Wikipedia:Peer review

PR icon.png

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.


Living in the Age of AirplanesEdit

I've listed this for PR before nominating this for good article. I'm aware that I'm not the best in terms of grammar, so any comments on that are welcome. Also on any aspect of this article, really. GeraldWL 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love for it to become FA. I've already nominated it as GA with success.

Thank you!, Bleff (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Low (David Bowie album)Edit

Hey all. I am looking to bring this article to GA (and possibly FA) status, so I've listed it for peer review in order to help make that happen. In its current state, I would appreciate some assistance with flow between the opening sections (as there's a lot of things going on at relatively the same time), as well as help with the influence section.

Thanks, – zmbro (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

William B. JordanEdit

Hello. I have been working on this article for a featured article nomination — something that I have never done before — and I would appreciate any help that I can get. I have tried my best to see that the article meets the criteria; I have also taken inspirations from how other featured articles are written, and I have incorporated their basic concepts. I have invested a great amount of time in writing this article and it would mean a lot if I can elevate it to featured article status. Please do not hesitate to point out even the most minor of points. As I have never gone through this process before, every little detail will help. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cueva de las ManosEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get the article to GA status. This means making sure that the article is worthy to pass GAN. I'm looking for suggestions, comments and/or contributions that will help to achieve this.

Thank you, Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

New York Court of Appeals BuildingEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's yet another one related to historic buildings and neighborhoods in Albany, New York, that has at least GA potential.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Museum of Contemporary Art AustraliaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a significant amount of text (over 2000 words) and a number of pictures and info tables. I have done so for a university assignment and would love for my work to be reviewed and to receive feedback! I would love feedback on any grammar, punctuation, citing or structure issues. Thank you so much for your time! Thanks, LibraryofEphesus (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Waiting CityEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added many sections to it over the past few weeks and would love for someone to go over my work and give me some feedback on areas of improvement. I am new to Wikipedia writing so I would greatly appreciate any feedback I receive regarding:

  • My Wikipedia writing style
  • The sections I have added and if they follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style for articles about films
  • The sources I have used throughout the article and if any need to be removed or improved upon

Thank you and I look forward to hearing the feedback!

Kaexkae (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Christine Nelson

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: 20 May 2021, 08:55 UTC
Last edit: 6 June 2021, 21:15 UTC

Cups (song)Edit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I really want this song to become FA status. It holds so memory memories for me and I would love to see the gold star on the article. Pinging Ceoil. Seeing if they still want to help.

Thanks, Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

First time I do a peer review (or review of any kind), kinda just testing out things here so this review can be a bit surface-level.
user:Ceoil improved the lead and I don't want to ruin it.
  • Lead would be benefited by an additional paragraph with mentions of reception, covers, and certifications
Got rid of a source
  • Cite Billboard as publisher instead of work for ref 52
    • Billboard is always cited as work.
Again, very shallow review but hopefully helpful. Wetrorave (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not particularly know about this song but I think I did hear it somewhere, though it doesn't appear to have charted in my country. When I saw this has remained unanswered for two weeks, I got reminded of this aforementioned article which I've nominated for GA on 22 April but which continues unreviewed for more than a month. It does get frustrating but on the bright side, later reviews means better articles. Wetrorave (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Wetrorave Thanks a lot for the comments! Your help is truly appreciated! The song was a huge hit in United States. Every teen and preteen (including me) would play the cup song non stop. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Well then 💫, I hope it didn't get as annoying as Shake It Off or Shape of You. Seriously, I heard the verse "I'm in love with your body" EVERYWHERE, and it sickened me >:( Wetrorave (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from GerdaEdit

Sorry, I procrastinated this enough for you to adopt a new name.

  • Lead:
    • I am new to the topic, and would much prefer to first understand about the 1931 origins, and what kind of song it is, than three versions of an album, all with similar titles. (... and only later I understand that one of the titles is a comedy.)
    • In the sentence about billboard, I didn't remember what "It" meant.
  • Infobox:
  • Background
    • The image looks altogether abstract to me, and comes too soon for me to make sense of the caption.
    • What's in the caption (link to the group, a year) needs to be in the prose, for those who don't look at the caption first.
    • I'd like the year of the remix repeated rather than vaguely remembering and having to look at the lead again.
  • Critical reception
    • Wouldn't "Reception" suffice?
    • Is a review saying nothing but "charming" worth mentioning?
    • Can - in USA Today - a clash of "is" and "was" be avoided?
    • "saying it still hits one hell of a flat note": should that be a quote, or be "saying it still hit one hell of a flat note"? (I have no idea what the phrase, but that's probably just me.)
  • Music video
    • "The clip begins with Kendrick, as a server, standing in restaurant kitchen. takes it and lightly taps it on the table." Some cup seems to be missing.
    • good link to bridge (music), but it should come higher up when mentioned first
    • probably everybody but me knows what "flip cup" means

Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I am so sorry that I did not see your comments! It looks like you commented on a peer review that is archived from November 2020, so I put your comments on the most recent peer review. I will respond to your comments tomorrow after I get a few hours of sleep. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Zahrat al-Mada'enEdit

I've listed this article which I've created not long ago for peer review because I am uncertain of its neutrality in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, as well as of its quality compared to other articles about world music, considering it's my first article that deals with any song, let alone an extremely politically charged one. I hope any reviewers would be able to rectify any downsides with the article's phrasing or terminology.

Thanks! JDHaidar (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


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: 8 May 2021, 22:59 UTC
Last edit: 31 May 2021, 06:59 UTC

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

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: 15 April 2021, 22:07 UTC
Last edit: 6 June 2021, 20:49 UTC

Adventures in Modern Recording

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: 11 April 2021, 15:38 UTC
Last edit: 30 May 2021, 01:17 UTC

Paint It Black

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: 19 January 2021, 05:03 UTC
Last edit: 21 June 2021, 01:30 UTC

Everyday lifeEdit

Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FEEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can be improved with new knowledge. Someday it might become of a high quality!

Thanks, Tsubasa oribe (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Bubsy 3DEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm about to nominate it for GA very soon. I've previously sent this article for a thorough copyedit at GOCE requests and have even done some work on the article myself. There's got to be something missing, but I can't put my finger on it. Feedback is vital and your input matters.

Thanks, beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 00:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Gameplay section definitely needs work as far as sourcing goes. If you can find the game's instruction manual somewhere, that should serve as a primary source. Don't be afraid to use reviews of the game to bolster sourcing for a particular point or add something that the manual doesn't cover. Also, the clusters of citations in the Reception section make for a difficult read. Any cluster bigger than four sources should be relegated to the Notes section with the {{efn|}} template, such as in this example. Those are the big things I caught from skimming, but hoping that helps. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cat's Tuxedo: Your suggestions definitely helped! But I do have one query. Would it be necessary to splurge money on the full manual if there is none available for free viewing online? I'm having a big issue finding the Bubsy 3D manual from a free reliable source (there are only some parts all on Twitter). I'm not going to take a risk with adding unreliable sources to this B-class article... —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 11:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Beetricks: If you're really desperate to have it, that's certainly an option. However, like I said, there's nothing wrong with falling back on the reviews to provide citations for the game's mechanics. And even if you do manage to find a free version online, no matter how sketchy the source, it isn't necessary to provide links to instruction manuals; something like <ref>Bubsy 3D (PlayStation) instruction manual, p. 10</ref> would suffice. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cat's Tuxedo: That's good to know that I can reference without having to upload nor provide links (in fear of copyright laws) and/or use freer alternatives to the manual itself. —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I've taken the option to purchase the actual manual (save me) and I'll go from there. It's going to arrive c. 11~15 June so I'll further discuss the Gameplay section and let you review after I've typed the content in. —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 18:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Penn State Nittany Lions women's soccerEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a complete rewrite on the page and I believe it is up to the standards for it to become a GA. I also would love any and all feedback as this is my first ground up rewrite.

Thanks, NoahRiffe (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from The Most Comfortable ChairEdit

Some general things that jump out to me:

  • The lead should be expanded a little more. It should be a summary of the contents in the article, so it should be covering brief but important details from the History, Uniforms, crest and colors, Stadium, Supporters, and Honors sections. If there are any players that have become significant to the team's history or for the sport in general, they should be mentioned here as well (for instance, see the fourth paragraph of the lead of FC Barcelona).
  • There is a lot of duplicate linking in the article — per MOS:DL, a link should only appear once in an article. Although they can be repeated in the lead, infobox, tables, media captions, and citations.
  • Uniforms, crest and colors section can cover more on how their previous designs were briefly.
  • Roster and Notable alumnae could potentially be divided into two columns for ease of reading (like in this section).
  • Use consistent dating format for references. Some references require additional parameters — make sure that all references have work and/or publisher, first and last, and accessdate parameters whenever possible.

I have not looked at the prose closely, but it looks good to me. You have done a great job at writing it from scratch essentially. All the best with the good article nomination. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot (video game)Edit

I'm listing this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get it up to Featured Article status in time for the series' 25th anniversary this September. I've already spent a good chunk of the month doing prep work, but as far as FAs go, I'm sure there's definitely a few improvements I'm still missing out on. For example, the page is still relatively bare in the image area, so I'd especially like suggestions on what points are most worth visually illustrating. I do intend on getting an image put together showing Crash's early designs, so that'd be a start.

This would be my very first FAC, so any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aven13Edit

It's a very good article. You probably wouldn't have too much trouble getting it through FA. Here are some suggestions:

  • As you said, the article is lacking in the image department. I personally would recommend adding a video of crash's movement, and perhaps completing a short section of level one or two. Seeing a game being played really helps to give the reader a feel for it. I'd also recommend getting a visual of a Crate, a Wumpa Fruit, or some TNT to put in the gameplay section.
  • For the character and art design section, yes, some concept art would be good, but showing the frames of one of Crash's animations would also work.
  • Mention the perspective of the gameplay somewhere.
  • Since Tawna is "also evolved by Cortex,", make a mention of how Crash was made as well.

More to come, probably. Great job writing the article. Aven13 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aven13: Just had to figure out this gif thing, but went and addressed your points so far! Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

2019 UEFA Champions League FinalEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it can easily become a GA, but there are some issues with it which might hinder it from becoming one. Please review the article and leave any suggestions for how to fix it.

Thanks, KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, KSL. I'd like to see the citations that are in the lead moved out. Everything in the lead should be covered and cited in the sections, so you shouldn't need those citations in the lead (possible exception for anything that is so controversial that it would be constantly questioned.) —valereee (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Engineering and technologyEdit

Vector processorEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important historical part of computing history (and 470 other pages link to it). also i feel it shoukd be listed as importance "Top", it is that fundamental to computer science, however that is something that definitely needs some consensus and feedback on, you don't put computing articles at "top" without a good reason and careful consideration.

Thanks, Lkcl (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback before starting a GAN.

Thanks, EpicPupper (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @EpicPupper! I'd like to see the citations moved out of the lead section. Everything in the lead section should be in the body sections with citations there, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead section that needs a citation. (Exception for anything so controversial that it would cause constant questions). Check to make sure the info in the lead is indeed covered in the body, with citation/s, add any citations or content that are in the lead to the sections, and then you can remove the citations from the lead. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you Doing... EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: I would like to mention that many sentences are unreferenced, especially at the end of some paragraphs. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Scott A. McGregorEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of my first articles about a person, and I'd love advice on how to improve as a Wikipedia editor! Would appreciate any advice for this or future articles, especially biographies. I'm hoping it might be GA-worthy one day!

Sincerely, Shrinkydinks (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Federal Building (Edmonton)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and bring the article to B-class, for preparation for potential GA nomination. I'm not experienced with writing articles although I have expanded this one in the past (from stub status to start), so I'd appreciate some guidance on bringing this up to par for B or, ideally GA status. The article is currently rated as start class according to the talk page, although with the expansions it has gone through, it would probably be considered C-class now.

Thanks, –NorthwestPassage talk 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Asus ZenFone 6Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have created and improved the article to GA status, and would like to propose it for FA in the future.

Thanks, 17jiangz1 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

Hi 17jiangz1, I'm sorry it has taken so long for someone to review this article. Please consider me a non-expert in this topic. I will review this as if it was an FAC.

  • In general, avoid one-sentence paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH
  • "the following day.[16][1]" References should be in numerical order. Check this throughout the article.
  • "Before the ZenFone 6 was teased at the" teased should not be used as it is jargon. Replace the word with what the executives did (maybe, "alluded to its existence"?)
  • "Both leaked images" delete leaked, you already stated that they were leaked.
  • " an NT$6 billion restructure " what's a restructure?
  • "Asus announced a launch date of May 16 that year for the phone" -> "Asus announced that the phone will be available for purchase on 16 May 2019."
  • Be consistent about whether dates are dmy or mdy. Don't have June 1 but also 1 June 2019.
  • Merge the last two paragraphs of the "Background" section
  • There's MOS:SANDWICH with images and the infobox.
  • All of the information in the infobox needs to also be in the article. Is this the case? If not, you might need to add it to the article or delete it.
  • "The initial international release of the ZenFone 6," -> "For the initial international release"
  • "or get stuck in a "bootloop"" describe what this is in the article.
  • "An Asus representative attributed this behaviour to a hardware issue,[32][33] saying the update triggers a motherboard malfunction, the only solution to which was a motherboard replacement under existing warranty.[32][33]" Delete the first instance of [32][33]
  • " followed that of by Asus' ROG Phone II," "followed by Asus'"
  • "In late August 2019, Asus began recruiting ZenFone 6 " delete began
  • "a combination sliding-rotating" -> "a combined sliding-rotating"
  • A citation needed tag needs to be resolved.
  • In the design section, merge the short paragraphs.
  • " that has also been used in" -> "that was used in"
  • "The ZenFone 6 was debuted alongside ZenUI 6, " -> "The ZenFone 6 debuted alongside ZenUI 6"
  • Dark mode needs to be explained in the article so that a person doesn't need to click on the wikilink in order to understand what it is
  • "reduced stock applications." I don't know what this is, this should be explained.
  • " Reviewers noted ZenUI 6 provides an experience closer to that of stock Android.[44][45] Reviewers also praised the relatively frequent software updates.[46]" Reviews should be in the Reception section.
  • Single-paragraph sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, per MOS:OVERSECTION
  • "near-stock implementation of Android" again, I don't know what stock means
  • "Asus said the device "has been well evaluated and created excellent sales"." I don't think we should include Asus's opinion on their product as it feel too WP:PROMO
  • "The ZenFone 6 is one of the 2019 flagship devices that retained the headphone jack." This should be in the hardware section
  • "retained the headphone jack.[51][40]" Put references in numerical order
  • "DxOMark camera score of 104," What does this mean?
  • "the highest for an Asus device.[52][51]" put refs in numerical order
  • The reference section needs to be expanded, if possible. Are there other places where this device might have been reviewed? Check WP:RS/P for additional sources.
  • Seeking Alpha is not recommended as a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Seeking alpha and thus will not be considered a high-quality source in FAC.
  • All sources that are news articles need an author and publication date, if possible.
  • FAC requires high-quality sources, which is a higher standard than a reliable source or the GA criteria. Please read User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You and evaluate every source in the article and make sure you can answer, "Why is this a high-quality source?" If a great answer can't be given, it should be removed.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

One additional comment: I strongly encourage all editors who want to nominate a featured article to review articles at WP:FAC. This will help you become familiar with the FAC process and comments you might expect when you nominate your article. This will also build goodwill, which makes it more likely that editors will review your article. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@17jiangz1: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine

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: 2 March 2021, 15:48 UTC
Last edit: 3 June 2021, 09:01 UTC



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: 12 January 2021, 09:01 UTC
Last edit: 26 May 2021, 13:00 UTC

Sandra Peabody

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 March 2021, 10:09 UTC
Last edit: 17 June 2021, 20:24 UTC

Cullen House

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: 10 April 2021, 13:57 UTC
Last edit: 2 June 2021, 09:22 UTC

Chibok schoolgirls kidnappingEdit

I've been attempting to improve this article over the past month or so - when I first started it was in a bit of a mess, with luck I've made it less so. I feel that some parts of the article are still in a state and could do with improvement though, so I'm listing it here in order to figure out how best to improve it moving forward. I'm hoping to get general feedback on all sections the article - feedback on the following (but not limited to it) would be particularly helpful:

  • Organization - I've attempted to edit the article so it seems less list-like and chunky. Have I succeeded, and is there a way to reduce the list-like prose even further? Would it be feasible for me to completely remove some sections - especially thinking about what to do with the "reactions" which could be split into the rest of the text, and the "further kidnappings" at the end - could this be put into the "see also" part?
  • Quality of references - I haven't had time to check them all, most seem fine but I'm sure there are some unreliable ones out of the multiple ones on the article
  • Inclusion of content - what parts do I need to expand? Does it leave out anything major that I need to get down?
  • Whether it might be feasible to get this to a GA, though for now I'm most interested in getting the basics of this article sorted out.

Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from AshleyEdit

Hi Pahunkat, as I've mentioned before, this subject matter is beyond my scope so my comments would be general. Please let me know if you disagree with any of them.

  • Per WP:LEADCITE, citations should not be used in the lead unless you are citing controversial information. I get that this entire subject is controversial, but there are too many references in the lead. Any information that is already well-sourced in the body and repeated in the lead does not require a citation. You might want to check to see if it's possible to remove some/all of them.
  • There are some instances of WP:OVERCITE throughout the article. See if its possible to trim the excessive citations and keep only the highly reputed ones. If you plan on using more than three citations to support a claim, then the references should be bundled.
  • References should be arranged in numerically throughout the article. So "[28][40][41][33]" should be written as "[28][33][40][41]".
  • Some references are lacking publication, date, and author parameters. Also, make sure to wikilink the publications/websites to their respective pages. I see that The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, The Times, USA Today are not linked at all. Some of them like "BBC News" should not be italicised. See that the citation style is consistent throughout the article- for instance some references use The New York Times while others use New York Times. Same with The Washington Post.
  • Some statements are unsourced in the article.
  • I can see some MOS:INOROUT issues with the quotations.
  • All images should have ALT text.
  • The article might benefit from the WP:GOCE but that again is a personal suggestion.

I think that's all from me. Hope this helps. All the best, --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I have been working on this feedback and will provide a more detailed response to it once I'm mostly done. Pahunkat (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Storm Area 51Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I've edited the text of the article to better reflect its sources, I've uploaded images to Commons that I took of the event, and placed them in the article itself. I would like other editors to chime in with suggestions on further improvements, areas needing polish, and any additions needed. I'd like to improve this article until it's featured article worthy.

Thanks, RobotGoggles (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

Thank you for your patience in waiting for a review of your article, RobotGoggles. Here are some comments below. I suggest that you review some articles at WP:FAC before nominating an article there; this helps you understand the FA criteria and builds goodwill among editors, making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Here are some comments below:

  • "and disavowed responsibility for any casualties had there been any actual attempt to raid the military base." -> "and disavowed responsibility for potential casualties if there was an attempt to raid the military base."
  • "On the day of the event, only about 150 people were reported to have shown up at the two entrances to Area 51," -> "On the day of the event, about 150 people were reported to have gathered at the two entrances to Area 51,"
  • "The facility is kept highly classified, protected from unauthorized entry by warning signs" Replace the first comma with "and"
  • "and unexpectedly went viral." wikilink viral
  • "topics like means of breaking into Area 51." replace means with ways
  • "The town of Rachel posted a caution on its website," Wikilink Rachel here, remove the wikilink in the business section.
  • "people were reported to be showing up and camping around Rachel in preparation for the raid." replace "showing up" with "arriving". Showed up is generally unencyclopedic language and should be removed from the article.
  • "1,500 people showed up at the festivals," Replace "showed up" with "attended"
  • Ref 22 (Know your Meme) is considered unreliable on Wikipedia and will probably be rejected at FAC.
  • Formatting of references needs to be standardized. The date of the news article source should probably be in brackets after the author, as that is what is present in most of the references.
  • The article uses very few sources. Although that will not disqualify the article for FA status, it will its success more difficult as editors will question whether it comprehensively addresses every aspect of the event. More sources can be found at WP:LIBRARY, Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar.

Those are all my comments! Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@RobotGoggles: want to make sure that you saw these comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, User:Z1720, I saw them and thank you so much for your feedback. I'm busy with irl stuff so I haven't been able to implement any of your suggestions yet. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@RobotGoggles: There's no rush to complete corrections; Wikipedia is a volunteer service, I just wanted to make sure this PR was not abandoned. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Larry KwongEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it looks fairly comprehensive and well cited for a GA, but can probably use some formatting and wording fixes (e.g. the Awards and Honours section).

Thanks, Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Manon MelisEdit

I request a peer review because I would like to nominate this Good Article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). Not being a native speaker I always need help on prose. I would appreciate any help to get the article in such a shape that it is likely to pass at FAC.

Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


  • I'll do this in chunks, hope that's OK......
Lead and early lifeEdit
  • "Three times she was the Damallsvenskan top scorer" => "She was the Damallsvenskan top scorer three times"
  • "At the end of her career, in 2016, she moved to the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) in the US" => "Close to the end of her career, in 2016, she moved to the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) in the US" (as it stands, it says that her career ended and then she moved to the NWSL, which doesn't really make sense)
  • "her direct opponents often were" => "her direct opponents were often"
  • Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
RVVH, Be Quick, MalmoEdit
  • "who ended up playing 16 caps" => "who ended up gaining 16 caps"
  • "Melis only played a few months for Be Quick" => "Melis only played for Be Quick for a few months"
  • "scored the first equaliser goal" - either "scored the first equaliser" or "scored the first equalising goal"
  • In places the prose can be a bit choppy eg you have a sentence of just four words: "Marta won the award". It would be better to try and find ways to integrate very short sentences into other sentences so that the prose flows better
  • "Malmö again stranded in the quarter-finals" => "Malmö again lost in the quarter-finals"
  • "defeated her team by 2–1" => "defeated her team 2–1"
  • Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Sky Blue, Linkopings, Malmo, Kopparbergs, ReignEdit
  • "Sky Blue FC head coach Jim Gabarra said because" => "Sky Blue FC head coach Jim Gabarra said that because"
  • "Daphne Koster, with whom Melis played at the Dutch national team" => "Daphne Koster, with whom Melis played for the Dutch national team"
  • "Although Malmö was 2–1 behind" => "Although Malmö were 2–1 behind"
  • "linking up for many years at the Netherlands national team" => "linking up for many years for the Netherlands national team"
  • "and the game finished 2–4" => "and the game finished 4–2"
  • Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
International, managerialEdit
  • Sherida Spitse not wikilinked when she is mentioned
  • "Vivianne Miedema, aged 17, made her debut as a late substitute" - could do with clarifying why this is significant i.e. Miedema has gone on to be one of the all-time greats. At present that context is missing.
  • "The outlook worsened when they drew Belgium at home" => "The outlook worsened when they drew with Belgium at home"
  • "given Miedema has been a life-long Feyenoord fan" => "given that Miedema has been a life-long Feyenoord fan"
  • "that Feyenoord Women will field a team in the Eredivisie Vrouwen for the first time in the 2021–2022 season" => "that Feyenoord Women would field a team in the Eredivisie Vrouwen for the first time in the 2021–22 season"
  • Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Style of play, personalEdit
  • "stressing she is a centre forward" => "stressing that she is a centre forward"
  • "her teammate both on the national team and one season at Göteborg" => "her teammate both on the national team and for one season at Göteborg"
  • Refs after the first sentence of Personal life are not in correct numerical order
  • Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:Thanks ever so much for taking the time and making these suggestions. I think I have done them all. In the end I simply removed the Miedema debut sentence from the article, keeping the focus on Melis. It's not actually that surprising that Melis and Miedema played together. As for the choppy prose, perhaps what I'll do next is request some help from the Guild of Copy Editors. Thanks very much for the help, and I'm glad that you think it is overall ok! Edwininlondon (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael MoatesEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am the author but also the subject so that creates a COI. I think I was fairly balanced and sourced well but I would like someone to take a look over to confirm what I think.

Thanks, DoctorTexan (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Feller Act of Valor AwardEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article was written without bias and I would like the conflict of interest warning to be removed.

Thanks, Eitan Leff (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

China–Pakistan Free Trade AgreementEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because a certain editor on WikiProject Pakistan has been working on it quite a bit and I thought it could benefit from peer review (I think it could be ready for a GAN soon).

Thanks, RealKnockout (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Review from YeenoEdit
  • Pinging S2102sa, Will take a more thorough look at POV issues later, but from what I've heard, you're looking for sources from the Chinese perspective. Here are some English language sources I know of:
However, there are also some sources to avoid, as they have been deprecated by the community for publishing false information or conspiracy theories:
  • CGTN - Global television network owned by the Chinese government.
  • Global Times - Newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party, known as the "Fox News of China".
Let me know if you have any questions! Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If you still have the data, the graph should be converted into one that uses Template:Graph:Chart. Displaying the data like this makes the graph easier to update and more accessible. The template page should have instructions and examples, but feel free to ask me if you need any help on this. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Iymen ChehadeEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively updated it after it had been created by a sockfarm (banned). I would like some feedback on the neutrality of this article to maintain Wiki standards. I also hope to bring this bio up to a B-class.

Thanks, TsunamiPrincess (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sheilah ReStackEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I need help making sure it is up to standard.

Thanks, Sheilahrestack (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Geography and placesEdit

Bradford IslandEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been at DYK and passed as a GA, and I'd like to nominate it as a featured article candidate. I've never nominated anything for FA before, nor have I undergone a peer review, so I guess I'll learn a bunch from this.

Thanks, jp×g 02:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spicy

Some quick comments. I haven't looked at this in depth.

  • Image formatting needs work, currently all the images are clustered on the right below the infobox. It will be hard to avoid sandwiching in a short article like this. Does File:Shiloh_Wind_Power_Plant_aerial_(cropped_to_Bradford_Island_and_Webb_Tract).jpg really add any value to the article when there is a higher quality aerial shot in the infobox? I'd suggest removing that one and using {{Multiple image}} to display the two USGS maps together.
  • All images should have alt text. "An aerial photo of a happy yet embattled little island" is charming but I'm not sure it meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#How_to_write_alternative_text.
  • What makes RecordNet and FireFighting News high-quality reliable sources?
  • Maybe this is unavoidable, but this ref doesn't render properly in OpenOffice; I just get a garbled mess
  • WRT the FA 'comprehensiveness' criterion, I find it concerning that most references are from freely accessible, recently published online sources. Have you consulted newspaper archives, local libraries, etc?
  • The history section seems thin. Is there any information on when settlement of the island began? The extensive material about the USS Lucid seems undue especially considering the museum that now houses it isn't located on the island.
  • Is the table of yearly revenues necessary? See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If this is kept, ensure it complies with table accessibility guidelines and MOS:DONTHIDE.
  • Earwig picks up one instance of close paraphrasing:
    • Article: successfully petitioned the district to expand its board from three to five members; he and his girlfriend were elected to the additional seats.
    • Source: successfully petitioned the district to expand the board from three to five members — after which he and his girlfriend were elected to the new seats.
  • Please review for more. Earwig doesn't do well with pdf/docx sources.

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd watchlisted this page, but it seems I didn't, so apologies for the late response. I appreciate that you have pointed out stuff I'd never thought of -- I'll go through it in a bit and address the points individually. Obviously, some will require more effort than others. But I'll tell you right off the bat, that image alt is stupid and the Word document is jacked up (I had the same problem, there were formatting issues that required me to move a bunch of boxes around and adjust font sizes to even figure out what they said). On the talk page for the article I've started pulling together some more sources that give a better idea of the history, although I fear an irl voyage may be necessary to close some of the gaps. Thanks for swinging by! jp×g 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Update: I have managed to find a wealth of sources on the earlier history of the island (the early establishment of levees in the late 1800s, its existence and settlement prior to levees, et cetera). There remains a gap but I will work to fill it. jp×g 14:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Filling it in slowly (I have a whole lot more to put in), but it's a start. jp×g 07:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Three days ago it was a start, now it's a middle. jp×g 08:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Singapore Improvement TrustEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just expanded the article significantly and am hoping to bring the article to GA status.

Thanks, R22-3877 (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by KN2731Edit

I'll take a look later this afternoon. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Assuming back lane isn't being used metaphorically (e.g. backstage/back alley), wikilink and dehyphenate since it's a qualifying noun.
  • In the late 1950s, plans were set out to replace the SIT with two departments—housing and planning—culminating in two bills that were passed in 1959. With the establishment of the successor organisations by the government of Singapore, the Housing and Development Authority and the Planning Authority, in 1960, the SIT was disestablished. I feel this doesn't flow very well. Cutting off the sentence after mentioning the bills passed in 1959 leaves the reader wondering what effect said bills had on the SIT. Meanwhile, it could be made clearer that the proposed housing and planning departments were the Housing and Development Authority and the Planning Authority respectively.
  • "dissolved" is simpler and fits better than "disestablished".
  • Perhaps it would be better to replace "Improvement Rate" in the lead with property tax, since people are more familiar with the latter term.
  • Check consistency of Oxford comma – think you missed one at "and government loans" and another at "Buildings, Planning and Management departments".
  • Nevertheless, the resources and powers provided to the SIT proved insufficient for it to carry out urban renewal, and a draft Town Improvement and Development bill that was to facilitate the SIT's work in town planning was rejected by the government in 1924, leaving the position of the SIT unclear. Rather long sentence, could be split after "urban renewal".
  • In 1931, the SIT carried out a scheme to construct houses for artisans in the Balestier Road area, to provide workers with sanitary and affordable residential facilities. Two "to"s make this sound like a run-on sentence, which could be avoided by changing "to provide" to "thereby providing" or similar.
  • negligible upkeep being done under Japanese rule can do without "being done".
  • In addition, the Singapore Housing Committee's report... Remove "in addition", since the following sentence isn't introducing another issue with the SIT.
  • The flats built by the SIT were expensive to build, so it started building cheaper "emergency" flats from 1953 – overly repetitive use of "build".
  • Nevertheless, the "emergency" flat programme only succeeded after the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire in 1959. "Nevertheless" and "only" both demonstrate contrast with earlier failures of the emergency flat programme, so you can get rid of one of them.
  • as well as around 300 additional workers – "additional" becomes unnecessary if you remove the comma after that clause.

For further prose improvements (if you want to bring this beyond GA status), you can check out User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing.


Some questions about the SIT that I had after reading through the article:

  • Was there a reason why the SIT was given official powers in 1927 despite it having an uncertain future back in 1924? Was there some change in attitude by the government?
  • Was the "Planning Authority" succeeding the SIT part of the Ministry of Local Government Lands and Housing as plans in June 1956 from the earlier sentence alluded to?
  • Did the SIT have a dedicated building for its offices or headquarters?
  • Legacy – what has happened to the houses built by SIT? I'm guessing they've mostly been torn down and replaced with newer housing.
  • Perhaps a See also section with links to Urban planning in Singapore, Public housing in Singapore, and the current urban planning entities (SLA/URA)?

Nothing major that would impact GA criteria 3a, but may be brought up at a FAC as the standards for FA criteria 1b and 1c are much higher.

  • Citations are great, just check the formatting of Loh Kah Seng's name in FN 24 and 25.

Overall this is pretty well written; it's not far away from GA status. Random fact: this is the first article I've seen that gives a flat 0.0% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector (even with "Use search engine" enabled). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@KN2731: Thanks for the comments, I've incorporated most of your recommendations. For the part on the SIT's legacy, I believe that since the article is on the organisation rather than the flats, the fate of the flats is not so relevant to the article. R22-3877 (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

List of longest streams of MinnesotaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it would make a great featured list for the Rivers and Minnesota projects. There are two other Lists of longest streams in U.S. states (Oregon and Idaho). This article on Minnesota's longest streams is comparable and has some additional features not in other articles. There is another page for List of rivers of Minnesota. I would be interested in comments that would help this article get to the point of a featured list.

Thanks, Talk to G Moore 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic DistrictEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's another one of my Albany historic-district articles that I think has potential for at least GA.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Beebe Hydrothermal Vent FieldEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • It probably isn't a stub any more
  • It needs a second set of eyes, especially for any personal biases
  • There may be aspects of the page which I haven't considered but warrant a section
  • References may need a check

Thanks, Wünderbrot (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

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: 8 April 2021, 17:13 UTC
Last edit: 20 June 2021, 10:51 UTC

Farringdon, Sunderland

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: 22 February 2021, 04:04 UTC
Last edit: 7 June 2021, 02:41 UTC


Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaignEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to be a Good Article. The article was created 11 years ago, but was expanded by me 5 time the original number of characters and have above 85% authorship. It has almost been Copy-edited and DYK nomination has passed. Would appreciate any suggestion on wording, MOS, prose, etc. Thanks!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Persian language in the Indian subcontinentEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been expanding and revising this article for the past two months, and I want a second opinion on its writing style; and any other general suggestions are also very welcome. I also want to bring this to good article status. I listed this article under the History section, but obviously this topic has a significant overlap with Language.

Thanks, Gowhk8 (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of White Sulphur Springs

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: 11 June 2021, 19:58 UTC
Last edit: 21 June 2021, 20:24 UTC

French Imperial Army (1803–1815)Edit

I'm putting this article here for a review because though I'm done with my article. However, I would prefer an article review or nothing, as I have a one-way view, and would like some more support or any assistance in sources/grammar issues

Thanks, J-Man11 (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

1993 Finchley Road bombingsEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually expand it to GA status in the future, and would appreciate some input on the current state of the article.

Thanks, — Berrely • TalkContribs 16:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.SinghEdit

Hi Berrely.

  • The article is of 576 words, which are not less, but in my view aren't able to addresses the main aspects of the topic. There is almost no mention of what happened in aftermath of bombing (like investigation, etc.), which I think is worth adding. I found a newspaper article (1) dated 04 October which provides artist's details about a man whom police wants to question about bombing. Another article (2) gives further information about bombing. (you might need to register before accessing the sources). I suggest creating a section named "Investigation and aftermath" and adding appropriate information. After the expansion, I suggest submitting the article to WP:GOCE for copy-editing. Your work on this article is very much appreciated. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Kavyansh.Singh, thanks for this comment (and sorry for taking a while to get back)! Thanks for the suggestions. I did intend to start adding a section on the proceeding investigation, though I struggled to find sources Face-sad.svg. Regrettably, I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive (gosh darn the Wikipedia Library!) though I'll try to see if I can find a way to access those sources. I'll try implementing some of your suggestions, thanks! — Berrely • TalkContribs 18:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt deskEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed a major rewrite to it and would like others to check that it appears well crafted. I know that spelling and grammar are not my strong suits so I'd love some input on that throughout the article, but I'd also like to know if there seems to be any gaps, any extraneous information, or anything that the article leaves you wondering. I hope to propose this as a GA after this peer review.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Review by HenryCrun15Edit

Hi @Found5dollar: as requested I've looked over the document particularly for spelling and grammar.

  • I've made a number of edits to the article, mostly general copyediting and rearranging of material.
  • I have removed excessive detail about some events tangentially related to the desk. This includes lots of fine detail around the changes to the White House buildings during the 1902 renovations and the details on the 1929 fire (which I moved to the article on the West Wing itself).
  • On the description of the desk, the article mentions "masculine lines". What does this mean?
  • There isn't anything about the desk I found myself wanting to know - the article covered everything I could think of.
  • I have not reviewed the article for verifiability. I've taken as read that the inline citations back up the statements in the article. If that's something you want checked, be aware I haven't done that.

Overall it looks good. Well done! HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Napoleonic looting of artEdit

I've listed this peer review because I would like to reach this article, which touches on the history of an enormous number of significant artworks, to B-class and eventually GA status. I'm particularly interested in recommended expansions to the article, to include more affected countries, as well as large cuts, since the article is already around the 40kb area. I'm also wondering if the list section should be split off into a separate article.

Thanks, —Wingedserif (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wingedserif: The "List of artworks taken"-section should certainly be split from this article. In fact, you could be bold and just split it immediately (WP:SPLIT allows bold splitting if it is uncontroversial and clearly notable). Judging from the list content, it could be made into a table with images of the art, their location, artist, etc. which definitely deserves to be a standalone list. Wretchskull (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done! —Wingedserif (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tracy Philipps

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: 16 May 2021, 11:32 UTC
Last edit: 20 June 2021, 17:17 UTC

Types RiotEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FAC.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Gaixia

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: 4 May 2021, 17:41 UTC
Last edit: 2 June 2021, 23:21 UTC

Project A119

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: 24 March 2021, 19:13 UTC
Last edit: 24 May 2021, 23:12 UTC

List of victories of Rudolf BertholdEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have found little on quality standards centered specifically on WP lists. I am looking for suggestions for improvement, as well as any policies or consensuses I have overlooked. I am relisting this due to non-response to last posting.

Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.SinghEdit


  • Second point in Featured list criteria is Lead: "It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria".The article has lead only of 3-4 sentences, which needs to be increased in order to summarize most of the aerial victories mentioned.
  • If it is possible to separate date and time from the list as two different columns, it would look much better. Also, using any of the date templates in preferable.

Good Luck! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has progressed beyond a Stub class article and would like it to be classified. I welcome any suggestions for improvement or edits.

Thanks, Candecide (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Slate WeaselEdit

The expansion looks pretty good so far. I'm not really that knowledgeable about the article quality ratings, but I can provide some suggestions for further improvements. I'll start with some more general stuff:

  • While WP:PR is a good system, one of its downsides is that many editors find it not to be especially visible. One way to get around this is to post a brief message at the paleontology Wikiproject's talk page to let other editors know about the review. Additionally, the paleontology project has an internal peer review system for quicker "fact check"-oriented reviews (although the downside is that it won't attract editors who don't specialize in paleontology-related articles).
  • We usually put images of fossils in the taxobox if they're available.
  • The lead right now is quite long - I'd try to trim it down to two or three paragraphs. We also usually avoid putting citations in the lead, as the lead shouldn't introduce any information that isn't later stated in the article.
  • It should be stated where the cladogram comes from (immediately before it, something like "The following cladogram follows Author, Year." should be said).
  • Perhaps an image of a related genus could be put in the taxonomy section?
  • A section on the environment that it lived in a contemporaneous animals (usually entitled "Pal(a)eoenvironment" or "Pal(a)eoecology") should be added if possible. I see that there's already a little bit on this at the end of paleobiology.
  • I see that frequent mentions are made to "a study" or "studies". Where possible, it should be specified by who and when, for example "a study by Author, Year" assuming the information isn't non-controversial (i.e. non-contested information on osteology, bone measurements, where specimens were found).
  • One thing to remember is that subjects should only be linked on their first mention. There's a handy script that allows one to find duplinks (short for "duplicated links") though I can't remember too much about setting it up (I think that FunkMonk, who told me about it in the first place, might know more).
Yep, here's the script:[1] Also, a term can be linked both at first mention in the intro and first time in the articule body. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully these comments are helpful. I'll see if I can conduct a more thorough review over the coming days. Sorry that I can't say too much about where the article fits on the quality scale, other than that it's virtually certainly no longer a stub. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ceres (dwarf planet)Edit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have resolved the issues raised in its FAR and was wondering if it was ready for FAC again.

Thanks, Serendipodous 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been over a month. Should I just take this to FAC? Serendipodous 13:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Serendipodous, I do not recommend that this is taken to FAC. Instead, I suggest that you nominate this for WP:GAN first; a reviewer will give lots of helpful feedback there, and GA is considered a step towards FA status. After taking a quick skim, there are some things that can be improved upon, like the MOS:SANDWICH happening with the images, one sentence paragraphs that should be merged with the preceeding or subsequent paragraphs, and a short "Potential habitability" that could use expansion.
After this article passes its GAN, feel free to open a new PR and list the article at Template:FAC peer review sidebar, which will help solicit feedback. I also suggest that you start reviewing articles at WP:FAC; you don't need to declare your support or opposition to an article, but leaving comments will you gain an understanding of how the FAC process works and what articles are supposed to look like when they reach FA status. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Strait of SicilyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because… I added new content to this page and would like to hear your opinion on it. Thanks, DazzleFrancesca (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to promote this article to featured status sometime soon.

Thanks, Keresluna (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

From a quick read, I think the main point of improvement before FAC should be sourcing. Many of the sources are quite old, and the article relies a lot on a single source. The FA criteria expect you show it is well-researched, which typically requires up-to-date scholarship. Of course, a lot of the basics won't have changed much, so a complete rewrite won't be necessary.

A second major point is the structure of the article. The later uses section described chlorine used as a weapon, but this also has a separate section below. Similarly, it is unclear why "Semmelweis and experiments with antisepsis" is not in 'later use'.

Additional comments:

  • SCl2, SOCI2, ClF3, ICl, ICl3, TiCl3, TiCl4, MoCl5, FeCl3, ZnCl2, and so on.. I don't see the point of enumerating them all, nor what 'and so on' means.
  • Syria is a very small section, you should probably merge Iraq and Syria into '21st century' or something.
  • The Syrian government has allegedly used chlorine -> is more known now? If it has become an established fact, the word allegedly should be dropped
  • Medical sources have to be of very high quality (for the section biological role), see WP:MEDRS
  • The toxicity of chlorine comes (...) unsourced

Hope these work as a first pointer. Excited to see somebody work on an important article as this. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keresluna did you address the comments above? Please post when the comments have been addressed so editors know when you are ready for more feedback. You can also close this PR if you are satisfied with the comments or are unable to resolve issues at this time, and reopen the PR when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Markham's storm petrelEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because... it's my first "nature" article and I'd like to get some feedback before a FAC nomination.

Thanks, Therapyisgood (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

Therapyisgood Thank you for your patience and I am sorry that it has taken this long for someone to review your article. I do not know much about this topic, so please consider this a non-expert review.

  • "In Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1, author Carles Carboneras states Hydrobatidae probably diverged from other petrels at an early stage." Why is the source quoted in the article? Is this fact in dispute? Is it important for the reader to know where this information came from?
    • I have not been able to find another source, so cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section uses "storm petrel" a lot. Are there alternate terms for the species that can be used?
  • "Its name in Spanish literature is Golondrina de mar negra." This feels like trivia, especially as it has its own paragraph. This should be expanded, integrated into another paragraph or deleted.
  • "Sexes are alike." I don't know what this refers to.
  • "Spear and Ainley (2007) observed" delete the year, this information will be given in the citation.
  • "Spear and Ainley (2007) from 18°N to 30°S, west to 115°, " again, remove the year.
  • "A 2002 study in Marine Ornithology that examined a total of 95 Markham's storm petrels from Paracas Peninsula and La Vieja Island in central Peru, collectively, found its main diet by mass consisted of fish" I don't think you need to include the methodology of this study. Instead, just state what the study discovered, give the citation and if the reader is interested they can look at the study themselves. If this is kept, I would shorten this description.
  • "Researchers Rodrigo Barros et al. (2019) described the bird as "one of the least known seabirds in the world"." This sounds like trivia again. I would incorporate this in another paragraph or delete.
  • " Barros et al. (2019), " again, delete the year and name the researchers or give a general statement like "based on the estimates of researchers from XYZ"
  • In ref 25 and ref 30, the citation is not presented as a range of numbers. Why is this inconsistent with the other academic journals?
    • It's the specific pages I'm citing as opposed to the whole thing. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
      • This is fine as long as it's standarized among all the references: either all the journal references only give the specific pages cited, or all the references need to give the page numbers of the whole article. 19:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Deep vein thrombosis

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: 16 April 2021, 16:14 UTC
Last edit: 21 June 2021, 22:54 UTC

Language and literatureEdit

Your Lie in AprilEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because, in short, I intend to bring it to FA status. I brought this to GA status in February 2021, and since I have been cleaning it up and expanding it even more. I am aware a lot of work needs to be done, but I am prepared to do whatever it takes. Specifically, it would be nice if the lead, plot, and characters sections could be reviewed.

Thanks, Link20XX (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A general issue I find in this article is that most of these paragraphs are quite small. Imagine Wikipedia as a formal letter. The genre could also be mentioned in the lead section too.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Added a genre to the lead. Also expanded some of the paragraphs a bit. I will expand the rest in a bit. Link20XX (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Pinging some users, if you all could leave a comment it would be helpful. Lullabying, 0qd, Thuyhung2112, Morgan695. Link20XX (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • If you intend to take this to FA, I think the Development section needs some expansion. Are there interviews with the manga artist and/or creative team behind the anime discussing inspiration, production, etc. that can be incorporated? I imagine most of this material would be in Japanese, and probably in print publications. If they exist, fan-translated copies these interviews might be a good starting point, though you would of course need to source the actual interview if you intend to cite them in the article and cross-reference with the original interview to ensure the translation is accurate. Morgan695 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, aside from what is present in the article, there isn't much I can find. Arakawa didn't write any afterward sections and the only other interviews with him I could find are from Operation Rainfall, which describes itself as a website run by unpaid, uncredited volunteers (here) and Anime Herald, which is having its reliability questioned at the talk page of WP:A&M/ORS. Neither of them also really contain anything that I haven't added from other sources. As far as the anime, I recently found this Comic Natalie interview with the director, which I will likely be incorporating soon. Unfortunately, I can't really find much more than that. Link20XX (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Morgan695, Anyway, thanks for the advice. Anything else to say about the article? Link20XX (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Escapist fictionEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to the stub to create an article for a university assignment and would love to have some feedback and edits on the article.

Thanks, BeePatella (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Questionable ContentEdit

This is a fairly key article for ProjectWebcomics, but it needs improvement as it's an old article with a fair amount of unsourced material or material from primary sources. I'd like advice and help to improve this at least to B-class by making it more streamlined and better sourced, among any other improvements you can suggest.

Thanks, HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Loss (comic)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article to Featured Article status and want to see what should be done to get it to that status. GamerPro64 00:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

Hi GamerPro64, I'm sorry that it has taken a month to get a review for this article, and I thank you for your patience. I will review this as if it was an FAC. Consider me a non-expert.

  • "Parodies of the strip became more and more abstract," -> "Parodies of the strip became more abstract"
  • The article's last sentence needs a citation.
  • Know Your Meme is not considered a reliable source, so it will probably be challenged at the FAC. If you want to include it, ensure you have an answer to "Why is this a high-quality reliable source?"
  • I am concerned about the lack of sources in the article; this will not disqualify an article for featured article status, but it will make its success more difficult. Consider looking for more sources in the databases at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Google Books, and in databases available at your local library or post-secondary alumni association. WP:RS/P and WP:VG/RS might also have additional sources.
  • I also recommend that you speak with someone who has brought comic articles or similar topics to FAC; they might help describe areas that could be expanded upon or included in the article.

Sorry that I can't give more advice. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy and religionEdit

Social sciences and societyEdit

Ricky RodriguezEdit

Previous peer review

I've tried to get this article peer reviewed, but someone responded to it and I think it messed up the process because it got archived.

Anyway. I'm basically looking for feedback to improve the article. All (to my knowledge) available information has been included in this article, and I want to see what might need a repair.

Thanks, NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 01:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions

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: 13 June 2021, 17:22 UTC
Last edit: 19 June 2021, 06:14 UTC

Columbia UniversityEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA quality.

Thanks, alphalfalfa(talk) 03:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Sdkb

Overall, I think this article needs a lot of cleaning before it'll be ready for an FAC. Given that it passed GA in 2011, it's likely fallen below GA standards in a bunch of areas, so it needs to be brought back up to more solid GA ground before reaching for FA heights. Specific notes:

  • I'd remove among them a co-author of the United States Constitution and a co-author of the Declaration of Independence from the lead. It's almost never WP:DUE for any one alum to be so important to an institution as to warrant mention in the lead. five Founding Fathers is plenty enough.
  • There are spelling and grammar issues, such as the slash at the start of the campus section (see MOS:SLASH) and capitalization of "city".
  • The undergraduate admissions section should have {{Infobox U.S. college admissions}} added.
  • More prose concerns: New York Times needs italicization.
  • "Military and veteran enrollment" probably shouldn't be its own section, and is promo-y.
  • Student body demographics are outdated.
  • Columbia is home to two pioneers in undergraduate campus radio broadcasting needs strong sourcing, not no sourcing.
  • I suspect the sectioning and weighting of student activities coverage needs revising.
  • The paragraph listing all the speakers at the Global Leaders Forum is crufty and needs to go. A single visit to a campus by any one person is not sufficiently notable that an encyclopedic account of the institution needs to mention it.
  • The galleries of notable alumni and faculty are very WP:UNDUE and need to go; this has been discussed recently at WT:HED I believe.
  • The see also section needs to be trimmed of links mentioned in the body.
  • We don't need to link to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica in the external links; it's more than a little outdated.

These are just samples of issues I found skimming the page; they're by no means a comprehensive list of all I'd find if I scoured it top to bottom. If you'd like to set this up for FAC, you'll need to do so with an eye for these sorts of things. Good luck, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Racism in the UK Conservative PartyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because as the creator, I would value some feedback on neutrality, encyclopedic tone, etc., and the possibility of improving its grade/rating.

Thanks, Bangalamania (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2019 events in the U.S. repo marketEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to GA status and—who knows?—maybe FA status. I hope that it's clear to a general readership and that I haven't missed a big part of the story.

Thanks, JBchrch talk 12:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

National Association for the Advancement of White PeopleEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first Wikipedia article I've ever written, and have included a lot more content than previous. I would really appreciate if anyone had the time to take a look!

Thanks, Tofta22 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Social servicesEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly improved this article from a stub. I am doing this for a university unit project. By the time that I finish editing it (2 June 11:59 PM AEST), it will have images, citations and significant information. I would greatly appreciate any feedback and an assessment of what the class of the article is. I have linked it to the politics WikiProject, and it was already linked to the Social Work Project. Any help or feedback would be super helpful.

Thanks, Kafka10

Australian People for Health, Education and Development AbroadEdit

Hi all - I've listed this article for peer review because I have continually added 2000+ words to enhance this stub article. Since the original stub, It now includes a range of citations, images, an infobox and a navigation box. The upgrade of this stub was due to a university assignment, however I have found the topic particularly interesting therefore would love some feedback to further enhance this stub and possibly request a review of the articles class. It is currently at start article status. Any comments in reference to editing, re-arranging of subheadings, citations or anything in general would be very, very much appreciated. Thank you so much! I look forward to hearing from the Wikipedia community. Thanks, LMJ050100 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie PaxsonEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it from not-even-a-redlink, took it to DYK and GA, and I just love this woman, and I'd like to see the article about her be as good as I can make it. I submitted it for FA, but I really don't understand the process so it was suggested I come here for help.

Pinging Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia as they asked me to, and Lawrencekhoo, Johnbod and Nikkimaria as GtM suggested I should.

Thanks, —valereee (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

  • What is a Penney-Missouri award?
  • "sorority Theta Sigma Phi" as a non-North American this is all Greek to me. Er, I am assuming that it is because I am not North American, possibly I need to be Greek; or whatever.
  • "inducted into their hall of fame". "their" → 'its'?
  • "covering hard news". What was it about the type of news she covered - which perhaps you should specify - that made it difficult?
  • "Paxson finished her career as a newspaper publisher in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma." The main article suggests, without being (IMO) entirely clear, that she finished her career in Oklahoma in 1986, having left her Pennsylvania role six years earlier. Either the lead needs amending or the main article text needs clarifying.
  • "the National Women and Media Collection." Which is?
  • The lead could do with more Wiki-links. Eg Houston, Miami, Philadelphia and Bois; Second World War; probably the various states; women's movement and feminist; and hall of fame.
  • Perhaps red link Association for Women in Communications?

That's just the lead. Either this is not helping, in which case don't be shy in saying so; or it is and you can have ago at applying the principles behind these points to the rest of the article, in which case ping me when you have had a go. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild! All helpful! I'm loling at 'hard news' -- it's hard vs. soft, as in serious news vs what was perceived as fluff, rather than hard vs. easy. Must be an Americanism or N.Americanism. Or maybe I'm just more familiar with old-fashioned news jargon.
I've made those additions and corrections, both in the lead and in the body! —valereee (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Added a bunch more links in the body, did a bit of copyediting. —valereee (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that I will be doing a full copy edit - although the article could do with one - so I will toss in issues as I notice them; there may, or may not, be further similar cases elsewhere in the article.

Wire services, first paragraph.
  • "Like many women of the time in the United States, during World War II". As you have during World War II", "of the time" is redundant.
  • "Like many women of the time in the United States, during World War II Paxson was able to be considered for jobs previously limited to men,[6]:114 and starting in 1944 she covered hard news for the wire services, first for UPI in the two-person Lincoln, Nebraska, bureau for $25 a week, which represented equal pay because it was covered by the American Newspaper Guild contract." An over-long sentence.
  • "... of the time ... At the time ... at the time ... at the time ..." Perhaps a little variation?
  • "reported all state news". Do you mean 'were the only people reporting any news from the state for UPI ...'?
  • ""you just had to put up with it, spend as little time as possible in his office, make a point of always keeping the desk between you. If he started to come around the desk, you picked up those opinions and left." MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Am in the middle of crazy busy IRL, but I'm going to have a period of availability from the 4th through the 6th and will deal with these, thanks so much! —valereee (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I've made these changes! Wow, I hadn't even seen that "at the time" business. That's a bad habit. —valereee (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Alamos GoldEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has expanded significantly, including some content that appears to be of questionable relevance and reliability. Assistance in identifying the material that should stay and material that should go would be appreciated.

Thanks, RoanokeVirginia (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Koh Tao murders

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: 17 April 2021, 12:06 UTC
Last edit: 10 June 2021, 12:35 UTC


Member states of the International Labour OrganizationEdit

Interested in getting this to featured list. I understand the part on withdrawals is not complete and presently working on that, but would appreciate comment overall. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

List of German language newspapers of Ontario

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 2021, 19:40 UTC
Last edit: 17 June 2021, 16:01 UTC

List of Italy national football team hat-tricksEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to this article became a FL.

Thanks, Dr Salvus 17:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Salve Dr Salvus: I made a complete copy-edit of the lead for the peer review. Hopefully it helps. One comment: it would be ideal to link (or explain) the difference between an official and unofficial match in the first paragraph. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Dr Salvus 08:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit