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

Wikipedia:Peer review

MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
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 editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors 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 editors requesting feedback may also request subject-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 expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Editors are limited to requesting one review at any one 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 comments are acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Contents

Arts

Rossa Matilda Richter

I've done quite a bit of work to this page over the last couple weeks. It's currently at GAN, but I'd like to continue to improve it after that for possible FAC (unless more experienced editors advise against it), hence adding it here as well. The reason is that, after reviewing a whole lot of sources, I feel like at this point, this article has the potential to be the best overall biography of the subject out there.

It's unlike most other topics I've worked on in that few of the sources are recent. Many or most are from the late 1800s and early 1900s. I've found quite a few, and there are going to be more if I gain access to other archives, but the additional sources I'm finding are increasingly redundant such that I think it only makes sense to look for more in order to hunt down missing biographical details.

About those biographical details. The most glaring omission is that I've not been able to track down an obituary or even a cause of death. Just the year. Details are increasingly sketchy after a major accident ended her career.

A particular question I have is how best to handle the "Image and legacy" section. I had previously had a series of sections akin to "career," a section about her many accidents, and this section. I've since folded accidents into the rest of the narrative, since it just seemed like better writing. "Image and legacy" is a little clumsy there at the end, but I worry that adding the more recent scholarship involving her (that which generally takes a feminist perspective, for example), into the rest of the article, may be more awkward. Anyway, looking forward to feedback about this or anything else. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Meaning of Life (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it for a good article consideration.

Thanks, Chihciboy (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Antichrist Superstar

I've listed this article for peer review because it was promoted to GA last year, and I've worked on it quite a bit more since then. I believe it has a decent shot of making FA, and would appreciate any advice.

Thanks, Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Aja (song)

This article's path here is atypical for my requests. I had always meant to bring it here, but in early 2016, a year after I created it and brought it to DYK, someone else nominated it for GA. Perhaps because I hadn't had the chance to do all the prep I usually do, it wound up failing.

I incorporated the suggestions from that review, though, and did my own copy edit before this. Fortunately, that helped me uncover some new information to add, from the album's 40th anniversary last fall. With a good peer review I think I can take it to GAN again and pass this time.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed some deprecated/inapplicable infobox parameters (easier than listing here). Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 31 July 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)


Michael Jackson singles discography

I've listed this article for peer review because i think that this article has Featured List potential. The list is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other FL of singles discography (Madonna's for example). I think that Michael Jackson singles discography meets the FL criteria. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions to help/improve the article, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


Over the Edge (Kayzo and Gammer song)

I've listed this article for peer review because after having one of my articles promoted to a good article, I have decided to rework most other articles I've created to the best to my ability. I am using this article as a baseline to compare and judge the other articles with and having it reviewed would help me greatly.

Thanks, Micro (Talk) 11:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


Deep Space Homer

I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed FAC. Issues addressed in the FAC include not enough sourcing from books and in general. Another issue is failure to meet 1b. of the FAC criteria (i.e. comprehensive). I had generally some support but some users sent a long message of issues and wrote out paragraphs on why it fails FAC. I would very much appreciate help on this article to ensure I can get a successful second FAC.

Thanks, AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


Rx (Medicate)

Previous peer review

Another request for a peer review of this article; there was no feedback given on the first request. Nominated for peer review to make this GA even better and possibly take it do FA in the future. Please take a minute to leave some constructive criticism and feel free to hit me up if you need something reviewed or commented on. Thank you in advance. Your input is greatly appreciated. Happy editing! — Miss Sarita 19:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


Chinese Democracy

I've listed this article for peer review because: I have worked significantly on the article and want to expand it to good article standing, or possibly feature article in the future. Thanks, RF23 (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


The Rolling Stones

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 21 June 2018, 15:58 UTC
Last edit: 3 August 2018, 06:06 UTC


Toy Story

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to make sure that the article is in good quality. I want to nominate it for featured article, so I have to do this first.

Thanks, Jennete76 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Source Review

Sources 79 and 128 are dead. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


Edge (video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wanted to see what I'm missing before I submit this for GAN. Thanks, Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Passing comment: the gameplay section needs more sources. JOEBRO64 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The review scores should be pulled out of prose and placed into a review table. See Template:Video game reviews for help on putting it together. I'd recommend creating a multi-platform table. TarkusABtalk 12:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


Exo (band)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm currently trying to get it to GA status. It's been nominated, but hasn't been touched in almost 2 weeks and will likely take a long time, so I'd like to use this time to get it as ready as possible.

The areas I think that need review are the writing style and maintaining a neutral point of view.

