Wikipedia:Peer review

MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

ArtsEdit

Follow GodEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have continuously worked on it even after I promoted the article to GA status back in May 2020, so it would be great to see if any suggestions could be made due to some certain being added more recently. Specifically, the In popular culture section should be focused on since it is entirely new, while the lead needs to have a look taken at it quite a bit due to having gone through expansion; the same can be said for the Background and development section, as well as Commercial performance one.

Thanks, it should be great to hear any relevant comments for help!

--K. Peake 20:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


Harry LeaheyEdit

Hi,

I've listed this article after completing it using the following reference: Peters, Philip M. (2006). Harry Leahey: master guitarist, musician and teacher. Newark, New Jersey (published May 2006). OCLC 319584186.

My previous edits have always consisted of slight fixes or table formattings, or of translations (so with source example), this one is my first entirely original contribution. I'm not entirely sure of the way I used the sfn templates to cite the source, and of the relevance of every bit of information I've included, or if I should have added some more.

I'm looking forward to reading your feedback, Thanks, Cryoclaste (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?Edit

This article is about the first film Martin Scorsese created when he was studying at New York University. I will appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks, ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


Lips Are MovinEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it doesn't look too far away from meeting FA criteria to me. Would love for some fresh eyes to go through it and give me advice before I formally proceed with the nomination. Advice on basically everything from sources, content and structure is welcome.

Thanks, NØ 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


1989 (Taylor Swift album)Edit

Previous peer review

The album that made the so-called Princess of Country into a global pop sensation. It would be interesting if the article could be promoted to FA status, thus I've listed this under PR. Any comment would be very much appreciated, (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


Viren (The Dragon Prince)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to turn it into a GA one day. However, the article needs copyediting and for someone who has neither worked on it, nor (preferably) viewed the show to see which sections need trimming; especially regarding the "Storylines" section.

Thanks, PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


Homura AkemiEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if this article is good enough to reach the GA status. I've been working to improve this article for the last few months and plan to nominate it to GAN soon although it has not been copy-edited yet so the prose still needs a lot of work. I would just like to know what sections/parts of the article need to be improved for it to have a chance of passing the Good article nomination. I am looking forward to your comments!

Thanks, NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So you're on a project to get these Puella Magi Madoka Magica characters to GA status, I think. Is that really the case? -iaspostb□x+ 08:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, I'm planning to make all Madoka Magica related articles to GA status, starting with the characters first. But as you can see, I'm not fluent in English so my grammar and prose are pretty bad. I have requested for a copy-edit for Sayaka Miki and Homura at the GOCE, and I plan to nominate them to GAN in the future. However, I feel that Homura's article is still not ready for GAN and needs a lot of improvements, especially the "Characterization" and "Psychoanalysis" section. So I would just like to know what section do you think need to be improved? NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The article's similar to your GAN Kyoko Sakura, I can say. -iaspostb□x+ 08:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't intend to review articles, but if someone wants me to do so then I'll peer-review this thing. You named yourself "NotEnglishSpeaker" because you aren't fluent in English. -iaspostb□x+ 16:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, alright. I just wanted to know what section of this article need to be improved so I start working on it. Could you peer-review this article when you have time? NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'll peer-review this article when I have time. -iaspostb□x+ 17:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's my peer-review: I think the "Characterization" and "Psychoanalysis" sections need to be improved. The prose could've been more comfortable to read, and there should've been less quotes in the text. I guess this is helpful. -iaspostb□x+ 05:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments! I'll try to do my best to improve the two sections you mentioned. NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome! -iaspostb□x+ 06:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to have some thoughts from @DarkFallenAngel: and @Maplestrip: on this article and some suggestions before closing the peer-review. What parts of this article need to be improved? Do you guys think it's ready for GAN? Any suggestions would be very much appreciated!NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


Game of ThronesEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have additional editor reviews and input before another go at WP:FAC. The article has been expanded significantly since the first peer review with minimal feedback on the second and third peer reviews. Any feedback and comments are greatly appreciate to help improve the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Just some fast comments: The 3 tables in the article are missing table captions. The Critical response table has the row scope incorrectly on the color cel which is meaningless. Also, the infobox is hidding content which it shouldn't per MOS:DONTHIDE. Either its important enough to be read, or not important enough to be added to the infobox and can be handled in the article.--Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments Gonnym. I expanded the executive producer and producer parameter lists. I also added table captions to the adaptation and critical response table. The viewership table is part of the {{Television ratings graph}} template which only has one title for both tables. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


A Crow Looked at MeEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FAR. Requesting specific attention to sources.

