Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. 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.

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.



Fleet Street (album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it might be worthy of WP:GA status at some point! I've been the only editor on it so far, though, so I would love a second third pair of eyes on it to help me see how to make it better. — Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Who Tour 1969[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if this article is ready to be a Good Article. Thanks, Chrisnait (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to get this article to GA status and am looking for steps to improve the article before nomination.

Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from Lee V
Hi JalenFolf. Here's a few things I picked up on.
  • "independent electronic dance music record label" - WP:SEAOFBLUE, could do with rewording/removing some links.
  • The refs in the lede aren't really neccesary. Should be cited in prose.
  • Is the mascot really the most important part of the article? I'd move it down the lede, if not remove entirely.
  • meme should be linked.
General prose
  • I think an "overview" section wouldn't be misplaced. It jumps straight into the history of the orginasation without saying what it is, what it does, etc.
  • "Beginning" is a weird title, something like "founding" makes more sense.
  • Is it normal to put DOBs for people not in BLPs?
  • Whilst I know British Colombia is in Canada, the article doesn't mention this is Canadian outside of the lede sentence and infobox.
  • (born 1989)[4] and Ari Paunonen (born 1989/90[4]) - refs should go ideally after punctuation.
  • Today, the label signs artists on a single-track basis - seems out of place on a section on origins.
  • The massive quote borders on copyright issues. Even if not, it's quite promotional to copy a press release like this.
    • This happens a lot
  • Article is very "In X month, Y year..."
  • There's some sentence structure issues, with paragraphs often being just one or two sentences.
  • Does the dynamic list for the current artist land a little close to WP:FANCRUFT? Seems a little in depth for me.
  • Are all the albums notable? There's some that have articles. If they are notable, they should be WP:REDLINKed.

Also be aware Earwigs CV check comes up with this: [1]

I hope some of the above is helpful to you to take the item towards GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Madonna: Truth or Dare

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 24 December 2019, 20:49 UTC
Last edit: 14 January 2020, 23:14 UTC

Ultralight Beam

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: 21 December 2019, 21:41 UTC
Last edit: 15 January 2020, 01:46 UTC

Hurts 2B Human[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to ultimately promote it to the GA status.

Thanks, Gabrielflorin01 (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this sentence, Pink collaborated with a handful of producers and songwriters in pursuit of a sound that was a departure from her previous albums., I would remove "a handful of" as I do not think it adds much to the sentence. It is rather vague, and the plural word "producers" already indicates that Pink worked with multiple producers and songwriters in the process of creating this album.
 Done Combined the two sentences
  • Link Pink the first time you mention her in the body of the article. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so items would have to be linked in both. For this instance, I would link Pink in this sentence: Pink released her seventh studio album Beautiful Trauma in October 2017 to mixed reviews.
  • I am uncertain if some of the information present in the "Background" section is really necessary for this article. For instance, I do not see how the sentences on Pink getting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the ceremony is relevant to this article on this particular album.
  • The song "Walk Me Home" is first referenced in the "Background" section so it should be linked there instead and unlinked elsewhere in the article.
  • For this sentence, The album's cover was unveiled on February 28, after a number of teasers on Pink's social media page for several days., do any of the sources clarify the exact number of teasers or days?
I think the first three sources would count as three teasers
I would either specify the number of teasers as three or just say something like "after Pink uploaded teasers on her social media" to replace the vague wording from "a number of" and "several". Aoba47 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Items should not be linked multiple times in the body of the article. For instance, Chris Stapleton and Slant Magazine linked twice. I would double-check to see if there is anything else.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence: Nevertheless, she commended songs like "Can We Pretend", "90 Days", and "Happy", calling the former "an ideal showcase" of the singer's personality. I normally see "the former" used when discussing two items so it seems out-of-place when discussing three items. I think it is a bad sign when I am not sure what "the former" is referencing here so I would try to be clearer.
 Done Removed "Happy"

This is definitely not an exhaustive review, but these are things that I noticed when doing a very quick read-through of the article. Hopefully, this will inspire other editors to review this in the future. I am a fan of Pink's music, but for some reason, this album just never connected with me. Hope you are having a great new year so far! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful effort, hope you're having a great year too! Gabrielflorin01 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Home Alone[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to achieve GA status on the article. This is my first ever peer review, so apologies if I mess up in any way.

Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

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: 7 December 2019, 21:39 UTC
Last edit: 19 January 2020, 03:30 UTC

Fiona Graham[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review as I've spent some time cleaning up the contents, referencing, accuracy and layout of this article.

It had issues with disruptive edits, addition of copyvio material likely from sockpuppet and/or COI editors, and was pretty messily structured and written. This being the first BLP article I've edited, I hope I've improved upon these things. I did have a look at the last rating it receieved against B-class criteria, and the two that weren't met - coverage and accuracy, structure - I think would be met now.

I hope that I've improved it, but I'd welcome any comments on going further.

Many thanks, --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ineffablebookkeeper: Hello, I am going to be doing your peer review for today. Here are some things I have concerns about:
  1. The early life section is pretty short.
  2. The external links section should probably be split off into a further reading section unless that is an intentional choice.
  3. I'm going to send over to you on WP:Discord some extra sources that I have access to, and you should consider incorporating them into this work.
  4. If the goal is get this article to eventually GA-class, then it's nearly there! :D

Cheers! –MJLTalk 17:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Roar (1981 film)

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: 26 November 2019, 17:20 UTC
Last edit: 25 December 2019, 22:06 UTC

Dangal (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, I want it to get nominated for Featured Article Candidate, and I feel it meets all of the Featured Article Criteria. I had been watching and editing this article for about 6 months now, and I feel that now, it's perfect to get it featured. Any opinions/suggestions?

Thanks, Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann

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 October 2019, 13:13 UTC
Last edit: 12 January 2020, 09:39 UTC

Mouna Ragam

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 October 2019, 04:53 UTC
Last edit: 18 November 2019, 04:56 UTC

The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like recommendations and suggestions on making it the best it can be.

Thanks, TheGravel (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from PotentPotables[edit]

I've made a few edits to the article to tidy it up a bit:

  • Removed website external link from main body per WP:EL
  • Changed main body dates to fit British English in line with rest of article (MOS:ARTCON and MOS:DATETIES)
  • Removed "Other theatre awards in London:" from see also section
  • Uncapitalised "Award Ceremony" and "Critics"
  • Deleted some superfluous words, such as "eventual"
  • Removed 2019 heading, and changed to text (headings shouldn't be referenced)


  • The "recent results" section seems untidy, so perhaps could be replaced with a neater table for each year?
  • The "Carl Woodward" link could be replaced with a better source, as it seems to essentially be a blog. (Though he might be a notable theatre critic?)
  • Reliable third-party/secondary source references might be useful to further establish the notability of the awards, and help develop the article further. (Majority of current references are from the Offies' own website)

Hope these comments give some help for further development! PotentPotables (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Blond Ambition World Tour[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because me and @11JORN: want to take this article to GA. We would like to request a Peer review before we proceed with the nomination.

Thanks, Christian (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Accessibility concerns – I noticed that the table lacks ! scope="row" to identify rows (see WP:DTAB). Also, MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table advises against headers, such as "Asia", "North America", and "Europe" in the table and provides two alternatives. A recent discussion questioned whether identifying the continents is necessary. Otherwise, it seems to be a very comprehensive and well-written article. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • "Originally planned to be called Like a Prayer World Tour..." Like a Prayer World Tour probably needs quotation marks.  Done
  • "A highly controversial tour due to its sexual and catholic imagery..." This needs rewording, especially in the context it's in. Done
  • I think it would be better to mark the five parts of the show in the 'Setlist' section, if you can.
This has never been done on other Madonna-related articles (and so many of her tours are divided into sections), besides the sections are already stated in "Concert Synopsis"

That's everything. Well done so far! Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Done! @Thatoneweirdwikier:--Christian (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Chrishm21: Looking much better. Thanks for your time! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 05:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer

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 September 2019, 23:28 UTC
Last edit: 29 November 2019, 07:06 UTC

Mullum Malarum

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 September 2019, 13:30 UTC
Last edit: 20 December 2019, 15:50 UTC

Open Here[edit]

This article is about the album Open Here by Field Music. I believe it is comprehensive and I ultimately want to nominate it for FA. It has already passed as a GA, and I previously nominated it for FA, but it failed. I did not get much specific feedback during the FAC process except that the prose needed work, but even there I got little specifics except for a few items that I have already fixed. So I am hoping for a through peer preview here in anticipation of a future FA nomination. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05[edit]

Will update this with more as I have time.

Lede and infobox
Generally speaking the inbox information should be cited in the body. There are currently three citations in the infobox for genres not mentioned in the musical styles and composition section; those should be incorporated and cited there and have the citations removed from the infobox or removed.
Remove the comma in the second sentence after chamber pop.
Remove the metacritic score mention in the lede. It's reliable but pure scores aren't normally mentioned there. In its place I'd add more detail on what exactly critics praised about the album. Toa Nidhiki05 23:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies Toa Nidhiki05 for taking so long to respond to this. Somehow this slipped by in my watchlist and I didn't realize it until now. I've made the infobox changes you suggested, and removed the Metacritic score from the lede. For now I've left the comma in in the second sentence after chamber pop; I deliberately included that to separate the two clauses, and also to avoid the appearance of a run-on sentence ("...of alternative rock and pop rock and includes..."). That being said, if you still disagree, let me know and I'll remove it. Thanks, and I'll be quicker to respond the next time! :D — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I just realized I completely neglected to respond here - must have slipped my notifications! I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikipedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Since Toa Nidhiki05 has not been responsive here or to talk page messages, I assume Toa is no longer actively participating in this peer review. As a result, I've put in a request for a copy edit over at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If this means I need to formally withdraw the PR, I can do so. Or, if anyone else wants to take on the PR in addition to the copy edit, that's obviously fine with me as well. — Hunter Kahn 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    • ADDENDUM: The article has now been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. I'd still welcome if anyone wants to do a peer review here in addition to that. — Hunter Kahn 15:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (film series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to see it being improved and maybe becoming a featured article. I need help with a few things as I'm not a English native speaker. The Home media and Legacy sections need to be updated and maybe the plot section needs to be shortened. Aside from those things I think the article is pretty good.

Thanks, Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Looks alright at first glance:

  • The music for the series [turned out to be a success and] has been voted best movie soundtrack of all time for the six years running, - remove bracketed bit (sounds puffy). let facts speak for themselves...
  • You have a Reactions to changes in the films from the books section...but not a section on differences between books and film....? (at 33kb of prose, the article can cope with some expanding)
  • That section could be tightened and restructured a bit. Not sure how just yet. Need to think....


It looks strong to me overall (though I haven't done many peer reviews so may be missing things). I think the tables are particularly excellent, and the article has a good organization, and doesn't seem to be missing any important sections. Some things I notice could use improvement:

  • The plot summaries of the three films feel too long. Since this is an overview article, the synposes can be shorter here, with the full synopsis in the main article for each movie. It's a very difficult story to tell succinctly, since a lot happens! But it might be possible to leave out some details, e.g.:
  • Gandalf also learns that Gollum was tortured by Orcs, and that Gollum uttered two words during his torture: "Shire" and "Baggins." could be slighly shortened to --> Gandalf learns that Gollum has told Orcs the location of the ring.
  • I wonder if there could be more sourcing for some of the details in the "Production" section, for statements like:
  • other unit directors included John Mahaffie, Geoff Murphy, Fran Walsh, Barrie M. Osborne, Rick Porras, and any other assistant director, producer, or writer available.
  • To avoid pressure, Jackson hired a different editor for each film. (specifically his motivation for this choice could use support)
  • The "Comparisons between the film series and the book trilogy" section looks like it has been improved a lot, but it still looks weak to me.
  • It seems to be lacking in a perspective which I think is common, namely, that the film series is unfaithful to the books but is therefore superior to the books. The article as it is seems to assume that any changes from the books can only be bad or at best neutral/necessary. Looking at some of the referenced sources about Arwen might help you find some people with this perspective -- improving Arwen and Eowyn's roles is one of the ways that the film series is sometimes considered superior to the books.
  • Probably because it is a contentious and difficult section, the prose in this section is weaker than the rest, with several tortured or confusing sentences.
  • The whole section would benefit from a clearer organization structure. Perhaps you could group opinions into a series of stances: those who see the movies as faithful, those who see them as unfaithful and bad, unfaithful but neutral, unfaithful but good.

Art Ducko (student magazine)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Everyday life[edit]

2019 Champion of Champions[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to take the article to FA in the coming weeks, and would like some input on any issues with the article. Predominantly, I'd like some ideas around the qualification table, which could have some WP:ACCESS issues, but also any WP:V and prose issues there might be.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Al Ahed FC

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 November 2019, 09:07 UTC
Last edit: 20 November 2019, 15:16 UTC

Engineering and technology[edit]

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for an FA review. It is currently a GA-status article and has undergone many improvements since its promotion 10 years ago. Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the capacity to become a great article and would like other user's feedback on it. I hope to improve the list of vehicle section and overall syntax of the article.

Thanks, - AH (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520[edit]

Hi, AttackHelicopter51. I have a few comments:

  • a couple of the references are duplicated. See Wikipedia:Named reference / I do see some cases where you use named references already.
  • see WP:LAYOUT for section order & remove stray URL from "External links" --> you might convert the content of this section to using a {{cite}} template
  • there are a couple places that could use inline cites: the sentence ending in " 11%." (only the first half is sourced?) and the one beginning with "The first two vehicles of the program..." in the Development section.
  • Is there any prose or distinction that could be given in the "List of Vehicles in the Program" section? Also, any sources?
  • I don't think anything should be bold in the Future platforms section.
  • I'm debating about the lead. It's good I think, but a bit long. Might there be a "description" or "history" section? Of course, "Development" covers some of that.

I think the cites are good otherwise. All from NASA, but that's OK.

Emerald Cloud Lab[edit]

Hey there! This is the first article I've created, and I'm hoping to get some discussion on how I can best structure it. I had a little trouble finding best practices for articles on businesses/startups, so I'd be curious about that. I'd also be interested in some feedback on general flow. Thank you very much for your time!

Thanks, Jusadi (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PotentPotables[edit]

Hi Jusadi, well done on successfully creating your first article! I've done a basic copyedit (mainly punctuation and spacing) on the article, and have a few comments on how you could improve it (I'm not too science-y, so bear with me):

  • There are general tense issues which need to be sorted out like "they say that they" and " During this time, they say,". Remove all the "they say".
My hope here is to properly those statements to the founders. It seems reasonable to do so, as the founder of a company may (or may not) overly narrativize or rosily present the past. Is there a better way to make this attribution clear here? Is there a specific Wikipedia style guide regarding this? To the best of my knowledge, this is not a "tense issue" in most contexts, but I could certainly see it being a problem from the perspective of encyclopedic style preferences. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The closest thing I can find is WP:SUBSTANTIATE, but even that doesn't really seem to discuss this matter too much because it's not really bias. Maybe instead of the "During this time, they say, they experienced problems with laboratory hardware and software [...]" lines, you could change it to something like "In order to overcome issues with disparate manufacturers and rudimentary software, they wrote [etc, etc]". This might work make it sound a bit "cleaner", so see how it goes, and Wikipedia:Be bold! PotentPotables (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
DoneJusadi (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Forbes source [2] does not seem to be reliable, as it comes from a Forbes contributor and not staff (per WP:RSPSOURCES). If you can find a reliable source to back the "first such company" claim, then add that in.
Sounds fair. I'll move this out when I (soon) restructure the article. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Jusadi (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the phrase "on Emerald Drive, a suburb of Philadelphia" should be "on Emerald Drive, in the Philadelphia suburbs", per the source. The current phrase reads as if E Drive is the suburb.
Good catch. Done. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Change all examples of "DJ" into "D.J." per MOS:INITIALS and source.
Done Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps split the "History" section into subsections? One section explaining the background of the creators (using the BBerg source) – education, previous career, etc.. – then another detailing the actual history of the company.
  • Add a "products/services" section to detail what the company actually offers (look at Google#Products and services for some inspiration).
  • Perhaps add a "financing" section too detailing their funding, and an "Impact" section like that on Facebook explaining how they have been used in research, etc.

If you can find any more reliable sources, then that's always an advantage, and I'm sure they'll fit in well with the sections above. Good luck, keep editing! PotentPotables (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

List of largest cruise ships[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interesting in seeing how it would fare in a Featured List review.

Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
) 19:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Jonathanischoice[edit]

  • A tiny suggestion - I think "up to" is redundant in the first sentence, because the "can" makes it redundant. Otherwise looks good to me, but I'm not pretending to know what's involved in peer-reviewing for featured status. Good luck! — Jon (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


2019 Cebu City local elections[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I started this with only a few details and I have been expanding it since. There are still a lot of news articles available online about the said local elections which could further improve content in this article but I want your feedback on its current content. Feel free to drop also your suggestions.

Thanks, Emperork (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520[edit]

Hi, Emperork, and thanks for your efforts on this article. Here are my comments, more-or-less in order as I read through and reviewed the article:

  • The wording "which allied his group with Liberal Party" is confusing to me.
  • Is "BARUG Team Rama" a political party?
  • "The names ... were floated..." --> I know this phrase, but "floated" seems trivial (after all, anyone can say anything). Per the reference, it sounds like there was a more official recommendation, can the wording be updated?
  • This sentence needs an inline citation: "The election of Resch and Ong returned the..."
  • Might the lines like "Rodrigo Abellanosa ran for his third and final term." be changed to "Rodrigo Abellanosa was elected for his third and final term." or "Rodrigo Abellanosa ran for his third and final term, and won."?
  • I'll admit, I don't generally read articles like this in detail. Are the "City Council" tables all populated with people actually elected?

My biggest concern is that there are some similar wording to referenced sources, as seen in this Earwig's copyvio report. I'd like to see less text get flagged as similar to sources, and think the wording should be easy to adjust. Some of these cases may simply require direct quotations, but probably not all of them.

Above all, nice work. = paul2520 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review paul2520! Regarding this:
  • I noticed that also just now. I already changed it from "which allied his group with Liberal Party" to "who allied his group with Liberal Party"
  • Yes, BARUG Team Rama is a political party. I didn't linked it since there was no article pertaining to it. But I already created and linked it with Partido Barug. It's previous name was BARUG Team Rama.
  • Changed it from "floated" to "recommended".
  • Re: "The election of Resch and Ong returned the..." pertained to the return of the majority status of BO–PK after it was lost when BARUG Team Rama got a majority number of council members.
  • Followed your recommendation including for the mayor, vice mayor sections.
  • The City Council section is about the list of candidates and includes the results of the said elections. The members of the council are listed in a separate article: Cebu City Council.

I will work on the copyvio report. — Emperork (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand wine

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 November 2019, 22:20 UTC
Last edit: 11 December 2019, 10:42 UTC

Geography and places[edit]

Downtown Ossining Historic District[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could make GA and FA in the future, perhaps after the village concludes its comprehensive plan update. I developed it almost ten years ago, and it's held up well. All I really had to do to prepare it for this was bring the cites up to code and migrate a bunch, plus just a couple of xlinks from the village website.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


I've listed this article for a peer review because I would like to see where does it stand now and what could be improved.

Thanks, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko, I would focus on improving the sourcing of the article. There are many statements not supported by inline citations. It's possible that support for these statements can be found in the references already cited, so this may entail a great amount of reading from a long list of references. There are also cleanup tags to address. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hearst 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: 26 November 2019, 09:37 UTC
Last edit: 24 December 2019, 17:55 UTC


Sergo Ordzhonikidze[edit]