Thanks, NicklausAU (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't do this per Step 4 of the PR instructions. This is, however, probably the result of me being just a little too ambiguous by saying "nominating the article for review" - I apologize for that. What I meant was when the review came, well obviously, you'd get that without even asking for it. That's what GA reviews are, after all, right? Face-tongue.svg Sorry to have caused trouble. dannymusiceditor oops 04:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


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)

A quick, drive-by observation. Why is it written as lots of, very short, paragraphs, often only comprising a sentence or two? I would suggest it be redrafted as longer paragraphs of continuous prose. KJP1 (talk) 10:18, 14 July 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)


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)


Hey I think you have a solid overview and article.

Do you want to add an audio clip of the song? I see that some other Featured Articles in WikiProject Songs use audio clips.

The Background and composition section would read more smoothly if we could connect the sentences and ideas together. It seems a bit disjointed. Maybe we can add a link between sentences with words like "Despite its success, Coppola disliked the song..."? Does Coppola give a reason for sampling "Sunshine Superman"? Could that be worked into the article?

I see the article is linked to five WikiProjects. Would it be worth posting on them asking for feedback as well? You might find someone who is more familiar with music articles.

Overall it seems fairly well cited. --Culix (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Cool choice for a project. Here is what I notice from my first read:

  • References are typically discouraged in the infobox. All of the information cited there (i.e. the release date, the formats, the genre, and the length) should be located and referenced in the body of the article.
  • Make sure to link Imani Coppola on the first mention in the body of the article and use her full name.
  • The “Background and composition” section seems rather short. Is there any further critical commentary on the song’s lyrics, instrumental, or overall sound?
  • The same section should include information on the recording process (i.e. a prose version of the “Credits” section).
  • For the same section, you repeat “the song” a few times. I would add more variety.
  • For the “Track listing” section, move the reference right after “CD Single”.
  • The “Music video” section should be after the “Commercial performance” section.
  • ”Allmusic” should be “AllMusic”.
  • Could you expand on this sentence (Coppola disliked the song, calling it the worst song on Chupacabra)? Why did she dislike the song?
  • For this sentence (The song samples Donovan's "Sunshine Superman" extensively.), please link Donovan.
  • I do not believe the table in the “Accolades” section is really necessary as it can be conveyed in the prose and there are only three items.
  • I would combine this section with the “Critical reception” section, and move any information on the reception of the music video to the appropriate section.
  • Make sure that everything is linked where appropriate (such as Barenaked Ladies, Fastball). I would look through the entire article to check for this.
  • I would recommend a copy-edit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

Hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Megamusical

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)


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!


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)


Onir

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)


WizG

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 Biography.com 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

Kerala Blasters FC

Previous peer review

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) 19:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Its been almost 4 months now since the article listed as GA and end of their fourth season. But still have no section about their fourth season?.Wonder how it achieved GA status. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


Cristiano Ronaldo

Previous peer review

The edit war regarding the opening sentence is resolved, and Ronaldo has moved to Juventus, so when the edit requests have been attended to, and when the full protection status is lifted, it would be best for someone to do a peer review. Purijj (talk) 16:38, 30 July 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)


Engineering and technology

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

I've listed this article for peer review because… The article is really a one that someone should take pride on. However, when it was promoted to GA, some concerns were raised, e.g. that the plot section needs more citations and general prose needs to be improved. So, in that light, I am initiating this peer review for other editors to make suggestions to improve this article and potentially get it close to a Featured Article nomination.

Thanks, Abequinn14 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In general, plot sections do not need citations. Obviously, if it can be cited, it should, but it's not something that needs to be done. I'd request a formal copy-edit from WP:GOCE before we start. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I've made a request there for now. Abequinn14 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm the main editor of this article and brought it to GA a few years ago, and yeah, it would be really neat if we could get it to FA. I think the main issues are the reception section, which I think might need to be rewritten completely, and the gameplay section, which relies very heavily on the game's manual.--Alexandra IDVtalk 09:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, hey there. I think GOCE will do a lot of work, but for this peer review we can
Abequinn14 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Planar transmission line

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch 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: 7 June 2018, 23:04 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)


General

Nicholas Hoult

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch 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


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)
  • In addition to what The1337gamer has said, I suggest taking a look at WP:VG/RS. Of its 11 sources, I can probably count the reliable ones on one hand. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The subject barely (if at all) passes notability issues (see WP:GNG). Anarchyte's arguments about reliable sourcing is a good one. Pocket gamer is a reliable source, as is TouchArcade. These sources don't go into much detail about the game, so personally, it's hard to make a case of the notability. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Dust II

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what I can improve prior to nominating this article for FA.

Thanks, Zoom (talk page) 16:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Wow, this article sure has improved since the last time I looked at it! Here is a non-exhaustive list of comments:
    • Don't think the article needs this part of the quote: "In it's most basic form". Easier to just start out with the figure eight comparison.
    • The second paragraph is quite convoluted. I've played Dust 2 countless times and I got lost reading the summary.
    • "being" doesn't need to be in italics.
    • I made some changes to the prose. Hope these are fine. Felt it was unnecessary to mention them here and to just fix them myself.
    • I'm either not reading this part correctly or it's contradictory: "It was added to the map because of space limitations; there had been plans to make the area larger". If there are space limitations, why is it being made larger? What is being made larger?
    • Explain the Active Duty map pool. The article goes on to then call the pool the "competitive pool".
    • Is the quote from kio necessary? It's written in broken English and doesn't add anything as it's not juxtaposed to anyone.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!
  • I'll start with what I've changed.
    • I have removed "In it's most basic form".
    • I removed the italics in being.
    • Elaborated on the Active Duty Competitive Pool, explained in this edit. Also revised for consistency.
    • Tweaked explanation with the Long A development more comprehensive now.
  • Now my input on your comments:
    • I do think that the second paragraph of Design is hard to read, I'll probably have to start over and I'll get back to it.
    • I think the quote from kio is necessary, explaining why the removing of Dust II was logical. This follows ptr's comment with frustration of the removal of Dust II.
Thanks, again! Zoom (talk page) 18:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: When I rewrite the 2nd paragraph of Design, should I keep the details (such as explaining where places like cat, pit, lower tunnels, mid doors, etc. in relation to the other main choke points) or only mention the main choke points and spawns in order to make the summary more comprehensive? Also, should I use the minimap as a point of reference for explaining these locations on the map or no? Thanks! Zoom (talk page) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zzzoom: What do the sources say? Do they go in depth into each choke point or do they only mention the important ones? I don't think cat, lower tuns, mid doors, etc are too relevant unless you're using them very briefly to explain the layout of A/B. ALso, try to not make reference to images from the prose. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: Do you think that this will work as a replacement for the second paragraph? I cut down on some of the unnecessary locations and expanded on some of the main choke points themselves. Zoom (talk page) 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zzzoom: I prefer the existing one over the new one. The one in your sandbox is even more convoluted. Having read the existing one again, it's perhaps best we leave it as is until other people chime in. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Race to Alaska

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first article I've added any significant amount to, and I'd like to know whether or not my writing style and content meets the standards for wikipedia. Any advice on how to improve my additions would be lovely, and confirmation that this is unbiased enough of a write-up.

Thanks, Korinthos (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Korinthos, my initial thoughts are that the article is highly reliant on r2ak.com as a source. This is not ideal because that's the race organisers official website and therefore a primary source. You need to locate secondary sources with information about the topic to be able to improve the article. Frayæ 16:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Celtic F.C.

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because a couple other editors and I have been working to push this article into GA quality and I'd like an outside opinion on how to improve the article to that end.

Thanks, Seanstrain3001 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Drive-by comment for now, I'm afraid, but I'll look in again if I can.

  • Singular or plural?
    • The Celtic Football Club is a professional football club ... which plays
    • The club was founded
    • They played
    • Celtic established itself
    • The club enjoyed their
Tim riley talk 17:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment from KJP1

It's very well researched, and I would suggest it's a pretty easy contender for GA. There are some prose issues that could do with ironing out. Happy to either just action them directly in the article, or list them here for your consideration. Your call. KJP1 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


Participation of women in the Olympics

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA status. I'd appreciate any advice or improvements that could result in the article being ready to be nominated for, and become a GA.

Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Izzat Kutebar

Hello. This is the first PR I've done. I've agreed to get involved after I submitted one of my own articles to PR in the hope that it might have FL potential. Please give me some time to read this and I will them be able to provide some feedback. Let me know if you have any questions for me. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Initial survey

Well, I can provide some immediate feedback about section History of women at the Olympics which would not be acceptable at one of the GA or FA reviews. The two main problem areas are the sub-headings and the lack of paragraphing within the sub-sections.

The sub-headings have been done in several formats. They must all be level three headings (1900 is not) for consistency and they all need to be in format ccyy–ccyy where the dash is an endash and not a hyphen. For example, change 1972 - 1980 to 1972–1980. The full year must be given in every case because none of these date-spans are consecutive years. For example, change 1984–92 to 1984–1992.

In all the sub-sections, the text is in a single block paragraph which needs to broken up for readability. One of the worst cases is, again, 1984–92. As a first step, there should be a paragraph break whenever a new Olympiad commences (i.e., at 1988 and 1992). You should then consider paragraph breaks in each Olympiad depending on subject-matter and probably by winter and summer. Please be aware, though, that single sentence paragraphs are deprecated.

Another comment I have is about the images which sometimes disrupt the text by putting headings out of synch, especially the first three left-side ones (Cooper, Konopacka and Haase). Images need to be carefully place so that they enhance the narrative.

I think this is enough to be going on with for now because this all pretty basic. If you can make these improvements and let me know when you're ready, I'll be happy to continue. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 28 June 2018, 11:38 UTC
Last edit: 27 July 2018, 06:06 UTC


Full Sail University

Hello! I have been working with Full Sail University to propose improvements to the existing article. I've been upfront about my COI, and rather than editing the main space directly, I've been suggesting changes and updates on the article's talk page. To help get feedback to resolve the tags at the top of the article and look for other ways to improve content from the Wikipedia community's standpoint, I'd like to request a peer review.

A bit about what I've proposed so far, and has been done to update the page. First, a significant amount of unsourced content has been removed (see this edit request and this edit request). I've also proposed improvements to the "History" section, which has resulted in some edits but not all of the suggestions were accepted. (My first request was deemed too large, so I submitted a "sub request" focusing on a smaller chunk of content, and finally, I submitted a request to add mention of one of the school's former official names, and wording around some recognition received.)

At the moment there are 3 tags at the top of the article warning readers about neutrality (or lack thereof), promotional content, and problematic tone. Multiple times, I have asked the editor who added the tags to confirm if the banners are needed and if so, what changes need to be made in the article. To resolve them, I have offered the above-linked requests and stated my goal of resolving concerns and asked for feedback about what's needed to remove the tags. I've pinged multiple talk page participants for feedback, and requested help at WikiProjects Universities and Florida, but received little response.

I'm now requesting a peer review to invite any editors to please provide thoughts on how this article can be improved. Specifically, I'm hoping for some insight on how to address the tags, but I welcome any feedback for improving the article in general. If interested, editors are also invited to weigh in on any of the ongoing talk page discussions. I will be submitting a copy edit request from the Guild of Copy Editors, too, so hopefully that will fix some of the more minor errors so peer review participants can focus on the tags and any other problematic content. Thanks in advance for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sharing a quick update: The copy edit has been completed, and since requesting this peer review, two of the warning tags have been removed. One re: neutrality remains, so feedback there specifically would be helpful. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Psycho Killer (video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wrote this article today, and was wondering on what should be improved on. I was also wondering how close it is to WP:GA. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks, The Duke of NonsenseWhat is necessary for thee? 19:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Juvenal Juvêncio

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has potential to be a very good article. Juvenal Juvêncio is very important to the world of Brazilian soccer, and a well-done peer review would help to showcase that more directly. I would be eternally grateful.

Thanks, Jmanlucas (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 August 2018, 14:50 UTC
Last edit: 15 August 2018, 10:29 UTC


Geography and places

Hackney Central

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on making this article a good article nomination in the future. I'd like to know what you think needs to be improved until it can be a good article nomination so I can then create a to-do list for everyone.

Thanks, Jamesp88 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Mangalore

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because this article was once a Featured Article, was unlisted due to recentism. This can be a potential Wikipedia:Featured articles in future.

Thanks, CodePanda


Bradenton Riverwalk

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm at a bit of a struggle on what to add to this article and I would love input on any ideas. I do want to try to get this as a GA ultimately. Thanks, – TheGridExe (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


Birmingham

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article could, at this point, be nominated for featured article status. This article has been a good article for a very long time. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured but would like some other opinions.

Thanks, IWI (chat) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The first thing I notice that will have to be resolved to pass FA is that beginning with the "Government" section, many of the paragraphs end without a citation, whereas in order to satisfy FAC 1c, every statement must be backed by proper citations. I haven't probed it too deeply, but seeing as this article is pretty thoroughly sourced, I suspect most of the statements are supported by the citations at the end of the last paragraph in the section. Therefore, most of the work would be duplicating those sources where appropriate.
You may also want to consider rephrasing the lede sentence. The dependent clause "the second most populous" does not seem to grammatically correctly fit into the sentence (a period or semicolon would resolve this). Also, the dialect section should not be just one short sentence. It should either be expanded to a reasonable length by incorporating part of the article to which it links or folded into another section and/or the lede. Besides this, the article seems to be in quite good shape.
Hope these comments help. Let me know if you're looking for a review of a more specific matter. I would also appreciate it if you could take a look at the open William Matthews review. Ergo Sum 00:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


North Cascades National Park

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 April 2018, 02:49 UTC
Last edit: 2 July 2018, 23:23 UTC


History

Ira T. Wyche

I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure how to take it further (to A or featured class). I hold no illusions that the article is close to either A or featured status, but I would like suggestions on how (if at all possible) to take it further.

Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Francisco Cano

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded quite a bit from where it started. A few sources were used to expand this article out from a stub, to become a bit more fleshed out. In particular, I'd want to see if the tone of the article is encyclopedic, whether it is arranged logically, and how this article could be improved in terms of sourcing and prose. Finally, I'd like to make sure that anyone who is interested in (a) conquistadors or (b) Spanish history would find this page useful.

Thanks, Themane2 (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions:

Hi and thanks for working to expand this article. The article is arranged logically, and is mostly encyclopedic, though improved use of references could make it a more useful resource and avoid the pitfalls of overstatement or WP:OR. A few comments/suggestions follow.Dialectric (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • For example, ‘His work in the mines was a major asset in the expanding metal trade…’ may be overstating his impact unless you have support from a reference that shows the importance he played in mining or his mine played in the history of the trade. Calling his exploration the “final conquest of the Aztec legacy“ may be similarly overstating unless refs support this.
  • The ‘Early life’ section is unreferenced, as is the ’Land claims’ section. Apart from the lede, for a historical biography article, each section should have references.
  • The references to books used in the article lack page numbers. Page numbers are helpful for others looking up refs to expand upon content and/or check facts.
  • Years of service in the infobox only lists 1568, a surprisingly short time. If he served for more than a year but total service is unknown, you may want to reflect that in the infobox.
  • Is there a reference that shows he died in New Spain? Some conquistadors returned to Spain after their service.


Thank you for the review and your suggestions. I myself find a lot of the information in the article a bit.. speculative, to say the least. The problem is that the sources really are not a biography of this conquistador, but in fact are based on a historical event that this conquistador took part in. Because of that, I think more sources would be needed to try and determine more about his early life, as well as when and where he died. There isn't a lot of solid info out there about this man. I have been trying to find more in Google Books. I might have to see if there are any sources in Spanish, which I'm assuming there must be, since his exploits were mostly in the Spanish Empire (and a couple of undiscovered regions in Northern Mexico).
Since he was a captain, which is an officer rank, that indicates that he probably did serve for a number of years, not just one. That's one of the things I'm going to try and find sources on.
I will add page numbers where possible, and I'll try and find references for each section, if I can, as well as attempt to verify some of the claims made about how influential this exploration. --Themane2 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Anti-Russian sentiment

I've listed this article for peer review because the article contains A LOT of unreferenced, poorly sourced or original research material. I've been going through the article marking all the dubious claims, but it seems too much for one person to handle as the article is also frequently being edited. New or unregistered user edit review has been activated, but the article has already accumulated a lot of information with the aforementioned problems. A thorough review of the article removing all the questionable and unsourced material or rewriting it in a more neutral way and adding citations would be very welcome.

Many thanks, Turaids (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Montana-class battleship

I've listed this article for peer review because has been nine years since the last one, and in the past year in particular, I've added a ton of new information and corrected some misconceptions about the class. In particular, I heavily expanded the armor section and also expanded the design history section. Many (perhaps most?) of these edits were done when logged off. In any case, I referred heavily to well regarded book sources such as Sumrall, Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, and INRO publications in order to reduce the amount of citations to internet sources, many of which are tertiary. Hopefully all the additions are up to FA standards.

Thanks, Steve7c8 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, Steve, thanks for your efforts so far. I'm afraid I only had a quick look, but I have a few comments/suggestions:AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • From what I can see, it would need a few more citations to meet FA referencing standards. I would suggest adding them to the following:
  • "though the Kriegsmarine H-42 through H-44 design concepts would have exceeded both the Montana and Yamato classes in size."
  • "The large caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16-inch (406 mm) shells: an armor-piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high-explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment."
  • "(Rather than having the carrier defend itself by gunnery this would be assigned to other surrounding ships within a carrier battle group.)"
  • as does this whole paragraph: "While the Montana class would not be designed principally for escorting the fast carrier task forces..."
  • "This shift in policy meant that the Montana class would have been the only World War II–era US battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own."
  • "The aircraft would have been floatplanes launched from catapults on the ship's fantail.[8] They would have landed on the water and taxied to the stern of the ship to be lifted by a crane back to the catapult."
  • "Five ships of the Montana class were authorized on 19 July 1940, but they were suspended indefinitely until being canceled on 21 July 1943. The ships were to be built at the New York Navy Yard, Philadelphia Navy Yard, and Norfolk Navy Yard."
  • The referencing style also appears to be a bit inconsistent. For instance compare Note # 1 with # 2. Also compare Note # 1 with # 56, for instance. Also books like Newhart and Yarnall should be listed in the References section like Garzke and Keegan
  • watch out for endash and page range consistency. For instance, "Garzke and Dulin, p. 163-164" should be "Garzke and Dulin, pp. 163–164"
  • I would suggest removing the links to the individual ships of the class (e.g. in the infobox and Note # 20), as the links are self pointing redirects Note # 20
  • watch out for duplicate links. The duplicate link checker tool identifies quite a few, for instance in the lead: Iowa-class battleship, aircraft carrier, Essex-class aircraft carrier. (There are others throughout the article)
Thank you for the input, I'll see what I can do to address this. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Brad101

Please read thoroughly the FAR on the Iowa-class from 2010 where I totally flipped my lid over citations and reliable sources. It's a long read but I'm quite sure that the same issues are going to apply to this article as well. I notice an abundance of original research in describing hull numbers. Low quality sources etc. Brad (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


History of Catalonia

I've listed this article for peer review in order to know if, after two months of editings that increased the extension of the article, adding references and bibliography (from 15 references to more than 50), adjusting the images and trying to made the redaction more academic and neutral, the article of history of Catalonia is ready to reach the next step of quality or not. Also, I need a review of vocabulary and grammar, because maybe my English is a little poor in some aspects.

Regards, Jacobí (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jacobí:, hi. First things first, I guess it depends what you intend by the next step—GA, yes? I just thought I'd let you know, I did look in, thinking that, although I don't know the subject very well, I could do a bit of a copyedit. This is here, and feel free to revert what you like, of course. However: I stopped where I did because—IMHO—the amount of work required is still great (although not insurmountable). The main issue is a lack of sourcing. You've done good work adding all the sources and refs that you have, but an article of this size and breadth will need far more. At the moment, entire sections, let alone paragraphs, are unsourced. I'm afraid this would instantly fail the [WP:WIAGA|good-article criteria]]. Also, I found it difficult on occasion to do a copy edit because the actual sense of what was being said was sometimes difficult to discern. Although I sometimes edited it to say what I thought was trying to be said, frankly that needs an expert in the subject before a copy edit even starts; I'm thinking, just, for example, (rather long) sentences.

There are a few other things, such as the references and bibliography (they don't seem to tie up?) but sourcing is the main thing, along with a degree of expert input. Have you tried Wikiproject spain, perhaps? Some of these editors might be able to help. Sorry if this is really negative feedback, but as an article, it's important enough to warrant being the best we can do for it! Best of luck with it, and don't hesitate to come back to me over this. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


National Jewish Health

I've listed this article for peer review because…we received this notice: This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, or encyclopedic content policy. (June 2018).

Since then, we have updated the page and added additional links and references so we would like this page reviewed and see if further changes or edits are required.

Thanks, Samanthalreeves (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lord Bolingbroke

Based on the "we" in your message, I take it you work for or are in some way affiliated with National Jewish Health. If this is the case, that means you have a conflict of interest (COI). Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage people from editing articles on subjects where they have a conflict of interest. Those with a COI are expected to discuss the changes they want to do to an article on its talk page or other forums and let impartial editors implement them rather than editing the article directly. They are also expected to be transparent about what exactly their connection to the article subject is. A guide summarizing the issues surrounding COI can be found here. Before the review proceeds, could you clarify whether you are affiliated with National Jewish Health in any way? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Louis Agassiz

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of copyediting.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment. There are a number of unreferenced statements and 'citation needed' comments. You really need to make sure that everything is properly referenced before asking editors to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware that I needed to do that. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Post-classical history

Greetings, I am the user Sunriseshore, I have worked on this article for approximately seven weeks, when I began the article looked like this, [1] This article prior to that point had been much larger but problematic as it was competing with articles with its content. On Wikipedia due to the widespread tendency of 'Medieval History' to mean 'European Middle Ages' there was much confusion for what this article was meant to do. Using World History sources (and some regional ones) I have attempted to create a proper summary of the 400-1450 period in world history that would meet Wikipedia and professional standards. I must also thank the User:GreenC for his advice on fixing this article.

In the mean time, some more pictures, or even sound files (if appropriate) may be added, there may also be new sources/information as well. However the bulk of the article has been established. I encourage you to go over this article as thoroughly as you can to make sure it avoid problems such as Content Fork, and Original Research. Please give any suggestions you may have and be as detailed as possible. I hope to make this article the best it can be, an a positive example for other world history articles.

There was a also a previous peer-review of this article before but that was done long before the changes made here, and I could also not locate where the peer review had been archived. The template that addresses the old review simply links back here, if someone can find the old peer review please make a note of that here.

Thanks, Sunriseshore (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


John/Eleanor Rykener

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 26 June 2018, 11:33 UTC
Last edit: 14 August 2018, 13:36 UTC


Apollo 15 postage stamp incident

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 24 June 2018, 12:35 UTC
Last edit: 5 July 2018, 14:57 UTC


Hermano Pule

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article, and I intend to improve it enough to become a featured article candidate.

Thanks, Jollibinay (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Scribolt

Please note, that I'm not reviewing to FA/GA standards, just some prose comments. I saw this on peer review, interesting read. I've made copy edits directly in the text for you to consider, amend or reject and additional points below.

  • Would it be helpful to define what a cofradia is when the term appears in the lede? I linked to Cofraternity, but maybe a bracketed explanation in the text would be good as well.
  • the cofradía transferred to Majayjay. Does this mean physically re-located? Or something else?
  • Hermano Pule immediately sent a letter to Archbishop José Seguí in Manila rebuking the acts of the Tayabas friars. Immediately after what? The transfer in early 1841? Or the arrests in October 1840?
  • The 1841 Alitao massacre became a controversial issue in Manila - Maybe explain what controversial means in this context?
  • In terms of structure, The Aftermath and Legacy is mostly to do with the events following from the suppression of the cofradia, whilst the legacy is more focused on Hermano Pule the man. You might want to think about reorganizing a little so the social impact of the suppression are separated a bit from the personal biography. Not quite sure how you'd do that, but just a thought.

Scribolt (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review User:Scribolt. I really appreciate your time and efforts for the review and copy edits.
  • Would it be helpful to define what a cofradia is when the term appears in the lede? I linked to Cofraternity, but maybe a bracketed explanation in the text would be good as well.
  • I changed it to "...was a Filipino religious leader who founded and led the Cofradía de San José (Confraternity of St. Joseph)." Is this better? I also put a wikilink on "Confraternity".
  • the cofradía transferred to Majayjay. Does this mean physically re-located? Or something else?
  • Most of the members physically re-located to Majayjay (the next town).
  • Hermano Pule immediately sent a letter to Archbishop José Seguí in Manila rebuking the acts of the Tayabas friars. Immediately after what? The transfer in early 1841? Or the arrests in October 1840?
  • Based on Palafox (2012), it's after the the arrests in October 1840.
  • The 1841 Alitao massacre became a controversial issue in Manila - Maybe explain what controversial means in this context?
  • Martinez (1999) used the term "cause célèbre". Martinez (1999) wrote that "flyers criticizing the government's actions were circulated" and that "The Real Audiencia blamed de Oraá". Although it's not good to assume, based on Philippine history, there would be people who would've sided with the government on the issue. Some people were for it, others were against it.
  • In terms of structure, The Aftermath and Legacy is mostly to do with the events following from the suppression of the cofradia, whilst the legacy is more focused on Hermano Pule the man. You might want to think about reorganizing a little so the social impact of the suppression are separated a bit from the personal biography. Not quite sure how you'd do that, but just a thought.
  • I actually tried to do that while working for he GA status. However, I find it quite difficult since the books that I've cited always mix the cofradía and Hermano Pule, that's why the article ended up like this. The best I could think of was writing four subsections.
Jollibinay (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


Indian National Congress

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article has Good Article potential. The article is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other GA Political Parties (BJP for example). I think that Indian National Congress meets the GA criteria. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions to help/improve the article, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Few thoughts

  • Many things are unreferenced - headquarters at Akbar Road, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha leader etc. I have added some citation needed tags.
 Done No more citation tags.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • often called Congress - I think it is often called Congress party, not simply Congress
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Pattabhi Sitaramayya here is a WP:Primary Source and hence a better one is required.

 Done Better source added.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • the rest were of Parsi and Jain backgrounds - how many Parsis and Jains?
 Done This sentence removed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • new "extremists" - " " marks must be removed. It is a well established fact that Tilak, Ghosh were amongst the extremist faction.
 Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • One or two sentence about Jinnah's Hindu-Muslim unity mission in his early life?
 Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • He formed an alliance with the Khilafat Movement in 1920 - Did he form an alliance with the Khilafat movement or during the Khilafat movement?
Gandhi formed an alliance with the Khilafat movement.Not during the khilafat movement.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The section - "Congress as a mass movement" needs to be composed better.

