Wikipedia:Peer review

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer reviews)
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. 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. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

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

ArtsEdit

Winston DukeEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have begun working on this article (but am not far into editing) and am aiming to bring this up to GA. If this does get promoted, it'll be my first article I've worked on on a mainstream celebrity. Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


The LongingEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a potential FAC. I’ve been expanding the article for the past month, and I believe it is generally comprehensive. Nearly all the sources have been provided by the WP:VG/RS, but I’ve included a few outside sources too. I appreciate any suggestions, though I would especially like some help on the prose.

Thanks, The Night Watch ω (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64Edit

Claiming my spot. Should have a review up within a few days. JOEBRO64 18:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


MadhubalaEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article meets higher class - in my guess a WP:FLC.

Thanks, Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  • @Twinkle1990: Just so you know you can only have one peer review open at a time, and you have this one alongside this one so you will have to close one of them. Also, both of these are articles so it would go through the WP:FAC. I would also make sure to contact the primary editors for the article before putting them through the FAC process to get their feedback about it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @Aoba47: How shall I withdraw peer review request of Ajay Devgn? If possible, can you do it on behalf of me? Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
      • You can read about how to archive a peer review here. You should close it on your own so you can learn how to do it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


Manos ArribaEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to put it through the FAC process sometime later in the year or next year, but after I completely rewrote the article, I want to make sure it is as prepared as possible before doing that. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


Nigel BoddiceEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to receive feedback on how I could improve this article to B class or even GA standard. Any thoughts would be appreciated, I'm not looking for any specific areas of feedback. This is my first peer review submition, so sorry if I do anything wrong. Thanks a bunch, Schminnte (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

Comments after a quick skim.

  • Typically, ledes do not have citations, per WP:LEDECITE. Are these needed?
  • There are lots of small, one paragraph sections throughout the article, which is not recommended per MOS:OVERSECTION
  • Each of those listed articles in "Honours and awards" needs a citation.
  • Ref 40 title should not be in all caps
  • Ref 18 needs more information.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for all your help. I've tried to implement these changes, wondering if there's anything else? I would also love your opinion on the quality of the article, as I've asked many editors who just link me to a MOS page. Schminnte (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@Schminnte: I haven't done a deep reading into the article, but from taking a glance I would recommend merging those short sections in the Careers section (maybe removing the level 3 headings). I also suggest adding more information to the article, as it seems a little scarce. WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org and Internet searches on various platforms (Google, Bing, Duck Duck Go, etc.) might yield more sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thanks again. Funny thing is I can't actually use the Wikipedia library yet sadly. I'll try to implement what you're saying however. Schminnte (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


The Exorcist

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: 31 October 2022, 02:41 UTC
Last edit: 2 December 2022, 21:40 UTC


Anne GarrelsEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because…... This article has been radically expanded since the original rating of "Start class" was assigned. It is now a far more extensive, substantive and very-well-documented article -- probably the most thorough coverage of the subject anywhere online (I've done exhaustive research and review of nearly everything in-depth, published online, about this subject. Most of those are cited as sources in the article, but none is as complete encyclopedic information as this Wikipedia article is now). Thanks, ~ Penlite (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

@Penlite: If you are looking to update this article's rating from start class, please note that you can update the rating to C- or B-class without a peer review: just update the rating on the talk page. In terms of improving the article, I suggest expanding the lede so that it is a summary of the article's content. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: I feel like maybe it's a bit presumptuous to grade my own work. Is that ethical? Is their a WP guideline on such action? ~ Penlite (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Lede expanded as you suggested. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Penlite: WP:ASSESS states that "Two levels, GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article), are assessments made by independent editors, rather than by WikiProjects." Some Wikiprojects, like WP:MILHIST, have assessments for B and A class, but most do not because of the high level of volunteer hours that would require. Most Wikipedians are not concerned about increasing the rating on an article they are working on (except for GA and FA) because most Wikipedians are not concerned about an article's rating of C- or B-class. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional commentsEdit

@Penlite: It's clear that you've done extensive research on the subject matter. Given her long career, you could certainly expand the introduction to summarize noteworthy achievements. FiddleheadLady (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@FiddleheadLady: I'll try to get that done ASAP. Much else going on right now, but your comment (and that of User:Z1720) have gotten my attention, and will probably yield results shortly. Thanks. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@FiddleheadLady: Lede expanded as you suggested. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Glad to offer some feedback. Happy drafting! FiddleheadLady (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


