This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
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 because I would like to get this article to featured status and am wondering if there is anything big that I'm missing. I know critical reception should be reorganized per WP:RECEPTION, but that's all I've got on my notes so far.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is a lot of work to be done. The page needs rewriting and heavy editing. I would like to have some outside perspective on how to do so.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take a stab at a FA in a few months.
Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because,I have just finished significantly expanding this stub article and I hope it to obtain C-Class. What parts of the structure need more attention and for Referencing i have cited more sources same with coverage. This is my first major contribution and I would appreciate any kind of help
Hello, Rahim231! Because you commented that you "hope [the article] to obtain C-class" on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, I have done a B-class review of this article.
It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
A few paragraphs are missing in-line citations. Entire paragraphs are attributed to a number of sources, rather than sentences describing the same idea(s). In other words, the citation style is not thorough. The sources cited, however, are of good quality.
It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
There is little coverage of the eponymous Hunza–Nagar side. The article at present is heavily skewed towards the British perspective, including minute personal details between British troops, but only speaking of the Hunza and Nagar troops when they retreat or surrender.
It has a defined structure:
The section titles and layout are logical. A "Legacy" section speaking to the campaign's long-lasting consequences and remembrance should be included if possible, as history articles tend to include them to indicate historical significance.
It is reasonably well-written:
The article is written in an unencyclopedic tone and littered with grammatical mistakes and discouraged words (e.g. referring to soldiers as "guys").
It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
The article contains an appropriate infobox and a few appropriately-placed images.
It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
There is insufficient context for the reader to ascertain the background and major actors of the campaign. Uncommon or foreign words like Mir are presented without explanation. It is evident that the reader's holding of the background knowledge of the topic is assumed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A major issue with this article is that most of its content appears to be closely paraphrased from the sources cited (see Copyvio for caught examples). It is not written in an encyclopedic tone; rather, it evidently employs the narrative techniques of the sources given, which are akin to the storytelling tone common in non-academic literature (such as non-academic books, blogs, video essays, etc.). To obtain a C-class ranking on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, the issues in criterias 3 to 6 would needed to be remedied, including one of criteria 1 or 2. Best of luck on improving this article. Yue🌙 04:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Reviewing the article as i could not know better what to improve here, Myself. Rahim231 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC fairly soon. It was last nominated in Feb 2015 (nine years ago) and it appears to have matured significantly since then. I'd like to canvas opinion on anything that needs working on and I can address that in my own time, without being constrained by the time pressures of FA coordinators! I did a pretty thorough copyedit last year, which addresses one of the concerns of the previous FAC review. I can check for unsourced statements and either verify or remove them.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for FAC in a couple of months. General comments are welcome. Particular focus on the quality of the sources is appreciated. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because after cleaning up all the maintenance templates I've found that the quality is all over the place. I would like to have someone else's eyes on it to see if there are redundant sections or obvious problems that I missed; ideally, I'd like to promote this to GA in the future.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like for the page to be reviewed for structure, citations, and selected works as it would normally apply to a writer / translator. I have created pages for other notable people in the past, but never for a writer. I understand with writers there may be limitless amount that could be added from books, articles, short stories, but trying to find the right amount for notability and encyclopedic content.
✨ Thank you in advance!, Lacanic (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to get it to featured list status by September this year, and I want to get some feedback before I nominate it. The goal is to make this TFL on 25 October 2024 (the Friday closest to the twenty-first anniversary of their self-titled debut). I'd love some feedback on the lead section specifically, but if there's anything problematic with the rest of the article, let me know.
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]
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.
