This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Peer review

Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, 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 such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's 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.



Christopher Lambert

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone major improvements after user Filmman3000 edited it, and I would like to know if it fulfills the GA article criteria.

Thanks, Er nesto (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Konstantin Khabensky

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in knowing if it fulfills the GA criteria — if the article is not good enough, I would like to receive constructive advice on how it should be improved.

Thanks, Er nesto (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Claude Debussy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 21 May 2018, 21:21 UTC
Last edit: 24 May 2018, 13:07 UTC

Bring Me the Horizon

Previous peer review

In case I ever get to this one, I'd like to know how close it is to GA status.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor oops 16:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Floodland (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been considering nominating it for GA status. I want to know what improvements should be made before putting it up for GA consideration. I'm aware that most of the references need fixing, which I will get to eventually.

Thanks, Aria1561 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The Phenomenauts

Hello, I'd like to request a review please for the music band The Phenomenauts. The article has been untouched for the past 6-10 years, and I recently made a number of edits. I have added: 109 references; five new free images; 3 new non-free images; four sample fair use audio clips (with subtitles); and a band member timeline chart. I have added roughly 4,000 words to the article. I have grouped it into sections, and tried to do several passes at copyediting.

I have requested re-assessment from the article's WikiProjects. Eventually I would like to apply for Good Article status. But I'd like to have someone independent take a look first.

Feedback is quite welcome. Is it interesting? Does it explain things well? Material that is not relevant?

Thanks for your time! --Culix (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Legend of a Cowgirl

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's almost ready for a GA nomination. I nominated it for a peer review a few months back and got some helpful feedback; I've done what that editor suggested, and I just want to send it through one more peer review before nominating it. In particular, I want to make sure that the formatting is appropriate and that the info is appropriately cited.

Thanks, Anotheronewiki (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to featured status. The page is already a good article (GA) but I think there is still some work need to be done for featured article status.

Thank you, Harut111 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Théâtre Libre

I've listed this article for peer review because I am starting the editing and updating process for this article. I would like feedback on readability as well as organization as I add more information. Thanks!

Thanks, GGRiehl (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Grace!

The article is looking good! I think you've added some great resources and the article seems like it is now well cited throughout. There are a lot of great wiki links and photos to go along with it as well. I would suggest maybe adding another section to give the article a little more depth-- maybe a performance history section where it just more simplistically lays out what the organization has produced? Super interesting topic! Irene.elias85 (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Grace!

The article looks great so far - I think the "Origins and History" section could maybe be broken up into subsections, however. I noticed that the article states that there were "3 chapters in Theatre Libre's life" - maybe those could each be broken up and elaborated upon? I like the photos in the article and I think it might be hard to find more that are in the public domain, so those seem perfectly sufficient. There are a few typos to look out for (one in the "Influences" section) that I'm sure were just already there before you found it, but it would be good to just clear those up. Also, maybe add a section about how the form has been an influence on other forms or other theaters if that information is available? Either way, the article looks great, and the subject is really fascinating! Great job. Emmaosmundson (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Casualty specials

I've listed this article for peer review because I belive it has the potential to reach Featured List status. I have decided to complete a peer review first in order to minimise any potential problems that I may have not yet noticed. I appreciate the help of anyone who will review the article.

Thanks, Soaper1234 - talk 19:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for some feedback on the preliminary additions I have made to create this page.

Thanks, Aoifemahood (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aoife!

Your page is coming along so well! I think it's looking really good in terms of the categories that you've separated it into and the context within them. The citations are clearly inserted within the text and they are easy to follow for more information in the reference section. I would suggest to take another read over the article for places you could put additional wikipedia page links within the text. You also might want to consider splitting the very first paragraph into an "intro" section followed by a more detailed explanation of what defines a mega-musical. I think the chart is an awesome addition. Great work! Irene.elias85 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great Start to this article Aoife! The introduction is well written and provides a general overview of the topic. One spelling correction to make in the introduction – “Megamusicals tend to me mega-marketed as well.” There is definitely room to expand this article and add additional sub sections as well as further develop the History section. A few suggestions could be talking about how mega musicals proliferated through technological developments, decline in travel costs, Globalization, etc., Visual content would help to enhance the article as well. The inclusion of the Notable Megamusicals section is a great addition to the article! Great use of internal links in this section. The article is well cited however a Resources section would be a great addition so the reader can research the topic further. I’m excited to read the finished article. You have done a great job with organizing the content in a clear and understandable way. It also follows proper writing conventions and utilizes a neutral voice throughout. Stories Alive (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is off to a great start! I think a useful addition would be to link to the pages that are listed within the genre in the lead section (if there are already wikipedia pages for those.) An interesting section to add would be political issues that have been tackled by documentary theatre, as that is mentioned in the history section of the current article. Jre1991 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed on your talk page that you're considering merging Documentary Theatre with Verbatim Theatre. I think that's a really smart idea. I'm not sure if you would also consider Newspaper Theatre to be a subset of Documentary Theatre, but that might even be an interesting take on your article - to mention all of its different names. I know that verbatim theatre is already in there, but it could be interesting to see what other sorts of names it might go by. Also, is there more information about In Spite of Everything? That would be a great addition to your page. There could maybe be more links to other pages throughout some of the article, but overall I think you're off to a great start! Emmaosmundson (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Documentary theatre

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working on substantially adding to it and I want to know how I'm doing. I've begun significant edits on the History section, which is still unfinished, and started the In Practice section as well. I'm particularly interested in responses to the organization of the page, and if I need to rethink how the page should be laid out. Please note I have not yet worked on the In Theory or Modern Examples sections at all.

Thanks, Lilliemer8519 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Minstrels

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like suggestions on additional potential subsections of the article.

Thanks, Jre1991 (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

The brief existing article is all right as far as it goes. It isn't clear what "potential subsections" you have in mind. It depends first of all on what further relevant and useful information is available from reliable sources. A typical article on such a topic might have sections on these lines:

  • Background
  • Peak years
  • Decline
  • Critical reception
  • Legacy

Another possible model is in the article to which this one is linked: Minstrel show.

Note also that the lead should contain a brief summary of all important points in the main text, but should not contain anything that isn't in the main text.

I hope these few points are useful. – Tim riley talk 11:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lillian

Mostly I think you should edit the sentence structure through out. Sentences like the first one are a little clunky. A few suggestions here:

The Virginia Minstrels or Virginia Serenaders was a group of 19th-century American entertainers who helped invent the entertainment form known as the minstrel show.

While they weren't the first blackface performers to band together and present a show, they were the first to present a concert.

etc. There are just ways to streamline the language to make it easier to understand. Hope that's helpful. Comments by Lilliemer8519 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Jordan's Peer Review

The lead section is great! Very engaging and clearly states what the article will be about although it might be a bit of a run on sentence. It is missing a citation though.

I can see the sections you've added which I think will make the structure much more robust. You should definitely think about adding to the "Significant Works" section and making sure its properly cited. The current references are a little bare so I look forward to seeing what kind of sources you add.

I like the idea of including the "Changes to the Ministrel Show" but the title of that section seems out of place. Think about restructing that part and maybe including it as a subsection of another area.

Overall the article looks promising but definitely needs some updating with the sources, citations, and sentence structure. I'm excited to see what you do with it!

Epic theatre

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get feedback on my article and the ways in which I can improve it.

Thanks, Emmaosmundson (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2018

Hi Emma!

This is a dense page! After reading it it seems like there may be opportunities to add some different sections to break up all the text? For example, maybe one could be "elements of epic theatre" or maybe there could be a "key figures" section? I think the information on the page is relevant and important, but hard to digest in the way the page is set up now.

Other than reformatting, I think in general, some more research and information in general would serve the page. I think the page has a lot of valuable information right now and that with some more edits, this will be a really helpful article!

Aoifemahood (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great start Emma! Here are a few suggestions for improving the article. The article has a great introduction and provides a comprehensive overview of what Epic Theatre is however about halfway into the second paragraph it begins to talk specifically about techniques associated with Epic Theatre and Brechtian theories. This might be too “in the weeds” for an introductory paragraph. Adding additional subheadings and expanding this information would help the reader navigate the article better. A section discussing the History of Epic Theatre, Major Productions, and even subheadings that cover some of the primary techniques that are common in Epic theatre could be some possibilities. Additional visual elements could be added to enhance the article for example a picture of “non-realistic scenic design” to show the reader what scenic design of Epic Theatre might have looked like. The article is well written and understandable. It definitely provides a great start to build upon as you enhance the article. The article also does a great job utilizing internal links to provide the reader additional information within Wikipedia and the content is well cited. The External Links section is sparse and could be expanded with additional resources.Stories Alive (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Dominique Morisseau

I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of my class assignment, THEA 7216X Global Theater History, and Theory III, as a part of the Wikiedu project. My classmates have already been assigned as reviewers.

Thanks, Jlingreen (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Spring 2018

Hi Jordan!

I think your page has a lot of great qualities! One of the things that really popped out at me that could use an edit would be to take another look at how you might structure the section with Morisseau's works. I think that while the Detroit Projects are probably what she is best known for, that the other plays sort of look insignificant. I think a simple fix is just playing with bolding and which "heading" setting to use.

Another thing I thought of would be maybe to add a table at the bottom of the page showing the notable productions of her plays (maybe combining that with the current awards section, having tabs for "play," "theater," "year," and "award(s)"?)

Some smaller things I noticed were that there seems to be some debate as to what age she is - I wonder if you could find more solid information on her birth date? The "childhood" and "personal life" sections are pretty lackluster, so if you don't plan to expand them much I would suggest combining them.

Overall, I think the page is off to a great start! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoifemahood (talkcontribs) 04:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Jordan,

I like that your article has a very clear, readable voice. There are only two things that I would improve here. Maybe the structure of the Works section. Maybe listing the three plays in the Detroit Projects section more separated from her other works. The other plays not in the cycle sneak up on you and from the layout of the page feel like they belong to the cycle as well. I know since she is a living artist, getting a photo is tough, but I think that would really add to the page as well. Also maybe think about combining the Childhood and Personal Life sections into one section so it doesn't seem too skimpy on information. Overall, really good! GGRiehl (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The Marshall Mathers LP

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 30 March 2018, 23:13 UTC
Last edit: 14 April 2018, 18:48 UTC

Rx (Medicate)

I'm requesting a peer review of this article. It passed the GA process on March 20th and was copy-edited by a member of the Guild of Copy-Editors on March 28th. I don't think it will ever get to FA status, simply based on the length of the article (if you think it has a chance, please let me know!), but I want the article to be the best that it can be! Also, I am still in the learning process after coming back from an extended Wikibreak, so I want to be able to use this article as sort of a "model" and apply any feedback to music articles I work on/create in the future. I appreciate everyone's help and thank you in advance! — Miss Sarita 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


Any article can be brought up to featured article status if it meets all the criteria. Length has nothing to do with the process. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47:Thank you for the information! — Miss Sarita 01:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Anytime. Good luck with the peer review. I would suggest looking at other featured articles about songs for further guidance on this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Leighton Meester

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it up to GA and eventually FA. Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks, Rfl0216 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ferenc Molnár

I've listed this article for peer review because I am in the process of significantly improving the quality of the article and any feedback and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Stories Alive (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

Quick drive-by observations. Firstly, it is very under-sourced. These days, and rightly, sourcing is king and you've whole paragraphs without any at all. At the least, you need to ensure that each para. ends with a source, that covers the preceding content. Secondly, what's happened to the middle? We go from the Early years to the Later years and death, without covering what I assume were the Fruitful years in the middle. Best of luck with it. It's a well-structured article but there's work to do. KJP1 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jordan's Peer Review

The lead section of this article is definitely easy to understand but it would be nice for it to draw the reader in a bit more. Right now, it states facts about the author with no real flair. I would love to see a sentence added about his most well-known work or another reason why the reader might recognize his name or work.

The structure is clear but I wonder if the "Writing" section could be attached to the "Theatrical Career" section. Currently, that section is pretty bare but the Writing section is pretty robust. It would be great to see those linked. I think this also will help balance the coverage of the article and the facts about the author's career. I also love the visual content in the article. There are several pictures of the author and his work and I think the picture of his memorial is a nice touch.

Content seems to be mostly neutral but I would take a look at the Writing section again and make sure that all verbage is completely neutral. Some sentences seem to veer into an almost opinion about his reaction to his secretary’s death. I think its technically fine but if you have time to take another look at it, it could improve the article.

The references and citations currently listed seem to be good sources and well thought out but it would be nice to see a few more if possible. The writing section has great links to other pages but almost no citations listed. There are also no citations or links in the “Life” section listing the early years and later years.

Overall the article has a good structure and some solid foundation and taking it to the next level would include updating the citations, links, and ramping up the sentence structure. I’m excited to see the finished product! Jlingreen (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Grace's Peer Review

Really great start on the article. I like the intro piece. It is clear and concise. I really love all the images. As far as structure goes, it is broken up into sections that make sense, but some are very small. Maybe think about either expanding or combining the early life and Budapest/theatrical career section into one? There is a good amount of information in the Later Years and Death section as well as the Writing section. I think paying attention to the early life section as well as before his relocation to America would really add to the quality of the article. Perhaps your citations are not all in your article yet, but it seems like a lot of information without citation. I really enjoyed this article. It is written with an easy-to-read voice and style that is neutral. I am looking forward to you final article! GGRiehl (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Whip It (Devo song)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate for Featured Article status. This seemingly insignificant 80s song has a lot more going for it than most people think, and I believe this article covers the song sufficiently. This would be the first song article I nominate for FA status, so I just wanted to know if I'm missing anything. Other comments are always appreciated.

I'm a firm believer in the "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" policy, so if you would like me to look over one of your articles, I'll be more than happy to do so.

Thanks, Famous Hobo (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I updated the infobox (easier than listing here). It appears the same, but makes it easier for changes, tracking, etc. The rest looks good, although the "Music video" section is light on citations. Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Added a few more citations to the music video section, thanks for pointing that out. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Freikorp

I'll be happy to provide a review shortly. If you could review my PR for Prison education in return, that would be appreciated. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • "The disc jockey Kal Rudman" - I'd drop 'The', but up to you.
  • Might be of interest in the lead to mention whether the music video was filmed before or after the song became popular, since it was not expected to be a hit.
  • 'that Casale notes is "kind of like white boys rapping"' - I'd replace 'notes' with 'said' or an equivalent as per WP:WORDS
  • The piping 'Communist propaganda posters' just links to Communist propaganda. Accordingly, unlink the word 'posters' and just have that appear after the unpiped wikilink
  • I'd introduce 'Cash Box' as a magazine so the reader has an idea of what it is.
  • Since there is (surprisingly) an article on Energy dome, and it is specifically related to Devo, I think you can do a much better job of introducing it to the reader than 'hats called energy domes'. At the very least, say something like 'Devo's trademark energy dome hats'.
  • 'asked Warner Bros. to give them non-recoupable promotional money to make videos for "Girl U Want" and "Freedom of Choice"' - did they end up getting the money? Also when did they ask for it?
  • "Casale remarked: "I'm glad it was 'Whip It'," - I assume the 'it' that is being referred to is their only hit, but perhaps reword this to make it clearer for the reader somehow.

Hope this helps. Freikorp (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A Short Vision

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what the article could be improved on. And, see, how to get the article to a Good Article, or maybe Featured. Your help will be appreciated.

Thanks, Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 15:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey, neat article. I feel what you have is good, but there are some things you could do to make it even better.

  • You're relying mainly on two sources. Are there any others you could find? Having other critical commentaries, reviews, or sources that speak about the influnce the film had would be really useful. The article would benefit it was a bit more broad or had more material.
  • State who made each claim. There are claims in the article like "Sullivan was incorrect". Who said he was incorrect? It would be useful if you put that in the article so we can tell who said it. This also helps with Neutral Point Of View. I added some 'who?' templates to try and help point out areas that could be improved.
  • The article says the film was controversial. Can we clarify who thought so? Why was it controversial? What did people do about it?
  • The 'Synopsis' section seems like it is just stating everything that happened in the film. Is that accurate? How long is the film? I feel like the article would be better served if it had a shorter synopsis, and didn't list everything line by line. Maybe take a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot for tips.
  • The article says "The scheme also funded an earlier Foldes' animation entitled Animated Genesis about a society which is under threat from a tyrant." By 'scheme' does it mean the 'British Film Institute's Experimental Film Fund'? I'm not clear on how this sentence is relevant or related to the film or article. Is it possible to clarify?

Hope that helps. Happy writing! --Culix (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because while it is a page I made a while ago, as someone who's learning the basics of editing, an assessment would be helpful in understanding how to create better articles going forward

Thanks, TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, nice work :) I think you have a good article. It gives a good broad overview, is clear, and seems well referenced.
A few suggestions:
  • It is helpful if you can show how an idea in one sentence flows into the next. For example, "He did A, which lead to B". In the 'Early life' section it says his father resigned, but then is suddenly "In Kolkata". Did the resignation cause them to move? It would help the reader follow the flow if you could join things like this together.
  • Try to provide context for someone unfamiliar. In the lead section it says "His next film Shab was released in 2017, starring Raveena Tandon". Is this notable? If so, how? I don't know who Raveena Tandon is, so I'm not sure if this is important. If it is, it's useful if the article can explain why.
  • Explain acronyms the first time they are used. For example, 'SFB/TTC'. What are these? It is helpful if you can spell it out.
  • Splitting long sections into paragraphs can make it easier to understand.
  • It is okay to re-use references. You can use a reference for an in-line citation more than once. This makes it easy to see where a claim is cited, even in the middle of a sentence. For example: "The film was screened at over 40 international film festivals,". Great fact! We could put a reference citation right there, after the comma. That makes it easier to find. I added a few 'citation needed' templates to the article just to suggest where this could be done.
  • I would avoid putting references in the lead section. See if you can use them in the article, and then refer to them from the lead.
I found the top part of this article useful for improving some of my wiki writing as well.
I hope that helps! Nice work, and happy editing! --Culix (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much Culix (talk, this is really helpful. Hopefully this means to more & more improved articles going forward. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wild Side Story

I've listed this article for peer review because of the reasons given at Talk:Wild Side Story#Creator requests action and at the kind suggestion of a neutral editor there.

Thanks, SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be patrolled to appear on search engines. Per SmartSE´s comments, I´ve added citations, published references and improved the neutral tone of the article. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Music (talkcontribs) February 26, 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the article had a deletion debate and was deleted? Do you think you can find sources to pass the notability criteria? --Culix (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Devil Without a Cause

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how close it is to being featured.

Thanks, TheRealBoognish (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks well cited, but still ugly. There are many one-liners that don't qualify as actual paragraphs. The songs don't need individual enter buttons pressed after you talk about them - depending on how much content you have, you could put two or three of them in a paragraph. In fact, it happens pretty much everywhere in the article; it's the biggest problem. Integrate these into paragraphs - they fit fine. Kid Rock's biography has a lot of the same problem - well cited, poorly formatted.
All your references need formatted consistently - the reference (is that reliable?) is missing accessdate at least, and ideally should have an author and date posted as well - but it's alright if it isn't available. I would also recommend being much more specific about the albums success and promotion - were there any tours that helped promote this? Any incidents that occurred during those times? And 2002 isn't a fifteen year anniversary celebration, I believe that's a 2012 typo. The credits overlink everyone, once is enough. That's all for now. I'd recommend heading to GA before FA, but your choice. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Everyday life

Cypriot football clubs in European competitions

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it as good article.

Thanks, Xaris333 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Kerala Blasters FC

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually get this page up to featured article status and I want to see what I need to add or what I need to improve to get that to happen. The page has already gotten up to GA status but I know FA is something else entirely. Cheers! ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pokémon Go

I've listed this article for peer review because… it’s been quite some time and the article is quite long, so some degree of quality control would be required to trim off excess detail. Also, a GAN might be appropriate soon.

Thanks, Juxlos (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 29 January 2018, 12:53 UTC
Last edit: 14 April 2018, 11:50 UTC

Engineering and technology

Planar transmission line

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 May 2018, 10:01 UTC
Last edit: 23 May 2018, 11:49 UTC

Building performance simulation

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is now beyond Start class. Recommendations for improvements are very welcome. Thanks, Daniel.ruepp (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

PC Perspective

This is a new article about the PC Perspective technology news and reviews website. I have tried to construct it in the same style as comparable articles such as Ars Technica, Anandtech, and The Tech Report. I would appreciate some outside feed back.

Thanks, Dbsseven (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because…

many modification/improvement was done.

Thanks, Cafeduke (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)



I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to ensure there is no apparent bias written in the entry that I wrote on this company

Thanks, Johnnyb2963 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Maureen Baginski

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback and for it be graded on the Wikipedia scale.

Thanks, DZI (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

St Donat's Castle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 29 March 2018, 18:28 UTC
Last edit: 29 April 2018, 11:23 UTC

Schweiz am Sonntag

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a constructive outlook on ways to potentially improve the article.

Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Hoult

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 16 April 2018, 15:20 UTC
Last edit: 10 May 2018, 07:11 UTC

Hoosier cabinet

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article. Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is a very interesting article. I learned something! I have a little passing advice, but not a full review.

  • Maybe turn the list in the other manufacturers section into a table.
    • Can do, but I think they are ugly. I'll see what others say. It seems like Wikipedia does not like bullet points and prefers tables. TwoScars (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Review WP:IMAGE and make sure you are following all the image guidelines. Remove the forced image size, add alt text, etc.
    • All images are from before 1923 except the first and last. As someone with not-so-good vision, I prefer large images. However, I removed forced image sizes. TwoScars (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe use Template:Inflation for any references to money, this will help the article age better.
    • Using it now. I learned something—did not know about that template. Hopefully readers are smart enough to know that the cabinet market has differing supply/demand from other things. TwoScars (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Referencing is excellent.
  • The prose and referencing is pretty good. I think you could get through a GA review pretty easily.
  • I did not perform any fact checking

Cheers —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Reciprocal IVF

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article.

Thanks, Alliemallie (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Free Rider HD

I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of my first articles (the second one to be exact) and I would like to know if it is well written, how much it will take for it to deserve a GA nomination and any advice to improve it.

Thanks, Gidev the Dood(Talk) 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • It's far too short to be GA. Each section is only a couple of sentences long. I would expect it to be far more broad and comprehensive than it currently is. I suggest taking a look at some other recently promoted GA articles to see the depth of coverage expected. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Haruka Tomatsu

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of bringing it up to Good Article status. I've written or contributed to articles on singers before, and have brought some to GA status. However, this article is about an entertainer whose primary job is voice acting as opposed to singing (although she also has a music career). What else can I do with this article so it can be brought to Good Article status?

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Geography and places

Lago di Bientina

I've listed this article for peer review because although I have put a lot of work into it over the last few days, I know it can be better.

It started out as one uncited sentence, and is now a good length, cited, and detailed, but far from complete.

I'm specifically looking for prose and readability suggestions as well as help with the difficulties of citing mostly Italian-language sources on English Wikipedia.

Thanks, Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 April 2018, 15:37 UTC
Last edit: 30 April 2018, 10:43 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a lot of edits to this page in the past five/six months since Asian Month 2017, and I would like to see if I'm making a positive improvement. I would appreciate all types of feedback from the general (overall layout) to the specific (specific claims and links). In the course of the coming several years, I hope to raise the quality of this article from C-class to B-class.

Thanks, Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Ganesha811

I think you have done a very impressive job! I have little specific criticism, but nice work! You are certainly making a positive improvement. I'd say it's B-class already, but that's not my call. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

North Cascades National Park

Seeking advice as to if this article is comprehensive enough and covers the topics of the subject adequately. Please post any suggestions even if they seem trivial. I appreciate any and all feedback.

Thanks, MONGO 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mapreader

I thought this was an interesting and well written article. It is certainly comprehensive, if anything heading for too much rather than too little information. Some specific comments:

  • The lead seems a little long; the second and third paras contain detail that doesn't need lifting into the lead.
  • The MoS abbreviation is US not U.S.
    • Went and changed these and think all are now fixed. A few I changed to United States to comply with MoS as well.
  • In an article about National Park I would expect to read about the natural geography, flora etc. before the human history; might be worth reviewing the section order? I'd do Geography/Geology, then Climate, then the other physical sections, flora and fauna, with human at the end (history then foundation then recreation)
    • All valid points and I have considered this issue myself. Previous National Park articles I have brought to Featured Article level follow this format here almost identically and the one at for instance Grand Teton National Park is very very long. I do feel that the sections on fauna and a few others could be expanded and perhaps the history reduced.
On section order, I was sharing my own views. But, having dug about a bit, it seems the WP consensus is to deal with human history first in articles about places. You might want to check any US-specific guides, but nevertheless ignore my comments about section order as they don't appear to reflect consensus. My personal view is that it makes more sense for geography to come first, especially for a national park, but there we are. The history section however does unbalance the article because of its length and detail, in comparison to other sections.MapReader (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is BP a recognised abbreviation?
    • Good catch! Changed to BCE.
if BP was intended to be 'before present', you can't just change it to BCE?
Thank you. Since the paragraph was contradicting itself to adjust to the newest evidence I have removed that sentence entirely.
  • The human history section is very detailed for a National Park article with material of wider relevance to the sub-region, not just the park. Doesn't some of it belong in an article about the history of the state? Currently the length and detail unbalances this article.
    • I think some of the history can be trimmed. Right now roughly a quarter of the article is about human history.
  • The geography, geology, mountains, glaciers etc. sections are concise and well-written. Perhaps some of the longer paragraphs could usefully be split to improve readability.
  • At a scan, referencing appears very comprehensive indeed. I didn't do any checking of refs.
    • The most recent robo-check I did the urls all came back as working.
  • The fire section is lengthy and I am not sure how much value it is adding. A sentence referring to the impact of fire on the landscape/vegetation and another in the human history section is probably all the article really needs.

MapReader (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

    • I am most appreciative of your comments here! Only through the wise input of persons such as you can this article be as good as possible. I will continue to look into each of the matters you have mentioned!--MONGO 14:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


I am planning to work on achieving FA status for this article, and I am most interested in how to improve the "Politics", "Economy" and "Culture" sections. I would like to see what is right with the article and what is wrong with it so I can improve it. I am also interested on whether the lead is okay, or how it can be improved. In general suggestions on improving the article as a whole are welcome, even if they are not related to the sections I mentioned. I have never done this before so I might have done something wrong... Sorry if that's the case!

Thanks, Bidezko (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m just another editor and have no real authority here, but from what I can tell, it looks pretty good. As for the three sections you mentioned, perhaps a merger of the Demographics and the Culture sections and maybe adding an Infobox/table displaying the important statistics for the Economy section. The only thing I can see for the Politics section is maybe including more references and content from the original article, but that’s just my opinion. Other than that, it looks great and I’m proud to support your nomination. This is my first time in the peer-review process too, so forgive me if I did anything wrong. -User:Учхљёная (talk,philosophy,edits). 20:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


St. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam

I've listed this article for peer review because significant additions have been made to the page.

Thanks, Rob Sherratt (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Alte Brücke (Frankfurt)


I have recently translated this featured German article, but I'm not a native English speaker. Some typos have already been corrected by another user with AWB, but grammatical problems might remain. There are two yet-untranslated quotes at the end of the article, which should preferably be translated by someone whose first language is English. After peer review, I would like to attempt including this article as a "Did you know?" on the Main Page. A possible DYK sentence might be Did you know that the "Alte Brücke" ("old bridge") in Frankfurt has been reconstructed at least 18 times and destroyed by German soldiers?

Thank you very much in advance. Face-smile.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Tokyo subway sarin attack

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've expanded the abstract and added significant amounts of previous missing and relevant information - mostly pertaining to the background of the attack, and which now answer questions which came to mind during my first reading (such as 'how did Aum acquire sarin, a dangerous nerve agent? Why did they choose to pursue sarin?' etc). I believe this has made the article sufficiently broad while not drifting from the topic itself.

This is the first article i've made significant contributions to, so i'd like any information to improve the article such that it can be considered of the highest quality. Thanks, Fouriels (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Each paragraph should have at least one supporting citation
  • "With the intention of building a compound incorporating facilities such as a phosgene plant (as well as facilities to manufacture VX and chlorine gas, Aum Shinrikyo used 14 dummy companies to purchase acres of land in Namino (now part of Aso city), and began construction" - grammar
  • All book citations should generally include page numbers
  • Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs
  • Suggest scaling up the maps, and each should include on its image description page an explanation of the data sources supporting them

Guillem d'Areny-Plandolit

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first complete article I've written. It's a completely random subject to me, since I have absolutely no connection to the subject matter. I stumbled upon a red link in an imagebox in the Andorra article and one thing led to another. I have tried to stay as close to Wikipedia's article guidelines as possible. What can be improved?

Thanks, --Jay D'Easy (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Suggest expanding the lead to more completely summarize the article
  • Is any information available about the last 10 years of the subject's life? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

HMS Sultan (1775)

I've listed this article for peer review because… Considering taking this to WP:GAN and perhaps even beyond. I'm usually lambasted for my prose and "wordiness" so any pointers there will be useful but any general advice will also be most welcome. Thanks, Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


  • "Honours and awards" isn't typically used to simply list battles - also looks a bit odd that some include dates and others don't
    I agree, "Honours and awards" is an odd place for them but it did appear to be the style when I checked HMS Victory, HMS Triumph (1764), HMS Leviathan (1790). However HMS Agamemnon (1781), a Good Article, has the battles listed under notes, and HMS Bellerophon (1786) and HMS Temeraire (1798), both Featured Articles, don't list them at all. I have listed them under 'Notes', as per Agamemnon but I'll be just as happy to delete them altogether. The dates were given where disambiguation was required but I have added the years for the other battles.--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest unpiping "war in America"
    Not arguing, just wondering why. Do you think it is obvious enough to not be linked or is this to do with WP:Easter egg? I'm unsure whether you want me to remove the link, change the wording, or link elsewhere in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    American Revolutionary War is fine to link and clearer, as that wasn't the only war to happen in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Three of 74-guns" -> "Three 74-guns"
    "Three 74-guns" didn't sound quite right to me. What about "Three 74s"?--Ykraps (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Beam measurement is inconsistent between text and infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    Much of the infobox was inherited and to tell the truth, I didn't check for inconsistencies. I don't have Lavery's book so can't comment but Winfield definitely says 46' 11". I have changed measurements in info box and removed reference to Lavery.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Parliament of 1327

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 25 March 2018, 17:58 UTC
Last edit: 20 May 2018, 19:09 UTC

Arthur Frederick Bettinson

I've listed this article for peer review because… This is the first substantial article I have made. Any general tips and constructive criticism would be welcome to improve this article as much as possible. Thanks, Okeeffemarc (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


  • Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs
  • You might consider asking the Guild to take a look through the article
  • Quotations shouldn't be italicized as a rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Pylos Combat Agate

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this article to receive a grade and to learn how this article may be improved.

Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for bumping, but this peer review has been open since mid-March without responses; perhaps I should have put it under the arts section instead of the history section? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Update/comment - The article has been assessed and given a C class rating, so I am now wondering what steps can be taken to meet all B class criteria or higher. Thanks! Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to upgrade it to Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


    • Nikkimaria—thank you for looking over this. TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Missing bibliographic details for McClure 1879
    • Fixed -- easier to use another reference. TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • See also should go before references
  • File:West_Virginia_Civil_War_Medal.png: since this is a 3D work, should include a copyright tag for the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Help! I am ignorant of what needs to be done here. I changed the description to "This medal, which belonged to a relative of mine, is the West Virginia Class I "Honorably Discharged" medal given to West Virginia Union soldiers in 1866 in appreciation of their service in the American Civil War. The artist listed as the main person responsible for the medal's design is J. Sigel. The West Virginia Division of Culture and History has more background on these medals." The medal belongs to me, and I took the picture. My relative probably received it in 1866. Should the date be changed to 1866?
    • I think I fixed it. TwoScars (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: This is a fine article, IMO, well done. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

    • Thanks for looking it over. TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • link "Medal of Honor" on first mention
    • Fixed. Wikilinked in Monterey Pass section. TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Final muster out section, I suggest mentioning whether or not the regiment is perpetuated by any later units
  • Citation # 2, "UNION WEST VIRGINIA VOLUNTEERS" should be "Union West Virginia Volunteers" per MOS:ALLCAPS
    • Fixed. As info, the web page has it in all caps. TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • same as above for Citation # 154
  • in the References: "A guidebook to Virginia's historical markers" should use title case capitalization
    • Fixed. Also same treatment to Farrar and Spicher. TwoScars (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • the article could probably be added to the following categories: Category:Military units and formations established in 1861 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1865
  • there are a few overlinked terms, for instance: Henry Capehart; Berryville, Virginia; J. E. B. Stuart; Wheeling Island; Richmond in the American Civil War; Wesley Merritt;
    • Fixed Henry Capehart. Will get to others tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed the others. TwoScars (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • the grammar here isn't quite right: Private Daniel A. Woods, of Company K, received his medal for "Capture of flag..
    • Reworded and dropped extra quote for Houlton. TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

New Albion

I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to improve a troubled article that has been the point of past problems. I know a bit of the topic and would like to see it become a featured article to which I've compared it according to FA criteria and other actual featured articles. What are immediate needs, large and small, experienced editors see? What are the next steps toward the FA designation?

Thanks, Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

  • The sources could use some work:
    • source 3:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (2 with; 1 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
    • Source 28:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (2 with; 2 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
    • Source 29:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 2 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
    • Source 39:Missing ISBN
    • Source 45:Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
    • Source 4:Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
    • Source 48:Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
    • Source 53:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
    • Source 57:Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
    • Source 68:Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs {{orin-year}}
    • Source 69:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
    • Source 79:Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs {{orin-year}}
    • Source 80:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (9 with; 7 without); Missing ISBN
    • Source 85:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
    • Source 86: nconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 8 without); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN
    • Source 99:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 9 without); Missing ISBN
    • Source 104:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 10 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
    • Source 107:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 11 without); Missing ISBN
    • Source 110:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 12 without)
    • Source 117:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
    • Source 123:Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
    • Source 127:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (12 with; 13 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
  • As far as prose goes:
    • Per WP:LEADCITE, the citations in the lede are not required, and some will advocate removal of them in their entirety.
    • Should you hope to improve this article further, every statement must be sourced (so, at a minimum one source per paragraph).
Thanks@Eddie891I will see what I can do. And that was very special editing you did to the article. I had no idea about the spacing problem you fixed.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891-- finally messed around with the lead and background for reducing the citations. Will try to get around to fooling with the work on the sources.Pcvjamaica (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Kate Sheppard

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 2 February 2018, 18:22 UTC
Last edit: 22 March 2018, 21:06 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics


I've been working on this article for quite a while and am very interested in eventually getting it to FA status, which honestly seems like quite a daunting task from all the pages and advice manuals I've seen related to FAC-related issues, which is understantable, given that Featured articles are supposed to be the most exemplary work on the wiki. Anyways, one of the recommendations before nominating an article for FAC I've seen is bringing it to peer review. as for the rest of the FA criteria I think it should be fine, but its the first requirement I'm really worried about, "making the writing engaging and of a professional standard". Help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 05:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • One way to improve writing, which I usually do, is to send an article to WP:GOCE/REQ for a copy edit.
  • You might also want to write a bit more about the significance of the spinosaur snout shape (as the genus is only known from a snout anyway), what it indicates for behaviour, having a "rosette" similar to gharials, the significance of having conical teeth, retracted nostrils, etc. This[1] source goes into that, but you should probably also look in one of your review sources. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done, I'm not sure if the nostril info is necessary, as the fossil snout does not include them.
Looks good,you might want to place the behavioural/functional info under paleoecology. Description is just for physical description, not function. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done, I also overhauled the Palaeoecology section, I think this should look and flow much better now, additional info from Medeiros et al (2014) was also added. Couple other fixes done as well and a new image. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 00:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Nice, perhaps use a les "intrusive" gharial image (it's going right down to the refs), I've used this one before:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done, I went with this[3] image, since the other one is already used in the Baryonyx article and it's good to have some variety. Adds a nice bit of color to the article as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For FAC, citation consistency is very important. Now some of your sources abbreviate author names, some don't, and some use all caps. Journal articles should generally not have capitalised titles, only books, but you use a mix of styles now.
Being worked on
  • Dinosaur articles this short have never been at FAC before, but it should be possible. I might recommend trying with a longer spinosaur genus article, though, such as Irritator you mentioned yourself, or Suchomimus. The FAs about the most fragmentary dinosaur genera we have are Dromaeosauroides and Paranthodon, which you could look at for how to flesh out the text. And of course take a look at Baryonyx, the only spinosaur FA so far. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, those are actually the ones I've been using as examples so far, but thanks anyways! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Myliobatis goodei

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This is one of the few articles I've created that I've been able to find a substantial amount of information about. I really would like to improve this article in any way possible, so it could be nice to have some suggestions as to how the article can be improved. If one thinks that it may be able to be upgraded to C class, please do so. Otherwise, I welcome any way that I could make the article more appealing to readers. As for adding actual content, I've looked everywhere and I have added everything I could that came from a reliable source to the article.

Thanks so much! SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Bayesian model reduction

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first contribution and any feedback is welcome.

Thanks, Peter. Peterzlondon (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Tasmanian whitebait

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it based on the available reference material from a stub and would seek guidance on where the article sits on the Wikipedia quality scale.

Thanks, Nick Thorne talk 13:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Astronomical symbols

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it as a featured list candidate. I would appreciate any feedback, particularly suggestions for any changes needed to meet the requirements for a featured list.

Thanks, W559 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Rubidium azide

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that this article is as good as possible, and because I would like someone other than me to make sure of that.

Thanks, WhittleMario (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Diagnosis of schizophrenia

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently made some major updates, adding sections and reorganizing information, and would like some comments on what works and what doesn't. Also I would like suggestions on how to continue improving and if something important is missing.

Thanks, Diogo.v (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Diogo.v: here are my thoughts:
  • First rank symptoms table is titled 'First rank symptoms for schizophrenia' which led me to the impression that it may list first rank symptoms, it however listed the summary of accuracy of diagnosis using first rank symptoms. Possibly change title to reflect this?
  • Is it possible to list the ICD-10 and DSM-5 criteria under Criteria sub-section?
  • Is it necessary to add the sentence for the definition of a biomarker. Why not just wikilink to biomarker article and let users go there for more information?
Waddie96 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Radio Galaxy Zoo

I've listed this new article for peer review as it has been given a 'C' class and could do with improvement.

Thanks, Richard Nowell (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Near-Earth object

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I did a lot of work improving this article, adding content on every relevant aspect, checking every source and adding several new ones, and taking into account every MoS rule I'm aware of. Still, as my last involvement in a Featured Article nomination was years ago, I wonder whether I missed any significant aspect.

Thanks, Rontombontom (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to provide a few thoughts and have requested further comments from someone more versed in the science of this subject than I. This seems like an important and interesting topic that should be a Featured Article at some point soon. If I have mentioned something that has already been addressed I apologize.

  • I added the Feature article tools template to the article talkpage, its helpful for checking various issues. Checking the external links a few are weak and one or more may not be functioning properly, but none look dead. Please check again before submitting this to FAC. I ran citation bot and it did a few minor corrections [4].
  • Make sure spelling and word structure follows either American or British English standards consistently. I see a couple examples of where this may not be uniform.
  • In articles I have worked on regarding science, metric measurements should be prominent with Imperial units secondary. Seek uniformity on this matter if this has not been followed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Units of measurement for further guidance.
  • Units of measurement should be followed by a non-breaking space, written as   Prefer if convert template is used as this makes it unnecessary in most instances. See Template:Convert.
  • Watch for Overlinking I see Asteroid is linked twice in the introduction alone. I think the rule is links can appear once in the introduction and one more time in the body of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
  • Consider changing section 3.1 from Near-Earth asteroids to simply Asteroids and 3.3 Near-Earth comets to Comets to avoid repeating the article title in the headings and subheadings. Also, a reconsideration of the name of the sections titled "Risk" might be needed.

The lead looks good but make sure it does not discuss material not included in the article and just gives a brief overview; it appears to be following this convention. If taken to FAC ping me and I'll be glad to help with any copyediting issues that might come up.--MONGO 13:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • it's about the method with the most cited paper by a single author in the world.
  • i believe it's a decent and comprehensive article (don't know a better one on the subject, but i may have overlooked some of the myriad references ;)
  • probably there might be some language and comprehensibility issues, where i might need your help.
  • if you have suggestions on what's missing, i'd be more than happy.

Thanks, Ghilt (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You should request GA status first, it makes easier to get through peer review and then go to FAC. Mdob (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, i didn't necessarily seek an article status so far, merely a review to improve the article, so should i still go there? Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have been the main editor for this article, it is a subject close to me as I am a patient with the condition.

I would like an experienced editor to look at the article to see how it reads to somebody new to the condition. I would like to raise the standard of the article as high as possible and would welcome any suggestions for improvement. I have followed the rules for medical related articles the best I can and have tried to use current review articles whenever possible. Since Kallmann syndrome is a rare condition the number of review articles available are limited. Thanks, Neilsmith38 (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ubedjunejo

Thank you for your input.
  • This source says "When associated with anosmia or hyposmia, CHH is termed Kallmann syndrome...". In my opinion, material describing this in the lead should be in the first paragraph. Something like this: Kallmann syndrome (KS) is a genetic disorder that prevents a person from starting or fully completing puberty. It is a form of a group of conditions termed hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Kallmann syndrome has an additional symptom of a total lack of sense of smell or a reduced sense of sense of smell which distinguishes it from other forms of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.

  • The statement The condition is more commonly diagnosed in males than in females should precede mention of Finnish study. Otherwise it is redundant.

  • If possible, a secondary source, possibly in English, can be given for discovery of link between anosmia and hypogonadism by Spanish doctor, as it will be easier to verify.
Will try to find a English reference for this.
Fixed, I think.

  • Table of responsible genes is quite complicated and technical. As a non-specialist in the field, I couldn't understand much. I'm not sure if it should be included.
I am considering whether to have a separate article just for "Genetics of GnRH deficiency" to list the table and cut this down to a few more readable sentences.

  • The article needs significant copy editing effort. I have added a tag on the article.
I have not noticed many spelling mistakes on the article. Most of the article has been developed over the years with editing from different people. Do you have examples ?
I have done some fixes in the lead section. You can have a look in history. Similar instances can be found in other sections. Thanks --ubedjunejo (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Section on history of the condition needs to be moved up. It should be first section, just after the lead.
I am following the suggested layout in the Manual of Style for Medicine related articles. The "History" section is supposed to be near the end of the article unless the disorder is now only of historical interest, when it is then moved higher up.
You are right. Sorry, my mistake.

Regards. ubedjunejo (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It obviously needs a photo

Neil, could you put a picture of a person with more than 21 years on the article? Since you have the condition, I was thinking maybe you could upload your own picture to Commons. Mdob (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 January 2018, 21:41 UTC
Last edit: 9 February 2018, 16:28 UTC


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 January 2018, 03:28 UTC
Last edit: 23 May 2018, 16:17 UTC

Language and literature

Sex (book)

I've listed this article for peer review because, although this is a Good article, I see this with the potential to become a featured article someday. However, prose and some pruning might be needed as when it was written the content was getting added on and on. Would need someone with a comb to weed out the unnecessary content and make it FA worthy as much as possible. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Annales (Ennius)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA one day. Right now, it does not have a comprehensive lead section, and the "Reception" section is also a bit lacking, but I would like to see what other editors think about the main content (i.e. those sections discussing the poem and its style).

I created this article several years ago, and have been working on it sporadically since then. Any comments/constructive criticisms/ideas would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Emilia Lanier

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make this article the best it can be. I was wondering specifically if you all noticed any style issues or irrelevant information. I'm considering cutting back the Dark Lady theory section because I think it distracts from Lanier herself.

Thanks, CarefulCatBird (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Meniń Qazaqstanym

I've listed this article for peer review because…
it seems like a relatively good article with significant amounts of information; I would like to see if there is any way that we could improve it. Also requesting because it is currently listed as a Stub-Class article, of which it is no longer, and I couldn’t find any other way to change that.

Thanks, User:Учхљёная (talk,philosophy,edits). 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Mary Pope Osborne

I've listed this article for peer review because when I came across it is was a complete mess. I suspect large parts of it were written by a paid editor given that it read like an advertisement. The article was also largely without citations. I have gone through and tried to cite what I thought was necessary and remove the PR language. Given the amount of time I've spent on this article I'm hoping to eventually have it become a Good Article. I would love any thoughts about it.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

Presbyterian Church in the United States of America

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 10 February 2018, 18:07 UTC
Last edit: 6 April 2018, 17:36 UTC

Social sciences and society

Great Britain and the Iraqi oil industry

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is comprehensive enough in its scope or if it leaves serious researchers and students wanting more. Are there further topics, or issues that should be addressed?

Thanks, D.Thompson (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Foreign aid for gender equality in Jordan

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can make it complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. Thus I want to know if the article provides a complete picture of how the field of "gender equality" funding in Jordan is being addressed as well as connects to the broader picture of development aid in Jordan.

Thanks, D.Thompson (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Prison education

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 21 March 2018, 13:21 UTC
Last edit: 22 May 2018, 01:51 UTC

Bolivarian diaspora

I would like to determine the quality and grading of this article since the topic at hand, the Bolivarian diaspora, is becoming more prominent in international media. Any suggestions would be welcome as well.

Thanks, --ZiaLater (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made a couple of slight changes and will probably continue to do so over time. For starters, I added a Venezuela topics navigation template and moved both navigation templates to the bottom of the article, below the reference list, to be more in tune with the manual of style (and because I think it looks better).
Also, I also expanded the See also section to include links to relevant articles (which are already linked to in the article itself) for a better overview.
Finally, I removed the Europe section and Spain subsection from the Destinations section entirely, because it contained no text and was just an ugly floating header.
It's a good article all in all, but a bit big perhaps, which can make it seem daunting. It doesn't look inviting to read. I personally think the article would benefit from being condensed. Come to think of it, I think it might be better in general for all of the articles on the subject of the current political situation in Venezuela to be condensed, with a possible merger or two. I'm curious about your thoughts on this. --Jay D'Easy (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jay D'Easy: What do you think should be condensed? 75,000 bytes does not seem too large, but I'd like to see what you think.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ammar Campa-Najjar

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new article I wrote about an American politician. I am not an expert on his life, and have written the article based on newspaper articles and other online sources. It could use expansion, further documentation from reliable sources, and possibly formatting changes, photographs, links to and from other Wikipedia articles, and etc.

Thanks, B P G PhD (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian hospital

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a timely topic, with a new lawsuit, lots of news coverage, several books being published, and much reference to similar topics in Canadian history and Indigenous relations, notably the Canadian Indian residential schools article and the Sixties Scoop. I'm looking for feedback, suggestions for expansion, and help getting it assessed and rated under a number of relevant WikiProjects.

Thanks, Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lèse majesté in Thailand

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 January 2018, 09:34 UTC
Last edit: 26 April 2018, 22:27 UTC


9th Mirchi Music Awards

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a feature list.

Thanks, Vivek Ray (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews