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.

Arts[edit]

Kisapmata[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take this article to GA status and would like to get feedback to help me.

Thanks, Kting97 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Vivien Lyra Blair[edit]


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)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) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Legendaddy (album)[edit]


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.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Next Day[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm thinking about taking it to FAC and wanted to get others' input on what it would take to do that.

Thanks, – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:16, 10 August 2022 (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) 04:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Missundaztood[edit]


After a major expansion and a succeeded GAN I'm trying my hand into taking this to FAC. Looking forward to any feedback and suggestions for improvements.

Thanks in advance!, TabooMatters94 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2022 (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) 15:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mega Man Battle Network 5[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because there have been significant edits since its last edit nearly a year ago; in particular, the edits done were the ones listed on its to-do list (more development info, and removal of the uncited/unnecessary character section). Other minor edits mainly relate to adding more citations, and replacing outdated citation links (thanks, GameSpot).

Thanks, Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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: 21 August 2022, 23:05 UTC


He-Man as a gay icon[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status at some point in the future, which I'm sure would require a lot of work and additional help. One area where I could definitely use help is with finding additional sources on the topic; especially academic ones. I've looked through various academic sources such as JSTOR and whatnot, and I cannot seem to find any more. During the GA review, User:Figureskatingfan brought up some good points about how to move forward. It would be very helpful if some also looked through the article's prose. Regarding the prose, the use of the sources was also questioned. It would be great if an outside party could go through the (online) sources and see if the way they are used in the article is proper or not; maybe a given source's information that is provided in the article would be better suited in a different section. I've never worked on an article like this before, and unfortunately such an article doesn't exist on Wikipedia either, so someone familiar with the franchise, or the handling of LGBT themes and analyses in media or a specific work would be very helpful. Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim Riley[edit]

It's Pride today in London, and I have been too lazy to join the procession, so shall peer review this article as my token contribution to the cause. More over the weekend. Tim riley talk 18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When reviewing I usually have a quick first canter through the text looking for typos etc. Just two points from that:
  • I imagine the article is intended to be in AmE, in which case " Ali Forney Center … an LGBT community centre" could do with "center" twice rather than one of each.
  • Done.
  • "capitvating" is in a quote, but even if the original contains the typo we should not replicate it here, and a silent correction is appropriate.
  • Done.
Comments on the content will follow later. Tim riley talk 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second and concluding batch of comments from TR

A few minor points on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "He-Man received his own series" – it becomes clear fairly quickly that this is a television series rather than a series of comic books, but it would be as well to make that plain at the outset.
  • Done.
  • "who hails the realm of Eternia – does this mean who hails from the realm of Eternia?
  • Done.
  • "Despite the original series having aired during the presidency of Ronald Reagan … He-Man's character has contained elements of queer coding" – this may be clear to an American, but to a non-American it looks like a non-sequitur. You hint in the main text that Reagan's administration was rabidly anti-gay, but that needs to be made clear in the lead if the sentence is to make sense.
  • "his sex appeal towards gay men – does one appeal towards people rather than to them?
  • Done.
  • Homosexual reading and analyses
  • "He-Man's muscular body was the "cynosure" – I shouldn't think one reader in a hundred will have run across this word before. As it originally means "a dog's rear end" it would be as well to provide a link to Wiktionary where those wanting to know can see how the word has come to be used.
  • "wearing clothing similar to a blue-collar worker – the clothing was not similar to the person: you mean "wearing clothing similar to a blue-collar worker's" or "wearing clothing similar to that of a blue-collar worker".
  • Sex appeal
  • "Andrew Hayden-Smith said 2016 – missing "in" before the year.
  • Done.

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments. As I'm busy during this period, it will take me some time to revise the article's contents based on your suggestions. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (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.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 June 2022, 20:26 UTC
Last edit: 30 August 2022, 20:57 UTC


Everyday life[edit]

Dreamcast

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: 25 June 2022, 22:58 UTC
Last edit: 27 August 2022, 14:35 UTC


Engineering and technology[edit]

Art Data Interactive[edit]


This is the first B level article I've put together where I've compiled several sources to form a comprehensive summary of a topic. Because there's a lot of content, I'd like to know if I'm on the right track with conforming with GA standards, and would like some help with identifying where I can develop my skills better when drafting against Wikipedia's good article conventions.

Thanks, Vrxces (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Canadian National 3502[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… I’m interested in what people think of the article and how it can be further improved to assist people in learning about this locomotives Thanks, ThatArmyDude (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


SS Cayuga[edit]


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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]


Dylan Field[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's only my third biography of a living person and I'd love advice on how to improve!

Specific help wanted:

  1. How good (or bad) is the WP:NPOV right now, and how could it improve?
  2. Is the amount of attributed statements and quotes in the current article OK? How could it improve?

Thanks, Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General[edit]

Ted Heaton[edit]


I started this article on a former British swimmer/diver not long ago and have expanded it to the point that I feel it's close to being taken to GA. I'd like a peer review beforehand to iron out any obvious errors or issues and think it would benefit to have another set of eyes read over it. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Tiger Fire[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to get the article to a GA grade.

Thanks, JoleBruh (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Coral Fang[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... I have tried expanding it as much as I can so far. I have not completed the reviews and touring and aftermath sections (these are WIP however), but for the rest of the article I would like some criticism as to what should be changed, fixed and re-edited; this will be useful as it means I will not have to backtrack to re-editing old sections whilst working on new ones. If anyone has information I have missed or got incorrect, please tell me!!

In short; tell me what is bad and good, so I can fix it.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Cycling in the Philippines[edit]


Hi! I've listed this article for peer review to get an assessment on what I need to add to or improve in the article so that it encapsulates and discusses the history and relevance of cycling in the country.

Thanks, Ganmatthew (talkcontribs) 18:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dominic Keegan[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to send this article to GAN. I would like some pointers towards achieving that goal (if it is achievable), along with some specific opinion on how should I write about the lede or Keegan's 2020 season.

Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Fatima Whitbread[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to put if forward as a featured article candidate once it's ready for that process. The article about Whitbread's rival Tessa Sanderson reached featured status thanks to the input of helpful reviewers. Any suggestions that would help improve the article are welcome.

Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2022 (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) 14:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: Keeping in mind that I've only been through the FA process once, I do have a few comments about possible improvements: (1) I've been told that source reliability tends to be intensely scrutinized in FA reviews, and I note that one of the sources used in this article, Daily Mirror, appears on the Wikipedia list of perennial sources as a tabloid source that has been questioned or repeatedly discussed in terms of reliability (with no consensus). It might be wise to reduce or eliminate use of the Daily Mirror. (2) While the early career section provides javelin distance result conversion (metres to feet), later career paragraphs give results in metres only. I think you should aim for consistency in this throughout the article. (3) MOS recommends photos be placed on the righthand side of articles for easier reading. (4) Alt text for photos could be improved -- the infobox photo has no alt text, and existing alt text for the Sanderson and Felke photos should be more clearly descriptive. For example, instead of "A headshot of Tessa Anderson," you could write something like "A brown-skinned woman with straight black hair, wearing a white headband and a gold hoop earring, looks off to one side." I just checked out the MOS guidelines for this, and was surprised to find that they don't seem to put much value on communicating specific visual details about the image. I attended a professional workshop on alt text earlier this year, and we were told that the best alt text, while not being too lengthy (1-3 concise sentences), should still communicate the key visual details of the image in order to give users with screen readers a full, equitable reading experience. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Space 220 Restaurant[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to improve it to an FA. I'm am open to any suggestions or advice you have for me. As noted on the peer review page, I will ping active FAC reviewers: @Hog Farm:, @SandyGeorgia:, @Z1720:, @ChrisTheDude:, and @Buidhe:. Thank you for any comments. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have a computer right now and won't be able to give a review. Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh my bad. I see that now ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Geography and places[edit]

Perry County, Tennessee[edit]


I have done a major overhaul of this page over the last few months and I went ahead and put it up for GA review. I didn't really think about the PR process until just now (doh...), but since the GA review backlog is probably still a few weeks long, I wanted to go ahead and see if anyone would be able to take another look at it. Copy editing and editing for flow, making sure they layout is up to spec, that statements are under the correct headings, and help with finding any information on this county regarding its history from 1930 to 1990. I've looked at this too much to be able to reliably find problems anymore!

Thanks, nf utvol (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Taiari / Chalky Inlet[edit]


I've listed this as I'm keen to get the article towards good article status or higher, so it'd be good to get some sort of steer on what I need to do to get it there.

Thanks, Turnagra (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Georgian mile[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to understand how it might be improved.

Thanks, BaronNethercross (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article seems mostly well written, I think the best way to improve it is to expand it using the currently cited sources as well as any other RSes you can find (doing a brief Google News search, there seems to be a number of other articles in the Irish media). I would also suggest incorporating the content from the lead into the body of the article somehow and rewriting the lead as a summary of the entire article (per WP:LEAD). Given some of the controversial changes that have been made to the street, I would also recommend paying careful attention to making sure the tone of the article is balanced and has a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting that a false sense of balance needs to be created or even that anything currently has to be changed necessarily, but it's at least something to consider as you continue to work on the article (e.g. are any of the wordings in the article more loaded than they could be, are there any additional opinions that could be presented in the article even if they are also negative - this would strengthen the reader's confidence in the consensus opinion towards redevelopments of the street - which statements should be stated as fact and which should be attributed as opinion, etc.). One way of achieving a possibly more well-rounded article would be by expanding on the history of the street prior to any changes or some other aspects of the article that are completely unrelated to any controversies (assuming you can find any good sources for this). One thing I did notice though is that "became a bone of contention between preservationists and the ESB for 50 years" is quite closely paraphrased from the Architects' Journal source and a little unencyclopedic in tone in my opinion, possibly you could alter the wording if you think that's a fair criticism too. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with the feedback from Alduin2000 above. Nothing stands out as particularly problematic with what is in the article now. You might want to consider breaking it up into the following sections (the 1965 and 2013 sections could be sub-sections): History, Location, Demographics (population, etc.), Notable Buildings (e.g., any buildings on the mile listed in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage), Parks and Public Spaces, Notable Residents. I'd also consider adding scans of antique maps that highlight the street, if any are available. Hope this helps! nf utvol (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dublin 2[edit]


I've listed this article on the central Dublin postal district for peer review because of differing opinions over its noteworthiness. I am of the opinion that it is noteworthy.

Thanks, BaronNethercross (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: BaronNethercross, indeed I certainly consider Dublin 2 as a postal district quite noteworthy because for about 100 years the main post office in Dublin, in fact in Ireland, was located in this area before moving to Dublin 1 when the GPO was completed. I try to write a, well sourced, paragraph or two on this aspect because I have some specialised sources here in my library. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BaronNethercross, as you saw I added some postal details but more to come to bring it into the 20th century. I suggest expanding the notable places section to give some details of the places mentioned. ww2censor (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really informative! I had no idea that was the central postal hub for the city. BaronNethercross (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I started working on this article in 2007 and I believe it is finally ready to be nominated for FA. It is currently an A-Class article and this will be its second peer review.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query[edit]

@Dream out loud: This has been open for over a month and has not received a comment yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest posting on the Wikiproject talk pages that are attached to this article. If not, can we close this? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I am still interested in feedback. I have posted a request in WT:USRD and WT:NJ so hopefully we'll get some feedback soon. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a drive-by comment, there are some dollar figures not adjusted for inflation. --Rschen7754 18:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does every dollar figure need to have an inflation adjustment? It only seems relevant for the major figures, like the total cost of the project. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what I have been told but I don't know what the official guidelines on that are. --Rschen7754 01:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The official guidelines are quite vague on this. MOS:MONEY simply states "In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time." With that being said, I think inflation values are only relevant for the overall cost of the project, which is already included. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


History[edit]

Rockefeller Foundation[edit]


I've just completed a major cleanup and edit of this page which had a dicey past of COI editors and other issues. I still need to run down a few citations but I think it's coming along. Would appreciate any suggestions and pointers. Andre🚐 15:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Geri McGee[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because…

The section entitled "Casino" in reference to the film needs to be reviewed and edited to some previous version due to bias editing.

Thanks, ComradeTester (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mackenzie River husky[edit]


I am requesting a peer review because I am struggling with readability of the history section. I look forward to any suggestions.

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Securitas depot robbery[edit]


I've recently brought this article to GA status and would like to take it to FA. I'd be grateful for any comments pointing out things that need fixing before that step! Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query by Z1720[edit]

@Mujinga: This has been open for over a month and has not received a comment yet. Are you still interested in keeping this open? If so, I encourage you to post a request for reviews on the Wikiprojects associated with this article. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, checked this yesterday and I think I'll keep it open a bit longer, cheers! Mujinga (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mujinga: It has been another month and there have been no comments. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes i was also checking this the other day - for now I'm fine with keeping it open, soon I'll move to FAC when I have more time available. Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Asian Australians in politics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to see if this article needs to exist or if it just needs to redirect to List of Asian Australian politicians. I also would like to know what other information needs to be added to differentiate it from the list. Also my writing is not the best.

Thanks, SCN 1999 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Paramylodon[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I’m looking for peer review of accuracy and any suggestions on how to improve this article as I’m trying to get it to Good Article Status. Thanks, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Arctodus[edit]


Hi! This article has substantially changed in the last 6 months, so I was looking to gather feedback on how the article is going, and how accessible it is. Any review would be appreciated. Cheers, SuperTah (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mackenzie River husky[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a major rewrite but I feel it still needs more work. I don't like the way the history section flows and I am generally struggling with the description section due to lack of source material. I look forward to any suggestions!

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ryukyu dog[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make it more readable.

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wood-pasture hypothesis[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because my previous peer-review was closed mid-process, and I'd still appreciate a general assesment.

Thanks, AndersenAnders (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Chialvo map[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because It is a very important model in the literature, it reproduces the behavior of neurons and it is widely used in scientific research.

Thanks, EyistoA (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


TRAPPIST-1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 15 June 2022, 17:27 UTC
Last edit: 5 August 2022, 17:15 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a high-importance article in several categories, and, in the past few weeks, I have revised it extensively with almost no engagement from other editors. I have made a concerted effort, however, to document my revisions and create space for discussion on the Talk page. (Previous editors are maybe all on summer vacation?)

While I am an expert on Hegel, I am a novice to Wikipedia. And so it would be wonderful if someone more knowledgeable about Wikipedia's style guidelines and best practices would review the entry to assess for adherence.

It would also be helpful, of course, to flag any content that is overly technical, in need of supporting citations, etc.

My thanks in advance to whomever might take this up —

Cheers, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Quine–Putnam indispensability argument[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because following a successful GAN, I've proceeded to rework and add content to the article and would like feedback on how to further its continued improvement with the tentative eventual goal of putting it up for FAC. Comments on anything from structure, prose/copyediting advice, compliance with the MOS, article content or even work towards the FA criteria would be helpful.

Thanks! Alduin2000 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2022 (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) 05:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Doukhobors[edit]

Previous peer review


Hi there! I'm requesting a second peer review of this article after a year since the last review. I've fixed many issues in the article; references are improved, many Manual of Style issues are fixed, and the article is much cleaner overall. However, I'd still like some extra eyes to look at the article before a GAN. I don't have anything in particular this time - just a general sweep would be nice! Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (formerly known as DoggieTimesTwo)Reply[reply]


Social sciences and society[edit]

Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be qualified on merit for WP:FL. See also Failed GA Review.

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


2022 Serbian general election[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some feedback before nominating this article for WP:GA.

Thanks, Vacant0 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be thoroughly checked/edited for paragraph cohesiveness, sentence flow, tone, and possible grammatical errors.

Thanks, Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Killing of Patrick Lyoya[edit]


The article has been listed for peer review as there has not been much interaction by other users and due to the controversial nature of the article's topic. Assistance is also needed with any issues regarding neutrality and WP:BLP, as edits should not be made in a damaging manner.

Thanks, WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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: 28 August 2022, 00:11 UTC


Paul Goodman

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 January 2022, 20:02 UTC
Last edit: 29 August 2022, 01:38 UTC


Lists[edit]

Paul Rudd on screen and stage[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FL status and would like to make sure it's gravy before submitting it for that process. I've done a few now but fresh eyes never hurt :)

Thank you! LADY LOTUSTALK 15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of Solar System objects by size[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because this is a very important list with many diverse contributions over many years.

Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of municipalities in Colorado

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: 5 August 2022, 23:12 UTC
Last edit: 31 August 2022, 00:50 UTC


List of Lebanon international footballers born outside Lebanon[edit]


I'm looking to list this article as a Featured List. I'm curious to know if it's up to standard. Nehme1499 14:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Timeline of the Warren G. Harding presidency[edit]


I'd like feedback on how I've developed this timeline, especially regarding my use of newspaper sources and how I've chosen to format it. I'd also like to know how far away it is from being a viable FLC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Trent Boult[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if it reaches the standards for a Featured List.

Thanks, Alphacx1 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]