
    Added a proper description and also a renaming request. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Animal


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been well developed but has not been able to meet the A-class or FA-class quality standards. There have been very few discussions and edits to the page recently. If it is reviewed, errors that prevent it from being nominated as an A-class article would be highlighted and soon added to the article. I would be happy to make the changes advised by the reviewer.

Thanks, PrathuCoder (talk) 14:47, 18 January 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.
Hello PrathuCoder. First some general advice: the FAC process is quite difficult to navigate. I would not nominate an article before you've written a couple of WP:good articles. Most Wikiprojects to not have a separate A-class.
I only have time to go over the article superficially. For articles like this, it's important to keep WP:make technical articles understandable in mind. Almost all readers should understand the lead of an article (WP:EXPLAINLEAD), and most readers should understand the body.
  • "and go through an ontogenetic stage in which their body consists of a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development." this is overly techincal and doesn't belong in the first paragraph. If you can avoid words like blastula and ontogenetic it may be okay elsewhere. In general, the lead contains too many long sentences, making readability poor.
  • The second paragraph is also too difficult. Most people will not know what a clade is, or a phylum.
  • The article stands at 3887 words. This is a perfectly fine length, but at WP:FAC, they seek articles that are comprehensive. For an article like this, I can imagine people expect at least 5000 words (or even 8000). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info @Femke. This is my first Peer Review for your information so I am not very familiar with the process. I have tried my best to make sentences shorter and make the terminology less technical in the lead. PrathuCoder (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a section on human threats to animals could be added, perhaps by summarizing parts of Holocene extinction Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chidgk1, I have added more information about the holocene extincition and conservation drives in the lead. I'll try to create a new section on that soon, but for now there is probably enough information in the lead. PrathuCoder (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The information you added was uncited, and not quite accurate. Extinction is mostly caused by destruction of habitat, and to a lesser extent invasive species / climate change. Not from usage of animals. Note that all text added to the lead must first be added to the body of the article using high-quality reliable sources. For science, this means sources that comply with WP:SCIRS. A phylum is not always defines like you described either (could be genetic).
This is quite a difficult article to improve. I suggest you try working on less important articles first, get familiar with the GA process, before trying something as ambitious as this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok @Femke, could you provide a couple of references I could use to add the information given by you and some more? Sorry if I am asking too much since I don't know many sources I could use for this. PrathuCoder (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a biologist, but maybe folks at WP:Biology may be able to help you find sources. University-level instruction books supplemented by more up-to-date scientific reviews is what you want to aim for. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Femke, You have reverted my edits, even though they were on your advice. Could you please let me know why? PrathuCoder (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my explanation above for my partial revert. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Habitat destruction should certainly be wikilinked. But as Femke says this kind of general article is really hard - don’t think I could do it. @BhagyaMani has been very helpful on my occasional forays into Panthera pardus tulliana so perhaps he will have some advice Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


1920 Xalapa earthquake

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 1 November 2022, 15:20 UTC
Last edit: 24 January 2023, 00:46 UTC


Samarium

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 29 October 2022, 08:57 UTC
Last edit: 7 January 2023, 08:19 UTC


Rosalie Slaughter Morton

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 4 October 2022, 10:59 UTC
Last edit: 6 February 2023, 14:38 UTC


1995 Aigio earthquake

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 September 2022, 22:22 UTC
Last edit: 5 February 2023, 03:21 UTC


Language and literature

Jotaro Kujo


Hello! I'm planning for Jotaro Kujo to be nominated to WP:GA and while I think the article is already in good condition, I want to know if there's anything I need to improve to make the article worthy of it. Is there any feedback you all could give me?

Thanks, Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


All the Light We Cannot See


All the Light We Cannot See is a war novel that was commercially and critically successful, won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and is currently being adapted to Netflix. This article passed a WP:GA nomination and a WP:DYK nomination a few days ago. I plan on nominating this article for WP:FA soon in preparation for a WP:TFA for either the release of the adaptation or the tenth anniversary of this novel, whichever one is sooner when the candidacy succeeds. Any suggestion would be helpful.

Thanks, Lazman321 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mars in fiction

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 7 January 2023, 00:17 UTC
Last edit: 31 January 2023, 21:16 UTC


Philosophy and religion

Roland in Moonlight


I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve my article writing and editing skills with feedback from others. Thanks, Jjhake (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • I would write the "Structure and form" section like a plot summary.
  • Avoid POV statements like "Roland in Moonlight is an expansive book, but Roland as the lead character easily holds together its many narratives and sweeping discourses." This is an opinionated statement and should be attributed to the person who holds this opinion, and moved to a reception section of the article.
  • "Hart and several readers have said in multiple interviews that Hart put everything he had into this book." Another POV sentence that can probably be removed.
  • The second paragraph of the theme section needs inline citations.
  • Instead of listing who has reviewed the work, I suggest that you expand upon what they wrote. WP:RECEPTION might help with this.
  • The Background section should be earlier in the article, not at the end.
  • The references need to be expanded upon with more information about the source, including author and access date.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very helpful, thank you! (Btw, I'm close to finished with working my way through your great recommendations for the David Bentley Hart article. I'm just filling in a few more gaps with citations and cleaning up a few of the old citations there. Once I finish everything I can think from your initial comments there, I hope to try out the Template:FAC peer review sidebar there and then move back and clean up some this Roland in Moonlight article following your list above.) Jjhake (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Social sciences and society

Archie Mafeje


I've listed this article for peer review because… it failed a GA nomination before. I have addressed all the points and looking to get feedback before the article get reviewed which typically takes months.

Thanks, FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

  • "The "Mafeje Affair"" section has a lot of information that doesn't directly pertain to Archie Mafeje. I suggest that this be WP:SPINOUT and the section focus on Mafeje's actions.
  • "The immediate aftermath" section might suffer from WP:OVERSECTION and perhaps the level 4 headings can be removed.
  • The formatting of the article is a little weird: I suggest swapping "Research and ideology" and "Personal life and death"
  • "After he passed away, his work gained wide attention and a growing interest from other scholars." How?
  • Ref 88 needs to be expanded with more information.
  • Suggest archiving links with IABot here
  • Each note should have a citation.

I realised after I have started this review that this is open at GAN and PR at the same time. Per WP:PRG, a PR that is nominated for GAN is closed. Do you want to close this PR or the GAN? Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Models of communication


I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently made various changes to it and I wanted to get some feedback to prepare it for a GAN. Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Noam Chomsky

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 24 September 2022, 23:34 UTC
Last edit: 17 January 2023, 09:56 UTC


William McAndrew

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 16 April 2022, 19:16 UTC
Last edit: 10 January 2023, 03:26 UTC


Lists

List of games included with Windows


I've listed this article for peer review as I am looking for potential ways to improve this article, as good "computing" lists are hard to come by and refer to, and I have been working on this article for a while.

Thanks! Theknine2 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theknine2 Generally, the article needs more citations to reliable sources. Some of the sources such as 1, 4 and 12 are not suitable for Wikipedia as forums and reddit posts are not reliable (they must get their information from somewhere else). There are some statements in the History section that's lacking citations and some operating systems listed in the table does not have any citations to verify the information in it. CactiStaccingCrane 16:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'll try to find better citations, though it hasn't been easy trying to find good citations for this article. Thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates


I've listed this article for peer review because, I've been working on it for some time and I think it might be a good candidate for a featured list. The FL process recommended peer review.

Thanks, CT55555(talk) 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2017–2021


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare the list for WP:Featured List. I have looked at many featured lists, but am open to further improvements :)

Thanks, Dajasj (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of Colorado ballot measures


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to WP:FLC in the near future, much like I did List of Washington ballot measures. Advice on article coverage and list content would be much appreciated!

Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WikiProject peer-reviews