This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up toward GAC and then FAC. I had briefly submitted it (I guess ahead of schedule) to FAC at this link but it was suggested I withdraw. I thought I had taken it both through GAC/FAC level standards, but I guess not, or there's more than the listed requirements, or I missed something? How can I get this up to where it apparently still isn't? Thanks!
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status, but I am unsure about the structure, tone, flow, content, or other aspects. I’d really appreciate any feedback on the article as a whole, Thanks, Lililolol (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm kinda confused about its current status. This was written years ago when the notability guidelines were not that strict and tried researching more about the character so I'm not sure what material should I get rid of. If anybody finds a more useful source for the reception, I would appreciate it.
Georgiana Hill was an overlooked character for some years, drowned out by the noise surrounding Mrs Beeton, and being confused by her historian namesake. Sources are a bit spartan about her, but there's enough for a decent article, which I hope to be able to take to FAC after this PR. All constructive comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to improve it to reach GA status at some point. It's also my first article and I'd love some feedback in general.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC in the future, but there were comments that the prose and perhaps other aspects weren't ready for it yet.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a vital article, and is in poor condition. I have done some editing on this article, but still needs lots of work and guiding.
Recently created this article and wanted to have the content peer reviewed before pursuing a GA nomination. Looking for feedback on the prose, sourcing, and general quality.
Having taken this article to GA last year, I've put in a bit more work to prepare it for FAC and wanted to get a peer review for submitting it. I would appreciate any comments you have on whether or not you think it is comprehensive, neutral and in keeping with the manual of style.
My goal with this article is to take it to FAC (this would be my second). I would especially appreciate help rewording any awkward phrasing and assuring that the article is fully on-topic (I'm worried it may be a bit too long, but I may be overthinking). Of course, any type of feedback at all would be excellent.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for DYK, I think it has a good hook, and it'd be nice if it became a GA as well, if at all possible.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for guidance on how to restructure the article to improve flow, coherence and readability. I'm also looking for guidance on what editing can be undertaken to resolve the maintenance tags.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for FAC and need feedback on how it could be improved to meet the criteria. As this is a very abstract article, I'm also looking for places that people find the most difficult to understand so I can try to improve how accessible it is.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article can become a FA, but I do not have enough experience in the realm of crime and law articles to properly determine if it is missing something.
Please inform me if this article is missing anything important from it. Comments regarding its writing style and prose are also requested.
This article was recently promoted to GA. As this is the first article I've created that's gone beyond start-class, I'm keen to carry on improving it as much as possible. Any feedback at all is welcome!
I'm already aware of a couple of issues, which we discussed in the GA review:
The article doesn't currently have any images/media, but I'm in contact with Everyone Hates Elon to arrange for some free images to be released, so hopefully the article will soon be illustrated.
The article doesn't include discussion of reactions or feedback to the group's campaigns (for instance, any "critical reception"), as this doesn't currently exist, as far as I can tell. Likely given the contentious topic area, and the risk of attracting drama, sources tend to keep to discussing the facts rather than giving opinions. I'm keeping an eye out for "critical reception"-type sources, and if any do emerge, I'll incorporate them into the article.
I've also posted some thoughts about the WP:RS status of Left Foot Forward (which is the origin of four sources cited in the article) at Talk:Everyone Hates Elon, so I'm interested to hear what others think about this.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be eligible for featured list quality, but I am unsure whether there needs to be anything else added to the article. Would a sentence in the lead describing the radio series' plot be required? Do plot summaries for the individual episodes need to be added? Do cast members need to be mentioned in the lead? Anything else I'm missing?