Thanks, DMT biscuit (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


Edward Thomas Daniell

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 30 July 2020, 19:27 UTC
Last edit: 6 August 2020, 22:30 UTC


Juice WrldEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I think I have a reasonable chance at making this GA. Since he's probably the biggest artist I've ever taken an interest in on Wikipedia, aside from maybe Fall Out Boy, I think maybe I should get some PR feedback first, if this process still even works. Don't fail me now.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor oops 18:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


Eurovision Song ContestEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly reworked this article over the past number of weeks (full edit history can be found on the article's former draft page) with the aim of bringing this back to FA status. The article is a former FA article (between 2006 and 2009) and is a Level 4 vital article. I would greatly appreciate feedback on the current state of the article and any changes which are necessary to enable it to successfully achieve FA, including where necessary to reformat and split into other Eurovision articles.

Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


The Who by Numbers TourEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I could improve this article to FA status.

Thanks, Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 16:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


Heaven Upside DownEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA, and would like to see if I can manage to get it promoted to FA, much like I did with Marilyn Manson's previous album The Pale Emperor. This article has needed more intensive work than The Pale Emperor, because of the title change and the delays in it being released. This is the aspect of the article that I think could confuse the casual reader, so would appreciate feedback on that specific point in particular (i.e., is the transition from Say10Heaven Upside Down confusing in any way? Have the details about the delays and the Donald Trump beheading video been introduced in an understandable way? Et cetera). I'd appreciate any feedback at all, to be honest. Thanks, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


Mira NakashimaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this article to move beyond "start" class! I would love to get photographs of her on this page but I cannot find any free images. I know there are photographs of Mira as a child in the Japanese internment camps and with her father in their home in PA but I am not familiar enough with how to get free images from government websites to do this! I am worried right now this article is too focused on her father, although she is notable in her own right as an internally-renown furniture maker. I have never requested a peer review before and any insight into improving this page would be very helpful! Thank you, Terasaface (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Terasaface (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


Hunky DoryEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to FA status and would appreciate any feedback on how to do that. I received some very good feedback through the GAN process but would like some more feedback, preferably from FAC reviewers, to get it to FAC quality.

Thanks, – zmbro (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


Everyday lifeEdit

Johnny OwenEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has FA potential, it's a pretty substantial and detailed account of his tragically short life. I've got an article at FAC and another one in line after that so I'm looking to use the waiting time to iron out any potential issues with this one. Boxing is not my main editing area so it would be good to get second opinions, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


Engineering and technologyEdit

Dwarf FortressEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because after quickly passing a GA from five years ago, I feel that this article is ready for FA. However, I would like some feedback on problems with the article so they can be fixed before FAR.

Thanks, Aven13 14:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


Scott A. McGregorEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's my second-ever biography article, and I'd love advice on how to improve (both this article and as a writer for future articles)! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


GeneralEdit

FC Bayern MunichEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... Although I haven't really done anything on this article I think that it is pretty close to FA status and would like to get others take on it.

Thanks, REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack

Not a full review right now, but there's some obvious major issues with the article. In its current state, I don't think this would pass a GA review without some work.

  • There are lots of paragraphs that are partially or completely unsourced.
  • The history section seems a little too slanted towards recent events. For example, the "Robbery" section (not sure on that heading by the way) has eight paragraphs for the last decade. The first section has six for the first 65 years of the club.
  • A few outstanding tags dotted around, citation, clarification and dubious tags all in place.
  • It's quite a hefty article, some of the information may be better placed in standalone pages. For example, I would probably remove the statistics section, or substantially reduce it.

Just a few quick thoughts to get started. Kosack (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


Stockport County F.C.Edit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because as I am looking to get the article to FA status. To see all previous notes on this article you'll need to read the following:

  • The first FAC where I was told it needed to go through a peer review.
  • The article then went through Peer Review along with being copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 May 2020.
  • The article was then put up for FAC once again.

I have been advised, as there has been a significant shortening of the article, to put this back up for a peer review before seeking a GAR before then looking into a FA nomination. I would like to get this article up to FA standards so any advice would be appreciated. As you can see from previous FAC and peer review a lot of work has gone into the Lead and Main History section to cut it down, happy to continue with it, if more work is required. Also I have been told that other sections need major work and prose needs going over. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Wna247 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WA8MTWAYCEdit

Hi Wna247, I saw this peer review unanswered so decided to do my bit (see here; if you don't agree, please revert). To be honest, the core of the article is there, but if you want to promote it to FA then a lot of work needs to be done. Some points I picked out:

  • The main problem is the sourcing. Be consistent, use the cite template, don't mix publisher/website, fill out all information.
    • Pay attention to formatting and spacing: e.g. "Freeman &Harnwell, p.24" > Freeman & Harnwell, p. 24. Also, "Guardian" > The Guardian.
    • Why is "Go Go Go County" a reliable source? There are further questionable sources such as Pastscape. If you possess books on Stockport County, use those.
    • Some books need page numbers, such as the "Stockport County – From the Nursery" one.
    • A ref which simply lists "Stockport County Official Match Programmes" won't be accepted at FAC. It needs to be very concrete (which date?). I don't think match programmes are very good sources anyway, it's better to use books or newspapers.
  • When I read the history section, I felt a lot of information was missing. Several promotions and relegations are missing and it's sometimes unclear which division/tier Stockport were competing in. For example, in 2008 County were promoted to Lge 1, but in 2011 you read they dropped out of the FL. When were they relegated to Lge 2?
    • I also think more background stories can be added. Who were the club's best players? Do they hold national records? Please take a look at FAs such as Luton Town F.C..
  • The crest section needs expanding. The details about the club's current crest are great, but nothing is said about its crests before 1991. I'm sure Stockport did not use a badge for the first time in 1991.
  • Edgeley park can also benefit from some expanding. What happened between 1903 and 1995?
  • "Top 10 managers in the club's history" Better to create a table with managers who have won honours with the club, or write a short part about them (e.g. Port Vale F.C.).
  • Some honours can be removed. The Cheshire Medal, Cheshire Bowl, Cheshire Friendly Trophy and the Cheshire Premier Cup don't seem notable to me.
  • "Club records and statistics" section: better to replace the bulletpoints with prose, see e.g. Luton Town F.C..
  • On a side note, be careful with expressions such as "currently". Use "as of 2020" instead.
  • The article contains some nouns plus -ing. Better to avoid it.
  • Lastly, read football club FAs to get an idea how things should be presented, written, et cetera. This and especially this can also be helpful.


Sonic the Hedgehog

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 25 June 2020, 23:38 UTC
Last edit: 27 July 2020, 14:05 UTC


University of CalcuttaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA.

Thanks, ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


Savage MojoEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because... I previously had listed this page, but it was deleted, and I simply want to make sure that the changes I have made to rectify things are correct. Thank you so much for your help!

Sirfuzzz (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


International StreetEdit

Hi! This article last underwent peer review in 2011, and received Good Article status in 2016. I'm wondering how it stacks up under today's standards, and whether it might be viably nominated for Featured article. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


Al Ahly SCEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to Know what improves should i do so it could be a GA

Thanks, Crosskimo (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


Mehdi KhalilEdit

I'm looking to nominate Mehdi Khalil for GA. I'm open to any suggestions or comments to improve the article. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremonyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now stable and I would like input as to whether or not to advance it as candidate for FA. The 2012 Opening Ceremony was a key event of that year and for the UK, was widely seen as an innovative success both artistically and for the history of the Olympics, winning multiple awards and worldwide recognition. I believe the article is comprehensive without becoming unwieldy and well referenced and illustrated (contrary views are of course welcome!); comments on whether the writing style and flow are good enough for FA would be particularly helpful.

Thanks, MapReader (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You might consider submitting a request here to have someone from the Guild of Copy Editors review the article's prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


Geography and placesEdit

Lafayette Park Historic DistrictEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's another article about a historic Albany neighborhood I think could be GA or FA.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


Pennyfield LockEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article. There are few pages about locks on the C&O Canal, so I do not have a "template" to pattern this page upon. In addition to being a geography topic, history might be appropriate too.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


HistoryEdit

Landis' Missouri BatteryEdit

This one has passed GAN and MILHIST ACR, and I would like to eventually run this through FAC. An informal poll on the article's talk page after the ACR suggested that it was not ready for FAC, which in hindsight, was correct. I've since gone through and done major improvements in the article. This would be my second FAC nomination if it's nominated through there, so I would like some peer comments to see if there's anything else lacking, as I'm not quite locked in the FAC requirements yet.

Thanks, Hog Farm Bacon 03:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


SiwanoyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a major re-write and reorganization of the article, including the addition of numerous references. It is currently rated Start class.

Thanks, Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


Chemin de fer de Petite CeintureEdit

This article was attributed a 'start'-level status not long after its creation, but it has much evolved since then. Some suggestions about how to bring it to 'good' (or better) quality would be welcome, too.

Thanks, TP   09:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


John Neal (writer)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I made some substantial additions to the article today after doing considerable research and having a friend edit the article for readability. I believe it is now of higher quality than the C Class it was last assigned. If it is not yet worthy of Feature Article status, I would like to hear what changes are needed to get there. The history of John Neal is very dear to me.

Thanks so much for your help! —Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


HMS Pearl (1762)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 28 June 2020, 07:15 UTC
Last edit: 5 August 2020, 17:37 UTC


Republic of GuriaEdit

Thinking of bringing the article to FA status, so would like to have some reviews before I get that far. Any comments are appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


18th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 7 June 2020, 14:03 UTC
Last edit: 6 August 2020, 15:52 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit

Obsessive–compulsive personality disorderEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to improve the article to reach Good Article standard. I would appreciate constructive feedback on this matter.

Thanks, Gaming User (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest withdrawing the peer review, as the article is sourced highly to non-WP:MEDRS sources, and needs considerable work to bring it to an acceptable level, removing primary sources and replacing them with secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Mosasaurus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 27 July 2020, 06:51 UTC
Last edit: 6 August 2020, 20:07 UTC


Language and literatureEdit

Enna BurningEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded the article and believe it should be rated above stub class.

Thanks, Cstickel(byu) (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


Isaac AsimovEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…it has been a featured article before, but it was demoted because it only had 12 citations. It now has 284, so I want to see if it's ready to be nominated for FA status again, or what other improvements would be advisable first.

Thanks, Richard75 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


Philosophy and religionEdit

Korean creation narrativesEdit

I'm putting up this GA for peer review because I'd like to take it to FA at some point, and a fresh pair or two of eyes is always a big help. If you have any suggestions about the content, clarity, structure, whatever, have at them :D

Cheers and thanks in advance, Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


Jacob Peter MynsterEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded the article significantly, and want to know how I can further improve it. In particular, I'd love some feedback on the lead section and my organization of the Career section.

Thanks, Uffda608 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


Social sciences and societyEdit

Ni YulanEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly developed recently, and I'd like to take it to GA or FA nominations in the future. It's about a human rights lawyer who has been oppressed under the Chinese Communist regime. Any help is highly appreciated.

Thanks, Thomas Meng (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet comments
  • Far too much bolding. The only bolding should be the title of the article, and any other title that redirects to the article, such as an alternate name or alias.
  • The timeline format is terrible. Any article that is expected to advance higher on Wikipedia should have its information presented in prose.
  • You are missing a lot of good sources, for instance Reuters, Voice of America, Asia Times, BBC, New York Times 2012, New York Times 2016 and UK Guardian.
  • Identical references should be merged using named refs. See WP:REFNAME. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Thanks so much for your constructive comments. I've fixed issues 1,2 and 4. Will take sources from pt. 3 into consideration shortly.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


ListsEdit

List of Pakistani music bandsEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it may meets the criteria of featured list, but first I need peer review that whether it meets the criteria or not.

Thanks, Empire AS Talk! 02:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


List of blues musiciansEdit

During the last year, this has developed into a fully-referenced MOS-compliant list and is now almost ready to be a featured list candidate. Looking forward to suggestions to make this happen.

Thanks, Ojorojo (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


List of accolades received by PremamEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because, since this is my first FL, I would like a peer review to make sure it is ready to go.

Thanks, PK743 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit