Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, 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.

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.

Contents

Arts[edit]

Mouna Ragam[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, but solve any potential problem before getting there. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Black Panther (film)[edit]

This article was previously promoted to Good Article after a long and thorough GA review process, but has since been delisted because a single editor believes that it is full of "a large amount of textual plagiarism", and for several complicated reasons there was no real effort to contest this statement. I am now attempting to get the article promoted back to GA, but the editor behind the delisting has made it clear that they will obstruct attempts to do so without addressing their concerns. They have also refused to help identify the problem in a way that could be directly addressed, and the copyvio tool is not picking up any violations, so I am hoping that other editors will be able to help identify these plagiarism issues in the article so they can be rectified. Any other insights that could help with improving the article and getting it promoted again are also welcome. Thanks guys, adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Please retract the above personal attack that is clearly directed at me (a single editor believes that it is full of "a large amount of textual plagiarism") and do not attempt to deceive your peers with such misleading statements.
Multiple editors recognized the plagiarism (in fact it's only you and two others -- essentially the three editors primarily responsible for the plagiarism in the first place -- who continue to deny it), and that wasn't even the only issue. There was also the lack of stability, edit-warring, POV-pushing ... And in fact the presentation of copy-pasted text as Wikipedia's own words may have been the worst of it (and thus what has been focused on thus far), but WP:QUOTEFARM it is also a form of plagiarism for virtually the entire article body to consist of quotes, with almost no meaningful content written in Wikipedians' own words.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It might also be worth noting that Adam admitted elsewhere that his requesting this peer review was a deliberately uncollegial effort to continue to avoid engaging in civil discussion with me over the issues I have voiced over this and similar articles above and elsewhere. This is in-line with his previous refusal to even attempt to work with me to achieve a compromise.[1][2] I would therefore urge any uninvolved editor to speedy close this discussion as a tendentious attempt to get around normal dispute resolution procedures and undermine the previous consensus to demote per the clearly outlined issues with the article by canvassing editors with a lie that those issues were not outlined. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like recommendations and suggestions on making it the best it can be.

Thanks, TheGravel (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review I believe it has been updated to be included in the featured lists, especially after the previous nomination. It would extremely beneficial to have the article peer reviewed before re-nominating to become a featured list.

Thanks, -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


Felicity Smoak (Arrowverse)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because having recently passed to GA status, I would like to progress the article to FA status. This will be my first attempt to promote an article to FA status, and any help and advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks, AutumnKing (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Blond Ambition World Tour[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because me and @11JORN: want to take this article to GA. We would like to request a Peer review before we proceed with the nomination.

Thanks, Christian (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Accessibility concerns – I noticed that the table lacks ! scope="row" to identify rows (see WP:DTAB). Also, MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table advises against headers, such as "Asia", "North America", and "Europe" in the table and provides two alternatives. A recent discussion questioned whether identifying the continents is necessary. Otherwise, it seems to be a very comprehensive and well-written article. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


Deep Space Homer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 16 September 2019, 23:28 UTC
Last edit: 4 October 2019, 17:21 UTC


Everest (Indian TV series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to nominate the article for GA. I understand that the article could do better if reviewed by and receives inputs from more experienced editors.

Thanks, Tamravidhir (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


Mullum Malarum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 September 2019, 13:30 UTC
Last edit: 17 October 2019, 21:16 UTC


GagaOOLala[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this articsdfcle for peer review because I work in the company here described but I'd like the article to be as unbiased as possible. Thanks, Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments form Captain Medusa
  • link Taipei in lead
  • It is owned by Portico Media Co., Ltd. -> why is there comma
  • "Lala’ -> add '
  • Name section needs more detail rather than a quote.
  • It is owned by Portico Media Co., Ltd. -> rm from the lead or put it on better place such as starting a sentence.
  • it has Screenshot tab but there isn't a screenshot
  • add the ref after full stop i.e. [2]. to .[2]
  • name sec could be merged into the History section
  • who is Jay Lin.
  • Its first expansion into the Asian market took place with the launch in the 10 countries that conform -> which??
  • GOL STUDIOS in capital
  • Availability section not sourced at all.
  • One year later, on May 13th, 2018, GagaOOLala was launched in Hong Kong and Macau -> On May 13th, 2018, GagaOOLala was launched in Hong Kong and Macau
  • In 2019, the streaming service -> provide the whole date
  • The company made the announcement together with a distribution tie-in with KASHISH Mumbai International Queer Film Festival -> better sentencing
  • exhibition Out in Taiwan. -> remove the ext link
  • It is the home for the filmography of international queer directors such as Simon Chung, Zero Chou, Scud, Marco Berger or Joselito Altarejos, and the distributor in Asia of international hit titles like Blue is the Warmest Color, Moonlight, Front Cover or Weekend. -> source
  • archive sources
  • too many pictures, at least remove GOL STUDIOS logo
  • GOL STUDIOS -> in capital at paragraphs
for now___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


Open Here[edit]

This article is about the album Open Here by Field Music. I believe it is comprehensive and I ultimately want to nominate it for FA. It has already passed as a GA, and I previously nominated it for FA, but it failed. I did not get much specific feedback during the FAC process except that the prose needed work, but even there I got little specifics except for a few items that I have already fixed. So I am hoping for a through peer preview here in anticipation of a future FA nomination. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05[edit]

Will update this with more as I have time.