An article I greatly expanded recently, and am slowly working my way to getting to FA. It just recently had a copyedit, but additional reviews certainly can't hurt. Any and all comments are greatly appreciated, and will be addressed as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Kaiser matias, I decided to see what I could do to help at at peer review. I cannot offer any help regarding the content and sourcing of the article. I hope that a perspective from someone who knows little about Georgia will be somewhat helpful. Overall the article does a great job of describing and explaining the subject, but I have some suggestions, mostly regarding style.
  • A point for clarification: the article says that Ordzhonikidze goes to live with relatives, David and Eka, and later in the paragraph that he lives with his aunt and uncle after the death of his father. Are Eka and David the aunt and uncle, or were the aunt and uncle different relatives?
  • This sentence seems a bit awkward: "Ordzhonikidze then met with the local Chechen and Ingush population urging them to join, arguing that the soviet (council) system was not unlike that used by the Chechens." How about something like, "Ordzhonikidze organized meetings with the local Chechen and Ingush population, and urged them to join, arguing that the soviet (council) system was not unlike that used by the Chechens."
  • Wordy and passive: "Bolshevik activity in the region was limited, with only the city of Baku being controlled by them at that point." Suggestion: "Bolshevik activity in the region was limited, with only the city of Baku under Bolshevik control at that point."
  • Weak auxiliary verb: "Using the pretext of a local Bolshevik uprising in Azerbaijan, Ordzhonikidze had the Eleventh Army invade on 27 April 1920…" Suggestion: "...Ordzhonikidze dispatched the Eleventh Army to invade on 27 April 1920...”
  • Needs active voice, "This was launched the next day." Suggestion: "They attacked the next day."
  • In the Vesenkha section: In the discussion about the "wreckers," "Ordzhonikidze initially took a harsh stance on the matter, eagerly trying to clean up the organisation." The verb "clean up" supports Stalin's view of the situation when "wreckers" is just a term used to smear anyone who disagrees with the Vesenkha, if I am understanding this.
If you found these comments helpful, I will take a look at the last half of the article later. Overall, you have done a great job explaining a subject which is challenging to many English speakers, and I found the article interesting. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Samuel May Williams[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as I believe it meets the FA-criteria. I have never nominated an article for FAC, so I am starting with the peer review process as suggested in the FAC instructions.

The principal source is Henson (1976) and is available online with a registration at Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Quifangondo[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to GA status. Right now there are 15 GA-class articles listed for WikiProject Angola and 14 of them are articles about animal species endemic throughout southern Africa. A new GA-class article on an Angolan-specific topic like this one (a pivotal battle of the civil war) would be lekker.

Thanks, Katangais (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I think this article is well balanced and resourced and definitely a good candidate for GA status! BoonDock (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Brigade Piron

I have been asked to comment by Katangais. I'm have not yet had a chance to read the article properly (I look forward to doing so!) but I have some provisional comments about referencing which are flagged by the ref plugin. I have fixed one myself, but the following remain broken:

  • Domingos 2015
  • Chabal 2002
  • Hamann 2001

I would also suggest segregating the "References" section to leave only texts that are currently cited in the article. The others could be moved to a "Further Reading" section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BP. Thanks for catching those referencing errors! I fixed the three broken refs you mentioned above, and axed the additional three that were in the ref list but didn't end up getting cited. --Katangais (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Illustrated Daily News[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm thinking of taking it to FAC. I worked on this article about 10 years ago and recently gave it a facelift. Thoughts welcome.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC=Featured Article Candidate. I had to look it up. WP:FAC. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
What do you want to know? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeking people to look at the article and let me know where you see issues and to what extent the article fits WP:WIAFA. I have taken a number of articles to FAC and this is a common preliminary. You are very welcome to review it. I expect other people will, they generally do.--22:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

12-3 incident[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about an important political event. I want to bring it up to the quality of the Chinese version of the article. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jp16103 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article so far. Unfortunately I don't have any knowledge of the topic, so my suggestions are only superficial: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  • suggest expanding the lead to fully summarise the article
  • this sentence probably needs a citation: "Protestors, instigated by local communists and pro-Beijing business owners, ransacked Portuguese institutions ..."
  • as does this: "Shortly after the agreements were signed, Chinese military forces around Macau were withdrawn and the Red Guard threat had subsided."
  • suggest translating the non-English language titles of the sources
  • "Halis 2015, pp. 70–71" -- I couldn't find where the full bibliographic details of this work were provided (e.g. title etc)

Battle of Tudela[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to put this page on TFA because I want to have a footprint in Wikipedia's history, i don't know if that is a pathetic reason but, if it's ok with you...

Thanks, Great Mercian (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Oh boy, there are a lot of issues to get the article to FA-class. Do not worry if you get B-class then it'd be a lot of easier than it is now. I'll have a review in the future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • referencing/citations: every paragraph needs to be referenced if you wish to take this to FAC -- one at the end of the paragraph is sufficient if everything in the paragraph is covered by that citation, or if not more may be needed throughout the paragraph. Currently, there is a single reference at the end of the section, which does not seem sufficient. If you need to repeat citations, the WP:NAMEDREF function works well
  • breadth of sourcing: currently the article references only a couple of websites -- for FA (even for B-class) this will need to be expanded to include some other works -- books and journal articles, for instance
  • structure: suggest removing the "Chronology of the battle" second level header and then creating three second level headers: Background, Battle and Aftermath per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. There could be two third level headers in the Background section for the "Strategic situation" and "Geography"
  • the Other reading section should probably be labelled "Further reading"
  • I wouldn't suggest including annotated assessments of sources as is currently done in the Other reading section as this is very subjective and based on opinion rather than citations
  • replace the bare urls with formatted references (either manual or templated -- for instance {{cite web}})
  • avoid sandwiching text between images, for instance currently the Battle section sandwiches text between the map and recreation image
  • make sure everything that is in the infobox is mentioned, and referenced, in the body
  • French/Polish strength is listed as 31,000 in the infobox, but 30,000 in the lead
  • French/Polish casualties are listed as 650 in the infobox, but 600 in the lead
  • I'm afraid I can't comment on content, but editors like Auntieruth55 may be able to assist here
  • suggest mentioning the casualties in the Aftermath
@Great Mercian: G'day, Great Mercian, I hope you are well. Just checking you've seen these suggestions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Hello my good friend, yes I have and this will be a [REDACTED] nightmare, but I and everyone else will try, try, TRY to get everything done.
No worries, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Great Mercian: G'day, given this has been open since early October and there have been no new comments since mine, I'd suggest closing this now per WP:PRG. You will still be able to access the review page to action anything you wish to, in your own time. If you need a hand processing the close, please let me know. I'd be happy to make the necessary edits for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Hello my good friend, progress is slow because people don't know about this. I am trying my best.
No worries, all good. I will leave it open and check back in a month or so. You might be able to get some assistance if you post a request over at WT:MILHIST. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Jan Hus[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is listed as a top-importance article in several wikiprojects, yet is only c-class. The sections need to be cleaned up, and if anyone has any reliable sources of information about his early life, please tell me.

Thanks, Aven Az13 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley[edit]

From a quick once-over I see both English (favourable, authorising) and American (colored, honored) spellings, and the article ought to be in one or the other throughout. That is fairly important, but much more so is the lack of citations. There are seven "citation needed" tags in place and there could and should be a dozen more. The list of references doesn't get past 32 citations for an article of 4,500 or so words. This is far short of GA standard. I can't vouch for any authoritative sources that you might draw on, I'm afraid, but Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia and Jan Hus: Reformation in Bohemia are both available on Google Books, and there's any amount of stuff on him under either Jan Hus or Jan Huss at the Internet Archive. Tim riley talk 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Filelakeshoe[edit]

Currently the "Hus and the Czech language" section is unreferenced and I am pretty sure some of it is also wrong - it trots out a commonly believed simplification of the history. Hus's orthography reform first introduced the dot diacritic above letters like c, z, r and then this was replaced by the hacek much later by the writers of the Kralice Bible. I am pretty sure I have the references for this (and to verify the rest of the section) at home, they may also be on Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny online - I can have a look later. I also have no idea what it means about the dot diacritic being used for "strong accent". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe[edit]

Have to echo the comments from previous reviewers, what this article needs most is more references to quality sources. I have access to pdf copies of Spinka's biography and would be happy to send chapters. It's a classic though a bit out of date (1968). buidhe 01:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Gaius Terentius Varro

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: 27 June 2019, 16:14 UTC
Last edit: 1 December 2019, 08:03 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article for featured article status. Any help is very much appreciated.

Thanks, Cerevisae (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

African humid period

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: 27 December 2019, 11:14 UTC
Last edit: 19 January 2020, 01:04 UTC

(225088) 2007 OR10

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 November 2019, 01:05 UTC
Last edit: 26 December 2019, 05:20 UTC

Bamboo textile[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's POV doesn't seem to be neutral. It's more a list of criticisms citing outdated/broken links.

Thanks, Opertinicy (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take this one. Let me print it out and take a look at it ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's been a couple of days. I have not only looked over the article, I have done some editing, which went beyond the usual light copy edit to addressing the POV issue identified by the nominator. This has resulted in a shorter (but IMO improved) article.

Primarily I got rid of all the "compare ..." parts of the paragraphs in the "Ecological considerations" subsections where the writer had an axe to grind, and ground it, with cotton production. While that material is not by itself verboten for this article, it should be included only if a reliable source has made those comparisons (per WP:TONE, "[i]t is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them."). Most importantly, Wikipedia articles should never have imperatives directed at the reader, unless in quoted matter that is clearly attributed and sourced.

While that section is still weak, and needs further sourcing and expansion, the removal of all those direct attempts to persuade the reader has made me confident enough to remove the POV tag. I also took care of some layout issues, like the sandwiching of text between two images at the beginning of the first section, and (less so) some sentences with two spaces between periods. I also cleaned up some inconsistent spelling (if we start with the Commonwealth "fibre", we need to stick with it) and applied the {{convert}} template where needed.

However, the article still has some issues. For one thing, per WP:CRITS, the "controversy" section needs to be eliminated. What's in there that's relevant and sourced could be better off put into a section about the production of bamboo fiber.

Most importantly ... while writing this I got the bright idea to run a copyvio check on the article.

I now wish I'd started with that. Because it revealed, as I had sort of suspected all along but not really at the forefront of my mind, that a fair amount of this text came from somewhere else. And then it seems another key graf was taken from an Etsy listing.

This must be corrected, and I will be tagging the article appropriately. Seriously addressing it could go a long way toward cleaning up the remaining POV issues. Never mind ... I read to the bottom of the first source, and they apparently copied from us, with attribution. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Language and literature[edit]

List of Hennepin County Library branches[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm proud of the work Bobamnertiopsis and I have put into this list, and think it meets the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria.

Thanks, paul2520 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Masters of Doom[edit]

I have never written an article for a book before so I want to get some advice and feedback as to what to do with the article.

Thanks, GamerPro64 02:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

  • There's some content in the, er, Content section that probably needs to be cited as it goes beyond the usual "the citation for the plot is the work" kind of stuff.
  • In terms of general readability, if there's not additional information to fill out some of the subsections, I think you're best of axing them and allowing the text to flow uninterrupted (for example, in the "legacy" or "publication" sections.
  • The main gap in coverage at this point seems to be any further information on developing/writing the book. Not sure how much is out there to incorporate.
  • Given the amount of reviews the book has gotten, I think it would be best to break up the critical reception into aspects rather than just listing off one review after another.
  • Is there anything else you can draw from the Gamespy coverage? I see that they gave away copies of the book and Kusner did a Q&A which might be worth briefly mentioning in terms of promotion.
  • Reprints or anything to add to publication history?
  • I feel like there should be a source out there on the lawsuit's resolution, even if it's just the filings from the court.
  • Doing a quick search, I found reviews of the book from the Library Journal, Washington Monthly, Publishers Weekly and others. Send me an email and I can shoot you some PDFs to incorporate.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on ways I could improve the page.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! This is my first peer review, so take all I say with a grain of salt.

1. So far, I'm not seeing much argument for notability here (I think?). Source number one is just the product page from the publisher. Sources two and three are parts of the book itself. And sources 4/5/6 are fairly short reviews.
2. The product page (your first reference) mentions, "Named a Best Book of the Year by: Boston Globe, PASTE Magazine, Words Without Borders, Grub Street, Remezccla, and Entropy Magazine." According to the notability page for books, bestseller lists for reliable media outlets count as non-trivial! So you may be able to get sufficient references.
3. Also, it looks like the author is mentioned in article, Queering Acts of Mourning in the Aftermath of Argentina's Dictatorship: The Performances of Blood. Academic papers are often good. I can't access it, but it's probably available somewhere (author's website, evil file-sharing website, etc), and it might contain info on this particular book.
4. Okay, onto matters other than notability. Your lead needs work. I have no idea what this book is about. What are the major themes? You mention "Argentina's political turmoil" in the review section. Let the reader know a little bit about the book!

Anyway, those are my two cents. You have not yet convinced me that the book is notable (sad). However, sources exist that seem to imply notability (yay!). And you should let the reader know some basic details about the book (and maybe the author). Jusadi (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mouthful of Birds (story collection)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive recommendations for ways to improve the page, and for it to be officially reviewed so it can be indexed.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Some comments on both this article and Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection), as they are fundamentally similar.

In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:

  • What are the stories about? What genre are they in?
  • Are these collections of previously-published stories (as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is), or are they all originally published in the collection (as For Your Eyes Only), or a mixture of the two (like The Birthday of the World and Other Stories)? In both cases, we hear of two stories whose first English publication was outside of the collection, but it is not clear about publications of the stories pre-dating the Spanish edition of the collection.
  • Basic publication information is unclear. Both articles give publication dates for both the original Spanish and the translated English edition, but only one publisher and ISBN in the infobox. It should be clear what information pertains to what edition, and publisher and publication date should also appear in the body of the article.
  • Is there anything to be said about how the collections were put together? What links them? Is there anything to be said about the order of their arrangement?

A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Modern Pagan views on LGBT people[edit]

I've previously undergone a huge cleanup and reconstruction of this topic, which was recently merged from its original home at Wiccan views on LGBT people. I would like to make this article as good as it can be and would heavily like some input on how others think it would best be accomplished.

Thanks, Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Syriac Orthodox Church[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… The Previous Review was 10 Years Ago, The Article had various Suggested Improvements, So Further Inorder to Acheive A WP:GA for this article in the scope of Wikiproject Christianity, What are the Changes or Additions And Major Problems of the Current Article which is Rated WP:C-class. Thanks, Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Bethel Assembly of God Church[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This page was one deleted. It has been recreated with neutral content

Thanks, CE 09:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the article a little to improve some of the basics. It needs some more work. Here are a few suggestions for improvements:

  • The article needs more reliable, independent sources. I have tagged the languages section as needing a reference, but most of the information in the lede and infobox is unreferenced.
  • If you can find good reliable sources, you could considerably expand the article. It would be good to see the history and development of the church. Apart from it's size, what makes it interesting and unusual?
  • You could add a section about the church's teachings (again, if you have a proper source)
  • What impact/influence has the church had on Bangalore, and the local neighborhood?
  • Expand on what the "outstations" are, and their connection to the main church

As it stands, the article is only barely demonstrating notability, though I suspect it is notable. I hope these suggestions help you think about how to expand and solidify the article. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Social sciences and society[edit]

Tonya Harding[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Lizzy150 recommended I do so. We could really use some fresh eyes :)

Thanks, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Social democracy[edit]

Hello. I've listed this article for peer review because in light of recent improvements to the article which led to its re-classification as Class B by another editor, it became an potential candidate for GA nomination, and I want to make sure that it contains no serious issues or errors and to find out whether it does indeed meet the neccessary criteria for it to be regarded as a "Good Article" on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Symes2017 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing, as nominator is indefinitely blocked. czar 03:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because User Calton has reverted Bilby's edit on grounds that there was no consensus. While, perhaps, technically true, in that the link provided by Bilby, my rough analysis shows 9-3 in favour of including.

To provide a bit of background and context, there are potential WP:BLP issues with respect to Ms. Attkisson's reporting of vaccines. Bilby provided a link to a BLP noticeboard, which appeared to show a substantial consensus in favour of including Ms. Attkisson's refutation; however, that had not been officially closed. Indeed, it had been included in the article prior to significant recent edits, but it was removed. Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it seems prudent to have it back included. I'm not sure why Calton removed it.

I have separately tagged Bradv and Diannaa, independent of this peer review process, due to the potential WP:BLP issues here in Calton's removal of her refutation. However, should they decline to re-add it, I wanted to start a peer review in tandem.

Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Toa Nidhiki05[edit]

As another editor here, I highly contest the claims this article has BLP issues. A small group of editors, as well as Ms. Attkisson herself, seem intent on scrubbing this page of criticism, primarily regarding vaccines. Attkisson has attempted for years to modify the article, and this has now extended to extensive criticisms on her website, some of which specifically attack certain Wikipedia users, including myself, as shills for the “vaccine industry”. Virtually all debate on this page has come from the extent of vaccines. Attkisson is widely regarded as promoting anti-vaccine viewpoints and this has been discussed numerous times. I find the request for peer review extremely unnecessary, given how extensively this article has been worked on by a variety of editors. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Herbert Vivian[edit]

I have been working on the Herbert Vivian article for some time. A DYK was created from it in December 2018, and it became a Good Article in October 2019 after a very helpful and thorough review by User:Amitchell125. I have further expanded the article since then, and I believe it is now a comprehensive account of this mostly forgotten English writer and journalist. I would like to nominate the article for Featured Article status in the future and I am looking for suggestions for improvements to make it a viable candidate.

Many thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Frédéric Passy[edit]

After working on the article in my sandbox space for almost a month, I've moved all the work to the main article space. I'm looking to take it to Good-Article standard (and possibly further), so any advice on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, PotentPotables (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Self-managed social center[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it but I'm just getting repeatedly bogged down in discussion with another user, as you can see at Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page and Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page_2. The current structure is not satisfying, since it's split between incomplete coverage of functions and a breakdown by country. I'd welcome some feedback on how to improve the page. Much obliged for any comments, Mujinga (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Ages of consent in the United States[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review following Fabrickator's suggestion that a radical change to how we manage this page may be needed, as both the general public and even much of the news media accept the content of this specific page as though it were actually a reliable source. In particular, the suggestion is to introduce process to make it reliable, alternatively, we would need something tantamount to a flashing banner. So I'm inviting peer review to see how this page stacks up against others, and what can be done about it in particular, if anything.

Cheers, Guarapiranga (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

List of coal fired power stations in Turkey

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 November 2019, 14:30 UTC
Last edit: 4 January 2020, 07:15 UTC

List of Discoveries[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because there is a disagreement with the inclusion of a bibliography within the article (the contention is made by Dialectric; → version of the article 1 edit prior to removal of the Bibliography) , (firstly) and secondarily, a section of the article, Models (Fashion), as shown @ this version (which is 1 edit prior to the removal, by Onetwothreeip) is thought inadmissable (by also Dialectric, supported by Onetwothreeip, the latter editor hasn't provided an obvious reason for the support). The discussion; which is focused upon the veracity and correct usage of the word discovery within the fashion industry, compared to other subject areas (disciplines) is @ Talk:List_of_Discoveries#Fashion_Models.


Armoracia-1 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Arjun Sarja filmography[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because as I think that I have already addressed the suggestions and ideas to improve the article in the Older peer review and I wish to nominate the article for Featured List Nomination.

Thanks and Regards, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

All films need to be sourced, and all references formatted correctly (at least the title, website and date in everything). Solve these, and I'll post further comments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro

Hi! In case you're still looking for comments, I'd be happy to help:

  • Lead image needs alt text
  • Lead will need some more refs (2nd para only has 1 and 3rd para has none)
  • As Kailash said, all films need individual refs
  • Ref col should be centered
  • 1st table has plainrowheaders but 2nd and 3rd don't (each should have them)
  • "P S Prakash." should it be P. S. Prakash?
  • How is his role unknown in some?
  • Songs are not italicized per MOS:ITALICTITLE (only in quotes)
  • 3rd table: note col doesn't need to be sortable
  • 2nd and 3rd tables need refs for every individual film like the first
  • Like IMDb, I don't think the Tamil Movies Database is an RS
  • Many refs are missing website, author, and date (only urls and access date)
  • Do all these refs not have an author? (I'm assuming some do)
  • I would archive all these refs (assuming they are all not dead)

Hope this helps :-) – zmbro (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]