en.m.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia:Peer review
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations​. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.
For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes.
For the review of new pages, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol.
Main
Unanswered
Instructions
Discussion
Tools
Archive
Project

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.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
Arts
Low (David Bowie album)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

Hey all. I am looking to bring this article to GA (and possibly FA) status, so I've listed it for peer review in order to help make that happen. In its current state, I would appreciate some assistance with flow between the opening sections (as there's a lot of things going on at relatively the same time), as well as help with the influence section.
Thanks, – zmbro (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

William B. Jordan
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

Hello. I have been working on this article for a featured article nomination — something that I have never done before — and I would appreciate any help that I can get. I have tried my best to see that the article meets the criteria; I have also taken inspirations from how other featured articles are written, and I have incorporated their basic concepts. I have invested a great amount of time in writing this article and it would mean a lot if I can elevate it to featured article status. Please do not hesitate to point out even the most minor of points. As I have never gone through this process before, every little detail will help. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cueva de las Manos
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get the article to GA status. This means making sure that the article is worthy to pass GAN. I'm looking for suggestions, comments and/or contributions that will help to achieve this.
Thank you, Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

New York Court of Appeals Building
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's yet another one related to historic buildings and neighborhoods in Albany, New York, that has at least GA potential.
Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Museum of Contemporary Art Australia
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a significant amount of text (over 2000 words) and a number of pictures and info tables. I have done so for a university assignment and would love for my work to be reviewed and to receive feedback! I would love feedback on any grammar, punctuation, citing or structure issues. Thank you so much for your time! Thanks, LibraryofEphesus (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The 40-Year-Old Virgin
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 29 May 2021, 23:47 UTC
Last edit: 5 June 2021, 23:59 UTC

The Waiting City
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added many sections to it over the past few weeks and would love for someone to go over my work and give me some feedback on areas of improvement. I am new to Wikipedia writing so I would greatly appreciate any feedback I receive regarding:
  • My Wikipedia writing style
  • The sections I have added and if they follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style for articles about films
  • The sources I have used throughout the article and if any need to be removed or improved upon
Thank you and I look forward to hearing the feedback!
Kaexkae (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Christine Nelson
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 May 2021, 08:55 UTC
Last edit: 6 June 2021, 21:15 UTC

Cups (song)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I really want this song to become FA status. It holds so memory memories for me and I would love to see the gold star on the article. Pinging Ceoil. Seeing if they still want to help.
Thanks, Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
First time I do a peer review (or review of any kind), kinda just testing out things here so this review can be a bit surface-level.
user:Ceoil improved the lead and I don't want to ruin it.
Lead would be benefited by an additional paragraph with mentions of reception, covers, and certifications
Added
The final sentence at Background and composition is citation overkill
Got rid of a source
Added
Cite Billboard as publisher instead of work for ref 52
Billboard is always cited as work.
The minimal use parameter at the Cups cover art rationale should explain why the use is minimal rather than the image's purpose; see the cover art of Everywhere at the End of Time for an example
Done
Again, very shallow review but hopefully helpful. Wetrorave (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not particularly know about this song but I think I did hear it somewhere, though it doesn't appear to have charted in my country. When I saw this has remained unanswered for two weeks, I got reminded of this aforementioned article which I've nominated for GA on 22 April but which continues unreviewed for more than a month. It does get frustrating but on the bright side, later reviews means better articles. Wetrorave (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Wetrorave Thanks a lot for the comments! Your help is truly appreciated! The song was a huge hit in United States. Every teen and preteen (including me) would play the cup song non stop. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Well then 💫, I hope it didn't get as annoying as Shake It Off or Shape of You. Seriously, I heard the verse "I'm in love with your body" EVERYWHERE, and it sickened me >:( Wetrorave (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Gerda
Sorry, I procrastinated this enough for you to adopt a new name.
  • Lead:
    • I am new to the topic, and would much prefer to first understand about the 1931 origins, and what kind of song it is, than three versions of an album, all with similar titles. (... and only later I understand that one of the titles is a comedy.)
    • In the sentence about billboard, I didn't remember what "It" meant.
  • Infobox:
    I'd prefer if the image aligned with the title boxes. Is that kind of cheating allowed? (Compare my latest: St. Nikolaus von Flüe, Wörsdorf)
  • Background
    • The image looks altogether abstract to me, and comes too soon for me to make sense of the caption.
    • What's in the caption (link to the group, a year) needs to be in the prose, for those who don't look at the caption first.
    • I'd like the year of the remix repeated rather than vaguely remembering and having to look at the lead again.
  • Critical reception
    • Wouldn't "Reception" suffice?
    • Is a review saying nothing but "charming" worth mentioning?
    • Can - in USA Today - a clash of "is" and "was" be avoided?
    • "saying it still hits one hell of a flat note": should that be a quote, or be "saying it still hit one hell of a flat note"? (I have no idea what the phrase, but that's probably just me.)
  • Music video
    • "The clip begins with Kendrick, as a server, standing in restaurant kitchen. takes it and lightly taps it on the table." Some cup seems to be missing.
    • good link to bridge (music), but it should come higher up when mentioned first
    • probably everybody but me knows what "flip cup" means
Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt I am so sorry that I did not see your comments! It looks like you commented on a peer review that is archived from November 2020, so I put your comments on the most recent peer review. I will respond to your comments tomorrow after I get a few hours of sleep. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Zahrat al-Mada'en
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article which I've created not long ago for peer review because I am uncertain of its neutrality in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, as well as of its quality compared to other articles about world music, considering it's my first article that deals with any song, let alone an extremely politically charged one. I hope any reviewers would be able to rectify any downsides with the article's phrasing or terminology.
Thanks! JDHaidar (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Carillon
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 8 May 2021, 22:59 UTC
Last edit: 31 May 2021, 06:59 UTC

The Masked Singer (American TV series)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on renominating it for FAC in mid-June, and would like as much input from as much editors as possible beforehand. Please feel free to leave any and all comments (e.g., stuff that should be included but isn't, grammar, organization, etc.)
Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment from Aoba47
For full disclosure, I had participated in the article's past FAC and peer review so I will keep this short as this space is probably better for editors who have not been involved with the article to get a new perspective. In the final paragraph of the "Conception and development" subsection, there are four citations in a row, which I would consider an example of citation overkill. I believe that is the only instance of this in the article, but I wanted to point this out to you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have combined three into one. Heartfox (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 15 April 2021, 22:07 UTC
Last edit: 6 June 2021, 20:49 UTC

Adventures in Modern Recording
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 11 April 2021, 15:38 UTC
Last edit: 30 May 2021, 01:17 UTC

Paint It Black
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 19 January 2021, 05:03 UTC
Last edit: 7 June 2021, 16:58 UTC

Everyday life
Bubsy 3D
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm about to nominate it for GA very soon. I've previously sent this article for a thorough copyedit at GOCE requests and have even done some work on the article myself. There's got to be something missing, but I can't put my finger on it. Feedback is vital and your input matters.
Thanks, beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 00:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The Gameplay section definitely needs work as far as sourcing goes. If you can find the game's instruction manual somewhere, that should serve as a primary source. Don't be afraid to use reviews of the game to bolster sourcing for a particular point or add something that the manual doesn't cover. Also, the clusters of citations in the Reception section make for a difficult read. Any cluster bigger than four sources should be relegated to the Notes section with the {{efn|}} template, such as in this example. Those are the big things I caught from skimming, but hoping that helps. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cat's Tuxedo: Your suggestions definitely helped! But I do have one query. Would it be necessary to splurge money on the full manual if there is none available for free viewing online? I'm having a big issue finding the Bubsy 3D manual from a free reliable source (there are only some parts all on Twitter). I'm not going to take a risk with adding unreliable sources to this B-class article... —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 11:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Beetricks: If you're really desperate to have it, that's certainly an option. However, like I said, there's nothing wrong with falling back on the reviews to provide citations for the game's mechanics. And even if you do manage to find a free version online, no matter how sketchy the source, it isn't necessary to provide links to instruction manuals; something like <ref>Bubsy 3D (PlayStation) instruction manual, p. 10</ref> would suffice. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cat's Tuxedo: That's good to know that I can reference without having to upload nor provide links (in fear of copyright laws) and/or use freer alternatives to the manual itself. —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I've taken the option to purchase the actual manual (save me) and I'll go from there. It's going to arrive c. 11~15 June so I'll further discuss the Gameplay section and let you review after I've typed the content in. —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 18:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Penn State Nittany Lions women's soccer
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a complete rewrite on the page and I believe it is up to the standards for it to become a GA. I also would love any and all feedback as this is my first ground up rewrite.
Thanks, NoahRiffe (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from The Most Comfortable Chair
Some general things that jump out to me:
  • The lead should be expanded a little more. It should be a summary of the contents in the article, so it should be covering brief but important details from the History, Uniforms, crest and colors, Stadium, Supporters, and Honors sections. If there are any players that have become significant to the team's history or for the sport in general, they should be mentioned here as well (for instance, see the fourth paragraph of the lead of FC Barcelona).
  • There is a lot of duplicate linking in the article — per MOS:DL, a link should only appear once in an article. Although they can be repeated in the lead, infobox, tables, media captions, and citations.
  • Uniforms, crest and colors section can cover more on how their previous designs were briefly.
  • Roster and Notable alumnae could potentially be divided into two columns for ease of reading (like in this section).
  • Use consistent dating format for references. Some references require additional parameters — make sure that all references have work and/or publisher, first and last, and accessdate parameters whenever possible.
I have not looked at the prose closely, but it looks good to me. You have done a great job at writing it from scratch essentially. All the best with the good article nomination. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Accolade (company)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I'd like to get this promoted to featured article status. Accolade had a golden era in the 1980s with some historically important franchises, especially in sports. They peaked with a precedent setting lawsuit about reverse engineering in the early 1990s, which led to a rough time. Their later history has been tricky to cover because they are more celebrated for their glory years than their unceremonious corporate buyout.
I nominated this article for FA in February, and it was closed a month ago with a lot of support, but a few notable opposing opinions. My goal is to bring it up to standards so that it unanimously meets the Featured article criteria, and then nominate it for FA again. I'll likely do a few quick edits in the next few days, and then wait patiently for a proper peer review. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 20:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot (video game)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I'm listing this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get it up to Featured Article status in time for the series' 25th anniversary this September. I've already spent a good chunk of the month doing prep work, but as far as FAs go, I'm sure there's definitely a few improvements I'm still missing out on. For example, the page is still relatively bare in the image area, so I'd especially like suggestions on what points are most worth visually illustrating. I do intend on getting an image put together showing Crash's early designs, so that'd be a start.
This would be my very first FAC, so any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Aven13
It's a very good article. You probably wouldn't have too much trouble getting it through FA. Here are some suggestions:
  • As you said, the article is lacking in the image department. I personally would recommend adding a video of crash's movement, and perhaps completing a short section of level one or two. Seeing a game being played really helps to give the reader a feel for it. I'd also recommend getting a visual of a Crate, a Wumpa Fruit, or some TNT to put in the gameplay section.
  • For the character and art design section, yes, some concept art would be good, but showing the frames of one of Crash's animations would also work.
  • Mention the perspective of the gameplay somewhere.
  • Since Tawna is "also evolved by Cortex,", make a mention of how Crash was made as well.
More to come, probably. Great job writing the article. Aven13 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aven13: Just had to figure out this gif thing, but went and addressed your points so far! Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

2019 UEFA Champions League Final
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it can easily become a GA, but there are some issues with it which might hinder it from becoming one. Please review the article and leave any suggestions for how to fix it.
Thanks, KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, KSL. I'd like to see the citations that are in the lead moved out. Everything in the lead should be covered and cited in the sections, so you shouldn't need those citations in the lead (possible exception for anything that is so controversial that it would be constantly questioned.) —valereee (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Engineering and technology
Vector processor
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important historical part of computing history (and 470 other pages link to it). also i feel it shoukd be listed as importance "Top", it is that fundamental to computer science, however that is something that definitely needs some consensus and feedback on, you don't put computing articles at "top" without a good reason and careful consideration.
Thanks, Lkcl (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback before starting a GAN.
Thanks, EpicPupper (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, @EpicPupper! I'd like to see the citations moved out of the lead section. Everything in the lead section should be in the body sections with citations there, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead section that needs a citation. (Exception for anything so controversial that it would cause constant questions). Check to make sure the info in the lead is indeed covered in the body, with citation/s, add any citations or content that are in the lead to the sections, and then you can remove the citations from the lead. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Doing... EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: I would like to mention that many sentences are unreferenced, especially at the end of some paragraphs. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Scott A. McGregor
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of my first articles about a person, and I'd love advice on how to improve as a Wikipedia editor! Would appreciate any advice for this or future articles, especially biographies. I'm hoping it might be GA-worthy one day!
Sincerely, Shrinkydinks (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Federal Building (Edmonton)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and bring the article to B-class, for preparation for potential GA nomination. I'm not experienced with writing articles although I have expanded this one in the past (from stub status to start), so I'd appreciate some guidance on bringing this up to par for B or, ideally GA status. The article is currently rated as start class according to the talk page, although with the expansions it has gone through, it would probably be considered C-class now.
Thanks, –NorthwestPassage talk 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Asus ZenFone 6
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have created and improved the article to GA status, and would like to propose it for FA in the future.
Thanks, 17jiangz1 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Z1720
Hi 17jiangz1, I'm sorry it has taken so long for someone to review this article. Please consider me a non-expert in this topic. I will review this as if it was an FAC.
  • In general, avoid one-sentence paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH
  • "the following day.[16][1]" References should be in numerical order. Check this throughout the article.
  • "Before the ZenFone 6 was teased at the" teased should not be used as it is jargon. Replace the word with what the executives did (maybe, "alluded to its existence"?)
  • "Both leaked images" delete leaked, you already stated that they were leaked.
  • " an NT$6 billion restructure " what's a restructure?
  • "Asus announced a launch date of May 16 that year for the phone" -> "Asus announced that the phone will be available for purchase on 16 May 2019."
  • Be consistent about whether dates are dmy or mdy. Don't have June 1 but also 1 June 2019.
  • Merge the last two paragraphs of the "Background" section
  • There's MOS:SANDWICH with images and the infobox.
  • All of the information in the infobox needs to also be in the article. Is this the case? If not, you might need to add it to the article or delete it.
  • "The initial international release of the ZenFone 6," -> "For the initial international release"
  • "or get stuck in a "bootloop"" describe what this is in the article.
  • "An Asus representative attributed this behaviour to a hardware issue,[32][33] saying the update triggers a motherboard malfunction, the only solution to which was a motherboard replacement under existing warranty.[32][33]" Delete the first instance of [32][33]
  • " followed that of by Asus' ROG Phone II," "followed by Asus'"
  • "In late August 2019, Asus began recruiting ZenFone 6 " delete began
  • "a combination sliding-rotating" -> "a combined sliding-rotating"
  • A citation needed tag needs to be resolved.
  • In the design section, merge the short paragraphs.
  • " that has also been used in" -> "that was used in"
  • "The ZenFone 6 was debuted alongside ZenUI 6, " -> "The ZenFone 6 debuted alongside ZenUI 6"
  • Dark mode needs to be explained in the article so that a person doesn't need to click on the wikilink in order to understand what it is
  • "reduced stock applications." I don't know what this is, this should be explained.
  • " Reviewers noted ZenUI 6 provides an experience closer to that of stock Android.[44][45] Reviewers also praised the relatively frequent software updates.[46]" Reviews should be in the Reception section.
  • Single-paragraph sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, per MOS:OVERSECTION
  • "near-stock implementation of Android" again, I don't know what stock means
  • "Asus said the device "has been well evaluated and created excellent sales"." I don't think we should include Asus's opinion on their product as it feel too WP:PROMO
  • "The ZenFone 6 is one of the 2019 flagship devices that retained the headphone jack." This should be in the hardware section
  • "retained the headphone jack.[51][40]" Put references in numerical order
  • "DxOMark camera score of 104," What does this mean?
  • "the highest for an Asus device.[52][51]" put refs in numerical order
  • The reference section needs to be expanded, if possible. Are there other places where this device might have been reviewed? Check WP:RS/P for additional sources.
  • Seeking Alpha is not recommended as a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Seeking alpha and thus will not be considered a high-quality source in FAC.
  • All sources that are news articles need an author and publication date, if possible.
  • FAC requires high-quality sources, which is a higher standard than a reliable source or the GA criteria. Please read User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You and evaluate every source in the article and make sure you can answer, "Why is this a high-quality source?" If a great answer can't be given, it should be removed.
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
One additional comment: I strongly encourage all editors who want to nominate a featured article to review articles at WP:FAC. This will help you become familiar with the FAC process and comments you might expect when you nominate your article. This will also build goodwill, which makes it more likely that editors will review your article. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 2 March 2021, 15:48 UTC
Last edit: 3 June 2021, 09:01 UTC

General
Snooker
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 12 January 2021, 09:01 UTC
Last edit: 26 May 2021, 13:00 UTC

Sandra Peabody
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 30 March 2021, 10:09 UTC
Last edit: 17 May 2021, 15:12 UTC

Chase Young
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 30 March 2021, 23:07 UTC
Last edit: 31 May 2021, 04:30 UTC

Cullen House
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 10 April 2021, 13:57 UTC
Last edit: 2 June 2021, 09:22 UTC

Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've been attempting to improve this article over the past month or so - when I first started it was in a bit of a mess, with luck I've made it less messy. The article is still in a bit of a state and could do with improvement though, so I'm listing it here to figure out how best to improve it moving forward. I'm hoping to get general feedback on the article. Feedback on the following (but not limited to it) would be particularly helpful:
  • Organization - I've attempted to edit the article so it seems less list-like and chunky. Have I succeeded? Is there a way to reduce the list-like prose even further. Can I completely remove some sections - especially thinking about what to do with the "reactions" which could be split into the rest of the text, and the "further kidnappings" at the end - could this be put into the "see also" part?
  • Quality of references - I haven't had time to check them all, most seem fine but I'm sure there are some unreliable ones out of the >200 there are on the article
  • Inclusion of content - what parts do I need to expand? Does it leave out anything major that I need to get down?
  • Whether it might be feasible to get this to a GA, though for now I'm most interested in getting the basics of this article sorted out.
Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Storm Area 51
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've edited the text of the article to better reflect its sources, I've uploaded images to Commons that I took of the event, and placed them in the article itself. I would like other editors to chime in with suggestions on further improvements, areas needing polish, and any additions needed. I'd like to improve this article until it's featured article worthy.
Thanks, RobotGoggles (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
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) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Larry Kwong
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it looks fairly comprehensive and well cited for a GA, but can probably use some formatting and wording fixes (e.g. the Awards and Honours section).
Thanks, Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Manon Melis
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I request a peer review because I would like to nominate this Good Article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). Not being a native speaker I always need help on prose. I would appreciate any help to get the article in such a shape that it is likely to pass at FAC.
Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Michael Moates
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am the author but also the subject so that creates a COI. I think I was fairly balanced and sourced well but I would like someone to take a look over to confirm what I think.
Thanks, DoctorTexan (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Feller Act of Valor Award
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article was written without bias and I would like the conflict of interest warning to be removed.
Thanks, Eitan Leff (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because a certain editor on WikiProject Pakistan has been working on it quite a bit and I thought it could benefit from peer review (I think it could be ready for a GAN soon).
Thanks, RealKnockout (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Iymen Chehade
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively updated it after it had been created by a sockfarm (banned). I would like some feedback on the neutrality of this article to maintain Wiki standards. I also hope to bring this bio up to a B-class.
Thanks, TsunamiPrincess (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Geography and places
Bradford Island
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been at DYK and passed as a GA, and I'd like to nominate it as a featured article candidate. I've never nominated anything for FA before, nor have I undergone a peer review, so I guess I'll learn a bunch from this.
Thanks, jp×g 02:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Singapore Improvement Trust
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just expanded the article significantly and am hoping to bring the article to GA status.
Thanks, R22-3877 (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments by KN2731
I'll take a look later this afternoon. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • Assuming back lane isn't being used metaphorically (e.g. backstage/back alley), wikilink and dehyphenate since it's a qualifying noun.
  • In the late 1950s, plans were set out to replace the SIT with two departments—housing and planning—culminating in two bills that were passed in 1959. With the establishment of the successor organisations by the government of Singapore, the Housing and Development Authority and the Planning Authority, in 1960, the SIT was disestablished. I feel this doesn't flow very well. Cutting off the sentence after mentioning the bills passed in 1959 leaves the reader wondering what effect said bills had on the SIT. Meanwhile, it could be made clearer that the proposed housing and planning departments were the Housing and Development Authority and the Planning Authority respectively.
  • "dissolved" is simpler and fits better than "disestablished".
  • Perhaps it would be better to replace "Improvement Rate" in the lead with property tax, since people are more familiar with the latter term.
  • Check consistency of Oxford comma – think you missed one at "and government loans" and another at "Buildings, Planning and Management departments".
  • Nevertheless, the resources and powers provided to the SIT proved insufficient for it to carry out urban renewal, and a draft Town Improvement and Development bill that was to facilitate the SIT's work in town planning was rejected by the government in 1924, leaving the position of the SIT unclear. Rather long sentence, could be split after "urban renewal".
  • In 1931, the SIT carried out a scheme to construct houses for artisans in the Balestier Road area, to provide workers with sanitary and affordable residential facilities. Two "to"s make this sound like a run-on sentence, which could be avoided by changing "to provide" to "thereby providing" or similar.
  • negligible upkeep being done under Japanese rule can do without "being done".
  • In addition, the Singapore Housing Committee's report... Remove "in addition", since the following sentence isn't introducing another issue with the SIT.
  • The flats built by the SIT were expensive to build, so it started building cheaper "emergency" flats from 1953 – overly repetitive use of "build".
  • Nevertheless, the "emergency" flat programme only succeeded after the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire in 1959. "Nevertheless" and "only" both demonstrate contrast with earlier failures of the emergency flat programme, so you can get rid of one of them.
  • as well as around 300 additional workers – "additional" becomes unnecessary if you remove the comma after that clause.
For further prose improvements (if you want to bring this beyond GA status), you can check out User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing.
Content
Some questions about the SIT that I had after reading through the article:
  • Was there a reason why the SIT was given official powers in 1927 despite it having an uncertain future back in 1924? Was there some change in attitude by the government?
  • Was the "Planning Authority" succeeding the SIT part of the Ministry of Local Government Lands and Housing as plans in June 1956 from the earlier sentence alluded to?
  • Did the SIT have a dedicated building for its offices or headquarters?
  • Legacy – what has happened to the houses built by SIT? I'm guessing they've mostly been torn down and replaced with newer housing.
  • Perhaps a See also section with links to Urban planning in Singapore, Public housing in Singapore, and the current urban planning entities (SLA/URA)?
Nothing major that would impact GA criteria 3a, but may be brought up at a FAC as the standards for FA criteria 1b and 1c are much higher.
Images
References
Citations are great, just check the formatting of Loh Kah Seng's name in FN 24 and 25.
Overall this is pretty well written; it's not far away from GA status. Random fact: this is the first article I've seen that gives a flat 0.0% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector (even with "Use search engine" enabled). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@KN2731: Thanks for the comments, I've incorporated most of your recommendations. For the part on the SIT's legacy, I believe that since the article is on the organisation rather than the flats, the fate of the flats is not so relevant to the article. R22-3877 (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

List of longest streams of Minnesota
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it would make a great featured list for the Rivers and Minnesota projects. There are two other Lists of longest streams in U.S. states (Oregon and Idaho). This article on Minnesota's longest streams is comparable and has some additional features not in other articles. There is another page for List of rivers of Minnesota. I would be interested in comments that would help this article get to the point of a featured list.
Thanks, Talk to G Moore 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic District
This peer review discussion is closed.
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's another one of my Albany historic-district articles that I think has potential for at least GA.
Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Beebe Hydrothermal Vent Field
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…
  • It probably isn't a stub any more
  • It needs a second set of eyes, especially for any personal biases
  • There may be aspects of the page which I haven't considered but warrant a section
  • References may need a check
Thanks, Wünderbrot (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 8 April 2021, 17:13 UTC
Last edit: 24 May 2021, 06:12 UTC

Farringdon, Sunderland
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 22 February 2021, 04:04 UTC
Last edit: 7 June 2021, 02:41 UTC

History
Battle of White Sulphur Springs
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to a Good Article.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

French Imperial Army (1803–1815)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I'm putting this article here for a review because though I'm done with my article. However, I would prefer an article review or nothing, as I have a one-way view, and would like some more support or any assistance in sources/grammar issues
Thanks, J-Man11 (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

1993 Finchley Road bombings
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually expand it to GA status in the future, and would appreciate some input on the current state of the article.
Thanks, — Berrely • TalkContribs 16:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Kavyansh.Singh
Hi Berrely.
The article is of 576 words, which are not less, but in my view aren't able to addresses the main aspects of the topic. There is almost no mention of what happened in aftermath of bombing (like investigation, etc.), which I think is worth adding. I found a newspaper article (1) dated 04 October which provides artist's details about a man whom police wants to question about bombing. Another article (2) gives further information about bombing. (you might need to register before accessing the sources). I suggest creating a section named "Investigation and aftermath" and adding appropriate information. After the expansion, I suggest submitting the article to WP:GOCE for copy-editing. Your work on this article is very much appreciated. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh, thanks for this comment (and sorry for taking a while to get back)! Thanks for the suggestions. I did intend to start adding a section on the proceeding investigation, though I struggled to find sources
. Regrettably, I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive (gosh darn the Wikipedia Library!) though I'll try to see if I can find a way to access those sources. I'll try implementing some of your suggestions, thanks! — Berrely • TalkContribs 18:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt desk
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed a major rewrite to it and would like others to check that it appears well crafted. I know that spelling and grammar are not my strong suits so I'd love some input on that throughout the article, but I'd also like to know if there seems to be any gaps, any extraneous information, or anything that the article leaves you wondering. I hope to propose this as a GA after this peer review.
Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Napoleonic looting of art
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this peer review because I would like to reach this article, which touches on the history of an enormous number of significant artworks, to B-class and eventually GA status. I'm particularly interested in recommended expansions to the article, to include more affected countries, as well as large cuts, since the article is already around the 40kb area. I'm also wondering if the list section should be split off into a separate article.
Thanks, —Wingedserif (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wingedserif: The "List of artworks taken"-section should certainly be split from this article. In fact, you could be bold and just split it immediately (WP:SPLIT allows bold splitting if it is uncontroversial and clearly notable). Judging from the list content, it could be made into a table with images of the art, their location, artist, etc. which definitely deserves to be a standalone list. Wretchskull (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done! —Wingedserif (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tracy Philipps
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…
- I want to find out whether it has featured article potential before any nomination for featured article status. So I am looking for a thorough assessment top to bottom, rather than any particular aspect of the article
Thanks, Leonstojka (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Types Riot
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FAC.
Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Gaixia
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 4 May 2021, 17:41 UTC
Last edit: 2 June 2021, 23:21 UTC

Project A119
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 24 March 2021, 19:13 UTC
Last edit: 24 May 2021, 23:12 UTC

List of victories of Rudolf Berthold
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have found little on quality standards centered specifically on WP lists. I am looking for suggestions for improvement, as well as any policies or consensuses I have overlooked. I am relisting this due to non-response to last posting.
Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Kavyansh.Singh
Hi,
  • Second point in Featured list criteria is Lead: "It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria".The article has lead only of 3-4 sentences, which needs to be increased in order to summarize most of the aerial victories mentioned.
  • If it is possible to separate date and time from the list as two different columns, it would look much better. Also, using any of the date templates in preferable.
Good Luck! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics
Quinkana
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has progressed beyond a Stub class article and would like it to be classified. I welcome any suggestions for improvement or edits.
Thanks, Candecide (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel
The expansion looks pretty good so far. I'm not really that knowledgeable about the article quality ratings, but I can provide some suggestions for further improvements. I'll start with some more general stuff:
  • While WP:PR is a good system, one of its downsides is that many editors find it not to be especially visible. One way to get around this is to post a brief message at the paleontology Wikiproject's talk page to let other editors know about the review. Additionally, the paleontology project has an internal peer review system for quicker "fact check"-oriented reviews (although the downside is that it won't attract editors who don't specialize in paleontology-related articles).
  • We usually put images of fossils in the taxobox if they're available.
  • The lead right now is quite long - I'd try to trim it down to two or three paragraphs. We also usually avoid putting citations in the lead, as the lead shouldn't introduce any information that isn't later stated in the article.
  • It should be stated where the cladogram comes from (immediately before it, something like "The following cladogram follows Author, Year." should be said).
  • Perhaps an image of a related genus could be put in the taxonomy section?
  • A section on the environment that it lived in a contemporaneous animals (usually entitled "Pal(a)eoenvironment" or "Pal(a)eoecology") should be added if possible. I see that there's already a little bit on this at the end of paleobiology.
  • I see that frequent mentions are made to "a study" or "studies". Where possible, it should be specified by who and when, for example "a study by Author, Year" assuming the information isn't non-controversial (i.e. non-contested information on osteology, bone measurements, where specimens were found).
  • One thing to remember is that subjects should only be linked on their first mention. There's a handy script that allows one to find duplinks (short for "duplicated links") though I can't remember too much about setting it up (I think that FunkMonk, who told me about it in the first place, might know more).
Yep, here's the script:[1] Also, a term can be linked both at first mention in the intro and first time in the articule body. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully these comments are helpful. I'll see if I can conduct a more thorough review over the coming days. Sorry that I can't say too much about where the article fits on the quality scale, other than that it's virtually certainly no longer a stub. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ceres (dwarf planet)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have resolved the issues raised in its FAR and was wondering if it was ready for FAC again.
Thanks, Serendipodous 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Strait of Sicily
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I added new content to this page and would like to hear your opinion on it. Thanks, DazzleFrancesca (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Chlorine
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to promote this article to featured status sometime soon.
Thanks, Keresluna (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
From a quick read, I think the main point of improvement before FAC should be sourcing. Many of the sources are quite old, and the article relies a lot on a single source. The FA criteria expect you show it is well-researched, which typically requires up-to-date scholarship. Of course, a lot of the basics won't have changed much, so a complete rewrite won't be necessary.
A second major point is the structure of the article. The later uses section described chlorine used as a weapon, but this also has a separate section below. Similarly, it is unclear why "Semmelweis and experiments with antisepsis" is not in 'later use'.
Additional comments:
  • SCl2, SOCI2, ClF3, ICl, ICl3, TiCl3, TiCl4, MoCl5, FeCl3, ZnCl2, and so on.. I don't see the point of enumerating them all, nor what 'and so on' means.
  • Syria is a very small section, you should probably merge Iraq and Syria into '21st century' or something.
  • The Syrian government has allegedly used chlorine -> is more known now? If it has become an established fact, the word allegedly should be dropped
  • Medical sources have to be of very high quality (for the section biological role), see WP:MEDRS
  • The toxicity of chlorine comes (...) unsourced
Hope these work as a first pointer. Excited to see somebody work on an important article as this. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Markham's storm petrel
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... it's my first "nature" article and I'd like to get some feedback before a FAC nomination.
Thanks, Therapyisgood (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
Therapyisgood Thank you for your patience and I am sorry that it has taken this long for someone to review your article. I do not know much about this topic, so please consider this a non-expert review.
  • "In Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1, author Carles Carboneras states Hydrobatidae probably diverged from other petrels at an early stage." Why is the source quoted in the article? Is this fact in dispute? Is it important for the reader to know where this information came from?
    I have not been able to find another source, so cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section uses "storm petrel" a lot. Are there alternate terms for the species that can be used?
  • "Its name in Spanish literature is Golondrina de mar negra." This feels like trivia, especially as it has its own paragraph. This should be expanded, integrated into another paragraph or deleted.
    Combined with other paragraph. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Sexes are alike." I don't know what this refers to.
    Explained. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Spear and Ainley (2007) observed" delete the year, this information will be given in the citation.
    Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Spear and Ainley (2007) from 18°N to 30°S, west to 115°, " again, remove the year.
    Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "A 2002 study in Marine Ornithology that examined a total of 95 Markham's storm petrels from Paracas Peninsula and La Vieja Island in central Peru, collectively, found its main diet by mass consisted of fish" I don't think you need to include the methodology of this study. Instead, just state what the study discovered, give the citation and if the reader is interested they can look at the study themselves. If this is kept, I would shorten this description.
    Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Researchers Rodrigo Barros et al. (2019) described the bird as "one of the least known seabirds in the world"." This sounds like trivia again. I would incorporate this in another paragraph or delete.
    Incorporated. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • " Barros et al. (2019), " again, delete the year and name the researchers or give a general statement like "based on the estimates of researchers from XYZ"
    Cut year. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In ref 25 and ref 30, the citation is not presented as a range of numbers. Why is this inconsistent with the other academic journals?
    It's the specific pages I'm citing as opposed to the whole thing. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    This is fine as long as it's standarized among all the references: either all the journal references only give the specific pages cited, or all the references need to give the page numbers of the whole article. 19:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Deep vein thrombosis
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 16 April 2021, 16:14 UTC
Last edit: 10 June 2021, 17:04 UTC

Language and literature
Your Lie in April
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because, in short, I intend to bring it to FA status. I brought this to GA status in February 2021, and since I have been cleaning it up and expanding it even more. I am aware a lot of work needs to be done, but I am prepared to do whatever it takes. Specifically, it would be nice if the lead, plot, and characters sections could be reviewed.
Thanks, Link20XX (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
A general issue I find in this article is that most of these paragraphs are quite small. Imagine Wikipedia as a formal letter. The genre could also be mentioned in the lead section too.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Added a genre to the lead. Also expanded some of the paragraphs a bit. I will expand the rest in a bit. Link20XX (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Escapist fiction
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to the stub to create an article for a university assignment and would love to have some feedback and edits on the article.
Thanks, BeePatella (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Questionable Content
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

This is a fairly key article for ProjectWebcomics, but it needs improvement as it's an old article with a fair amount of unsourced material or material from primary sources. I'd like advice and help to improve this at least to B-class by making it more streamlined and better sourced, among any other improvements you can suggest.
Thanks, HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Loss (comic)
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article to Featured Article status and want to see what should be done to get it to that status. GamerPro64 00:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Great Gatsby
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 February 2021, 20:56 UTC
Last edit: 10 June 2021, 17:57 UTC

Philosophy and religion
Social sciences and society
Columbia University
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA quality.
Thanks, alphalfalfa(talk) 03:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Sdkb
Overall, I think this article needs a lot of cleaning before it'll be ready for an FAC. Given that it passed GA in 2011, it's likely fallen below GA standards in a bunch of areas, so it needs to be brought back up to more solid GA ground before reaching for FA heights. Specific notes:
  • I'd remove among them a co-author of the United States Constitution and a co-author of the Declaration of Independence from the lead. It's almost never WP:DUE for any one alum to be so important to an institution as to warrant mention in the lead. five Founding Fathers is plenty enough.
  • There are spelling and grammar issues, such as the slash at the start of the campus section (see MOS:SLASH) and capitalization of "city".
  • The undergraduate admissions section should have {{Infobox U.S. college admissions}} added.
  • More prose concerns: New York Times needs italicization.
  • "Military and veteran enrollment" probably shouldn't be its own section, and is promo-y.
  • Student body demographics are outdated.
  • Columbia is home to two pioneers in undergraduate campus radio broadcasting needs strong sourcing, not no sourcing.
  • I suspect the sectioning and weighting of student activities coverage needs revising.
  • The paragraph listing all the speakers at the Global Leaders Forum is crufty and needs to go. A single visit to a campus by any one person is not sufficiently notable that an encyclopedic account of the institution needs to mention it.
  • The galleries of notable alumni and faculty are very WP:UNDUE and need to go; this has been discussed recently at WT:HED I believe.
  • The see also section needs to be trimmed of links mentioned in the body.
  • We don't need to link to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica in the external links; it's more than a little outdated.
These are just samples of issues I found skimming the page; they're by no means a comprehensive list of all I'd find if I scoured it top to bottom. If you'd like to set this up for FAC, you'll need to do so with an eye for these sorts of things. Good luck, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Racism in the UK Conservative Party
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because as the creator, I would value some feedback on neutrality, encyclopedic tone, etc., and the possibility of improving its grade/rating.
Thanks, Bangalamania (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to GA status and—who knows?—maybe FA status. I hope that it's clear to a general readership and that I haven't missed a big part of the story.
Thanks, JBchrch talk 12:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

National Association for the Advancement of White People
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first Wikipedia article I've ever written, and have included a lot more content than previous. I would really appreciate if anyone had the time to take a look!
Thanks, Tofta22 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Social services
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly improved this article from a stub. I am doing this for a university unit project. By the time that I finish editing it (2 June 11:59 PM AEST), it will have images, citations and significant information. I would greatly appreciate any feedback and an assessment of what the class of the article is. I have linked it to the politics WikiProject, and it was already linked to the Social Work Project. Any help or feedback would be super helpful.
Thanks, Kafka10

Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

Hi all - I've listed this article for peer review because I have continually added 2000+ words to enhance this stub article. Since the original stub, It now includes a range of citations, images, an infobox and a navigation box. The upgrade of this stub was due to a university assignment, however I have found the topic particularly interesting therefore would love some feedback to further enhance this stub and possibly request a review of the articles class. It is currently at start article status. Any comments in reference to editing, re-arranging of subheadings, citations or anything in general would be very, very much appreciated. Thank you so much! I look forward to hearing from the Wikipedia community. Thanks, LMJ050100 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie Paxson
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it from not-even-a-redlink, took it to DYK and GA, and I just love this woman, and I'd like to see the article about her be as good as I can make it. I submitted it for FA, but I really don't understand the process so it was suggested I come here for help.
Pinging Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia as they asked me to, and Lawrencekhoo, Johnbod and Nikkimaria as GtM suggested I should.
Thanks, —valereee (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
Lead
  • What is a Penney-Missouri award?
  • "sorority Theta Sigma Phi" as a non-North American this is all Greek to me. Er, I am assuming that it is because I am not North American, possibly I need to be Greek; or whatever.
  • "inducted into their hall of fame". "their" → 'its'?
  • "covering hard news". What was it about the type of news she covered - which perhaps you should specify - that made it difficult?
  • "Paxson finished her career as a newspaper publisher in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma." The main article suggests, without being (IMO) entirely clear, that she finished her career in Oklahoma in 1986, having left her Pennsylvania role six years earlier. Either the lead needs amending or the main article text needs clarifying.
  • "the National Women and Media Collection." Which is?
  • The lead could do with more Wiki-links. Eg Houston, Miami, Philadelphia and Bois; Second World War; probably the various states; women's movement and feminist; and hall of fame.
  • Perhaps red link Association for Women in Communications?
That's just the lead. Either this is not helping, in which case don't be shy in saying so; or it is and you can have ago at applying the principles behind these points to the rest of the article, in which case ping me when you have had a go. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog the Mild! All helpful! I'm loling at 'hard news' -- it's hard vs. soft, as in serious news vs what was perceived as fluff, rather than hard vs. easy. Must be an Americanism or N.Americanism. Or maybe I'm just more familiar with old-fashioned news jargon.
I've made those additions and corrections, both in the lead and in the body! —valereee (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Added a bunch more links in the body, did a bit of copyediting. —valereee (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure that I will be doing a full copy edit - although the article could do with one - so I will toss in issues as I notice them; there may, or may not, be further similar cases elsewhere in the article.
Wire services, first paragraph.
  • "Like many women of the time in the United States, during World War II". As you have during World War II", "of the time" is redundant.
  • "Like many women of the time in the United States, during World War II Paxson was able to be considered for jobs previously limited to men,[6]:114 and starting in 1944 she covered hard news for the wire services, first for UPI in the two-person Lincoln, Nebraska, bureau for $25 a week, which represented equal pay because it was covered by the American Newspaper Guild contract." An over-long sentence.
  • "... of the time ... At the time ... at the time ... at the time ..." Perhaps a little variation?
  • "reported all state news". Do you mean 'were the only people reporting any news from the state for UPI ...'?
  • ""you just had to put up with it, spend as little time as possible in his office, make a point of always keeping the desk between you. If he started to come around the desk, you picked up those opinions and left." MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Am in the middle of crazy busy IRL, but I'm going to have a period of availability from the 4th through the 6th and will deal with these, thanks so much! —valereee (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
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) 21:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, I've made these changes! Wow, I hadn't even seen that "at the time" business. That's a bad habit. —valereee (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Alamos Gold
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has expanded significantly, including some content that appears to be of questionable relevance and reliability. Assistance in identifying the material that should stay and material that should go would be appreciated.
Thanks, RoanokeVirginia (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Koh Tao murders
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 17 April 2021, 12:06 UTC
Last edit: 10 June 2021, 12:35 UTC

Lists
List of German language newspapers of Ontario
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I want to nominate this to be a FL, but I've never done a FL before.
Thanks, Tkbrett (✉) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Italy national football team hat-tricks
Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to this article became a FL.
Thanks, Dr Salvus 17:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews
WikiProject Military history: Project A119Chibok schoolgirls kidnappingBattle of GaixiaTracy PhilippsBob Feller Act of Valor AwardNapoleonic looting of art1993 Finchley Road bombingsFrench Imperial Army (1803–1815)Battle of White Sulphur Springs
Last edited on 13 May 2021, at 02:03
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
LanguageWatchEdit