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.
Arts
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how I can improve this article to hopefully get it up to Good Article status
Thanks, Xx78900 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I worked on this article over a decade ago and succeeded to get it to GA status but failed at FA. Since then, I've been largely inactive on Wikipedia, and there's been no updated review of quality for this article. In getting back involved with Wikipedia, I'd really like to push this article across the finish line, but since I'm surely rusty, could use a pair of eyes on it to help me figure out the places in the article most in need of some love.
Thanks, --Mr. Wick 09:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think I can give some imput on this. I've recently been working on articles related to Mistwalker, and did an expansion on Sakaguchi's article. There's some basic things I can suggest.
- The cover art is currently, from what I'm seeing, the Japanese version. Is there a reason why the Western version wasn't used? If it portrays the game poorly, then using the current cover's all right (ala Ico).
- The gameplay seems overly reliant on subsections for what's a comparatively simple gameplay formula. The gameplay could be rearranged and tweaked to be less fragmented. Also, is there a reason why there's a link to the role-playing genre? There doesn't seem any reason for it.
- The development section seems to include a lot of information that's more suited to a release section. If you want some sources for development, there's some present now on the articles for Mistwalker and Sakaguchi. I can also look for some and leave them on the talk page if you like. I've grown quite good at finding Japanese sources.
- The music subsection feels like a simple descriptor and teaser for the music rather than providing development information.
- The sales section needs a little tidying (is the breaking of record thing actually in the sources, or original research?) and there's a source here (ゲーム産業のV字回復の決め手は? 浜村弘一氏が恒例の講演を実施. Famitsu. 9 April 2010. Archived from the original on 13 April 2015. Retrieved 31 October 2015.) that shows the sales position of Blue Dragon in 2009. It's in the image of the 360 section of the article, showing Blue Dragon sold 203,740 units, making it Japan's third best-selling 360 title.
- A proper legacy section would be good. This game did inspire multiple sequels/follow-ups, manga, and anime. It's basically the start of a media franchise.
@Mr. Wick: That's what jumped out at me in broad strokes. The general advice or perhaps trimming down the synopsis a little, and making sure the references are up to date/archived, also apply but are more general tidying than issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mr. Wick: Re-pinging in case the above didn't work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd like to bring this to FA status, but I've never submitted a song article before.
Thanks, Tkbrett (✉) 21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 11 September 2021, 17:52 UTC
- Last edit: 26 September 2021, 02:18 UTC
He wrote sad songs and got paid by the tear. They’re motel masterpieces about dream attacks and beer drinking robots. His mother named him after a king and he was the son of “possibly the most evil man in America”.
In 2003, he was hospitalised for approaching death; shined out in the wild kindness; and left this world behind on the back of a black camel.
Hoping to get this article to FAC; would like to get some preemptive insight. Particularly interested in thoughts on the in-line citations. There's a particular issue I have with the in-line citations; there's more blue than a Massachusetts polling station. I reckon a citation change is best. Thanks, DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi DMT Biscuit. I've started reading through this. I think I'll mostly likely read it through a couple of times or so to digest it all before I begin making comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Update: I'm still actively working through reading this—I know, it's only been six days since my last update, but this page just seems so lonesome and bare with so few comments. ;-) Moisejp (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 5 September 2021, 05:44 UTC
- Last edit: 29 September 2021, 05:24 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 5 September 2021, 02:37 UTC
- Last edit: 28 September 2021, 12:57 UTC
Hey all. I've listed this for PR so I could possibly get it to GA before its 50th anniversary in June. I'd appreciate some assistance with the flow (as it currently stands the concept and themes section repeats a lot of info from the songs section I added last year). I also could use some help with the influence section (there's like none currently) and possibly anything you can think of. If all goes well this will be Bowie's final '70s album to reach GA status.
Thanks, – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because there are some sentences whose sources are not posted and I have doubts about their authenticity, and furthermore, it is difficult for me to check the sources other than web sources. I hope that the peer review will clarify and share the problems of this article, and lead to the improvement and development of the content.
Thanks, Kj4bFan (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- Previous peer review
Reopening peer review in arts category since there was not much feedback where it was listed before.
First time here - I'm listing this article for peer review because I really want to get this up to GA status for the possibility of it being nominated for FA next August 11 (20 year anniversary). I've spent a lot of time rearranging the article and adding sources - it was pretty barren before, and a lot of text was completely irrelevant to the point it was nominated for deletion last year. I can imagine there's a lot of improvements that I could still work on however (improving wording and conciseness). I've been using articles such as Cave Story, Ikaruga and Crash Bandicoot (another page in the review process) as examples of what the page should structure like, but I'm still not entirely sure. I don't know if the page is already alright in the image area or if it needs an image of the developer. It's my first time doing this, so all input is very much appreciated. Thank you very much :) Kettleonwater (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- bump :^) Kettleonwater (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 15 August 2021, 12:02 UTC
- Last edit: 19 September 2021, 10:48 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have just finished some major edits to get the article up for an FA nomination. As such I need a fresh set of eyes that can review this for anything that might hinder that process or anything that the article needs work on.
Thanks, Paleface Jack (talk) 18:34, 4 August 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) 17:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 31 July 2021, 04:15 UTC
- Last edit: 29 September 2021, 20:47 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 25 July 2021, 08:20 UTC
- Last edit: 28 August 2021, 01:20 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 24 July 2021, 11:42 UTC
- Last edit: 26 September 2021, 10:39 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 30 May 2021, 04:49 UTC
- Last edit: 30 August 2021, 05:56 UTC
Everyday life
I've listed this article for peer review because following Sillyfolkboy's helpful review last year when I nominated this as a GA, I'd like some pointers on improvements required to get it ready to nominate as a featured article. Are there any important sources that I've missed? Any sections that need expansion or trimming? I'll try and fill in the gaps in the tables wherever possible, now that it's easier to get into the British Library.
Thanks in advance for any improvement suggestions, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:45, 13 September 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) 14:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm planning to nominated this as a Featured Article in the future. It was upped to Good Article status in 2017, and since then has been expanded due to new information relating to the game's post-release support and new development information. This may well have caused grammar and stylistic issues that need addressing or lessening before the nomination. There is also the question of whether the current sources will be admissible for a featured article.
Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 13:22, 5 September 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) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Engineering and technology
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 28 September 2021, 02:46 UTC
- Last edit: 29 September 2021, 03:04 UTC
I've been editing this page fairly continuously since early June. Apart from some contributions from User:Sadads, regarding industry lobbying, everything here is essentially my work. I don't usually edit in this way and my own experience of large single-editor pages is that they can be idiosyncratic. I'd really like to avoid that here. I consider this an important topic and I'd like to see it done right. Primarily I'd like some feedback on what I've done wrong and what improvements or gaps need sorting.
Thanks, Project Osprey (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I've written such a comprehensive article since I co-wrote Halo (Beyoncé song) 10 years ago. I would like to turn it initially into a GA and maybe later into a FA. Right now (excluding minor grammar and syntax errors that may exist) I think my main hesitation is the overall structure of the article. While everything is arranged chronologically, I sometimes feel that some things can be omitted or placed elsewhere, or that some sections can be mixed up. I also have a problem with a paragraph in "Immediate aftermath" ("The current and former heads of government of Mexico City, Sheinbaum and Ebrard...) as I feel the paragraph is out of place (I did not add it and it exists since May) and while it is true what it says, I do not think it will affect the candidacies of the politicians, especially since none is (nor will be) under investigation.
If possible, I would also like advice on what could be summarized, omitted or added. Thanks in advance, (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because the last time ISS received a thorough review was over ten years ago. Once upon a time, I did a fair amount of copy-edit work with another major contributor to the article and eventually, it made it to FA. Since then, it has fallen from FA, and is rated as B and sometimes even C class in various projects. I would love to see it achieve GA status or even regain FA status once again, but I thought a good look-over might prove beneficial first.
Thanks, Pax Verbum 20:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Hello, I'm CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and I gonna review the article right now! 08:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- The article need some touch-up on accessibility, paticularly on the Pirs airlock & Russian docking port at the structure. There are a lot of pictures in the article, consider put them in galleries.
- The components, modules and elements sub-section maybe unnecessary, since each of them have its own article.
- There's a ton of copyright violation in the article. In fact, it might be enough to bomb most of the content in some sections. It must be fixed immediately. [[1]]
- There are a lot of [citation needed] tags. Go fix it now.
- There is still a cleanup tag on a section. Fix it now as well.
- Use less quotes from the articles. Gut the contents out and fix it.
Basically, there is a lot that the article need to be fixed, and to be honest, it is not even worthy for peer reviewing. However, these issues are solvable, and when all these glaring problems are fixed, I will review the article more throughly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Looking at getting this peer reviewed, as I've expanded it quite a bit and would like some feedback on what else needs improvement, and if anyone sees any glaring issues.
Thanks, DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Looking for a peer review to identify issues or objections that would be brought up during a Feature Article nomination. It has been nearly two years since it has been promoted to a Good Article. In that time, I have periodically revisited it to give it a critical read to see where it can be improved. At this point, I think it is ready. Do you? Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
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)[]
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)[]
General
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)[]
Hi, this is my first peer review, and I don't know anything about hockey, so I apologize if I miss something.
- "Career peak outside of the NHL" is missing sourcing; the section only cites one NYT piece, but that article is missing a lot of information that is in the section. E.g. statistics are listed in the section but are not in the NYT article
- "Player-coaching career" has a
{{citation needed}}
tag.
- Would prefer a better source for ref 22 (obituary from Legacy.com)
- "Honours & achievements" has an over-broad scope at the moment. Some awards make sense (cup wins) but I don't know if all of them have sufficient notability, e.g. "Calgary's Asian Heritage Month Award" & 2009 SONAHHR award. Some statistics also belong better in body: leading scorer statistics & "Nanaimo Clippers sweater hangs in the Hockey Hall of Fame" should be in Career/Legacy sections.
- On that note, I think most of the current sections (2/3-5) could be instead subsections inside a single "Career" section
- The sweater/HOF statement isn't supported by the cited source (ref 31, "Diversity in our game")
- I did some work on the references to fix them up, but which date format would you prefer? Right now the article uses all three (DMY/MDY/YMD).
- The "Bibliography" section seems to function as a "Further reading" section rather than sourcing; there's also a lot of material listed that could be used. I think a complete article would make use of Johanson's biography of Kwong, or at least some of the other print sources listed
- If this section is supposed to be a "Further reading" section, it needs to be trimmed to perhaps two or three books. Similar issue with "External links"
#6 is the most important issue I see; if some of the bibliography sources were used I'd feel more confident the article would pass a GA. Zetana (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
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)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because...Though I have tried to improve the article recently, not much information is available about the living person. I need to know more about what can be added / removed to avoid future GA failure. I welcome all inputs. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 17 July 2021, 07:11 UTC
- Last edit: 29 September 2021, 02:09 UTC
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like that this article'd be a FL. Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 25 July 2021, 03:17 UTC
- Last edit: 1 September 2021, 12:06 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 29 July 2021, 07:40 UTC
- Last edit: 27 September 2021, 19:09 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 7 August 2021, 03:27 UTC
- Last edit: 16 September 2021, 00:00 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because it was used as a reference by Youtube to determine whether certain channels were government funded. However, according to Webtekno, Youtube later stated that the information in the Wikipedia page was wrong.[2] By the way although Webtekno is an unreliable source per tr:WP:GKDP#Webtekno.com, many mainstream outlets cited their content.[3][4][5] I want to make this article as accurate as possible. Please tell me if there are any mistakes in it.
Thanks, V. E. (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get this article to GA status. I have had a look over it and it seems to be ok, no citation needed or general clean up tags. However, it is a large article and I may well have missed something. If others could have a look and give me an idea of what would be needed to bring it to GA status it would be much appreciated.
Thanks, REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am thinking of trying to get the article to a GA article, but I need advice on how to improve the article.
Thanks, Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Geography and places
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to the article over the past year yet am unsure of whether the information is of value and sourced properly i.e. if they (the sources) are reliable or not.
Thanks, NDNSWMI (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll look in again with detailed comments after a close perusal of the text, but in a first canter through I have spotted a few misspellings etc: Cragisde; Lord Armstong; recored; Alexander Armstong; posted on on the Facebook page; nighttime; localman; majoirty; left ro right; and Alexander Armstong (again). Tim riley talk 11:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the New Albion article is ready to take the next step, namely FA status. I've had a few pieces of advice which I've followed, but nothing which is comprehensive. One particular editor recently stepped in and archived all the websites which were used as sources. All the sources are, I believe, high quality. I've author linked all that I can. I even wrote two new articles about authors just so they could be author linked. Those who are not author linked are of a very high quality, recognized authors in their field.
A GA was awarded after what I believe was a very thorough assessment. You can read it HERE. The article has been significantly improved since then, so I believe it is ready. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments from Niagara
- "Initially, details of Drake's voyage were suppressed, and Drake's sailors were pledged not to disclose their route under threat of death." — What was the reason for this? I'm assuming it was to keep the Spanish from finding it.
- Completed.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- "...concluded that the Indians believed him and his crew to be gods...", "Most likely the Indians..." — Is the term Indian the most accurate for this context? Unless Drake specifically refers to them as Indians, natives (or something similar) might be better.
- Completed.I used people and Miwok.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- For centuries, you use both words (sixteenth-century and seventeenth-century), and numerals (20th century and 21st century). For consistency, I would choose one style or the other.
- Completed. I chose numerals as they were already most prevalent.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- "Describing their lack of seamanship experience and navigational knowledge, Davidson recognises a plethora of confusion, chiefly from armchair historians which include distinguished persons such as Samuel Johnson and Jules Verne." — Who's lacking? I would reverse the sentence to clarify that it's the armchair historians.
- Completed.Yes, this was a rather awkward sentence.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Suggest: "Davidson recognises a plethora of confusion from armchair historians, which included Samuel Johnson and Jules Verne, owing to their lack of seamanship experience and navigational knowledge."
- Completed. I re-wrote using a somewhat different phrase.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Nice set-up for your references and the usage of WP:CITESHORT. To ensure consistency, I would make sure that consecutive page numbers are seperated with the En-dash, and only non-consecutive pages use a comma.
- Completed. The En-dash is in all such places.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Interesting article. The closest I've been to New Albion was a visit to Point Bonita. I hope this helps, if I notice anything else I'll add it here. Niagara Don't give up the ship 00:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- Hello and thank you Niagara. This certainly does help. I absolutely concur with you comments and will soon make the changes you suggest. And please do let me know of anything else you might see.
- One other editor has indicated that in lieu of a FA mentoring that he also take a quick look at the article--which he will do when he returns from holiday. I look at FAs and think this one is close. I am excited to nominate it after it has some further comments from editors such as you. Kind regardsHu Nhu (talk) 20:22, 10 August 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) 17:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article. It is probably unusual for a small populated place to even have a Wikipedia page. However, Seneca was once an important place on the C&O Canal, had a mine that provided sandstone to buildings in Washington, had a minor role in one of the scandals that plagued U.S. Grant, was the site of an important radio astronomy discovery, and currently has excellent outdoor recreation facilities.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like feedback on what improvements will need to be made for consideration as a featured article, as it would be my first nomination. The article passed GA earlier today with Wugapodes providing insightful feedback. I also plan on taking pictures of the skyline that Commons and other free-license websites lack, as I have the equipment to do this.
Thanks, dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Femke
Great you're bringing this to FA. A few comments
- {{lang|nl|Jonge Tobias}} -> Correct pronounciation for text-to-speech.
- I am not sure what this is referring to? Should I put the pronunciation in the first sentence?
- If you use the lang template around non-English words, text-to-speech software will know how to pronounce it. No need to put in the pronunciation otherwise. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- Like much of the Rust Belt, Buffalo has focused on recovering from the effects of late-20th-century deindustrialization. needs citation
- After the Revolutionary War, settlers from New England and eastern New York began to move into the area. needs citation
- With changing demographics and an increased number of refugees from other areas on the city's East Side -> I'm not sure this is supported by the source (FN118, FN119 comes closer at a quick glance). It is the area east of the city or the east part of the city? What is special about the East side?
- The term Bible-minded is a bit weird. I'm not sure it's due, but if you think it is, it needs explaining.
- The sports section seems underreferenced. Are you sure Buffalo Beauts play in a minor league? This section may benefit from talking about normal/nonprofessional sport too
- The Great recession started in 2007. The source you cited only shows the house prices, not whether Buffalo did well overall in the recession
- I think you can just say Tesla, instead of adding Inc.
- ethnic restaurants -> dunno about US English, but to my ears this sounds a bit insensitive to race, pretending that white people are the normal and don't have an ethnicity.
- Is it necessary to list that many highways? Feels a bit unbalanced with the section about walking/cycling.
- runs at grade -> dunno what that means
- The Buffalo area has a larger-than-average pay disparity than the rest of the U.S -> between men/women, between white/POC?
- The table with private employment has two empty columns. Is there a reason to not mention public employment?
- FN244: don't shout in titles, even if the original source does
I'm going to leave prose nit-picking to others. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Not reviewing the full article, but just one quick thing I noticed: there are a few ways in which you could probably improve the lead image collage. The whitespace gaps aren't all the same width, so some tiny cropping is needed to get them aligned. Also, some of the images are re-used in the body, which isn't prohibited (as far as I know) but probably isn't ideal if you have a good selection to choose from. I can't comment on the choice of images without knowing Buffalo better, but something to generally consider as you're making changes is that you want the images to represent the full spectrum of life in the city: not just one ward, or not just touristy areas, or not just one type of building, or not just nice-looking wealthy areas. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a good article and would welcome any comments on how to improve it so it would pass GAN. Any general comments would be much appreciated too! If it helps, I've based the structure of the article on Wicklow Way which is currently a GA.
Thanks, IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 13 June 2021, 02:44 UTC
- Last edit: 18 September 2021, 06:33 UTC
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)[]
History
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to take the article forward to become a FA.
Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Booking my place. From a first canter through I can't see much to quibble about, but will be back after a close perusal. Tim riley talk 20:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Not much from me: this is a top-notch article, beautifully written and a delight (and an education) to read. All I can come up with by way of quibbles are these:
- She wrote the best known surviving book – I get in a tangle with hyphens, but I think you want one here: it was not the best of the known surviving books but the surviving book that was known best. So, I think, "best-known".
- her life prior to her becoming an anchoress – plain words might be better: "her life before becoming an anchoress". Quite apart from following Fowler in preferring "before" to "prior to", it is possibly better to avoid "prior" in that sense in an article about monastic times with Priors all over the place.
- influential in her own lifetime – do we need the "own"?
- later executed by Henry le Despenser after his peasant army was overwhelmed – the "his" means Litster I think but it isn't 100% clear: better to have Litster's surname repeated rather than "his", perhaps?
- advocated reform of the Catholic Church – isn't "Catholic" a touch anachronistic (or parachronistic – I always forget which is which)? Until the Reformation the Church was just the Church.
- St Giles' Hospital – strange possessive plural. St Giles's would be more usual (and would reflect the pronunciation). If yours is the normal rendition, fine, but I just mention the point.
- mainly generated from 'livings' – oughtn't this to be in double quotes according to our manual of style?
- No hermits or anchorites existed in Norwich – might this flow more smoothly as "there were no hermits or anchorites in Norwich"?
- much-reduced in height – I don't think you want a hyphen here.
- Almost nothing about Julian's life is known – you go on to give us quite a lot of vouched-for information about her life: "almost nothing" seems rather an overstatement.
- 20 March 1393/4 – the MoS calls for en-dashes rather than slashes for date ranges. If it is unclear if the year was 1393 or 1394, perhaps it might be better to say so plainly.
- It was an Old Style/New Style thing, so the year is now only given in the New Style. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- possibly the first autobiography – not sure we need a blue link here.
- last rites of the Catholic Church – again, not sure "Catholic" is wanted here.
- a series of 15 visions of Jesus, and a sixteenth the following night – the mix of numerals and words for the numbers looks a bit odd here.
- a golden age of mysticism – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL here unless you have citation for "golden age".
- Revelations of Divine Love
- Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris … the British Library – if naming the location of one, then perhaps name the other, or neither.
- Julian's shorter work, which may have been written not long after Julian's visions – perhaps "her" rather than a second "Julian's" here?
- published by Reverend Dundas Harford – the Reverend, please!
- Julian emphasized – unexpected –ize formation in an otherwise –ise article.
- Defense of St Birgitta – just checking that the American spelling is appropriate here.
- I've gone for the original name in Latin (which has a 's' of course). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- ... so she is not currently listed – sorry to be pernickety, but I am old enough to have been taught that "so" is not a conjunction in formal English, and needs "and" before it.
- equivalent canonization … full canonization process – more unexpected –ize formations.
That is really all I can manage by way of nitpicking. This is a cracker of an article and has FA written all over it, in my view. Please ping me when you take it to FAC. – Tim riley talk 23:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Many thanks for your comments Tim riley, now all addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The current review seeks to get the article closer to a featured article standard. I believe the resources I've cited are so plentiful that there might be little to add (though any editor with some fairly decent knowledge of Lithuanian, or better, is welcome to find more resources, particularly Lithuanian scholarship). I can say for now that I don't think you'll find more sources in English, Russian, or Polish.
Mindaur has said that the intro to the blockade is too long and should be included in other articles, and some info in the Impacts/Rising tensions with the minorities might be unnecessary; I would like to seek comments about that issue in particular, but do make a review of the rest of the pieces. A question might arise about the fact photos are not abundant in the article - unfortunately I was not able to gain consent to upload relevant photos to the Wikimedia Commons, so oops, they are not there. Links to them are provided in external links.
Thanks, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
This article is essentially a translation of the article in German Wikipedia which was written by myself. I nominated it for the good articles, but the nomination failed. English is not my first language, I'm not too used to producing English prose, and even though I did my best to the amend linguistic issues that were raised in the GA review, I am positive that a peer review by someone more familiar with the subtleties of English grammar is the right way to continue.
I'd like to know if the phrasing is clear and encyclopedic throughout the entire text, if the grammar is right, and whether the article is ready to be renominated as good article, or possibly even as a featured article.
Thanks, → «« Man77 »» 18:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it concerns a fairly obscure topic that I've put a lot of effort into researching. I'd like some thoughts on the state of this article and tips on how to improve it - I've also got scans/copies of the sources used here if needed for verification, I doubt most editors outside of the state of Victoria would be able to find these books. Apologies if this is the wrong category, by the way, feel free to move it if needed. Wasn't sure where this should go.
Thanks, LivelyRatification (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 28 July 2021, 13:29 UTC
- Last edit: 25 September 2021, 07:08 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Noteworthy subject deserving WP featured article status.
Thanks, – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for working on this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- "Because burials of seven countries' graves were" --> subject verb agreement issue ("burials" and "graves"): suggest rewording (or just removing "burials of")
- "The numbers are 885 British troops, in accordance with the English customs of the dead" -- I am not quite sure what this sentence is attempting to say. Suggest rewording
- for FAC, I tink this will need a reference: "The end of the eight pillars supporting the roof was designed as a bowl and a symbol representing the moment and the eternity, expressing a soft and solemn standing for the soldiers."
- suggest adding more bibliographic details to Reference # 44
- suggest making the date format consistent; there are at least three styles used at the moment in the article, e.g. "2020-09-26", "15 September 2019" and "March 29, 2019"
- suggest adding a page number and year of publication for Reference # 70
- suggest adding references to the table in the Total burials section
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it for GA, and I'm unsure if the article itself is 100% completed.
Thanks, Vacant0 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I've made some initial copy-edits and prose work (Special:Diff/1047110912), feel free to revert some or all of them if you disagree. I'll post some more feedback in a bit; I'll go section by section. Zetana (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Overall, I think the article has most information that a reader would be looking for. Personally, I'd switch the Electoral system and Background sections so Electoral system is first, followed by Background. I don't know anything about Serbian politics, so I'd be interested in having some summaries of the parties in the running (did they campaign on any specific issues?). I also think the Background and Results sections could use more information (why'd Preševo's city council get dissolved in 2017? what did Movement for Krajina campaign on? what were the results of the "multiple elections"? etc. / was there any polling information predicting election results? what did political parties say about the results? etc.) as well.
In case you haven't seen it already, there's a number of elections-related FAs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums § Featured articles that might be a good reference. I can post section-specific comments on prose tomorrow. Zetana (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Thank you for the cleanup and for the comment. I'm going to expand the article by the end of this week and on top of that, I will add more summaries of things that you have suggested. I'm also going to look through the featured articles since they will probably help me while writing. I appreciate this and thanks again, Cheers --Vacant0 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it to Good Article.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[]
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)[]
Natural sciences and mathematics
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review to improve for featured article nominee
Thanks, Srobodao84 (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi, please ping within a couple days if I do not start offering some comments. I think this is in a good state. One initial thing I spot is inconsistency in citation style - you can install User:BrandonXLF/CitationStyleMarker and see whether a specific cite is in CS1 or CS2; the article mostly has CS1 with a few exceptions. Urve (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Couple months ago, I sent this article to FAC and had to withdraw it because the prose wasn't quite there yet. I figured I should take the advice given at the review and take the article here. It would be great to get some fixes relating to the FAC criteria (and an idea on what I should've done in hindsight) before I try FAC again later on. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:02, 6 September 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) 14:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because the article certainly can be organized better. For example, the question of cannibalism is discussed in great detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Age and taphonomy; fire is brought up in a lot of detail in taphonomy, palaeoenvironment, and its own section fire; and most sections are incredibly long and could use some subdivisions but I can't think of any logical ones. Also, comments on general grammar and readability would be appreciated
Thanks, User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 2 August 2021, 05:34 UTC
- Last edit: 26 September 2021, 08:07 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 16 April 2021, 16:14 UTC
- Last edit: 4 August 2021, 19:06 UTC
Language and literature
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if I can take it to FAC in the future (it would be my first one). Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly since Legobot and I have been the only two contributors to the article!
Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to GA status, and I'd like help knowing what it needs for the final push. Any comments appreciated, especially on wording and the shorter sections.
Thanks, Microwavedfork (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I would like some help to format it according to Wikipedia's canons
Thanks, Max Peltuinum (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
- Hello, I'm CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and this article need serious improvement. Peer review is for article that is in high-quality, not for C or B-class articles. Nevertheless, I think you find Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style useful to make the article more wiki-like. You might also want to add more content, polish the grammar, add image to the article, reformat the date, replace euphemisms based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and rephrase some section titles. You might want to have other editor with the same interest to edit with you. Come back when the article is in much higher quality, I wish you a good luck! 08:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get to work right away. I'm not a native speaker of English, so forgive me for any mistakes and, if you can, correct them or help me correct them. I would be very grateful to you.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first new article I have written and I want to get it up to standard. I'm interested to see whether it is clear for someone who is less familiar with the subject matter than I am, and whether the reviewer feels the structure is appropriate. Also, obviously, I want to iron out any weakness in the prose.
Thanks, Boynamedsue (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I have brought one article through FAN and another through GAN (both biographies), but this is the first article I've written from scratch about a written work, so I'm wondering if there are any issues I'm not seeing that would keep it from GA or even FA status. Is it comprehensive without being too granular? I appreciate any time you can spend looking this over.
Thanks! Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 10 June 2021, 22:47 UTC
- Last edit: 19 September 2021, 05:54 UTC
Philosophy and religion
Social sciences and society
This article deals with the 1970 course by Louis Crompton on society and the homosexual: The Proseminar in Homophile Studies. Described variously at the time as a course about sexual aberration, to a course whose aim was to eradicate homosexuality, to a course about "literary queers" - this was a controversial moment in Nebraskan history. And how fitting, then, is the University to celebrate its 50th anniversary this fall, the same year that a resolution condemning critical race theory also failed.
My intention is to eventually send this off to WP:FAC.
Thanks, Urve (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it get to at least B standard before the final judgement in the case (due in March/April 2022), then somewhere close to FA at some point there after. What filling out does it need? Referencing? Media? Tags? Indobox data?
Thanks, RockerballAustralia (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would like a peer review on Wisconsin Dairy Industry. I have substantially expanded the article since its GAN, and I want a more rigorous review of the article and its content.
Thanks, JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to resubmit it for consideration as a FA
Thanks, SecretName101 (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review as it has had substantial revisions and additions (by many different editors) since being assessed as Start-class in the schools (high-importance), education (mid-importance), and Wales categories 8+ years ago. Would appreciate any pointers to how best to improve the article, and external eyes to highlight where there might be gaps in the content. (ps - not sure what the best "topic" is for this peer review; an educational institution seems to feel loosely within "Social sciences and society" but happy to adjust if there's a better home for it, or if it would be better off in the general list.)
Thanks, Dotx3 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been considering nominating it for GA eventually, but I don't have a lot of experience in politics or language-related articles, so I'm having difficulty assessing any gaps or weaknesses. I've also been the article's only major contributor since I performed an overhaul in 2016, so it would be grand to hear a second opinion, especially because the subject matter is politically charged.
I'm generally looking for a broad second opinion, but I am a little concerned about the weight being given to various elements and about the competency of my summarizations. Some advice on usage examples—whether there's too many, there could stand to be more non-fiction literary, some literary could be swapped out for older ones, more other political speeches—would be appreciated; the wikisource texts on the talk page may be of use there.
Thanks, ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review
- to brainstorm and understand information gaps and uncovered areas
- other things to do for further improvement of the article and probable reference sources for further improvement of the article.
Thanks, Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- There are a few distinct articles which may be linked to this article to improve it viz. specific shelters around the world. They may have to be searched for manually for each country to link them together. Sideriver84 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Sideriver84: Thanks for your response and inputs. It's a good suggestion. And status and issues on shelters of globally many countries is not yet covered in the article that concerns me.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 13 August 2021, 01:07 UTC
- Last edit: 16 September 2021, 10:12 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was recently just protected and before it has been subject to significant amounts of vandalism and incorrect information. I am not an expert on this subject, but because of the past, it is unclear as to whether or not this article is actually accurate and/or contains significant amounts of inaccuracies.I believe this article needs to be reviewed by an expert to ensure that this article is not biased and fully encompasses the topic. Additionally, I would love to have this article be one of Wikipedia's top articles considering the relevancy of the subject in political discourse in the United States today …
Thanks, Ghoyt98 (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope that I can make this article a Featured Article. This article was recently promoted to GA and I was surprised while originally writing the article. I initially thought that Beverly White would be a short start class article, but I instead found that she was a very active person and deserved far more.
Thanks, Jon698 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 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) 02:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
This article is the best resource for the topic on the Internet and I've exhausted all the sources I wanted to cite. Looking for any suggestions or feedback before taking it to WP:FAC. Appreciate your time! czar 20:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@Czar: I am so sorry that it has taken this long for someone to review this for FAC. This is not how this is supposed to be, and I hope you are still looking to bring this to FAC if you think it fulfills the criteria. As this is a PR, you are welcome to seek out specific editors to review the article, or post a request on Wikiproject talk pages to get more responses. I hope that you will look at some other PRs in the Template:FAC peer review sidebar and help with the WP:FAC backlog, especially because you have a lot of FAs and great knowledge of the FAC process to share.
Here are some comments below:
- The image should have alt text, per MOS:ALT.
- "written by Paul Goodman in May and early June 1945." From what I understand in the article, the May Pamphlet is a collection of six essays, written in May and early June 1945. The essays were originally published separately but were compiled together as The May Pamphlet in 1946. I think the lede sentence should mention when it was published, perhaps something like, "The May Pamphlet is an anarchist pamphlet published in 1946, comprised of essays written by Paul Goodman in May and early June 1945."
- I am not sure how I feel about the quotes for natural powers and drawing the line: it might be contrary MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Perhaps the text should say something like, "how to summon a phenomenon he termed as "natural powers" to invent solutions to social dilemmas." Or something similar, to indicate that these are terms that Goodman is redefining.
- "an ideological delineation beyond which a libertarian (synonymous with "anarchist")" This is synonymous in Goodman's belief, but this statement makes it seem like Wikivoice is stating that they are synonymous. Maybe something like, "an ideological delineation beyond which a libertarian (which Goodman wrote was synonymous with an anarchist)" This also removed the quotes around anarchist, per MOS:SCAREQUOTES
- "His early anarchist short essays from May 1945," were there essays in the May Pamphlet from early June?
- The second and third paragraphs of Overview seem to be an analysis of the themes and contents of the pamphlet. I am surprised that these are not placed in their own section like "Themes" or "Reception" after "Contents". I think this may need to be moved to later in the article.
- "(1) tools with which an individual can resist a society's coercive conditions and (2) the possibility of summoning "natural powers" to invent solutions to social dilemmas." I don't think the numbers are needed here.
- "find their natural powers prone to coercive co-option" This feels very much like jargon, and I cannot figure out what this is trying to tell me. I think this sentence needs to be simplified.
- "acts of passion/emotion" -> acts of passions or emotion
- "In his characteristic, reformist avoidance of revolutionary pronouncements," According to who? Considering that this paragraph only has one source, this opinionated statement feels definitive and outside of Wikivoice.
- The first essay is given two paragraphs of explanation in the article, while the second, third and fourth are given a sentence or two each, then one paragraph for the fifth and sixth essay. Why the difference in length for an explanation?
- "While themes from the May Pamphlet—decentralization, peace, social psychology, youth liberation—would recur throughout his later body of work, his social criticism would focus on practical application rather than theoretical concerns, like that of unanimity." This can go in a themes section.
- "Goodman wrote The May Pamphlet in May and early June 1945, with the exception of "Revolution, Sociolatry, and War", written in October." So if an essay was written in October, this needs to be mentioned in the lede and the overview. If possible, the article should describe why this October essay was included in this pamphlet, as it is an outlyer.
- "brought Goodman into the limelight" reword per MOS:IDIOM. Maybe, "As Growing Up Absurd increased Goodman's popularity as a social critic,"
- "A German translation of the May Pamphlet (Anarchistisches Manifest) was published in 1977." Any other translations? Why only mention the German one?
- "The May Pamphlet was Goodman's most significant contribution to anarchist theory." This is a pretty extraordinary claim. Do multiple sources support this opinion? If not, the article should mention whose opinion it is. If they do, the article should include more than one source.
- In general, there were some sections, especially when describing the themes and contents, which were a little dense to get through for me. It might be possible to simplify this language.
Those are my thoughts after an initial readthrough. Please ping if you have any follow-up comments or questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
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)[]
Please note these are my opinions (I’m not a very experienced editor)
I think the article should link to Nadine Dorries in the section Accusations against Nadine Dorries because what if people don’t know who she is (like me).
The page currently links to a deleted page Shadow Minister for Diverse Communities which I think should be removed. I think there should be more images (there is only one). Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- 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)[]
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
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 23 May 2021, 16:41 UTC
- Last edit: 15 August 2021, 15:20 UTC
Lists
I've listed this article for peer review because it desperately needs to be cleaned up. Only issue is, there's no list criteria so basically an character can be added to the page.
Thanks, ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like that this article'd be a FL. Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Dr Salvus 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
WikiProject peer-reviews