Open main menu

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.




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

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

Vespro della Beata VergineEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to find out if it can become a featured article some day. Vespro della Beata Vergine is a unique piece in the history of sacred music, the first in a line of later Bach's Christmas Oratorio and Verdi's Messa da Requiem. Monteverdi demonstrated the range of his abilities, writing with a position in Rome in mind, but in the end got the post at San Marco in Venice. We don't know if it was ever performed completely during his lifetime, nor if he actually expected it to be performed that way. Certainly musicologists and musicians from the 20th century on have been fascinated. Much more text than the 5 psalms + Magnificat usually set in a vespers music, six soloists, 10-part choir in one psalm, rich orchestra, dramatic and virtuoso elements from the just beginning opera combined with the ever-present Gregorian chant, great diversity in musical styles and expression, - all it takes to make a piece successful 400 years after it was written. Here is a short introduction, - in the background you hear an extreme performance, a recording which renders only the music Monteverdi wrote (and no aditions to make it a proper liturgical vespers service), with 10 singers and soloist for all instruments. I heard them in concert last Sunday.

The article just received a GA review by The Rambling Man. Thanks to him, and for your interest, Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by SoWhyEdit

I'm not much of a musical composition guy, so these are (hopefully useful) comments by someone completely unfamiliar with the whole topic area. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The lead section appears too long. MOS:LEADLENGTH advises 2 paragraphs for articles with less than <15,000 characters which is the case here if my tools counted correctly. Currently, the lead section makes up ~20% of the article's text. As someone unfamiliar with the topic, reading that lead kind of scares me from reading the rest of the article. Also, many details mentioned in the lead, such as the dedication to Pope Paul V or speculation where it might have been performed seem unneeded when trying to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."
  • Also, shouldn't the alternative name "Vespers of 1610" be mentioned in the lead sentence (MOS:LEADALT)? E.g. Vespro della Beata Vergine (Vespers for the Blessed Virgin), SV 206, sometimes also called Vespers of 1610, is an extended musical composition [...] That way the rest of the fourth paragraph could be removed, since the full publication name does also not strike me as something that really needs to be mentioned in the lead.
History and context
  • If the article mentions Monteverdi's desire to move up within the court of Mantova, shouldn't the article also provide at least some basic information on why he was there, what he planned to achieve and why composing this piece would have achieved that?
  • Also, should "at age 43" really be the preferred style of dating? After all, it forces readers to look up his birth date in his article to then calculate that it must have been 1610. Even if the source only says "at age 43", WP:CALC allows saying it was in 1610 because when he was baptized on 15 May 1567, he was only 43 between approx. May 1610 and April 1611. But if the piece was published in 1610, he must have written it in 1610 as well for having done so at age 43.
  • Shouldn't it be Mantua, not Mantova, like in his article?
Thank you for helpful comments, indeed. The article is on its way, so please look at the lead last. Rather than counting: the lead should contain the information a reader should absolutely know. I'll look into expanding the bio part. If you understand he wanted to be promoted within Montova, I must change something. It was too small for him, so he aspired to Rome and got Venice. Age: we don't know exactly when he composed, only when published, some say he wrote for 3 years, - I will look into that too. Once 1610 us established in bold, I don't think anybody would have to look up a birth date, and if, hovering over his name seems easy enough. I try to get to what a thing is, rather than including alternative names in the first sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created the article from a redirect and greatly expanded it. Would love some additional input on the article on how to improve it. Hoping to get this article up to GA status at some point.

Thanks, Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

John DenverEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if there are any problems in the article before possibly nominating it for GA. I know you're supposed to be a significant contributor to an article to nominate it, that's why I want a peer review so I can improve it more. Thanks, NightBag10 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The Cabinet of Dr. CaligariEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I previously worked to improve this article up to GA status and plan to submit it to FAC soon, but would like a thorough peer review by an outside party before doing so.

Thanks, — Hunter Kahn 14:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Going to do a more thorough review later but a quick drive-by has me noticing that the "Sequels, remakes and musical works" has Citation Needed tags to it. I think that entire section will have to have a rewrite but I expect that was part of the plan. GamerPro64 04:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thought I would be doing a more in-depth review of the article but after reading the entire piece, the "Sequels, remakes and musical works" is the only part that needs to be overhauled. With that section there it lowers the quality of the article that it could damage its chances of retaining its GA status. Other than that the article looks solid. GamerPro64 00:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks, yeah, much of that content was added by other people after the GAN review. I'll look at it and improve it accordingly before moving on to FA. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • GamerPro64, FYI, I've gone through the Sequels/Remakes section as per your suggestion. I've cleaned it up, copy edited it, restructured the section slightly, removed some information that lacked reliable sources, and added reliable sources in other cases. I think it's adequate now, but if you'd like to give a look at that section in particular and give any feedback, let me know. Or, if you think this peer request is complete now, that's fine as well. Thanks either way for your help! — Hunter Kahn 14:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah the section has been greatly improved. I think this Peer Review is done here. GamerPro64 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Lumines Live!Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get this to GA status and I'm not sure if it is ready. Could someone take a quick glance and see if there are any glaring flaws that could delay the GA review? Thanks, Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Scribolt

I've made some copy edits directly in the article, feel free to modify / ignore them if you don't like them. A few questions,

  • If this is the 3rd entry in the series, why is it 2nd in the list of releases on the series page?
  • I would suggest giving a bit more detail on the mission mode, what is a mission that the player needs to solve? To score a certain number of points in a specific time? To clear a screen with a certain number of moves?
  • Similarly for the Skin edit mode, what is a Skin in this context? A color scheme? It's made a bit clearer later, but it could do with explaining a bit earlier.
  • Yokota is mentioned with no introduction, who is he/she?

Scribolt (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Scribolt: Thanks for the assist. I made the mistake of putting this the third in the series when technically it was the second. I was only following the Japanese release as the original. The European release came earlier than it was intended to release. I'll fix that if it hasn't been fixed yet. Mission Mode is really hard to describe because it has a large variety of tasks. None of the sources give a clear idea. The ones I can list on the top of my head are clearing the board by making one or two moves, clearing one or more columns, clearing a set number of squares before time runs out, clearing the board before time runs out. Skin Edit mode is just a playlist mode, lets players create a playlist of skins that were already unlocked.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Raja HarishchandraEdit

The film is considered as the first feature film in India. I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. This would be my first FAC so wanted to have other editors to take a look at the article before it goes for the final evaluation. Constructive comments are welcome.

Thanks, - Vivvt (Talk) 04:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from DwaipayanEdit

  • The plot section does not make much sense to me. I failed to understand the basic themes (integrity of Harischandra) on a rapid reading. Since I do not remember the story of Harishchandra very well at this moment, I am unable to provide some constructive feedback. Hopefully I will be back with workable suggestions soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the film is partially lost, one is only supposed to add plot details from the source for verification. And I think that's just what Vivvt has done. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Vishvamitra performing a yajna to get help from triguna shakti against their will. So, the triguna shakti have their own will? But these are not person. Needs explanation/modification.
  • Harischandra... interrupts... by releasing the three powers. So, Harischandra already had the three powers? How did he “release” those?
  • Vishvamitra... asks to arrange for dakshina. Needs translation/explanation. What is Dakshina?
  • Taramati to ask Dom king... what is a dom king? The wiki link does not help much. (It links to a page describing Dom being a Bengali Hindu caste)
  • Bishvamitra frames Taramati for murdering prince of Kashi. This is weird. Where does the prince of Kashi come into the picture ? Who is he (in relation to the characters already described)?
  • Taramati pleads guilty and is ordered to be beheaded by Harishchandra. Why does she plead guilty if she is innocent? Also, how come Harishchandra is the judge if he is not the king anymore ?
  • As Harishchandra attempts to behead Taramati, a pleases Lord Shiva appears. Vishvamitra reveals that ... there is a logical gap between these two consecutive sentences. How does Lord Shiva’s appearance lead to Vishvamitra’s revelation? Does sage V also come to the scene of the beheading?
  • I understand the film is partially lost and not every detail can be recovered. But the legend can be referred to for explaining the scenes. Also, if the film is mostly lost, what is the source of this plot section?

Thanks,--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, there are two sources for the plot already added to the section. As per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources." The first source is Indian Cinema: The Bollywood Saga (I have not added the link as it is from Google Drive) and pages 76–80 of this. You may read them both to clarify your doubts and suggest what can be added/removed/amended. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter and the Wolf (TV special)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe I have enough information, references and media (after a long research based on valid sources I found) so the article can be rated C. However, whether that happens or not, I would like to know what I can improve, and I'm open to constructive criticism!

Thanks, NickBlamp (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

All About That Bass

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 May 2019, 15:53 UTC
Last edit: 5 August 2019, 05:07 UTC

Hi-5 (Australian band)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 May 2019, 03:29 UTC
Last edit: 10 August 2019, 04:47 UTC

Saving LightEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to properly prepare the article for a Featured Article Nomination. I was suggested to do so on the articles third FAN, as it was suggested that it had a bunch of problems and should be withdrawn, which I have done. The article previously underwent a peer review a while ago, but since then it had become a good article, underwent a copy-edit and two FANs, (first one failed because only one person actually commented on it and second one failed because of the questionable critical reception bit which has since been fully reworked, not by me) so there shouldn't be too* much work to be done. But yea, I am asking for a FAN-level peer review as I don't want to make a fool out of myself and fail a 4th time. Here are the links to the first peer review, good article nomination, first FAN, second FAN, and third FAN. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 08:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Kal Ho Naa Ho

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 April 2019, 12:35 UTC
Last edit: 1 July 2019, 15:02 UTC


Round the HorneEdit

This is a joint effort by SchroCat and Tim riley. Round the Horne was a BBC radio comedy of the 1960s, a formative influence on one of us as a teenager (the other wasn't alive in the 1960s and so has no excuse whatever). We have been revising the article with the aim of bringing it up to FA standard. We have tried to give the show comprehensive coverage though we hope we have avoided being too solemn about it. We regret the lack of pictures, but we are restricted by Wikipedia's rules on copyight images, and have tried to break the text up with, we hope, enlivening quote boxes. All comments and suggestions on this and indeed on anything else will be gratefully received. We hope you find the article wangles your nurdles. – SchroCat and Tim riley talk 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - technical hitch (me, probably). Having to shut this page and open a new PR. Apologies! Tim riley talk 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Art Ducko (student magazine)Edit

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

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

Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Everyday lifeEdit


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 August 2019, 16:11 UTC
Last edit: 21 August 2019, 12:48 UTC


I am going make this simple. I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • Ryzen article became too technical for most readers to understand each time a new information released for new Ryzen Processors that`s comes out.
  • Too much AMD fanboys being too excited and putting their "fans point of view" mixed inside the information in this article. This articles should be more focus on AMD Ryzen the article and not get upset over fan based changes are being removed.

Technical tag and Fan tag should been dated since 2017. Thanks, Regice2020 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment: please note that this review has been added by a disruptive editor who even tried to have the article deleted with very similar BS reasons as given above. --Denniss (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The recent revert of a good faith edit from me by Denniss about tags was not properly reviewed. This "Peer Review" is not use to throw rocks at each other. Seeks improvement as stated in bullets and this been going on since 2017. Regice2020 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


  • The goal is to fix page up and stop people from preventing users from doing so.
  • Another note, the product lineup table on Ryzen article page already have a independent article for it. to allow easier improvement and fixes. The table should of been removed from Ryzen page due to duplication.
  • When a proposal is made. It tends falls into WP:SNOW by specific AMD group like you see on news article about this processor.Proof of Fan Behavior Regice2020 (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Lebanon national football team

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 June 2019, 17:56 UTC
Last edit: 6 July 2019, 16:15 UTC

Cincinnati chiliEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take it to FA and have never done that before, and it looks terrifying. I thought maybe some fresh critical eyes on it might be a good step.

Thanks, valereee (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


  • Given the length of the article, suggest expanding the lead a bit more
  • Per this RfC, entries in an In Popular Culture section should have sources that indicate not only that the mentioned reference exists, but also that it is significant to the topic
  • Before going to FAC, I'd strongly suggest taking a look at the consistency of the citations. You basically want to ensure not only that the citations are complete and correct, but also that citations to the same type of source are similarly formatted. For example, footnotes 1 and 2 are both books but only one includes location; footnotes 4 and 27 are to the same source but one has the publication italicized and one does not; footnote 53 has page title but no other indication of the source; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thanks so much for your comments, I'll start in on them! --valereee (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Engineering and technologyEdit

Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to become a good article, but I don't know if it is good enough, what I should edit to see how it can become a good article, and if I should try to get a copy edit for it. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 07:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

List of largest cruise shipsEdit

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

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

Pokémon StadiumEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to attempt to get it to GA status from the C-Class status that it is currently at. I have had four successful GA nominations in the past (a small town, two films, and a book), but I do not know how to approach a video game article when it comes to getting it to that status. My interest in the subject comes from it being one of my favorite Nintendo 64 games.

Thanks, SL93 (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not reviewing this, but I can give some quick advice from skimming it.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. Is the Transfer Pak so important that it needs to be the first thing mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead? I'd move it towards the end.
  2. Third paragraph of the gameplay section lacks a source entirely.
  3. "Other Features" should not have its own sub-section.
  4. Same goes for the "Mini-games" section. It should also be written in prose, not in this pseudo-list format it's currently going for. Also, I'm not sure every minigame has to be mentioned. Just a sample of three of them might be enough. Other people might disagree with me on this though.
  5. Development section is sparse. Is there really nothing else that can be found about this game's development?
  6. Reception section is also lacking. It's too short for one. But most notably: it overuses direct quotes. Direct quotes are fine, but not when used as the only method of relaying their opinion. Try to group similar opinions in your own words instead. You can check some other GA/FA game articles to see good examples.
  7. The RPGamer and ELSPA links are dead.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix talk

Hi SL93 - you've got a favorite of mine, too, though I think I slightly prefer the second one because I was always such a fan of Pokémon Gold and Silver. While I don't have time to start a review this second, this is a declaration of my intent to give you some feedback within the next couple of days. Red Phoenix talk 16:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

All right, here's what I've got for you:

  1. For starters, you have the basic structure: Gameplay, Development, and Reception. That's perfect, as those are the notability-conferring sections.
  2. On references, I don't think you have to worry about reliability with what you have, but you'll need to do some more research to hit the broadness criterion (see notes below). Since you have stated you're not sure how to approach a video game article, I'd recommend you check out WP:VG/S for some ideas of where you can look and what will and won't work.
  3. Agree with Megaman en m above that surely there must be more about the development; this was a big name game for Nintendo. Right now it's more about the features of the game, not necessarily the actual development. For an idea of a good development section on a video game article, check out Out Run, which is a GA.
  4. If you want to keep the "Sequel" section, expand it with some more info and make it at least a full paragraph. Otherwise, merge it into Reception, and make it sort of a "Reception and legacy" section.
  5. Beware of WP:GAMECRUFT in this article. We don't need a list of Pokemon you can win at the end of the game. We don't need a list of every individual minigame in the game and how it's played. Focus on the real-world notability of the game in these section instead: what are the important aspects of the gameplay? Who developed it, and how was it received?
  6. Make sure every statement is sourced, even in Gameplay.
  7. Also agree with the Reception section needing more expansion, and there should be plenty of reviews so you don't need to use all the direct quotes.
  8. Was the first game called Pokemon Stadium 2 in Japan? Seems unlikely; check your Notes section.
  9. After you've done some research and expansion, the lead needs to be restructured to include something about all of the sections and facets. I'm sure you're familiar with it now, but MOS:LEAD is helpful.
  10. Because there's expansion work to do, I won't nitpick the prose, but you're going to need a general copyedit of the whole article. There are little issues everywhere. It's not really ready until we get the expansion, but I will be willing to help when the article is expanded.

Red Phoenix talk 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Mat DickieEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it has expanded greatly since its creation in 2016 through the work of me and other editors; I would like some feedback on how to improve it further and move it towards GA status if possible.

Thanks, Yeeno (talk) 🍁 19:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dig Dug IslandEdit

I'd like a peer review on this so as to fix or clean up any glaring issues with the page, as I intend to hopefully get this to Good Article status once finished. This is the first time I've requested a peer review for a non-list, so apologies if I don't understand something. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Research & EngineeringEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just assessed it and I believe it has GA potential, but I'm not quite fully certain. I'd like for it to be taken a look at and see if there's anything to improve before bringing it to GAN.

Thanks, letcreate123 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 70 in Arizona

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 July 2019, 03:44 UTC
Last edit: 13 July 2019, 15:59 UTC

DMC DeLoreanEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am a significant contributor to this article and would like to see if this article is worthy again of being a GA or possibly even a featured article.

Thanks, Expandinglight5 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Expandinglight5 You've obviously put in a lot of good work here. The article is very thorough. while going over my suggestions below, please be aware that I'm new to wikipedia editing and peer review, and therefore everything I say here should be taken with a grain of salt.
As far as getting the article to GA or FA status, I think there's still work that needs to be done. I've made some suggestions below. Since I'm new, I don't want to to directly edit the page for these, instead I've written them for your consideration:
  • The priority for the current state of the article is to ensure it is well-cited. There's a lot of citations missing, particularly for the production section. If you wrote that section, I presume you got the information from a specific source - if it was written by another user, it might be good to contact them if you struggle to find reliable sources. If all else fails, it may be prudent to remove that section.
  • Touching more on the production section, there is a lot of text there and it could be considerably condensed - I don't know how much all that information contributes to the page, especially since a lot of it is discussion on the VIN numbers. The flow could also be improved, as it reads more like text from an investigative article than an encyclopedic one (things like "as stated before" and "it is believed" should be avoided when possible).
  • think about dividing the history section into subsections. "conceptualization and prototypes," "fabrication" and "bankruptcy and revival" would be a good division, but feel free to divide them as you see fit. Make sure things are more are less chronological in the history section.
  • the lead section is good but could be more concise. You could remove some more specific facts (for example, the location of the factory) as that kind of information isn't essential for a reader looking to get a surface-level understanding of the car, and is mentioned later in the article for readers who want more detail.
  • this is minor, but consider changing "special deloreans" to something like "unique and notable deloreans," as it reads a bit more professional and encyclopedic in nature.
I hope this helps. Don't hesitate to reach out if you want to discuss these suggestions. Other reviewers, feel free to point out if any of my advice here is incorrect - I'll defer to more experienced reviewers.
Cheers, Luidias (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

These are good points. I've removed a few items on the lead section that are duplicative and don't belong in the section. I've revised the language to 'Notable and unique' and put the cars in chronological order in that section. I think the RHD section should be moved into unique/notable as well. The production section is new (in fact I think it appeared after I requested peer review.) I did not write the section. I did however add the citation requested tags to the section hoping the author would support the data. That section should be written in a more encyclopedic tone and I agree it needs work. I'll try to divide the history section soon as well. Thank you for the feedback. Expandinglight5 (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Mark MabryEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because... It's a new article and I want to make sure there are no issues with quality or formatting. Thanks, Rightooth (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian Christian Student MovementEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to take it to WP:GAC. This article would be my third GAC attempt. Feel free to construct and edit the article.

Thanks, Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Dhio270599
Hi Jeromi Mikhael, fellow +62 here. I'll probably give remarks on grammar and writing style:

  • "as the merger of the Christelijke Studenten Vereniging op Java, which is the organizations for Christian students in Java" --> the Vereniging is a single organization (as I've understood), thus making the erasing of the -s suffix behind "organization" necessary.
  • Organization names: Cipayung Group; Pancasila Front; World Student Christian Federation; Dutch Army: deserve their own wikilinks
  • Names like CL van Doorn, OE Engelen, JR Mott, and others deserve their own wikilinks
  • there should be explicit explanations for abbreviations like GMKI and NCSV on the text. Perhaps, like, "(Indonesian: Gerakan Mahasiswa Kristen Indonesia, abbreviated as GMKI)" and "was inspired by the Dutch Christian Student Association (Dutch: Nederlandse Christen Studenten Vereniging, abbreviated as NCSV)"
  • "which at that time still studying" --> "which at that time is still studying"
  • Nations (e.g. Indonesia), nationalities (e.g. Dutch), cities like Bandung, Bogor, Surabaya, and Jogjakarta, and other administrative places, such as Kebon Sirih, deserve their own wikilinks
  • "to held" --> "to hold" (to-Verb 1)
  • "highly nationalistic to Indonesia" ---> "highly nationalistic to Indonesia" (reducing redundancy)
  • "During this time, many people misinterpreted GMKI"
  • Ideologies, e.g. socialism, deserve their own wikilinks
  • Major historical events, like the G30S, deserve their own wikilinks

Dhio-270599 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lecrae discographyEdit

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

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

Ninian ParkEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get a gauge on the potential for a run at at FA in the future and sort out any major issues before hand. Appreciate any and all comments, thanks, Kosack (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Clinton Railroad BridgeEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because even though I'm editing the article, I think it would be a great idea for this to be peer reviewed. I would like to know what are some more ways to improve this article. Thanks, WikiHelper26 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hill Climb Racing (video game)Edit

I would like a peer review for this article about a video game. I am bringing this article up to Wikipedia's standards, and having come this far, I have questions as to the quality of the article or one of its citations. First of all, you will see that a fair number of the references link to Facebook or Twitter, which are typically unreliable, and for your reference, the Facebook and Twitter references always cite (what I believe to be) the official accounts of Fingersoft. This can be proven by going to About and clicking on the company's URL, and then clicking on the social media icons to return to the same accounts. The main question here is about the Swedish source, which I believe is a reliable source owned by South Square Publishing. It actually won a "Redo of the Year" magazine award in Sweden in 2014. However, I have not found much in the way of editorial standards or ethics on either of the websites of or its publisher, so I need a second opinion on the source.

The other question that I have is about the Gameplay section. Thanks to the availability of the sources, I was able to write and verify other sections about the game, but unfortunately, little is talked about the gameplay. The prose in the other sections is concise and engaging (save for perhaps the Sequel section, but there is no reason to give it undue weight anyway for an article about the original), but I personally feel that this section could use either expansion with reliable sources or a rewrite. The prose here seems to hastily describe one feature after the other, resulting in an awkward flow. Note that the gameplay itself is simple, but it is not minimalistic as the section. Then again, the latter question is my own analysis of the section, but I would really like opinions on how to rewrite it if change needs to be made. I am already considering nominating this otherwise well-written article for GA, but if it turns out that the article is that excellent, I will probably consider making it an FA candidate instead. Gamingforfun365 09:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Geography and placesEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… I want some feedback as to how to get this article to c-class.

Thanks, BEANS X2 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Cod IslandEdit

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

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


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

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

Normandale, New ZealandEdit

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

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

Murchison MountainsEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm new to Wikipedia and I've been working for a while on this article but I don't know if it's good enough and how I should improve this article.

Thanks, Luke'n'Thomas (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Very nicely done. I've added links and performed some very minor copyediting, but most everything looks to be in its place. I would recommend you add an infobox from Template:Infobox mountain. Here are the changes I added [1]. (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.Luke'n'Thomas (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


SS PoliticianEdit

The SS Politician was a cargo boat that ran aground in 1941. She would have been just another statistic of a wartime shipping loss if it was not for one thing: she contained 22,000 cases (264,000 bottles) of scotch. It was the habit of Hebrideans to look at all wrecks on their shores as bounty to be rescued from the being lost, irrespective of the niceties of the maritime salvage laws. The fact that a Scotch-drinking writer by the name Compton Mackenzie lived on a neighbouring island and decided to use it as a basis for a humorous story meant that Politician was immortalised in the book and two films that go under the name Whisky Galore. There is a darker side to it all – and the book's pompous figure of Captain Waggett was, in reality a customs man named McColl, who persecuted and prosecuted anyone who had taken from the wreck. – SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Coat of arms of SevastopolEdit

I am new to the WP:GA process; I am not 100% sure if the article would be accepted. It seems to satisfy most if not all of the criteria, but I would like a peer review to make sure that's the case.

Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

War cabinet crisis, May 1940Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FA and I think this process will be useful before I do that. The article is about an important event in world history. Thanks, No Great Shaker (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Basil IIEdit

I wish to state directly that the purpose of this review is for FA candidacy. I managed to get it into GA, but it was unable to pass into FA status. I was the main contributor to the article back in July of 2018, adding citations, expansion of sentences, etc. that you may view to see it for yourself, and sparked a prolonged improvement of the article by other fellow editors after its failed nomination. The main reasons of its failure were the lack of quotes on the understanding of the figure, lack of organization in the information, and just being incoherent in general. I believe that after an entire year of continuous editing by the same critics who opposed its FA candidacy, it might be ready for a renomination. However, the FAC admins wished for me to make a peer review before doing such a thing again, so I now look for advice on what this article might be missing at this time. Your ideas are greatly appreciated, and I will implement any that is stated. 20DKB03 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 July 2019, 20:12 UTC
Last edit: 7 August 2019, 20:40 UTC

Gaius Terentius VarroEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded greatly from the original stub to, I believe, the max extent possible given the information we have on Varro. All sections currently on the article are ones I've added and thus all need review. As this is my first mid-length article and the first I've submitted for review, all comments and contributions would be helpful to find out where this article stands now and whether it can be improved further. Many thanks, LarciusFlavus (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi LarciusFlavus. I have looked over Varro, and your three other Romans, and it looks like very good work. I have done some work on Roman consuls and generals myself. There is a lack of consensus on how they should be presented, so the following comments are mostly how I approach these things; others may do things slightly differently.
  • There are some statements uncited.
  • I use either the politician or officeholder infoboxes, they allow more information. A partially completed template is here.
  • Personally I would be wary of over using the primary sources. Ie see Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, where Plutarch, Suetonius, Cicero and Appian are each used once, but most of the article is referenced to secondary sources. (If you feel that the modern sources are all various interpretations of a single, or a limited number of, primary source(s) you might want to think about covering this in a separate section, as in Battle of Cape Ecnomus.)
  • A quick scan of a couple of sources I have to hand - Bagnall's The Punic Wars and Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage - suggest that there is quite a bit of further information on Varro in modern sources. I would be surprised if modern works dealing specifically with Cannae didn't have yet more.
  • Personally, as this is the English Wikipedia, I avoid foreign language expressions without a translation. I suspect that "Varro was a member of the plebeian gens Terentia" or "progressing through the stages of the cursus honorum, holding the quaestorship and both the plebeian and curule aedileships" are going to mean very little to the average reader. (For an example of how I have handled this sort of thing, see Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes#Early career.)

I hope that this is of some help to you.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Gog the Mild, this is all really useful. I'll get to making those improvements both here and across my other edits. You've given me a lot of help here. LarciusFlavus (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Llywrch

I'm not as up on this period of Roman history as @P Aculeius:, but I have some thoughts.

  • Don't worry too much about the primary/secondary source issue. The reason we worry about primary/secondary sources is that too much use of primary sources leads us to interpret the facts & into original research, which we don't want to do. If you are stating facts (e.g., the Romans had 40,000 troops), & the secondary source is clearly citing the primary source, just go ahead & cite the primary source. (And sometimes we are faced with an instance where there just isn't any secondary source to use, & we must simply set forth the facts & hope it is enough.)
  • BTW, if you know German, the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft is definitely a source you will want to get to know very well if you work on Classical topics.
  • In the first paragraph of the section "Early years", you mention "Servius". We have an article on him, so why not link to it? It will help show he is a reliable source.
  • As for Cannae...
    Definitely mine the bibliography of Battle of Cannae for sources. For one thing, Gregory Daly in his Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War raises the theory Varro was made the scapegoat for the loss at Cannae. (Fun fact: there is evidence that Scipio, afterwards hero of Rome, was in the trapped pocket of Romans at Cannae & escaped, yet managed to avoid the punishment extracted on the other survivors of that Battle.) Two other books I found useful were Goldworthy's, but especially Robert O'Connell, The Ghosts of Cannae. O'Connell is a former instructor at the USN Academy, & he brings the eye of a soldier to the tale of Hannibal's campaign in Italy.
  • NB, studies have been done on when the consuls took office under the Roman Republic. Also, there is a date for the battle, which should be mentioned. See Battle of Cannae#Date. And I believe using these dates enrich the article by providing some more or less firm dates in Varro's life.
  • You should try to flesh out the detail about Varro's activities after Cannae. IIRC, he played a very important role in rallying Roman morale after that defeat, although Polybius & Livy eclipse his efforts by giving the credit to Scipio.

Hope you find these suggestions useful. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Marc Bloch

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 25 June 2019, 08:59 UTC
Last edit: 9 July 2019, 20:11 UTC

Joseph JudsonEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I upgraded the page based on suggestions written in 2011. I am not the original author.

Thanks, Diogenes99 (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

y subscript e is used in the "Settlement" section repeatedly but is not explained. Personally, I would include a clause about Stratford's religious beliefs in the lede but that's a fairly minor point. Otherwise the article looks good. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Diogenes99 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Connaught LaboratoriesEdit

I've listed this article for review to hear general feedback and receive input on accessibility of the material. Connaught Laboratories' history as a non-commercial institution (no longer the case since privatization) provides important context to Canadian public health around the time that many important medical advances were made in the early 20th century. Since the 100th anniversary of these medical advances are on the horizon (the discovery and early development of insulin among them), information in this article may contribute some significant surrounding history.

Thanks, Utl jung (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

1991-92 Georgian coup d'état

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 April 2019, 16:42 UTC
Last edit: 9 August 2019, 02:55 UTC

William S. PowellEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is about an important person in North Carolina history and could use some input on what needs to be done.

Thanks, User:G._Moore, Talk Talk to G Moore 17:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • With what we have already, this article is fine. I couldn't spot any problems with the existing content. One thing I did encounter was the first sentence in the lead: "...native of the Tar Heel State of North Carolina." I am no American. I clicked on the link to Tar Heel State, which was just a redirect to North Carolina. I then had to read a bit to realize it was simply a nickname for North Carolina (if I am not mistaken). This got me a bit confused, so I think you should find a way to rephrase it so non-Tar Heelians will understand it. As for the article itself, I believe there is much more to tell about someone who wrote more than 600 articles and books, especially in America. The article says he wrote some books. What about them? What subjects did Powell deal with? What new fields of North Carolinian history did he research? What impact did his books have on the historiography of this state? Are there any debates on the history of North Carolina that Powell holds a specific view on? And talking about views, do we know something about his views, political or social? Did he have some interesting collaborations with other scholars, or made some big projects worth mentioning? Are there any interesting facts about Powel that have led you to expand this article? Some stuff the average reader would be interested to know? I hope I am not going too far here, and that most of these questions can be answered with the sources accessible to you. I made a simple search on the internet and found this page which shows clearly that there is a lot more to tell about this man.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 August 2019, 16:30 UTC
Last edit: 17 August 2019, 05:03 UTC

Paweł UrbanEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. In fact, much of the original content was deleted during the discussion. Although the article has not been deleted, there are still some remaining concerns. Can this article be improved at all to match Wikipedia standards?

Thanks, Natriumchloratum (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

1900 Galveston hurricaneEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to reach Featured Article status and be TFA for its 120th anniversary next year, as this is one of the most well-known historical hurricanes. The article recently failed an FAC nomination, primarily on the basis of lack of spotchecks, so that would be most helpful for this review. Apparently there may be other issues with the article as well. If possible, I would like the entire article to be examined.

Thanks, 12george1 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments from Jason Rees
  • Im going to start with the impact section and work my way through gradually when time allows:
    • Personally I would put Jamaica before Cuba since the former would have been impacted first.
    • When I read the Carribean section, I notice two different rainfall totals (2.6 in (66 mm) & 12.58 in (319.5 mm)), these should be presented the same way throughout the article.

Island of stability

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 July 2019, 22:02 UTC
Last edit: 7 August 2019, 14:09 UTC

Cactus wren

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 June 2019, 07:12 UTC
Last edit: 22 August 2019, 00:14 UTC


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 April 2019, 22:56 UTC
Last edit: 27 June 2019, 16:04 UTC

Language and literatureEdit

Helen Phillips (novelist)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive suggestions to improve the article, as well as help finding the author's date of birth.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection)Edit

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

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

Mouthful of Birds (story collection)Edit

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

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



I spent the period from November to April typing the content of the magazine Cosmoglotta from 1927 to 1951, the main journal in which the planned language Occidental (Interlingue) was published. On the way I added to the Interlingue article whenever I came across information or an event that seemed notable and neutral enough to include in the article. Now I've started the process of cleanup and am considering what direction, if any, I should take the article. Or maybe it is large and complete enough already and just needs more cleanup.

The short introduction to the language is that it was created from 1894 to 1922 by a former Volapükist and then Esperantist from Estonia who eventually decided it was ready to publish that year because the League of Nations had announced it was looking into the subject of an international language. It quickly became popular, eventually become the second most used international language after Esperanto (as far as I can tell, and by second most that's a very, very far second place - no other language has come close to Esperanto's size) but then was hit with a perfect storm of negative events after WWII and many of its adherents joined Interlingua after it was released in 1951. Then it nearly died by the 1980s, and came back to life with the internet.

The typing of Cosmoglotta is now done but the content is still fresh in my mind so this seems like a good time for a peer review.

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

Conlanging is a topic which has fancied my interest recently. I might give this a look over some time over the weekend. Jerry (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I will get to this right now. A couple remarks from a quick read.

-Link #2 is dead, and #69 has an error.

-Lede succinctly describes the history of the community, though it may need more info on the inner workings of the grammar. The article is genuinely engaging though.

-Images all up to fair use policy standards.

-(The second lede image showing Edgar de Wahl is somewhat distracting, and something I don't usually see articles having. Also the History and Activity section is a bit image heavy but I don't think either of these are against Image use policy.)

"As a result, opinions of the IALA and its activities in the Occidental community began to improve and reports on its activities in Cosmoglotta became increasingly positive. After 1945 when the IALA announced it planned to create its own language and showed four possible versions under consideration, Occidentalists were by and large pleased that the IALA had decided to create a language so similar in appearance to Occidental, seeing it as a credible association that gave weight to their argument that an auxiliary language should proceed from study of natural languages instead of attempting to fit them into an artificial system. Ric Berger was particularly positive about the IALA's new language, calling it in 1948 "almost the same language"[58], though not without reservations, doubting whether a project with such a similar outward appearance would be able to "suddenly cause prejudices [against planned languages] to fall and create unity among the partisans of international languages"[59] and fearing that it might simply "disperse the partisans of the natural language with nothing to show for it"[59] after Occidental had created "unity in the naturalistic school" for so long. "

This paragraph has a lot of run-on sentences which makes it harder to comprehend easily. The IALA section in general has this problem, though this is the most obvious paragraph.

"(a description perhaps better suited for former Occidental-Union president Alphonse Matejka who would not pass away until 1999, as Donald Gasper was a new learner of the language)."

-Needs a source.

-For double quotations, use a single quote like '

>Alphonse Matejka wrote in Cosmoglotta that de Wahl "always claimed a minimum of autonomy for his language and bitterly fought against all propositions that intended to augment the naturality of the language only by blindly imitating the Romance languages, or as de Wahl said crudely in one of his letters to me, 'by aping French or English'" per MOS:QWQ

That's it for now but I'll have more in the morning if possible. Jerry (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mithridates: Sorry for the delay, if you're still up for the review I can continue it. Just finish up some of the stuff I've mentioned so far in the PR. I'd also add that since I've last commented here, the site for link 6 has gone down. Jerry (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: Hi Jerry, thanks for the reminder. I'll start going through that now. Mithridates (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy and religionEdit


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FA. I worked on it mostly last year and managed to pass GA, now I'd like to improve it even further. I would particulary like feedback about which topics can be added or discussed further in the article to make it more comprehensive. He was a prolific author and scholars and a lot have been written about him. But most books/articles about him are very technical and written for specialists and might not be appropriate for Wikipedia which is aimed at the general audience. I'd like feedback especially from people familiar with the subject about appropriate areas of expansion, as well as recommendations for sources that explain those topics without requiring me to write pages of background to put them context. As for prose/MOS/copyedit, I'm sure there are many things to improve, but I'd like to deal with those later and I'd really appreciate if we could focus on improving thoroughness and comprehensiveness.

Thanks, HaEr48 (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Social sciences and societyEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know which section may be improved on and which other topics could be added to this article to make it more informative. As well as raise the article's rating scale.

Thanks, Deoma12(Talk) 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the UK Labour PartyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because this page is overly long and lots of talk page discussion has failed to find a way to shrink the length without compromising the content (or to find a way to split the article).

Thanks, Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of Rebecca CoriamEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because seven years ago, it was the first of many articles about notable missing-person cases I've written since. I think it's worth GA consideration, and I'd like some feedback in that direction.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Sri LankaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a poorly written article with citations not matching the links ,opinions given as citations and poor writing style.

Thanks, Chandrani876 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Arjun Sarja filmographyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because as I think that I have already addressed the suggestions and ideas to improve the article in the Older peer review and I wish to nominate the article for Featured List Nomination.

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

List of Nashville Sounds no-hittersEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been added to greatly since a previous peer review in 2009. In the coming months I expect to nominate the team and its associated featured articles and lists for a featured topic. This list is too short for a featured list, and I expect reviewers at FT may want a more recent peer review that reflects on its current state rather than 10 years ago. Shortness aside, I feel it is currently at or near FL criteria.

Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by sizeEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it has had quite a substantial update with new references. The page (including the talk page) has had a tidy up, and it would be an ambition for it to be considered a "featured list".

I'm looking for comments on the list itself and anything else that needs adding, was wondering if a graph showing the history of expansions would be useful.

Thanks, Jayflux (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • It looks very nice and complete. I assume there are reasons you elected not to have the columns sortable and the table with a heading. (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to have the table sortable. I assumed it already is? or at least for me. As for the heading, could you give me an example? Jayflux (talk)

The article is quite far from featured status but here are some suggestions to get started:

  • Featured lists no longer use the tautological ""this is a list of". You can start by saying something like "there are x shopping centres in the UK over x size".
  • Your criteria needs a reason, why only 70k size? Also this sentence should be a note in the table, not part of the lead.
  • The lead is *extremely* thin. There is no depth, completely unsourced, no history, no discussion of the largest etc...
  • The article lacks any images. You can probably eve have an image in the table for each mall.
  • Annual visitor list is incomplete.
  • City/town column sometimes includes other administrative divisions, and sometimes not. Consistency is needed.
  • Annual visitors as of when?

Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Daft Punk discographyEdit

Will nominate for FL in the near future and would appreciate feedback on what needs to be improved. Philroc (c) 16:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything of issue here, I think it's ready--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, it's possible that this discography, like hundreds or thousands of others (including those which I have worked on), violates WP:ACCESSIBLE. I'm going to try and request for more information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion and some demonstration edits [2] [3].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@3family6: Thanks for your criticism. Unfortunately I won’t be able to edit the article to comply with ACCESSIBLE until September begins. Philroc (c) 02:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. Ping me once you manage it. I'll also try and finish the discogs article given above so that it is in full compliance, and you can use that as an example.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

List of cricketers by number of international five wicket haulsEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit