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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
Please note that Wikipedia:Peer review/Review closure policy had been incorrectly closed due to a misinterpretation of the inactive discussion rules. An inactive discussion, is one in which a review has begun and received some feedback and the subsequent discourse has become inactive. It is not a review with no feedback. There is a separate set of rules regarding limits for articles hoping for feedback. WP:PR has a noticeboard for reviews that have had no feedback for a long time (well over a month).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
I know the article is long and detailed, but that probably means there is a lot to improve. I'd rather wait another 7 months than go to FAC. Ping me in another 7 months if it still has not been reviewed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 31 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'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.
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]
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.
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.
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.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. λNegativeMP1 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. λNegativeMP1 01:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done and thanks for revising some contents. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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'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]
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. TheKip(contribs) 05:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the article to the FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, or to review articles at WP:FAC. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a lot of very short sections, consisting of a single paragraph. And some single-sentence paragraphs. Those tend not to be appreciated at FAC.
Here's the big question: why is this person notable? He looks like a marginal player who banged around a few teams in the NFL with little to no success. If it were not for the story about his mother's death, would anybody have noticed him, i.e. WP:BLP1E applies. I would strongly suggest pinging WT:CRIME and getting input from people who work more in this area. @Riley1012: you did the GA review, but I don't see that you asked about this at all, which surprises me a bit. RoySmith(talk) 14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the comments! I have addressed them below:
PFR is what is generally used for statistics and basic biographical information for college-level and professional football players; it appears as a widely credited source on the FA-class articles for Otto Graham, Bob Mann (American football), Billy Joe Tolliver, etc. NFL.com used to be used as a source in infoboxes, but it was deprecated in a recent discussion. I'm also aware that this article needs a massive reference cleanup effort - I'll try and do that sometime in the near future.
This one is mostly my fault. I'm not necessarily sure on how to expand further on the shorter sections; perhaps I can do without some of the shorter sections and/or combine them.
I think the basic WP:SPORTCRIT validates his inclusion on Wikipedia, and while I do agree that he was a marginal player, what makes him any less notable than, say, Captain Munnerlyn, Darryl Milburn, Marquise Walker (all quality articles for mostly unremarkable players) or Chris Gragg (a FA for a guy who played on one team for three years before retiring)? I would argue that Brown is far more notable than any of these players, with reliable news coverage on him being a "great example", his trivial football bickering, and his work at Google in addition to the coverage of his crime. I wouldn't call myself a good criminal biography writer, so I will take your suggestion re: WT:CRIME.
WP:SPORTCRIT says, The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. What level of success did he achieve?
As far as I can tell, there are no definite guidelines for what determines notability in American football. Merely being rostered in the NFL, the highest professional level of American football in the world, is generally what defines the most basic level of success in the sport, and while it doesn't necessarily warrant the creation of an article, I think Brown has surpassed that by 1. actually playing in at least one NFL game, which is something that some rostered people never actually do 2. having a relatively long career (6 seasons is well beyond a number of notable NFL players' careers) 3. appearing and recording stats in the NFL playoffs, including in Super Bowl XLVI. Notability is also supplemented by numerous pre-2020s articles that focus on him or, at the very least, mention his name as someone who is the subject of trades/action on the field.
As for the short sections, I'd merge them. WP:FACR is looking for prose which is "engaging and of a professional standard". GA is about being accurate and correct. FA is about telling a good story. All of these short little sections are more of a listing of facts. What you want to do is take that collection of facts and weave it into a compelling narative.
Done. I think with that being said, this isn't a great candidate for FAC - I think I've written better articles than this. If it's possible to withdraw this from FAC consideration, I'd be okay with doing so. However, I do appreciate any feedback to improve anything I've written.
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'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]
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]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to hear feedback on how the article is so far before considering any further steps. I did list this article for a similar peer review, but I have since then made changes to the article. I welcome new feedback on how the article looks since the changes were made to it following the previous peer review.
Hello, The Cadillac Ranger. I just submitted an article for peer review myself, and I came across this request as I was trying to see how I could alleviate the backlog.
I am interested in geography in general and the New York City metropolitan area specifically. Therefore, I am definitely willing to leave some comments to help this peer review be successful. My actual feedback will come shortly; this message is simply to indicate that intent. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some paragraphs with no citations at all, namely:
In the Northwest Yonkers section, the paragraph starting with The two-block section of Palisade Avenue between Chase and Roberts Avenues in northwest Yonkers...
In the Southwest Yonkers section, the paragraph starting with Southwest Yonkers, traditionally home to African American and white residents, has seen...
In the Government section, the paragraph starting with Yonkers, like the rest of Westchester County and New York state, is a Democratic stronghold...
Hello AndrewPeterT, as a update, I have done added a source to the section about the retail area and the two-block section of Palisade Avenue between Chase and Roberts Avenues in the Northwest Yonkers section. I also managed to archive the sources using that IA Bot feature and tried it for the first time.
However, I do have a question. Where can I find a source about the limited-access roads in the Roads and paths section? I came across this source and I'm not sure if it's a good source to use. Do you think I should use it or should I find a different source to use? The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, I would encourage you to cite information from websites such as the State of New York's Department of Transportation's. That being said, for now, so that there is at least a citation of some type, I do not see why you would not be able to use the AARoads source in the article. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 13:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AndrewPeterT, another update: I added two more sources in the government section. I also found this source as a potentially better alternative source. Do you think that Cornell source would be a good fit for the section about the limited-access roads? The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cadillac Ranger: Thank you for the additional updates. With respect to your Cornell source, the citation would be a good fit in the limited-access roads section. That being said, I will note that Rumsey Road is the only parkway the Cornell reference explicitly mentions to be within the City of Yonkers. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is an article that needs attention (old version was 19 years out of date) and I would also like some advice to promote this to GA or A class. By the way, I’ve substantially contributed to the page (https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Mining_industry_of_Botswana) and updated everything. Feedback would be appreciated.
The article feels disorganised. It goes from diamonds, to a mining company, to other commodities, to political influence. I suggest that this be organised by either type of mining, geography, company, or some other similarity in the titles.
Are there any additional sources for the article? Try looking at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or your local library system.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m unable to access the Wikipedia library, but I mainly use JSTOR. 48JCL (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL: JSTOR is a great resource, but there are lots of other databases that also have sources. These include Google Books, Google Scholar, archive.org, [1], and databases available from your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I do not really have ambitions for FA[a], your feedback will still be very much welcome, and let's treat it with the potential FA nomination in mind if some mentor wants to take it more seriously.
The article is largely, though not uniquely, a translation of the French FA article about a seaside resort in Northern France. Of course, French FA is not transferrable to en.wiki, and I'm not aware of French FA criteria but it wouldn't pass today's en.wiki criteria, but still the article is good and I used it to make a better version of it. I reorganised it so that it reads better, and also I added a couple paragraphs missing from the French version (for example, history during WWII), and did not mention a couple of others (like the list of films in which pictures were shot in Le Touquet, as sourced to IMDb). I basically omitted the "In popular culture" and "Notable people" sections. There are a couple of unsourced sentences in the article I marked, but I am resolving these issues at WP:RX and with the author of the French article, I know it's not right, look at other stuff.
In short, any grammar, syntax errors, maybe some omissions that I may have made, or maybe you believe some passages are clinical signs of graphomania, or just small typos - let me know if something is wrong, I will correct it, or explain why I believe this is right.
^the one time I did some comprehensive research on a topic, Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania, the FA nomination was immediately shut down, I was shouted at for shitty writing, and the FA mentor said he couldn't mentor me. I don't hold a grudge against anyone - we are volunteers after all - but now I can't be bothered promoting FAs
Before considering FA status, I suggest trying for WP:GA, where you can get additional feedback. Comments after a quick skim:
"However, combining both in one place was a new feature in the area." Needs a citation.
"thus suggest that Royale-les-Eaux, a fictional town in the James Bond franchise that in some passages of the novels is shown as near Le Touquet, is in fact based on it." Needs a citation.
Per WP:GALLERY, galleries are not generally suggested for articles, like the one in "Le Touquet before World War II"
"but all agree that Le Touquet became 'the most mined city in France'." Needs a citation.
First paragraph of Geography needs a citation at the end of the paragraph.
First paragraph of "Elections" needs a citation.
"Today (mostly French) rally racers participate in the Rallye of Le Touquet [fr] (in its 64th edition in 2024), which covers most of the department of Pas-de-Calais." Needs a citation.
Ref 54 is missing citation information.
Ref 192 has an error code.
Red 214: per WP:ALLCAPS titles should be in sentence cap, not all caps.
"Monaco, Emily" Why is this not used as a source?
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"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
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]
I'd like to know if this article has GA possibilities, and what would need to be done to make it eligible.
Thanks, Geogene (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@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]
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 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]
Howdy, y'all. I am usually a history and archaeology editor, but this puppy goes a fair bit more into biology territory than I am normally used to, so I thought I would it open it up for folks to look at; I want to bring this to FAC eventually. :)
Thank you all so much for your time, Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool article :). Thanks for your work so far. My first impression is that it's too difficult to read in places.
The first sentence equates the dog to its remains. Would the following not make more sense: "The Bonn–Oberkassel dog (German: Hund von Bonn–Oberkassel) is a Late Paleolithic dog whose skeletal remains were found buried alongside two humans."
I would generally avoid paragraphs above 125/150 words for readability
mandible --> lower jaw
A canine mandible (...) Geological Collections. --> very long sentence. Maybe better: "The dog's lower jaw was first thought to be from a wolf and placed into museum storage with the human remains, while the other bones from the dog were placed into the university's Geological Collections." Or something like that?
Osteoarthritis (...). Again a difficult sentence. Could it be simplified as ""Osteoarthritis, along with signs of enamel defects, missing teeth, and gum disease, show that the dog had a distemper infection as a puppy but survived despite low chances without help."?
If you read over the article to make it come closer to WP:MTAU, I'm happy to give a deeper read at a later time. Feel free to ping. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty-two identifiable bone fragments have been identified as portions of the Bonn–Oberkassel dog --> I think identifiable can be removed here, as it's repeating identified.
Second individual --> individual sounds like a human. Would second dog be a better heading?
mesiodistal --> wiktionary link? wiktionary also has jargon, but may be bit clearer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another cookery book writer from history for another possible FAC run. I wrote this about four years ago and took it to GA, but I think it's mature enough to try for FA now. All comments with that in mind are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the Vale of White Horse, in what was then Berkshire" – what is it in now? You might say either here or in the main text or even both.
"In common with most ladies of the Elizabethan era, Fettiplace wrote a manuscript book" – "most" is a pretty large claim. Do you think perhaps "many" might be safer, and also more in line with the main text?
"justice of the peace, Member of Parliament and the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire" – How I wish English was like German and capitalised all nouns as a matter of course, but as it is we have to deal with the question case by case and here it looks odd to me to capitalise the second and third of Henry Poole's job titles but not the first.
Done - but you know what will happen at some point in the future! - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Francis and Dorothy" – really Francis rather than Frances? Just checking.
"Poole family was a large landowner ... the Poole family had heavily mortgaged much of their land ... The family were well-connected." – singular or plural? I think in this case all singular will be easiest.
"organised into twelve chapters by Hilary Spurling" – we don't need the sudden repetition of "Hilary" here, surely?
You asked me to comment here on the length of the section on the book, given that the book has its own article. The section looks all right to me, but if you are worried it is too long you could lose the sentence "The reference to a plague cure is unsurprising ..." And you could omit the closing block quote "Take five sponfulls of rose water and seaven sponfulls of sugar ..." I think it would be rather a pity to lose the latter from here, and I suggest you leave it where it is for now and see if anyone takes issue with it at FAC.
"and which contained elements of a French and English style" – you don't, I think, want the "which" here.
I'm confused by how Clarissa D W's book is cited. In the References you give the Kindle section numbers, but in the Sources you link to the printed book via the Internet Archive. The latter, with page numbers, would be better I think, as everyone can access it.
Eat My Words has been withdrawn from the Internet Archive, and it would be as well to remove the link to its url.
Slightly oddly, although one copy was taken down, there is another copy still there, which I've now linked to. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You give the usual padlock (url-access=registration) symbol for Clarissa's book, but not for the others you link to in the Internet Archive.
That's my lot. Another pleasing SchroCat article on an old cook and her book. Onwards to FAC, when pray ping me. Tim riley talk 10:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sorted by CDW's page numbers, which I'll do now. Thanks, as always for your comments and thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three supplementaries: (i) may I suggest a tweak to your new wording, to read "in the Vale of White Horse (then in Oxfordshire, now in Berkshire)"? A bit clearer, I think. (ii) I've just noticed that the name of the editor (Denise Dersin) is given on page 168 of What Life Was Like in the Realm of Elizabeth. (iii) would "contained elements of a French and English style" be clearer as "contained elements of French and English styles? Tim riley talk 08:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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]
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]
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.
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.
"bringing Israel's 38 years of military rule over the Gaza Strip to a halt." Needs a citation.
Ref 10: The Jewish Library is not considered a reliable source according to WP:RS/P. This should be removed.
Section names like "Criticism" are not considered WP:NPOV because it suggests negativity. I would suggest reworking this section into something like "Commentary" or something similar.
Per WP:LEDECITE, the lede doesn't need citations because the information should be in the rest of the article. I think these can be removed and incorporated into the article, while the lede is a summary of the body's information.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:
Included the year the school opened, and how it was originally known as Woodrow Wilson Memorial High School
Made the history section a level 2 heading
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]
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.
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.
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:
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?
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]
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.
Even though this article is very good and stable, I've listed this article for peer review because of some issues that might need improvement or third party opinion:
The article has cited too much primary sources. Most of the sources who are from Marvel's official website. Many characters listed here cite only these sources. As per WP:PSTS, primary sources need to be supported by reliable secondary sources.
The word X-Men is repeated too many times even though it is clear from the article's title that this is list of X-Men members.
For example in New Mutants graduates, the word X-Men is used 4 times (section heading, sub-heading, information in sub-section and table heading).
This article is based on chronological order which is one of the format listed in Manual of Style/Comics. The order is decided by releasing date of comic issue in which the character joined X-Men. The order of some characters who had joined in the same issue can be in alphabetical order.
An example: In 1990s section, Cecilia Reyes, Marrow and Maggott joined in the same issue (X-Men, vol. 2 #70) so here we may apply alphabetical order. The result will be Cecilia, Maggott and Marrow.
Is this newly registered account, not related to several Wikipedia accounts – User:Sewnbegun, User:Ringardiumleviossa, User:Teedbunny that were banned for sockpupppetry? What a weird edit for someone with 3 edits especially that article is no longer page protected. The person behind those accounts might have returned perhaps through a new account. Hotwiki (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for late reply. @Hotwiki Firstly, I am not related to those accounts; a checkuser can check my IP address and editing patterns. Secondly, it was almost 15 days since protection was removed when I requested peer review (though we can still participate in talk page even if it is protected). Thirdly, this is peer review so comment on content, not on contributors. Squirrell2 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To peer reviewer, I forget to add one more thing. There are references for the names of members. I do not know why they got added into the article but this article is about list of X-Men members, and not about list of names of X-Men members. It must be suffice to provide the link of reference (for changing names) in edit summaries. Squirrell2 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, your editing patterns are surely suspicious with someone with 12 edits. Those blocked editors also denied they were the same person. User:Sewnbegun already sent the same article for peer review, if I remember correctly, right before they were blocked. If I were you, you should probably edit other articles, rather than making the same editing patterns as those editors that were blocked for sockpupppetry. Hotwiki (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alphabetical order was also suggested by Sewnbegun and Teedbunny in the talk page. It is highly suspicious for someone with only 12 edits, would edit the same articles as those 3 blocked editors, merely few days after the article protection has expired. I find it such a stubborn behavior, if this is another account created by the same person who is linked to so many accounts that were already blocked for sockpupppetry, and disrupted List of X-Men members, by making drastic changes to the article and jumping through different ip accounts and at least 3 registered accounts in order to manipulate the article. I'm literally getting a flashback from this newly registed account User:Squirrell2. Hotwiki (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for Checkuser, I don't know how to use it. But I will surely bring this up to sockpupppetry investigation once I get more evidences. Also, I'm bringing my suspicions in this peer review now, because they were several registered accounts/IP users that were manipulating the outcome of that article. It might be happening again now that the article is no longer protected from persistent sockpuppetry.Hotwiki (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
