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.
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.
I've recently expanded this discography to include inline citations for each release, added several charting albums, and revised the lead. Muddy Waters is one of the most important blues artists of all time and I hope to make this a featured list.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had issues with COI in the past and as I also have a COI since I was previously paid to make some edits, it would be best for another editor to go through it and suggest some changes to eliminate the existing issues.
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!
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has potential to be a featured article in the future. An FA delegate runs and archives all my nominations a few moments after the first oppose vote. So I'm starting a peer review page to have more freedom with regards to time and actually be able to get some feedback from others. The major concern raised in the last FAC was the article wording needing to be simplified, so please post ways to do that. I also invite HĐ and SchroCat who identified this issue to hopefully assist me in fixing it. Hope for the next FAC to be successful. Thanks in advance to anyone who will provide their valuable comments.
Hi, sorry for the delay. Below are some of my comments; will try to give more input in the future.
"At the time, Trainor had yet to obtain a recording contract but was writing tracks for other artists." → "but" is used when there are two contradictory events, which I can't see here
Kadish initially proposed the song's title to be "All Bass, No Treble" to Trainor who, at the time, was in a phase of saying "I'm all about that Mexican food". → I recommend breaking this into two separate sentences
Trainor introduced the song's concept by saying "Let's do booty! And thickness! Like, it's about the bass, not the treble". → She did not "introduce" the theme "by" saying this; maybe something like "Trainor came up with the idea of 'booty' for the song"?
"1950s music and doo wop" → shouldn't it be just "1950s doo wop"?
"She felt encouraged by the result and envisioned..." → I can see no connection here
"girl power... as well as self-acceptance" → these themes seem to complement each other rather than being two separate things (which is implied by "as well as")
Here's my suggestion for the last sentence of the second paragraph: Further inspired by (Bruno Mars... "Lollipop"), which encourage self-acceptance of one's own image, Trainor wrote the lyrics criticizing photoshopped images. You can also try to find other ways to make it less wordy
Are there specific names of the labels who were not impressed by the song?
a synthesizer → synthesizers; synths are often in plural form
"Trainor recorded a demo of the song to perform for Paul Pontius" → did Trainor send the demo to Pontius, or did Trainor perform the track live in front of Pontius?
The caption of the image lacks context; maybe it can be written "Trainor performed the song to L.A. Reid (pictured), who ..."
I advise against incorporating opinions from different sources and putting them into one sentence (WP:SYNTH). I'd suggest to include respective description of the song's genre (A described the song as...; B characterized it as...)
A song doesn't "use" the 4/4 common time; it is written in the 4/4 common time; "time signature" is a wrong word here
"Using the 4/4 time signature with a tempo of 134 beats per minute, the song's key signature is in A major" → the subject is "the song" or "the song's key signature"?
Can a basic chord progression provoke a specific music style? Some specific progressions do, but for a "basic" progression, I'm not sure
"early 1960s soul-pop and groove" → "groove" is not a music genre
"earworm" is POV
"It was also noted to have an earworm hook, early 1960s soul-pop and groove influences, a scatting tempo and shimmying melody." → by whom? Does the soul-pop groove really need to be noted? Or is it apparent on the song itself already?
"Trainor delivers a hint of Caribbean reggae in addition to a variety of background vocal and rapping techniques" → I have no clue what this is trying to say
"The vocals of "All About That Bass" have been compared to" → by whom? And this should be in line with the simple past tense
"the lyrics of "All About That Bass" provide a callout to embrace inner beauty, and to promote a positive body image and self-acceptance" → the lyrics promote self-acceptance of body image by embracing inner beauty; not the best option, but please make it succinct
"In the song" is redundant
"unreachable standards of beauty" → any specific examples? And how do these standards contradict with the song's lyrics?
"Its lyrical message has been compared to" → ditto
I see a lot of comparisons to other songs here; unless they are very necessary, I would advise against doing so. "Composition" is where the song's musical structure and lyrical content are explained; comparisons should only be used to shed more light. So far I haven't seen how the song promotes positive body image or criticizes beauty standards (which specific lyric?), and the names of other songs make the section appear unorganized
Those are my two cents so far. Will try to get back to this when I finish my college assignments and reports. I hope this PR attract more interest as well. :) HĐ (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a major revision. While I originally got the article to good article status in 2011, it was my first good article and consequently my weakest; additionally, a lot of things happened in the last eight years relating to the song, both in new coverage as well as a film adaption last year that led to a new chart run (the song's third unique chart run). I've finally a completed a major overhaul I've been gradually working on and want to get input so that the article can be in as good a shape as possible, both in conforming to current GA standards as well as a future featured article nomination. Since this is such a large article, I figured peer review would be a good place to start. ToaNidhiki05 01:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I made some minor updates to the infobox as per Template:Infobox song#Parameters (easier than listing here). Please change/fix as needed. Studios are linked where possible (IBC Studios?) and the city is identified. Also, there is some overlinking: lead singer, common musical instruments, Bible, funerals, film, etc. Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! The IBC Studios here was in the US, presumably a separate studio; I’ll check the liner notes when I get home, but I’m guessing the name is coincidental. I’ll check the overlinks and fix those shortly. ToaNidhiki05 17:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Brief update: I removed the overlooks. I checked the album liner notes and while it mentions the studios the album was recorded at, it doesn't say where those studios are unfortunately. ToaNidhiki05 23:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article because I'd like to find out whether this article deserves improvement from the Start-class assessment. The article itself is a slightly changed version of FA-class version at Polish Wikipedia (authors) which I've contributed to. Any feedback about the topic would be helpful.
I started making this list a couple of days ago with the intention of nominating it for FL. The list of songs is complete and I expanded the lead today. I think it's ready but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything so I would greatly appreciate any help.
Nicely done. The introduction has a nice flow to it and doesn't sound promotional, and the graphs are nicely laid out. I might recommend ditching the photographs on the right, however, since they aren't of her, and will make wrapping even more difficult on small browser windows or mobile devices. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
I've submitted the article for peer review because it's my first time editing on Wikipedia and I'd like some feedback on how I've done so far. I'm interested in comments on style, formatting, cohesion, and particularly the Comment I made during the edit regarding Markos' move to Houston because I'm not sure how to deal with contradictory information in an article.
I'm not sure why someone has added the banner at the top of the page. The prose, what there is of it, doesn't strike me as particularly sub-standard, though the penultimate paragraph is a touch incoherent: a jumble of unrelated statements. What chiefly needs attention, in my view, is the sourcing. There are six paragraphs, only one of which contains a citation to a source. All the important facts in the article should be verifiable in a reliable source. Tim riley talk 09:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it as a Feature List Candidate soon, and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead (a copy edit request has already been made) and the references. This is my first peer review, but I have made significant additions to this article and have every intention to continue on with it. Please let me know what you think.
Thanks, NicklausAU 12:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
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.
I wrote this article and I hope it can qualify for "Good" or even "Featured" status, but I am uneasy about nominating my own work for promotion. The community is welcome to provide comments in that direction. I have a few "citation needed" tags for things I'm pretty sure are true but can't quite verify, and hoped that an expert would come to the rescue (no luck yet). See also the article's talk page for some more details on things that are tough to verify. Thanks for any comments you can offer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the title: it seems the rock scene came to an abrupt end in 1975, so isn't using "1960s–1970s" somewhat misleading? ("1960s–70s" is used several times in the article; two-digit ending years have limitations, see MOS:DOB). An earlier title was "Cambodian rock (1960s-70)", was "Cambodian rock (1960–1975)" considered? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There are about three people in all of Wikipedia who know anything about this topic. I started a discussion with that group in which I proposed writing this article but admitted that I could not think of a good title. (Here is that discussion: ) Nobody else could really think of one either, and there are also rules to follow at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Consider the current article title to be a "lesser of all evils" choice and I am open to any suggestions. Also, "1970s" vs. "70s" in the article text is an oversight on my part and easily fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I truly believe its widespread acclaim and "cult-following" notability make it a unique subject to be a Featured Article (FA) contender. While it currently meets Good Article (GA) guidelines, I hope other editors can strengthen its prose and structure.
You did a great job compiling a vast amount of information on this album that has received vast media coverage. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." In other words, a photo of Paul Simon (for example) is relevant for articles about him, but here he is merely mentioned obliquely. Nobody may care enough to bring this up, but don't be surprised if it happens. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been receiving a large amount of edits lately and I am not sure that they are appropriate for the article but my previous edits have been reverted so I wanted some outside input.
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed its FA review back in October. I did not get a lot of great input then, only some recommendations and some - as I felt rather impolite - comments from the only reviewer. I see that the prose has some problems. Since I am German, I tend to use longer sentences (which is just the style you use in German), but it does not work well in English. So suggestions as to clearing that up a little bit would be welcome. I am also concerned about the "Background" section of the article, since I am not sure how well this can be understood by people not overly familiar with Formula 1.
I am very much looking forward to your suggestions!
@ 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.
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)
Distributed element circuit should perhaps mention tapers in the Circuit components section. At present it says Departures from constructing with uniform transmission lines in distributed element circuits are rare, yet in the lede picture there are two stick-insect networks with tapered bodies. These networks are unusual, but got me thinking of other examples of tapers, including; horns, vivaldi antennas, matched loads and various tapered transitions. Smooth bends and twists are also considered to be tapers. catslash (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I added a bit to the article lede connecting it to a very similar article: distributed element model. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I am working on an overhaul of the provincial parks of BC as part of Wikiproject Canada. Garibaldi Provincial Park is the first of these - I've done a fair bit of work on it. I'd like to use this peer review to ensure that page is up to standard, and, as I am new to wikipedia, I would take this opportunity to improve my writing from the community's feedback and suggestions. Ultimately I'll apply what I learn here to the subsequent pages in this project.
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 . 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC in the next few weeks. I think it's nearly there, but it might need some more content. I also want to raise attention to the concern about my use of three masters thesis projects (Lite Jr 1992; Swanson 1986; Werner 1991) at the good article review here. I look forward to any and all feedback!
Regarding the theses, have the people participating in their writing a reputation for expertise and accuracy? I see that Lite Jr 1992 is cited twice in academic papers, Swanson 1986 is cited 17 times. Werner 1991 I can't find, but Werner 1990 is cited here 4 times. Otherwise, sure that it should say "extinct"? To me it looks like this volcanic field is similar to the Honolulu Volcanics which are not defined "extinct". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry for the delayed reply; thanks for your comments. Swanson has become a very respected figure in field volcanology; see . Lite Jr still co-authors reports on hydrology for the USGS (see ) but unclear what his position is; might just be on USGS Staff. Less certain about Werner. I will address the extinct issue once these reference concerns are addressed; Squeamish Ossifrage, if you have any additional thoughts since your GA review, I would appreciate any and all feedback. ceranthor 14:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
IMO when judging the suitability of an author's work one should consider the reputation they had when they wrote it, not necessarily what came later except for the citation numbers. I'd keep only Swanson per the citation numbers but that's just a feeling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for Peer Review because I'm hoping to take to Featured Article status. Any ideas on how to improve it further would be appreciated.
Thanks, Ykraps (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is listed as a start-class when it should be at least a B, if not higher. A lot has been added since it was last evaluated and really could use another look.
@Nikkimaria:I wasn't aware that was a thing, so I appreciate you for letting me know. If you could give me some advice on how to improve the article, I'd greatly appreciate it. If you think its good to go, then I'll list it for assessment.Eric Schucht (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Lead section definitely needs to be significantly expanded - given the article size three paragraphs would be good
More citations are needed in general - ideally we'd want everything to be cited
Avoid positioning images such that small bits of text get sandwiched between them
Some of the references used, such as findagrave, are less than reliable
Citations should be complete, not just URLs, and should ideally be formatted consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I went through the page and reformatted and updated it's sources. I'm going to remove the peer review request and request a rating reassessment. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd appreciate it if you could leave your feedback on the page's talk page so its easier for others to see. Thank you Eric Schucht (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because after spending weeks on researching for this article (which I've already published in the French Wikipedia), I have the opinion that it deserves to become a featured article. I understand there may be several structural or other mistakes within the article, which is why I'm submitting this to you all.
My first comment is that the article is very long. At 59kB it is nudging the "Probably should be divided" level in WP:SIZERULE. I will not pretend to have read it all, but one point that stood out from my sampling of the article is the use of the historic present in recounting the day-by-day events. I have never encountered this in a Wikipedia article about historical events, and I found it rather distracting. Whether this would in itself sink the article at FAC I am not sure, but it is not even applied consistently. In this paragraph for instance the tenses clash:
The American reaction toward the putsch shocked several Georgians who had been convinced that the United States represented Russia's geopolitical alternative. However, it soon becomes clear that Washington sees Boris Yeltsin's Russia as a potential ally in the new post-Soviet world and for that reason, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, who often criticized human rights violations made by Gamsakhurdia, ignored the same violations done under Eduard Shevardnadze, even supporting and advising the latter's presidency.
In the lead "a bloody civil war that lased 1994" needs attention.
I think using the historic present in the caption for Dudayev and Gamsakhurdia is all right. This seems to be the general usage for captions of this sort.
In the caption "Eduard Shevardnadze became the head of the Georgian state as soon as March 1992", English idiom requires "as early as" rather than "as soon as"
In the final paragraph the date range should have an en-dash rather than a hyphen, and I'm not sure what purpose the blue link serves for the years, here or elsewhere in the article.
You need to be consistent in capitalising Deputy (or deputy) Minister of Defense.
There is some WP:OVERLINKing that needs attention: we do not link the names of countries – Georgia, the United States, Great Britain; and there are far too many names and terms linked more than once: South Ossetia, Zviad Gamsakhurdi, and more than a hundred others.
The referencing needs a little attention. Reference 70 has an error message. All four footnotes a–d lack citations for the statements in them. The bibliography lacks ISBNs (or OCLC numbers) for some of the books.
I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 10:23, 9 May 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)
The 23rd (Northumbrian) Division had a short history during the Second World War: an untrained infantry unit untimely deployed overseas to conduct labour duties in support of the British Expeditionary Force, it was thrown onto the frontlines with mixed results as the Battle of France entered the final stages.
The article has recently been overhauled and expanded. I have also requested that the Guild of Copy Editors give the article the once over to help improve the prose. I will be looking to take the article through its GA, A, and FA reviews in the coming months. It would much appreciated for a peer review to help whip the article into shape with that in mind.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added over 94% of the content currently and the topic is related to a report that had far reaching implications for the Indian security system at a national level which are still being implemented to date. I would also request for comments related to any copyright violations, if found. Although I have checked for copyright violations, but I would still request someone to double check. (I have reduced copyvio as much as possible, names and quotes etc aside, of course). If possible, fact checking would be a good idea too. I have tried to make sure that the content is as accurate as possible, but again, since I have added over 94% os the content, asking for a peer review would also be a good idea. Before any more major expansion is done from my side, I want to be ensure that the current content is a good base, structured well, has no copy vios and is fact checked reasonably. This is a lot to ask, so accordingly I will add to other review requests shortly.
DiplomatTesterMan, congratulations on your first article! I took a quick glance through the results of Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and I don't seen anything that raises a warning flag. The vast majority of the matching text can't or shouldn't be changed, such as the names of groups. If you want to work on finer details, you could look for bits of matching text you can change, and reword those. For example in this comparison, you see 'Age profile of the army','could perhaps have been avoided', and 'surprise to the Indian government'.
This isn't mandatory, more a low-pressure suggestion which might give you a fresh view of the article. I'll let another editor (or several) work with you on the fact-checking and structure, and wish you the best of luck. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:54, 11 February 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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it very recently, believing the subject was worthy of an article. It has had 300 views so it seems there is interest. Feedback would be welcomed, and it would be nice if the article could be graded with an assessment too, as it is currently of unknown status. I believe literature is the best category for this request although the subject also encompasses LGBT and religious themes.
Updating peer review to reflect title of page. Currently nearly completed good article assessment. --E.3 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this mid importance topic for peer review under social science and society. It has just achieved GA status with extensive review and any improvement would be most welcome by any interested Wikipedian, I'd like to aim for FA status after peer review. --E.3 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this (Digital media use has been investigated in terms of mental health symptoms and diagnoses from many perspectives. - sounds vague and obvious, and should be combined with sentence 3 (They have been under study and analysis for some years, predominantly by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and medical experts. ) --> how about, "The possible mental health complications/implications of digital media use have been investigated by various researchers and cllinicians—predominantly psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and medical experts—for some years."
These phenomena behave differently in various societies and cultures. --> "behave" makes me think of a sentient entity..... --> "These phenomena manifest differently in various societies and cultures."
The delineation between beneficial and pathological use of digital media is not comprehensively codified, - hah, "codified" is ambitious! maybe "established" even (well, apart from self proclaimed experts coming up with random times on morning TV shows...)
I just rewrote this article from fresh in replace of the old article deals 1980s stuff. It's somewhat lengthy for a single editor and I certainty have made a few mistakes here and there. A second eye would be mostly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has reached a "stalemate". That is, the only things being actively, constructively, edited are the lists of examples and typology. In particular, I would like input on its legal definition, the text of the lede, and specific examples from history. However, everything about the article could use feedback, and any feedback would be helpful.
I believe it is a good quality article but since I'm almost the only user who has worked on it, it would be great to have other eyes read and improve it. Is the content balanced enough or is it one-sided with an uneven focus on military relations? Or, should some of the sections be (re)moved? Any constructive comments are welcome.
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get suggestions from outside editors before I plan to take it to FLC. Any comments on how we can improve this list would be very much appreciated.
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:
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. Harriastalk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)