Wikipedia:Peer review

"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.

For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes.

For the review of new pages, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject 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 Pablo Honey I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article looks great but I am not a Wikipedia expert so I wanna make the article super good. Every other Radiohead album is good or featured so I just want Pablo Honey to catch up Thanks, WeInTheUSA (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Travelling Without Moving I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like it could have the "completeness" it needs to become a Featured Article. I'm not going to work on the article immediately, but at different time when I have the motivation to do so. Otherwise I'd love to hear some insight on how else it could be improved or what is missing. Thanks, 웃OO 03:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC) STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Euphoria (American TV series) 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) Raisa Kurkina I've listed this article for peer review because… it's an article about a veteran artist Thanks, Contributo890 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Star Trek: Picard I've listed this article for peer review because things are getting REALLY HEATED regarding the Critical Reception of Star Trek Picard. I was surprised to see how positive the reception is listed on this wiki page because I had mostly heard negative things about the series online and via word of mouth. I edited to the page to reflect the negative fan and critical reception and it did not go over well. Certain users seem very defensive about the series, to the point where they've accused me of being biased against the show for having the audacity to note some less-than-positive reviews. I've mentioned many sources, but users continue to ignore them and challenge the edits instead of accepting the reality that this series has had its fair share of criticisms. Please review all this "fun" back-and-forth and try to help us out. Appreciate you! Thanks, ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Note this peer review was raised inappropriately as the instructions for peer reviews states that these should not be used for content disputes. This review should be closed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Oshima Brothers I've written a few articles from scratch like this and I've seen a bunch through WP:GAN and WP:FAC, but I have so little experience with articles on music groups and living people that I'd like to have another person with more experience in that realm of Wikipedia look at this article. Does it cover all the areas that are expected of good articles on music groups? Do the sources look reliable? I will very much appreciate the feedback. Thanks, Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC) NØ The articles looks like it is in pretty good shape. It may benefit from an infobox picture where the lead singer isn't so blurred. None of the sources used look immediately unreliable to me. Is it necessary to mention both "singing and playing" in the second sentence? The meanings seem interchangeable to me. Fair question. I changed it to "making". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) "they formed a fan base" -- would "attracted a fan base" be better? I think so. I just changed that out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) You could introduce their debut as "their 2016 eponymous debut album" instead of repeating their name. Good idea. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) "to create a complex soundscape as if there were more than two members" --> "to create a complex soundscape as if they were more than two" Good suggestion. Accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Numbers 10 or larger should be written as numerals and not spelled out. I'm following MOS:NUMERAL, which says "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Are 1,000 Spotify monthly listeners really remarkable enoug for inclusion? I decided to include that number as a contrast to the 100,000 figure from 2020. I realize now that this is not obvious, so I moved that figure down one paragraph to make the contrast more obvious. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) "Oshima Brothers' music is often described as a mix of pop and folk. Their genre has been described as 'folk-pop'" - Maybe these could be incorporated into one big sentence? Because this does look a bit repetitive. I agree. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) The article may benefit from a WP:GOCE copy-edit. It looks interesting and well-researched, and a copy-edit may take care of some of the convoluted wording. Good luck!--NØ 11:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Thank you very much for the review and for the recommendation. I believe I have addressed everything you brought up. Let me know if you notice anything else. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC) The article looks to be in great shape now! I'm not highly familiar with the band so I can't comment on completeness (you're a better judge of that) but it reads very well. By the way, if you're up to it, I would really appreciate any input on an FAC nomination I have up.--NØ 01:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Wonderful. I'll take a look at the FAC soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh Non-expert review, so the comments are mostly general. Feel free to skit those which you do not find useful. "who started making music together as young children." — well, children are young. (later repeated in the prose as well) And shouldn't 'making music' be 'compose', or am I still in the eighteenth century? "with their 2019 EP Under the Same Stars and subsequent" — what is EP? Extended play? If so, I think it should be spelled at the first instance. "had more than 115,000 Spotify" — Optional: 'had over 115,000 Spotify' I feel that the prose could be a bit more tight at few places. "every one of their songs" could be "each of their songs" "produce entirely on their own" — how is it different from "produce on their own"? Should we emphasis on entirely? "with them when they were children" could be "with them during their childhood" "According to Sean: "As kids we were surrounded by music"." — do we need to quote this? I think this can be paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice. And what value does it add to reader given that the previous sentence already focuses on "music and their childhood" "since the start of the pandemic in Cooperstown, New York in May" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA "Washington, DC" in the citations should be "Washington, D.C." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Late Registration I've listed this article for peer review because despite the FAC having gathered a lack of support or any sort of traction in general, I took on the suggestions there mostly and also expanded the article somewhat myself. Nominating for FA right now would quite premature though, so I thought a peer review would be appropriate to see if there are still any withstanding issues that I missed. Thanks, K. Peake 13:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC) STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Dhampire: Stillborn I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like an honest assessment of this article's current class-rating as well as what could be done to improve it (though I have not been able to find any further sources than the those currently used). Thanks, The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Exo I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring the article back to GA status. I've tried to address the concerns raised at Talk:Exo/GA1 but I'd like some help. Thank you, Poirot09 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Poirot09 There are a few bits of unsourced content, for example: "Following Tao's lawsuit, Exo promoted their albums as a full group rather than in two sub-groups.", "The band did not publicly promote the album." "Exo was awarded Best New Asian Group at the 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards and the Newcomer Award at the Golden Disc Awards." I would fix these and bring it back to GAN, where you're more likely to get in depth feedback. We're doing a backlog drive in June, increasing the chances the article will get picked up quickly. Ping Whiteguru for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Buidhe I'll add those refs and, now that I'm reviewing the article more carefully, I've seen some unreliable refs which I hope I'll be able to replace before June. Thank you for your feedback! Poirot09 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC) You're welcome! (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC) And Yet It Moves I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate this article for FA status. This was the first article I got to GA status almost 10 years ago and has been stable since then. I haven't yet worked solo on getting an FA status, and I would love to push this article to the next level. Thanks, ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC) STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Ambush (ER) This is the first time ever writing a television article so I would like to know what else to do to make it a Good Article. As well, anything that could possibly help with plans to make it Featured afterwards. I will take feedback for both. GamerPro64 00:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Aoba47 While this image is nice, I am not sure if it is beneficial enough to just having something that cut across section titles. While this being Kingston's first episode is somewhat notable, it is not notable enough for an image imo since this is not discussed in terms of production and reception aside from a single sentence saying that was her first appearance. I would be mindful about the amount of times that the word "episode" is used in the lead. I am not sure that the fact this episode received received more ratings than Seinfeld and Veronica's Closet is particularly notable for the lead. It is great information for the article, but it seems more like a detail while the lead should provide an overview of the subject. I'd avoid repeating "watched" in this sentence: Watched in a total of 42.71 million viewers, the episode became the most watched season premiere episode for a drama series. In the lead, I would specifying which Primetime Emmy Awards that was awarded to this episode as it is notable. I'd highly encourage you to archive your web links to avoid future headache with link rot and death. I would not link the Newspapers.com sources though as it is unnecessary imo. Could you explain why Citation 5 is structured different than the other Newspapers.com sources? I would also put in clippings for the other Newspapers.com citations so it meets accessibility guidelines since the source can be made more accessible to readers. I'd avoid putting items in all caps like in Citation 7 even if the original publication does this. Remember to mark citations that go to a publication which requires a subscription to view. Citation 7 is a good example of this as you need a subscription to view The New York Times after hitting the quota of free articles. The Associated Press should not be presented as the author as that is not really true. I would present them with the agency= parameter. The author is a staff member from the Associated Press, but not the entire organization itself. The citations seem a little thin for this article. That is not necessarily a bad thing as this could just be representative of the coverage out there, but have you tried looking for book or academic citations? There is this article that is entirely about the episode, but I recommend checking out the legitimacy and quality of the journal. This article also touches on the episode as well as this one. I think it would be worth looking through Google Scholar. Leading off the above question, have you tried looking for sources on the databases provided by the Wikipedia Library? That may be helpful. Just so you are aware according to MOS:TVPLOT, the episode summary can have up to 400 words. From my current assessment, the current episode summary has only 148 words so you can add more detail if you would like as that may be helpful to readers. I would add something about how this episode was released (i.e. DVD, streaming, etc.). I usually combine this information with the ratings to form a "Broadcast history and release" section. The airdate should be mentioned in the article and supported with a citation. It is currently only brought up in the lead and infobox. The Gold Derby citation credits Joyce Eng as the writer. I hope that this review is helpful. I honestly love reading Wikipedia articles about television shows. I used to work on them quite a bit, but it has been a long time since I've gone back to one. I really need to do that again because I get so much enjoyment out it. Apologies for the amount of comments, and I hope that this will encourage other reviewers to participate in this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Hollow Knight I've listed this article for peer review because it recently received a GA promotion and I would like to bring it to FA some time in the future. I would like some consideration to be taken towards the Plot, Gameplay, and Development sections so that they can be improved, but any general advice on the page is appreciated. Thanks, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC) STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. 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) 00:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash 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 April 2022, 15:02 UTC Last edit: 17 May 2022, 19:45 UTC Forza As a major contributor to this article, I have decided to request a peer review. There are only a few parts of the article that need sources, and Reception could be further expanded, but I am more concerned about the article's structure. It is currently the most relevant issue to me since that may mean rewriting the sections. I have scanned other articles about video game franchises and found that they all contain more than just three sections composing the bodies. This article has History, Titles, and Reception. For this request, I am largely concerned with sections History and Titles. The History section is concise, but gets to the point. The Titles section comes off as a long list of all of the Forza games, including the ill-fated spin-off. I have conflicting views on how to deal with them. One of them says that a Gameplay section would be superfluous since the gameplay elements are already described in all the subsections about the games—and as incremental updates of the previous installation—and nothing needs to be changed other than adding more sources. The other view says that we ought to rewrite the sections. As they stand, come to think of it, Titles appears to jump from a summary of one title to that of another. They are just brief descriptions of the important elements of the games, as well as their release dates for which platforms. I feel as if their contents are treated discretely, rather than in the context of the franchise. Even Gran Turismo does not treat the general gameplay as discretely. Additionally, I do think that the list of subsections about the individual games could become long in the future if all we are doing were to just expand Titles. For my second view, I would suggest having a table of the main installments, their release dates, and their platforms under a new section in History and renaming Titles to Gameplay with their own sections on Forza Motorsport and Forza Horizon, describing all of the common features and new content that would appear in every subsequent update. That may be a huge undertaking for me, but it actually sounds more feasible in the long run. If anyone else has other suggestions on where the development of this article ought to be headed, write them here. Yours may be better than either of my proposals. Thanks, FreeMediaKid$ 02:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Bazinga (song) I've been working on this article for the past few months now, and I'm quite proud of how it turned out. However, I am no Wikipedia expert (or even possess good grammar), and that is why I've listed this article for peer review. I want to know the things that should be addressed to make the article much better from others peoples' perspectives. I am open to any suggestions from any part of the article. Thanks in advance! – SARASALANT (talk|contributions) 10:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Kingdom Hearts III Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to clean it up. I remember that when it was created, it was updated with references every announcement but it got way too much. I basically rewrote most of the reception to fit the more modern way of writing video game reception section similar to the article Final Fantasy XV although I think the only one I edited more was the remake of FFVII. I'm kinda confused about the casting section and characters since some might come across as minor stuff. Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Comments from Cat's Tuxedo @Tintor2: Coming across the reception section, I'm noticing a distinct lack of commentary on the game's visuals and audio. For coverage on critical analysis to be considered adequately broad, it should at the very least cover the game's three most major aspects: gameplay, visuals, and audio. Since such a task can be daunting when a major and contemporary triple-A release such as this is involved, keeping a sandbox or personal text document on the side will come in handy for keeping all the critics' individual points for each aspect sorted out. And if a more particular aspect of a game (like a gameplay mechanic or the narrative's writing) calls for its own paragraph, by all means don't be shy about it. Just to give you an idea of what to go for (especially if you're aiming for GA), here's some decent examples: 1, 2, 3 Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC) My Neighbor Totoro I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded and revised this article significantly, and would like to receive feedback on how to improve it so that it could eventually be upgraded to a GA. This is my first PR so thanks for your help. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC) No Love Deep Web I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that the quality of Death Grips articles is usually somewhat lacking, even including their discography page which was promoted to a featured list but later got deformed after Year of the Snitch was released. I'd like some suggestions on how to improve this page as it appears to be salvageable. Getting it to a B-class or higher would be great. Thanks, Miklogfeather (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show 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 2022, 01:31 UTC Last edit: 16 May 2022, 01:17 UTC UK drill I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring its grade up to B-class (and, sooner or later, GA). Thanks, Hwqaksd (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Budots I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to submit the article for GA. Thanks, TreseTrese (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Everyday life Engineering and technology Rust (programming language) I've listed this article for peer review because I think there are uses of technical terms that could be improved and I hope to improve the quality of the article. Thanks, 0xDeadbeef (T C) 08:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC) NSA ANT catalog I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it a featured list (based on feedback, list was deemed better than article) in the future, but I am not experienced with getting articles up to featured status and would like to receive feedback before submitting it to WP:FAC. Thanks, PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC) STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Since this is your first FAC, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC. This will help you understand the featured article criteria and build goodwill among FAC editors, making your article more likely to be reviewed when you nominate it. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC) History of the World Wide Web 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 February 2022, 19:28 UTC Last edit: 27 April 2022, 20:51 UTC Saturn V 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 January 2022, 03:38 UTC Last edit: 2 May 2022, 19:06 UTC Dylan Field 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: How good (or bad) is the WP:NPOV right now, and how could it improve? 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) General Northwest Championship I've listed this article for peer review because it's my most substantive new article to date and I would like a general review. Thanks, PKAMB (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Texas A&M University 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: 29 March 2022, 15:56 UTC Last edit: 3 May 2022, 20:56 UTC Mario Gómez I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually get it to GA. I'm fairly new to this process, so any suggestions on how to improve it would be welcome. Thanks, Perfect4th (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Comments from TRM Some general comments: Check for duplicate links, it's cool to link in the lead and once on the first appearance in the main body of the article, but not really needed after that. Avoid emotive, NPOV terms like "thrashing", "rout", "cruised", etc.. Let the bare facts talk for themselves. e.g. grammar: "for Bayern as Bayern Munich won 4–0 over Indian National Football" avoid such quick repetition, and we would normally say "the Indian National..." Imagine reading this if you're not a football fan. Do you think "slotting home after work" makes any sense to non-experts? Mix up the prose a bit, like "Gómez scored two goals. On 16 December 2011, Gómez scored" is really tiring to read. "sub"? substitute, this is an encyclopedia.  Done Link all "technical" terms, like "substitute", "corner", "pass", "cross", "header" etc etc, whatever is there. Never assume the reader is an expert in football. Gets a bit proseline, like one- or two-sentence paragraphs, not elegant. ? I'm afraid I don't understand. "Gómez' "-> "Gómez's".  Done "his final half-season" is this a European football thing, like after a winter break? I don't recognise the idea of a "half-season".  Done ("In his final half-season at the Volkswagen Arena, Gómez scored only once in 15 appearances." -> "Gómez scored only once in his last 15 appearances at the Volkswagen Arena") Is EU-football.info a reliable source? I would individually reference all his honours. And don't put references on section headings. Hopefully some of that helps! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Thank you very much! That will definitely help. Perfect4th (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Ted Heaton I started this article on a former British swimmer/diver not long ago and have expanded it to the point that I feel it's close to being taken to GA. I'd like a peer review beforehand to iron out any obvious errors or issues and think it would benefit to have another set of eyes read over it. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Geography and places Glen Rock (boulder) I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to prepare this article for Featured Article candidacy. I have never gone through the process for FA before and I'd like feedback on the article from people who are experienced with the FA process. I'm also pinging Dudley Miles, a user I have recently reached out to as a potential FA mentor. Thanks! — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Comments by Dudley "The boulder, which is the namesake of the town". Namesake usually implies something which happens to be the same. Maybe "which the town is named after". Refs 1 and 3 need page number(s). "As of December 1971, the Glen Rock measured forty-four feet wide" Why the date? Presumably any changes in the size of the boulder since then have been minimal. "glaciers receded during the recent Ice Age". It would be more accurate to says "glaciers receded at the end of the last Ice Age". Also, it would be better to link to Wisconsin glaciation. "the 2009 report by the Borough of Glen Rock suggests that the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" I do not think that you need to keep saying the 2009 report. "the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" with the ref is fine. "As late as 1910, about half of the rock remained submerged under soil". "As late as" does not say anything useful. I would say "Until 1910". The main problem with the article, in my view, is the exccessive reliance on newspapers. They can be OK for current events but are not reliable sources for geology and history. The newspaper articles probably have errors, but are presumably based on books and articles. Your refs on geology look OK, so you probably need just to delete the newspaper refs for statements about geology. The referencing for history is weak, apart from the Encyclopedia of New Jersey. In Britain you can borrow academic books and journals through inter-library loan from your local library. Is there any way you can get access to more reliable sources for the history? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC) @Dudley Miles: Thank you for the pointers. I think that my recent edits have fully addressed everything but part of the last bullet. There are inter-library loan systems in the United States, but I'm not sure that my local library is connected to a national network. I'll look into seeing what resources libraries local to me have access to through interlibrary loans or I'll start making requests on WP:RX to get access to more academic sources and/or historical monographs. And, while newspapers will inevitably have some errors and it is generally better to cite mainstream scholarly sources over mainstream newsorgs, I think there are parts of the cultural history section that newspapers are adequate sources for (i.e. the sign theft saga). The geology section has been culled of direct references to newspapers. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Kardinya, Western Australia I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking at potentially making it a featured article. As I have not yet made a featured article on Wikipedia, I am requesting a peer review to look at all aspects of the article. Thanks, Steelkamp (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Quick notes on sourcing: You'll need to prepare a statement on whether Soutar's book is a "high-quality" source. I suggest augmenting the book sources with more newspaper clippings from the area, as they would help back up the quality of the book. A government-published map may be worthwhile instead of the street directory. SounderBruce 04:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you. I have begun adding more sources. Steelkamp (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC) History Jews in Hong Kong I'm trying to get this article to FA and it's already failed FAC twice (due to low participation). I can't think of any other ways to improve it beyond what it is now. Thanks, — Golden call me maybe? 07:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Battle of Cove Mountain 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) Subneolithic Hi! I recently contributed a significant amount of information to this stub. I'm nominating for review both to receive some feedback and suggestions on the contributions and as well, to hopefully remove the template for "additional citations" and if possible to reassess the article's classification. Thanks in advance :) OK872 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Hello OK872 - I am by no means an expert of archaeology, but here are some suggestions. (First, thank you for contributing and improving the article!) I recommend that you "cheat"! Find an article on a different archaeological period that has a Good Article or Featured Article rating, and pattern Subneolithic after it. TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC) In the mean time, here are things I noticed with very little effort. The intro should be a quick summary of the entire article. Your introduction should be two or three paragraphs with no citations. Any facts in the intro should be backed up by cited text in the main body of the article. Some sections appear too small. Not required, but any section should be at least two paragraphs. Wikilinks: Could use more of them. In the Infobox, Mesolithic and Neolithic should definitely be Wikilinked. There has to be a few other terms that can be Wikilinked. As always, do not have any duplicate links—although the Intro and text for images do not count for duplicate links. Citations: I always use the Harvard Style. That means there is a Notes section with Footnotes, Citations (author-year-page for book, cite web, and cite newspaper), and References (the books). That does not mean Harvard Style is the best. In your field, it may be more common to use a different reference style. Images: Good images can make a difference, especially for less informed people (like me) that may have a short attention span. The ‘Artemis’ of Astuvansalmi is really good. Once you do this minimal amount extra work on the article, someone from WikiProject Archaeology or Anthropology may be willing to do a quick review, and could give it a B-class or C-Class rating on the Quality Scale. This is all I can contribute. Good Luck! TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Nestor Makhno 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: 11 May 2022, 13:34 UTC Last edit: 15 May 2022, 17:43 UTC History of Pune I've listed this article for peer review because that can help to take the article to GA level. Thanks, Jonathansammy (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC) On a quick look, some rather over-long paras, and seems to use American rather than Indian English ("center", watercolor", "theater"). Perhaps too weighted to the modern period. The lead is too short. But at or near FA level, & certainly should bwe ok for GA. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks. I will work on fixing the issues you have raised. Best regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Taking a quick look, I see: "generic name" errors in the References for 3 Gautam, 38 Kadekar, 89 Kosambi, 117 Alison, 122 Mills, 125 Jackson, 126 Mills, 127 an-Naim, 149 Marinos, and 179 Rao. Numerous duplicate links, such as Tughlags, Baiaji Vishwanath, Madhavrao I, Parvati hill, Ganesh, The Peshwa rulers, Peshwe park, and 10 or 20 more. Remember that the Intro and image captions do not count, but everywhere else does. TwoScars (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Wei Yan Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because the page has major improvements as per the previous peer reviews requirements which noticed the article's problems, including: reducing some WP:Oversection problem which not solved for more than a decade improving the pupular culture legacy section with each of quotation reference by @KeeperOfThePeace: summarized the "analysis" section. reference now has page numbers or at least the link to the page in each books/journals inline citations improvements, including the quotation from secondary sources such as modern time academic figures & universities researches which gave commentary to the primary sources by @Z1720: i humbly asking for senior member of wikipedia 3kingdom project too for this review @Benjitheijneb:, @Jftsang: @Underbar dk: Asking fellow peer reviewer volunteers too @Vice regent: @Goldsztajn: Thanks before, hopefully this page can be improved to GA. Ahendra (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Natural sciences and mathematics Dwarf pufferfish I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent the past couple weeks revising and improving the article significantly, adding more information, reputable sources, finding supporting evidence for previous claims, removing erroneous or unsupported claims, reorganising, and other general cleanup. I've more than doubled the article in size and I hope I've managed to raise the article from its current grade of "Start-class". Thanks, -- Primium (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Wood-pasture hypothesis I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article, and I would like to receive a general assessment Thanks, AndersenAnders (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. Please note that English is not my first language and this is my first article of this length so bear with me. Sodium chloride I've listed this article for peer review because this is a vital article in chemistry, and I wish it to improve to GA status. Thanks, Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Nonmetal 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: 23 February 2022, 06:15 UTC Last edit: 27 April 2022, 07:00 UTC Peking Man I've listed this article for peer review because the article certainly can be organized better. For example, the question of cannibalism is discussed in great detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Age and taphonomy; fire is brought up in a lot of detail in taphonomy, palaeoenvironment, and its own section fire; and most sections are incredibly long and could use some subdivisions but I can't think of any logical ones. Also, comments on general grammar and readability would be appreciated Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Language and literature Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library I've listed this article for peer review because i've recently expanded it by 6000 bytes and I want to improve it but don't know exactly what there is about the article that needs attention, and I think it would be very cool if I could expand my local library's page even more than i already have. Cheers love, the cavalries here, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Philosophy and religion Crusading movement Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because a previous peer review disappeared into the weeds and the article really needs a fresh pair of eyes, or pairs of eyes, to move forward. What it needs is actionable suggestions for improvement please rather than opinion, sourcing suggestions are always welcome as well. It is a contentious subject and there have been frequent widespread debates across this article and Crusades that frankly prevent improvement & cause experienced editors to avoid the subject. You may question why this is raised in Philosophy & Religion, rather than History. This is because this is not about the MILHIST; the various campaigns are more than covered in other articles. It is about the movement that lasted centuries, the instituitions of that movement, its philosphies and historiography. All help and advice would be gratefully received. Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Hugo Krabbe I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have some feedback: this is my first article on en.wiki - I have some experience on it.wiki, where I've written a few articles, but I imagine that each project has its own rules and standards. English is not my mother tongue and, apart from that, I think I have much to learn about how things get done here. Based on my experience on it.wiki, Peer review and Featured article review may be good ways for learning quickly and for getting an idea of the community and its guidelines. Plus, I've dedicated quite a bit of work to Krabbe and I would like the result to become, with everyone's help, as good as possible. Finally, in a time of war, I hope that the lesson of people who lived between the two World Wars and worked on international law with a cosmopolitan and pacifist commitment might be, if not inspiring, at least of some interest to my new fellows Wikipedians. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Jim Jones 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 March 2022, 18:20 UTC Last edit: 27 April 2022, 18:38 UTC Doukhobors 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) Al-Fatiha I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks good enough to be nominated. the structure us well done so far. grammar good enough. inline citation doesnt lacking. Thanks, Ahendra (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Social sciences and society Killing of Patrick Lyoya 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) William McAndrew I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to enhance the article to reach featured-article quality Thanks, SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC) STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Ike for President (advertisement) 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: 3 April 2022, 19:30 UTC Last edit: 19 May 2022, 18:43 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: 19 May 2022, 03:45 UTC Japanese New Zealanders I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks, ADWC312 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Andre De Grasse I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an assessment of the page. I would like to know what would be a grade assessment of the page and how to improve the article towards a GA article. Thanks, Words in the Wind(talk) 18:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Lists Women's Professional Billiards Championship I've listed this article for peer review because whilst all suggestions for improvement are welcome, I'd like, in particular, to get views on what to include in the intro text, and to get some help with copyediting. I can provide copies of the relevant extracts from sources. (Most of the press reports are fairly brief.) I hope to nominate this as a featured list at some point. Thanks and regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a comprehensive review with regard its comprehensiveness and reliability. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Comments by Dudley "Baldwin I and his successors captured all towns on the coast". This must be all in a specific area. It needs clarification. "on behalf of their absent or minor rulers". Minor in the sense of young or subservient? "the crusaders (or Franks)". "Franks" as a local term for West Europeans needs explaining or deleting. "Baldwin III and Amalric maintained a close alliance with the Byzantine Empire". For clarity, I suggest "In the mid-twelfth century, Baldwin III and his successor Amalric maintained a close alliance with the Byzantine Empire". "Internal strife weakened the kingdom during the reigns of the leper Baldwin IV and the unpopular Guy of Lusignan, which enabled Nur ad-Din's former general, Saladin, to unite Egypt and Syria in the 1180s." This does not sound right. Surely Saladin being able to unite Egypt and Syria must have been mainly due to circumstances in those countries? "forced Saladin to acknowledge the restoration of the Franks' rule". I think it is better to stick to "crusaders" as "Franks" may be confusing for non-specialists who understand the term to mean Germanic (or French). "The Seljuk ruler Tughril becomes the Abbasid caliphs' protector." How is this relevant? "A Seljuk Turk commander, Atsiz ibn Uvaq, captures Jerusalem." You should clarify that this was from the Fatimid Caliphate. I think it would be better to right justify the extract from the pope's sermon and all images. Pushing the timeline over looks untidy. No mention of the People's Crusade? "Al-Afdal refutes to make an alliance with the crusaders". "refuses"? "A man who lives in a house in a town for more than a year seizes its possession, according to a decree." I am not sure what this means. "Godfrey cedes the fourth of Jaffa to Daimbert." Ditto. "A pious cleric, Evremar". "pious" is against WP:NPOV. Jacobite should be linked. "Baldwin III demands the division of the kingdom from his mother." I am not sure what this means. "Ignoring the Hospitallers' and several crusaders' opposition to the treaty," What treaty? "A member of the royal family is rewarded with the title prince of Galilee in Cyprus." Which royal family? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC) List of compositions by Cécile Chaminade I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… it is being presented in an interesting way for the readers; clean, neat, orderly-fashion mode, with lots of information for each of Chaminade's musical pieces. I think she deserves better than what she had from us so far. One more thing, please, I would like your input, not correction, but complementary advice and smiles. If this community believes this list should go straight to FA then... so be it. Thanks, Krenakarore TK 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC) WikiProject peer-reviews WikiProject Military history: Wei Yan • Crusading movement • Nestor Makhno • Battle of Cove Mountain