Lede and infobox
Generally speaking the inbox information should be cited in the body. There are currently three citations in the infobox for genres not mentioned in the musical styles and composition section; those should be incorporated and cited there and have the citations removed from the infobox or removed.
Remove the comma in the second sentence after chamber pop.
Remove the metacritic score mention in the lede. It's reliable but pure scores aren't normally mentioned there. In its place I'd add more detail on what exactly critics praised about the album. Toa Nidhiki05 23:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies Toa Nidhiki05 for taking so long to respond to this. Somehow this slipped by in my watchlist and I didn't realize it until now. I've made the infobox changes you suggested, and removed the Metacritic score from the lede. For now I've left the comma in in the second sentence after chamber pop; I deliberately included that to separate the two clauses, and also to avoid the appearance of a run-on sentence ("...of alternative rock and pop rock and includes..."). That being said, if you still disagree, let me know and I'll remove it. Thanks, and I'll be quicker to respond the next time! :D — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I just realized I completely neglected to respond here - must have slipped my notifications! I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikipedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


The Lord of the Rings (film series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to see it being improved and maybe becoming a featured article. I need help with a few things as I'm not a English native speaker. The Home media and Legacy sections need to be updated and maybe the plot section needs to be shortened. Aside from those things I think the article is pretty good.

Thanks, Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Looks alright at first glance:

  • The music for the series [turned out to be a success and] has been voted best movie soundtrack of all time for the six years running, - remove bracketed bit (sounds puffy). let facts speak for themselves...
  • You have a Reactions to changes in the films from the books section...but not a section on differences between books and film....? (at 33kb of prose, the article can cope with some expanding)
  • That section could be tightened and restructured a bit. Not sure how just yet. Need to think....


George Vincent (painter)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be able to nominate it as a FA. I would be grateful for any comments.

Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


GagaOOLala[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm part of the company here described but I want it to be as objective as possible, so please let me know how to improve.

Thanks, Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


Vespro della Beata Vergine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 August 2019, 20:34 UTC
Last edit: 2 September 2019, 14:02 UTC


Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 15 July 2019, 18:22 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2019, 00:05 UTC


All About That Bass

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 May 2019, 15:53 UTC
Last edit: 5 August 2019, 05:07 UTC


Hi-5 (Australian band)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 May 2019, 03:29 UTC
Last edit: 5 October 2019, 11:59 UTC


Art Ducko (student magazine)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit]

Wales national football team home stadium[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that there's a chance this could get up to FA. There's not many comparable articles I know of to compare this to in order to get an idea of what needs improving, the English and Scottish versions are relatively light on info. So, any advice or improvements are welcomed, thanks, Kosack (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Baker Street robbery[edit]

The Baker Street robbery is an event that has a separate identity to the reality of what happened. So many rumours circulate (the government issued a D-Notice to gag the press; one of the safety deposit boxes contained compromising photographs of Princess Margaret and the actor and criminal John Bindon; photos of a Conservative cabinet minister abusing children were found; no-one was arrested and no money was recovered). All utter tosh, but they squeezed a film out of it and when the Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary took place, immeditate parallels were made. This has been through a re-write recently and the aim is to take it to FAC, unless major flaws are spotted. Any constructive comments are warmly welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

I am copy editing as I go. Mostly trivial stuff, so chuck out anything you don't like the look of.

  • "These have been dismissed or there is no evidence to support them" Which implies that some have been dismissed even though there is evidence to support them.
  • "A member of the local security company alerted the gang of the timings." I don't understand this. The timings of what?
  • "What they did not know was that there was an old well under where the tunnel ended,[24] and the pressure of the jack pushed the bottom of the tunnel downwards, rather than raising the vault's floor." You don't describe that well enough for me to visualise it. Eg, if a well is a cylindrical cavity, why was it a problem?
  • "to the tapes, and they confirmed that they thought it" "the tapes ... thought it".
  • "Abdullah Hashan Gangji (age 67) and his nephew Ackbar Mohammad Ali Gangji (age 22)" Why, of all the people mentioned, do these two have their ages given?
  • "a cheque for £2,500 to thank him for his action" Maybe 'actions'?

And that's all I have. A fine, well-structured tale. I look forward to supporting it at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's great - thanks very much Gog. All suggestions adopted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


Namco

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 September 2019, 17:38 UTC
Last edit: 18 September 2019, 13:02 UTC


Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is very close to being considered GA status and I am wondering what can done to fix the article before we nominate it as a good article.

Thanks, KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 03:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References
  • Refs 14, 18, 21, 160, 176 and 253 need an author.
  • Ref 20 could do with a publishing location and isbn.
  • Ref 24 uses the first name - surname author format while all other to this point use surname - first name. Try to stay consistent with formatting.
  • Ref 26 is from about.com, what makes this a reliable source? Same for whoateallthepies.tv (ref 116) and 1x2.eu (ref 127).
  • Ref 49 needs the newspaper that published it.
  • Refs 50, 51 and 56 use BBC rather than BBC Sport like the rest of the uses. Ref 190 lists BBC News rather than sport also. Try and stay consistent.
  • Ref 58 links Manchester Evening News but its used before this. Move the link to the first mention.
  • Ref 134 needs a date and accessdate.
  • Ref 175 lists Inagist as the publisher but the site appears to be UEFA.com? Also needs and accessdate.
  • Refs 196 and 207 need a publisher.
  • Ref 202 links BBC Sport but its used a lot before this.
  • Refs 208 and 212 need a date.
  • Consistent formatting appears different throughout. In a run through, I've seen The Guardian, www.theguardian.com and theguardian.com, ESPN, ESPN and espnfc.com, UEFA, uefa.com and the full organisation name.
  • Ref 256 returns an error message.
  • Ref 271 is from The Sun which is a questionable source. If possible, I'd be looking to replace this.

I haven't reviewed much of the text, I'll try and have a look sometime but there's a few obvious issues I noted on a brief run through of the references. This is for the first half, so 1 - 290, but I'm sure you get the gist of what needs looking at throughout. At least this is something to get on with for now. Kosack (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have done some of it to help out, that includes fixing up reference 18, 21, 24, 50, 51 and 56. Removed Reference 26 and moved the link to reference 58. HawkAussie (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


Engineering and technology[edit]

Marshlink line

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 October 2019, 15:24 UTC
Last edit: 16 October 2019, 19:50 UTC


Energy in Vietnam[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because:

1. I wanna get reviews by other people for the content of this page. My aim is writing this article to be good enough so it can be a Good article. I wonder which information/things should I add/do more to elevate it to a Good article?

2. If this article is not qualified to be a Good article, then can it be A/B/C article level?

Thanks, Tống Minh Quân (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


MAX Red Line[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to renominate it for Featured Article status. Would very much appreciate an overall assessment, particularly on what would make the article itself fit for FA rating.

Thank you, Truflip99 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


Renewable energy in Vietnam[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because:

1. I wanna get reviews by other people for the content of this page. My aim is writing this article to be good enough so it can be a Good article. I wonder which information/things should I add/do more to elevate it to a Good article?

2. If this article is not qualified to be a Good article, then can it be A/B/C article level?

Thanks, Tống Minh Quân (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A few comments:

Add article description

Too much detail and not enough overview I think

Rounding a lot of MW figures to GW would be easier to read

"valorizing" is an unusual word

Why and how is "Vietnam ..... accelerating their move to cheap coal power amid rising demand for power." https://www.energy-reporters.com/environment/un-calls-for-end-to-coal-ahead-of-climate-summit/ ? Is it due to fossil fuel subsidies or political pressure (e.g. Belt and road)? Or is there a problem raising the capital for big investment e.g. in solar panels? E.g. high interest rates? Or are the local pollution standards for coal lax compared to, say, China? Or is it the lack of a carbon price?

Is PDP8 out yet? Will Japan and China stop funding coal power? Will more green finance for renewables be supplied from overseas? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-energy-analysis/in-vietnams-booming-energy-sector-coal-reigns-but-renewables-play-catch-up-idUSKCN1SU0KJ

Is grid capacity sufficient for large increase in renewables? If not plans for transmission?

Off grid solar?

Why is wind power taking off "not as spectacularly as the solar power industry"?

Electricity demand forecast? e.g. will there be a lot more aircon in future? Variable electricity pricing according to supply/demand at different times of day/seasons?

What proportion of hydropower is despatchable and is that enough to balance the rest of electricity if the rest was all VRE?

Pie charts of electricity as proportion of primary energy and renewables as proportion of electricity

Do the FITs make sense economically?

Energy efficiency? e.g. for cooling

Public opinion - you have some but more would be good e.g. do people support onshore wind?

Will there be auctions like other countries and if not why not?

Future manufacturing of solar panels in Vietnam? Could some industry migrate from China due to US tariffs?

Good luck with this valuable article. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to become a good article, but I don't know if it is good enough, what I should edit to see how it can become a good article, and if I should try to get a copy edit for it. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 07:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


List of largest cruise ships[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interesting in seeing how it would fare in a Featured List review.

Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 19:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


Pokémon Stadium[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to attempt to get it to GA status from the C-Class status that it is currently at. I have had four successful GA nominations in the past (a small town, two films, and a book), but I do not know how to approach a video game article when it comes to getting it to that status. My interest in the subject comes from it being one of my favorite Nintendo 64 games.

Thanks, SL93 (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not reviewing this, but I can give some quick advice from skimming it.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. Is the Transfer Pak so important that it needs to be the first thing mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead? I'd move it towards the end.
  2. Third paragraph of the gameplay section lacks a source entirely.
  3. "Other Features" should not have its own sub-section.
  4. Same goes for the "Mini-games" section. It should also be written in prose, not in this pseudo-list format it's currently going for. Also, I'm not sure every minigame has to be mentioned. Just a sample of three of them might be enough. Other people might disagree with me on this though.
  5. Development section is sparse. Is there really nothing else that can be found about this game's development?
  6. Reception section is also lacking. It's too short for one. But most notably: it overuses direct quotes. Direct quotes are fine, but not when used as the only method of relaying their opinion. Try to group similar opinions in your own words instead. You can check some other GA/FA game articles to see good examples.
  7. The RPGamer and ELSPA links are dead.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix talk

Hi SL93 - you've got a favorite of mine, too, though I think I slightly prefer the second one because I was always such a fan of Pokémon Gold and Silver. While I don't have time to start a review this second, this is a declaration of my intent to give you some feedback within the next couple of days. Red Phoenix talk 16:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

All right, here's what I've got for you:

  1. For starters, you have the basic structure: Gameplay, Development, and Reception. That's perfect, as those are the notability-conferring sections.
  2. On references, I don't think you have to worry about reliability with what you have, but you'll need to do some more research to hit the broadness criterion (see notes below). Since you have stated you're not sure how to approach a video game article, I'd recommend you check out WP:VG/S for some ideas of where you can look and what will and won't work.
  3. Agree with Megaman en m above that surely there must be more about the development; this was a big name game for Nintendo. Right now it's more about the features of the game, not necessarily the actual development. For an idea of a good development section on a video game article, check out Out Run, which is a GA.
  4. If you want to keep the "Sequel" section, expand it with some more info and make it at least a full paragraph. Otherwise, merge it into Reception, and make it sort of a "Reception and legacy" section.
  5. Beware of WP:GAMECRUFT in this article. We don't need a list of Pokemon you can win at the end of the game. We don't need a list of every individual minigame in the game and how it's played. Focus on the real-world notability of the game in these section instead: what are the important aspects of the gameplay? Who developed it, and how was it received?
  6. Make sure every statement is sourced, even in Gameplay.
  7. Also agree with the Reception section needing more expansion, and there should be plenty of reviews so you don't need to use all the direct quotes.
  8. Was the first game called Pokemon Stadium 2 in Japan? Seems unlikely; check your Notes section.
  9. After you've done some research and expansion, the lead needs to be restructured to include something about all of the sections and facets. I'm sure you're familiar with it now, but MOS:LEAD is helpful.
  10. Because there's expansion work to do, I won't nitpick the prose, but you're going to need a general copyedit of the whole article. There are little issues everywhere. It's not really ready until we get the expansion, but I will be willing to help when the article is expanded.

Red Phoenix talk 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


Dig Dug Island[edit]

I'd like a peer review on this so as to fix or clean up any glaring issues with the page, as I intend to hopefully get this to Good Article status once finished. This is the first time I've requested a peer review for a non-list, so apologies if I don't understand something. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Without any critical reception, I think the article will have a hard time reaching GA. I don't think it satisfied GA criteria 3.a. WP:GACR. I would think there should be some coverage on Japanese websites like 4gamer and Dengeki. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


General[edit]

Mark Mabry[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... It's a new article and I want to make sure there are no issues with quality or formatting. Thanks, Rightooth (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, copyedit and tell you what I think. Shouldn't take too long. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, like I said, that didn't take very long. It's sort of unusual to see such a short article listed here, but there's no minimum size required.

Basically I brought it up to code—all the proper styles, some cleanup of the prose, and most importantly we don't use ISO 8601 date formats in cites. I wondered if it could be expanded, but based on Google I didn't see much more we could use ... perhaps, given that Mr. Mabry is so involved in disrupting human trafficking, he is wise to keep a low online profile and keep so much personal information from prying eyes.

Good luck and happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


Lecrae discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want some input from editors other than the small few who edit this article. My goal is for this to be a featured list.

Thanks, 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


Some brief comments from Naray14

Appears to be thoroughly cited with a good variety of industry references and media outlets. List is comprehensive and accurate. No 'resume' links from the artist which is a big plus.

One issues that may just be a personal preference of mine, but I like to see a citation with the first paragraph of any article.

I have seen that reference '5' links to an unavailable page. I don't have enough time in what's left of my life to check them all, maybe you do :)

(Naray14 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC))

Do you think the first paragraph needs a source, since it is summarizing material that is already cited throughout the article? I'll fix reference "5". Thanks for the review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily needs one considering the nature of the article and that the information at the start is cited later on, but I can see the edit you made and I think for me, I prefer that. Naray14 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. Looking over the lead, I realized that the first paragraph was so short, it would be better to merge it with the next one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


Hill Climb Racing (video game)[edit]

I would like a peer review for this article about a video game. I am bringing this article up to Wikipedia's standards, and having come this far, I have questions as to the quality of the article or one of its citations. First of all, you will see that a fair number of the references link to Facebook or Twitter, which are typically unreliable, and for your reference, the Facebook and Twitter references always cite (what I believe to be) the official accounts of Fingersoft. This can be proven by going to About and clicking on the company's URL, and then clicking on the social media icons to return to the same accounts. The main question here is about the Swedish source mobil.se, which I believe is a reliable source owned by South Square Publishing. It actually won a "Redo of the Year" magazine award in Sweden in 2014. However, I have not found much in the way of editorial standards or ethics on either of the websites of mobil.se or its publisher, so I need a second opinion on the source.

The other question that I have is about the Gameplay section. Thanks to the availability of the sources, I was able to write and verify other sections about the game, but unfortunately, little is talked about the gameplay. The prose in the other sections is concise and engaging (save for perhaps the Sequel section, but there is no reason to give it undue weight anyway for an article about the original), but I personally feel that this section could use either expansion with reliable sources or a rewrite. The prose here seems to hastily describe one feature after the other, resulting in an awkward flow. Note that the gameplay itself is simple, but it is not minimalistic as the section. Then again, the latter question is my own analysis of the section, but I would really like opinions on how to rewrite it if change needs to be made. I am already considering nominating this otherwise well-written article for GA, but if it turns out that the article is that excellent, I will probably consider making it an FA candidate instead. Gamingforfun365 09:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


2019 Cebu City local elections[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I started this with only a few details and I have been expanding it since. There are still a lot of news articles available online about the said local elections which could further improve content in this article but I want your feedback on its current content. Feel free to drop also your suggestions.

Thanks, Emperork (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


Alan Winde[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article ever since it was a little stub back in September 2018 and almost 600 edits and 40,000 bytes later, I want to advance the article to Good Article status. I just now want a few other editors' opinions over the content and layout of the article. Any advice would greatly be appreciated!

Thanks, LefcentrerightTalk 20:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


Josh Tols[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in improving the quality of Victorian baseball articles and I'd like to get this article closer to being a good article. I'd really like comments and suggestions which would help close the gap to good article status.

Thanks, FBC Pat (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments from NatureBoyMD
  • Use an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) between year ranges (i.e. 2012–2013 or 2012–13) in parenthesis or section headings.
  • When used in prose (i.e. in a sentence), year ranges should not use an en dash (2012 to 2013, not 2012–2013).
  • Tols should always be referred to as "Tols" or by a pronoun, and never as "Josh".
  • Look for additional baseball-specific terms to link: AA and AAA (though it really ought to be Double-A and Triple-A).
  • Use a template like Template:Cite web to properly format references.
  • Remember to place references after punctuation instead of floating freely in a sentence.
  • "Early life": Is there more that could be said?
  • "Career": There are a number of grammatical errors (missing words, missing punctuation) and linking errors throughout.
  • "Career": I'd recommend reorganizing the two collegiate sections into one and dropping the individual sections for each year. Then, compose solid, well-written paragraphs about each season. His season stats (win-loss, ERA, strikeouts) are generally covered, but was there anything remarkable about each season? Scouting reports? Improvements? Set backs? Being scouted? Without anything more, it reads like, "In XXXX, Tols pitched for the X and had a X-X record with X strikeouts in X.XX innings pitched" over and over and over.
  • Consider the same with the Australian Baseball and Minor Leagues sections; make each one section with several informative, but not repetitive, paragraphs.
  • As always, a picture would be nice if freely available, though these can be hard to come by.
  • In general, I'd focus on grammar, punctuation, and expanding. Take a look at Clayton Kershaw or other Baseball Biography Good Articles for ideas.
  • @FBC Pat: I'll be glad to provide any further assistance I can render. Good luck! NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


U.S. Route 290[edit]

I think it's high time someone reviewed the entire article except for the "major intersections" section, since I've made as many big changes to it as possible to potentially meet good article status.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in the coming days. –Fredddie 23:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


Clinton Railroad Bridge[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because even though I'm editing the article, I think it would be a great idea for this to be peer reviewed. I would like to know what are some more ways to improve this article. Thanks, WikiHelper26 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


PewDiePie[edit]

This article has already been promoted to GA, and I think it has the potential to reach FA status. It would be great to get some fellow editors to suggest improvements to the page so that an FA nomination can be made.

Thanks, WackyWikiWoo (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

Oundle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have doubled the size of this page in the last week and am looking for input on its direction. I would like to see quality rating of the article improve hence my recent edits and peer review request. My major edits have been with sections: - Governance (added) - Georgraphy (added) - Landmarks (expanded) - Transport (added) - Culture and Community (expanded) - Sport (added)

Minor edits also to notable people. I have about double the number of references cited.

Thanks, Naray14 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

  • Expand on the history/archaeology - e.g. what iron age stuff was found and when?
  • Oundle was originally a trading place and village for local farmers and craftsmen. - err, weren't most places? But more specifics or evidence would be good to add.
  • Expand the public houses subection, especially the haunted pub. Sounds cool


Gulval[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want some feedback as to how to get this article to c-class.

Thanks, BEANS X2 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Had a look through your article, just a few comments.
Three of the references needs some maintenance - 3, 7 and 16.
Are there any notable public transport links such as buses or nearby train? Is there a major road accessible close by? (I'm probably thinking too big considering it's a village!).
Is there a reference you can find showing Dudley Savage was born there?
I see there are two pictures (drinking fountain and war memorial) that are not referenced in the body of the article. Could you perhaps add a 'Landmarks' section and have a brief description/history of those? Perhaps the war memorial is a listed structure with Historic England that could be cited?
That's just a few things I thought of, but I like the article in general, a good size and plenty of references considering it's a small village.
Naray14 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


Cod Island[edit]

This is rated as a start-class article. I would like to bring it to at least C-class standards.

Thank you! –MJLTalk 20:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

  • Having "Newfoundland and Labrador" in the first two sentences of ;lead looks weird....
  • Needs a Fauna section (and embellishment of flora - what sort of grasses?)
  • A section on length and width as well as altitude duh! missed that!
  • Are there protected areas (nature reserves/national parks)
  • Is there transport to/from the island. Does anyone go there?
  • I don't get an idea of how far off the coast this island is....
  • were there any historical habitations on the island


Shantiniketan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to understand where the article now stands and what more I can do to improve it.

Thanks, Chandan Guha (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


Normandale, New Zealand[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been improved far beyond a stub-class article. All constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement welcome.

Thanks, ··gracefool 💬 01:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

  • Needs more references
  • Expand on the bushland (what flora) and fauna that live there.
  • Public transport - what busses and trains go there.
  • All items in lead should be expanded in article - i.e. what places of worship and education there are etc.
  • What the area falls under local and national government-wise. How do folks normally vote?
  • Any demographics to add.


History[edit]

Lloyd L. Gaines[edit]

An overlooked figure in the early US civil rights movement, probably because after winning a key case at the US Supreme Court, he disappeared and was never seen again.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's remained pretty stable since I expanded it years ago and I feel it's at least GA material.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


1948 United States Senate election in Texas[edit]

Believe me, you are going to love this article. I've listed this article for peer review because... I think that Wikipedia has made an extremely well-sourced and valuable article about what I would see as an extremely dubious historical election, but I'd like to get input on the article from some history buffs. Where does more digging need to be done? Can anyone suggest sources that would deepen/broaden our understanding of the Democratic Party in 1948? Is the wording appropriate and does everything fit the facts? Is the article up to Wikipedia standards? Come and edit if you are interested.

Thanks, Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


Battle of Tudela[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to put this page on TFA because I want to have a footprint in Wikipedia's history, i don't know if that is a pathetic reason but, if it's ok with you...

Thanks, Great Mercian (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Oh boy, there are a lot of issues to get the article to FA-class. Do not worry if you get B-class then it'd be a lot of easier than it is now. I'll have a review in the future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • referencing/citations: every paragraph needs to be referenced if you wish to take this to FAC -- one at the end of the paragraph is sufficient if everything in the paragraph is covered by that citation, or if not more may be needed throughout the paragraph. Currently, there is a single reference at the end of the section, which does not seem sufficient. If you need to repeat citations, the WP:NAMEDREF function works well
  • breadth of sourcing: currently the article references only a couple of websites -- for FA (even for B-class) this will need to be expanded to include some other works -- books and journal articles, for instance
  • structure: suggest removing the "Chronology of the battle" second level header and then creating three second level headers: Background, Battle and Aftermath per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. There could be two third level headers in the Background section for the "Strategic situation" and "Geography"
  • the Other reading section should probably be labelled "Further reading"
  • I wouldn't suggest including annotated assessments of sources as is currently done in the Other reading section as this is very subjective and based on opinion rather than citations
  • replace the bare urls with formatted references (either manual or templated -- for instance {{cite web}})
  • avoid sandwiching text between images, for instance currently the Battle section sandwiches text between the map and recreation image
  • make sure everything that is in the infobox is mentioned, and referenced, in the body
  • French/Polish strength is listed as 31,000 in the infobox, but 30,000 in the lead
  • French/Polish casualties are listed as 650 in the infobox, but 600 in the lead
  • I'm afraid I can't comment on content, but editors like Auntieruth55 may be able to assist here
  • suggest mentioning the casualties in the Aftermath


Roanoke Colony[edit]

I'm requesting peer review for the Roanoke Colony article, which I've been working on for a few weeks. I feel the article has been substantially improved over the last couple of months, with better citations of stronger sources, a wider range of images, and more detailed information on key aspects of the subject. In particular, I think the sections about trying to solve the mystery of the Lost Colony are better organized now, with less sensationalism about "new clues."