Legendaddy (album)Edit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to a Good Article status and I want to receive feedback in order to improve it. The previous peer review only got one minor suggestion, so I would like to receive more if that is possible.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

Some comments after a quick skim:

  • The "Composition" section is quite long. I suggest cutting unnecessary words/prose or dividing it using level 3 headings
  • The "Reception" section suffers from a "X said Y" sentence structure. WP:RECEPTION has advice on how to avoid this. I also think that it is quite long and that the information should be summarised more effectively. For example, if multiple sources give the same comments, then each source does not need to be named as giving that comment in the prose. Instead, group the comments together in a sentence, and cite the reviews at the end of the sentence.
  • I suggest archiving the links in the reference section
  • The reference for the "Personal" section should be given.
  • There are many sentences in the article that use multiple sources to verify what it says. Are all of those sources necessary? If possible, take out the sources that are of a lesser quality if there are 3 or more sources used for the sentence (lesser quality, starting from the weakest, would probably be social media posts, then social media posts, then interviews with the artist).

Overall, I think this is almost ready for GAN, and could possibly continue onto FAC after a music-specialist reviews the article (as I do not usually focus on those types of articles). I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your time and comments. I cut the "Composition" section but it may still be too long. Is there a way to archive multiple links automatically (since there are a lot in this article)? I saw someone do that for an awards list, probably with a bot. Regarding the "Personnel" section, I have been told that it is no longer required to add a reference for the album's credits, but I could add it. I have yet to rework the "Reception" section following your suggestion.--Brankestein (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I use User:InternetArchiveBot, which will archive multiple sites quickly. Go to the Wikilink and click "Configure" at the top, which will bring you to a separate page where you can ask the bot to archive the sites on the page. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I have yet to edit the reception section. I had been busy recently, but I have a question. I saw that the album's liner notes have less songwriters than those credited on streaming services like Spotify, Youtube and Tidal. Should I leave the credits of those services or should I change them to the liner notes?--Brankestein (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I have now summarised the reception section. Brankestein (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


Like a Virgin (song)Edit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, having closed the Peer review for 'La Isla Bonita', I can finally request one for 'Like a Virgin'; I'm interested on taking this article to FA status and would like and need all the help I can get :)

Thanks, Christian (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2022 (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) 16:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Bdhamilton:

Caveat: I’m a relatively new editor, so I don’t have a good grasp of the FA criteria. But here are a few things I noticed that could be improved:
  • The lead feels too long and cumbersome. Some details (e.g., “Venetian vitality”) ought to be postponed until the relevant section the article.
  • I also think the lead needs some inline citations, particularly where it makes claims that sound like POV (“the song’s lyrics are ambiguous”) or that might be challenged (“turned her into a superstar”).
  • As a matter of style, it seems to me that semicolons are dramatically overused throughout the article. Most would be better as periods.
  • The ‘Recording and production’ section is too quote-heavy.
  • The first paragraph of the ‘Composition and lyrics’ section could be better organized. Right now, it reads like a bulleted list in paragraph form: a series of disconnected facts about the musical structure of the piece. It would help to move things around and add some transitions so there’s a logical flow to the presentation. The same is true of the whole ‘Release and critical reception’ section.
  • A tiny point: the Corriere della Sera seems like a strange main source for the total number of worldwide sales at the end of the ‘Commercial Performance’ section.
  • I wonder if some further division of the ‘Live performances’ section is in order. The ‘Other performances’ section is long and without a clear organization—not even chronological.
  • A significant number of quotes have been heavily modified with brackets and ellipses in order to fit the prose. It’s distracting to read. In my opinion it would be better to quote less, and just to pull out the key words or phrases that support the particular point being made.
There are a few other things I’d note, but that’s all I have time for at the moment. I’ll try to loop back and say more later. My one overarching suggestion is to impose more editorial order and voice within particular sections, even at the cost of including fewer quotes. This is an extensively researched piece, that’s clear, but sometimes it feels like the results of that research are just being listed out rather than explained.
Great work so far! Hope something in there is helpful. —Brian (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


DegrassiEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for FA status. Prior to 2021, the Wikipedia coverage of Degrassi was not good. A lot of the articles either had a lot of cruft, were never edited to reflect more recent developments, or were poorly sourced. I've been steadily improving and expanding existing articles and making new well-sourced articles to do with the franchise after extensively researching and exhausting all the research databases, purchasing books, etc. For instance, I was able to unearth how important and popular the Degrassi series pre-Next Generation actually were, compare this 2020 version of Degrassi Junior High to the current version.

I think it'd be really neat to have this get featured status especially with the increased attention Degrassi has been getting due to the news of the reboot!

Thanks, ToQ100gou (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2022 (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) 23:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@ToQ100gou: This has been open for over a month without comment. Do you want to keep this open? If so, I suggest asking for reviewers on Wikiprojects attached to this article. If not, can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to keep this open. I would really appreciate someone taking a look at the article. ToQ100gou (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


Boris Johnson Is a Fucking CuntEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get promoted to featured article status, and indeed for the article to appear on the main page - again (it has been a DYK? and is currently a GA). I admit that I do like the idea of an article entitled "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" to appear on Wikipedia's main page. I'm not entirely sure which bits need improving before it should be put up as a candidate.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (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) 23:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from mujingaEdit

  • Overall this article seems to be in pretty good shape
  • Not sure about "aftermath" as the name of the last section?
  • In order to flesh this out as a featured article, you could consider giving a bit more info on Kunt and the Gang. And also who did get the xmas number 1 in 2021? (a question i thought i would never ask)
  • "All money made from sales from the single will go": thats past tense now
  • Music Week can be linked
  • As can all instances of Billboard
  • "Cassetteboy again supported him, releasing a mash-up video of Johnson performing to "Killing in the Name" by Rage Against the Machine with a message to support the stream.[36]" - it would be nice to have a better source here. You can probably argue in favour of beyondthejoke.co.uk but it appears to be a blog
  • For the rest the source seem pretty good
  • Best of luck with the article Mujinga (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


Vivien Lyra BlairEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get this to FA-status.

Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2022 (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) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The infobox states she was born in 2011/2012, the Early Life section in 2012 or 2013, and the lead gives an exact date of June 4, 2012. Which is it? Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: to ensure they saw the above comment. I would also suggest that they post notices for this PR in various Wikiprojects or to editors who edit this article's subject matter, to get more comments. Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hiya just a few quick comments from me aimed at being helpful as regards a FA nomination, based on my limited experiences of FAC:
    • This article is very small and likely to be challenged in terms of comprehensiveness, a higher requirement than broadness for a GA
      • I know it's small, but I still think it is comprehensive. This is all I can find that is available on Blair at the moment (though I might look for a few more sources when I have time). I believe it covers all major aspects of what is known about Blair's life at the moment... I know Blair's just starting out her career, but personally, I don't see that as that big of an issue as the article could always be demoted if her article is updated insufficiently or becomes unstable...
    • I don't think FA reviewers will be impressed by The Rensselaer Polytechnic
      • minus Removed
    • I couldn't find an editorial policy for https://comicbook.com/ so that will probably be challenged
    • Variety described her line deliveries as "aplomb" - this doesn't read well to me, I think you do something *with aplomb*, eg she delivered her lines with aplomb
      • Reworded
    • she portrayed Leia Organa in the Disney+ series - Disney+ mentioned in lead not in article
      • plus Added to the article
    • for which she received critical praise - says the lead, but the reviews actually seem mixed
      • As far as I know, reviews towards Blair's performance were positive, but I added that one mixed review to balance out the praise. Pamzeis (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    • overall i'm not sure if this can be a FA, it just seems too insubstantial, if you take away the review there's very little. but that's just my opinion of course! all the best, Mujinga (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
      @Mujinga: Responded to your comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Timestamping to avoid closure. Pamzeis (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

And again... Pamzeis (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


The Rolling Stones

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 July 2022, 16:47 UTC
Last edit: 4 November 2022, 05:49 UTC


Everyday lifeEdit

Efren ReyesEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually take this article to FA. Aside from the uncited early life para, I'm reasonably happy with this article, but it needs more eyes before I'd feel comfortable nominating it at FAC. Anything you can suggest would be apprciated.

Thanks, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:46, 4 November 2022 (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) 21:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


Engineering and technologyEdit

Pure StorageEdit


My name is Zac Bond and I work for Pure Storage. It appears 4 years ago a prior employee disclosed, made some minor edits, and requested larger ones on Talk, which were implemented by a volunteer. The tag alleging Terms of Use violations was added because of user AaronEndre's incomplete disclosure when he started the page 11 years ago. This page has been re-written since then, but the tag was left up due to neutrality/tone concerns.

It's possible I'm not summarizing correctly, but that's what I've gathered. In a nutshell, it appears the current page is still not considered neutral as a result of Talk page contributions from a former Pure Storage employee. I'd like your feedback on how I can fix that, where and how the page sounds promotional, and how for me to best assist. ZacBond (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


Costa Concordia disasterEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get it to FA status but I would like some other editors to look over it beforehand. There have been complains of bias in the past, and I want to know how to fix that in order to promote this article. This is the first time I've tried to do this, so any help would be appreciated.

Thanks! Cessaune (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AdogEdit

I do not know a lot about cruising or wrecks, but I will offer some pointers for general improvements:

Lead

  • 2 members of the salvage team to 2 salvage team members
  • ... three times the $612 million construction cost of the ship. to ... three times the ship's $612 million construction.
  • 'Costa Concordia was declared a "constructive total loss" by the cruise line's insurer, and her salvage was "one of the biggest maritime salvage operations."' Was it one of the biggest maritime salvage operations ever, contemporary, in the 21st century?

Evacuation

  • and therefore to and, therefore,

Search for missing people

  • afterwards to afterward
  • in order to to to

Securing wreck site and protecting environment

  • As part of the recovery effort needs comma at the end
  • ...and by extension... to and, by extension,

Refloating and removal

  • a short distance away from the coast omit "away"

Scrapping

  • ... Superbacino dock in Genoa for removal of the upper decks ... to Superbacino dock in Genoa to remove the upper decks
  • in to to into

Ship remnants and artifacts

  • Some of the passengers' belongings like cash or jewelry, like... to Some of the passengers' belongings like cash or jewelry, such as...
  • ... own jewelry, was believed ... to own jewelry, were believed

Passengers and personnel

  • On 27 January 2012, Costa posted on its website the compensation package offered to uninjured passengers. to On 27 January 2012, Costa posted the compensation package offered to uninjured passengers on its website
  • ... psychological distress and ... to psychological distress, and
  • Costa also promised return of all property... to Costa also promised the return of all property

Investigations

  • The board said that the investigation ... omit "that"

Criminal proceedings against officers

  • ... "Passengers are getting into the life boats", Schettino responded ... to "Passengers are getting into the lifeboats", Schettino responded,

Costa Cruises and its parent companies

  • Costa Cruises at first offered to pay Schettino's legal costs, ... to Costa Cruises initially offered to pay Schettino's legal costs

Regulatory and industry response

  • On 8 July 2012, CNN reported that the disaster brought changes to safety and evacuation procedures in the cruise industry... possible to On 8 July 2012, CNN reported that the disaster changed the cruise industry's safety and evacuation procedures

Honours and memorial

  • ... agreed that a large boulder which was ... to agreed that a large boulder that was

General

  • A lot of sentences start off with "On so-and-so [comma], dot dot dot". I would find a way to better formulate these sentences into paragraphs with each other, and structure the sentence so that the date appears in the middle or later half of the statement. A date beginning a sentence is not necessarily wrong but becomes redundant after the first two or three times consecutively used.
  • Ensure images are related to their sections, as I saw some strewn about in a random part of the article.

I hope this helps out a bit! :) Adog (TalkCont) 17:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


Interstate 40 in TennesseeEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it to featured article status, but this would be my first FA, and I would like for a more experienced editor in this area to take a thorough look at it to suggest improvements as well as address questions I have about possible changes/additions. I got this article to GA status back in February, and since then have made a number of improvements, mostly to the prose. I have also added some tidbits of additional information and a few additional images. I don't think it is far away from reaching FA status, but with me not having much experience with that process, do not believe it would be wise to nominate without a peer review. For those unfamiliar with the subject matter, I would like to first list a few important objections that might come up:

First of all, the article is approximately 9,900 words in length, pushing it close to the recommended limit suggested at WP:SUMMARY and WP:AS. However, I will point out that, aside from the obvious fact that all articles are different, this article is somewhat of an outlier within its subject matter for a number of reasons. The stretch of I-40 in Tennessee is the eight-longest segment of interstate highway within a single state (second-longest east of the Mississippi River), and so it is naturally going to be longer than most state-level highway articles. Furthermore, the stretch of I-40 passes through the three largest metropolitan areas within the state, and naturally has undergone numerous expansion and reconstruction projects since its initial construction, with many more planned for the near future. And add these facts to the highway's connection to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, it's location within one of the most crucial areas instrumental in the development of popular music, and the diverse terrain through which it passes that presents numerous geological challenges, then this article is bound to be significantly longer than articles about interstate highways of similar lengths, such as Interstate 80 in Nebraska or Interstate 90 in Montana. The sections themselves are all at a summary length, with none exceeding four paragraphs. It is also common to include honorary designations in highway articles, of which I-40 in Tennessee has many. I actually started a draft for an honorary designations paragraph in my sandbox a while back; however, before adding, I want to make sure that this article doesn't get too long. I also feel like we might should include a photo of the crack that closed the Hernando de Soto Bridge and possibly another one of the Cumberland Plateau section (I would actually like to get updated photos of the Walden Ridge and Mt. Cammerer photos, but it will be awhile before I can do so).

I believe the most important area that should be analyzed is the grammar and choice of words/phrases, as well as other minor details such as whether or not there are still any typographical errors or if the placement of links is appropriate. In addition to the above, there will be other possible changes that I will bring up as the review progresses; however, I feel it would be premature to bring them up before the review has begun.

Thanks, Bneu2013 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


Rust (programming language)

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: 3 November 2022, 16:07 UTC
Last edit: 2 December 2022, 14:40 UTC


SS CayugaEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I would also like to know what could be done to improve its quality.

Thanks, GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: It has been over a month since this was posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting on the talk pages of related Wikiprojects. If not, can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: I've posted it at the WikiProject Ships talk page. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 14:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Fix the referencing. The proper way to disambiguate short-form referencing is to disambiguate the date, not the author so stuff like:
{{cite web |last = Berry (1) |first = Sterling |year = 2021 and {{sfnp|Berry (1)|2021}}
should be:
{{cite web |last=Berry |first=Sterling |date=2021a and {{sfnp|Berry|2021a}}
The reason for this is that {{cite web}}, and all of the other cs1|2 templates, are designed to support date disambiguation but not author-name disambiguation.
When I look at that Berry (1) source, the date 2021 is nowhere mentioned in that source. This seems to be common to web sources cited in this article. The proper 'date' to use is the publication date of the source if one is provided. For Berry, some sort of date is required – except 2 which isn't used in the article – but since none are available from the source and to support disambiguation, do this: |date=n.d.a, |date=n.d.c, etc. and {{sfnp|Berry|n.d.a}}, {{sfnp|Berry|n.d.c}}, etc.
Another common issue is |author= used to hold a name that isn't an author. Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library and Bowling Green State University are websites so:
delete |author=... and change |publisher=[[Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library]] to |website=[[Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library]] (same for Bowling green...)
For cites like Maritime History of the Great Lakes:
{{cite web |author = Maritime History of the Great Lakes |year = 1890 |title = Cayuga (Propeller), aground, 9 Apr 1890 |url = https://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/59985/data?n=487 |access-date = August 1, 2021 |publisher = Maritime History of the Great Lakes |location = Ontario, Canada }}
Maritime History of the Great Lakes (1890). "Cayuga (Propeller), aground, 9 Apr 1890". Ontario, Canada: Maritime History of the Great Lakes. Retrieved August 1, 2021.
it is probably best to rewrite to something like this:
{{cite news |date=April 10, 1890 |title=A Steamer Ashore |newspaper=Buffalo Evening News |url=https://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/59985/data?n=487 |access-date=August 1, 2021 |via=Maritime History of the Great Lakes |ref={{sfnref|''Buffalo Evening News''|1890}}}}
"A Steamer Ashore". Buffalo Evening News. April 10, 1890. Retrieved August 1, 2021 – via Maritime History of the Great Lakes.
with an accompanying short-form reference like this: {{sfnp|''Buffalo Evening News''|1890}}Buffalo Evening News (1890)
(both with date disambiguation as needed)
No doubt there are other problems but this is a start...
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: to ensure they saw the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: I'm a bit busy with school right now, but I'll sort it out during the weekend. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 19:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Done. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


GeneralEdit

Iron GwaziEdit


I wish to nominate this article as a featured article candidate soon. For interested readers, a summary: Iron Gwazi is a steel-hybrid roller coaster located at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay. The roller coaster was initially named Gwazi and built as two dueling wooden roller coasters, opening to the public in 1999. After 15 years of operation, Gwazi closed indefinitely, sitting dormant at the park for several years before being reconstructed as Iron Gwazi.

The roller coaster was one of the most anticipated attractions to debut at a North American theme park. Due to the pandemic, its original opening date was postponed for two years; later, opening on March 11, 2022, to critical acclaim. The roller coaster was voted as the Best New Roller Coaster by the Golden Ticket Awards (an annual award published by Amusement Today for the amusement park industry) and is ranked among the top steel roller coasters in the world.

It has been a while since WP:APARKS had a featured article candidate for its roller coaster/attractions. Any comments are welcomed and would be appreciated. Adog (TalkCont) 18:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


2002 FIFA World CupEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how this article can become a good article.

Thanks, SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 08:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it wise to try and nominate more articles so close to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#‎Issue regarding a new reviewer? You've chosen one of the more difficult articles to promote, and at the very least needs a full tournament summary. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


Six Flags Hurricane Harbor ChicagoEdit


I plan to make this article a good article nominee soon or achieve a B-class status. Since creating the article back in July, I've reworked it multiple times since then. I'm happy about the current content, but any comments, major or minor, are greatly appreciated. Thank you! Harobouri TC (he/him) 03:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


Animal Crossing: New LeafEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… From the comments of the last GAR of this article, I am requesting a peer review to gain an analysis of the articles quality without needing to be a major contributor.

Thanks, PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


Geography and placesEdit

HistoryEdit

Hungarian nobilityEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it as a FAC. The article is about a social class that dominated the political and economic life of present-day Hungary and significant regions in the neighboring countries for almost a millenia. I think the article is comprehensive but I need further imput to improve its style.

Thank you for your time, Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2022 (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) 19:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


Södermanland Runic Inscription 113Edit


So, I realise the subject is a relatively small one, but that has its own advantages, in its way. I think this article is comprehensive for its subject, and want to know whether it might be suitable for featured article status. If there's any improvements that can be done, let me know.

Thanks, Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 03:43, 24 September 2022 (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) 01:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

After a quick skim, my opinion is that, in its current state, it would be difficult to pass a FAC. There are a couple sections that I think are missing, including a History section (theories on who made/wrote this, why it was made, what has happened to this since its creation, how was it rediscovered), its study and translation (who translated it and when?), and what is its influence (what have academics learned from studying this? How have academics, politicians, and others reacted to this?) Some of this is already mentioned in the article, but hopefully more sources and information can be found on this topic to allow this information to be expanded.

Gevninge helmet fragment might give some guidance on what sections to include in the article. I hope these comments help. Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment from AirshipEdit

Comment by BorsokaEdit

Indeed, it is a really short article. I hope it will end as an FA.

Some suggestions:

  • Please rephrase the two long plain lists of geographic terms ("in Kolunda, Stenkvista Parish [sv], Eskilstuna Municipality, Sweden, within the historic province of Södermanland", and "in Kolunda, Stenkvista Parish [sv], Eskilstuna *Municipality, Sweden, in the historic province of Södermanland").
  • Perhaps you could explain why it is supposed that the hill originally had many other graves, and you may also inform our readers who used the graves (peasants, warriors, artisans...).
  • Does have any feature of S 113 that distinguishes it from other rune stones of the region or of the period?

Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit

Ionization coneEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because... I've expanded this article from just two sentences to a pretty decent coverage of this topic. Looking to find more sources to expand the content (especially in the characteristics section), improve the writing style & the lead, and get it to B-class or potentially GA (or see if it already qualifies for one of those two). Thanks! Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 21:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


ParamylodonEdit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I got very few comments in the original PR and now I'm guessing that there will be slightly more comments in this one.

Thanks, --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


1920 Xalapa earthquakeEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA status. Welcoming contributors wanting to help me improve this article.

Thanks, Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


SamariumEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get a lanthanide to FA-class. This article seems promising, but would probably need a lot of improvement to get to FA-class, especially in the Chemical properties, Isotopes, and Biological role and precautions sections.

Thanks, 141Pr 08:57, 29 October 2022 (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. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I have started improving the Isotopes section. I think that we just need more consistent referencing and more information in the sections you mentioned. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


Rosalie Slaughter MortonEdit


I've been adding bits and pieces to, and copyediting, this article for a long time now and I'm looking for some more substantive input on how far the article is from a viable Featured Article Nomination. Is it too short? How is the prose and page structure? Does it feel like any topics aren't given appropriate weight? Any other feedback welcome.

Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2022 (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) 00:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: It has been a month since this has been posted, and no one has commented yet. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I recommend posting on the Wikiprojects attached to this article, asking for reviews. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720 Thanks for the ping. I've posted notices to a couple of relevant WikiProjects. Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


1995 Aigio earthquakeEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA status. This is prep for FAC. Any concerns or criticisms are welcome.

Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@SamBroGaming: This has been open for more than a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting requests in Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also suggest, since this is your first FA, that you seek a FA mentor who can guide you through the FAC process. If you are no longer interested in receiving comments, can we close this? Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 Hello, yes I am still interested in receiving comments. I have posted this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes, however that has not sparked an interest in this peer review. I also have seeked out an FA mentor in Jimfbleak, so that front is covererd as well. Since I am still interested in this peer review, what steps should I take for the future? SamBroGaming (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Other steps you can take are to post a message in the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page. If you don't receive an answer from Jim in about two weeks, that you ask others in WP:FAM if they can review this. I also suggest that, if you haven't already done so, you should review articles at WP:FAC. This will get you familiar with the FAC process and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, causing your article to be reviewed more quickly when it is nominated there. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I have now listed the article under every wikiproject in the talk page, Jim has been helping me improve the article, and I shall start reviewing FACs when I have time. Thank you for the help. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


Wood-pasture hypothesis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 30 July 2022, 11:25 UTC
Last edit: 14 November 2022, 19:14 UTC


Language and literatureEdit

Engines of RebellionEdit


A recent creation of mine, I'm hoping to get it to GA eventually. I don't feel very comfortable or confident writing about literature and haven't really done so for over a year, so I'd like someone to look this one over before I nominate.

Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Bdhamilton

This is clear, concise, and well-written. I only have two interconnected thoughts. The first is a suggestion: I think that article would benefit from a "significance" section that clarifies the contribution of this book in the larger context of Civil War history, naval history, and the like. You have a sentence or two addressing that question in the opening paragraph of the Content section, but it feels to me like it would be worth more sustained treatment. This book is very narrow in its focus, so situating it in a larger field is important. The second is a concern: will it even be possible to write a "significance" section using the independent sources that exist? Since the book is published by a university press and has been reviewed in academic journals, it probably meets Wikipedia's notability criteria—but if so, only barely. The fact that the only independent sources you have to go on are very brief reviews—more summaries than serious engagements—makes it difficult to say anything very substantial about the book beyond what it covers. I don't have enough experience on Wikipedia to know, but I wonder if notability will get challenged during a GA review. Hope that gives you something to chew on! —Brian (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bdhamilton: - Sorry for the late reply. I've been really busy in RL. I don't think notability is an issue here - the length of the reviews is fairly standard for what I've seen for book reviews in scholarly journals, and there's certainly enough of them to meet WP:NBOOK. When I get a little more time, I'll try to see what I can do about a significant section, although that's often something that requires a bit of time to really solidify in the literature. The book just hasn't really been out long enough to make a lasting impact. Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No worries! That all sounds right. I think you could cobble together a basic significance section just by rearranging material that's already there, and it would help to make the notability of the book clearer to a casual reader. —Brian (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


Philosophy and religionEdit

Felix of BurgundyEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it as a FAC in the near future. Any suggestions for impoving the article would be very welcome.

Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

Very little quibbling from me, I'm happy to say.

  • Background and early life
  • "Felix came from the Frankish kingdom of Burgundy, although his name prevents historians from conclusively identifying his nationality" – This puzzles me: if he was definitely from Burgundy wouldn't he ipso facto be Burgundian, or to put it another way if historians can't conclusively identify his nationality, how do they know he was from Burgundy?
It ought to be simple to sort out, but Blair says he "was brought up in Burgundy" and that his name "effectively conceals his nationality"; the ODNB says he was born there. Thoughts? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "lay people and the sick continually sought the counsel of himself and his fellow monks" – I see no justification for the reflexive here rather than a plain "him". If that sounds too blunt, then perhaps "sought his counsel and that of his fellow monks". But the reflexive is a bit too refained for me here.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Arrival in the kingdom of the East Angles
  • 'Manuscript A' … 'Manuscript F' – the Manual of Style would have us use double quotes rather than single.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That's my lot. You might knock on the door of Dudley Miles, who knows at least a thousand times more than I do about the ins and outs of Anglo-Saxon England.

Pray do not neglect to ping me when you go to FAC. Tim riley talk 17:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, for your help with Vedel, now promoted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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: 9 October 2022, 23:18 UTC
Last edit: 31 October 2022, 05:55 UTC


Social sciences and societyEdit

Barnlund's model of communicationEdit


I just finished writing this article and I wanted to get some general suggestions on how it might be improved. I was hoping to get it ready for a GAN with the help of this feedback. Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


Mexico–United States borderEdit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…

The introduction could use a reworking, I would list that it is the most frequently crossed border in the world in the first sentence, as that is crucial information. I also think the Geography section is in desperate need of a map, as there is great descriptions but without any map to contextualize it, the descriptions are hard to put into perspective. Under history, the sentence "Border treaties are jointly administered by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which was established in 1889 to maintain the border, allocate river waters between the two nations, and provide for flood control and water sanitation. Once viewed as a model of international cooperation, in recent decades the IBWC has been heavily criticized as an institutional anachronism, by-passed by modern social, environmental and political issues.[7] In particular, jurisdictional issues regarding water rights in the Rio Grande Valley have continued to cause tension between farmers along the border, according to Mexican political scientist Armand Peschard-Sverdrup.[15][16]" should be at the forefront of the paragraph describing "Later History", as it is awkward where it is placed after much discussion about border treaties. The article would benefit with discussion about other crucial border entry locations, as it is strange that Tijuana is the only border entry station that is discussed. The Security section should be further towards the beginning of the article. This is one of the main points of contention when it comes to borders, so readers are eager to learn about it at the beginning of their reading of the article. The Biden administration section is lacking, especially with so much details in Trump's section. The transborder student section is extremely well written and interesting.

Thanks, Meganfarley65 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Meganfarley65: Peer reviews are for editors to request help and advice on how to improve upon an article. Based on what you wrote above, it looks like you already have some ideas on how to improve upon the article. Can we close this and you can bring this back to PR when the above have been fixed? Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


FriendshoringEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because its a very new concept and recently coined.

Thanks, RPSkokie (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis Since you have contributed to expanding the following article: Joint All-Domain Command and Control. Could you help me with this article as well? RPSkokie (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello RPSkokie, I had a look at the article and a few things caught my eye:
  • The article is very short. It could be expanded in various ways. Some paragraphs or sections about the following topics could be added:
    • What are the motives for friendshoring?
    • What are its (economic/political/other) consequences/advantages/disadvantages?
    • Is friendshoring important? Are many countries doing it? Does it have a big impact on their economy, on the global economy, or on specific economic sectors?
    • Some more details about concrete examples.
    • How are the terms "onshoring" and "nearshoring" defined? How are they similar to friendshoring and in what respects is friendshoring different?
  • I think the first sentence should only define the term. Something like Friendshoring or Allyshoring is the practice of relocating supply chains to allies and friendly countries. The next sentence can mention the relation to onshoring and nearshoring but the reader first wants to know what it is.
  • In contrast, global supply chains have been thrown into disarray due to Russia's Invasion of ukraine.: "ukraine" should be uppercase. And why does the sentence start with "In contrast"? Aren't both sentences about supply chain interruptions?
  • The first sentence defines the concept, the second sentence talks about geopolitics and risk assessment, and the following two sentences give examples of supply chain interruptions. These ideas are all related but I'm not sure that the average reader is aware of these relations. Maybe they could be spelled out in more detail.
  • Reference 5: don't use all uppercase for the title.
  • WP:EARWIG shows two potential copyright violations with https://chahalacademy.com/daily-current-affairs/21-Nov-2022/707 and https://optimizeias.com/daily-prelims-notes-22-november-2022/. You should check you copied from whom there. They claim that their texts are from 21st and 22nd November 2022. When were the corresponding passages added to our article?
  • User:Headbomb/unreliable shows no unreliable sources.
I hope these comments were helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@Phlsph7 Many, many thanks for providing such a comprehensive review. On November 18 and 19, we added the matching texts to the corresponding passages of our article. Is it still considered a copyright infringement? RPSkokie (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
It's copyright infringement but not on our part since the text was first published here. If they want to use text from Wikipedia, they have to explicitly state that the text came from here. So as far as our article is concerned, I don't think there are any problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


Censorship of student media in the United StatesEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… it has recently undergone an overhaul and I would like feedback on how to improve it further.

Thanks! ––FormalDude (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


Noam Chomsky

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 September 2022, 23:34 UTC
Last edit: 2 December 2022, 16:03 UTC


William McAndrew

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 2022, 19:16 UTC
Last edit: 6 November 2022, 13:31 UTC


ListsEdit

List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2017–2021Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare the list for WP:Featured List. I have looked at many featured lists, but am open to further improvements :)

Thanks, Dajasj (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


List of Colorado ballot measuresEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to WP:FLC in the near future, much like I did List of Washington ballot measures. Advice on article coverage and list content would be much appreciated!

Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit