Wikipedia:Peer review

MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

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.

ArtsEdit

Veer-ZaaraEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's quite ready for GA and has potential to go for FA.

Thanks, ShahidTalk2me 10:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


Lion Attacking a DromedaryEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am taking it for FAC at some point, but it is a tad on the short side and I was wondering what I am missing --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


Taylor Swift (album)

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: 27 February 2021, 16:23 UTC
Last edit: 1 March 2021, 04:37 UTC


List of compositions by Franz SchubertEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to propose it as featured list candidate, for which a peer review is recommended as preliminary step.

The list is composed of sub-lists, notably, in main space:

Further, also a few templates specifically created for the series, including these in table or list format:

With all these components, the list is very extended, although, in mainspace its size is only around 21500 bytes. Because its extended screen size received criticism over time, see e.g. Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert/Archive 1, I'd like to know whether in the end the current setup could be seen as going toward featured quality, or not, and if not, what way this should be going. Other improvement suggestions are of course also welcome.

Thanks, Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


ChromaticaEdit


After a significant overhaul and a successful GA review, I'm bringing Chromatica to PR to improve the chances of a successful FA candidacy. For now (and for me personally), I believe the article falls short of satisfying the FA criteria for the minimal coverage of the pandemic's adverse impact on the album's global rollout, significant in the industry context (for obvious reasons). Any insight to further improve the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advanced, DAP 💅 19:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


The Thankful PoorEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it before it goes on the front page for DYK (March 5) and before it gets reviewed for Good Article status.

Edit: The Thankful Poor is now a good article, but I would like to see if anyone can help me get it to Featured Article status.

Thanks, GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


IU (singer)Edit


I have listed the article up for peer review despite not being a major contributor to it because of the following: IU is quite a prolific figure, especially in her native, with many hit records, from >10 years ago until present day and notable leading TV appearances under her belt; and I believe that the article has enough content ranging in a variety of aspects about what she has done (philanthropy, endorsements, influence) for a class promotion but still needs approval and feedback before a possible re-nomination for GA in the future, the last one was in 2016 and failed. Or even levelling the class up to a B.

Kind regards, beetricks ~ talk · email 19:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


Taylor SwiftEdit

Previous peer review


You might think of me as a lunatic for bringing a FA-class article to PR. But this article is on one of the most recognizable pop stars today, and thus, since its FA promotion in 2016, it has undergone significant changes. I think this article is now rather sprawling, and I do think it needs to be cut down in places. Any comment regarding how this article can be improved, and routinely maintained, is very much appreciated. Thank you very much. (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • (I haven't read the article, just some drive-by comments) Looking at the article at the time of its 2016 promotion, the career section ended at 1989, so I would say pay more attention to the paragraphs after that. The awards and achievements section used to be only four sentences (now it's three solid paragraphs). I guess kind of going through everything and seeing what could be cut to make it more summary style. Idk it's tough but some changes have to happen soon because she's only 31 and will certainly be active in the future, otherwise the article will be way too long. Good luck with the PR. Heartfox (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really think that the article needs major cutting right now, it's kept under 10,000 words. In the future, it probably will need some trimming as her career goes on and there is more to say. The one thing I think would be good to cut/split off is "Other ventures". For example, do we really need 3 paragraphs of product endorsements, cited in part to primary sources? (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I also bug about the "Other ventures" section. Unlike outspoken celebrities, Swift is particularly reserved and rather devoted to her music above anything. Here-and-there promotional tie-ins with corporates are nothing out of the blue, and listing them all would (I believe) constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The same for "philanthropy" and "activism" sections. (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


The Heart of Thomas

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 February 2021, 01:53 UTC
Last edit: 1 March 2021, 02:37 UTC


OneShot

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: 6 February 2021, 00:16 UTC
Last edit: 20 February 2021, 02:52 UTC


Samurai JackEdit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it to be a sufficient candidate for Good Article status, but I still have doubts. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thanks, — Paper Luigi TC 01:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Morgan695Edit

I've never watched this series, so hopefully I can provide an outsider's perspective. Overall I think this article easily meets GA standards; though it is not without issues, I think they could be easily resolved as part of the GA process. Morgan695 (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • In the note in the opening paragraph, it's confusing that you mention "Aku" without first establishing who Aku is. I would move this note to the plot section.
Changed as requested. — Paper Luigi TC 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Samurai Jack was inspired by Tartakovsky's enjoyment of... would suggest rephrasing this to "Samurai Jack was inspired by Kung Fu, the 1972 televised drama starring David Carradine, and Tartakovsky's fascination with samurai culture.", as I initially thought you were referring to kung fu as a concept/discipline and not the series.
Changed as requested. — Paper Luigi TC 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Originally, before Jack could finish him off, Aku sent the samurai forward in time to a dystopian future ruled by the tyrannical shape-shifting demon This is confusing because you haven't established that Aku is a shape-shifting demon; "before Jack could finish him off" is also somewhat informal language
Changed and rewritten. — Paper Luigi TC 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • (Sab Shimono and Keone Young) Was the character voiced by two different actors, or did the character change voice actors mid-series? Should be clarified in either case.
Added detail for clarification. — Paper Luigi TC 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Production" needs to be rendered with subheads, as each part is only a paragraph long
Subheads removed. — Paper Luigi TC 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The Complete Series Region B release date needs a cite
Added. — Paper Luigi TC 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Both the second and third paragraphs of "Video games" are uncited
Removed third paragraph and cited second paragraph. — Paper Luigi TC 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


The Fourth Estate (painting)

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: 25 January 2021, 12:59 UTC
Last edit: 5 February 2021, 19:34 UTC


Lights Up

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 22 January 2021, 07:40 UTC
Last edit: 2 March 2021, 00:57 UTC


Paint It Black

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 19 January 2021, 05:03 UTC
Last edit: 2 March 2021, 01:23 UTC


Psycho (Red Velvet song)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I've managed to bring it to good article (GA). I hope "Psycho (Red Velvet song)" potentially become a featured article (FA) in the future. Thank you so much.

Thanks, LipaCityPH (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)LipaCityPH (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgiaEdit

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you so much! LipaCityPH (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 10 Charts
    • 10.1 Weekly charts
    • 10.2 Monthly charts
    • 10.3 Year-end charts
See WP:MSH ... don't repeat headings at lower levels ... should this be Weekly, Monthly, Year-end ?
  • Composed by Andrew Scott, Cazzi Opeia, and EJAE ... what is EJAE ??
@SandyGeorgia: That is how the name was stated in the liner notes of the album and websites that talks about the writer of the song. LipaCityPH (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ... it is about how two are in a complicated relationship. I don't know what this means.
  • Along with the accompanying gothic-themed music video, the song was released digitally as the lead single from Finale, and the third single overall from The ReVe Festival on December 23, 2019. ... This is not grammatically sound .. it may be helpful to approach WP:GOCE about a copyedit.
  • Following the group's third concert, La Rouge, in November 2019, ... start of a new section, the group should be defined by name.
  • Have a look at the excellent essay about how to write reception sections at WP:RECEPTION.

The prose is not quite at FA standard, and approaching WP:GOCE might be a good idea. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I just read this now. I'm going to do this after reading your instructions. Thank you so much and sorry for the inconvenience. LipaCityPH (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I have submitted a request for a copyedit in GOCE just to let you know. :) LipaCityPH (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


Nicole (German singer)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I've greatly expanded and rewritten it.

Thanks, GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


Allie BroshEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because Brosh recently returned to the news with the publication of her second book. I've updated the article with new and overlooked media coverage. I think this reaches B-class now; it is well sourced and covers the subject thoroughly.

Thanks, HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to read this and respond. May take a day or two to collect my thoughts. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Strike my “day or two”. I have a main comment, before we go farther. This entry definitely has loads of good information—to the extent that it’s actually more detailed than the nominal “main page” on her book. Navigating these content forks is tricky. If you’re still interested in working on this HenryCrun15, my main suggestion would be to move a lot of the detail on Hyperbole and a Half to the book’s page and write a summary for her bio’s entry. (You can check out Roxane Gay’s page for examples of book overviews on an author page although I don’t think this needs to be quite that abbreviated.)
A second choice would be to merge the book page into her bio and make it a redirect. I think that’s probably less desirable, as fans unaware of this discussion will inevitably restart the page for her book...but, Hyperbole really is the main source of her notability so maybe it doesn’t make sense to fork it off from her bio. Do you have a view one way or the other? I think this is the main thing to sort out before getting into finer points. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there and thanks for taking on this peer review. I would recommend keeping both the article on the blog Hyperbole and a Half and Allie Brosh, because I would be concerned that the resulting article would be too dense. I feel that there will be people who will want to read about the history and content of the blog, and people who want to know about the author, and a single article for both would be too layered. If you do think a merger is necessary, I would keep Hyperbole and a Half; the comic itself became more renowned than the author. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
We’re in agreement about the value of two entries. So, yes in that case, my main rec is to move some of the detail about the blog and first book (as the Hyperbole and a Half page appears to be about both—which makes sense as a wiki notability matter, because a lot of the available sources date to the publication of the book) and give more of a capsule summary on her bio’s page. As a small example, it might make sense to mention NYT bestseller but I would save the other lists and awards for the blog/book page. Does that sound sensible to you?
I realize it’s a lot of work and you listed this months ago so if you don’t have time right now, I understand. I’m willing to help (or just do a sample to show what I mean) if you’d like but of course all this is just one editor’s opinion. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have moved a lot of material from Allie Brosh to Hyperbole and a Half. The Allie Brosh article now focuses on her career path, art style, and her struggles with mental illness and other more personal information.
I hope that's enough of a start to get the peer review going. If possible, do you think you could peer review Hyperbole and a Half at the same time? HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@HenryCrun15: Looking at this article since the review has stalled for a month, I must say that I do feel that it seems to meet B-Class criteria. –MJLTalk 06:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, very sorry, I only just happened to notice this in the watchlist; I had seen you working on the entries but missed the comment that you were finished HenryCrun15. I apologize! If MJL‘s comment suffices for your purposes that is fine with me, or I’d be glad to read both (would be tomorrow or the next day). Just please ping me to let me know if you want more input, so I make sure I don’t miss you again! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


Everyday lifeEdit

Pac-Man & Galaga DimensionsEdit


I had tried nominating this for GAN a ways back, but it was brought up on WP:VG that it needed some serious copyediting if it wanted to become a GA. I put a lot of work into this one, so I've decided to file a PR to get a fresh pair of eyes on this. I'd say the sourcing is fine, it's the writing that likely needs some improvement. Before delisting it from the GA backlog I did some rewriting, though it might need a bit more. Thanks! Namcokid47 16:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


Plants vs. ZombiesEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on nominating Plants vs. Zombies for FA status. I have recently expanded this article to GA status and do believe this game deserves to have a WP:Featured article. If there is any more work that needs to be done, please say so.

Thanks, Lazman321 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: I will be busy this week, so I might not be able to make changes to the article until this weekend. I am still committed to this article, but won't be able to this week. Lazman321 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a brief comment that the "Sequels" and "other media" section should probably be split to a separate article about the series instead. OceanHok (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


Cyclone TaylorEdit


I brought this article to FAC two times last year, and it failed both times due to prose issues (the second time was a truncated review as I couldn't fully commit to it). I'd like to bring it back and think it should get through, but want to work on things here beforehand. So any comments are welcome.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I haven't brought an article here in a while, wasn't aware of this, but will definitely do so moving forward. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


13 Sentinels: Aegis RimEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm planning to take this article to GAN in the near future. The section I feel needs the most suggestions and edits is the synopsis. This game has an extremely complicated and convoluted, and summarising both the overall plot and dedicated threads for each protagonist is quite difficult. I've done several recent edits and trimming, but I still feel extra eyes are needed. Other sections too would benefit from a look.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to review this, but it's over a month since the PR started and until now there were no users reviewing this thing. What I'm doing here is that I'm commenting now, because this B-class article is obscure. Why are little-known PRs like this not attracting big attention? I'm intending you to answer this question. If you want me to review this article, then I'll accept having to PR the whole thing or something. -iaspostb□x 18:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
But wait, it's attracting attention recently? Can the PR be continued? -iaspostb□x 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Fine, my only review for this article is that you should simplify everything, period. That'll solve the issue. -iaspostb□x 18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Closing peer review 'cause it's finished! -iaspostb□x 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Daytona USA

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 19 December 2020, 03:53 UTC
Last edit: 1 February 2021, 03:59 UTC


Engineering and technologyEdit

SS ChoctawEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC and I would like to see what other improvements can be made to it.

Thanks, GreatLakesShips (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Already taken care of. Thanks. GreatLakesShips (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Just out of interest, do you have any suggestions for the article? GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I hope to get to it soon, but I spilled coffee on my laptop keyboard, and sent it off for repair, and am now typing on an iPad. If I can get used to this new setup, I should be able to start some content review in a few days. Sorry :(. And my computer is stuck in a FedEx delay because of the weather ... it has not left the FedEx warehouse on its way to repair for four days now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rockstar San DiegoEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have been adding to it on-and-off for the past three years (passing GA one year ago) and am eyeing a potential FA. The article is mostly history, so flow, wording and order are especially important.

Thanks, IceWelder [] 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from PaniniEdit

Word flow suggestions:

Early year
  • "...seeking to become a film director, moved from his hometown, Medellín in Colombia, to Chicago in 1971 and enrolled at Columbia College Chicago to study film. He also attended the Art Institute of Chicago." -> "...seeking to become a film director, moved from his hometown, Medellín in Colombia, to Chicago in 1971. He enrolled at Columbia College Chicago to study film, later also attending the Art Institute of Chicago."
  • "...could not run a business and be an art director at the same time, while also lacking the knowledge to operate the computers. He soon hired an art director and a systems operator." -> "...could not run a business and be an art director at the same time, while also lacking the knowledge to operate the computers; he soon hired an art director and a systems operator."
  • "Angel later described the company's first two years in business as "suffering" due to a scarcity of work." "Angel later described how he was "suffering" in the company's first two years in business due to a scarcity of work."
  • I don't believe "(his wife's sister's husband)" needs to be mentioned considering that brother-in-law was immediately linked before.
  • "According to Angel Studios employees" -> "According to employees at Angel Studios"
  • "...Angel treated them like family, paying them well, giving them plenty of vacation time, and occasionally sharing a bottle of Patrón-brand tequila, dubbed "Sippy Wippy", on Friday afternoons." -> "..Angel treated them like family; he payed them well, gave them plenty of vacation time, and occasionally shared a bottle of Patrón-brand tequila, dubbed "Sippy Wippy", on Friday afternoons."
  • "The team also developed an algorithm with which they could visually transform a jet fighter into a dolphin with just a few tweaks" I don't understand this sentence, and why its purpose is a necessity.
  • "Angel Studios was later working on a virtual reality game adaptation of its scenes for the movie." -> " Angel Studios later worked on a virtual reality game adaptation of its scenes for the movie"

Panini🥪 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I did the wording changes. I'm conflicted about the removal of "his wife's sister's husband" as 'brother-in-law' generally refers to the sibling of one's spouse, not the spouse of that sibling. The source uses both in the same manner. IceWelder [ ] 08:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Would "sister-in-law's husband" work? – Rhain 09:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I would also prefer the use of hyphens instead of parenthesis; "...–his wife's sister's husband–...". I just really don't like them because they almost seem unprofessional to me. Panini🥪 11:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I figured that "the brother-in-law of Angel's wife" was the best alternative here, as the wife was already mentioned and the relevant term remains "brother-in-law". IceWelder [] 12:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Entry into video games
  • "The development consumed a total budget of $1 million." Using the word "consumed" here just doesn't feel right to me. Unless this is a business term I'm unaware of, we can call a spade a spade.
Other
Done that, thanks. IceWelder [] 22:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


Power Mac G4 CubeEdit


Interested in getting wider feedback on this article in consideration of a featured article candidacy down the line. Thanks in advance, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


GeneralEdit

Japan Crude CocktailEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently added a lot of new information to the page so would like to check it is alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks, Popdmas43 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


Victor BianchiniEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's ready to go, but would like to hear your thoughts. See Draft:Victor Bianchini.

Thanks, Themus Justitia (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment - hi there! Many thanks for your contributions and your article. The prose is very well written and informative and a good addition to our encyclopaedia. My main concern from a quick skim through is that there are three whole sections that don't have any inline citations. I have marked these as unsourced. Please feel free to remove the tag once they are sourced. It's especially important that biographies of living people have sources to back up statements made, especially when they concern their personal life. I hope this was helpful. Spiderone 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


Snooker

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 12 January 2021, 09:01 UTC
Last edit: 26 February 2021, 10:44 UTC


Julio and MarisolEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to submit this to WP:GAN and want to get it in as good shape as possible before I do that.

Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


Prof. Dr. Md Nasim AkhtarEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I'm sure if I did things the way the community standards are. I've read and strictly followed the Wikipedia guidelines, if anything seems off, let me know, I'll try to improve the article.

Thanks, Ovebepari (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


Nasim Akhtar (professor)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am a new editor here in Wikipedia and this is my first article. I've read the guidelines and asking for peer review here.

Thanks, Ovebepari (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


.

List of Coppa Italia finalsEdit


I have listed this article for peer review because I want to name the page for Featured List. I am aware that the quality of the article is not high and I would like some advice to raise the quality of this article. I would like to get the Four Award for this page. Thanks, Dr Salvus (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment from GoldsztajnEdit

Apologies for raining on the parade ... per WT:FOUR Featured Lists are not eligible for the Four Award: Q8: Are articles nominated for featured lists status eligible? A8: No. The featured list editorial process is different from the featured article process. FOUR is meant to recognize the article-development process, not the list-development process. --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC) >:OK thanks. I will surely have misread the rules of the Four Award. Could you still help me make the page an FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from GoldsztajnEdit

  • Lead is somewhat long, consider shortening (next point will assist with this).
  • The text needs copy-editing, consider placing a request with the Guild of Copy Editors (make a request here).
  • I think I understand what this sentence means, but it is very unclear: "Of the teams for which the Coppa Italia is not the only competition ever won, for Napoli, Internazionale, Roma, Parma, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Torino, and Genoa, the victory in a final also represents the last time they won a trophy. In other words, for 8 teams which have won other competitions, the Coppa represents the last trophy they have won, yes?
  • footballhistory.org cites Wikipedia as a source, this makes footballhistory.org unreliable.
  • floating footnotes following section headings - move these to the table heading.
  • The table "Results by Team" has a gold and silver column, for most readers this would imply a bronze (ie 3rd) ... better to change to winner, runner-up

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: thank you very much. But I think that your advice to insert the third place column is not feasible because the third place final is not contemplated in the Italian Cup (it was foreseen between the 1950s and 1960s) Cheers Dr Salvus (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I did what you proposed except for the last one Dr Salvus (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Salve Dr Salvus; ho fatto alcune modifiche, fammi sapere cosa ne pensi. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
GoldsztajnTi ringrazio. Secondo te questo articolo è pronto per essere quantomeno un GA? Fammi sapere e se non fosse pronto puoi aiutarmi a migliorare l'articolo Dr Salvus (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


Geography and placesEdit

Farringdon, SunderlandEdit


Hi there. I am requesting some support and reviews from established editors on moving this article forwards. Over the past year I've worked hard in setting out the comprehensive history of this subject and expanding the page. However, I need some help in organizing the references and setting out the basic style. Once this has been evaluated, I will be looking to nominate it for a GA.

Thanks, Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


CroatiaEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I think there is a lot to do to improve the article except updating it with new information. I would like to know what exactly should be improved and added.

Thanks, Thebeon (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It's not too bad but there are still too many images, causing sandwiching in some sections. Also, the article is longer than recommended, over 10,000 words. I would try to be more concise and use summary style more aggressively. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


HistoryEdit

Resolute deskEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… after a lengthy rewrite this article now has a more complete history and description of the desk than is likely found anywhere else. I'm very proud of the article and would love to nominate it as a GA. I know that spelling and grammar are not my strong suits so I'd love some input on that throughout the article, but I'd also like to know if there seems to be any gaps, any extraneous information, or anything that the article leaves you wondering. I also do not have any more reliable sources describing how the desks looks, but that section feels a bit thin to me. Id love opinions on if it feels fleshed out enough or if anyone has suggestions on how to write more about how the desk looks without having any more sources that describe it in detail.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


Kronstadt rebellionEdit


I intended to have this ready for TFA on its 100th anniversary (next month) but that's looking increasingly unrealistic. The article was recently translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia, which in turn was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Both are FAs, so I thought I'd just clean up the translation and nominate, but it was more complicated than that, with some stats failing verification when converting refs from Avrich 2004 (en Español) to Avrich 1970 (original, English-language edition). I corrected some but not all of these errors in the Portuguese article.

I'm aware of the surface-level stuff—outstanding ref issues, too many external links, and the like—but I welcome input on content, which sections need more breadth/content, if any additional sources are important to include, if there are better images available, etc. Thanks! czar 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are some sources a reviewer might expect to be cited:

  • Croll, Neil (2004). "The role of M.N. Tukhachevskii in the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion". Revolutionary Russia. 17 (2): 1–48. doi:10.1080/0954654042000289688.
  • Pirani, Simon (2008). The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920–24: Soviet Workers and the New Communist Elite. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-07550-8.

Kenneth Rexroth's 1940 poem “From the Paris Commune to the Kronstadt Rebellion”(secondary source) is not mentioned here but probably should be. (t · c) buidhe 07:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


List of victories of Rudolf BertholdEdit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…I have found little on quality standards centered specifically on WP lists. I am looking for suggestions for improvement, as well as any policies or consensuses I have overlooked. I am relisting this due to non-response to last posting.

Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


Tajuddin AhmadEdit

Previous peer review


  • The article about the first prime minister of Bangladesh had been peer reviewed once earlier.
  • The article has been expanded since then.
  • Reviewers asked for a copy edit. A GoCE copy editor has recently copy edited the article.
  • I have nominated the article for GA. Would like to receive another round of feedback before it is picked up for a GA review.

Thanks, Farhan nasim (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from GoldstajnEdit

If this has already been peer reviewed twice and is now nominated for GA, then another peer review will only clash with the GA review. Probably better to close this review and wait for the GA review to be completed; a backlog drive will start on 1 March, highly likely the review will be picked up shortly. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Funmilayo Ransome-KutiEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I brought it up to GA status in 2020, and I'm interested in potentially nominating it for FA review later this year. Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti was a 20th-century Nigerian suffragist and independence advocate with a fascinating story, and I think it's important to bring more articles about African women to FA status. I'm particularly hoping for feedback regarding the sourcing/citations (that aspect required a lot of work during the GA preparation and review), but any and all comments are welcome. How can I improve this article further? Pinging Goldsztajn (just for notice), as the original GA reviewer.

Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks SandyGeorgia -- I'll check that out. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Alanna the Brave: this is a drive-by comment after a quick skim of the article. I noticed that specific page numbers were not used for the following sources:

  • For Women and the Nation: Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of Nigeria.
  • On Behalf of Women and the Nation: Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti and the Struggles for Nigerian Independence
  • Naija Marxisms: Revolutionary Thought in Nigeria

I know this might sound frustrating, but I think these sources should be re-consulted and page numbers added to each footnote. This makes it easier for FA evaluators to verify the information in the source check, and for readers in the future to find the information in the source. You can see an example of this format in Sennacherib, a recently promoted FA. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720 -- that's a good suggestion, and I'll add better page-numbering to my to-do list. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You can ping me when this is finished if you want me to take a look. Z1720 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgiaEdit

  • As mentioned by Z1720, the absence of page numbers is a show-stopper for FA status.
  • Could you explain the benefit of the listing in Further reading (relative to why it is not used as a source)?
  • What is a "market woman"?
  • Why are there not redlinks for these ? Nigerian independence movement, attending conferences and joining overseas delegations to discuss proposed national constitutions. Spearheading the creation of the Nigerian Women’s Union and the Federation of Nigerian Women’s Societies,
    Note the curly (vs. straight) quotes in those terms above ... see MOS:CURLY ... needs to be checked throughout (usually a result of migrating text from a word processor to Wikipedia).
  • Is there a wikilink available to explain what kind of "chief" this is ? to Chief Daniel Olumeyuwa Thomas
  • Why the quotes? Undeterred, Ransome-Kuti and her fellow organisers declared that they were planning "picnics" and "festivals" instead,
  • Funmilayo was hit hard by the loss of her husband, having struggled over the past for several years with the question of over whether to abandon her political work in order to spend more time with him. (See writing exercises at User:Tony1.

Fine article, good luck at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


Let Us ContinueEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because, even though it was only created two weeks ago, I think that it truly has potential to become a good article, and would like to help it become one.

Thanks, JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit

Mosasaurus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 February 2021, 00:37 UTC
Last edit: 27 February 2021, 20:05 UTC


Cyclone Owen

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 8 February 2021, 00:39 UTC
Last edit: 14 February 2021, 12:06 UTC


Timeline of the 2019 Atlantic hurricane seasonEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I think that I can get it to GA, but I need some specific pointers on how to do so. Thanks, CodingCyclone citation needed 00:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, as it is a list article it cannot rise to GA status. It is, however, ready for Featured List review. Drdpw (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for informing me of this. CodingCyclone citation needed 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


Dwarf BeechEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have made substantial additions by translating from the featured article on the German Wikipedia. I would like a more experienced editor to reassess this article's position on the quality scale since its last review (2013). Thanks you! Nkstevens1 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi there and thanks for the opportunity to review this article.

LimitationsEdit

Since most of the sources are in German, which I don't speak, I have not checked the accuracy of the article against the sources, nor have I have I looked for new sources.

CommentsEdit

I have made a number of edits to the document; if you have any questions about those, ask here and I will respond.

The biggest comment I have is that the article lacks enough inline citations. There are many paragraphs without any citations, leaving it unclear if they are backed by sources, or are unsourced. Ideally, it should be clear to the reader where each fact is sourced from.

In the section where you give other languages' names for the tree, the article says "Italy ("Alberi serpente", nel Monte Pollino)." What does "nel Monte Pollino" mean?

Start the Distribution section with a more general description of where in the world the tree can be found.

"The number of dwarf beeches have been increased by numerous new plantings in recent decades." Can you be more specific about what is meant by "recent decades"?

"The only old trees with well known ages are the Tilly-Buche in Auetal (255 years) and the dwarf beech in the castle park of Haus Weitmar in Bochum (270 years)." Give a year for when these ages stand eg "(255 years as of 2021)".

"The greatest difference to the normal form is in the peculiar growth of the roots..." Can you be more specific what you mean by "the normal form"?

"When dwarf and weeping beeches deviate greatly from their usual [is there a word missing here?], even knowledgeable dendrologists have difficulty with proper classification."

"Concerning the beechnuts of dwarf beeches, which are always pollinated by common European beeches because their pollen is everywhere in the air, they produce common European beeches, dwarf beeches, and hybrids in different numbers without sharp distinctions between one another." - I found this sentence difficult to understand. Consider rewording it to make it clearer.

"Fascination with such examples can only be expected of special specimens or larger groups ("fairy tale forest", "magic forest", etc.). Smaller beech trees are not more noticed than comparable forms of corkscrew hazels, acacias, larches, or willows." - this feels subjective.

"...where these supra-regionally known dwarf beeches are dealt with scientifically." - I don't know what this sentence means.

OverallEdit

I have rated the quality of this article at C-class, though I believe it could become B-class if the above was addressed, particularly the citation issue.

Thanks for your work! HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


Hurricane HeatherEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first article I wrote mostly fully, and I would like suggestions on how to improve it.

Thanks, Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Lede
  • 1st sentence: describe what the storm is, not what it caused.
    • Changed it to "was one of the worst tropical cyclones to affect Arizona on record", hopefully good now? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "eighth named storm" is confusing language.
    • This is what I see in most tropical cyclone articles. I can change it if it helps a lot, however. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "inactive" season? is that necessary?
    • I see this in a bunch of other tropical cyclone articles again, but it does feel less necessary, so I've removed it. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Heather became a hurricane" -> "the Tropical storm was again upgraded to a hurricane" or something like that. "Heather became a hurricane" sounds goofy.
  • Meteorological history looks good, but it does retread some stuff that was already in the lede.
  • Effects

"The then-governor of Arizona" has a clunky link, and it rolls off the tongue very poorly. It could be changed, but it doesn't have to be.

Also, "Nogales" might be over-linked.

  • Removed the link in the met history section, along with a couple other things which were overlinked. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hope this helped, @Skarmory!

777burger user talk contribs 17:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


Rudolf HaagEdit


I was one of the people in charge of reviewing Rudolf Haag's German Wikipedia article (see the original discussion). We had made substantial additions to the original version and we had recognized Haag's contributions according to their scientific weight. We had also replaced the picture by a newer photo.

I have ported these major changes to the English article. I saw that the previous version of the article was rated as Start-Class. Since the article was improved with substantial changes, I'm requesting a new review.

Thanks, SimoneD89 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


Language and literatureEdit

The Great GatsbyEdit


Hello. Hobomok and I are submitting this article for peer review as we wish to improve its overall quality on the long road to Featured Article status. In January, we achieved Good Article status, but we believe the article can be further improved prior to its FA candidate submission. As we have read and re-read this article many times over the past several months, a fresh perspective would be helpful.

Thank you, Flask (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Too many quotations along with citations. This topic isn't nearly controversial enough to need them at all, so I would take them all out. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I would ask for a copyedit at WP:GOCE/REQ before taking this to FAC. They always manage to improve prose. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I changed "Anti-Semitism" to "antisemitism" in the body based on the form used in the lead. Although both forms are used in reliable sources, IHRA notes that "The unhyphenated spelling is favored by many scholars and institutions in order to dispel the idea that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes."[1]
Hi buidhe. Thank you very much for your feedback and edits. I shall work on paraphrasing many of the direct quotes and, per your advice, I shall also submit a copyedit at WP:GOCE/REQ before taking this to FAC. Thank you again! -- Flask (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify I don't think there are too many quotes in the running text, but in footnotes such as "Kellogg 2011: "The 1902 home was owned, during its jazz-age heyday, by journalist Herbert Bayard Swope, one of the first recipients of the Pulitzer Prize and editor of the New York World. F. Scott Fitzgerald was said to have attended Swope's parties; the house, in Sands Point, New York, was the model for Daisy Buchanan's place."" In this case, I don't think this is needed for verifiability reasons and can raise copyright concerns. If the quotation itself is important, it should be in the text not a footnote where few readers will see it. (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I shall trim some of the footnote quotes in that case. Thanks again for your review! -- Flask (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


R. A. B. MynorsEdit


I've brought this article up to GA status in August of last year. I'd like to bring it up to FA status but I haven't yet been involved in an FA review. I'm asking for a peer review to find out what improvements would need to be made before submitting the article at FAC. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added this to Template:FAC peer review sidebar for you; please remember to remove it when you close the peer review (and in the future, adding items there may get a faster response). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I was unaware of this. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


X (manga)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am to restore its GA status in the future. I'm currently busy with other articles, but I also thought about bring X's GA status. However, I wasn't the original main contributor to this article when it originally became GA. As a result, I tried cleaning it up by bringing more sources and trimming areas from the series' production that seem original research. There is also the issue of free image. The X manga suffered from a hiatus due to similar earthquakes that happened in Japan and I don't know where they should be used. The same goes with the first English manga volume cover that displays the first Western title. Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I don't have much to offer but briefly looking through the article, the Australian and UK license for the TV show are never mentioned at all in the TV series section. The show airing on Encore Action in NA and Animax in South Africa are also never mentioned nor cited in said TV series section. The AU license for the manga is also not mentioned nor cited in the manga section. Link20XX (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Link20XX: Thanks. I think I added all licenses from the infobox. Some sites were archived.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: You still haven't provided a citation for the series airing on Encore Action in the US or on Animax in South Africa. Link20XX (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @Link20XX: Oh yeah. I remember trying do research for that when working on episode list so I removed it.Tintor2 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "The television series is considered a better adaptation than the feature film". Sounds non-neutral. "By critics" is better, IMO. Generally speaking, manga reception it's most important and should be longer than adaptations reception. There's nothing more to say about the manga?--TeenAngels1234 (aka Berserkelion) (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Tried expanding the manga about the relationship between the two leads.Tintor2 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234:

It looks fine now. Well, give me just some time to read the whole article and I'm gonna share the points here.--TeenAngels1234 (aka Berserkelion) (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
PS. There's a red link in the lead incipit. Well, while red links are OK for a GA, can you make it blue? The problem is that the link itself sounds doubious to me. Are ESPers a mythological figure? Medium (or yoshiro) of course are, but I never heard of it in real folklore. Also, there's no need to ping me. I'm gonna surely follow the PR; I watched the anime some time ago on an Italian TV. My memories are bad, but I wish I can help.--TeenAngels1234 (aka Berserkelion) (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed red link. There is no specific way of calling the characters. Subaru for example is an omnyoji.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
That quotebox in Manga Reception is large. Is that essential?--TeenAngels1234 (aka Berserkelion) (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed.Tintor2 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


Mirza Shafi VazehEdit

Previous peer review


I plan on nominating this article for a GAN, so I wanted to get feedback on what I can improve or add/remove.

Thanks, — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


Philosophy and religionEdit

DoukhoborsEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on WP:MOS issues and references after a failed GAN (I've tried to implement the feedback as much as possible, but need some advice).

Thanks, DoggieTimesTwo 04:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


Christian ethics

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 19 January 2021, 22:50 UTC
Last edit: 12 February 2021, 07:57 UTC


Social sciences and societyEdit

Larry LawtonEdit


Jewellery store robber turned motivational speaker. The article was pretty much WP:PROMO, so I completely re-wrote it. Would like to see further input on the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


Willie Mays

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: 25 January 2021, 13:26 UTC
Last edit: 19 February 2021, 06:53 UTC


Ricky RodriguezEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to hear some feedback regarding how I can fix any issues or add information that the reader may want to know (if it's available with given sources) with this biographical article.

Also, please note that books on the subject are scarce, with some mentioning him briefly and then diving into the cult's background. Also, I kind of call into question a book by journalist Don Lattin that seems to be more speculation around the events of Ricky Rodriguez rather than simply reporting on fact.

Thanks, NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: article removed from Project Death on talk page because he's outside the scope. – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


RothburyEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have added infomation to it over the last few days and want to have advice on wheather the infomation added is okay and worded okay and if the layout is good.

Thanks, NDNSWMI (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Albert W. GilchristEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure I'm not ruining the article. I want to make sure the article is being improved with recent changes and especially how to further enhance the page. Also, I feel it may be close to start class, but I'm not sure due to the limited sourcing so far.

Thanks, FredModulars (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


NudityEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a lot of content recently, with little comment from other editors. In addition to the content, there is the categorization of the topic, which is a level 4 vital article in Everyday life (Clothing and fashion) but this seems the least apt category. Since I am a social scientist, I tend to think of nudity in the context of cultural anthropology. Thanks, WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New ZealandEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to verify the article's notability and have added additional references. I've done significant research on the topic and am looking for any feedback that would help to improve it. Thank you in advance!

Thanks, Tinylucy191 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi Tinylucy191, thanks for the chance to review this article.

NotabilityEdit

The general test for notability is that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

  • The following sources appear to not be "significant coverage" due to being very short or due to mentioning AFAANZ only briefly in an article mainly on another topic:
    • A Dictionary of Accounting (very short)
    • charityguide.com.au (very short)
    • 2015 article by the University of Western Australia (little information about the organisation itself, and is short)
    • QUT Business School 2019 article (very short)
    • "CA ANZ Events, Conferences, Workshops & eLearning Courses" (doesn't seem to mention AFAANZ at all)
    • Gary Monroe's profile at UNSW, and other profiles of specific people at academic websites (the articles are not about AFAANZ and only mention it in passing or not at all)
    • "Accountants recognised in Australia Day Honours List" (article is not about AFAANZ, only mentions the org in passing)
    • In The Black article (article is not about AFAANZ, only mentions the org in passing)
  • The following sources are not independent:
    • All links to AFAANZ's website
    • All links to journals published by AFAANZ or its predecessor organisation
    • All information on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission website (the commission states that all details in its register were provided by the charity).

This article therefore has no significant coverage in independent sources. The first thing you need to do to improve this article (and indeed demonstrate that Wikipedia should have an article on this subject at all) is research for and add multiple sources that are independent of AFAANZ and which discuss the organisation in significant detail. If none can be found, consider submitting this article for deletion.

Use of primary sourcesEdit

It appears that a lot of the material is sourced only from primary sources, that is, publications by AFAANZ. For minor uncontroversial facts, it is often ok to use primary sources, preferably making the article clear that this information comes from the subject of the article. For example, "According to AFAANZ, its purpose is to...". However, the majority of the article should be sourced from independent sources.

Further, a lot of the text appears to be word-for-word from AFAANZ publications. This is bad for two reasons. Firstly and most importantly, those sources are copyrighted and Wikipedia does not have the right to use large chunks of unedited text, especially when unattributed. Secondly, taking the subject's writing verbatim carries a risk that the article will give their point of view, rather than a neutral tone.

Further reviewEdit

I think that these two issues are substantial in themselves so I will stop my review here. I have left the article's quality rating at Start-class for the issues discussed above. If you resolve these issues and want further review, tag me in the review request.

Yours, HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


Elizabeth College, Guernsey

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 November 2020, 13:04 UTC
Last edit: 14 January 2021, 17:12 UTC


ListsEdit

List of Holby City episodesEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating it for it FL status. Any comments, however big or small, would be appreciated.

Thanks, Soaper1234 - talk 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


.

List of Coppa Italia finalsEdit


I have listed this article for peer review because I want to name the page for Featured List. I am aware that the quality of the article is not high and I would like some advice to raise the quality of this article. I would like to get the Four Award for this page. Thanks, Dr Salvus (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment from GoldsztajnEdit

Apologies for raining on the parade ... per WT:FOUR Featured Lists are not eligible for the Four Award: Q8: Are articles nominated for featured lists status eligible? A8: No. The featured list editorial process is different from the featured article process. FOUR is meant to recognize the article-development process, not the list-development process. --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC) >:OK thanks. I will surely have misread the rules of the Four Award. Could you still help me make the page an FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from GoldsztajnEdit

  • Lead is somewhat long, consider shortening (next point will assist with this).
  • The text needs copy-editing, consider placing a request with the Guild of Copy Editors (make a request here).
  • I think I understand what this sentence means, but it is very unclear: "Of the teams for which the Coppa Italia is not the only competition ever won, for Napoli, Internazionale, Roma, Parma, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Torino, and Genoa, the victory in a final also represents the last time they won a trophy. In other words, for 8 teams which have won other competitions, the Coppa represents the last trophy they have won, yes?
  • footballhistory.org cites Wikipedia as a source, this makes footballhistory.org unreliable.
  • floating footnotes following section headings - move these to the table heading.
  • The table "Results by Team" has a gold and silver column, for most readers this would imply a bronze (ie 3rd) ... better to change to winner, runner-up

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: thank you very much. But I think that your advice to insert the third place column is not feasible because the third place final is not contemplated in the Italian Cup (it was foreseen between the 1950s and 1960s) Cheers Dr Salvus (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I did what you proposed except for the last one Dr Salvus (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Salve Dr Salvus; ho fatto alcune modifiche, fammi sapere cosa ne pensi. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
GoldsztajnTi ringrazio. Secondo te questo articolo è pronto per essere quantomeno un GA? Fammi sapere e se non fosse pronto puoi aiutarmi a migliorare l'articolo Dr Salvus (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de FranceEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to extend the Overview section.

Thanks, Dr Salvus (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the instruction in bold red letters at WP:PR/Instructions, limiting you to one active review at a time. Since your review of List of Coppa Italia finals (although requested one-and-one-half hours later) is somewhat active, this request should be withdrawn (I don't know the correct procedure for that, however). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


List of orders of battle for the British 2nd DivisionEdit


Another British 2nd Division-related article. This is a list of the division's order of battles for the various wars that it fought in. This is in a different format to the other list articles created to supplement the main 2nd Div article. Each section attempts to provide some info on the makeup of the division, with an in-depth order of battle in collapsible tables. I do not believe the collapsible tables are an issue, as similar ones have been used within other British division articles that became featured articles. However, I am not sure about the entire article. Any feedback that can help make this a FL, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


List of presidents of the United StatesEdit


I'm not a major contributor to this article, but I noticed it on the top 25 annual list for 2021 by pageviews, and upon giving it a read, it seems it pretty good shape, making it a potential candidate for featured list status. I'd like to see what others think would need to be improved to push it the rest of the way. (Note: The page was previously a featured list from 2005 to 2008, not that that means a ton given the standards of the time.)

Personally, the lead looks a little overlong; lines like The presidency of William Henry Harrison, who died 31 days after taking office in 1841, was the shortest in American history. could probably be trimmed. It'd also be good to add how many presidents there have been from each party. That's really about it, though. What do others see? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from GoldsztajnEdit

Agreed that the lede is overly long. Some suggestions for reduction:

  • First paragraph, replace "by the American people through" with "via". Two problems: flowery language and technically not accurate, ie US citizens elect state representatives who elect the President in the Electoral College.
  • Second paragraph: the placement of Grover Cleveland here seems unduly prominent, especially since he appears there only to explain the interesting but not especially noteworthy numerical anomaly between presidencies and presidents.
  • In the fifth paragraph I would suggest removing the text of the paragraph from "and set the precedent that a vice president who does so becomes the fully functioning president with his presidency..." onwards, since this material primarily concerns the vice-presidency and would be more appropriate in a list of VPs.
  • Sixth paragraph, drop altogether and replace with a sentence that indicates that Washington was the only president unaffiliated to a political party. I disagree on adding number of presidents from each party (I'm not clear that indicating there have been four Whig presidents and one Federalist is significant), although I could see adding text on which party has produced the largest number of presidents.
  • Missing factoids to possibly note: no woman has yet served as president, Barak Obama was the first African-American president, five presidents have lost the national popular vote, but won the electoral college.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit