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.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
I've listed this article for peer review to try and refine it for a Featured Article candidacy. In particular, aiming for ease of understanding with the information presented for a reader that may not be familiar with Pokemon as a franchise, and why this character is worth analysis for encyclopedic discussion in light of said franchise's handling of it. Thanks, Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I don't think it's quite ready for a GA nomination yet as I'm not sure it quite meets the Good Article Criteria. I'm generally happy with the range of sources used, but have concerns about a couple of them. Among the other issues, some of the quotes need to be shorter/summarised, and no doubt the article could do with a copyedit. I'd be interested to see what others think. Pinging Landplane123 and Binksternet follwoing our recent talk page discussions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In November 2022, Diogenes99 added the band the Psychiatrists/the Unconscious, followed by Dano67 in March 2023 adding Hoffs' unreleased project in 2000. These two additions brought the article up to 30 kb in size. After that, BennyOnTheLoose put a bunch of work into the article, assisted here and there by others, bringing it up to 82 kb by July 2023.[1] This version of the article is pretty good, having a more fleshed-out lead section, a new section about guitars, and more detail everywhere. In August 2023, Landplane123 began expanding the article, relying rather too much on poor quality sourcing such as WP:MEDIUM.[2] At this point, too many hands were involved, and the article started suffering from redundancies and excess. The worst point was reached in December 2023 when the article held a nine-paragraph "Career" section which was redundant to the other sections describing her career in segments.[3] The size was 125 kb.
I find the current version[4] much better composed, with redundancies removed by BennyOnTheLoose. It clocks in around 108 kb. We have one remaining Medium/Cuepoint reference, an interview with Hoffs which we should discuss to determine whether it is reliable enough for the facts it supports. It's weird that the filmography table has bolding in the titles—the tables of music don't have the same bolding, and it makes the film section stick out and look wrong. Perhaps we can choose or assemble a table that doesn't automatically bold the film titles. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agreed ... the style inconsistencies are jarring. As a copy editor I usually address these but might have been more focused on adding factual content than my usual style improvements. Dano67 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I thought the DYK nom might give a sort of review (I'd like to take the article to GAN), but it didn't.
Thanks, Mach61 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead is quite short. It should be a summary of the whole article. If a section has a heading, some information from that heading should be in the article.
Keep looking for more sources and information to add to the article. WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org and your local library system will have access to sources that you might be able to use.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get the film to Featured status due to its relatively short and simple structure compared to my other failed nominations. Having a more seasoned editor to look this over for anything that might be problematic with prose or sources would be extreamly helpful in getting this passed.
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.
Also, since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest getting a mentor who can help guide you through the process. Mentors can even comment on the article at this PR. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC to build goodwill amongst the editors and help familiarise yourself with the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to get it ready for an FAC nomination. I'm just wondering what should be done since I have no experience with FAC yet. I do know that a themes and analysis section should be added, as well as italicizing titles in the refs. Beyond that I'm not sure.
I'll try to find the time to give this a thorough review. For starters, the "Box office" section has way too much of a focus on various more-or-less arbitrary records. The table should be removed. Box office records should only be included if reputable sources that are not primarily box office trackers (in other words: Deadline Hollywood is fine for this, as is Variety and Forbes, but not Box Office Mojo or The Numbers) report on them in prose articles (not just tables or lists). TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I created this page a while ago. I want to improve this to GA. The immediate issue I can see is the reception section is quite small which I plan on working so I was wondering if any other improvements could be made before my nomination.
Good to see you, OlifanofmrTennant! This article looks pretty interesting, and I know you've been super on top of those Arrowverse topics; I'll be around to contribute some comments soon. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey OlifanofmrTennant, I realized only once I came back from my wikibreak last week that I forgot to leave a message on this PR; sorry about that! I've actually been drafting some comments over the last couple of days, which I should have done either today or tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I'm now back from my wikibreak; time for a quick review! Citation numbers from this revision.
The lead needs a rewrite or significant expansion. MOS:LEAD needs all of the article's sections to be represented in the lead in some form, which is currently missing.
If the actors who come in for the guest appearances are listed in the show's credits, the citations for those lines can be removed in the spirit of MOS:INFOBOXCITE.
Make sure the plot summaries for each episode are under the 200-word limit set by MOS:TVPLOT.
Done
"Barry Allen gets transported..." This needs elaboration — I'm assuming this is time travel, but how?
The answer isn't clear he is transported through time but the how/who isn't ever explained.
In § References: The Flash/'The Flash' → The Flash
Done
Citation 22 looks like an unreliable source; I'd recommend removing it.
Done
Add quotation marks around the episode titles in the footnotes.
Done
Footnote c is formatted pretty strangely. I think I'd prefer a couple of sentences of prose here rather than a list, which lacks context and is confusing for someone just reading through § Notes.
A few more comments because why not. Now using this revision for citation numbers.
Consider adding a frame of one of the episodes to the infobox to help in the identification of the subject to the reader.
§ Critical reception is really bare-bones right now. I'm not sure if any more reviews for the episodes exist, but more information needs to be pulled from the existing sources. For example, citation 12 has been reduced to just a short statement about the convoluted plot.
The long list of guest appearances in § Casting is really breaking up the flow of the prose, in my opinion, and is bordering on an MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue.
Done
I made a couple of edits correcting MOS:DASH issues, but I'd appreciate if you could do another pass to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a very significant anniversary coming up, and I am wondering just how much more would be expected of it to be a featured article - the biggest possible goal being on the front page for its 20th anniversary. One of my projects I got promoted fresh out of high school and into college, I remember adopting this nomination as a drive-by who needed guidance, and pushed it the rest of the way there; I didn't write most of this, just polished it at the time.
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) 00:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did some citation clean-up before making this comment; I haven't looked at the prose.
#48 (Greenday.fm – a Green Day fansite) – needs better source
#81 (GNR Daily – a Guns N' Roses fansite) – needs better source
#90 (Stacker) – what makes this reliable?
#91 (Popdose) – what makes this reliable?
#112 (BuzzJack) – I see this copies its info from Music Week; you'll need to replace it with the appropriate MW link
#131 (Monsters and Critics) – what makes this reliable?
See, this one really sucks because the quote there is kinda important.
#135 (Virgin Radio Italy) – cites a video, which doesn't look like it was archived; needs replacing
#137 (Twitter fan account) – needs better source
#145 (Facebook) – I'm aware of WP:SOCIALMEDIA, but is there coverage of this post available?
#146 (Facebook) – see above
In external links, are the three fansites and The Internet Music Database links necessary? Otherwise, that's all I have on the sources. MusicforthePeople (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of the few GAs I've worked on that was nominated for that by someone else, therefore I didn't put it up for PR first like I usually prefer to do.
We have slightly more than a year till the 10th anniversary of this accident, the deadliest in the history of Metro-North Railroad, and I think this could be an FA in time to run on the Main Page the day of that anniversary. So I will be listing it in that sidebar as well.
I've submitted this article for peer review in response to feedback from an editor who identified certain issues. I've made enhancements to address those concerns, and I welcome any further suggestions for improvement.
@RN.IN: The article currently has two concerns listed in the orange banner at the top of the page. Have these been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Yes, the necessary edits and improvements have been made to the article to ensure accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your attention! RN (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were you the editor mentioned as having the close connection? If not, since the issues have been resolved can you remove the orange banners? Z1720 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure! I've taken care of removing the banner. I wasn't the editor mentioned, but I'm glad the issues have been sorted out. RN (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review since I would like to take a stab at bringing it to FAC early next year (think Jan/Feb tentatively). Any feedback for improvements are appreciated :) Thanks, Sohom (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sohom Datta: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still interested in recieving feedback :)
@RoySmith Would it be possible for you to take a look at this article and provide some/any pointers wrt to any further improvements I can make ? (Asking since you reviewed this article for a GA as well) :) Sohom (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, I think it would be better if somebody else took a look. The kind of things I pointed out in my GA review are pretty much the same kinds of things I would point out in a FA review, so getting input from another set of eyes is really what you want. RoySmith(talk) 14:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why, hello there, Sohom Datta! :) Now here's that interesting peer review I've been looking for. Keep in mind that I have very little expertise in the web design and security areas, but hopefully I can provide a bit of perspective as an outsider looking in. Citation numbers from this revision.
Is it industry standard to write the term "XS-Leaks" with a capital L?
Why are "CSS attributes" and "HTTP Cache" piped the way they are? CSS can just be linked normally, and it's not implausible that a layperson may not know what HTTP is, so I would just leave the second one at "Web cache".
The lead is a little too brief to accurately summarize the prose, in my opinion. I absolutely understand that you want to keep the technical language to a minimum in this section, but not at the expense of abstracting away important information. For example, the types of attacks that can cause a leak are not mentioned at all.
To isolate different web applications..." What does "isolate" mean in this context?
There's inconsistent usage of "web application" and "web app" throughout the article. As you may have guessed by the colors, I would go with the former.
In § Mechanism: "URL" is linked on the third appearance of the word. However, linking on the first appearance will require a slight rephrase again per SEAOFBLUE.
Also, there's no reason to give this statement an expiration date; why not just say that they've been known since 2000?
This section has a lot of statements that go "researchers published an article in year " that are then cited to the article in question. The reader doesn't need to know about how the information was published, just that the information exists. I would rephrase these statements so that they more broadly describe the development of knowledge in the field.
Un-italicize "Sudhodanan et al." and the like; the italics make it look like the researchers are the title of a work.
Ctrl+F for as of phrases and replace them with ((As of)), throughout the article.
Link "APIs". I'd also prefer a brief explanation of what they are, as I'm sure they're an important piece of the puzzle with these kinds of attacks.
Link "Google Chrome".
HTTP Cache → HTTP cache, in multiple places.
What's "multi-keying"?
I would restrict the use of code blocks only to text that actually appears in the source code somewhere, so the "example websites" should be italicized instead. Also, what's preventing us from using a phrase like "victim application" or "victim website" here instead?
I would append |30em to the ((reflist)) and ((refbegin)) templates so that the sources are rendered in consistent columns.
Someone has to say it, but the sources need to be sorted in alphabetical order by last name.
I've listed this article for peer review because of its planned featured article candidacy (FAN). This is my first peer review submission and any comments to improve the article are appreciated.
Still got this on my to-do list, but it is getting a little busy for me right now, so it may take until Thanksgiving weekend to get some detailed comments in. So sorry for the wait. I'll try to get them in when I can. The Night Watch(talk) 23:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are the notes that I've got so far:
The sourcing is from reliable sources as far as I can see, and is likely good enough to hold up during a source review. There are some minor inconsistencies with the citations (some publications with Wikipedia articles are blue linked, while a few others like Destructoid and one of the OpenCritic citations are not) but overall the sourcing is in good shape and will pass unless the spot-checks find anything.
Troy Leavitt is mentioned as the lead designer twice, I think you only need to mention his role in development once. Done
The section about Rowling’s viewpoints and the boycott appears appropriately neutral. Though some FA reviewers may have different opinions, balancing this section would not have been an easy feat, and I’m impressed you were able to do so.
I think the section about arachnophobia is more suited to release, as it is not very relevant to how the game is played, and moreso something added after release. Done
The biggest hurdle that I can see is getting the prose up to scratch. That'll be hard considering this is a big 123K byte article, but it is in good shape already and can get to "engaging quality" with some work. I'll try to make some copyedits to help some sections, though I’m not the strongest copyeditor and some FA reviewers might be able to give some better advice. Some essays that helped me a bit with copyediting are WP:REDEX, User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, and WP:ELEVAR
There are some scare quotes in critical response that could be paraphrased to make the section flow better (Happened to me the first time, took a little bit of time to fix)
No worries about delays, I am glad someone is providing input. I will look into the things you stated so far. I assumed the recent GOCE visit was sufficient, but maybe the FAC process will bring up more to improve the prose. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vestigium Leonis I've taken another look and I can't really detect any major problems beyond the ones that I listed above. It may be a result of me having looked over this article several times in the GA review beforehand, but I think more meaningful feedback may come from another user involved in WP:VG who hasn't reviewed this article yet. As such, I would either seek out other users on their talk pages for feedback, or go on ahead to FAC and see what happens. Fair warning there are already two video games over at FAC, so feedback may or may not be timely. Though I will postpone the current FAC that I had planned so that you can submit this one for review should you wish. The Night Watch(talk) 03:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article's already achieved GA status, but I'm curious as to how close it is/how much work it might need for FAC and would appreciate any feedback. TheKip 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Kip: It has been over a month since this has been opened, and there has been no response. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I’d still like to see what needs to be done before getting it to FAC. TheKip 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I'm hoping to take to FAC sometime in the future (when that may be, I am not sure...). I have previously taken the article to GOCE for copyediting, with thanks to Miniapolis for their assistance in completion of that process. Any help/improvements to get it nearer that FAC request would be greatly appreciated – no rush, especially if other PRs take primacy. With thanks, Craig(talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been working on this article for over a year now, and I believe it is well-cited, has the necessary content, and needs an outside perspective/review. This term came up in a course I was teaching a few years ago, and got me interested in the history and origin of the subdisciplines within geography (specifically, the overlap of terms like GIScience, geomatics, geoinformatics, etc.). As a graduate student, diving deep into the history of geography has been a fun exercise in my literature review skills, as the competing terms within geography are hard to untangle.
Copy-editing, suggestions on format, content suggestions, etc. are appreciated!
"This demonstrates that the concept and term "technical geography" was in common use in the United States by the late 1800s." Needs a citation
"The 1917 English review article is not clear on what was included in these British technical geography courses." Needs a citation
"All the terms, however, originate from an acknowledged need for the technologies developed during this period to be a focus of independent study and from the academic culture of the quantitative revolution." Needs a citation.
"While a small journal by comparison, all publications within it fall under, and presumably endorse the technical geography term." Needs a citation
"Ultimately, the word choice is semantical, but the decision to use different terms for the same concept is one of many contributing factors to the term technical geography having less supporting literature than human or physical geography." Needs a citation
"Influential geographers": each entry should have a citation.
Lede should be multiple paragraphs, not one long paragraph.
Comment Thank you! This does help quite a bit! Digesting the literature has been a challenge so its good to see where I made statements that need clarification. A few questions for a possible resolution.
Some of these I believe could be included as "notes," such as the line "The 1917 English review article is not clear on what was included in these British technical geography courses." This is because while the article talks about technical geography courses, it doesn't go into detail on what they entail. The sentence is more of a note on the source itself, as the author was ambiguous on this (it seems that they assumed the audience would know what they meant, so didn't bother defining it). To maintain clarity transparency, I found it was good to note the fact the way the author intended this word choice is unclear. I have moved this to the note section to demonstrate what I mean.
On the "Influential geographers" section, I pulled from the example on the main Geography page. This is a great point, as it applies to many pages I'm involved in, and was following examples from what existed before I started and let that slide. How deep do the citations need to go to address this? Just for the claim following the name, or more then that? To verify the sentence following their name, I can probably just poach a source from their page, however if the source needs to demonstrate notability in addition to the statement, that will likely require several citation per individual.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit this article WP:FAC. Last year Tcr25 and I worked to bring this article up to WP:GA status. More improvements have been made and I'm looking for an extra set of eyes to help elevate this article.
The mention of "eroded coral heads" in Lagoon has no context, it has not been explained what coral heads are, why they are eroded, and what they are doing in the Lagoon. I'm curious as to why coral heads are worth mentioning instead of a simple shallow bottom, are they quite substantial?
Some tense fixes might be in order in the crab vegetation section, "is virtually a sandy desert" seems to contradict later info suggesting the grass has expanded following rat introduction.
"The population of sharks in the waters around the island was noted to have increased in both density and size of individuals in a 2019 expedition" compared to when?
The paragraph about The Sea Around Us estimates notes the estimate includes illegal fishing, but does not note what the legal fishing is (implicitly legal and taxable per that paragraph).
Anything about the 1999/2000 fishing wrecks that could also be included in Environmental threats?
Similarly, surprised there is not more information about rats and potential interactions with nesting seabirds. There is a small mention in Fauna & Flora (perhaps it should be shifted?), but it focuses mainly on vegetation without mentioning specific impacts on birds.
The Politics section notes a shift of jurisdiction from French Polynesia to the national government in 2007, but no context before that (although the lead does mention it was initially under Tahiti, so my assumption from that is it was the responsibility of French Polynesia since that point). It is probably also worth explaining whether the area was part of Tahiti/French Polynesia, as implied by the History section on its annexation, or merely administered by it, and if it was, at what point it became not part of French Polynesia (2007?) and why. The history section mentions a 1981ish shift as well, unclear how these all connect.
Similarly, the "La Passion–Clipperton" name is mentioned without coverage of the previous (standard?) name of île de Clipperton.
I am personally cautious of the widespread description of Clipperton Island as "private property"; it has always seemed a somewhat misplaced interpretation of 'directly under the French government' or similar that has spread unchecked online. State land is not usually described as private property, and I've not seen anything explaining why Clipperton is different. (Aside, if you have a quote from the Murray 2012 chapter, I'd appreciate it on personal interest.)
Mexican claim subsubsection is a bit confusingly placed, as it is short and ends with its resolution when later subsections deal with various Mexican assertions of sovereignty.
Reading the history section, the lead mention of Álvarez seems a bit of an overegging of what happened.
"France formally took possession of Clipperton on January 26, 1935." What does this mean? If they already claimed it, surely they state they took posession in 1858.
"In February 1945, the U.S. Navy transported French Officer Lieutenant Louis Jampierre to Clipperton out of San Diego[211] where he visited the installation and that afternoon returned to the United States." makes it sound like a one day trip, which seems unlikely so thought worth checking.
"evaluate potential rehabilitation of the World War II era airstrip" is the first mention of this airstrip, previous mentions seemed to be mostly about the possibility of an airstrip but with no progress towards one.
Should the castaways section include the 1999, 2000, and 2010 shipwrecks?
I've listed this article for peer review because, the article has been cleared of cleanup tags and if any more are necessary for quality improvement towards FA-level, please feel free to share in this first PR.
Looking through the article, there are a few places where the prose and text could use tightening up. Many areas are clearly unsourced, even if they have not been tagged, and other areas may need their sources checked. For prose there are areas with a lot of choppiness and short disconnected sentences. Some of this may be related to a common occurence which is additions that are not integrated with existing text. The article is approaching 13,000 words and has 43 content sections/subsections. Partially this is the History section, a common locus for these issues, which currently has over 3000 words and gets choppier towards more recent times. Another common area of issue is the Culture section, where subsections get larger and become small lists while the overarching synthesis information is not covered. This article does better than some, having an overarching section with some relevant information. It could be improved with more sources. Regarding subsections, there are a few list issues and Sports stands out as being mostly disconnected points. Among the most clear areas of missing sourcing, Geography and Politics both open with unsourced paragraphs. The lead has a few sources only used there, which suggests it may be slightly out of line with the body. Source quality may need a look as well, there is one twitter source, a few Britannica sources, and quite a few primary/government sources that aren't integrated within context from secondary sources. Best, CMD (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your detailed review, I’ll try to improve on sourcing and coherence points aforementioned with other editors. Kornkaobat (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about nominating it for GA-status one day. This article did underwent early copyediting, but this article has long ways to go before being considered a GAN. I think a peer review would be a good start.
Thanks, The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
The "Government" and "Roads and paths" sections are uncited and this will need to be rectified
There's an orange banner on top of "Neighbourhoods". Has this been resolved? Considering that many paragraphs don't have citations, I think the banner will need to stay for the time being.
There’s this one sentence mentioning gentrification in the lead summary and I would like to know what’s the best section to talk about the gentrification process?
Also for the film section paragraph, I’m trying to update the link and find a new link that talks about the travel fees but this one is the only one I could find. Anything I can do?
I was just trying to use IA BOT but it wasn’t working for me. Anything I can do?
The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Information about gentrification and the changing aspects of the neighbourhood should probably go in the history section.
2) Sometimes it's not working. Just try again later, and it's not a big deal if it doesn't work.
3) I have no idea where to find more information about this. Maybe the union website? Or the NYC website?
Answers underneath every question. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: I will point out some things I wanted to address.
I have started the gentrification/redlining section and included it in the history section.
I know I was asking about that sentence. The sentence I was referring to in the film paragraph section is this one:
Yonkers is part of New York City's union zone, meaning crews do not need to be paid travel fees
That sentence recommends that the source gets updated because it is a 20-year-old article.
I do have questions about the economy section. I started doing that section as well but any suggestions on what I can add in that section?
The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Cadillac Ranger: Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. I recommend looking at Hamilton, Ontario, which was recently fixed up by an experienced FA writer. I suggest using Hamilton as a model for this article's Economy section. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just finished significantly expanding this stub article and I hope it to obtain C-Class. Definitely I need help with English syntax I wrote. I have also created 2 battle maps for this article that I would love te be reviewed. Another problem I'm wondering about is which language I should take the name of the town from(English, Polish - who owned thes places at the time of the battle, Ukrainian - current place location). This is my first significant contribution, I appreciate any help a lot.
Hello Kontekstowy and thanks for your contributions to this article. I can't help you with all your questions so I'll focus on language and references. Maybe someone else can address the remaining points.
Concerning language: there seem to be various problems with missing articles, like "the". For example
Battle of Podhajce took place on 8–9 September add "The" before "Battle"
Ottoman Empire was defeated during Azov campaigns (1695–1696) and in 1697 in the Battle of Zenta. add "The" before "Ottoman Empire" and "the" before "Azov campaigns"
focus on succession of Habsburg Spain during impending death of Charles II of Spain add "the" before "succession" and before "impending"
began negotiations with Ottoman Empire proposing end of war with each member of Holy League keeping add "the" before "Ottoman Empire", before "end", and before "Holy League"
This affects most paragraphs so fixing all of it would require some effort. There is a lot of information on the internet that explains when articles should and shouldn't be used and a grammar-checker might also be of help.
Concerning references: most of the paragraphs in this article lack references, like the paragraphs starting with In January 1698, Stambul's intelligence, In the afternoon, the first group led by Qaplan, and During the night war council Potocki decided to give battle to the Tatars outside the city. According to WP:V, All content must be verifiable and inline citations are required for all material that is likely to be challenged. It's usually a good practice to ensure that each paragraph has at least one inline citation. They are not required for the lead section if it only summarizes material in the body of the article that has already citations. Currently, the article is based on a single source (Wojtasik 1990), which is probably not a good idea. I would suggest that you look up more sources to have some variety.
Thank you Phlsph7 for help, I have aplied fixes and soon will do some online articles course
I have already covered the whole article with inline citations (19) and indeed there are three big sections that I thought it would be enough to make inline citation covering multiple pages at the end of section. I will divide these citations and this will probably increase number of citations to ~30.
I know that relying on single source is not the best approach yet this is probably the best and only comprehensive study of this battle written by contemporary historian. I was previously trying to find academic articles(Google Scholar/library database) finding only 2 articles in historical magazine by the same author. This book contains multiple refrences to primary and secondary sources that it uses, but I won't use them because I'm not a historian and I would distort something . So I'll leave it to other Wikipedians who will add more content someday. Kontekstowy (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is about strange, footnote-of-history type character. A British prince who became a German duke and later a Nazi leader. It is currently a good article which has recently been unofficially reviewed by Gerda Arendt and Surtsicna. I am hopping to get it ready for an FAC.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to submit it for Featured Article Candidacy. Last year I contributed to the expansion of this article, culminating in a successful Good Article Nomination, which was reviewed by Mujinga. Since then most of my adjustments have been minor, dedicated to tightening up citation formatting and improving the quality of the images. Now I am confident it is ready for FAC, but before I submit it, I would like to hear what my peers have to say about this article. If you can offer any comments, suggestions and/or critiques, I'd be more than happy to see about putting them into action.
Thanks, --Grnrchst (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking to prepare the article for WP:FAC, and it could use a review of prose beforehand. A more general look would also be good, to ensure it's readable for someone not familiar with hockey. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe post this to sports rather than to history? Jim Killock(talk) 14:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking to nominate this to turn it into a GA someday, and I'd like to know what else I can improve in this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured article candidacy in the near future and I want to ensure that this article is not missing anything major which would fail any of the featured article criteria. Anything copyedit related shouldn't be necessarily as it went through the GOCE earlier this year.
I'll go through this in the next few days, and my thoughts. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I read through the article, and have some comments. Note I did not read explicitly for prose or style (unless it impacted my ability to comprehend what I was reading), but more for my understanding of the topic at hand, which I am not familiar with:Reply[reply]
"...Supreme Executive Power—the provisional government that succeeded imperial rule." Clarify that this was imperial rule in Mexico, as it's ambiguous.
Fixed
"Agustín invited Ferdinand VII, any member of his immediate family, or any other Spanish Bourbon prince to rule as the emperor of Mexico." Did anyone acknowledge this offer? Seeing how Agustin took the throne for himself I would think not, but is there any information about a reply from the Bourbon side?
The Bourbons didn't explicitly reject the throne, but they did reject the Treaty of Córdoba which the Mexicans interpreted as rejecting the throne. Added.
There are a lot of links to common terms (referendum, annexation, armistice, etc) that can be removed.
Fixed
It's a fairly good article, though I think someone more experienced in terms of prose should go through, as it could be cleaned up a bit that way. Overall though it seems comprehensive and nothing overtly standing out as an issue. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a translation from a Spanish Wikipedia article and I'd like a second pair of eyes on the translation and general formatting.
Thanks, Salvadorp2001 (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that I found all information that needs to be said for this page that is credible except for a few that I don't know how to word it or it should probably not be in the article since it's pretty vague. I fully remade the 11th millennium BC page, so I can't really respond to the previous GA's because of that. There is some things that are probably a little too specific, but it's better to record everything in the subject than being sparse like what I did a year ago. I'm also submitting this here so there can be a higher chance of the 11th millennium BC to have a GA since I want it to have the same quality has the 9th and 10th millennium BC's.
My only comment is that as it's a long article more illustration would be helpful. Crops, early domestic animals, archaelogical finds? Do any of the open access journals provide anything like this that could be used? In general, something as specialist as this needs an expert to check through IMO - I would be inclined to reach out to an academic who could read it through for a sense check. Jim Killock(talk) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I'm seeking peer review for this article on a 1992 California wildfire because I plan to nominate it for FA shortly and would like to check my blind spots, so to speak. I am specifically most interested in any feedback on points 1f ("free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing") and 4 (is it too detailed?), but any and all suggestions regarding any Manual of Style guidelines I've missed, poor wording, or wider organization/content issues would be welcome feedback.
@Penitentes: It has been over a month since this PR has been posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, sorry for the late response—Thanksgiving kept me busy. I'm absolutely still interested. Penitentes (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Penitentes: If you are interested in comments, I suggest asking at the Wikiprojects attached to this article. In addition, I suggest that you find an FA mentor since you are still working towards your first successful FAC; the mentor can comment in this PR, too. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I've posted about it on the Wikiproject Wildfire talk page, I'll see where else I can ask—and contact an FA mentor. Penitentes (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Penitentes: It has been another month without comments. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Regardless, I highly recommend reviewing articles at WP:FAC so you can get a better understanding of the FAC process and build goodwill amongst the FAC community. Z1720 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am still interested, but if you think it's unlikely it will receive any feedback I am happy to withdraw it—regardless, I'll take your advice and focus my efforts on reviewing GANs and FAs so as to build up exposure to the process and and meet the community. Penitentes (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Penitentes: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get reviews. If you are interested in comments, my suggestions above about Wikiprojects and getting a mentor are still applicable. Before nominating my first FA, I reviewed several articles at FAC and this helped me really understand the intricacies of the FA criteria. I look forward to seeing your name pop up in reviews. Z1720 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because as a person with a degree in nutritional biochemistry, I want to know if the content is understandable to people without an advanced science /medical/health background. FYI - I raised this article to GA back in 2017 and have been working on it starting in December 2023 with intent to nominate to FA.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article to be FL-class. All of the changes before I substitute them to the original article are in my sandbox User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1. I appreciate someone who wants to review and give suggestions for the sake of improvement. Thanks, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: The article is very light on citations. The tables for surface area, volume, and inradius/circumradius/midradius, all lack inline citations and might be verging on original research, even though there is wording above to the effect that the info is taken from WolframAlpha. (This isn't to that I think the info wrong per se; however, for Wikipedia purposes, pretty much everything in articlespace needs to have a citation just as a matter of good practice.) In fact, the entire list article has no inline citations at all, just a list of two presumably-related books and several external links.
I think you (@Dedhert.Jr) should use the refs you've already found to cite as much as you can. Then, for the rest of the tables, I'd guess that you might want to cite a bunch of WolframAlpha queries to cover the rest? Other than that there might not be much one can do in the way of referencing. Duckmather (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I just added some citations to deal with the lead section. The body still desperately needs inline citations, which I'm not sure I can provide. Duckmather (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I have removed the inradius/circumradius/midradius, which can only be found at a few smaller numbers of Johnson solids. I don't think we should add them, together with the graphs as well (see the talk article). Also, I removed the nets, which is already painful to draw them massively even though we do have a source. I do think that journals and books are more reliable rather than WolframAlpha. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review (17 years after the first) because though I am not an expert in mathematics, I feel Wiles’ article has become high-quality enough in the intervening years to receive an upgrade, or more importantly, an assessment of what needs to be fixed to make it featured status; I should note his influence on mathematics is powerful enough to perhaps warrant “today’s featured article” status for 19 September 2024, the 30th anniversary of his key insight that led to his correction of his greatest proof, so consider this the start of a yearlong campaign to improve the article to featured status.
@Jarrod Baniqued: If you are interested in making it a featured article, a good first step is to bring it to WP:GA. Here's some comments to address before you nominate it:
I don't think the block quote of the Royal Society certificate is needed, as it raises copyright concerns.
@Z1720: Thank you very much for the insights. I will carry them out sometime in the next week. Please bring an editor with a second opinion, too, preferably with suggestions on how to get started. My initial idea is to, for lack of a better word, rephrase parts of the TV Tropes Useful Notes article on Fermat’s Last Theorem. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have implemented this idea. I used IABot, but apparently due to some fudging with user permissions, it hasn’t directly edited the citations. Someone else will have to use IABot on the article.
I also have written a rudimentary lede, though I have yet to figure out how to implement the last recommendation for sections. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd love to see your campaign to make this a featured article come to fruition. Here's some comments:
The first thing that jumps out to me is that this article does not cover much apart from Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem; it needs expansion on his career before and after this. This would also involve splitting the current section into multiple sections.
For example, there's no information on any of his doctoral students apart from Richard Taylor beyond the infobox.
The "Awards and honours" section is currently just a couple of sentences and then a bulleted list; it needs to be written in proper prose.
This is a matter of personal preference really, but I wouldn't use the current way Singh's book is cited. Instead, I'd use ((sfn)) or ((harvnb)) to cite pages from books and then have a single reference to the book below that. See the Oppenheimer article for a good example of this.
Ensure the references are satisfactory, for example.
All authors with a Wikipedia article are wikilinked using |author-link
All publications with a Wikipedia article are wikilinked
All relevant sources have an access date
Reliable (famous-mathematicians.com and TV Tropes are not reliable sources)
One of my favourite Bond novels this. It's got a ridiculous plot, a semi-cliched bad-guy with an overblown mission to destroy Britain and Bond beating all the odds and getting the girl - until the stomach punch at the end. All well-written and enjoyable tosh. This has been through a bit of a rewrite recently and any comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.
I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for a potential FAC nomination. Reviews with emphasis on prose standard, sources/referencing, and comprehensiveness would be particularly appreciated. It passed GA in August 2023 but hasn't had a lot of eyes on it since then. Any comments would be extremely helpful! Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The infamous clash between evolution and creationism, science and religion, and traditionalism and modernism, that played out on a searing July in rural Tennessee between a Christian fundamentalist and three-time Presidential nominee and arguably the most famous criminal defense lawyer of the 20th century. Arguably one of the most famous and controversial court cases of all time, as well as one of the most notorious publicity stunts, the Scopes trial is often cited as a defining symbol of the broad social changes and conflicts that occurred in the 1920s. This case also is of particular relevance and interest to me, as I happened to grow up about 30 minutes from where it took place. This article needs a lot of work, but my goal is to promote it to a featured article so that it can appear as today's featured article on the 100th anniversary of the verdict. Any help would be greatly appreciated, especially from anyone who has experience with articles of this subject.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on possible additional sections that others would be interested in and to see whether the current contents make sense to audiences.
Thanks, Stran20 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to get it to Featured Article status. It has recently passed Good Article, and I'm not sure what else needs to be done to get it to Featured. Any advice and suggestions for improvement are hugely appreciated!
The lead could be edited to be a bit more comprehensive regarding the body contents. The body has two policy subsections, refugees and food allergies, and only the first is covered in the lead. I would also suggest a brief mention of the period between election and speakership, although this only gets a single paragraph in the body. A bit more could also be added about her time as speaker, even if it was short, as reading the article this seems to be the main claim to prominence. Specific items of trivia, such as "after Joan Child", should not be in the lead (but this could be in the body, which it currently is not).
"The couple have a son and a daughter; in 1999, Burke became the second woman to give birth while a sitting Member of the Australian Parliament when her daughter was born.[7] Burke had her second child in 2002.[8]" "son and a daughter" to me reads chronologically, but the text suggests the daughter is older.
"pre-selected" is a bit of jargon, a bit more explanation may help those unfamiliar with Australian politics. It's worth keeping an eye out for other bits of jargon, like "2PP", although in that particular case this could be helped just with a link to Two-party-preferred vote.
Is the speaker technically a part of government? The lead states she was a member of the government, and the body states she was a "government member".
Regarding your last question, the answer is a confusing form of 'sort of'. The speaker in Australia is supposed to be non-partisan, and with one massive exception, this is true. They also don't sit with the government and don't attend party room meetings, but usually retain their party membership and vote with their party if the House of Representatives is tied. With the sentence in question, maybe something like 'where the Labor Party, which Burke was a part of, was defeated,' would make more sense. JML1148(talk | contribs) 08:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
I think the lead should be reorganized - in addition to the points raised by CMD above, it currently comprises several short choppy paragraphs that could be presented more cohesively
The structure of the whole article could also use reviewing - at the moment everything personal is in the Early life section, which doesn't make sense given the timescale involved
Before FAC this could use a thorough going-over for MOS issues. For example, a number of wikilinks are repeated, even within a single section.
Similarly the citation style needs editing for consistency
Per RSP there is no consensus on reliability of HuffPost for politics-related topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I made some of the changes already but admittedly not many so far. Thank you for the reminder, I will make some progress on these soon. GraziePrego (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it quite a bit and I'm seeking feedback on the writing style and whatever else may be relevent to a future content assessment. I wasn't sure which topic to put this under.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm thinking of trying it out at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and I'd very much appreciate some additional eyes on it. It grew quite a bit from the original bullet list, and I think it's now comprehensive, apart from an irritating red-link and a couple of missing images. Thoughts on the table, the introductory paragraphs, and indeed anything else, would be most welcome.
I've listed this article for peer review because, even though it is recently created (by myself), I think it meets the standards of a 'featured list'. But, naturally, as the creator, I would be bias so this peer review is to see if this page needs any more improvement before it can be nominated for as a FLC.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need to know what part of the page needs improvement and if it is ready to nominate as a Featured List candidate.
Another major Latin music list, this time on Latin albums. I plan to nominate this for FL after getting List of best-selling Latin music artists promoted to FL. I could use any advice for this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want an outside perspective on how to make it best align to the featured list standards. Specifically, the lead section and sources.
Thanks, Stl archivist314 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been working on this article for a while now and I want it to improve better. I know there's alot to improve so I want to know if the lead is okay and/or if the sections are okay too. Looking forward to your comments.
One little thing that may help out your list article, for the Colorado State Quarter I thought it may prove useful to readers to see a visual representation. I created a fair use rationale for your article on the file page, before you insert it into the article you may want to wait. The bots and admins are quite fickle on the fair use rationales. We should wait and see if the rationale runs into problems.
I wish I could help you more, I am going to keep pondering over this article and see if there is any real improvements you can make. Lists and State Symbols aren't really my specialty.
Best of luck, I'll be back with more suggestions soon! --Trey Wainman (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
