This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
Now that this article has achieved GA, I'd like to aim for FA, but I need some disinterested eyes to help me see if there's anything that needs to be improved and if it stands any chance of getting FA anytime soon - since I'm a fan of the band and the main contributor to the article, I don't think I can be as neutral about the article's quality as I'd like to be, and I don't know enough about the FAC process to know if it's anywhere close to FA.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA status. I plan to bring this article to TFA on Kool Herc's 70th birthday.
Thanks, 🌙Eclipse(talk)(contribs) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it could be considered for featured list status and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead and the references. I want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn✉ 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was copy-edited back in February 2024 and passed a GA review in May 2024. My ultimate aim is to take this to FA status and I would welcome some detailed feedback and comments on its prose and sources as well as other aspects. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 17:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it requires reviewing by someone with more experience in topic who may see something I may have missed and improve the article.
Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article previously achieved GA status, and I'm still hoping to take it to FAC. The last peer review went inactive after only reviewing the images, which were cleared as good to go. TheKip(contribs) 05:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
1. I feel the article is at a good start. I think its missing some events that I didn't find for one reason or another.
I want to add a section about the the mass expulsion of Jewish/ marginalized groups from the medical field in Germany. However, I feel I couldn't do it justice.
2. Also, I cannot read German and rely on AI translations so there might be errors possibly. And makes reading books on the topic much slower / and excludes goldmines of information.
3. I don't know if the formatting is correct for Wikipedia standards.
Overall I'd like to see more historical details and format correction.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I want to try and make it into a featured article! I've put a lot of time and effort into improving it to make the information more accessible and relevant. I think it could get there with just a little bit more work. :)
–Sincerely, A Lime 00:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article about an important subject in the news, and I would like to ensure that it is accurate and unbiased.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.
World War I. I assume many of you are familiar with this conflict from a history class. There are many ways to analyze the war as it happened. However, here is a perspective of World War I that you may not be familiar with: a family feud! Namely, George V, Nicholas II, and Haakon VII were not only kings of countries on “Team Entente”, but the three rulers were also (first) cousins! Who was their shared grandfather? The father-in-law of Europe, Christian IX, King of Denmark!
Were you captivated by that hook? If so, I invite you to join me in the goal of making this list on Christian IX’s offspring a featured list! Everyone is welcome to contribute (especially considering this is my first peer review)! Also, I would like for the reviewer(s) to focus on two areas: content and references. Namely:
Content - This list’s scope is narrower than the range of material of many Wikipedia articles on royalty. The focus here is primarily and specifically on Christian IX’s descendants. As you can see, I have attempted to add relevant background information. However, what else can I mention to create a comprehensive reading experience?
References - I strongly believe that readers by themselves should be able to verify every detail provided in the list. Consequently, I have also attempted to not only cite every fact mentioned but also scrutinize the used sources for their reliability. That being said, are there any sources I have used that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia?
Thank you very much! I look forward to reading and implementing your feedback shortly! AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... if this is the second peer review that shows up, allow me to explain. I tried submitting the original request before the prompter on the article's talk page was submitted. I am aware of the potential problems this may cause and vehemently apologise for it. I have no idea why the prompt was not submitted on the article's talk page in the first place.
I'm interested in taking this page through the featured list process so that it can be a good model for this sort of competition-based programme. I want feedback on a couple of things:
Is this (or can it be) a list and not an article?
How should the results tables (which also serve as a list of episodes) be formatted, with accessibility in mind?
Is the structure of the prose clear? (Should some of "Background" be in the lead, or should content be reordered?)
I'm fairly confident the page is comprehensive and that everything is either sourced inline or implicitly verifiable to the primary source (the same way we allow episode summaries for fiction without inline citations). — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
