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 Brosh recently returned to the news with the publication of her second book. I've updated the article with new and overlooked media coverage. I think this reaches B-class now; it is well sourced and covers the subject thoroughly.
I would like to put this article through the FAC process in the future (although I do not have a set time in mind). I would greatly appreciate any feedback to better improve the article prior to a nomination. I have never worked on a video game article in the FAC space so this is very unfamiliar territory to me. I have looked to recent featured articles on video games as guides for writing this one. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It's on my list, really :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Take as much time as you need! I would be grateful for any help you can provide to this, but do not feel rushed. This peer review will likely be open for a while. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Aroused (film) is a Good Article that had really helpful feedback with improvements during the good article review process from good article reviewer HumanxAnthro. It helps diversify representation of higher quality articles on Wikipedia, being a documentary film directed by a female film director and about women subjects interviewed for the film. Looking for feedback and input to help improve it even further past good article. Thanks very much for your time, Right cite (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And please consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been adding sources to it since August and, from those sources, subsequently expanding it. I know that actor bios run long when they've had multiple main roles (though this is the longest one I've worked on), and I'm fairly certain all the information is DUE, but there's some parts where I've been undecided if the information is about the actor or the actor's process and may belong at the related film article. If someone with a specific bio/film interest can weigh in, I'm looking for comments on how and where best to present/include information - and where it is too detailed, of course, to help cut it back. I've started trying that from the bottom, so it probably looks top-heavy at the moment.
Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want suggestions on grammar and whether it would be necessary to add a section on his military achievements, specially relating to the civil war which created his name 'stonewall' and his legacy
Thanks, Sholtz49 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've listed this article for peer review because of it failing its FAC and, after some more edits/contributions from various editors, I want to see if there is anything more that I need to improve upon before its re-nomination.
Thanks, Paleface Jack (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And please consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I see that Nikkimaria has been examining the sourcing, so I won't look further on that.
There is a WP:DASH mess; there are some spaced WP:EMDASHes (not used on Wikipedia), some unspaced EMDASHes, some spaced WP:ENDASHes, and some hyphens (which I just changed to spaced WP:ENDASHes. You need to pick one ... unspaced EMDASHes, or spaced ENDASHes ... not hyphens and not spaced EMDASHes.
I might have fixed that problem if I am understanding everything correctly.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope :) For example, here is a spaced emdash followed by an unspaced endash ... Inside a small shack, a robed figure —dubbed "God Killing Himself" in the film's credits–disembowels ... which is completely backwards, and you need to pick one or the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Missed that one. Thanks for the heads up.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not clear to me why Din of Celestial Birds does not have its own article.
There was an earlier discussion that took place with the consensus being that there were not enough sources for Din to constitute its own article. As such the decision was made to merge it into Begotten.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure makes for a messy Table of Contents ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)\
How so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that is all I can offer. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to GA status and maybe someday, FA status. So far, I have done substantial work on adding a lot of useful and structured content to this article. I believe it is close to GA status, but I first want to have someone look it over and bring up some suggestions.
Thanks, Lazman321 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Attention seems needed to ensure the article follows WP:MOS, especially in terms of MOS:NUMERAL. I see for example "No. 6" in the lead which isn't consistent with how you write about chart performance later in the article.
There are general spelling and grammar errors throughout, for example typos like "realzation" and awkward grammar like "making the realzation (sic)" which is not a standard phrase in English.
Lead
Overall the lead seems short compared with what I've seen on other comprehensive album articles. I think you'll want to expand it considerably to comprise at least 3 good paragraphs.
A sentence ends with "in which" — did something get cut off?
The narrative in the lead doesn't seem cohesive... you mention the idea for the album first, and then the idea for the band later.
Background and inspiration
I don't follow how Cretu pursuing pop music is at odds with his musical education. Are you suggesting he had classical training and then left that path to pursue pop music? That needs clarity.
This whole section seems related to the background of Cretu and Enigma, without any specific information about the album. You can start with some context, but you should expand this section to include a narrative for how that context relates to MCMXC a.D..
Development and release
There are more non-standard English phrases like "across eight months" that suggest the need for a copyedit from someone with good command of the language.
The writing here is awkward where you begin three sentences in a row with "Cretu", "Michael Cretu", and then "Cretu" again. I think as part of your copyedit, more variety needs to be introduced into the writing.
"The first song they made for the album was the song" Repetitive phrasing (and who is "they"?) is another example of something to attack with a good copyeditor.
"Michael Cretu still wanted to remain anonymous." The narrative around Cretu's anonymity is very lightly touched on and I think you'll want to expand this with additional sources.
Composition
You've used a religion journal as a source for genres which is strange. You should be using mainstream music journalism and people who are qualified to comment on musical genres.
In this narrative you write that Cretu "debunks" the idea that "the entire album consists of Gregorian chant". Have other journalists asserted this? What is he really arguing? The term "debunk" suggests that he provided evidence against a prevailing theory but I don't think you've written about this in enough detail or provided a cohesive narrative.
Have you ensured that you're writing in your own words and paraphrasing sufficiently from your sources? Something like "the album often evoking lust, cruelty, repentance, and redemption" sounds like it was copied from the cited journal as it doesn't match the overall tone of your other writing.
Critical reception
Ensure that you are writing this section in your own words based on your understanding of the cited sources rather than just stringing together quotations. This is a common problem I see with album articles.
Commercial performance
Check for compliance with MOS:NUMERAL especially compared with other sections and the lead.
"indicating that it was shipped to the United States at least four million times" This is a good example of awkward/non-standard English throughout.
Lawsuit
Check for consistent capitalization of terms like "Gregorian".
The opening sentence is not grammatically correct.
What are d-marks?
Most likely money or credits. It was never mentioned in the article what "d-marks" are, so saying that it is either money or credits would be original research.
I think you have a solid start here but it strikes me as a long way off from the GA criteria. At the bare minimum it needs a solid copyedit for basic grammar and spelling, followed by work on expanding sections from reliable sources and ensuring there is a cohesive narrative where I have noted issues. Thanks for the opportunity to review! --Laser brain(talk) 14:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Laser brain: I believe I have done at least most of your requests. I will do copyediting for MOS adherence later today. As for copyediting for the prose itself, I will be submitting this article to the guild of copyeditors soon, at least before the backlog drive ends. For the expansion of content, I currently have access to the Wikipedia Library and I am currently applying for access to newpapersARCHIVES.com so I will be able to expand the article soon. I will be leaving this peer review up in the meantime. Lazman321 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I know that with the right improvements, this article could become a good one in the future. Remember, any suggestions help!
This is an article about one of the most prolific directors of world cinema. Overall I think the article is in good shape and is meticulously sourced. While I'm not the main editor of the article (the only major thing I've done is the lead), I plan to take this article to GA (will co-nominate with the main editor once I find out who that is), thus I'd appreciate any comments regarding prose issues. Thanks so much, HĐ (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"Since its release, Fallen Angels has been considered to be one of Wong's greatest and most influential works, along with Chungking Express and In the Mood For Love." Where is the reference for this sentence? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's a big save! I removed the sentence because it appears to be a case of WP:FANCRUFT. HĐ (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that, with some copyediting, it can reach GA. I first created this article in the Portuguese Wikipedia and it is currently a GA nominee there, with no opposition so far. I translated the entire article to English, however, since my English is not too good and I am not 100% familiar with the English Wikipedia standards, there might be some errors that I didn't notice.
Comment by Ojorojo I updated the infobox (easier than listing here, see Template:Infobox song#Parameters for current uses). I noticed some problems with the prose and the use of quote boxes – the Guild of Copy Editors may be helpful.[1] Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I opened a request there. GhostP.talk 15:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment by Miniapolis (who's copyediting the article in response to the GOCE request): I tweaked the quote boxes to avoid sandwiching text. As I noted on your talk page, the infobox image needs a FUR and to be reduced in size. All the best, Miniapolis 16:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The copyedit is done and the talk page is tagged. IMO, the quote boxes are too large given the length of the article; the first one is rambling but OK, but the second one can be incorporated into the reception section (which would help keep the first quote box from overrunning its section). All the best, Miniapolis 15:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. Tysm GhostP.talk 15:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA and I just want a once over by a third party to iron out any kinks ahead of time.
NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to hit all the peer reviews listed for FAC, but I neither read nor support articles that are 12,000 words of prose, and suggest trimming the article via summary style. Just my opinion :) My general advice on that is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. I also recommend having a look at WP:RECEPTION for writing that section. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it recently and would like to submit for GA in the future. I would like to get some feedback and what needs to be improved in order to get there.
Thanks, Alan Islas (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I wish for this this article to be peer reviewed because I would like to ensure it follows all relevant policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BLP. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Interesting article. When did he become known as JK-47? I read the Manual of Style and it seems yo say the lead section shouldn’t have references, but these should be incorporated into the body of the article. Is this possible? Overall though, great to have an interesting article about an up-and-coming young indigenous artist! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll try and leave some comments soon. In the mean time you may want to list this article on Template:FAC peer review sidebar if FA is your goal. Aza24 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Saha mentioned elsewhere that they are ill. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh gosh that's awful to hear. Saha I will you a speedy recovery! I'll leave some comments below for you nonetheless, but of course no rush at all, health is far more important than WP :)
It would be nice to get a year so the reader knows how old we're talking, maybe something like "Constructed in ____ with a total length of 823 metres (2,700 ft), Vidyasagar Setu..."
The lead doesn't really explain the "corruption" issue – with the information given (in the lead) it could just as easily appear as negligence, could the corruption part be briefly expanded?
link the first mention of Hooghly River in the text (same with Howrah and Kolkata)
Is there a reason he's first referred to as "educationist reformer Pandit Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar" and then "Bengali educationist reformer Pandit Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar"?
I don't think "Noble Laurette" is the best way to describe Tagore, perhaps just "polymath"
I would add something for Sister Nivedita as well – like "social activist Sister Nivedita"
Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners should be linked in the lead and the first time in the text (at the moment I believe it's linked the second time in the text)
Also since you already introduced the HRBC you may want to refer to them as the acronym for the second mention?
Hello Ömer Ezgi Erdoğan, thank you for submitting this article to PR! This is the first time (that I can remember) that I'm offering feedback here, so please bear with me if I get something wrong (and I apologize in advance to PR regulars for any missteps that I may make).
As you may see at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines, "Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent." The article you linked to will have to be expanded considerably before it can get much out of the PR process. I recommend to add content to it, as it is very short (a stub, in fact).
"is an artist, animal activist, director, cinematographer, model, actress, musician, editor, animator, graphic designer, and photographer." – WP:LEAD mentions that the lead should give the reader a clear overview of why an article's subject is notable. Is LoLãn really notable for her work in all these fields? (See WP:N and WP:GNG for some useful pointers.)
The infobox contains a link to LoLãn's official site, so an "External links" section including a link to it should be created. (See WP:LAYOUT for details on this and for further information that you may find helpful in working on the article.)
The article suffers from overlinking (see WP:OVERLINK) and most of the links therein should be removed (chiefly the ones for common English words).
Life and work
I'd change the section heading to "Career", as the section contains no biographical information.
Five out of six paragraphs (which are very short; if you do expand the article, look for ways to expand or combine short paragraphs) in this section begin with "LoLãn", which makes the prose monotonous and is a visual sore.
"Has worked", "also performs", "has been featured", etc. – I'd give dates here.
"LoLãn starred in her first role in a Tom Petty music video" – which video?
"LoLãn has worked on videos for Apple, Facebook, and Pharrell" – what videos, in what role (editor, graphic designer, etc.), and what makes them significant?
"I’m Cindy" – curly apostrophes (and quotation marks) should not be used, per MOS:CURLY.
The names of magazines should be italicized and I suspect there should not be quotation marks around the titles of albums.
"Animal activist" should be "animal rights activist", with a link to Animal rights movement given.
"is creating a documentary" – "producing" or "working on" might be better.
Discography
Is this section listing both albums and songs? The former should be italicized and song titles should appear in quotation marks.
I hope you find this helpful. Do not hesitate to ask me in case of any questions. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently added a lot of new information to the page so would like to check it is alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thanks, Popdmas43 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because... I've been the main curator of this page since I created it under six years ago. I know it needs work (not going to lie). Do I know how to make a Wikipedia page look better? Not really. Should I know what needs to be improved? Of course. I'm looking at Notable games as an area that needs improving, but I don't know how to do it without condensing the entire thing into mush. Any critiques help - just not of the "delete it" kind.
Thanks, Mandoli (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to be WP:GA. I wrote some prose for the article a few months ago, but I wasn't confident that it was up to WP:MOS so I got the article copy edited.
Also sorry as I was not sure which topic the article came under so I listed it as general. Thanks in advance, CreativeNorth (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it would like to submit for GA in the future. I would like to improve it in any way possible but am not sure how.
I'm working on all the pages for municipalities in Denmark, going through them one by one. Nyborg - my home municipality - was naturally the first. So I would like to see if the format and writing is good, considering a lot of pages will follow the same style. I also might nominate it for GA sometime, so ways to improve towards that would be nice, too.
Thanks. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
There are a few things I noticed quickly that should be improved if your goal is GA (See the Good article criteria):
The lead section of the article is too short. Ideally, the lead of this article should be 2–3 paragraphs (I would describe the current one as somewhere between 1 and 2) and a summary of all the content of the article (There is little to no mention of the content in most sections).
The last paragraph of the History section and the section about Ullerslev are not cited.
The demographics and economy sections need expansion.
If you would an example of what a GA looks like for this type of article, I would recommend reading Fort Saskatchewan. Username6892(Peer Review) 17:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA status (and maybe one day, FA status...), primarily because of its high visibility. It was delisted in August of this year due to concerns about length and excessive detail. The readable prose size has decreased significantly thanks to the work of several editors, including myself, but my recent nomination for GA was deleted without explanation—I'm guessing because of length. Thus, I thought I might open a request for peer review.
I think one important area of improvement is the History section. It's just too detailed, but I feel like there will be significant resistance to removing/moving content from it.
Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a passing comment; I would never support an article this WP:SIZE at FAC, but not all reviewers agree with me. My reasoning (and general FAC advice as a former FAC delegate, now called Coord) is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. I think your best shot at FAC is to rigorously apply WP:SS, and I think sprawling Geography articles become maintenance nightmares very quickly. If you get it to around 7 or 8,000 words of readable prose (currently above 12,000), I would review. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Some comments in addition to the length issue which have been covered: There is some obviously unsourced information in this article. A few reasonably long paragraphs in various sections lack a single source. Other scattered sentences throughout the article also clearly lack sources, and this does make me wonder how much of text in front of sources is from those sources. On the sources themselves, book sources currently included in Further Reading need to be separated from those included solely for Further Reading. The article has a proliferation of hatnotes, many of which seem undue. For example, the History section lists as main articles "American business history, Economic history of the United States, and Labor history of the United States", which are specific subtopics within History rather than being Main articles. On more minor points, there are a few scattered very short paragraphs, and a bit of sandwiching, but both are at much lower levels than I usually see in country articles. CMD (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant revisions to the article over the past year. It is currently rated (by me) as B-class with low importance, but I would like some additional input.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I wish to gain experience at improving lists. I want to submit this as a Featured List nominee.
Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am a new editor and would like some guidance on making sure this article meets the "good article" criteria. I'd like to make sure that I have done the Aboriginal history of the topic justice. I have also tried to keep the language of the article neutral, and hope I did so particularly within the sections on European colonisation. Any comments are welcome, about anything that could be improved! Thank you in advance.
Thanks, Bella2129 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have noted that a lot of information has been added over the past few weeks. I would love to see the value of this article improved for the benefit of the Wikipedia community.
Thanks so much!
ZP 64 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi ZP 64! I have reviewed this document with a focus on clarity of language and readability. I have not fact-checked the article, that is, I have not looked at the reference to see if the article's information is supported nor have I looked to see if any information is missing.
I have rearranged the header, focusing each paragraph on one subject, and making it so that the culprit is at the start of a paragraph and so easier for a reader to find.
Consider adding to first paragraph in heading specific details about how many schools were threatened or how many calls were made.
What does "UZ" stand for? It is used in the header. In general, spell out acronyms at their first use (or at least make them a link to an article that explains them).
Use plainer English where possible. As an example, instead of "were of low likelihood to be" say "were unlikely to be"; instead of "quintessential", say "key".
Date ranges use an en-dash, not a hyphen (5–11 February, not 5-11 February).
Headers of sections and subsections do not have title case, just sentence case. You also don't need to format them to be bold, they are automatically formatted.
Avoid starting sentences with digits, if possible. It can make it harder for a reader to find the start of a sentence if there is no capital letter at its start.
It's not really apparent in the article how Kadar was identified and captured. If this is known I would add this to the "Arrest and sentencing" section.
I don't understand why there is a section on the general motivations of those making bomb threats. I would remove that.
"In the same period as the threats made against Australian schools (early 2017), a number of bomb threats were made to Jewish community centres..." but the Aus school threats were in 2016, not 2017?
"Following these school bomb threats, literature has been published..." Who published this literature?
Studies have shown that schools in Australia..." but there is only one citation. Do you mean "A study..."?
The syntax of the references is broken. In almost all cases a person cannot click on the links. I recommend you replace all of the references with the automatic reference generator, which ensures everything will be properly formatted in Wikipedia syntax.
Based on what I have seen I have raised the quality rating of this article to C-class. If a review of the sources showed that all facts are well sourced and nothing is missing from the article, I could see this going to B-class or higher.
Hi HenryCrun15! Thank you so much for these suggestions, I would agree with all of them. I have started to apply some of the minor edits from this list, and will continue to work on the article shortly! Thanks again.
ZP 64 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This is in really good shape tbh. You can probably put it up for GA in its current state and just work with a GA reviewer. That being said, I will still provide a few nitpicks.
The first two external links don't seem related to the article
Dropped them. You are correct—they are not related to the article, only useful for Civil War in general. TwoScars (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It has zero categories
Great catch! It had a bunch that were commented out—I forgot to "uncomment" them. TwoScars (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The summary of the battle at the end of the infobox is...unusual. I don't think it necessary, as the lead covers that.
Dropped the summary in infobox. TwoScars (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review to promote it to good articles. It's a translation of good article in Russian, also written by me, so it need spell and grammar checking and maybe some technical help (like choosing of correct templates.
The article requires a comprehensive copyedit before its peer review. A peer review can be requested at the Guilds of Copy Editors. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Could any more photos be found? Or another contemporary drawing?
All pictures are in the commons category, and there's nothing usefull: two plans of 1680 (same fortress with no any changes after 1645 plan), few pictures of unremarkable views of a fortress remains and a bunch of park photos. Redwanna talk? 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that a thorough copyedit is needed. The English is quite rough in patches. 06:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I worked hard on it, it is my first article, and I would like to improve it in any way possible but am not sure how. Not sure what else to say.
Thanks, mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Mossypiglet:, this is a really interesting biography on a person I've never read about. After reading the article here are some comments below:
You use a lot of extra words in your prose. For example, "Van Boskerck would serve in the Coast Guard as commander of the Coast Guard cutters..." could be Van Boskerck served as commander of the Coast Guard cutters.... Unnecessary words cause readers to lose interest in the article more quickly. Try reading every sentence and think of ways to remove words. Here's a great guide for removing extra words
All the sentences should be about the person and extra material should go on other Wikipedia pages. For example, {tq|"The institution would become the United States Coast Guard Academy...}} does not give us extra information about Van Boskerck's life or works so should be deleted.
Until 1890, the School of Instruction was held on ships,[2] when the first land-based campus for it was established in Curtis Bay, Maryland,[2] likely making it where Van Boskerck lived. On Wikipedia we can not make assumptions based on the research. Instead, we have to use sources to verify the information. If a source can't be found that verifies this then it should be removed. For more details go to WP:SYNTH.
He would rise through the ranks of the Coast Guard throughout his career, holding various senior positions. This is a classic case of "show, don't tell". What ranks did he achieve, and when did he achieve them? What was the highest rank he achieved? The subsequent sections are excellent examples of showing me his ranks, and perhaps this sentence isn't needed.
Now that he had lyrics and music, Van Boskerck was ready to publish Semper Paratus. This sentence isn't needed. Articles should avoid flourish and excitable sentences like this and instead use quantitative facts to explain the story.
The first paragraph in "Publishing" is about the first performance of this song, so the section header should be something like "First performance and publication"
You have a reference in every paragraph, but some of these are not needed. For example, the death section uses one reference, so you can put that at the end of the last paragraph. More information can be found at WP:CITEFOOT.
That's it! Congrats on a fantastic first article. Please post below if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thank you very much. As for your criticisms, I will be editing the article accordingly when I get the chance. It may please you to know, I had stopped editing Wikipedia for various reasons but your praise makes me want to come back and I hope I do so. Thanks again, it's very much appreciated. <3 mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mossypiglet: I'm glad to read that you are coming back! I hope to see this article get better over time. Please message my talk page if you have questions or want me to take a second look at the article. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to FA eventually - it has recently undergone a copyedit and has already passed GA. Sennacherib is by far (only rivalled by Ashurbanipal) the most famous Assyrian king, remembered as an aggressive "enemy of God" thanks to the Bible. The real Sennacherib was superstitious, had daddy issues, preferred building stuff over conquering nations and was plagued by constant insurrections instigated by his arch-enemy, an ex-king of Babylon.
NOTE, when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the mess on article talk to consolidate old events to Template:Article history; it would be grand if other editors learned to do this, as the bot that used to roll every template into articlehistory is no more. Will add more commentary as I read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Check your ps and pps, sample, Barcina Pérez 2016, p. 9–10.
Review MOS:CAPTIONS, no punc on sentence fragments.
MOS:SANDWICH (eg First Babylonian campaign section, gates of Jerusalem, Construction of Ninevah, )
No more nits to pick-- competent writing, worthy FAC candidate. I cannot comment on content-- not my area. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I've amended the article based on your suggestions, thank you for taking a look! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the very long delay in getting back to this. I'm making a small start today. I'll leave some suggestions here and make some smaller tweaks directly to the article. Jr8825 • Talk 00:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Lead
is among the most famous of all - seems a bit wordy, considering it's the second sentence. How about "is one of the most famous" or "is among the most famous"?
Other events of his reign which secured his legacy throughout the millennia following his death include - again, seems a bit too long-winded. Since you've already mentioned that he's one of the most famous kings, I would cut this down to "other events of his reign included"
The third para jumps into discussing why the Levantine War of 701 BC was necessary, without really explaining what the war was. It seems to overlap with the para before, which discusses how Marduk-apla-iddina probably instigated the rebellion that led to it. The war needs to be properly introduced, and I think the contextual connection should be a bit more explicit. Perhaps adding small subclause to the second para will resolve this: ...probably instigating Assyrian vassals in the Levant to rebel, leading to the Levantine War of 701 BC, and successfully...?
More generally, the lead seems a tad too long to me, but this may be subjective.
Background
Though the most popular historical view has been that Sennacherib was the son of Sargon's wife Ataliya, this is probably impossible. - maybe better as "Historically, the most popular view has been that Sennacherib was the son of Sargon's wife Ataliya, although this is now considered unlikely"? (is my interpretation of the existing wording correct?)
If Sargon were the son of Tiglath-Pileser and not a non-dynastic usurper, he would probably have lived in the royal palace at Kalhu for several years before becoming king. Sennacherib would then have been born at Kalhu, where he would have grown up and spent most of his youth. I found this phrasing a bit repetitive. I think it would be better simplified to "If Sargon were the son of Tiglath-Pileser and not a non-dynastic usurper, Sennacherib would have grown up in the royal palace at Kalhu and spent most of his youth there."
By that point Sennacherib, who served as Sargon's crown prince and designated heir, had already left the city - by what point? It's not clear as the previous sentence ended with him moving to the new capital at Dur-Sharrukin.
No worries about taking a lot of time; I've been quite busy over the last few weeks so a delay worked in my favour as well. I've amended the article based on your input so far. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm new to Wikipedia and want to contribute well. Please provide any feedback regarding any issues in relation to the accuracy of the information or any subtopics that can be substantially expanded on.
Thanks, Kebinbin (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I'll take a look.
The first paragraph of the first section is unreferenced, as are both statements in the "Uses" section. Please find and add citations- everything, yes, everything, written on Wikipedia needs to be cited.
Your sources are okay, but could be better; i.e. scientific papers and the like. Google Scholar is a good way to find these.
It needs some more links: What is a C4 tussock? What does gladrous mean? Hermaphroditic needs to be linked.
I don't know about plant articles, but the structure seems off. Maybe check other GA plant articles for the appropriate structure (Asplenium platyneuron, Gaylussacia brachycera are two).
That is just some to start with- I am not a regular reviewer and someone who is will probably have more comments. Happy editing!--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because much more information was added. The lead section was further expanded, and subsections were added to the article.
Thanks, Shayz2 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
A glandular odontogenic cyst is a rare and benign odontogenic cyst developed at the odontogenic epithelium of the mandible or maxilla. - weird grammar, you mean something like "A glandular odontogenic cyst is a rare and benign odontogenic cyst arising from the odontogenic epithelium of the mandible or maxilla."?
Originally, the cyst was labeled as 'sialo-odontogenic cyst' in 1987 - "was described as"?
Following the initial classification, only 60 medically documented cases were present in the population by 2003. --> "Following the initial classification, only 60 medically documented cases had been described in the population by 2003." - also what is "in the population" here refer to?
The cyst is established as its own biological growth after differentiation from other jaw cysts such as the ‘central mucoepidermoid carcinoma’, a popular type of neoplasm at the salivary glands - needs rewording. I ca't follow this
The wording of the lead is odd - I need to read some of the literature before embarking on any copyediting. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I am taking a look but I am rather dubious of both sources:
ResearchGate is essentially self-published and it doesn't seem like the proposal in this presentation has been cited anywhere.
The YouTube video is also self published and the author does not appear to have much of a reputation. That and I have never seen their theory The Electric Universe mentioned among mainstream cosmology theories, an impression borne out by the off-stream cites that Google Scholar shows.
I've listed this article for peer review because its my first review and edit of an article. Interested (if your familiar with the topic) for any suggestions for contents missed, or any improvements to format, style etc.
Thanks, Relox1 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Howdy hello @Relox1:! Economics is not my specialty, but hopefully I can help a bit. Once you've taken this peer review into account, you might try taking this article to WP:GA status!
A table in the lead is not standard. I would move the table into the body at a relevant point.
Not everything has a source. Every paragraph should have a citation to reliable source that supports it.
I would try to provide a section about real world examples and breaking them down a bit.
I was one of the people in charge of reviewing Rudolf Haag's German Wikipedia article (). We had made substantial additions to the original version and we had recognized Haag's contributions according to their scientific weight. We had also replaced the picture by a newer photo.
I have ported these major changes to the English article. I saw that the previous version of the article was rated as Start-Class. Since the article was improved with substantial changes, I'm requesting a new review.
Thanks, SimoneD89 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I've done the best I can to make this a high-quality article about this recently severe-weather event. However I would like the assistance of more experienced editors in the field to help make this article B or GA quality.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it from a stub to an article of about 2000 words, and I would appreciate it if the Wikipedia community could evaluate it to make sure all is in order. The lead section has been expanded, and several new sections have been added. More references have been added, and I have included some more media. Each of these sections should be reviewed. If anyone has any other media which they think would be relevant to the article, such contributions would be welcome.
Thanks, Hofendorf (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this article to at least a B-Class rating or higher. I need feedback so I can finish the editing and work on it more.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made edits to it over the last few weeks, adding much more detail including extensive references, and removing some misleading information.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive some feedback on the overall flow of the page as well as if it fits within the guidelines of what makes a good Wikipedia page, including the tone, relevant media and referencing style.
Thanks, Akriwal (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially updated with new information. I've authored the vast majority of this page and am looking for anything I've might of missed.
Thanks, Dos332 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I would like feedback on my references as well as the Culture subsection.
Thanks, Querty1234 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to verify the article's notability and have added additional references. I've done significant research on the topic and am looking for any feedback that would help to improve it. Thank you in advance!
I've listed this article for peer review because it quick failed for nomination as GA article. The page was reviewed, with explanations what was wrong in general. I would like to hear some ideas on how to improve it. Any comments are appreciated!
Hey @Joecipsurprise: from a quick read-through of the article, I had the following comments:
It strikes me that the article is focused entirely on the United States. I wonder whether the article should incorporate a broader world view of the topic, or perhaps if the concept is limited to the US, it should be moved to Rural diversity (United States).
There appear to be several statements and sentences which do not cite any sources, I would suggest that these parts are given immediate attention.
The Media Portrayals section is relatively large and appears ahead of the, in my opinion, more relevant explanation of the different types of rural diversity. I would suggest the Media Portrayals section be condensed or at least moved after the more important sections explaining the subject of the article itself.
This article is largely an explanatory article and so perhaps some images, diagrams and/or graphs could be used effectively to assist the reader in understanding and comprehending the article.
That's all I have for now, I hope it's of some help. —Ave (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
That's very useful, @Ave:, thanks! Joecipsurprise (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm hoping to get some feedback to move this article towards a GA and eventually an FA review. I've scoured the internet quite thoroughly for information on this subject, so I believe that I've accumulated a reasonable percentage of everything that has ever been written on Iron March. Now to move slowly towards ~perfection~ of this page.
Looking forward to any suggestions, Jlevi (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I had a quick skim through, not exhaustive by any means and others would surely pick up more. I may come back to it with further comments, but a few things that stood out to me:
Lead does not summarise the article at all. It mentions that a non-profit org suggests that murders could be linked to the site, but we have no idea what the site was, what it stood for or ultimately its fate until reading the history section
Readlinking Alexander "Slavros" Mukhitdinov isn't good, especially because the middle name is in quotations and forms part of the link. This would never be an article in that format. The "slavros" is redundant in this context
Two refs are appended to the quoted text after the second paragraph, but the latter of this paragraph should really have the quotes there instead, especially as it ends directly referencing the quote that follows
The section about posters mentions only American universities. Is it reasonable to assume that this promotion was targetted or limited specifically to the USA, or was it perhaps a faction operating in that area within a wider cross-continent group?
There is mention of a new site "Fascist Forge", but this is placed in the history section. It doesn't quite fit here to me, as by the nature of the fact this is a follow-up site, it doesn't directly have any bearing on the Iron March "history" (and couldn't influence its timeline if it came after the collapse).
I am also unsure when it was considered to have dissolved in its entirety. If the forum itself ceased in November 2017, but there were affiliated discord servers operational for a few months after that, would the dissolution still be considered when the forum fell, or when any affiliated servers/platforms also ceased?
"The website closed in November 2017; the reasons for its closure remain unclear[2] in 2020" - this reads a bit awkwardly to me and the ref placement is not ideal
Maybe the "leak" section could have a better title, as it details more about the contents of this then the database "leak" itself. The section already places an emphasis on those that were identified as being involved. Was it a leak in the sense of previously confidential data or more just bringing it to public attention?
Seems to be lacking in imagery. Are there any public available ones, even of individuals closely linked/infamously affiliated?
@Jlevi: Just checking you are aware I posted some comments a few days ago? Bungle(talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, I noticed and greatly appreciate your feedback. Haven't had a chance to sit down with the article, but I am going to heavily incorporate your suggestions soon. Sorry for the delay, and thanks again for your suggestions. Jlevi (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)t
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about the following things:
The lead. I'm aware that the lead likely has problems and needs improvement, but I would like some advice on how to improve it, especially when it comes to O'Toole's political positions. I made a summary of some of his positions in the lead, but I'm not entirely sure what should and shouldn't be included.
Content in the "Background" and "Political Career" sections (before "Leadership of the Conservative Party"). I'm not sure whether those sections have all the encyclopedic content that would fit in the article.
My goal with this article is to get it to GA, possibly FA if I can get that far. If you feel this article is a good enough GA candidate (I doubt it is), please tell me! Thanks, Username6892 19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Submitting this list for peer review to determine whether my improvements have brought it up to FL standards or not, and to get suggestions on what can be done to make it a potential FLC if possible.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to become a feature list. I believe the list entries (matches) are as detailed as possible with notable information and each entry is referenced. The main area I wanted reviewing was the introduction. Prose has never been my strong point but I've tried to include as much detail as possible without it being too long. I would appreciate any feedback and welcome any suggestions for improvement. Also any comment on whether this list has a chance at becoming a featured list.
Thanks, 6ii9 (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FL soon. Since there are no other lists of diplomatic missions that have been featured to the best of my knowledge, I would like other users to review the page's presentation of the topic, especially in coverage on political issues. I would also like someone to look at the image I made for the page. General or any other feedback is also highly appreciated!
Thanks, MSG17 (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
"other countries" – would this be more appropriate as "most countries"? – I'm not sure what these countries are the "other" of... other than the 111 missions?
I meant all countries except Taiwan and China.
"commonly known only by the name China" may be more to the point as something like "known best as simply China" – since surely it's not "commonly known", it's almost always known as just China?
Modified
Usually if we used acronyms (PRC) we introduce them clearly before so I would alter the second line to "the mainland-based People's Republic of China (PRC), ..."
Modified
Actually it's kind of odd you use "PRC" once but "China" every other time?
No longer an issue due to the earlier modification
If the reader ignored the note in the first sentence (which is very possible), the "Taiwan only has 17 official diplomatic missions" may seem to contradict the earlier line of "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, has 111 diplomatic missions " – maybe rephrase to something like "Only 17 of Taiwan's diplomatic missions are official, consisting..."
Fixed
I don't see the list of "passport and visa issuance, public affairs, economic, cultural, and educational cooperation" in ref 3
Removed
If I recall correctly aren't the missions that don't go by "Tawain" called "Chinese Taipei" – not just "Taipei"?
Chinese Taipei is used only for certain international organizations and sporting events. Most diplomatic missions just use "Taipei [insert adjective(s) here] Office". See Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office
Link Macau since you link Hong Kong
Oops, fixed
I don't see a ref for that Macau info either
Referenced
I'll look at the table closer soon Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Usually it's better to name the section something different than just "list" – I would recommend just "Diplomatic missions" or "Diplomatic missions of Taiwan"
Done
Also to this point, an RFC recently passed requiring table names for each one so be sure to add something like the above as a table name (like how in List of winners of the Boston Marathon#Men's open division has "Winners: Men's open division")
Added
If the same refs (14–16) cover the Multilateral organizations and Former missions tables, I would put them there again (these tables need table names as well so you could put the refs after the names like in List of operas by Carl Maria von Weber#List of operas
Done
I'm not sure but the key for Former missions may need a dagger in addition to the color to comply with WP:ACCESS
It was that way earlier. Looks good on a PC, but this approach is problematic for mobile, where an image displaces other content. Plus, I don't think there are enough images of Taiwanese missions to form a representative sample that work with that layout.
Everything else looks good to my eyes Aza24 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Btw in case you missed it, there is still an unaddressed points about Macau above, no rush though, of course. Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I have now addressed all your comments. MSG17 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Done