Wikipedia:Peer review
 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. Contents
ArtsEditFiona GrahamEditI'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)
Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Charles Gounod
Roar (1981 film)EditHello 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)EditI'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
Mouna Ragam
Black Panther (film)EditThis 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)
The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)EditI'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 PotentPotablesEditI've made a few edits to the article to tidy it up a bit:
Suggestions:
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 ThronesEditI'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 TourEditI'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)
Deep Space Homer
Everest (Indian TV series)EditI'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
GagaOOLalaEditI'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)
Open HereEditThis 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 Nidhiki05EditWill update this with more as I have time.
The Lord of the Rings (film series)EditI'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 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Cas LiberEditLooks alright at first glance:
OulfisEditIt 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:
GagaOOLalaEditI'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
Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series)
Hi-5 (Australian band)
Art Ducko (student magazine)EditI'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)
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 lifeEditAl Ahed FC
Wales national football team home stadiumEditI'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) Namco
Cristiano Ronaldo
Engineering and technologyEditPrandtl-DEditI'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 LabEditHey 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 PotentPotablesEditHi 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):
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 lineEditI'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 rileyEditThis 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
MAX Red LineEditI'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)
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)
List of largest cruise shipsEditI'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 Comments from JonathanischoiceEdit
Dig Dug IslandEditI'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)
GeneralEditLecrae discographyEditI'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)
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))
2019 Cebu City local electionsEditI'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 TolsEditI'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)
U.S. Route 290EditI 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) Clinton Railroad Bridge
New Zealand wineEditHi 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:
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 placesEditHearst Castle
OundleEditI'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
Cod IslandEditThis is rated as a start-class article. I would like to bring it to at least C-class standards. Thank you! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Cas LiberEdit
ShantiniketanEditI'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 ZealandEditI'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
HistoryEditSt Scholastica Day riot
ConstantinopleEdit
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 ValeraEditI'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)
12-3 incidentEditI'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 OrléansEditI'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 NevellEditHi 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. Content
Images
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 TexasEditBelieve 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 TudelaEditI'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-5EditOh 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 AustralianRupertEditG'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Roanoke ColonyEditI'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 HusEditI'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 rileyEditFrom 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 FilelakeshoeEditCurrently 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 1940EditI'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 AustralianRupertEditG'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)
Comments from Tim rileyEditThis is an enjoyable article, but it is not yet ready for FAC, in my view.
I hope these few suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 09:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Gaius Terentius Varro
Natural sciences and mathematicsEditNeanderthalEditI'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 OR10EditI'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 textileEditI'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.
Wolf
RigelEditI'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 literatureEditJames Humphreys (pornographer)EditAn 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 DoomEditI 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
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection)EditI'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.
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)EditI'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:
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) InterlingueEditHello, 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)
-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
Philosophy and religionEditSyriac Orthodox ChurchEditI'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 ChurchEditI'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:
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 societyEditAlbert SeedmanEditI'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 democracyEditHello. 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 AttkissonEditI'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 Nidhiki05EditAs 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 VivianEditI 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 PassyEditAfter 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 theoryEditI'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 StatesEditI'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:
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 centerEditI'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 CorbynEditI'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) ListsEditAges of consent in the United StatesEditI've listed this article for peer review following Fabrickator's suggestion that a Cheers, Guarapiranga (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC) List of coal fired power stations in TurkeyEditI'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 discoveriesEditI've listed this article for peer review, (please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Discoveries, 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 DiscoveriesEditI'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. Thanks, Armoracia-1 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Arjun Sarja filmographyEditPrevious peer review Thanks and Regards, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Comments from KailashEditAll 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 haulsEditI'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)
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
|
