Open main menu

Wikipedia:Peer review

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)

PR icon.png

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.



Fiona GrahamEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review as I've spent some time cleaning up the contents, referencing, accuracy and layout of this article.

It had issues with disruptive edits, addition of copyvio material likely from sockpuppet and/or COI editors, and was pretty messily structured and written. This being the first BLP article I've edited, I hope I've improved upon these things. I did have a look at the last rating it receieved against B-class criteria, and the two that weren't met - coverage and accuracy, structure - I think would be met now.

I hope that I've improved it, but I'd welcome any comments on going further.

Many thanks, --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ineffablebookkeeper: Hello, I am going to be doing your peer review for today. Here are some things I have concerns about:
  1. The early life section is pretty short.
  2. The external links section should probably be split off into a further reading section unless that is an intentional choice.
  3. I'm going to send over to you on WP:Discord some extra sources that I have access to, and you should consider incorporating them into this work.
  4. If the goal is get this article to eventually GA-class, then it's nearly there! :D

Cheers! –MJLTalk 17:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Charles Gounod

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 30 November 2019, 12:44 UTC
Last edit: 5 December 2019, 09:04 UTC

Roar (1981 film)Edit

Hello and thanks to whoever picks this up! I've listed this article for peer review because I may potentially take this article up for Featured Article status in the future. It has been reviewed and listed as a Good Article, and I just want to see what would be the best actions to take in fixing it up, and what information needs to be included/excluded, stuff like that. ̶O̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶a̶m̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶w̶a̶i̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶i̶c̶k̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶y̶e̶d̶i̶t̶,̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶g̶r̶a̶m̶m̶a̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶u̶c̶t̶u̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶u̶g̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶o̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶v̶i̶e̶w̶.̶ (Copyedit finished)

Once again, thanks from NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 03:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Dangal (film)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because, I want it to get nominated for Featured Article Candidate, and I feel it meets all of the Featured Article Criteria. I had been watching and editing this article for about 6 months now, and I feel that now, it's perfect to get it featured. Any opinions/suggestions?

Thanks, Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 18 October 2019, 13:13 UTC
Last edit: 30 November 2019, 23:57 UTC

Mouna Ragam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 10 October 2019, 04:53 UTC
Last edit: 18 November 2019, 04:56 UTC

Black Panther (film)Edit

This article was previously promoted to Good Article after a long and thorough GA review process, but has since been delisted because a single editor believes that it is full of "a large amount of textual plagiarism", and for several complicated reasons there was no real effort to contest this statement. I am now attempting to get the article promoted back to GA, but the editor behind the delisting has made it clear that they will obstruct attempts to do so without addressing their concerns. They have also refused to help identify the problem in a way that could be directly addressed, and the copyvio tool is not picking up any violations, so I am hoping that other editors will be able to help identify these plagiarism issues in the article so they can be rectified. Any other insights that could help with improving the article and getting it promoted again are also welcome. Thanks guys, adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Please retract the above personal attack that is clearly directed at me (a single editor believes that it is full of "a large amount of textual plagiarism") and do not attempt to deceive your peers with such misleading statements.
Multiple editors recognized the plagiarism (in fact it's only you and two others -- essentially the three editors primarily responsible for the plagiarism in the first place -- who continue to deny it), and that wasn't even the only issue. There was also the lack of stability, edit-warring, POV-pushing ... And in fact the presentation of copy-pasted text as Wikipedia's own words may have been the worst of it (and thus what has been focused on thus far), but WP:QUOTEFARM it is also a form of plagiarism for virtually the entire article body to consist of quotes, with almost no meaningful content written in Wikipedians' own words.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It might also be worth noting that Adam admitted elsewhere that his requesting this peer review was a deliberately uncollegial effort to continue to avoid engaging in civil discussion with me over the issues I have voiced over this and similar articles above and elsewhere. This is in-line with his previous refusal to even attempt to work with me to achieve a compromise.[1][2] I would therefore urge any uninvolved editor to speedy close this discussion as a tendentious attempt to get around normal dispute resolution procedures and undermine the previous consensus to demote per the clearly outlined issues with the article by canvassing editors with a lie that those issues were not outlined. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like recommendations and suggestions on making it the best it can be.

Thanks, TheGravel (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from PotentPotablesEdit

I've made a few edits to the article to tidy it up a bit:

  • Removed website external link from main body per WP:EL
  • Changed main body dates to fit British English in line with rest of article (MOS:ARTCON and MOS:DATETIES)
  • Removed "Other theatre awards in London:" from see also section
  • Uncapitalised "Award Ceremony" and "Critics"
  • Deleted some superfluous words, such as "eventual"
  • Removed 2019 heading, and changed to text (headings shouldn't be referenced)


  • The "recent results" section seems untidy, so perhaps could be replaced with a neater table for each year?
  • The "Carl Woodward" link could be replaced with a better source, as it seems to essentially be a blog. (Though he might be a notable theatre critic?)
  • Reliable third-party/secondary source references might be useful to further establish the notability of the awards, and help develop the article further. (Majority of current references are from the Offies' own website)

Hope these comments give some help for further development! PotentPotables (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Game of ThronesEdit

I've listed this article for peer review I believe it has been updated to be included in the featured lists, especially after the previous nomination. It would extremely beneficial to have the article peer reviewed before re-nominating to become a featured list.

Thanks, -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Blond Ambition World TourEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because me and @11JORN: want to take this article to GA. We would like to request a Peer review before we proceed with the nomination.

Thanks, Christian (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Accessibility concerns – I noticed that the table lacks ! scope="row" to identify rows (see WP:DTAB). Also, MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table advises against headers, such as "Asia", "North America", and "Europe" in the table and provides two alternatives. A recent discussion questioned whether identifying the continents is necessary. Otherwise, it seems to be a very comprehensive and well-written article. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 16 September 2019, 23:28 UTC
Last edit: 29 November 2019, 07:06 UTC

Everest (Indian TV series)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to nominate the article for GA. I understand that the article could do better if reviewed by and receives inputs from more experienced editors.

Thanks, Tamravidhir (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 September 2019, 13:30 UTC
Last edit: 4 December 2019, 07:21 UTC


Previous peer review

I've listed this articsdfcle for peer review because I work in the company here described but I'd like the article to be as unbiased as possible. Thanks, Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments form Captain Medusa
  • link Taipei in lead
  • It is owned by Portico Media Co., Ltd. -> why is there comma
  • "Lala’ -> add '
  • Name section needs more detail rather than a quote.
  • It is owned by Portico Media Co., Ltd. -> rm from the lead or put it on better place such as starting a sentence.
  • it has Screenshot tab but there isn't a screenshot
  • add the ref after full stop i.e. [2]. to .[2]
  • name sec could be merged into the History section
  • who is Jay Lin.
  • Its first expansion into the Asian market took place with the launch in the 10 countries that conform -> which??
  • GOL STUDIOS in capital
  • Availability section not sourced at all.
  • One year later, on May 13th, 2018, GagaOOLala was launched in Hong Kong and Macau -> On May 13th, 2018, GagaOOLala was launched in Hong Kong and Macau
  • In 2019, the streaming service -> provide the whole date
  • The company made the announcement together with a distribution tie-in with KASHISH Mumbai International Queer Film Festival -> better sentencing
  • exhibition Out in Taiwan. -> remove the ext link
  • It is the home for the filmography of international queer directors such as Simon Chung, Zero Chou, Scud, Marco Berger or Joselito Altarejos, and the distributor in Asia of international hit titles like Blue is the Warmest Color, Moonlight, Front Cover or Weekend. -> source
  • archive sources
  • too many pictures, at least remove GOL STUDIOS logo
  • GOL STUDIOS -> in capital at paragraphs
for now___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Open HereEdit

This article is about the album Open Here by Field Music. I believe it is comprehensive and I ultimately want to nominate it for FA. It has already passed as a GA, and I previously nominated it for FA, but it failed. I did not get much specific feedback during the FAC process except that the prose needed work, but even there I got little specifics except for a few items that I have already fixed. So I am hoping for a through peer preview here in anticipation of a future FA nomination. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05Edit

Will update this with more as I have time.

Lede and infobox
Generally speaking the inbox information should be cited in the body. There are currently three citations in the infobox for genres not mentioned in the musical styles and composition section; those should be incorporated and cited there and have the citations removed from the infobox or removed.
Remove the comma in the second sentence after chamber pop.
Remove the metacritic score mention in the lede. It's reliable but pure scores aren't normally mentioned there. In its place I'd add more detail on what exactly critics praised about the album. Toa Nidhiki05 23:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies Toa Nidhiki05 for taking so long to respond to this. Somehow this slipped by in my watchlist and I didn't realize it until now. I've made the infobox changes you suggested, and removed the Metacritic score from the lede. For now I've left the comma in in the second sentence after chamber pop; I deliberately included that to separate the two clauses, and also to avoid the appearance of a run-on sentence ("...of alternative rock and pop rock and includes..."). That being said, if you still disagree, let me know and I'll remove it. Thanks, and I'll be quicker to respond the next time! :D — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I just realized I completely neglected to respond here - must have slipped my notifications! I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikipedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Since Toa Nidhiki05 has not been responsive here or to talk page messages, I assume Toa is no longer actively participating in this peer review. As a result, I've put in a request for a copy edit over at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If this means I need to formally withdraw the PR, I can do so. Or, if anyone else wants to take on the PR in addition to the copy edit, that's obviously fine with me as well. — Hunter Kahn 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (film series)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to see it being improved and maybe becoming a featured article. I need help with a few things as I'm not a English native speaker. The Home media and Legacy sections need to be updated and maybe the plot section needs to be shortened. Aside from those things I think the article is pretty good.

Thanks, Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

Looks alright at first glance:

  • The music for the series [turned out to be a success and] has been voted best movie soundtrack of all time for the six years running, - remove bracketed bit (sounds puffy). let facts speak for themselves...
  • You have a Reactions to changes in the films from the books section...but not a section on differences between books and film....? (at 33kb of prose, the article can cope with some expanding)
  • That section could be tightened and restructured a bit. Not sure how just yet. Need to think....


It looks strong to me overall (though I haven't done many peer reviews so may be missing things). I think the tables are particularly excellent, and the article has a good organization, and doesn't seem to be missing any important sections. Some things I notice could use improvement:

  • The plot summaries of the three films feel too long. Since this is an overview article, the synposes can be shorter here, with the full synopsis in the main article for each movie. It's a very difficult story to tell succinctly, since a lot happens! But it might be possible to leave out some details, e.g.:
  • Gandalf also learns that Gollum was tortured by Orcs, and that Gollum uttered two words during his torture: "Shire" and "Baggins." could be slighly shortened to --> Gandalf learns that Gollum has told Orcs the location of the ring.
  • I wonder if there could be more sourcing for some of the details in the "Production" section, for statements like:
  • other unit directors included John Mahaffie, Geoff Murphy, Fran Walsh, Barrie M. Osborne, Rick Porras, and any other assistant director, producer, or writer available.
  • To avoid pressure, Jackson hired a different editor for each film. (specifically his motivation for this choice could use support)
  • The "Comparisons between the film series and the book trilogy" section looks like it has been improved a lot, but it still looks weak to me.
  • It seems to be lacking in a perspective which I think is common, namely, that the film series is unfaithful to the books but is therefore superior to the books. The article as it is seems to assume that any changes from the books can only be bad or at best neutral/necessary. Looking at some of the referenced sources about Arwen might help you find some people with this perspective -- improving Arwen and Eowyn's roles is one of the ways that the film series is sometimes considered superior to the books.
  • Probably because it is a contentious and difficult section, the prose in this section is weaker than the rest, with several tortured or confusing sentences.
  • The whole section would benefit from a clearer organization structure. Perhaps you could group opinions into a series of stances: those who see the movies as faithful, those who see them as unfaithful and bad, unfaithful but neutral, unfaithful but good.


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm part of the company here described but I want it to be as objective as possible, so please let me know how to improve.

Thanks, Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Vespro della Beata Vergine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 August 2019, 20:34 UTC
Last edit: 2 September 2019, 14:02 UTC

Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 15 July 2019, 18:22 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2019, 00:05 UTC

Hi-5 (Australian band)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 May 2019, 03:29 UTC
Last edit: 1 December 2019, 07:14 UTC

Art Ducko (student magazine)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (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)

Everyday lifeEdit

Al Ahed FC

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 November 2019, 09:07 UTC
Last edit: 20 November 2019, 15:16 UTC

Wales national football team home stadiumEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that there's a chance this could get up to FA. There's not many comparable articles I know of to compare this to in order to get an idea of what needs improving, the English and Scottish versions are relatively light on info. So, any advice or improvements are welcomed, thanks, Kosack (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 September 2019, 17:38 UTC
Last edit: 18 September 2019, 13:02 UTC

Cristiano Ronaldo

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 6 September 2019, 03:03 UTC
Last edit: 5 November 2019, 14:42 UTC

Engineering and technologyEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the capacity to become a great article and would like other user's feedback on it. I hope to improve the list of vehicle section and overall syntax of the article.

Thanks, - AH (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Emerald Cloud LabEdit

Hey there! This is the first article I've created, and I'm hoping to get some discussion on how I can best structure it. I had a little trouble finding best practices for articles on businesses/startups, so I'd be curious about that. I'd also be interested in some feedback on general flow. Thank you very much for your time!

Thanks, Jusadi (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PotentPotablesEdit

Hi Jusadi, well done on successfully creating your first article! I've done a basic copyedit (mainly punctuation and spacing) on the article, and have a few comments on how you could improve it (I'm not too science-y, so bear with me):

  • There are general tense issues which need to be sorted out like "they say that they" and " During this time, they say,". Remove all the "they say".
My hope here is to properly those statements to the founders. It seems reasonable to do so, as the founder of a company may (or may not) overly narrativize or rosily present the past. Is there a better way to make this attribution clear here? Is there a specific Wikipedia style guide regarding this? To the best of my knowledge, this is not a "tense issue" in most contexts, but I could certainly see it being a problem from the perspective of encyclopedic style preferences. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The closest thing I can find is WP:SUBSTANTIATE, but even that doesn't really seem to discuss this matter too much because it's not really bias. Maybe instead of the "During this time, they say, they experienced problems with laboratory hardware and software [...]" lines, you could change it to something like "In order to overcome issues with disparate manufacturers and rudimentary software, they wrote [etc, etc]". This might work make it sound a bit "cleaner", so see how it goes, and Wikipedia:Be bold! PotentPotables (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Forbes source [3] does not seem to be reliable, as it comes from a Forbes contributor and not staff (per WP:RSPSOURCES). If you can find a reliable source to back the "first such company" claim, then add that in.
Sounds fair. I'll move this out when I (soon) restructure the article. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • the phrase "on Emerald Drive, a suburb of Philadelphia" should be "on Emerald Drive, in the Philadelphia suburbs", per the source. The current phrase reads as if E Drive is the suburb.
Good catch. Done. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Change all examples of "DJ" into "D.J." per MOS:INITIALS and source.
Done Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps split the "History" section into subsections? One section explaining the background of the creators (using the BBerg source) – education, previous career, etc.. – then another detailing the actual history of the company.
  • Add a "products/services" section to detail what the company actually offers (look at Google#Products and services for some inspiration).
  • Perhaps add a "financing" section too detailing their funding, and an "Impact" section like that on Facebook explaining how they have been used in research, etc.

If you can find any more reliable sources, then that's always an advantage, and I'm sure they'll fit in well with the sections above. Good luck, keep editing! PotentPotables (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead service lineEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare this article to be nominated for the Featured Article. I have done Good Article before and have a pretty good understanding about what it takes to create a Good Article. However, this will be the first time for me to take an article to the Featured Article status. Therefore, it will be great if you can provide feedback so that I can improve before nominating it to the FA.

Thanks, Z22 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

This looks in pretty good shape to me, and worth a pop at FAC. It seems comprehensive and appears balanced on the whole, though the "Widespread hazards and causes" section appears to deal with a single country to the exclusion of the rest of the world. You could improve the prose throughout by pruning some of the "howevers": the word appears ten times and would in most cases be better omitted. In the second para of the "European Union" section I think you have an unwanted definite article in "the northern Germany continued to use lead pipes". There are a couple of phrases in bold type in the "Background" section that I wonder about, but someone better versed in the Manual of Style than I am will let you know soon enough at FAC if bold type is wrong there. I hope these few points are useful. Tim riley talk 15:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Marshlink line

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 October 2019, 15:24 UTC
Last edit: 9 November 2019, 14:01 UTC

MAX Red LineEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to renominate it for Featured Article status. Would very much appreciate an overall assessment, particularly on what would make the article itself fit for FA rating.

Thank you, Truflip99 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

llywrch comments

Just one point IMHO should be considered: trains passing from the West side to the East side currently encounter a bottleneck in Downtown Portland, & increasing train frequency on the Red Line would only make this bottleneck worse. There is a proposed solution in the form of constructing an underground line, which the Red Line would use. (You can find links to sources about this proposal at MAX Light Rail#Other proposals.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! Are you suggesting the addition of this information to Red Line article? I've refrained from this because it's not Red Line specific, and I would need to duplicate the information for the MAX Blue Line article as well. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

List of largest cruise shipsEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interesting in seeing how it would fare in a Featured List review.

Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
) 19:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JonathanischoiceEdit

  • A tiny suggestion - I think "up to" is redundant in the first sentence, because the "can" makes it redundant. Otherwise looks good to me, but I'm not pretending to know what's involved in peer-reviewing for featured status. Good luck! — Jon (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Dig Dug IslandEdit

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)

Without any critical reception, I think the article will have a hard time reaching GA. I don't think it satisfied GA criteria 3.a. WP:GACR. I would think there should be some coverage on Japanese websites like 4gamer and Dengeki. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


Lecrae discographyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want some input from editors other than the small few who edit this article. My goal is for this to be a featured list.

Thanks, 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Some brief comments from Naray14

Appears to be thoroughly cited with a good variety of industry references and media outlets. List is comprehensive and accurate. No 'resume' links from the artist which is a big plus.

One issues that may just be a personal preference of mine, but I like to see a citation with the first paragraph of any article.

I have seen that reference '5' links to an unavailable page. I don't have enough time in what's left of my life to check them all, maybe you do :)

(Naray14 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC))

Do you think the first paragraph needs a source, since it is summarizing material that is already cited throughout the article? I'll fix reference "5". Thanks for the review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily needs one considering the nature of the article and that the information at the start is cited later on, but I can see the edit you made and I think for me, I prefer that. Naray14 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. Looking over the lead, I realized that the first paragraph was so short, it would be better to merge it with the next one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Cebu City local electionsEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I started this with only a few details and I have been expanding it since. There are still a lot of news articles available online about the said local elections which could further improve content in this article but I want your feedback on its current content. Feel free to drop also your suggestions.

Thanks, Emperork (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Josh TolsEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in improving the quality of Victorian baseball articles and I'd like to get this article closer to being a good article. I'd really like comments and suggestions which would help close the gap to good article status.

Thanks, FBC Pat (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments from NatureBoyMD
  • Use an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) between year ranges (i.e. 2012–2013 or 2012–13) in parenthesis or section headings.
  • When used in prose (i.e. in a sentence), year ranges should not use an en dash (2012 to 2013, not 2012–2013).
  • Tols should always be referred to as "Tols" or by a pronoun, and never as "Josh".
  • Look for additional baseball-specific terms to link: AA and AAA (though it really ought to be Double-A and Triple-A).
  • Use a template like Template:Cite web to properly format references.
  • Remember to place references after punctuation instead of floating freely in a sentence.
  • "Early life": Is there more that could be said?
  • "Career": There are a number of grammatical errors (missing words, missing punctuation) and linking errors throughout.
  • "Career": I'd recommend reorganizing the two collegiate sections into one and dropping the individual sections for each year. Then, compose solid, well-written paragraphs about each season. His season stats (win-loss, ERA, strikeouts) are generally covered, but was there anything remarkable about each season? Scouting reports? Improvements? Set backs? Being scouted? Without anything more, it reads like, "In XXXX, Tols pitched for the X and had a X-X record with X strikeouts in X.XX innings pitched" over and over and over.
  • Consider the same with the Australian Baseball and Minor Leagues sections; make each one section with several informative, but not repetitive, paragraphs.
  • As always, a picture would be nice if freely available, though these can be hard to come by.
  • In general, I'd focus on grammar, punctuation, and expanding. Take a look at Clayton Kershaw or other Baseball Biography Good Articles for ideas.
  • @FBC Pat: I'll be glad to provide any further assistance I can render. Good luck! NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 290Edit

I think it's high time someone reviewed the entire article except for the "major intersections" section, since I've made as many big changes to it as possible to potentially meet good article status.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in the coming days. –Fredddie 23:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Clinton Railroad Bridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 6 October 2019, 17:57 UTC
Last edit: 26 November 2019, 16:31 UTC

New Zealand wineEdit

Hi folks, I've listed this article for peer review because I've been slowly improving the article over the last couple of years or so. Ultimately I would like to get this article across the line for a Good Article status, so I'm interested in what you think needs to be done. The Article Quality gadget rates it currently as Feature Article with an ORES score of 4.99, so I'm cautiously (perhaps naïvely?) optimistic that there's not too much more to be done!

I have tried to drum up interest from other editors as can be seen from the article's talk page and the WP:NZWNB noticeboard, but it's largely been me picking away at it by myself (any help much appreciated of course!) Things I've done:

  • improve readability, generally improve the writing style, consolidate the article summary, and eliminate repetition;
  • remove unsubstantiated or vague subjective claims (especially WP:NOTWINEGUIDE;
  • improve article flow and structure;
  • improve accuracy, bring it up to date (from a state as of about 2008-2010);
  • reduce the length and repetition of the article by spinning off the most important regions to separate articles Marlborough wine region, Hawke's Bay wine region (Central Otago wine region had already been done);
  • improve references by using better reliable sources, use citation templates;
  • use official statistics, update the data presented from around 2009 to 2018, create two new charts, improve the out-dated region map (but I'd love someone who knows how to do maps properly to fix up my pretty amateurish attempt!)

It is still a work in progress in terms of coverage - e.g. the "natural wine" movement, the newly merged single annual awards event and perhaps the Fine Wines NZ initiative probably deserve a mention, the role of international big players and takeovers (Pernod Ricard, Lion/Kirin, Constellation bought Nobilo, etc.)

Thanks, Jon (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Geography and placesEdit

Hearst Castle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 26 November 2019, 09:37 UTC
Last edit: 5 December 2019, 18:25 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I have doubled the size of this page in the last week and am looking for input on its direction. I would like to see quality rating of the article improve hence my recent edits and peer review request. My major edits have been with sections: - Governance (added) - Georgraphy (added) - Landmarks (expanded) - Transport (added) - Culture and Community (expanded) - Sport (added)

Minor edits also to notable people. I have about double the number of references cited.

Thanks, Naray14 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

  • Expand on the history/archaeology - e.g. what iron age stuff was found and when?
  • Oundle was originally a trading place and village for local farmers and craftsmen. - err, weren't most places? But more specifics or evidence would be good to add.
  • Expand the public houses subection, especially the haunted pub. Sounds cool

Cod IslandEdit

This is rated as a start-class article. I would like to bring it to at least C-class standards.

Thank you! –MJLTalk 20:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

  • Having "Newfoundland and Labrador" in the first two sentences of ;lead looks weird....
  • Needs a Fauna section (and embellishment of flora - what sort of grasses?)
  • A section on length and width as well as altitude duh! missed that!
  • Are there protected areas (nature reserves/national parks)
  • Is there transport to/from the island. Does anyone go there?
  • I don't get an idea of how far off the coast this island is....
  • were there any historical habitations on the island


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to understand where the article now stands and what more I can do to improve it.

Thanks, Chandan Guha (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Normandale, New ZealandEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been improved far beyond a stub-class article. All constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement welcome.

Thanks, ··gracefool 💬 01:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

  • Needs more references
  • Expand on the bushland (what flora) and fauna that live there.
  • Public transport - what busses and trains go there.
  • All items in lead should be expanded in article - i.e. what places of worship and education there are etc.
  • What the area falls under local and national government-wise. How do folks normally vote?
  • Any demographics to add.


St Scholastica Day riot

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 December 2019, 16:52 UTC
Last edit: 5 December 2019, 18:49 UTC


Given the article has an active community of contributors, it may be interest to fellow editors in working to solicit a compendium of feedback on how to further advance the article, perhaps with a long term end goal of reinstating this page with the criteria required of reassessment for a'Good Article.'

Being part of the discussion which imposed the maintenance template, it should be a goal to flesh out the verifiability of this page, which is at a deficit in its current state.

Discussion on the topographical features, of which scholarship is rather plentiful, is sparse on this page. My personal suggestion is to establish a decent synthesis between this page and the already extant pages on said topographical features of the cities such as monuments and buildings, though I am still unsure whether some sort of index or a map may be more relevant to making that project navigable. A long term question may be a discussion on what topics deserve to be split off for their own pages, but the page may need to be more expanded for that to be relevant.

Thanks, Sleath56 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Éamon de ValeraEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I want to get feedback from experienced editors on how we can improve and also new editors who can bring new ideas to the table on how to make this article better!

Thanks, Eolais (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Eolais, this article is in pretty good shape. First thing I would recommend is making sure each paragraph has an inline citation to an RS. Second thing would be making MOS fixes (e.g. MOS:ITALQUOTE, MOS:IMAGELOC, consistent citation style). Section on his travels after leaving government could also mention his 1951 visit to Israel. Then I'd make a nomination for Good Article because that's more likely to get you feedback than this page. I might even review it myself. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Fiamh (talk, contribs) 02:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

12-3 incidentEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about an important political event. I want to bring it up to the quality of the Chinese version of the article. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jp16103 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ermentrude of OrléansEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what information editors think the page needs in order for it to be above 'stub-class'

Ideally I would like suggestions for guidance on what sections to add in primarily. Maybe some restructuring of the page in order to make it more appealing. Also to make sure that it adheres to the principles of Wikipedia. Basically any advice to get it above 'stub-class' status

Thanks, JuicyLimon (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Richard NevellEdit

Hi JuicyLimon and thank you for improving the article. The transformation is very impressive. Stub articles are usually ones which have a few sentences and maybe no references at all. This is way beyond that and goes into a good amount of detail, so I've re-assessed it as C-class (more detail on what that means here). What is in the article is covered in a good amount of detail, so for example before I probably wouldn't have fully understood the importance of Ermentrude's consecration in 866, but your changes have made it much clearer.


  • Good section on historiography of queenship, it adds some good context to understand Ermentrude's role. It's particularly important since lay readers might assume that women had little agency in the Middle Ages, so mentioning that Ermentrude in her role as queen had some forms of power within the household and court is important.
  • The article's lead section could be expanded to summarise the rest of the article.
  • In the lead, Charles the Bald is introduced as Holy Roman Emperor as well as King of West Drancia. Since he didn't become emperor until after Ermentrude died, I think this might need rewording slightly. Otherwise readers might wonder why Ermentrude wasn't Empress! How about by her marriage to Charles the Bald King of West Francia (and Holy Roman Emperor from 875?
  • In August 866, Ermentrude was consecrated, over twenty years after becoming queen. It has been suggested that this reflected her husband's desire for more children. You've already covered the consecration in a newly created section so I think you can prune this bit.
  • Perhaps the list of Ermentrude's children should have its own section heading? On a related note, the French article has a section on genealogy. Would it be possible to create a family tree for Ermentrude? There's an example in the article on Henry I of England; the downside is the underlying code looks to be a bit tricky to adapt so I reckon it's your call whether you think that would be worth the time it would take.
  • The article doesn't have much information on Ermentrude's early life. That may well be reflective of the source material available – even royalty can sometimes leave little impression in the medieval record before reaching a certain age. If this is because there's not much to say about Ermentrude's early life, that in itself would be worth mentioning so that reader's understand how much we do or don't know about her.


  • Would it be worth replacing File:Ermentrude d'Orleans.gif with File:Ermentruda kralovna.jpg? The latter is a bigger image so you can make out more detail. The smaller image also doesn't tell us who created the image which is a slight issue, and swapping it would help dodge that small problem. It would also be worth expanding the caption a little to state that the photo is of her funeral effigy in the Basilique Saint-Denis.

Once again, thanks for working on the article and I hope the above comments help. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

1948 United States Senate election in TexasEdit

Believe me, you are going to love this article. I've listed this article for peer review because... I think that Wikipedia has made an extremely well-sourced and valuable article about what I would see as an extremely dubious historical election, but I'd like to get input on the article from some history buffs. Where does more digging need to be done? Can anyone suggest sources that would deepen/broaden our understanding of the Democratic Party in 1948? Is the wording appropriate and does everything fit the facts? Is the article up to Wikipedia standards? Come and edit if you are interested.

Thanks, Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Battle of TudelaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to put this page on TFA because I want to have a footprint in Wikipedia's history, i don't know if that is a pathetic reason but, if it's ok with you...

Thanks, Great Mercian (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Oh boy, there are a lot of issues to get the article to FA-class. Do not worry if you get B-class then it'd be a lot of easier than it is now. I'll have a review in the future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupertEdit

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • referencing/citations: every paragraph needs to be referenced if you wish to take this to FAC -- one at the end of the paragraph is sufficient if everything in the paragraph is covered by that citation, or if not more may be needed throughout the paragraph. Currently, there is a single reference at the end of the section, which does not seem sufficient. If you need to repeat citations, the WP:NAMEDREF function works well
  • breadth of sourcing: currently the article references only a couple of websites -- for FA (even for B-class) this will need to be expanded to include some other works -- books and journal articles, for instance
  • structure: suggest removing the "Chronology of the battle" second level header and then creating three second level headers: Background, Battle and Aftermath per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. There could be two third level headers in the Background section for the "Strategic situation" and "Geography"
  • the Other reading section should probably be labelled "Further reading"
  • I wouldn't suggest including annotated assessments of sources as is currently done in the Other reading section as this is very subjective and based on opinion rather than citations
  • replace the bare urls with formatted references (either manual or templated -- for instance {{cite web}})
  • avoid sandwiching text between images, for instance currently the Battle section sandwiches text between the map and recreation image
  • make sure everything that is in the infobox is mentioned, and referenced, in the body
  • French/Polish strength is listed as 31,000 in the infobox, but 30,000 in the lead
  • French/Polish casualties are listed as 650 in the infobox, but 600 in the lead
  • I'm afraid I can't comment on content, but editors like Auntieruth55 may be able to assist here
  • suggest mentioning the casualties in the Aftermath
@Great Mercian: G'day, Great Mercian, I hope you are well. Just checking you've seen these suggestions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Hello my good friend, yes I have and this will be a [REDACTED] nightmare, but I and everyone else will try, try, TRY to get everything done.
No worries, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Roanoke ColonyEdit

I'm requesting peer review for the Roanoke Colony article, which I've been working on for a few weeks. I feel the article has been substantially improved over the last couple of months, with better citations of stronger sources, a wider range of images, and more detailed information on key aspects of the subject. In particular, I think the sections about trying to solve the mystery of the Lost Colony are better organized now, with less sensationalism about "new clues."

I hope to keep improving the article, but I think I could use some feedback to help determine what areas of improvement are most important. Peer review seems like a constructive way to accomplish that.

Thanks, Jim Into Mystery (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Jan HusEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it is listed as a top-importance article in several wikiprojects, yet is only c-class. The sections need to be cleaned up, and if anyone has any reliable sources of information about his early life, please tell me.

Thanks, Aven Az13 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Tim rileyEdit

From a quick once-over I see both English (favourable, authorising) and American (colored, honored) spellings, and the article ought to be in one or the other throughout. That is fairly important, but much more so is the lack of citations. There are seven "citation needed" tags in place and there could and should be a dozen more. The list of references doesn't get past 32 citations for an article of 4,500 or so words. This is far short of GA standard. I can't vouch for any authoritative sources that you might draw on, I'm afraid, but Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia and Jan Hus: Reformation in Bohemia are both available on Google Books, and there's any amount of stuff on him under either Jan Hus or Jan Huss at the Internet Archive. Tim riley talk 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from FilelakeshoeEdit

Currently the "Hus and the Czech language" section is unreferenced and I am pretty sure some of it is also wrong - it trots out a commonly believed simplification of the history. Hus's orthography reform first introduced the dot diacritic above letters like c, z, r and then this was replaced by the hacek much later by the writers of the Kralice Bible. I am pretty sure I have the references for this (and to verify the rest of the section) at home, they may also be on Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny online - I can have a look later. I also have no idea what it means about the dot diacritic being used for "strong accent". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

War cabinet crisis, May 1940Edit

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)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

G'day, Roy, thanks for your efforts on this article. I don't have the knowledge to comment on the content, but overall it looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  • he did not see what we would lose if we decided to fight on to the end. While we might --> is this meant to be a direct quote? If not, suggest that "we" be changed to "Britain" or the United Kingdom (whichever you consider more accurate in the context)
  • received from General Spears in Paris: full name on first mention
  • same as above for General Smuts and General Weygand and others
  • 7.00 pm --> "7:00 pm" per MOS:TIME (there are other instances throughout, such as "10.00 pm" and 4.30 etc.
  • in the Notes there is a harvref citation issue - the notes says "Jenkins 2002", but the Bibliography has 2001 as the date of publication for the corresponding Jenkins etry
Hello, Rupert. Thank you for this. I've got more availability now so I'll pick up these points. All the best, Roy. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
All done. The hardback of Jenkins' book was published in 2001 but I'm using the paperback which was 2002 so it's the bibliography entry that needed attention. The old 7.00 time format is still often used in GB but we're seeing 07:00 much more nowadays and I think it's best to swim with the tide so the MOS is right on that one. First names, yes, I missed those by using the ranks. The first point wasn't a quote but the way I wrote it did look like a quote so I've amended it. That was all very useful, Rupert, and thank you again very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, your changes look good. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

This is an enjoyable article, but it is not yet ready for FAC, in my view.

  • Some peripheral material, though interesting, could do with trimming:
    • the speculation in the last paragraph of "War situation to Friday, 24 May" is not really core information.
    • The file numbers of the papers in the National Archives clutter up the main text and should be relegated to a footnote, in my view.
  • There are a few tendentious statements that ought to be redrawn more neutrally, for instance:
    • everyone in France and Great Britain wanted to keep Italy out of the war (everyone?)
    • Halifax had an ulterior motive (a very loaded adjective)
    • Such a deal, as Roy Jenkins says, would have been the equivalent (you are endorsing RJ's comments rather than just summarising them)
  • Italics: some unexpected and I think undesirable italicisations:
    • Hard and heavy tidings (should be in normal type with quotation marks)
    • We shall fight on the beaches (ditto)
  • Some statements are no doubt correct but are not conspicuously cited:
    • Does ref 33 cover every statement in the 155-word, 8-sentence para?
    • Does ref 61 back up the statement in the last sentence of the para?
  • Some words crop up so often that they become obtrusive:
    • there are 14 "however"s in the article. Most of them add nothing to the meaning of the sentence and could advantageously be removed.
    • There are seven "considerable"s (though one is in a quotation) – a less woolly word would be welcome here and there.
  • Block quotations.
    • Short quotations should be in line with the text. Block quotations are reserved for longer material. See MOS:BQ. On my screen there are four one-line block quotes.
  • Further reading
    • A single-line list seems odd, and why list Roberts's book if it isn't worth citing in the article?
  • ISBNs
    • At FAC there is a certain fussiness about applying Wikipedia's rules, and a mixture of 10- and 13- digit ISBNs will not go down well. There is a helpful gizmo here for converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit.

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 09:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Gaius Terentius Varro

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 June 2019, 16:14 UTC
Last edit: 1 December 2019, 08:03 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit


Previous peer review

I'm trying to get this to GA, and it's a really big and well-researched topic, so naturally the article (if it ever were to achieve a stamp of completeness) is also quite big. Likewise, it's more than probable that there are some topics that I missed and could elucidate some more, or even just grammatical problems my eyes glossed over. Neanderthals are an archaic human from Europe, and, especially in the last couple of decades, are coming to be seen by researchers as equals to humans in cognitive and cultural aspects. I'm not aware of an GAs of anything from the human lineage   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

(225088) 2007 OR10Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done some changes in the article's prose in preparation for FA nomination and would like some feedback on the article's comprehensiveness and coherence. In addition, it would be helpful to check if I have missed anything regarding the FA criteria.

Thanks, Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bamboo textileEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's POV doesn't seem to be neutral. It's more a list of criticisms citing outdated/broken links.

Thanks, Opertinicy (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 6 October 2019, 21:21 UTC
Last edit: 1 December 2019, 17:08 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because many editors were editing it and after some protracted disagreements exhaustion set in. It is pretty comprehensive but (maybe) suffers from two many hands attempting to copyedit it. Some fresh eyes to read it and give some thoughts would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Language and literatureEdit

James Humphreys (pornographer)Edit

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's just gone through GA, and a run at FAC is the next step. All constructive comments are warmly welcomed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Masters of DoomEdit

I have never written an article for a book before so I want to get some advice and feedback as to what to do with the article.

Thanks, GamerPro64 02:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by David FuchsEdit

  • There's some content in the, er, Content section that probably needs to be cited as it goes beyond the usual "the citation for the plot is the work" kind of stuff.
  • In terms of general readability, if there's not additional information to fill out some of the subsections, I think you're best of axing them and allowing the text to flow uninterrupted (for example, in the "legacy" or "publication" sections.
  • The main gap in coverage at this point seems to be any further information on developing/writing the book. Not sure how much is out there to incorporate.
  • Given the amount of reviews the book has gotten, I think it would be best to break up the critical reception into aspects rather than just listing off one review after another.
  • Is there anything else you can draw from the Gamespy coverage? I see that they gave away copies of the book and Kusner did a Q&A which might be worth briefly mentioning in terms of promotion.
  • Reprints or anything to add to publication history?
  • I feel like there should be a source out there on the lawsuit's resolution, even if it's just the filings from the court.
  • Doing a quick search, I found reviews of the book from the Library Journal, Washington Monthly, Publishers Weekly and others. Send me an email and I can shoot you some PDFs to incorporate.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on ways I could improve the page.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! This is my first peer review, so take all I say with a grain of salt.

1. So far, I'm not seeing much argument for notability here (I think?). Source number one is just the product page from the publisher. Sources two and three are parts of the book itself. And sources 4/5/6 are fairly short reviews.
2. The product page (your first reference) mentions, "Named a Best Book of the Year by: Boston Globe, PASTE Magazine, Words Without Borders, Grub Street, Remezccla, and Entropy Magazine." According to the notability page for books, bestseller lists for reliable media outlets count as non-trivial! So you may be able to get sufficient references.
3. Also, it looks like the author is mentioned in article, Queering Acts of Mourning in the Aftermath of Argentina's Dictatorship: The Performances of Blood. Academic papers are often good. I can't access it, but it's probably available somewhere (author's website, evil file-sharing website, etc), and it might contain info on this particular book.
4. Okay, onto matters other than notability. Your lead needs work. I have no idea what this book is about. What are the major themes? You mention "Argentina's political turmoil" in the review section. Let the reader know a little bit about the book!

Anyway, those are my two cents. You have not yet convinced me that the book is notable (sad). However, sources exist that seem to imply notability (yay!). And you should let the reader know some basic details about the book (and maybe the author). Jusadi (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mouthful of Birds (story collection)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive recommendations for ways to improve the page, and for it to be officially reviewed so it can be indexed.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Some comments on both this article and Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection), as they are fundamentally similar.

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?
  • Are these collections of previously-published stories (as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is), or are they all originally published in the collection (as For Your Eyes Only), or a mixture of the two (like The Birthday of the World and Other Stories)? In both cases, we hear of two stories whose first English publication was outside of the collection, but it is not clear about publications of the stories pre-dating the Spanish edition of the collection.
  • 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.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)



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.

Thanks, Mithridates (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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"[58], 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"[59] and fearing that it might simply "disperse the partisans of the natural language with nothing to show for it"[59] 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)
@Mithridates: Still have a couple of other problems with the article. Please go through that. Jerry (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy and religionEdit

Syriac Orthodox ChurchEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… The Previous Review was 10 Years Ago, The Article had various Suggested Improvements, So Further Inorder to Acheive A WP:GA for this article in the scope of Wikiproject Christianity, What are the Changes or Additions And Major Problems of the Current Article which is Rated WP:C-class. Thanks, Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Bethel Assembly of God ChurchEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because… This page was one deleted. It has been recreated with neutral content

Thanks, CE 09:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the article a little to improve some of the basics. It needs some more work. Here are a few suggestions for improvements:

  • The article needs more reliable, independent sources. I have tagged the languages section as needing a reference, but most of the information in the lede and infobox is unreferenced.
  • If you can find good reliable sources, you could considerably expand the article. It would be good to see the history and development of the church. Apart from it's size, what makes it interesting and unusual?
  • You could add a section about the church's teachings (again, if you have a proper source)
  • What impact/influence has the church had on Bangalore, and the local neighborhood?
  • Expand on what the "outstations" are, and their connection to the main church

As it stands, the article is only barely demonstrating notability, though I suspect it is notable. I hope these suggestions help you think about how to expand and solidify the article. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Social sciences and societyEdit

Albert SeedmanEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been pretty stable and complete since I created it six years ago, and I think I can take it at least to GA.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Social democracyEdit

Hello. I've listed this article for peer review because in light of recent improvements to the article which led to its re-classification as Class B by another editor, it became an potential candidate for GA nomination, and I want to make sure that it contains no serious issues or errors and to find out whether it does indeed meet the neccessary criteria for it to be regarded as a "Good Article" on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Symes2017 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl AttkissonEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because User Calton has reverted Bilby's edit on grounds that there was no consensus. While, perhaps, technically true, in that the link provided by Bilby, my rough analysis shows 9-3 in favour of including.

To provide a bit of background and context, there are potential WP:BLP issues with respect to Ms. Attkisson's reporting of vaccines. Bilby provided a link to a BLP noticeboard, which appeared to show a substantial consensus in favour of including Ms. Attkisson's refutation; however, that had not been officially closed. Indeed, it had been included in the article prior to significant recent edits, but it was removed. Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it seems prudent to have it back included. I'm not sure why Calton removed it.

I have separately tagged Bradv and Diannaa, independent of this peer review process, due to the potential WP:BLP issues here in Calton's removal of her refutation. However, should they decline to re-add it, I wanted to start a peer review in tandem.

Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Toa Nidhiki05Edit

As another editor here, I highly contest the claims this article has BLP issues. A small group of editors, as well as Ms. Attkisson herself, seem intent on scrubbing this page of criticism, primarily regarding vaccines. Attkisson has attempted for years to modify the article, and this has now extended to extensive criticisms on her website, some of which specifically attack certain Wikipedia users, including myself, as shills for the “vaccine industry”. Virtually all debate on this page has come from the extent of vaccines. Attkisson is widely regarded as promoting anti-vaccine viewpoints and this has been discussed numerous times. I find the request for peer review extremely unnecessary, given how extensively this article has been worked on by a variety of editors. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Herbert VivianEdit

I have been working on the Herbert Vivian article for some time. A DYK was created from it in December 2018, and it became a Good Article in October 2019 after a very helpful and thorough review by User:Amitchell125. I have further expanded the article since then, and I believe it is now a comprehensive account of this mostly forgotten English writer and journalist. I would like to nominate the article for Featured Article status in the future and I am looking for suggestions for improvements to make it a viable candidate.

Many thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Frédéric PassyEdit

After working on the article in my sandbox space for almost a month, I've moved all the work to the main article space. I'm looking to take it to Good-Article standard (and possibly further), so any advice on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, PotentPotables (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Pizzagate conspiracy theoryEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on noming it for FA. I will happily listen to any and all recommendations.

Thanks very much, 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 00:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United StatesEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it for Good Article status again. I did so in 2015 but it was not accepted for some good reasons. We (myself and other editors) have improved the article over the last four years and I think it's approaching GA, although not quite there yet. In addition to problems I don't see (unknown unknowns), here are some areas that I think would benefit from improvement:

  • Organization - I've tried to improve the articles organizational structure in recent weeks, but I think "fresh eyes" will help because it still doesn't "seem right" to me.
  • References - I had added some references that, in retrospect, didn't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. I have endeavored to remove such citations, but I probably missed a couple (or more).
  • I cited an article I wrote with a colleague that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. (Cites: cite_note-Worthen_Moering_2011-39-0, cite_note-116, & cite_note-123.) It remains the only peer-reviewed article written on the topic, and is not primary research. Naturally, I am open to feedback and will defer to recommendations by reviewers. (added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:17 UTC)
  • The 2015 GA reviewer commented that the article read a bit too much as a "How to" piece, which I think was accurate. I'm a psychologist who works with U.S. military veterans and my "helper" orientation swayed me toward the "Hot to" direction. (I realize that now; I didn't see it before.) I've sought to remove "How to" content, but see what you think as my implicit bias no doubt still affects my perception in this regard.
  • In my personal and professional life I am both a passionate advocate for helping veterans, given how much they have sacrificed to protect the rest of us, but I'm also an outspoken critic of some VA policies & procedures. I have worked really hard to include only balanced, objective, relevant, and well-sourced encyclopedic information. At the same time, that goal remains an aspirational one in my mind, i.e., I will never achieve it perfectly. So please look for any sections, statements, arguments, etc., that are incomplete, unbalanced (potentially biased), not very relevant, or lacking reliable references.
  • Please see the 2015 GA review for helpful feedback from the reviewers. (added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:22 UTC)

- Note: I will be coming back to this within the next 24 hours and will add wikilinks to the 2015 GA review and some other details I may have left out. (strikeout added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:04 UTC)

Thank you very much!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Self-managed social centerEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it but I'm just getting repeatedly bogged down in discussion with another user, as you can see at Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page and Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page_2. The current structure is not satisfying, since it's split between incomplete coverage of functions and a breakdown by country. I'd welcome some feedback on how to improve the page. Much obliged for any comments, Mujinga (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Labour Party leadership of Jeremy CorbynEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs to be more neutral and detailed. I appreciate others editing the article, but I also feel some of the edits are contentious, with my references to poor opinion polling and the Panorama investigation deleted. This article is already deemed controversial and would benefit from overview from those not fervently in support of (or against) Corbyn.

Thanks, TrottieTrue (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Ages of consent in the United StatesEdit

I've listed this article for peer review following Fabrickator's suggestion that a radical change to how we manage this page may be needed, as both the general public and even much of the news media accept the content of this specific page as though it were actually a reliable source. In particular, the suggestion is to introduce process to make it reliable, alternatively, we would need something tantamount to a flashing banner. So I'm inviting peer review to see how this page stacks up against others, and what can be done about it in particular, if anything.

Cheers, Guarapiranga (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

List of coal fired power stations in TurkeyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be improved before submitting it as a candidate featured list.

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

History of discoveriesEdit

I've listed this article for peer review, (please go to, where the request is made previously, 2019-09-22, as the page was cut and pasted to a redirect "List of discoveries", the request didn't proceed to the relevant talk page), thanks, Armoracia-1 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

List of DiscoveriesEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because there is a disagreement with the inclusion of a bibliography within the article (the contention is made by Dialectric; → version of the article 1 edit prior to removal of the Bibliography) , (firstly) and secondarily, a section of the article, Models (Fashion), as shown @ this version (which is 1 edit prior to the removal, by Onetwothreeip) is thought inadmissable (by also Dialectric, supported by Onetwothreeip, the latter editor hasn't provided an obvious reason for the support). The discussion; which is focused upon the veracity and correct usage of the word discovery within the fashion industry, compared to other subject areas (disciplines) is @ Talk:List_of_Discoveries#Fashion_Models.


Armoracia-1 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Arjun Sarja filmographyEdit

Previous peer review

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.

Thanks and Regards, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from KailashEdit

All films need to be sourced, and all references formatted correctly (at least the title, website and date in everything). Solve these, and I'll post further comments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

List of cricketers by number of international five wicket haulsEdit

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:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
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. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit