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.


Growing Up (The Linda Lindas album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to FA status. I believe it meets the criteria, but I need another opinion. The sections I believe need improvement are the lead, #Background, and #Writing and recording.

Thanks, – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 20:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling Friends[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to GA status.

Thanks, lunaeclipse (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Profound Morality[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... GA attempt. Look for thinsg that dont make sense, bad prose, anything i got wrong or could write better etc etc etc. thanks

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America[edit]

I brought this article to GA about a year ago, where reviewer Thebiguglyalien suggested that it may be a suitable candidate for FA status. The article has remained relatively stable in the time since that review, so I wanted to put the article before a larger audience of editors to identify any potential deficiencies, and get a temperature check on whether it is ready to undergo the FAC process. Thanks in advance for any input you're able to provide. Morgan695 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyla (album)[edit]

I've listed this article for Peer Review because I think it has the potential to become a Featured Article. dxneo (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Ortega[edit]

Hi, all. I'd like to get this article to FA-status in the future; any comments on how it could be improved would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Going to review this article's references in a bit. I currently have a peer review open for DJ Kool Herc, it would be nice if you checked it out.

OK, here are my comments:

🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, LunaEclipse! Thanks for your comments—I've removed Ty Burr's blog and any Valnet-owned sources. I'll try and review DJ Kool Herc by the end of next week. Again, thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Pamzeis! This will be my first contribution to a PR; delighted to be reviewing your article! Some things I'm noticing below:

  • Her mother attempted to distract her with activities... — The meaning is obvious, but would benefit from adding the word "other" before "activities"; there's a subtle implication that acting does not fall under "activities" with this wording.
  • ...adding that her family "keep [her] feet on the ground". — Should be "keep[s]", if I'm not mistaken; in American English the word "family" is treated as a single unit. A bit of a pedantic point, but the article is tagged American English, and my American brain clocked it as a bit strange.
    • Otherwise, it's very well-written as it stands. Well done!
  • Images look good as far as Creative Commons licensing goes (the one in the main infobox is of exceptional quality for a YouTube screenshot - I wish I could find good screengrabs like that more often). The audio clip of her voice LGTM too.
  • Sources all look WP:RS at a cursory glance.
  • Thank you for providing alt text for the images :)
  • MOS:LEADLENGTH feels a bit short given the 3000+ word count – you could likely expound a little bit more on her other ventures and her artistry within reason, I understand you've gone over most of her career highlights in the lead already


Now that this article has achieved GA, I'd like to aim for FA, but I need some disinterested eyes to help me see if there's anything that needs to be improved and if it stands any chance of getting FA anytime soon - since I'm a fan of the band and the main contributor to the article, I don't think I can be as neutral about the article's quality as I'd like to be, and I don't know enough about the FAC process to know if it's anywhere close to FA.

Thanks in advance! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should list some important awards and nominations the band has received, highlighting their status and recognition in the music industry. Additionally, it should provide the band's official website and social media links to make it easier for the public to learn about them through performance videos. I hope this helps. Kikolipu (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the late reply - I saw this then completely forgot about it :P The official website is provided in the infobox, and due to being a very new band they haven't received any awards that I can find.
What about the question I asked in my original comment - is the article anywhere close to FA? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knives Out

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: 14 May 2024, 15:22 UTC
Last edit: 17 May 2024, 21:32 UTC

Strike Force Five[edit]

I am sending this to PR in hopes of getting other people's opinions on the article to improve as well as possibly achieving GA status for the article. Any comments on expansions, discrepancies, etc. appreciated. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Leaving a drive-by comment. You should clairify why critics had positive to mixed opinons on the podcast in the lead. Also, how is Primetimer reliable? 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Primetimer source: the author is a journalist who has written for other sources deemed reliable for Wikipedia. If this source is not okay, I will remove it. Spinixster (trout me!) 04:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primetimer should be ok for WP then. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an avid John Oliver fan (if you can't already tell) and this was a gem during the TV dark ages. Happy to review, and let me know when it goes to GAN! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could be me, but "ideating" seems like an extremely niche word. I appreciate the unique choice, but perhaps "thinking of" would be more understandable
  • Here comes the annoying comment everyone hates: 'Reception' should be trimmed and summarized more. WP:RECEPTION has some excelletn advice on organization; many of the sentences are just "___ of __ said ___ but __" which doesn't summarize the show's reception well. Ditto with the Fallon scandal paragraph: much of it is opinion quotes, but this should just focus on broad analyses

That's all I got- this is nearly ready for GA. My only other concern is that the reception section is much larger than all the others- however, this isn't too surprising since the podcast was itself quite small-scale. Some pruning of reception (as discussed above) will help- best of luck! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, @MyCatIsAChonk! Big John Oliver fan here, too. I tried my best to prune and reorganize the Reception section. For the Fallon scandal, I moved it to the Post-debut section, since I feel like it fits better there, and I also removed some things there, too. Please let me know what you think. (P.S. should I mention the producers using a primary source / podcast episode since I haven't been able to find a reliable source containing them?) Spinixster (trout me!) 01:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably be best- having their presence is important here, and if primary sources must be used, so be it MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes (seasons 1–19)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it could be considered for featured list status and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead and the references. I want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Champagne[edit]

I've been working on this article for a few months trying to get it as quality as possible, and I've come to sort of a standstill after scouring all the sources I could find, so I wanted to get outside voices. Ideally I want to try to get this up to GA status if possible, but I don't think it's quite ready for a GA nom yet, so I wanted to get feedback on preparing it for that.

Thanks, HappyWith (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede is quite short. I suggest expanding this to discuss every major aspect covered in the article's body.
  • The "Background, recording and composition" section is quite long. Is there a way that this can be split into two sections?
  • References that are websites should have access dates.
  • I suggest archiving the sources using IA Bot.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended at the failed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2. When it was demoted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 the review mentioned both "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" as well as MOS concerns. Please point out any remaining problems from either of those two reviews and help me address them. I believe I have addressed the image issues.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Be advised that I intend to pursue WP:GA, WP:DYK and WP:FA for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720[edit]

@TonyTheTiger: This has been open for quite a long time without comment. Can this be closed and nominated to WP:FAC, or are you still looking for feedback? Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get comments. Also, it has been difficult for some PRs to get feedback, especially ones that are to go to FAC or are as long as this article. I am also aware of the fact that this PR should have closed when it was nominated for GAN a couple months ago, per the instructions, step 4. If you want to keep this open, I suggest that you post a request on the Wikiprojects attached to this article to see if anyone would like to leave feedback. Bringing it to FAC might also generate feedback on how to improve the article, even if it is unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the busy season for my work. A FAC is a big commitment.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)

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 March 2024, 01:03 UTC
Last edit: 18 June 2024, 02:09 UTC

Born to Run

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: 10 February 2024, 15:44 UTC
Last edit: 11 June 2024, 16:49 UTC

Everyday life[edit]

Kim Kitsuragi[edit]

Looking for input from someone who is good at organizing/summarizing an overwhelming number of sources. I'm hoping to take this article to GA, maybe even further. The article could mainly use a second opinion on what's missing, and anything that seems unclear to an outside reader. There are a lot of sources that talk about this character. Maybe too many. I don't want to fully omit sources in the interest of brevity, but I know there is a better way to summarize and organize the reception. I'd appreciate an outside opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article I have worked on significantly, and would like to improve it further, preferably to GA in the very long term. The school has historical significance due to it's age (and origination of other schools from it) and the list of student, many of which are significant to german civil society as a whole. I am particularly looking for feedback on structure and sourcing, but content feedback would also be great.

Thanks, FortunateSons (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede is too short. This should be expanded out to be a summary of all major points of the article. See WP:LEDE for more information.
  • "Fritz Bauer was a Jewish judge and prosecutor who assisted with in the capture of Adolf Eichmann and took part in the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials." This needs a citation.
  • Is there any commentary on the architecture of the building, either describing what it looks like or what the layout is?
  • There are many short, one or two line paragraphs. I suggest that these are merged together.
  • I suggest that you look at Amador Valley High School for ideas on what to include in a secondary school article on Wikipedia.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering and technology[edit]

Chaparral 2F[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what it takes to make this a featured article. Specifically, focus on article tone, lede, and summary style.

Thanks, X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of iPhone models[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how it could be improved in general, if there's any equations people think are missing, and because I'd like to maybe take this to featured list.

Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get to FL, I will try to make this a good topic. 48JCL TALK 18:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear clock[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Created on behalf of User: by Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]


Rain World[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I simply wish to see what could be improved! I also wonder if this could be good enough for an A-class assessment

Cheers to all, TheWikiToby (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to inform you that WP:VG, which this article falls under, does not assess A-class per WP:VG/A. The only next step from GA would be FA. λ NegativeMP1 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you meant to mention TheWikiToby, I didn't start this review. If you meant to ask if I had any further comments for this review, I never had any intentions of reviewing this article beyond my heads-up comment related to WP:VG not assessing A-class. λ NegativeMP1 01:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I might as well. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lakes Distillery[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be assessed and rated in relevant WP:PROJECT Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have rated the article as Start-class and attached it to some Wikiprojects. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nestory Irankunda[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review in hopes of making it a featured article in the future. Any comments on how to improve is welcome.

Thanks, JC Kotisow (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SafariScribe[edit]

  • While the lead needs rewriting, the third paragraph, "Irankunda was announced to join Bayern Munich in July 2024 for an undisclosed fee, presumably, breaking the A-League transfer record " is too short and should be merged with the fourth one.
  • This line, "Born in Tanzania, Irankunda has represented Australia at youth level" should go to the second paragraph. Second paragraph is the line after the infobox
  • Also add the Tanzania part where he was born and link them. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe Thanks for your comment. I have reworded the lead according to your views. JC Kotisow (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC PR sidebar[edit]

I added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles on that list. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JC Kotisow: It has been a month since the last comment. Are you ready to nominate this article at FAC, or are you still looking for comments? Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 I'm still looking for comments for improvement but I might jus nominate again JC Kotisow (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JC Kotisow: I suggest seeking a mentor who can comment in this PR, and asking for feedback in the Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also suggest reviewing WP:FACs while you wait, as this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst other FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Game[edit]

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 Good Article candidate. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 03:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some feedback:
  • Possibly could use a bit more detail in the synopsis. Info about setting in particular; is it set in modern South Korea?
Reply: I can't find a reliable source be it in English or Korean about the particular setting of the series but I expanded the synopsis.
  • Per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, translated quotes should include original Korean-language text somewhere
Reply: I put the original Korean-language text on the citation and underlined it. I also add more reviews.
  • Forgot where in the MOS this is, but I'm spotting some punctuation just before closing quotes, and these appear to be translated quotes. Generally punct should be expected to be before closing quotes only if the punct matches what the original quote had; otherwise I think it's safe to default to doing punct after the quote mark.
Reply:  Done
  • Currencies are currently wikilinked multiple times; likely unnecessary per MOS:OVERLINK I think.
Reply:  Done
  • Preference thing, but I think in the episode list table maybe consider doing a line break in between the english title, korean title, and transliterated title. I'd also consider swapping the order of the transliterated and korean title, and omitting the "Korean" and "Transliteration" labels after the first, but I think debatable.
Reply: Per Template:Episode list it can't be done.
Otherwise I think has a solid shot of getting GA! (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Thanks for giving some feedbacks. All done. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One note; to my understanding synopses do not need to be sourced per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some grammar errors in the article, but the content and style otherwise seems good to me. I can go through and do a quick revision; otherwise I think this is ready for a GA nom. (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done and thanks for revising some contents. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Reception section follows the "X says Y" pattern. I suggest that you read WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to avoid this.
  • Keep looking for more sources taking about this TV series's development and casting. There should also be more information on how the music of the series was developed.
  • The lede should include some information on the series's reception.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I will get it done in the upcoming days. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 15:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bai0926[edit]

While it is mentioned that the manga is highly regarded, there is a lack of specific references to reader comments or media reviews. Adding these would give readers a better sense of the popularity and influence of the work. Bai0926 (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan[edit]

The article was copy-edited back in February 2024 and passed a GA review in May 2024. My ultimate aim is to take this to FA status and I would welcome some detailed feedback and comments on its prose and sources as well as other aspects. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 17:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the career description of this actress is too lengthy and convoluted, mixing plot details, reviews, and awards. It's not concise enough for the general audience to grasp the core information. Wouldn't it be better to separate career, awards, and critical reception into distinct sections? Also, I don't understand why the description of her appearance is clearer and longer than her accolades. Kikolipu (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment but I tend to disagree. We cannot create a laundry list of everything and then scatter them across different sections. The article needs to have a chronological order and a flow with relevant information put together. For FA examples with similar structures, you can look at Angelina Jolie or Deepika Padukone. Keivan.fTalk 04:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English whisky[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it requires reviewing by someone with more experience in topic who may see something I may have missed and improve the article. Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Golden Knights[edit]

Previous peer review

Article previously achieved GA status, and I'm still hoping to take it to FAC. The last peer review went inactive after only reviewing the images, which were cleared as good to go. The Kip (contribs) 05:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it feels well-written and referenced, but it recently failed a GA nomination. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very good because it provides a detailed introduction from the development to the sales of Game Boy, compares it with other competitors, and points out the advantages of Game Boy, which can provide great help to confused consumers.ZHANG0822ZH (talk) 10 June 2024(UTC)


Will make some comments soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: might even be more interesting to state it was the best selling console at the time than that it is by now only number four.
  • Development: maybe explain in a sentence or so what "Game & Watch" was
  • Try to combine paragraphs into longer units that flow better instead of the short stubby paragraphs.
  • Yamauchi rejected the TN technology as too hard to see the technology was hard to see? Or do you mean it was too hard to see something on the screen? (I find it difficult to this day to see anything on the screen of a Gameboy Color, but that's not the article's fault).
  • Okada had worked on an electronic game [...], he thought it would be possible if you must put this in one sentence, separate the parts with a semicolon. Better split it up into shorter sentences.
  • The Game Link cable was generally used for various mutiplayer activities (I remember playing multiplayer Tetris), not just for Pokemon.
  • Okada pushed to make development tools available for third-party developers, a shortcoming of the launch of the NES if you want to say that the third-party developer tools for the NES were not yet available when it launched, you need to add a few words. Or do you mean that tools were available for the NES and it was bad for its launch?
  • How much did the original Game Boy cost when it was introduced?
  • Technical specifications: we haven't been told about the Game Boy Pocket and Game Boy Light yet in the body, so their appearance in the table is a bit of a surprise. Why is the Game Boy Color missing here? In a comparative table it would be good to have it.
  • There is also nothing on the Game Boy Color in the "Revision" section.
  • Launch titles: what about Europe?
  • Reception: the Game Boy's lower price along with longer battery life made it much more such much more what?
  • There is a "Critical reception" and a "sales" subsection. Most of the "critical reception" subsection is about sales.
  • There is actually extremely little critical reception here. The lead section claims it was a "cultural icon of the 1990s"; this does not seem to be substantiated in the body.
  • Sources: do not cite Wiktionary. You can link to it inline, but it is not a usable WP:RS.
  • Why is Rodrigo Copetti's website a reliable source?
  • Why is RealBoy Emulator Blog a reliable source?
  • GameBoy Development Wiki is not a reliable source.
  • Game Boy Owner's manual pictures on Flickr might be copyvio, and it may be better to cite a secondary source
  • I notice that the sourcing was also brought up at the GA review. This really needs to be improved if you want the article to become GA.

It is not a bad article, but sourcing and prose need improvements, and there is too little on reception and cultural impact. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of whisky distilleries in England[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article could be vastly improved by a peer review Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of whisky brands in England[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because as the article could be vastly improved. Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Whisky Guild[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article could be vastly improved by this input Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Format[edit]

Amiga Format was one of the largest magazines dedicated to the Amiga brand of computers. However, not terribly much third-party information about the magazine exists, and I have made all the changes I could think of in the article, the few places needing citations notwithstanding. That said, I feel like there are gaps to fill in, such as style of reporting, more editor info, notable stories, etc., and I am not sure where to look. Note that the article largely consists of the History and Staff sections, and I have removed a large chunk about the regular features for not having any independent sources about them and lacking notability. I do know I can find more about the magazine in issues of Amiga Addict, of which I will have to ask others on this site to send PDFs to my email account. I will probably need someone much more familiar with this subject, or at least have access to the Amiga Addict articles, to reply. Thanks, FreeMediaKid$ 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and places[edit]

Scarsdale, New York[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA status.

Thanks, 48JCL TALK 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonkers, New York

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: 28 May 2024, 22:56 UTC
Last edit: 10 June 2024, 18:46 UTC

Fort St. John, British Columbia[edit]

I want this article peer reviewed for good article status (and maybe featured article status).

Thanks, Cos (X + Z) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • There should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum.
  • The history section seems to end in 1966. Any recent events of note in the city?
  • Government section has too much information about past MLAs and MPs. I would cut down on this information and merge it together.
  • I suggest that the sources are archived using IA Bot
    done Cos (X + Z) 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stats in "Education" should be updated with more recent sources.

Hamilton, Ontario, one of Wikipedia's featured articles, for some ideas on new sections that can be added to the article. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Benjamin Jackson (sailor)[edit]

I'm looking for a peer review from a native speaker of Canadian English. I just overhauled this article on a Canadian topic and did my best to stick to Canadian English principles, but being a speaker of American English myself, I am concerned that I may have missed a few things. All comments are nevertheless welcome.

Thanks, Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neue Deutsche Heilkunde[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because...

1. I feel the article is at a good start. I think its missing some events that I didn't find for one reason or another.

I want to add a section about the the mass expulsion of Jewish/ marginalized groups from the medical field in Germany. However, I feel I couldn't do it justice.

2. Also, I cannot read German and rely on AI translations so there might be errors possibly. And makes reading books on the topic much slower / and excludes goldmines of information.

3. I don't know if the formatting is correct for Wikipedia standards.

Overall I'd like to see more historical details and format correction.

Thanks, Gameking69 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Yemen[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what should i do to turn this article into a GA.

Thanks, Abo Yemen 06:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • "In addition to all that was the sheikhdoms' differences over the who should be the president of the federation." Needs a citation, although this is an awkward sentence and might need to be reworded.
  • The "British rule and decolonization" is quite long. Is there a way to split this with new level 3 settings?
  • "However, these plans were put on hold in 1979, as the PDRY funded Red rebels in the YAR, and war was only prevented by an Arab League intervention. The goal of unity was reaffirmed by the northern and southern heads of state during a summit meeting in Kuwait in March 1979." Needs a citation
  • "His successor, Ali Nasir Muhammad, took a less interventionist stance toward both North Yemen and neighbouring Oman." Needs a citation.
  • What is the history of the region after reunification? Is it an independent administrative area?
  • The "Demographics" section is quite short, and from 2000. Any updates on its demographics today? Any census data to pull from?
  • "Legislature and judiciary" and "Sports" are uncited and will need citations.
  • "The national budget was 13.43 million dinars in 1976, and the gross national product was US$650 - 500 million. The total national debt was $52.4 million." Needs a citation.
  • Second paragraph in "Oil" needs a citation.
  • Citation for Aden Airlines should probably be at the end of the bullet point if it verifies the information.
  • "Alyemda – Democratic Yemen Airlines (1961–1996). Joined Yemenia, the airline of the former YAR" Needs a citation.
  • Many citations are used multiple times but have separate food notes, like "Fred Haliday Revolution and Foreign Policy: The Case of South Yemen, 1967-1987 p.25". These should be merged.
  • There's an error message for the "Reuters (23 May 1990)." ref that needs to be resolved
  • All websites should have access dates.
  • Suggest archiving the websites using IA Bot.
 DoneAbo Yemen 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CMD[edit]

  • The lead is mostly history, it should be a summary of the whole article. It is missing coverage of four sections and mentions of all included subsections. If needed, condense and combine the two history paragraphs.
  • Some copyediting is needed in the History section, difficult to make specific suggestions without access to the sources but this may come up in a GAN. The comparisons with Germany and Korea are odd as the histories involved seem different.
  • The Demographics section reads as completely off-topic. If the subject is the 1967-1990 entity, stats from 2000 do not seem too helpful. The History section mentions some demographics in Aden, what happened to those people? Is there any information about education systems, health systems, age and gender distributions? Move living standards up from Politics perhaps.
  • Politics has a bit more information but still shows a lot of gaps, and a lot of unsourced current text. One of the most obvious gaps is the civil war, the politics section should cover political differences such as the tensions were that led up to the war.
  • Administrative divisions should cover what powers were exercised at each level of government.
  • A brief Geography section would likely be useful, which could include changes such as the loss of Kamaran.
  • Culture seems another missing section, the shift from traditional rule towards communist governance surely had some cultural impact on the population.

These are broad comments, but they indicate the areas the article can grow towards, shifting perhaps from the current focus on History and Oil to a more rounded product. Best, CMD (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regency of Algiers

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: 4 May 2024, 08:04 UTC
Last edit: 14 June 2024, 16:42 UTC

Nezak Huns

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: 6 March 2024, 14:05 UTC
Last edit: 12 June 2024, 15:07 UTC

Muckrach Castle

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 March 2024, 20:25 UTC
Last edit: 1 June 2024, 09:11 UTC

Gaetano Bresci

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: 1 March 2024, 09:51 UTC
Last edit: 14 June 2024, 09:14 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like one (or two) additional reviewers before I nominate at FAC. Is the article sufficiently understandable to a broad audience? Is there still some awkward prose?

Thanks, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • You state (in the lead) "ME/CFS affected roughly one in every 150 people" and then "Doctors may be unfamiliar with ME/CFS, as it is often not covered in medical school". The obvious question is "How can med schools not teach about something that affects 1 in 150 of the population?" Either one of those statements is wrong, or there's a glaring gap in medical education. Either way, it deserves some discussion.
  • I'm reading this mostly to answer your "Is the article sufficiently understandable to a broad audience?" question. To give some context, I'm not a doctor, but have a better than average grounding in medicine and human physiology. So far, Im finding this easy reading. Every time I come upon some technical term that I expect most people would not understand ("orthostatic intolerance", "postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome", "Orthostatic hypotension" you've provided both an in-line explanation and a link to an article for more details. So all good there.
    • "hypersensitivities to touch, light, sound, and smells" you've got a link, but this might also benefit from an in-line explanation of "hypersensitivities"
    • "NASA 10-minute lean test.[12]", I'd provide an in-line description here.

Overall, as you get further into the article, particularly the "Diagnosis" and "Management" sections, it gets more technical, but I think that's fine; anybody who gets that far is likely to have a stronger technical background.

  • As far as the prose goes, there are a few odd phrases. I'll list them as I see them.
    • "They cannot be caused by a different illness", I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
    • "cleaning their teeth" -> "brushing their teeth", or if you wanted to sound a bit more clinical, "oral hygiene".
    • "Rest does not ease the fatigue much." -> "Rest provides limited relief from fatigue". Your version sounds too informal.
    • "bedbound" -> I was going to suggest changing that to "bedridden", but I see that both terms do exist with slightly different meanings so I'm not sure what to suggest there.
    • "cannot independently care for themselves." -> "for themselves" kind of implies "independently"
    • "People with ME/CFS have decreased quality of life according to the SF-36 questionnaire" -> "... indicate a decreased qualify of life when evaluated using the sF-36 questionnaire"
    • "Less than 50% of people with ME/CFS are employed" -> I would have used "fewer" instead of "less", but I think you might find multiple opinions on that
    • "Bacterial infections such as Q-fever are another potential trigger." -> "Bacterial infections" is plural, so I think you want "... are other potential triggers".
  • "a full blood count, a HIV test, red blood cell sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein, blood glucose and thyroid-stimulating hormone." WP:SEAOFBLUE

Well, that's what I see in a first pass. Overall, quite good. RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea (moon)

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: 14 June 2024, 21:31 UTC
Last edit: 18 June 2024, 20:26 UTC


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.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IAU designated constellations[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is in excellent shape and I'd like to go for featured list. I wanted to get the opinions on that for further improvement.

Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of nonlinear ordinary differential equations[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how it could be improved in general, if there's any equations people think are missing, and because I'd like to maybe take this to featured list.

Thanks, Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dedhert.Jr[edit]

@Nerd1a4i I think I can help, although I am still trying to understand how the peer review works (as well as FL). You may also see some examples in our FLs. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; let me know what recommendations you have! I'm also not entirely sure I follow the guidelines on accessibility, especially in terms of tables, so any advice on that would be greatly appreciated as well. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try my best. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily, I could only think about the lead that was too short. It needs an explanation: what are differential equations in mathematics (explain it understandably, per WP:TECHNICAL, what is the background or history of differential equations (make it briefly), what makes the difference between the linear ordinary differential and the non-linear one (try to explain it step by step based on the difficulty to all readers, making the audience to understand as I mentioned in the previous point, specifically per WP:ONEDOWN). Never forget that when you write all of the facts, you need to put some reliable sources; I recommend you avoid some sources like MathWorld, PlanetMath, and other non-books and non-journal sources. If you remain struggling to find which sources are reliable, you can ask WT:WPM. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this advice - I am surprised MathWorld is considered an unreliable source! I will go through and adjust these when I next have time. Do you think it needs any media (e.g. images of the Lorenz attractor, etc.)? Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware some people may misunderstand because of my comments above about MathWorld, explicitly and directly pointing at something that according to them makes mine seem to be harsh. Furthermore, I meticulously can give the background of some discussion about it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love to see it get a higher rating at some point.

Thanks, MallardTV (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

I think this article is off to a great start. I would continue looking for sources for the article and adding information. For ideas of what to include in the article, and how to format the information, I would look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles about volcanoes such as Cerro Blanco (volcano) or Coropuna. I hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn–Oberkassel dog

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: 17 May 2024, 17:10 UTC
Last edit: 13 June 2024, 16:13 UTC

Language and literature[edit]

Chinese characters[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it as my first FAC. This is a multifaceted subject with diverse challenges in writing a stellar encyclopedia article for a general English language audience. The subject is deeply important to me, and it's been really rewarding trying to weave concepts together and split them apart, but I think I'm approaching the limits of my own brain to think new thoughts about it on its own.

I am particularly interested in how the article reads to people who have a minimum of exposure to the subject—people who have never even heard a word of spoken Chinese somehow. People who have never seen a passer-by's unfortunate tattoo. I want my explanations of concepts from zero to be useful for everybody. How clear are the explanations of cultural, historical, academic, and technical terms to you? Do I explain everything in the right order? I would also like to make the subject burn with interest for some folks out there like reading about it has done for me.

I also crave any and all observations from those on the other end of the spectrum, especially regarding potential scope hurdles—how might we get from broad to comprehensive coverage without lurching above 10k words, the arbitrary upper limit I've set for myself? At what point are we off-topic when discussing aspects of spoken rather than specifically written language? Is this article something of a superset of Written Chinese, or should it be rebalanced as to better reflect the heterogenous peoples involved over time? How much space should we devote to aspects that are specific to particular languages or historical periods? Should we create even more sub-articles to cram into Category:Chinese characters? Can I figure out how to make cooler graphics or tables? Anything and everything to make this the best article of its kind.

祝福你们都! Remsense 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ping me if I don't get to this in a week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Bazorkin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for FA. I'm mostly concerned about the grammar and the possible close paraphrasing. Thanks in advance. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Added to FAC peer review sidebar. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added link to Ingush in first summary sentence, might not be obvious to readers. Lacanic (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123: This has been open for over two months without comments. Are you still looking for comments, or can this be closed and nominated for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Z1720! I was looking forward to see comments, but unfortunately nobody commented anything... I'm really not sure if I should nominate it for FAC as I'm sure it would be wiser to first receive peer review. Would you happen to have any comments regarding the article? WikiEditor123… 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you nominate the article for WP:GA first. This will allow you to get comments on the article in a lower-stakes environment. I always nominate articles for GA first before going to FA. Some comments after a quick skim:
  • I think the lede is too long for the length of the article. I would suggest cutting this down to three paragraphs.
  • I would add a new level 3 heading to divide the "Early life" section because it is quite long.
  • Add some more images. Any images of his work? Maybe the cover of a playbill for the plays? Other images of the person?
  • Legacy is too short. Suggest expanding this with commentary about his work. Any statues or things named after him?
  • Some of the sources listed are not used as inline citations. I suggest that these are used, or removed.
  • This is a personal preference, but since you have so many sources, you can split the sources into two columns. I did this with the "Works cited" section of William Lyon Mackenzie.
  • Per WP:ALLCAPS, the titles of sources should be in sentence case. Some of the titles are all caps in Russian and should be corrected.
  • "Further reading" section should either be used as a source or removed.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123: To ensure that they saw this. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Z1720. You recommended adding more images but I'm not sure if I can if most, if not all, images of Idris Bazorkin are either copyrighted or not under clear copyright. Can I add more non-free images to the article under fair use? WikiEditor123… 19:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiEditor1234567123: Yes, non-fair use images can be added to the article so long as the correct licencing is used for the image. Also, take a look in Commons to see if any free-use images have been uploaded there. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

History of Christianity

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: 1 April 2024, 17:29 UTC
Last edit: 11 June 2024, 20:02 UTC

William L. Breckinridge

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: 18 January 2024, 18:08 UTC
Last edit: 15 June 2024, 01:31 UTC

Social sciences and society[edit]

Ateneo de Zamboanga University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what I need to expand on for it to meet B-class criteria.

Thanks, Raymondsiyluy05 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch (in)formateurs and scouts[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to turn it into a Featured List in the future. I have a few specific questions:

  • Is the introduction good enough for anyone not familiar with the topic?
  • Does the default sorting method make sense, or should I do ascending on date? (I prefered the most recent at the top, as I can imagine more readers would look up the more recent ones)
  • Should I include the end date, given that the table is already wide (and I can be deduced from the number of days)?

But any feedback is welcome Thanks, Dajasj (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Charles Johnson[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got this page to GA and I am looking to see its likelihood of being promoted to FA-class.

Thanks, GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Larrazábal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would welcome general feedback on areas for improvement, etc.

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede is quite short. I would expand it to include more major events in this person's life.
  • Split the biography with level 3 headings to help with readability
  • Is there any information about their legacy? How they influenced something in their communities, or in history?
  • Is anything named in memory of them? Roads, schools, and buildings are commonly done of this.
  • Any depictions or artwork of this person? Statues, paintings, etc.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - many thanks, I will take a look at these points. McPhail (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article about an important subject in the news, and I would like to ensure that it is accurate and unbiased.

Thanks, Zylostr (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any blue links in the paragraph in the attribution part. Please add them. For example, there is no blue link on Twitter during the paragraph. Please refer to the example and add the blue link. Jiyoon Leee (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Napier Technical College (New Zealand)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.

Thanks, —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Rochelle High School[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article underwent a copyedit and sources were added to the article. It is possible this might be a GAN one day. It wouldn't hurt if a peer review was done to evaluate the article in general.

Thanks, The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Per WP:LEDECITE, citations are not generally necessary in the lede because the information should be in the body of the article. The lede should be a summary of the rest of the article.
  • The history section needs a lot more information, especially about pre-1968 information. When was it founded? When was the campus built?
  • Campus and history should be separated, so history gets its own level 2 headings.
  • "To create a more personalized atmosphere," This is an example of promotional language and shouldn't be in the article. I suggest removing this an anything similar to this. For more information, see WP:NPOV.
  • Most of the Co and extracurricular activities are not notable because they can be found at most schools. Same with Interscholastic sports. I suggest making this into prose instead of a list.
  • Every notable alumni needs a citation.

For a template of how the article can be formatted, see Amador Valley High School, a featured article on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Z1720, in regards to what you have said, I have done the following so far:
  1. Included the year the school opened, and how it was originally known as Woodrow Wilson Memorial High School
  2. Made the history section a level 2 heading
  3. Removed "To create a more personalized atmosphere" from the Academics section.
I still do have questions though. You mentioned how there are some co and extracurricular activities that are non-notable. Which of these activities do you think I should remove? The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Cadillac Ranger: Remove all extracurriculars that are not talked about in reliable, independent secondary sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP Refinery v Tracey[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to go for my first ever Four Award, which inevitably means getting an article I created to FA status. I have gotten decent at getting my work through DYK and GA, but FA eludes me. I was wondering if I could have people critique my work the same way they would if it were at FA.

Thanks, — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Quick source review:

  • I'm unsure about the Fox News citation here, especially with the contentiousness (I mean, the man was literally fired for posting an Internet meme with Hitler in it) of the subject at hand. FAC demands the cream of the crop for this type of stuff. Do you have any other sources that can replace it?
  • I'm going to assume good faith for the CNBC source, as it's from a decently reputable TV channel.

🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark[edit]

World War I. I assume many of you are familiar with this conflict from a history class. There are many ways to analyze the war as it happened. However, here is a perspective of World War I that you may not be familiar with: a family feud! Namely, George V, Nicholas II, and Haakon VII were not only kings of countries on “Team Entente”, but the three rulers were also (first) cousins! Who was their shared grandfather? The father-in-law of Europe, Christian IX, King of Denmark!

Were you captivated by that hook? If so, I invite you to join me in the goal of making this list on Christian IX’s offspring a featured list! Everyone is welcome to contribute (especially considering this is my first peer review)! Also, I would like for the reviewer(s) to focus on two areas: content and references. Namely:

  1. Content - This list’s scope is narrower than the range of material of many Wikipedia articles on royalty. The focus here is primarily and specifically on Christian IX’s descendants. As you can see, I have attempted to add relevant background information. However, what else can I mention to create a comprehensive reading experience?
  1. References - I strongly believe that readers by themselves should be able to verify every detail provided in the list. Consequently, I have also attempted to not only cite every fact mentioned but also scrutinize the used sources for their reliability. That being said, are there any sources I have used that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia?

Thank you very much! I look forward to reading and implementing your feedback shortly! AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pascal on screen and stage[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... if this is the second peer review that shows up, allow me to explain. I tried submitting the original request before the prompter on the article's talk page was submitted. I am aware of the potential problems this may cause and vehemently apologise for it. I have no idea why the prompt was not submitted on the article's talk page in the first place.

Thanks, BarntToust (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pascal on screen and stage[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... It is a list with citations, and I hope to see this become a featured list someday.

Thanks, BarntToust (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust, what makes [7] reliable? 48JCL 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Challenge 2023–24[edit]

I'm interested in taking this page through the featured list process so that it can be a good model for this sort of competition-based programme. I want feedback on a couple of things:

  • Is this (or can it be) a list and not an article?
  • How should the results tables (which also serve as a list of episodes) be formatted, with accessibility in mind?
  • Is the structure of the prose clear? (Should some of "Background" be in the lead, or should content be reordered?)

I'm fairly confident the page is comprehensive and that everything is either sourced inline or implicitly verifiable to the primary source (the same way we allow episode summaries for fiction without inline citations). — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject peer reviews[edit]