Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Arts[edit]

W. Somerset Maugham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 August 2022, 10:25 UTC
Last edit: 19 August 2022, 15:06 UTC


Legendaddy (album)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to a Good Article status and I want to receive feedback in order to improve it.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Next Day[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm thinking about taking it to FAC and wanted to get others' input on what it would take to do that.

Thanks, – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I Drink Wine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 5 August 2022, 06:37 UTC
Last edit: 15 August 2022, 21:33 UTC


Osbert Parsley[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would to nominate it as a FAC in the foreseeable future,

Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Aza24[edit]

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wondering why you're saying 1511 instead of 1510/11 like ODNB?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While this isn't really an issue, the title "Instrumental music - incomplete works or single complete parts" results in the TOC being oddly skewed, perhaps just "Instrumental music - incomplete works" would be fine? I don't think the inclusion of 'single complete parts' would be out of place in such a section.
Agreed, title amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally headers are capitalized in tables, e.g. "Description", "Composition" etc.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You might consider enlarging (and then possibly moving up) the image in the Composing career with "upright=1.3/1.5/something".
Thanks, it's an improvement. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Life and musical career is a bit bloated; any chance you could divide into two–three sections?
Done, not sure about the titles, please amend them if you're dissatisfied. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To help with my comment above, I'm wondering what you might thinking of having the map on the let and the larger quire image on the right. Might help some of the 'visual balance' as the large picture & text are on the same side at the moment. The map might be worth enlarging as well.
I've tweaked the images, but not followed through on alll your suggestions here. If more text appears (from the Further reading section?) I may be able to enlarge/move the map. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At FAC you will certainly be questioned about using the ~hundred year old source Grattan Flood so often. I would attempt to switch out these with other references as much as possible.
Down to seven six uses, and working on these. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FAC will also probably question why so many sources are in further reading in article on the shorter side. You might consider incorperating more of them, or removing some that don't have additional info on Parsley.
Off to the cathedral library this morning to look at what they have, other sources hidden. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boston now incorporated into the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • IMO, music more should be said about his musical style and composing career in the lead, presumably in the first paragraph. Maybe mentioning he often wrote for viol.
  • Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Theoretically the lead is supposed to sum up the entire article, so a line or two addressing the 'Compositions' section might be good as well. Maybe something about how many compositions survive, the fact that many are fragmented, etc.
  • Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyways, impressively thorough and well written! I probably should have brought up most of my above comments at the GAN... heh – Aza24 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I've made a start on your comments and will return to address the others you have raised in a little while. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking better already. Would you be opposed if I added a brief section listing recordings of music by Parsley? It would probably look something like this. Best – Aza24 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Missundaztood[edit]


After a major expansion and a succeeded GAN I'm trying my hand into taking this to FAC. Looking forward to any feedback and suggestions for improvements.

Thanks in advance!, TabooMatters94 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mega Man Battle Network 5[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because there have been significant edits since its last edit nearly a year ago; in particular, the edits done were the ones listed on its to-do list (more development info, and removal of the uncited/unnecessary character section). Other minor edits mainly relate to adding more citations, and replacing outdated citation links (thanks, GameSpot).

Thanks, Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


All Along the Watchtower

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 July 2022, 10:18 UTC
Last edit: 19 August 2022, 14:54 UTC


The Rolling Stones

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 2 July 2022, 16:47 UTC
Last edit: 26 July 2022, 00:09 UTC


De Gruytters carillon book[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some outside opinions before attempting a GA nomination. There are no new sources available on this topic, though I did not extract every piece of content possible from what I have. I am wondering how many scores I should screenshot and upload to the page, whether I should create audio of all the pieces (since everything is public domain), etc. Suggestions welcome.

Thanks, Thrakkx (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Aza[edit]

  • The scores would be a great addition to the article, but at the moment there's not a great place to put them though. My suggestion would be removing the notes column of the table and turning said notes into literal ones like you did with the DR Congo note at Carillon (instead of using the 'note #' function, you could possibly just do 'n #' like at Hector Berlioz to reduce the space it would take up here). If the column is removed you could put the score images alongside it, like what is done with composer pictures at Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Classical Composition. Presumably you would choose the better known pieces, maybe ~10 ish?
  • Audio, as you mention, of one or two might be nice as well, possibly in the Significance section, since there is a little space there.
  • Your first two sentences could use a little work, specifically, I think you should mention first how this is a book of carillon sheet music, and then in the second line (or third) include the Antwerp origin detail
  • "provides a glimpse into the music of the 18th century"—provides a 'rare glimpse', maybe? Otherwise the statement is a bit obvious
  • I would definitely include some composers' names in the lead, and note that most of the pieces are by anonymous/unknown person(s)
  • You might include the detail that Antwerp is in Belgium for both the lead and history sections, as its not as famous as London, Paris, Berlin etc.
  • Are we sure 'De Gruytters' should have a capitalized 'de' when his name does not begin the sentence?
  • Looks pretty good otherwise, though I do wonder why Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach is in the see also? Aza24 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


He-Man as a gay icon[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status at some point in the future, which I'm sure would require a lot of work and additional help. One area where I could definitely use help is with finding additional sources on the topic; especially academic ones. I've looked through various academic sources such as JSTOR and whatnot, and I cannot seem to find any more. During the GA review, User:Figureskatingfan brought up some good points about how to move forward. It would be very helpful if some also looked through the article's prose. Regarding the prose, the use of the sources was also questioned. It would be great if an outside party could go through the (online) sources and see if the way they are used in the article is proper or not; maybe a given source's information that is provided in the article would be better suited in a different section. I've never worked on an article like this before, and unfortunately such an article doesn't exist on Wikipedia either, so someone familiar with the franchise, or the handling of LGBT themes and analyses in media or a specific work would be very helpful. Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim Riley[edit]

It's Pride today in London, and I have been too lazy to join the procession, so shall peer review this article as my token contribution to the cause. More over the weekend. Tim riley talk 18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When reviewing I usually have a quick first canter through the text looking for typos etc. Just two points from that:
  • I imagine the article is intended to be in AmE, in which case " Ali Forney Center … an LGBT community centre" could do with "center" twice rather than one of each.
  • Done.
  • "capitvating" is in a quote, but even if the original contains the typo we should not replicate it here, and a silent correction is appropriate.
  • Done.
Comments on the content will follow later. Tim riley talk 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second and concluding batch of comments from TR

A few minor points on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "He-Man received his own series" – it becomes clear fairly quickly that this is a television series rather than a series of comic books, but it would be as well to make that plain at the outset.
  • Done.
  • "who hails the realm of Eternia – does this mean who hails from the realm of Eternia?
  • Done.
  • "Despite the original series having aired during the presidency of Ronald Reagan … He-Man's character has contained elements of queer coding" – this may be clear to an American, but to a non-American it looks like a non-sequitur. You hint in the main text that Reagan's administration was rabidly anti-gay, but that needs to be made clear in the lead if the sentence is to make sense.
  • "his sex appeal towards gay men – does one appeal towards people rather than to them?
  • Done.
  • Homosexual reading and analyses
  • "He-Man's muscular body was the "cynosure" – I shouldn't think one reader in a hundred will have run across this word before. As it originally means "a dog's rear end" it would be as well to provide a link to Wiktionary where those wanting to know can see how the word has come to be used.
  • "wearing clothing similar to a blue-collar worker – the clothing was not similar to the person: you mean "wearing clothing similar to a blue-collar worker's" or "wearing clothing similar to that of a blue-collar worker".
  • Sex appeal
  • "Andrew Hayden-Smith said 2016 – missing "in" before the year.
  • Done.

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments. As I'm busy during this period, it will take me some time to revise the article's contents based on your suggestions. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
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) 02:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 June 2022, 20:26 UTC
Last edit: 13 August 2022, 22:01 UTC


Euphoria (American TV series)[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like for the article to be more refined before it becomes a FAC.

Thanks, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a mentor who can help provide feedback on the article. Posting on various applicable Wikiprojects for help will also solicit comments. 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. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by-comments by LM150[edit]

  • Having recently watched this series.. the article definitely needs a plot/summary
  • Needs more analysis/discussion on themes. From drugs, gender, sexuality, pornography, hookup/dating culture, violence, dysfunctional childhoods.. the list goes on and on!
  • Needs more discussion on cinematography etc, eg. I found that the series had a retro/vintage 1980s vibe all over it
  • Soundtrack section may need cleanup - there's quite a lot of tables/infoboxes. Same with the ratings section - LM150 18:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Everyday life[edit]

Dreamcast[edit]


I'm preparing this article for an FAC run, and I've stumbled through trying to make the prose more readable and communicate the main points without losing what's important. Long story short, I helped work on this in 2013-2014 and stopped short of finishing its GA nomination, other editors continued to develop from there but the prose is pretty radically different from what I wrote, and in the last little while with their blessing I have been working again to get it FA-ready. I've read and reread it, but I feel like I'm missing a lot and could use some fresh eyes so it won't read clumsily.

Pinging @Popcornfud: as I'm sure he will be interested.

Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 22:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll do a big copyediting sweep soon - ping me if I forget. There's a lot there! Popcornfud (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done some trimming of the first sections. As usual this is an impressively researched and comprehensive piece of work. Thoughts so far:
  • Do we really need so much history of the Genesis and Saturn in the Background section? It strikes me as a little dense right now, I think we can summarise more.
  • I agree, a little too dense. I think a lot of this was taken from Sega Saturn, and while I didn't write it myself, I probably contributed to huge background sections in this and other Sega console articles. I cut out a whole paragraph and did some condensing; let me know what you think.
  • From the Development section - As the GD-ROM format can hold about 1 GB of data, illegally copying Dreamcast games onto a 650 MB CD-ROM sometimes required the removal of certain game features, although this did not prevent piracy - this looks like a detail for another section (legacy?), not background.
  • For now, I moved this to GD-ROM. Actually I may have to do a bit of research more on piracy and home-brew releases, as we don't have a section on this, but I have yet to evaluate how many reliable sources there really are on this subject.
  • Lead looks a little short considering the amount of info in the article, but this can be expanded after work on the body is done.
  • I usually do the lead last after all the article stuff is done, so I would like to tackle it after the body's done, for sure. Since I've done major body work and I'm not 100% it was all the right decisions, I wanted to be sure first. Red Phoenix talk 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I tripped up on this: Sega announced that Sonic Adventure, the next game starring the company mascot, Sonic the Hedgehog, would launch with the Dreamcast [...] On November 27, 1998, the Dreamcast launched in Japan at a price of ¥29,000, and the stock sold out by the end of the day. However, of the four games available at launch, only one—a port of Virtua Fighter 3, the most successful arcade game Sega ever released in Japan—sold well. So that sounds like SA didn't sell well, but then: Sega estimated that an additional 200,000–300,000 Dreamcast units could have been sold with sufficient supply. The key games Sonic Adventure and Sega Rally Championship 2, which had been delayed, arrived within the following weeks So we have to read backwards and adjust our interpretation of the previous sentence - can we sequence this info in a linear way instead? Popcornfud (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gave this a whack, let me know what you think.
  • "As of 2014, it was still supported through various MIL-CD independent releases." What is MIL-CD exactly and what does "supported" mean in this context? Popcornfud (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Explained using the explanation from MIL-CD.
  • On August 11, Sega of America confirmed that Stolar had been fired, leaving Moore to direct the launch.[58][62][63][64] - WP:CITEOVERKILL - surely one source could cover this? Popcornfud (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Two okay? Red Phoenix talk 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Two is better than four for sure! But is one not sufficient?
    Thanks for the replies/edits so far. I haven't finished my sweep of the article yet, I'll get back to it over the next few days. Popcornfud (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, I finished my ce sweep. Sorry it took a few weeks. It's gonna be a great article, I think! Popcornfud (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standard note[edit]

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) 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Engineering and technology[edit]

Canadian National 3502[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… I’m interested in what people think of the article and how it can be further improved to assist people in learning about this locomotives Thanks, ThatArmyDude (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


SS Cayuga[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I would also like to know what could be done to improve its quality.

Thanks, GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dylan Field[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's only my third biography of a living person and I'd love advice on how to improve!

Specific help wanted:

  1. How good (or bad) is the WP:NPOV right now, and how could it improve?
  2. Is the amount of attributed statements and quotes in the current article OK? How could it improve?

Thanks, Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General[edit]

Ted Heaton[edit]


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 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Tiger Fire[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to get the article to a GA grade.

Thanks, JoleBruh (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Coral Fang[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... I have tried expanding it as much as I can so far. I have not completed the reviews and touring and aftermath sections (these are WIP however), but for the rest of the article I would like some criticism as to what should be changed, fixed and re-edited; this will be useful as it means I will not have to backtrack to re-editing old sections whilst working on new ones. If anyone has information I have missed or got incorrect, please tell me!!

In short; tell me what is bad and good, so I can fix it.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Cycling in the Philippines[edit]


Hi! I've listed this article for peer review to get an assessment on what I need to add to or improve in the article so that it encapsulates and discusses the history and relevance of cycling in the country.

Thanks, Ganmatthew (talkcontribs) 18:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dominic Keegan[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to send this article to GAN. I would like some pointers towards achieving that goal (if it is achievable), along with some specific opinion on how should I write about the lede or Keegan's 2020 season.

Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Geography and places[edit]

Perry County, Tennessee[edit]


I have done a major overhaul of this page over the last few months and I went ahead and put it up for GA review. I didn't really think about the PR process until just now (doh...), but since the GA review backlog is probably still a few weeks long, I wanted to go ahead and see if anyone would be able to take another look at it. Copy editing and editing for flow, making sure they layout is up to spec, that statements are under the correct headings, and help with finding any information on this county regarding its history from 1930 to 1990. I've looked at this too much to be able to reliably find problems anymore!

Thanks, nf utvol (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Taiari / Chalky Inlet[edit]


I've listed this as I'm keen to get the article towards good article status or higher, so it'd be good to get some sort of steer on what I need to do to get it there.

Thanks, Turnagra (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Georgian mile[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to understand how it might be improved.

Thanks, BaronNethercross (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article seems mostly well written, I think the best way to improve it is to expand it using the currently cited sources as well as any other RSes you can find (doing a brief Google News search, there seems to be a number of other articles in the Irish media). I would also suggest incorporating the content from the lead into the body of the article somehow and rewriting the lead as a summary of the entire article (per WP:LEAD). Given some of the controversial changes that have been made to the street, I would also recommend paying careful attention to making sure the tone of the article is balanced and has a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting that a false sense of balance needs to be created or even that anything currently has to be changed necessarily, but it's at least something to consider as you continue to work on the article (e.g. are any of the wordings in the article more loaded than they could be, are there any additional opinions that could be presented in the article even if they are also negative - this would strengthen the reader's confidence in the consensus opinion towards redevelopments of the street - which statements should be stated as fact and which should be attributed as opinion, etc.). One way of achieving a possibly more well-rounded article would be by expanding on the history of the street prior to any changes or some other aspects of the article that are completely unrelated to any controversies (assuming you can find any good sources for this). One thing I did notice though is that "became a bone of contention between preservationists and the ESB for 50 years" is quite closely paraphrased from the Architects' Journal source and a little unencyclopedic in tone in my opinion, possibly you could alter the wording if you think that's a fair criticism too. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with the feedback from Alduin2000 above. Nothing stands out as particularly problematic with what is in the article now. You might want to consider breaking it up into the following sections (the 1965 and 2013 sections could be sub-sections): History, Location, Demographics (population, etc.), Notable Buildings (e.g., any buildings on the mile listed in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage), Parks and Public Spaces, Notable Residents. I'd also consider adding scans of antique maps that highlight the street, if any are available. Hope this helps! nf utvol (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dublin 2[edit]


I've listed this article on the central Dublin postal district for peer review because of differing opinions over its noteworthiness. I am of the opinion that it is noteworthy.

Thanks, BaronNethercross (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: BaronNethercross, indeed I certainly consider Dublin 2 as a postal district quite noteworthy because for about 100 years the main post office in Dublin, in fact in Ireland, was located in this area before moving to Dublin 1 when the GPO was completed. I try to write a, well sourced, paragraph or two on this aspect because I have some specialised sources here in my library. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I started working on this article in 2007 and I believe it is finally ready to be nominated for FA. It is currently an A-Class article and this will be its second peer review.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query[edit]

@Dream out loud: This has been open for over a month and has not received a comment yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest posting on the Wikiproject talk pages that are attached to this article. If not, can we close this? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I am still interested in feedback. I have posted a request in WT:USRD and WT:NJ so hopefully we'll get some feedback soon. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a drive-by comment, there are some dollar figures not adjusted for inflation. --Rschen7754 18:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does every dollar figure need to have an inflation adjustment? It only seems relevant for the major figures, like the total cost of the project. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what I have been told but I don't know what the official guidelines on that are. --Rschen7754 01:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The official guidelines are quite vague on this. MOS:MONEY simply states "In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time." With that being said, I think inflation values are only relevant for the overall cost of the project, which is already included. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


History[edit]

Rockefeller Foundation[edit]


I've just completed a major cleanup and edit of this page which had a dicey past of COI editors and other issues. I still need to run down a few citations but I think it's coming along. Would appreciate any suggestions and pointers. Andre🚐 15:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Geri McGee[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because…

The section entitled "Casino" in reference to the film needs to be reviewed and edited to some previous version due to bias editing.

Thanks, ComradeTester (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mackenzie River husky[edit]


I am requesting a peer review because I am struggling with readability of the history section. I look forward to any suggestions.

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Securitas depot robbery[edit]


I've recently brought this article to GA status and would like to take it to FA. I'd be grateful for any comments pointing out things that need fixing before that step! Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query by Z1720[edit]

@Mujinga: This has been open for over a month and has not received a comment yet. Are you still interested in keeping this open? If so, I encourage you to post a request for reviews on the Wikiprojects associated with this article. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, checked this yesterday and I think I'll keep it open a bit longer, cheers! Mujinga (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Asian Australians in politics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to see if this article needs to exist or if it just needs to redirect to List of Asian Australian politicians. I also would like to know what other information needs to be added to differentiate it from the list. Also my writing is not the best.

Thanks, SCN 1999 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Battle of Cove Mountain[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it to Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "An outnumbered Union cavalry division". It is a matter of personal taste, but I think it would make it easier to follow if you left out "outnumbered" here and give details in the next paragraph.
  • "detachment of a brigade of cavalry, belonging to Brigadier General William E. "Grumble" Jones". "belonging to" sounds odd to me, as if they were his slaves.
  • "totaling to about 400" to about sounds strange to me. Is it AmerEng?
  • "captured one company from the 8th Virginia Cavalry" You mean that an entire company surrendered? How many men?
  • "Historian Robert C. Whisonant wrote that Confederate casualties were 40.[33] Robert Underwood Johnson and Clarence Buel wrote that Confederate casualties were "fifty or sixty".[22] The historian for Morgan's Cavalry, Confederate Brigadier General Basil W. Duke, wrote that casualties were "about fifty". I am not sure that you need that much detail about the different estimates. Maybe just say 40 to 60?
  • "by a ruse on a telegraph" Details of the ruse would be interesting.
  • "Major General Philip Sheridan requested his dismissal from the service." Maybe state whether he was dismissed.
  • This article looks sound. Apart from the minor queries above, I would have like more spelling out of the comparative sizes of the forces in each encounter or other situation - e.g "He also learned that 4,500 Confederate troops led by John Hunt Morgan and William "Grumble" Jones were waiting for him at Saltville." Instead of "waiting for him", "waiting for his [number] troops". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Mackenzie River husky[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a major rewrite but I feel it still needs more work. I don't like the way the history section flows and I am generally struggling with the description section due to lack of source material. I look forward to any suggestions!

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ryukyu dog[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make it more readable.

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wood-pasture hypothesis[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because my previous peer-review was closed mid-process, and I'd still appreciate a general assesment.

Thanks, AndersenAnders (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Chialvo map[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because It is a very important model in the literature, it reproduces the behavior of neurons and it is widely used in scientific research.

Thanks, EyistoA (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


TRAPPIST-1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 15 June 2022, 17:27 UTC
Last edit: 5 August 2022, 17:15 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Quine–Putnam indispensability argument[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because following a successful GAN, I've proceeded to rework and add content to the article and would like feedback on how to further its continued improvement with the tentative eventual goal of putting it up for FAC. Comments on anything from structure, prose/copyediting advice, compliance with the MOS, article content or even work towards the FA criteria would be helpful.

Thanks! Alduin2000 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Doukhobors[edit]

Previous peer review


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[reply]


Social sciences and society[edit]

Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be qualified on merit for WP:FL. See also Failed GA Review.

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


2022 Serbian general election[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some feedback before nominating this article for WP:GA.

Thanks, Vacant0 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be thoroughly checked/edited for paragraph cohesiveness, sentence flow, tone, and possible grammatical errors.

Thanks, Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Killing of Patrick Lyoya[edit]


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.

Thanks, WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


William McAndrew

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 16 April 2022, 19:16 UTC
Last edit: 21 July 2022, 01:21 UTC


Paul Goodman

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 January 2022, 20:02 UTC
Last edit: 6 August 2022, 23:48 UTC


Lists[edit]

List of Solar System objects by size[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because this is a very important list with many diverse contributions over many years.

Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of municipalities in Colorado[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate any suggestions to improve this list.

Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some quick comments for a first pass:

  • The lead is too short, could include at least the "notable" municipalities (the largest by population, land area, and most of these lists include the smallest as well)
  • I don't think a map of counties is needed in a list of municipalities.
  • The list itself is far, far too wide to be accessible to most users on most devices. I suggest keeping only: name, incorporation date, county, type of government, 2020 population, 2010 population and percent growth, land area, and population density. The rest can go into individual pages (or most likely is there already)
  • I don't think you need a list taken from within a list (for those in more than one county) as this can be made clear in the main list. This section can be deleted as it also uses outdate wording "this list below..."
  • Municipal distinction is a bit of a strange list, that is completely unsourced. Most of these can be in note form, linked from the city on the main list. Some can be brought into the lead (see first suggestion).
  • Notes need citations
  • Some notes are trivial (such as Williamsburg is served by the Florence post office is so detailed it does not belong in a general list, but only in the individual municipality page, if at all)
  • Section on legal distinction should come before you list the types of municipalities.

Lots here to work on, I hope this helps! Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed I had done a peer review of this page already, found here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Colorado/archive1. It looks like I wrote many of the same suggestions. Mattximus (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mattximus: I've made the following improvements:

  • I added information to the lead section.
  • I eliminated the county map and added a GeoGroup instead.
  • I cut the list down to six columns but added a link to a more detailed list.
  • I eliminated the sections "Municipalities in multiple counties" and "Municipal distinctions".
  • I eliminated some of the less important notes.
  • I left the section "Legal distinctions" where it was. We need to explain the five types of government before we can explain some of the finer points.

Do you think these changes helped? Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks for your help.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of Lebanon international footballers born outside Lebanon[edit]


I'm looking to list this article as a Featured List. I'm curious to know if it's up to standard. Nehme1499 14:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of highest counties in the United States[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm open to any creative suggestions.

Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Aza24[edit]

  • My comments are assuming you're going for FL and are thus a bit picky, but there is certainly no expectation for you to go for FL
  • The main article hat note is really only for sections, and not needed here since county is linked in the first sentence. Strongly suggest removing it.
  • The map is tiny and could benefit from being scaled up, I would use "|upright=1.3" or 1.5 perhaps
  • See also sections generally do not include items which are already linked in the article, so County (United States should probably not be there and perhaps others
  • I am not sure about the necessity of many of the notes with "_____ the highest summit of ____", and wonder if they are truly relevant to the information at hand
  • Many of the notes are missing references, though some of the more explanatory ones like "These elevations have been updated to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988." obviously do not need citations.
  • Not sure why there is a . after 'county' in the column
  • A few more sentences in the lead would be ideal, but I don't know what that could consist of! Perhaps you could very briefly explain what elevation is.
  • The highest elevation column seems a bit too wide, while the county column isn't perhaps wide enough
  • Is there a point to having those coordinates? I haven't checked where they go to, but if its the highest one, they seem out of place being there for the page as a whole
  • Overall, your list is certainly very well formatted and concise—a helpful tool for anyone seeking such information! – Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of highest U.S. county high points[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am open to any suggestions for improvement.

Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Aza24[edit]

  • Most of my comments on the other PR are applicable here. I do hope you aim for FL with both! – Aza24 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Timeline of the Warren G. Harding presidency[edit]


I'd like feedback on how I've developed this timeline, especially regarding my use of newspaper sources and how I've chosen to format it. I'd also like to know how far away it is from being a viable FLC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Trent Boult[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if it reaches the standards for a Featured List.

Thanks, Alphacx1 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]