Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to find out if it can become a featured article some day. Vespro della Beata Vergine is a unique piece in the history of sacred music, the first in a line of later Bach's Christmas Oratorio and Verdi's Messa da Requiem. Monteverdi demonstrated the range of his abilities, writing with a position in Rome in mind, but in the end got the post at San Marco in Venice. We don't know if it was ever performed completely during his lifetime, nor if he actually expected it to be performed that way. Certainly musicologists and musicians from the 20th century on have been fascinated. Much more text than the 5 psalms + Magnificat usually set in a vespers music, six soloists, 10-part choir in one psalm, rich orchestra, dramatic and virtuoso elements from the just beginning opera combined with the ever-present Gregorian chant, great diversity in musical styles and expression, - all it takes to make a piece successful 400 years after it was written. Here is a short introduction, - in the background you hear an extreme performance, a recording which renders only the music Monteverdi wrote (and no aditions to make it a proper liturgical vespers service), with 10 singers and soloist for all instruments. I heard them in concert last Sunday.
I'm not much of a musical composition guy, so these are (hopefully useful) comments by someone completely unfamiliar with the whole topic area. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The lead section appears too long. MOS:LEADLENGTH advises 2 paragraphs for articles with less than <15,000 characters which is the case here if my tools counted correctly. Currently, the lead section makes up ~20% of the article's text. As someone unfamiliar with the topic, reading that lead kind of scares me from reading the rest of the article. Also, many details mentioned in the lead, such as the dedication to Pope Paul V or speculation where it might have been performed seem unneeded when trying to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."
Also, shouldn't the alternative name "Vespers of 1610" be mentioned in the lead sentence (MOS:LEADALT)? E.g. Vespro della Beata Vergine (Vespers for the Blessed Virgin), SV 206, , is an extended musical composition [...] That way the rest of the fourth paragraph could be removed, since the full publication name does also not strike me as something that really needs to be mentioned in the lead.
History and context
If the article mentions Monteverdi's desire to move up within the court of Mantova, shouldn't the article also provide at least some basic information on why he was there, what he planned to achieve and why composing this piece would have achieved that?
Also, should "at age 43" really be the preferred style of dating? After all, it forces readers to look up his birth date in his article to then calculate that it must have been 1610. Even if the source only says "at age 43", WP:CALC allows saying it was in 1610 because when he was baptized on 15 May 1567, he was only 43 between approx. May 1610 and April 1611. But if the piece was published in 1610, he must have written it in 1610 as well for having done so at age 43.
Thank you for helpful comments, indeed. The article is on its way, so please look at the lead last. Rather than counting: the lead should contain the information a reader should absolutely know. I'll look into expanding the bio part. If you understand he wanted to be promoted within Montova, I must change something. It was too small for him, so he aspired to Rome and got Venice. Age: we don't know exactly when he composed, only when published, some say he wrote for 3 years, - I will look into that too. Once 1610 us established in bold, I don't think anybody would have to look up a birth date, and if, hovering over his name seems easy enough. I try to get to what a thing is, rather than including alternative names in the first sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created the article from a redirect and greatly expanded it. Would love some additional input on the article on how to improve it. Hoping to get this article up to GA status at some point.
I'm concerned about the usage of primary sources for details such as how the game works in the premise. It appears to be an improper use of sourcing per WP:PRIMARY.
Alongside that, I think these details if they can't be sourced to a secondary, independent reliable source, probably shouldn't be included. For example, this explanation of the differences in the logos: The logo was slightly modified to remove the water effects which were replaced by faint lights while the word "Celebrity" before "Big" with "Brother" underneath. The water effect that was used as a transition and appears around the HouseGuests was removed. This was replaced with a star being used as the transition and items related to the celebrities notoriety appeared around them.
I'm not really sure how the layout of the house (in the "Filming" section) is particularly germane.
As someone who isn't really familiar with Big Brother, I found the format/gameplay section a bit verbose and excessively detailed.
I think for GA quality there would need to be a bit more in terms of reception than what is there to be comprehensive enough; two critics isn't exactly a real sampling.
The prose overall could use a good copyedit to reach GA quality.
is a reality television spin-off series of the American adaptation of Big Brother created by John de Mol—it's unclear from this construction whether John de Mol created Big Brother or Big Brother: Celebrity Edition (or both.)
There's some issues with tense changes throughout that need to get cleaned up, e.g.:
Before the voting began the nominees have the chance to say a final message to their fellow HouseGuests on why they should stay. —should be begins instead of the tense change here,
An American version of Celebrity Big Brother has been speculated since 2002
Don Wollman and Clayton Halsey also reprises their roles—should be reprise
What is the Diary Room? It's just dropped in without introduction.
Along side these episode a companion show, Celebrity Big Brother: After Dark, provides live coverage from inside the House is shown on Pop should be Alongside these episode Pop shows live coverage from inside the House on Celebrity Big Brother: After Dark. or similar.
For a GAN you're going to have to explain how Hidden Remote, Reality Blurred, Programming Insider, TV Series Finale, and CinemaBlend are reliable sources; I'm not familiar with them.
Some of the URLs are archived, but I'd recommend archiving them all so that you can ward off WP:LINKROT and any future verifiability concerns.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if there are any problems in the article before possibly nominating it for GA. I know you're supposed to be a significant contributor to an article to nominate it, that's why I want a peer review so I can improve it more. Thanks, NightBag10 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I previously worked to improve this article up to GA status and plan to submit it to FAC soon, but would like a thorough peer review by an outside party before doing so.
Going to do a more thorough review later but a quick drive-by has me noticing that the "Sequels, remakes and musical works" has Citation Needed tags to it. I think that entire section will have to have a rewrite but I expect that was part of the plan. GamerPro64 04:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thought I would be doing a more in-depth review of the article but after reading the entire piece, the "Sequels, remakes and musical works" is the only part that needs to be overhauled. With that section there it lowers the quality of the article that it could damage its chances of retaining its GA status. Other than that the article looks solid. GamerPro64 00:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, much of that content was added by other people after the GAN review. I'll look at it and improve it accordingly before moving on to FA. Thanks! — HunterKahn 01:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
GamerPro64, FYI, I've gone through the Sequels/Remakes section as per your suggestion. I've cleaned it up, copy edited it, restructured the section slightly, removed some information that lacked reliable sources, and added reliable sources in other cases. I think it's adequate now, but if you'd like to give a look at that section in particular and give any feedback, let me know. Or, if you think this peer request is complete now, that's fine as well. Thanks either way for your help! — HunterKahn 14:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah the section has been greatly improved. I think this Peer Review is done here. GamerPro64 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I want to get this to GA status and I'm not sure if it is ready. Could someone take a quick glance and see if there are any glaring flaws that could delay the GA review?
Thanks, Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Scribolt
I've made some copy edits directly in the article, feel free to modify / ignore them if you don't like them. A few questions,
If this is the 3rd entry in the series, why is it 2nd in the list of releases on the series page?
I would suggest giving a bit more detail on the mission mode, what is a mission that the player needs to solve? To score a certain number of points in a specific time? To clear a screen with a certain number of moves?
Similarly for the Skin edit mode, what is a Skin in this context? A color scheme? It's made a bit clearer later, but it could do with explaining a bit earlier.
Yokota is mentioned with no introduction, who is he/she?
@Scribolt: Thanks for the assist. I made the mistake of putting this the third in the series when technically it was the second. I was only following the Japanese release as the original. The European release came earlier than it was intended to release. I'll fix that if it hasn't been fixed yet. Mission Mode is really hard to describe because it has a large variety of tasks. None of the sources give a clear idea. The ones I can list on the top of my head are clearing the board by making one or two moves, clearing one or more columns, clearing a set number of squares before time runs out, clearing the board before time runs out. Skin Edit mode is just a playlist mode, lets players create a playlist of skins that were already unlocked.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The film is considered as the first feature film in India. I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. This would be my first FAC so wanted to have other editors to take a look at the article before it goes for the final evaluation. Constructive comments are welcome.
The plot section does not make much sense to me. I failed to understand the basic themes (integrity of Harischandra) on a rapid reading. Since I do not remember the story of Harishchandra very well at this moment, I am unable to provide some constructive feedback. Hopefully I will be back with workable suggestions soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the film is partially lost, one is only supposed to add plot details from the source for verification. And I think that's just what Vivvt has done. Kailash29792(talk) 02:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Vishvamitra performing a yajna to get help from triguna shakti against their will. So, the triguna shakti have their own will? But these are not person. Needs explanation/modification.
Harischandra... interrupts... by releasing the three powers. So, Harischandra already had the three powers? How did he “release” those?
Vishvamitra... asks to arrange for dakshina. Needs translation/explanation. What is Dakshina?
Taramati to ask Dom king... what is a dom king? The wiki link does not help much. (It links to a page describing Dom being a Bengali Hindu caste)
Bishvamitra frames Taramati for murdering prince of Kashi. This is weird. Where does the prince of Kashi come into the picture ? Who is he (in relation to the characters already described)?
Taramati pleads guilty and is ordered to be beheaded by Harishchandra. Why does she plead guilty if she is innocent? Also, how come Harishchandra is the judge if he is not the king anymore ?
As Harishchandra attempts to behead Taramati, a pleases Lord Shiva appears. Vishvamitra reveals that ... there is a logical gap between these two consecutive sentences. How does Lord Shiva’s appearance lead to Vishvamitra’s revelation? Does sage V also come to the scene of the beheading?
I understand the film is partially lost and not every detail can be recovered. But the legend can be referred to for explaining the scenes. Also, if the film is mostly lost, what is the source of this plot section?
Dwaipayanc, there are two sources for the plot already added to the section. As per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources." The first source is Indian Cinema: The Bollywood Saga (I have not added the link as it is from Google Drive) and pages 76–80 of this. You may read them both to clarify your doubts and suggest what can be added/removed/amended. --Kailash29792(talk) 04:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe I have enough information, references and media (after a long research based on valid sources I found) so the article can be rated C. However, whether that happens or not, I would like to know what I can improve, and I'm open to constructive criticism!
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to properly prepare the article for a Featured Article Nomination. I was suggested to do so on the articles third FAN, as it was suggested that it had a bunch of problems and should be withdrawn, which I have done. The article previously underwent a peer review a while ago, but since then it had become a good article, underwent a copy-edit and two FANs, (first one failed because only one person actually commented on it and second one failed because of the questionable critical reception bit which has since been fully reworked, not by me) so there shouldn't be too* much work to be done. But yea, I am asking for a FAN-level peer review as I don't want to make a fool out of myself and fail a 4th time. Here are the links to the first peer review, good article nomination, first FAN, second FAN, and third FAN. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 08:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a joint effort by SchroCat and Tim riley. Round the Horne was a BBC radio comedy of the 1960s, a formative influence on one of us as a teenager (the other wasn't alive in the 1960s and so has no excuse whatever). We have been revising the article with the aim of bringing it up to FA standard. We have tried to give the show comprehensive coverage though we hope we have avoided being too solemn about it. We regret the lack of pictures, but we are restricted by Wikipedia's rules on copyight images, and have tried to break the text up with, we hope, enlivening quote boxes. All comments and suggestions on this and indeed on anything else will be gratefully received. We hope you find the article wangles your nurdles. – SchroCat and Tim riley talk 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry - technical hitch (me, probably). Having to shut this page and open a new PR. Apologies! Tim riley talk 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I am going make this simple.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Ryzen article became too technical for most readers to understand each time a new information released for new Ryzen Processors that`s comes out.
Too much AMD fanboys being too excited and putting their "fans point of view" mixed inside the information in this article. This articles should be more focus on AMD Ryzen the article and not get upset over fan based changes are being removed.
Technical tag and Fan tag should been dated since 2017.
Thanks, Regice2020 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: please note that this review has been added by a disruptive editor who even tried to have the article deleted with very similar BS reasons as given above. --Denniss (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The recent revert of a good faith edit from me by Denniss about tags was not properly reviewed. This "Peer Review" is not use to throw rocks at each other. Seeks improvement as stated in bullets and this been going on since 2017. Regice2020 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The goal is to fix page up and stop people from preventing users from doing so.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take it to FA and have never done that before, and it looks terrifying. I thought maybe some fresh critical eyes on it might be a good step.
Given the length of the article, suggest expanding the lead a bit more
Per this RfC, entries in an In Popular Culture section should have sources that indicate not only that the mentioned reference exists, but also that it is significant to the topic
Before going to FAC, I'd strongly suggest taking a look at the consistency of the citations. You basically want to ensure not only that the citations are complete and correct, but also that citations to the same type of source are similarly formatted. For example, footnotes 1 and 2 are both books but only one includes location; footnotes 4 and 27 are to the same source but one has the publication italicized and one does not; footnote 53 has page title but no other indication of the source; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thanks so much for your comments, I'll start in on them! --valereee (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to become a good article, but I don't know if it is good enough, what I should edit to see how it can become a good article, and if I should try to get a copy edit for it. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 07:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to attempt to get it to GA status from the C-Class status that it is currently at. I have had four successful GA nominations in the past (a small town, two films, and a book), but I do not know how to approach a video game article when it comes to getting it to that status. My interest in the subject comes from it being one of my favorite Nintendo 64 games.
I am not reviewing this, but I can give some quick advice from skimming it.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the Transfer Pak so important that it needs to be the first thing mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead? I'd move it towards the end.
Third paragraph of the gameplay section lacks a source entirely.
"Other Features" should not have its own sub-section.
Same goes for the "Mini-games" section. It should also be written in prose, not in this pseudo-list format it's currently going for. Also, I'm not sure every minigame has to be mentioned. Just a sample of three of them might be enough. Other people might disagree with me on this though.
Development section is sparse. Is there really nothing else that can be found about this game's development?
Reception section is also lacking. It's too short for one. But most notably: it overuses direct quotes. Direct quotes are fine, but not when used as the only method of relaying their opinion. Try to group similar opinions in your own words instead. You can check some other GA/FA game articles to see good examples.
The RPGamer and ELSPA links are dead.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi SL93 - you've got a favorite of mine, too, though I think I slightly prefer the second one because I was always such a fan of Pokémon Gold and Silver. While I don't have time to start a review this second, this is a declaration of my intent to give you some feedback within the next couple of days. Red Phoenixtalk 16:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
All right, here's what I've got for you:
For starters, you have the basic structure: Gameplay, Development, and Reception. That's perfect, as those are the notability-conferring sections.
On references, I don't think you have to worry about reliability with what you have, but you'll need to do some more research to hit the broadness criterion (see notes below). Since you have stated you're not sure how to approach a video game article, I'd recommend you check out WP:VG/S for some ideas of where you can look and what will and won't work.
Agree with Megaman en m above that surely there must be more about the development; this was a big name game for Nintendo. Right now it's more about the features of the game, not necessarily the actual development. For an idea of a good development section on a video game article, check out Out Run, which is a GA.
If you want to keep the "Sequel" section, expand it with some more info and make it at least a full paragraph. Otherwise, merge it into Reception, and make it sort of a "Reception and legacy" section.
Beware of WP:GAMECRUFT in this article. We don't need a list of Pokemon you can win at the end of the game. We don't need a list of every individual minigame in the game and how it's played. Focus on the real-world notability of the game in these section instead: what are the important aspects of the gameplay? Who developed it, and how was it received?
Make sure every statement is sourced, even in Gameplay.
Also agree with the Reception section needing more expansion, and there should be plenty of reviews so you don't need to use all the direct quotes.
Was the first game called Pokemon Stadium 2 in Japan? Seems unlikely; check your Notes section.
After you've done some research and expansion, the lead needs to be restructured to include something about all of the sections and facets. I'm sure you're familiar with it now, but MOS:LEAD is helpful.
Because there's expansion work to do, I won't nitpick the prose, but you're going to need a general copyedit of the whole article. There are little issues everywhere. It's not really ready until we get the expansion, but I will be willing to help when the article is expanded.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has expanded greatly since its creation in 2016 through the work of me and other editors; I would like some feedback on how to improve it further and move it towards GA status if possible.
I'd like a peer review on this so as to fix or clean up any glaring issues with the page, as I intend to hopefully get this to Good Article status once finished. This is the first time I've requested a peer review for a non-list, so apologies if I don't understand something. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just assessed it and I believe it has GA potential, but I'm not quite fully certain. I'd like for it to be taken a look at and see if there's anything to improve before bringing it to GAN.
@ Expandinglight5 You've obviously put in a lot of good work here. The article is very thorough. while going over my suggestions below, please be aware that I'm new to wikipedia editing and peer review, and therefore everything I say here should be taken with a grain of salt.
As far as getting the article to GA or FA status, I think there's still work that needs to be done. I've made some suggestions below. Since I'm new, I don't want to to directly edit the page for these, instead I've written them for your consideration:
The priority for the current state of the article is to ensure it is well-cited. There's a lot of citations missing, particularly for the production section. If you wrote that section, I presume you got the information from a specific source - if it was written by another user, it might be good to contact them if you struggle to find reliable sources. If all else fails, it may be prudent to remove that section.
Touching more on the production section, there is a lot of text there and it could be considerably condensed - I don't know how much all that information contributes to the page, especially since a lot of it is discussion on the VIN numbers. The flow could also be improved, as it reads more like text from an investigative article than an encyclopedic one (things like "as stated before" and "it is believed" should be avoided when possible).
think about dividing the history section into subsections. "conceptualization and prototypes," "fabrication" and "bankruptcy and revival" would be a good division, but feel free to divide them as you see fit. Make sure things are more are less chronological in the history section.
the lead section is good but could be more concise. You could remove some more specific facts (for example, the location of the factory) as that kind of information isn't essential for a reader looking to get a surface-level understanding of the car, and is mentioned later in the article for readers who want more detail.
this is minor, but consider changing "special deloreans" to something like "unique and notable deloreans," as it reads a bit more professional and encyclopedic in nature.
I hope this helps. Don't hesitate to reach out if you want to discuss these suggestions. Other reviewers, feel free to point out if any of my advice here is incorrect - I'll defer to more experienced reviewers.
These are good points. I've removed a few items on the lead section that are duplicative and don't belong in the section. I've revised the language to 'Notable and unique' and put the cars in chronological order in that section. I think the RHD section should be moved into unique/notable as well. The production section is new (in fact I think it appeared after I requested peer review.) I did not write the section. I did however add the citation requested tags to the section hoping the author would support the data. That section should be written in a more encyclopedic tone and I agree it needs work. I'll try to divide the history section soon as well. Thank you for the feedback.
Expandinglight5 (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Dhio270599
Hi Jeromi Mikhael, fellow +62 here. I'll probably give remarks on grammar and writing style:
"as the merger of the Christelijke Studenten Vereniging op Java, which is the organizations for Christian students in Java" --> the Vereniging is a single organization (as I've understood), thus making the erasing of the -s suffix behind "organization" necessary.
Organization names: Cipayung Group; Pancasila Front; World Student Christian Federation; Dutch Army: deserve their own wikilinks
Names like CL van Doorn, OE Engelen, JR Mott, and others deserve their own wikilinks
there should be explicit explanations for abbreviations like GMKI and NCSV on the text. Perhaps, like, "(Indonesian: Gerakan Mahasiswa Kristen Indonesia, abbreviated as GMKI)" and "was inspired by the Dutch Christian Student Association (Dutch: Nederlandse Christen Studenten Vereniging, abbreviated as NCSV)"
"which at that time still studying" --> "which at that time is still studying"
Nations (e.g. Indonesia), nationalities (e.g. Dutch), cities like Bandung, Bogor, Surabaya, and Jogjakarta, and other administrative places, such as Kebon Sirih, deserve their own wikilinks
"to held" --> "to hold" (to-Verb 1)
"highly nationalistic to Indonesia" ---> "highly nationalistic to Indonesia" (reducing redundancy)
"During this time, many people misinterpreted GMKI"
Ideologies, e.g. socialism, deserve their own wikilinks
Major historical events, like the G30S, deserve their own wikilinks
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get a gauge on the potential for a run at at FA in the future and sort out any major issues before hand. Appreciate any and all comments, thanks, Kosack (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because even though I'm editing the article, I think it would be a great idea for this to be peer reviewed. I would like to know what are some more ways to improve this article. Thanks, WikiHelper26 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like a peer review for this article about a video game. I am bringing this article up to Wikipedia's standards, and having come this far, I have questions as to the quality of the article or one of its citations. First of all, you will see that a fair number of the references link to Facebook or Twitter, which are typically unreliable, and for your reference, the Facebook and Twitter references always cite (what I believe to be) the official accounts of Fingersoft. This can be proven by going to About and clicking on the company's URL, and then clicking on the social media icons to return to the same accounts. The main question here is about the Swedish source mobil.se, which I believe is a reliable source owned by South Square Publishing. It actually won a "Redo of the Year" magazine award in Sweden in 2014. However, I have not found much in the way of editorial standards or ethics on either of the websites of mobil.se or its publisher, so I need a second opinion on the source.
The other question that I have is about the Gameplay section. Thanks to the availability of the sources, I was able to write and verify other sections about the game, but unfortunately, little is talked about the gameplay. The prose in the other sections is concise and engaging (save for perhaps the Sequel section, but there is no reason to give it undue weight anyway for an article about the original), but I personally feel that this section could use either expansion with reliable sources or a rewrite. The prose here seems to hastily describe one feature after the other, resulting in an awkward flow. Note that the gameplay itself is simple, but it is not minimalistic as the section. Then again, the latter question is my own analysis of the section, but I would really like opinions on how to rewrite it if change needs to be made. I am already considering nominating this otherwise well-written article for GA, but if it turns out that the article is that excellent, I will probably consider making it an FA candidate instead. Gamingforfun365 09:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Very nicely done. I've added links and performed some very minor copyediting, but most everything looks to be in its place. I would recommend you add an infobox from Template:Infobox mountain. Here are the changes I added . 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a Good Article that I think has the potential to meet the Featured article criteria; I am seeking peer review in preparation for that process. Especially helpful would be comments nit-picking the citations, prose and style, and identifying content that strays off topic. I can share sources on request.
Thanks, Kim Post (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The SS Politician was a cargo boat that ran aground in 1941. She would have been just another statistic of a wartime shipping loss if it was not for one thing: she contained 22,000 cases (264,000 bottles) of scotch. It was the habit of Hebrideans to look at all wrecks on their shores as bounty to be rescued from the being lost, irrespective of the niceties of the maritime salvage laws. The fact that a Scotch-drinking writer by the name Compton Mackenzie lived on a neighbouring island and decided to use it as a basis for a humorous story meant that Politician was immortalised in the book and two films that go under the name Whisky Galore. There is a darker side to it all – and the book's pompous figure of Captain Waggett was, in reality a customs man named McColl, who persecuted and prosecuted anyone who had taken from the wreck. – SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FA and I think this process will be useful before I do that. The article is about an important event in world history. Thanks, No Great Shaker (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I wish to state directly that the purpose of this review is for FA candidacy. I managed to get it into GA, but it was unable to pass into FA status. I was the main contributor to the article back in July of 2018, adding citations, expansion of sentences, etc. that you may view to see it for yourself, and sparked a prolonged improvement of the article by other fellow editors after its failed nomination. The main reasons of its failure were the lack of quotes on the understanding of the figure, lack of organization in the information, and just being incoherent in general. I believe that after an entire year of continuous editing by the same critics who opposed its FA candidacy, it might be ready for a renomination. However, the FAC admins wished for me to make a peer review before doing such a thing again, so I now look for advice on what this article might be missing at this time. Your ideas are greatly appreciated, and I will implement any that is stated. 20DKB03 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded greatly from the original stub to, I believe, the max extent possible given the information we have on Varro. All sections currently on the article are ones I've added and thus all need review.
As this is my first mid-length article and the first I've submitted for review, all comments and contributions would be helpful to find out where this article stands now and whether it can be improved further.
Many thanks, LarciusFlavus (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi LarciusFlavus. I have looked over Varro, and your three other Romans, and it looks like very good work. I have done some work on Roman consuls and generals myself. There is a lack of consensus on how they should be presented, so the following comments are mostly how I approach these things; others may do things slightly differently.
There are some statements uncited.
I use either the politician or officeholder infoboxes, they allow more information. A partially completed template is here.
Personally I would be wary of over using the primary sources. Ie see Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, where Plutarch, Suetonius, Cicero and Appian are each used once, but most of the article is referenced to secondary sources. (If you feel that the modern sources are all various interpretations of a single, or a limited number of, primary source(s) you might want to think about covering this in a separate section, as in Battle of Cape Ecnomus.)
A quick scan of a couple of sources I have to hand - Bagnall's The Punic Wars and Goldsworthy'sThe Fall of Carthage - suggest that there is quite a bit of further information on Varro in modern sources. I would be surprised if modern works dealing specifically with Cannae didn't have yet more.
Personally, as this is the English Wikipedia, I avoid foreign language expressions without a translation. I suspect that "Varro was a member of the plebeian gens Terentia" or "progressing through the stages of the cursus honorum, holding the quaestorship and both the plebeian and curule aedileships" are going to mean very little to the average reader. (For an example of how I have handled this sort of thing, see Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes#Early career.)
Cheers Gog the Mild, this is all really useful. I'll get to making those improvements both here and across my other edits. You've given me a lot of help here. LarciusFlavus (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Llywrch
I'm not as up on this period of Roman history as @P Aculeius:, but I have some thoughts.
Don't worry too much about the primary/secondary source issue. The reason we worry about primary/secondary sources is that too much use of primary sources leads us to interpret the facts & into original research, which we don't want to do. If you are stating facts (e.g., the Romans had 40,000 troops), & the secondary source is clearly citing the primary source, just go ahead & cite the primary source. (And sometimes we are faced with an instance where there just isn't any secondary source to use, & we must simply set forth the facts & hope it is enough.)
In the first paragraph of the section "Early years", you mention "Servius". We have an article on him, so why not link to it? It will help show he is a reliable source.
As for Cannae... Definitely mine the bibliography of Battle of Cannae for sources. For one thing, Gregory Daly in his Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War raises the theory Varro was made the scapegoat for the loss at Cannae. (Fun fact: there is evidence that Scipio, afterwards hero of Rome, was in the trapped pocket of Romans at Cannae & escaped, yet managed to avoid the punishment extracted on the other survivors of that Battle.) Two other books I found useful were Goldworthy's, but especially Robert O'Connell, The Ghosts of Cannae. O'Connell is a former instructor at the USN Academy, & he brings the eye of a soldier to the tale of Hannibal's campaign in Italy.
NB, studies have been done on when the consuls took office under the Roman Republic. Also, there is a date for the battle, which should be mentioned. See Battle of Cannae#Date. And I believe using these dates enrich the article by providing some more or less firm dates in Varro's life.
You should try to flesh out the detail about Varro's activities after Cannae. IIRC, he played a very important role in rallying Roman morale after that defeat, although Polybius & Livy eclipse his efforts by giving the credit to Scipio.
Hope you find these suggestions useful. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
y subscript e is used in the "Settlement" section repeatedly but is not explained. Personally, I would include a clause about Stratford's religious beliefs in the lede but that's a fairly minor point. Otherwise the article looks good. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
With what we have already, this article is fine. I couldn't spot any problems with the existing content. One thing I did encounter was the first sentence in the lead: "...native of the Tar Heel State of North Carolina." I am no American. I clicked on the link to Tar Heel State, which was just a redirect to North Carolina. I then had to read a bit to realize it was simply a nickname for North Carolina (if I am not mistaken). This got me a bit confused, so I think you should find a way to rephrase it so non-Tar Heelians will understand it. As for the article itself, I believe there is much more to tell about someone who wrote more than 600 articles and books, especially in America. The article says he wrote some books. What about them? What subjects did Powell deal with? What new fields of North Carolinian history did he research? What impact did his books have on the historiography of this state? Are there any debates on the history of North Carolina that Powell holds a specific view on? And talking about views, do we know something about his views, political or social? Did he have some interesting collaborations with other scholars, or made some big projects worth mentioning? Are there any interesting facts about Powel that have led you to expand this article? Some stuff the average reader would be interested to know? I hope I am not going too far here, and that most of these questions can be answered with the sources accessible to you. I made a simple search on the internet and found this page which shows clearly that there is a lot more to tell about this man.--Bolter21(talk to me) 17:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a good overview of his life, but I agree with Bolter21 that you're missing some of the substance of his work. For that you'll need new sources; the two ones you mainly have are not going to provide a full overview. For example, reading NCPedia I get the sense that his significance lies in the establishment of standard reference works: a gazetteer, a biographical dictionary, an encyclopedia. You are more likely to find such relevant information in scholarly book reviews or other comments by academics, rather than obituaries. Specific points:
Don't overload the lead sentence—it's not a resume. "historian, writer, academic, teacher" are similar roles that are captured by simply saying "historian." But if he was notable as a historian and a professional baseball player, you'd clearly want to say both of those things.
Avoid the obvious: It's not necessary to say the Philippines and Japan are "overseas".
Don't repeat yourself: You write "...before returning to North Carolina to take a job in Raleigh, North Carolina at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History." Doesn't it communicate exactly the same if I say "...before taking a job at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History in Raleigh"? The reader will infer that he moved to Raleigh to do his job, and that Raleigh must be in North Carolina; you would probably say so if this was unexpectedly not true.
Avoid fluff: "He made a major effort to expand the collection of historic documents about North Carolina and the people of North Carolina." That was his job as curator. What did he do specifically that is of note? Likewise, "He inspired others to contribute to the books that he edited" just describes the job of an editor.
The list of works loses some of the historical context, e.g. the latest Gazetteer is simply given as "2010" when it's more important that he started it in 1966.
So the path forward for this article is to expand on the facts, while actually reducing the existing prose to be more to the point. Kim Post (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on articles on the extinct eurypterids for more than a year. Megarachne, which I got up to GA in February last year, is by far the most popular article within the group, continually getting more page views than the second most popular, Jaekelopterus (which is already at FA). I hope to get Megarachne to FA as well, so am interested in any and all improvements that could be made to the article, be they major or minor. As far as I am aware, the article contains all relevant information known of the animal.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. In fact, much of the original content was deleted during the discussion. Although the article has not been deleted, there are still some remaining concerns. Can this article be improved at all to match Wikipedia standards?
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to reach Featured Article status and be TFA for its 120th anniversary next year, as this is one of the most well-known historical hurricanes. The article recently failed an FAC nomination, primarily on the basis of lack of spotchecks, so that would be most helpful for this review. Apparently there may be other issues with the article as well. If possible, I would like the entire article to be examined.
In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:
What are the stories about? What genre are they in?
Basic publication information is unclear. Both articles give publication dates for both the original Spanish and the translated English edition, but only one publisher and ISBN in the infobox. It should be clear what information pertains to what edition, and publisher and publication date should also appear in the body of the article.
Is there anything to be said about how the collections were put together? What links them? Is there anything to be said about the order of their arrangement?
A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read.
I spent the period from November to April typing the content of the magazine Cosmoglotta from 1927 to 1951, the main journal in which the planned language Occidental (Interlingue) was published. On the way I added to the Interlingue article whenever I came across information or an event that seemed notable and neutral enough to include in the article. Now I've started the process of cleanup and am considering what direction, if any, I should take the article. Or maybe it is large and complete enough already and just needs more cleanup.
The short introduction to the language is that it was created from 1894 to 1922 by a former Volapükist and then Esperantist from Estonia who eventually decided it was ready to publish that year because the League of Nations had announced it was looking into the subject of an international language. It quickly became popular, eventually become the second most used international language after Esperanto (as far as I can tell, and by second most that's a very, very far second place - no other language has come close to Esperanto's size) but then was hit with a perfect storm of negative events after WWII and many of its adherents joined Interlingua after it was released in 1951. Then it nearly died by the 1980s, and came back to life with the internet.
The typing of Cosmoglotta is now done but the content is still fresh in my mind so this seems like a good time for a peer review.
Conlanging is a topic which has fancied my interest recently. I might give this a look over some time over the weekend. Jerry (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I will get to this right now. A couple remarks from a quick read.
-Link #2 is dead, and #69 has an error.
-Lede succinctly describes the history of the community, though it may need more info on the inner workings of the grammar. The article is genuinely engaging though.
-Images all up to fair use policy standards.
-(The second lede image showing Edgar de Wahl is somewhat distracting, and something I don't usually see articles having. Also the History and Activity section is a bit image heavy but I don't think either of these are against Image use policy.)
"As a result, opinions of the IALA and its activities in the Occidental community began to improve and reports on its activities in Cosmoglotta became increasingly positive. After 1945 when the IALA announced it planned to create its own language and showed four possible versions under consideration, Occidentalists were by and large pleased that the IALA had decided to create a language so similar in appearance to Occidental, seeing it as a credible association that gave weight to their argument that an auxiliary language should proceed from study of natural languages instead of attempting to fit them into an artificial system. Ric Berger was particularly positive about the IALA's new language, calling it in 1948 "almost the same language", though not without reservations, doubting whether a project with such a similar outward appearance would be able to "suddenly cause prejudices [against planned languages] to fall and create unity among the partisans of international languages" and fearing that it might simply "disperse the partisans of the natural language with nothing to show for it" after Occidental had created "unity in the naturalistic school" for so long. "
This paragraph has a lot of run-on sentences which makes it harder to comprehend easily. The IALA section in general has this problem, though this is the most obvious paragraph.
"(a description perhaps better suited for former Occidental-Union president Alphonse Matejka who would not pass away until 1999, as Donald Gasper was a new learner of the language)."
-Needs a source.
-For double quotations, use a single quote like '
>Alphonse Matejka wrote in Cosmoglotta that de Wahl "always claimed a minimum of autonomy for his language and bitterly fought against all propositions that intended to augment the naturality of the language only by blindly imitating the Romance languages, or as de Wahl said crudely in one of his letters to me, 'by aping French or English'" per MOS:QWQ
That's it for now but I'll have more in the morning if possible. Jerry (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mithridates: Sorry for the delay, if you're still up for the review I can continue it. Just finish up some of the stuff I've mentioned so far in the PR. I'd also add that since I've last commented here, the site for link 6 has gone down. Jerry (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: Hi Jerry, thanks for the reminder. I'll start going through that now. Mithridates (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FA. I worked on it mostly last year and managed to pass GA, now I'd like to improve it even further. I would particulary like feedback about which topics can be added or discussed further in the article to make it more comprehensive. He was a prolific author and scholars and a lot have been written about him. But most books/articles about him are very technical and written for specialists and might not be appropriate for Wikipedia which is aimed at the general audience. I'd like feedback especially from people familiar with the subject about appropriate areas of expansion, as well as recommendations for sources that explain those topics without requiring me to write pages of background to put them context. As for prose/MOS/copyedit, I'm sure there are many things to improve, but I'd like to deal with those later and I'd really appreciate if we could focus on improving thoroughness and comprehensiveness.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know which section may be improved on and which other topics could be added to this article to make it more informative. As well as raise the article's rating scale.
I've listed this article for peer review because this page is overly long and lots of talk page discussion has failed to find a way to shrink the length without compromising the content (or to find a way to split the article).
I've listed this article for peer review because as I think that I have already addressed the suggestions and ideas to improve the article in the Older peer review and I wish to nominate the article for Featured List Nomination.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been added to greatly since a previous peer review in 2009. In the coming months I expect to nominate the team and its associated featured articles and lists for a featured topic. This list is too short for a featured list, and I expect reviewers at FT may want a more recent peer review that reflects on its current state rather than 10 years ago. Shortness aside, I feel it is currently at or near FL criteria.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had quite a substantial update with new references.
The page (including the talk page) has had a tidy up, and it would be an ambition for it to be considered a "featured list".
I'm looking for comments on the list itself and anything else that needs adding, was wondering if a graph showing the history of expansions would be useful.
Never mind, it's possible that this discography, like hundreds or thousands of others (including those which I have worked on), violates WP:ACCESSIBLE. I'm going to try and request for more information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@3family6: Thanks for your criticism. Unfortunately I won’t be able to edit the article to comply with ACCESSIBLE until September begins. Philroc(c) 02:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. Ping me once you manage it. I'll also try and finish the discogs article given above so that it is in full compliance, and you can use that as an example.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer
Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harriastalk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)