Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've been editing this page for past few days and want to know how-far it has improved.
Also, I expect your valuable comments for further betterment of the article particularly in the production and references section.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article looks great but I am not a Wikipedia expert so I wanna make the article super good. Every other Radiohead album is good or featured so I just want Pablo Honey to catch up
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like it could have the "completeness" it needs to become a Featured Article. I'm not going to work on the article immediately, but at different time when I have the motivation to do so. Otherwise I'd love to hear some insight on how else it could be improved or what is missing.
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) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because things are getting REALLY HEATED regarding the Critical Reception of Star Trek Picard. I was surprised to see how positive the reception is listed on this wiki page because I had mostly heard negative things about the series online and via word of mouth. I edited to the page to reflect the negative fan and critical reception and it did not go over well. Certain users seem very defensive about the series, to the point where they've accused me of being biased against the show for having the audacity to note some less-than-positive reviews. I've mentioned many sources, but users continue to ignore them and challenge the edits instead of accepting the reality that this series has had its fair share of criticisms. Please review all this "fun" back-and-forth and try to help us out. Appreciate you!
Note this peer review was raised inappropriately as the instructions for peer reviews states that these should not be used for content disputes. This review should be closed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because despite the FAC having gathered a lack of support or any sort of traction in general, I took on the suggestions there mostly and also expanded the article somewhat myself. Nominating for FA right now would quite premature though, so I thought a peer review would be appropriate to see if there are still any withstanding issues that I missed.
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, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like an honest assessment of this article's current class-rating as well as what could be done to improve it (though I have not been able to find any further sources than the those currently used).
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring the article back to GA status. I've tried to address the concerns raised at Talk:Exo/GA1 but I'd like some help.
Thank you, Poirot09 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poirot09 There are a few bits of unsourced content, for example: "Following Tao's lawsuit, Exo promoted their albums as a full group rather than in two sub-groups.", "The band did not publicly promote the album." "Exo was awarded Best New Asian Group at the 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards and the Newcomer Award at the Golden Disc Awards." I would fix these and bring it back to GAN, where you're more likely to get in depth feedback. We're doing a backlog drive in June, increasing the chances the article will get picked up quickly. Ping Whiteguru for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe I'll add those refs and, now that I'm reviewing the article more carefully, I've seen some unreliable refs which I hope I'll be able to replace before June. Thank you for your feedback! Poirot09 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate this article for FA status. This was the first article I got to GA status almost 10 years ago and has been stable since then. I haven't yet worked solo on getting an FA status, and I would love to push this article to the next level.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a major contributor to this article, I have decided to request a peer review. There are only a few parts of the article that need sources, and Reception could be further expanded, but I am more concerned about the article's structure. It is currently the most relevant issue to me since that may mean rewriting the sections.
I have scanned other articles about video game franchises and found that they all contain more than just three sections composing the bodies. This article has History, Titles, and Reception. For this request, I am largely concerned with sections History and Titles. The History section is concise, but gets to the point. The Titles section comes off as a long list of all of the Forza games, including the ill-fated spin-off. I have conflicting views on how to deal with them. One of them says that a Gameplay section would be superfluous since the gameplay elements are already described in all the subsections about the games—and as incremental updates of the previous installation—and nothing needs to be changed other than adding more sources. The other view says that we ought to rewrite the sections. As they stand, come to think of it, Titles appears to jump from a summary of one title to that of another. They are just brief descriptions of the important elements of the games, as well as their release dates for which platforms. I feel as if their contents are treated discretely, rather than in the context of the franchise. Even Gran Turismo does not treat the general gameplay as discretely. Additionally, I do think that the list of subsections about the individual games could become long in the future if all we are doing were to just expand Titles. For my second view, I would suggest having a table of the main installments, their release dates, and their platforms under a new section in History and renaming Titles to Gameplay with their own sections on Forza Motorsport and Forza Horizon, describing all of the common features and new content that would appear in every subsequent update. That may be a huge undertaking for me, but it actually sounds more feasible in the long run. If anyone else has other suggestions on where the development of this article ought to be headed, write them here. Yours may be better than either of my proposals. Thanks, FreeMediaKid$ 02:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for the past few months now, and I'm quite proud of how it turned out. However, I am no Wikipedia expert (or even possess good grammar), and that is why I've listed this article for peer review. I want to know the things that should be addressed to make the article much better from others peoples' perspectives. I am open to any suggestions from any part of the article. Thanks in advance! – SARASALANT(talk|contributions) 10:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded and revised this article significantly, and would like to receive feedback on how to improve it so that it could eventually be upgraded to a GA.
This is my first PR so thanks for your help. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that the quality of Death Grips articles is usually somewhat lacking, even including their discography page which was promoted to a featured list but later got deformed after Year of the Snitch was released. I'd like some suggestions on how to improve this page as it appears to be salvageable. Getting it to a B-class or higher would be great.
This article has been nominated for GA and FA multiple times, each with a different failure and a lesson to be learnt. Hopefully, this time would be different. I welcome all kinds of feedback, from style and grammar to content and sourcing. Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not check everything, but after doing a few checks, the sourcing looks much better. I might have comments, but I have many projects ongoing, so will let you know. Urve (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from 0xDeadbeef
This is my first time doing a peer review, and I will try my best to find improvements, but I will not find as much as a more experienced editor. I'm also reading the article as someone who don't know much about rocket science.
Lead
Starship is the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever built.
This sentence probably needs citations.
Its premise is a bit unclear: is it the tallest, heaviest, and the most powerful rocket on earth, or in the United States, or by SpaceX?
Also, the sentences around this suggest that it has not been built yet (will be mainly constructed out of stainless steel), if so it should be is the tallest [..] -> will be the tallest [..].
It seems a bit weird to mention how they are fueled in the lead. It would look like trivia to non-technical readers if the significance of the fuel type cannot be established. Perhaps it should be removed from the lead? Space Launch System, a GA, does not have the fuel in the lead.
"Both stages" seems to refer to booster stage and the Starship spacecraft on top above this sentence. However the meaning of "stages" can be a bit hard to grasp from someone who knows nothing about rockets. Maybe add a link as [[Multistage rocket|Both stages]]?
The planned tanker variant may fuel other Starships in orbit before they send payloads of 100 t (220,000 lb) into low Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars.
This part is a bit confusing: What is the tanker variant? It does not seem to be explained or described..
What does "they" in "before they send payloads" refer to? The tanker, or the other Starships in orbit?
0xDeadbeef, I've only partially implement your comments. One of the rocket's premise is using liquid methane which have never been used in other rockets before. It is not really a technical detail when most news sources regurgitate this over and over. In Such level of operation is only possible with reduced launch cost., the article has mentioned it at the Applications section lead, though it is a bit short. I've also changed tenses to be clear that the rocket has been built, but hasn't launched. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think there are uses of technical terms that could be improved and I hope to improve the quality of the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's my most substantive new article to date and I would like a general review.
Thanks, PKAMB (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PKAMB: - please fix the unreferenced statements that I have tagged with the citation needed template. Please also specifically cite a source for each table. starship.paint (exalt) 08:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually get it to GA. I'm fairly new to this process, so any suggestions on how to improve it would be welcome.
Check for duplicate links, it's cool to link in the lead and once on the first appearance in the main body of the article, but not really needed after that.
Avoid emotive, NPOV terms like "thrashing", "rout", "cruised", etc.. Let the bare facts talk for themselves.
e.g. grammar: "for Bayern as Bayern Munich won 4–0 over Indian National Football" avoid such quick repetition, and we would normally say "the Indian National..."
Imagine reading this if you're not a football fan. Do you think "slotting home after work" makes any sense to non-experts?
Mix up the prose a bit, like "Gómez scored two goals. On 16 December 2011, Gómez scored" is really tiring to read.
"sub"? substitute, this is an encyclopedia.
Done
Link all "technical" terms, like "substitute", "corner", "pass", "cross", "header" etc etc, whatever is there. Never assume the reader is an expert in football.
Gets a bit proseline, like one- or two-sentence paragraphs, not elegant.
? I'm afraid I don't understand.
"Gómez' "-> "Gómez's".
Done
"his final half-season" is this a European football thing, like after a winter break? I don't recognise the idea of a "half-season".
Done ("In his final half-season at the Volkswagen Arena, Gómez scored only once in 15 appearances." -> "Gómez scored only once in his last 15 appearances at the Volkswagen Arena")
Is EU-football.info a reliable source?
I would individually reference all his honours. And don't put references on section headings.
I started this article on a former British swimmer/diver not long ago and have expanded it to the point that I feel it's close to being taken to GA. I'd like a peer review beforehand to iron out any obvious errors or issues and think it would benefit to have another set of eyes read over it. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a great amount of content over the last few weeks and would love to double check if I'm on the right track! I also want to make sure I am not missing any huge pieces of information or making any obvious errors.
@Lwinterrrrr: - there are obviously unreferenced sentences which I have tagged as citation needed. starship.paint (exalt) 08:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on this article for a while and I am requesting for a general review on the article to see what improvements could be made. I’m looking to nominate this for GA so that is the main reason for this review. Kindly, inform me on my talk page once the review has begun.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to prepare this article for Featured Article candidacy. I have never gone through the process for FA before and I'd like feedback on the article from people who are experienced with the FA process. I'm also pinging Dudley Miles, a user I have recently reached out to as a potential FA mentor.
"The boulder, which is the namesake of the town". Namesake usually implies something which happens to be the same. Maybe "which the town is named after".
Refs 1 and 3 need page number(s).
"As of December 1971, the Glen Rock measured forty-four feet wide" Why the date? Presumably any changes in the size of the boulder since then have been minimal.
"glaciers receded during the recent Ice Age". It would be more accurate to says "glaciers receded at the end of the last Ice Age". Also, it would be better to link to Wisconsin glaciation.
"the 2009 report by the Borough of Glen Rock suggests that the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" I do not think that you need to keep saying the 2009 report. "the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" with the ref is fine.
"As late as 1910, about half of the rock remained submerged under soil". "As late as" does not say anything useful. I would say "Until 1910".
The main problem with the article, in my view, is the exccessive reliance on newspapers. They can be OK for current events but are not reliable sources for geology and history. The newspaper articles probably have errors, but are presumably based on books and articles. Your refs on geology look OK, so you probably need just to delete the newspaper refs for statements about geology. The referencing for history is weak, apart from the Encyclopedia of New Jersey. In Britain you can borrow academic books and journals through inter-library loan from your local library. Is there any way you can get access to more reliable sources for the history? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for the pointers. I think that my recent edits have fully addressed everything but part of the last bullet. There are inter-library loan systems in the United States, but I'm not sure that my local library is connected to a national network. I'll look into seeing what resources libraries local to me have access to through interlibrary loans or I'll start making requests on WP:RX to get access to more academic sources and/or historical monographs. And, while newspapers will inevitably have some errors and it is generally better to cite mainstream scholarly sources over mainstream newsorgs, I think there are parts of the cultural history section that newspapers are adequate sources for (i.e. the sign theft saga). The geology section has been culled of direct references to newspapers. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to send it to FAC. Some aspects of the tomb clearance were politically controversial at the time, and their treatment in the sources is changing as academia reassesses the impact of colonialism (I've put some more information about that on the talk page), so I'd like to have as much input as possible to make sure the article meets NPOV.
I'm trying to get this article to FA and it's already failed FAC twice (due to low participation). I can't think of any other ways to improve it beyond what it is now.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest that you seek a mentor, who can help provide feedback on the article, and post on various applicable Wikiprojects asking for help. I also suggest that you review FACs right now: this will allow you to get to know the FAC process and criteria, as well as build confidence among the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Many FAC reviewers, myself included, prioritize reviewing articles from nominators with high review-to-nomination ratios. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I recently contributed a significant amount of information to this stub. I'm nominating for review both to receive some feedback and suggestions on the contributions and as well, to hopefully remove the template for "additional citations" and if possible to reassess the article's classification.
Thanks in advance :) OK872 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello OK872 - I am by no means an expert of archaeology, but here are some suggestions. (First, thank you for contributing and improving the article!) I recommend that you "cheat"! Find an article on a different archaeological period that has a Good Article or Featured Article rating, and pattern Subneolithic after it. TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time, here are things I noticed with very little effort. The intro should be a quick summary of the entire article. Your introduction should be two or three paragraphs with no citations. Any facts in the intro should be backed up by cited text in the main body of the article.
Some sections appear too small. Not required, but any section should be at least two paragraphs.
Wikilinks: Could use more of them. In the Infobox, Mesolithic and Neolithic should definitely be Wikilinked. There has to be a few other terms that can be Wikilinked. As always, do not have any duplicate links—although the Intro and text for images do not count for duplicate links.
Citations: I always use the Harvard Style. That means there is a Notes section with Footnotes, Citations (author-year-page for book, cite web, and cite newspaper), and References (the books). That does not mean Harvard Style is the best. In your field, it may be more common to use a different reference style.
Images: Good images can make a difference, especially for less informed people (like me) that may have a short attention span. The ‘Artemis’ of Astuvansalmi is really good.
Once you do this minimal amount extra work on the article, someone from WikiProject Archaeology or Anthropology may be willing to do a quick review, and could give it a B-class or C-Class rating on the Quality Scale. This is all I can contribute. Good Luck! TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the feedback, any suggestions are always welcome! :) OK872 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because that can help to take the article to GA level.
Thanks, Jonathansammy (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick look, some rather over-long paras, and seems to use American rather than Indian English ("center", watercolor", "theater"). Perhaps too weighted to the modern period. The lead is too short. But at or near FA level, & certainly should bwe ok for GA. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will work on fixing the issues you have raised. Best regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a quick look, I see:
"generic name" errors in the References for 3 Gautam, 38 Kadekar, 89 Kosambi, 117 Alison, 122 Mills, 125 Jackson, 126 Mills, 127 an-Naim, 149 Marinos, and 179 Rao.
Numerous duplicate links, such as Tughlags, Baiaji Vishwanath, Madhavrao I, Parvati hill, Ganesh, The Peshwa rulers, Peshwe park, and 10 or 20 more. Remember that the Intro and image captions do not count, but everywhere else does. TwoScars (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has major improvements as per the previous peer reviews requirements which noticed the article's problems, including:
reducing some WP:Oversection problem which not solved for more than a decade
improving the pupular culture legacy section with each of quotation reference by @KeeperOfThePeace:
summarized the "analysis" section.
reference now has page numbers or at least the link to the page in each books/journals
inline citations improvements, including the quotation from secondary sources such as modern time academic figures & universities researches which gave commentary to the primary sources by @Z1720:
I've listed this article for peer review because… I recently took the article through GA, which was very useful and the reviewer there gave me some excellent suggestions and additional sources for improving the article towards FA status. Having now worked those suggestions into the article, I am hoping for one or two more eyes before I take it to FAC. Since I have written it as someone who is not an expert on zoology whatsoever, I hope it's accessible/understandable to a wide audience, but I am aware this also means there may be things I've overlooked. Anyway, all comments and suggestions are very welcome!
Hi, I'll have a look soon, first some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally preferred that photos of animals are used in the taxobox instead of drawings, any appropriate photos to use here? The drawing can of course still be used elsewhere.
I kept it in on the model of bog turtle, which is an FA, but happy to change it.
Any cladograms to include? If you find one, you can request to get it made into code at WP:treereq.
Different papers have produced different trees but I think Bickham et al. 1996 is the most generally accepted so I can add this.
Any photos of eggs or juveniles?
There are very few photos of chicken turtles in general on the Commons (most of the photos there are of one turtle that was found in Virginia in 2012). None of eggs or juvenies sadly, and none of the western subspecies either.
It's a good idea to make redirects of all subspecies and synonyms, if they aren't already.
Will do (that should keep me entertained for a while!)
Usually info about scientific naming comes first in the taxonomy section, then followed by info on interrelationships. Should also group the etymology with the naming info.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent the past couple weeks revising and improving the article significantly, adding more information, reputable sources, finding supporting evidence for previous claims, removing erroneous or unsupported claims, reorganising, and other general cleanup. I've more than doubled the article in size and I hope I've managed to raise the article from its current grade of "Start-class".
Primium, that's a pretty solid article. I don't know whether the article is comprehensive enough, other than that, I think that the article is worthy for good article status other than a few minor cleanup edits. Do try your best there and good luck. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane, I really appreciate the review. I'll try to see if I can find more information on taxonomy, at least, as that's an area I wanted to expand / include but could find little about. As for minor cleanups, is there anything or any sections in particular I should consider? -- Primium (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primium, I think that the article only need minor copyedits at this point. I honestly don't see how this article would fail at GAN instantly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added two more sections, Taxonomy and Resemblance to Carinotetraodon imitator, because I do agree the article could be more comprehensive. I also went through and fixed every minor issue I could find. If you see any more, please tell me exactly where, because I've been staring at the article so long I'm now blind to them 😅. Thank you. -- Primium (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from BigDom
Just reading through the article, it generally looks in great shape but I have a couple of comments:
One thing that stands out to me as a non-expert in fish or zoology in general is the extensive use of technical/rare words that are just not accessible to the average reader. Most of them are linked to explanatory entries, granted, but if I have to leave the page several times to find out what words mean, I'm probably not going to bother reading to the end. There's nothing wrong with using these terms by the way, but a few subsequent words in plain English to explain what they mean would be a good addition I think. Here are just a few of the terms I had to double-check the meaning of: polyphyletic, emarginate, congener (which by the way is a dab link), spination, potamodromous, euryphagous, demersal, infusoria.
Do we know how long this fish lives for?
Any information on when/why the fish inflates? Any predators?
Carino- comes from the Latin for "keel" as mentioned in the article, but the "Resemblance to C. imitator" section says this fish lacks a keel. Is this correct?
The lead section should be expanded to include information from each section of the article.
Hope this helps! Cheers, BigDom (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BigDom, this is really great feedback. I'll try to address these issues and get back to you.
Some information, like lifespan, I could not find from reliable sources. I've also not seen anything reliable that says we don't know its lifespan, so I'm not sure how to include that information. The best I've seen is a magazine article from a hobbyist who said his would usually die after around five years of age, and he presumed from old age. If you have a suggestion, please let me know. -- Primium (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in the literature then no problem, better to omit it than include unverifiable or dubious information (I had a look myself too and couldn't find anything). If it's a reliable magazine then maybe something how anecdotal evidence suggests a lifespan of around five years in captivity? BigDom (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please note that English is not my first language and this is my first article of this length so bear with me.
The article appears to provide a good overview of the Vera hypothesis. I find the article lacking in that it includes very little about competing theories or how widespread acceptance of the alternatives are. Birks and Mitchell are barely referenced. Birks has said that the high-forest hypothesis "has been widely accepted by forest ecologists and conservationists."[2] The article focuses more on dismissing critiques than it does in acknowledging the valid points that are made by critics. Please see WP:NPOV in particular WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. I appreciate the work that has been done to thoroughly document this topic but I believe that our readers need additional context to put the ideas in an appropriate perspective. This is especially relevant given that wikipedia lacks an article for the alternative interpretation of the high-forest hypothesis. --mikeutalk 23:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sincerely, @Mikeu, for your time and your honest and valuable thoughts. Actually I already thought that a section dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis and its history might serve the article well. I attempted to do this in this section, but realise that expanding it into its own, more detailed section could improve the article's quality and provide perspective to readers. Admittedly this is a topic that I myself am not entirely familiar with, so I'll research that better.
I think there are two major issues in relation to the topic as a whole that I find challenging to address properly: Firstly, that it's not always entirely clear which period exactly researchers are referring to, the Holocene or Pleistocene, yet, because of its interconnectedness with the Quaternary extinction, I think it is of paramount importance to distinguish between the two, a distinction even scientific publications do not always seem make. Then, secondly, that the high-forest hypothesis is indeed so widely accepted that the general public doesn't seem to question it, or even see it as questionable, which confines the debate virtually entirely to the academic community. And wikipedia's lack of an article dedicated to the high forest hypothesis only illustrates this lack of public discourse.
I will therefore provide two more sections, one dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis, its history and the fact that it indeed represents the more widely accepted viewpoint of the two, interlinking to this article to better represent the common viewpoint, and one dedicated to critiscism raised by Birks, Mitchell and others. It may take me some time, but I'll do my best.
I think the existing text is well written and covers the topic in an understandable way. I had never heard of it before reading the references and searching for more information. I'll check back after you've added to the article and let you know if there is anything else I can think of. BTW, you can ping me with {{reply to|User:Mu301}} as my username differs from my signature. --mikeutalk 22:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will leave you a note here once I think I'm done --AndersenAnders (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keresluna, I like your ambitious goal! Overall, I found that the article, to be honest, is very messy; improving the layout also make the article more appealing to readers and reviewers. The article is also missing on a lot of info about such a common compound, so I suggest reading books, review articles, and websites to add and source the information in. Here are some stuff that I think the article may miss: NaCl tastes salty, NaCl is present in ocean and seas, role of NaCl in biology, NaCl in space (Europa for instance, see [3]), refining NaCl to higher purity, osmosis, and so on and so on. Good luck on your journey! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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
I've listed this article for peer review because i've recently expanded it by 6000 bytes and I want to improve it but don't know exactly what there is about the article that needs attention, and I think it would be very cool if I could expand my local library's page even more than i already have.
Cheers love, the cavalries here, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because a previous peer review disappeared into the weeds and the article really needs a fresh pair of eyes, or pairs of eyes, to move forward. What it needs is actionable suggestions for improvement please rather than opinion, sourcing suggestions are always welcome as well. It is a contentious subject and there have been frequent widespread debates across this article and Crusades that frankly prevent improvement & cause experienced editors to avoid the subject.
You may question why this is raised in Philosophy & Religion, rather than History. This is because this is not about the MILHIST; the various campaigns are more than covered in other articles. It is about the movement that lasted centuries, the instituitions of that movement, its philosphies and historiography.
Hey @Gog the Mild:—from your Talk it looks like you are away, hope you had a good time. As an editor whose opinion I value, do you think you can have a quick look over this one and give some possible notes on improvement? If not thanks anyway, love your work on the Hundred Years War.
Hey @Dr. Grampinator:—any chance or some more actionable improvements on this one?
Hey @Johnbod:—would appreciate any advice you could give on this one?
Hey @Dominic Mayers:—would you like to add some reasoned works as you usually do?
Hey @Ealdgyth:—appreciate this request might fall into the lifes too short/lions mouth category, but I would be grateful if you could give some notes on this one. I think it way have gone as far as I can take it without outside input?
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have some feedback: this is my first article on en.wiki - I have some experience on it.wiki, where I've written a few articles, but I imagine that each project has its own rules and standards. English is not my mother tongue and, apart from that, I think I have much to learn about how things get done here. Based on my experience on it.wiki, Peer review and Featured article review may be good ways for learning quickly and for getting an idea of the community and its guidelines. Plus, I've dedicated quite a bit of work to Krabbe and I would like the result to become, with everyone's help, as good as possible. Finally, in a time of war, I hope that the lesson of people who lived between the two World Wars and worked on international law with a cosmopolitan and pacifist commitment might be, if not inspiring, at least of some interest to my new fellows Wikipedians.
Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm requesting a second peer review of this article after a year since the last review. I've fixed many issues in the article; references are improved, many Manual of Style issues are fixed, and the article is much cleaner overall. However, I'd still like some extra eyes to look at the article before a GAN. I don't have anything in particular this time - just a general sweep would be nice! Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (formerly known as DoggieTimesTwo)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks good enough to be nominated. the structure us well done so far. grammar good enough. inline citation doesnt lacking.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This is a sub-page with a particular sociological POV, and since I have no actual formal background in sociology, I want to be very careful that I have represented everything correctly. I will be grateful for any and all input.
The article has been listed for peer review as there has not been much interaction by other users and due to the controversial nature of the article's topic. Assistance is also needed with any issues regarding neutrality and WP:BLP, as edits should not be made in a damaging manner.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: This PR has been open for over a month. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest seeking a FA mentor or asking for feedback on applicable Wikiprojects. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an assessment of the page. I would like to know what would be a grade assessment of the page and how to improve the article towards a GA article.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… it is being presented in an interesting way for the readers; clean, neat, orderly-fashion mode, with lots of information for each of Chaminade's musical pieces. I think she deserves better than what she had from us so far. One more thing, please, I would like your input, not correction, but complementary advice and smiles. If this community believes this list should go straight to FA then... so be it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.