I hope to keep improving the article, but I think I could use some feedback to help determine what areas of improvement are most important. Peer review seems like a constructive way to accomplish that.

Thanks, Jim Into Mystery (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


Mandate for Palestine[edit]

Just promoted to GA, this article can thought of as "Part 2" to the Balfour Declaration (which received a peer review ahead of its FA in 2017), as the Mandate was the legal form which the Balfour Declaration took. It also represented Britain's attempts to reconcile the Balfour Declaration with the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (another GA). Plus it represents the beginning of the modern history of Israel-Palestine, as well as Jordan. A peer review would help it on its way to reach FA.

Thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


Jan Hus[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is listed as a top-importance article in several wikiprojects, yet is only c-class. The sections need to be cleaned up, and if anyone has any reliable sources of information about his early life, please tell me.

Thanks, Aven Az13 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley[edit]

From a quick once-over I see both English (favourable, authorising) and American (colored, honored) spellings, and the article ought to be in one or the other throughout. That is fairly important, but much more so is the lack of citations. There are seven "citation needed" tags in place and there could and should be a dozen more. The list of references doesn't get past 32 citations for an article of 4,500 or so words. This is far short of GA standard. I can't vouch for any authoritative sources that you might draw on, I'm afraid, but Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia and Jan Hus: Reformation in Bohemia are both available on Google Books, and there's any amount of stuff on him under either Jan Hus or Jan Huss at the Internet Archive. Tim riley talk 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


1991–92 Georgian coup d'état

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 September 2019, 16:01 UTC
Last edit: 1 September 2019, 16:01 UTC


Manuel Torres (diplomat)[edit]

This is a Good Article that I think has the potential to meet the Featured article criteria; I am seeking peer review in preparation for that process. Especially helpful would be comments nit-picking the citations, prose and style, and identifying content that strays off topic. I can share sources on request. Thanks, Kim Post (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Coat of arms of Sevastopol[edit]

I am new to the WP:GA process; I am not 100% sure if the article would be accepted. It seems to satisfy most if not all of the criteria, but I would like a peer review to make sure that's the case.

Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


War cabinet crisis, May 1940[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FA and I think this process will be useful before I do that. The article is about an important event in world history. Thanks, No Great Shaker (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, Roy, thanks for your efforts on this article. I don't have the knowledge to comment on the content, but overall it looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  • he did not see what we would lose if we decided to fight on to the end. While we might --> is this meant to be a direct quote? If not, suggest that "we" be changed to "Britain" or the United Kingdom (whichever you consider more accurate in the context)
  • received from General Spears in Paris: full name on first mention
  • same as above for General Smuts and General Weygand and others
  • 7.00 pm --> "7:00 pm" per MOS:TIME (there are other instances throughout, such as "10.00 pm" and 4.30 etc.
  • in the Notes there is a harvref citation issue - the notes says "Jenkins 2002", but the Bibliography has 2001 as the date of publication for the corresponding Jenkins etry


Iazyges

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 July 2019, 20:12 UTC
Last edit: 26 August 2019, 10:30 UTC


Gaius Terentius Varro

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 June 2019, 16:14 UTC
Last edit: 1 October 2019, 20:11 UTC


William S. Powell[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is about an important person in North Carolina history and could use some input on what needs to be done.

Thanks, User:G._Moore, Talk Talk to G Moore 17:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • With what we have already, this article is fine. I couldn't spot any problems with the existing content. One thing I did encounter was the first sentence in the lead: "...native of the Tar Heel State of North Carolina." I am no American. I clicked on the link to Tar Heel State, which was just a redirect to North Carolina. I then had to read a bit to realize it was simply a nickname for North Carolina (if I am not mistaken). This got me a bit confused, so I think you should find a way to rephrase it so non-Tar Heelians will understand it. As for the article itself, I believe there is much more to tell about someone who wrote more than 600 articles and books, especially in America. The article says he wrote some books. What about them? What subjects did Powell deal with? What new fields of North Carolinian history did he research? What impact did his books have on the historiography of this state? Are there any debates on the history of North Carolina that Powell holds a specific view on? And talking about views, do we know something about his views, political or social? Did he have some interesting collaborations with other scholars, or made some big projects worth mentioning? Are there any interesting facts about Powel that have led you to expand this article? Some stuff the average reader would be interested to know? I hope I am not going too far here, and that most of these questions can be answered with the sources accessible to you. I made a simple search on the internet and found this page which shows clearly that there is a lot more to tell about this man.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a good overview of his life, but I agree with Bolter21 that you're missing some of the substance of his work. For that you'll need new sources; the two ones you mainly have are not going to provide a full overview. For example, reading NCPedia I get the sense that his significance lies in the establishment of standard reference works: a gazetteer, a biographical dictionary, an encyclopedia. You are more likely to find such relevant information in scholarly book reviews or other comments by academics, rather than obituaries. Specific points:
  • Don't overload the lead sentence—it's not a resume. "historian, writer, academic, teacher" are similar roles that are captured by simply saying "historian." But if he was notable as a historian and a professional baseball player, you'd clearly want to say both of those things.
  • Avoid the obvious: It's not necessary to say the Philippines and Japan are "overseas".
  • Don't repeat yourself: You write "...before returning to North Carolina to take a job in Raleigh, North Carolina at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History." Doesn't it communicate exactly the same if I say "...before taking a job at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History in Raleigh"? The reader will infer that he moved to Raleigh to do his job, and that Raleigh must be in North Carolina; you would probably say so if this was unexpectedly not true.
  • Avoid fluff: "He made a major effort to expand the collection of historic documents about North Carolina and the people of North Carolina." That was his job as curator. What did he do specifically that is of note? Likewise, "He inspired others to contribute to the books that he edited" just describes the job of an editor.
  • The list of works loses some of the historical context, e.g. the latest Gazetteer is simply given as "2010" when it's more important that he started it in 1966.

So the path forward for this article is to expand on the facts, while actually reducing the existing prose to be more to the point. Kim Post (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Wolf

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 6 October 2019, 21:21 UTC
Last edit: 17 October 2019, 11:32 UTC


Rigel[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because many editors were editing it and after some protracted disagreements exhaustion set in. It is pretty comprehensive but (maybe) suffers from two many hands attempting to copyedit it. Some fresh eyes to read it and give some thoughts would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


Archelon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I was planning on getting it to FA, but I became inactive a little after Valentine's Day, and that was a while ago. How would this do in an FA review?

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


Megarachne

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 August 2019, 14:12 UTC
Last edit: 12 September 2019, 21:12 UTC


Island of stability

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 July 2019, 22:02 UTC
Last edit: 9 October 2019, 19:08 UTC


Cactus wren

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 June 2019, 07:12 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2019, 21:25 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Helen Phillips (novelist)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive suggestions to improve the article, as well as help finding the author's date of birth.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on ways I could improve the page.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


Mouthful of Birds (story collection)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive recommendations for ways to improve the page, and for it to be officially reviewed so it can be indexed.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Some comments on both this article and Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection), as they are fundamentally similar.

In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:

  • What are the stories about? What genre are they in?
  • Are these collections of previously-published stories (as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is), or are they all originally published in the collection (as For Your Eyes Only), or a mixture of the two (like The Birthday of the World and Other Stories)? In both cases, we hear of two stories whose first English publication was outside of the collection, but it is not clear about publications of the stories pre-dating the Spanish edition of the collection.
  • Basic publication information is unclear. Both articles give publication dates for both the original Spanish and the translated English edition, but only one publisher and ISBN in the infobox. It should be clear what information pertains to what edition, and publisher and publication date should also appear in the body of the article.
  • Is there anything to be said about how the collections were put together? What links them? Is there anything to be said about the order of their arrangement?

A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Interlingue[edit]

Hello,

I spent the period from November to April typing the content of the magazine Cosmoglotta from 1927 to 1951, the main journal in which the planned language Occidental (Interlingue) was published. On the way I added to the Interlingue article whenever I came across information or an event that seemed notable and neutral enough to include in the article. Now I've started the process of cleanup and am considering what direction, if any, I should take the article. Or maybe it is large and complete enough already and just needs more cleanup.

The short introduction to the language is that it was created from 1894 to 1922 by a former Volapükist and then Esperantist from Estonia who eventually decided it was ready to publish that year because the League of Nations had announced it was looking into the subject of an international language. It quickly became popular, eventually become the second most used international language after Esperanto (as far as I can tell, and by second most that's a very, very far second place - no other language has come close to Esperanto's size) but then was hit with a perfect storm of negative events after WWII and many of its adherents joined Interlingua after it was released in 1951. Then it nearly died by the 1980s, and came back to life with the internet.

The typing of Cosmoglotta is now done but the content is still fresh in my mind so this seems like a good time for a peer review.

Thanks, Mithridates (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Conlanging is a topic which has fancied my interest recently. I might give this a look over some time over the weekend. Jerry (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I will get to this right now. A couple remarks from a quick read.

-Link #2 is dead, and #69 has an error.

-Lede succinctly describes the history of the community, though it may need more info on the inner workings of the grammar. The article is genuinely engaging though.

-Images all up to fair use policy standards.

-(The second lede image showing Edgar de Wahl is somewhat distracting, and something I don't usually see articles having. Also the History and Activity section is a bit image heavy but I don't think either of these are against Image use policy.)

"As a result, opinions of the IALA and its activities in the Occidental community began to improve and reports on its activities in Cosmoglotta became increasingly positive. After 1945 when the IALA announced it planned to create its own language and showed four possible versions under consideration, Occidentalists were by and large pleased that the IALA had decided to create a language so similar in appearance to Occidental, seeing it as a credible association that gave weight to their argument that an auxiliary language should proceed from study of natural languages instead of attempting to fit them into an artificial system. Ric Berger was particularly positive about the IALA's new language, calling it in 1948 "almost the same language"[58], though not without reservations, doubting whether a project with such a similar outward appearance would be able to "suddenly cause prejudices [against planned languages] to fall and create unity among the partisans of international languages"[59] and fearing that it might simply "disperse the partisans of the natural language with nothing to show for it"[59] after Occidental had created "unity in the naturalistic school" for so long. "

This paragraph has a lot of run-on sentences which makes it harder to comprehend easily. The IALA section in general has this problem, though this is the most obvious paragraph.

"(a description perhaps better suited for former Occidental-Union president Alphonse Matejka who would not pass away until 1999, as Donald Gasper was a new learner of the language)."

-Needs a source.

-For double quotations, use a single quote like '

>Alphonse Matejka wrote in Cosmoglotta that de Wahl "always claimed a minimum of autonomy for his language and bitterly fought against all propositions that intended to augment the naturality of the language only by blindly imitating the Romance languages, or as de Wahl said crudely in one of his letters to me, 'by aping French or English'" per MOS:QWQ


That's it for now but I'll have more in the morning if possible. Jerry (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mithridates: Sorry for the delay, if you're still up for the review I can continue it. Just finish up some of the stuff I've mentioned so far in the PR. I'd also add that since I've last commented here, the site for link 6 has gone down. Jerry (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: Hi Jerry, thanks for the reminder. I'll start going through that now. Mithridates (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mithridates: Still have a couple of other problems with the article. Please go through that. Jerry (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Bethel Assembly of God Church[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This page was one deleted. It has been recreated with neutral content

Thanks, CE 09:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


M A Varughese[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…This was once deleted page. its been created with valid links and neutral language

Thanks, CE 09:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Social sciences and society[edit]

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it for Good Article status again. I did so in 2015 but it was not accepted for some good reasons. We (myself and other editors) have improved the article over the last four years and I think it's approaching GA, although not quite there yet. In addition to problems I don't see (unknown unknowns), here are some areas that I think would benefit from improvement:

  • Organization - I've tried to improve the articles organizational structure in recent weeks, but I think "fresh eyes" will help because it still doesn't "seem right" to me.
  • References - I had added some references that, in retrospect, didn't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. I have endeavored to remove such citations, but I probably missed a couple (or more).
  • I cited an article I wrote with a colleague that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. (Cites: cite_note-Worthen_Moering_2011-39-0, cite_note-116, & cite_note-123.) It remains the only peer-reviewed article written on the topic, and is not primary research. Naturally, I am open to feedback and will defer to recommendations by reviewers. (added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:17 UTC)
  • The 2015 GA reviewer commented that the article read a bit too much as a "How to" piece, which I think was accurate. I'm a psychologist who works with U.S. military veterans and my "helper" orientation swayed me toward the "Hot to" direction. (I realize that now; I didn't see it before.) I've sought to remove "How to" content, but see what you think as my implicit bias no doubt still affects my perception in this regard.
  • In my personal and professional life I am both a passionate advocate for helping veterans, given how much they have sacrificed to protect the rest of us, but I'm also an outspoken critic of some VA policies & procedures. I have worked really hard to include only balanced, objective, relevant, and well-sourced encyclopedic information. At the same time, that goal remains an aspirational one in my mind, i.e., I will never achieve it perfectly. So please look for any sections, statements, arguments, etc., that are incomplete, unbalanced (potentially biased), not very relevant, or lacking reliable references.
  • Please see the 2015 GA review for helpful feedback from the reviewers. (added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:22 UTC)

- Note: I will be coming back to this within the next 24 hours and will add wikilinks to the 2015 GA review and some other details I may have left out. (strikeout added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:04 UTC)

Thank you very much!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


Self-managed social center[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it but I'm just getting repeatedly bogged down in discussion with another user, as you can see at Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page and Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page_2. The current structure is not satisfying, since it's split between incomplete coverage of functions and a breakdown by country. I'd welcome some feedback on how to improve the page. Much obliged for any comments, Mujinga (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Larry Sanger[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback for a potential run at FAC. In particular I'm looking for help at the last two paragraphs of the lead and the "Status as Wikipedia co-founder" section, in addition to any other issues you might find.

Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs to be more neutral and detailed. I appreciate others editing the article, but I also feel some of the edits are contentious, with my references to poor opinion polling and the Panorama investigation deleted. This article is already deemed controversial and would benefit from overview from those not fervently in support of (or against) Corbyn.

Thanks, TrottieTrue (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Singaporeans[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know which section may be improved on and which other topics could be added to this article to make it more informative. As well as raise the article's rating scale.

Thanks, Deoma12(Talk) 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


Lists[edit]

History of discoveries[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review, (please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Discoveries, where the request is made previously, 2019-09-22, as the page was cut and pasted to a redirect "List of discoveries", the request didn't proceed to the relevant talk page), thanks, Armoracia-1 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


List of Discoveries[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because there is a disagreement with the inclusion of a bibliography within the article (the contention is made by Dialectric; → version of the article 1 edit prior to removal of the Bibliography) , (firstly) and secondarily, a section of the article, Models (Fashion), as shown @ this version (which is 1 edit prior to the removal, by Onetwothreeip) is thought inadmissable (by also Dialectric, supported by Onetwothreeip, the latter editor hasn't provided an obvious reason for the support). The discussion; which is focused upon the veracity and correct usage of the word discovery within the fashion industry, compared to other subject areas (disciplines) is @ Talk:List_of_Discoveries#Fashion_Models.

Thanks,

Armoracia-1 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


Arjun Sarja filmography[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because as I think that I have already addressed the suggestions and ideas to improve the article in the Older peer review and I wish to nominate the article for Featured List Nomination.

Thanks and Regards, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

All films need to be sourced, and all references formatted correctly (at least the title, website and date in everything). Solve these, and I'll post further comments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


Daft Punk discography[edit]

Will nominate for FL in the near future and would appreciate feedback on what needs to be improved. Philroc (c) 16:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything of issue here, I think it's ready--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, it's possible that this discography, like hundreds or thousands of others (including those which I have worked on), violates WP:ACCESSIBLE. I'm going to try and request for more information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion and some demonstration edits [3] [4].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@3family6: Thanks for your criticism. Unfortunately I won’t be able to edit the article to comply with ACCESSIBLE until September begins. Philroc (c) 02:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. Ping me once you manage it. I'll also try and finish the discogs article given above so that it is in full compliance, and you can use that as an example.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@3family6:  Done. Do you have any further comments? Philroc (c) 17:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Almost there. There still are rowspan uses for the albums and some video directors listed on the right-most columns.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]