RRD (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


WAVES

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 May 2018, 04:20 UTC
Last edit: 31 July 2018, 19:51 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)

Comments from KJP1

An interesting building and an interesting article. Some suggestions:

  • Images - there are some nice shots, and architecture articles are always improved by images, but there are way too many! The text runs like a column between them, making it hard to read. If you must have them, stick them in a gallery at the end.
  • Citations - there's quite a lot that's completely uncited. The general "rule" is for a minimum of one cite per. paragraph.
  • Prose - I've made some minor prose amendments, rather than listing them here.
  • Tags - there are a few tags that need dealing with.
  • Original research - as the tag over the Dragon Icons section indicates, you need to show that the content isn't your original research. Who says the bull is "possibly" Paris etc., and can these be cited to wheresoever the claim is made? And what does "The following information may be co-incidental" mean?

It's certainly well beyond Stub class. Best of luck with it. KJP1 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


Alte Brücke (Frankfurt)


Hi!

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)

  • Hi ToBeFree, I have done some copyedits and to me the English translation appears excellent. The quotations could use some citations, and as you note, translation for those longer quotes. Otherwise it seems interesting. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Frayae: wow, thank you! Face-smile.svg And huge thanks to Arjayay, Neils51, Felixkrater, Coryphantha and the May editors too! I came back looking at the article, because it was linked from Museumsufer, and was amazed by the changes. I have read somewhere that "if one wants to have their book translated, it should always be done by a translator who is a native speaker of the destination language, not the source language." And that's probably right. With your help, however, together, we can do it. Emoji u1f60a.svg
I'll try to translate the quotes now; the translation will need copyediting for sure, but it might be a good start, finally finishing the translation foundation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, you are brave to translate a whole page into English, I wouldn't translate an English page into German! I have created a few English equivalents of German pages, most recently Alte Nahebrücke (Bad Kreuznach), which is why by chance I found your Frankfurt bridge page. It is based on the German page, but I wrote it bearing in mind an English speaking audience, rather than translating the whole thing directly, and did independent fact-checking and referencing.

One thing I was unsure about on the Alte Brücke Frankfurt page is that sometimes it refers to the "Main bridge" and it is not entirely clear if that means the wooden predecessor to the Alte Brücke, or the Alte Brücke itself, or even another bridge. When the Alte Brücke is meant, it would be better to consistently call it that name, or simply "the bridge" if it is clear from the context what your are refering to, rather than using any other name. Felixkrater (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's a nice article! Face-smile.svg
About the "Main bridge" problem, that's a good point. I might even have been unsure too about that during the translation process. The issue here, maybe, is that the bridge wasn't called "Alte Brücke" ("old bridge") back then. It wasn't old in that time. And I guess that using "Mainbrücke" in the German article might also have been an attempt to avoid repetition of the same word.
To clarify what is meant, I'll now try to replace all the occurences of "Main bridge" with the actually meant bridge names or a short description. I hope that I don't get confused myself... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 17 June 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)

Comments

  • 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

Sunriseshore's comments

  • This appears to be a well rounded and sourced article at this time. Good Work!


Parliament of 1327

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch 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: 26 May 2018, 16:59 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)
I think it's too early to improve it. Scholarship in the humanities is slow and the discovery is too recent. Thus, there is a limited amount of scientific articles on the subject and currently the article cannot by expanded further. Come back in a few years...T8612 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you may very well be right; most articles I'm finding when looking for more source are hundreds of days old and already cited in the article. No major manual of style concerns have been identified so far, so aside from minor edits to wording, the best we can do is either search for any notable details included in the sources but left out of the article or wait for newer developments. I'll occasionally search for newer sources, but I'm expecting the process of expanding the article to be very slow. I appreciate the edits that you along with Joe Roe have made thus far, I'll be sure to come back (but probably not for ages). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 06:12, 25 June 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)

Comments

    • 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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 March 2018, 00:24 UTC
Last edit: 25 July 2018, 02:37 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics

Louis Agassiz

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of copyediting.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


3596 Meriones

I've listed this article for peer review because the details are too complicated for a general-interest encyclopedia. Many of the terms could be explained within the article rather than forcing a reader to click on a wiki link.

Thanks, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Monomelic amyotrophy

I've listed this article for peer review because… After some ego-crushing help from user:Jytdog (I survived) and further advice from user:Staszek Lem I cut and pasted the entire article into my user sandbox. The revised article is almost triple in size and more than triple in references.

Navigating the complexities of WP -- aye, that is another matter. I've been asking for and getting good advice and article upgrades. user:David notMD made several important improvements.

Alas, from my Sandbox, led on by its SUBMIT prompt, I guilelessly submitted this revision as a new article -- REJECTED. Apparently I've been bungling WP protocol plenty, as I next learned at the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#feedback on revisions. More smartly, I posted a message in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Monomelic_amyotrophy. That request generated further improvements by User:Ozzie10aaaa Yes I should of submitted Peer Review sooner.

This has some little flaws -- it is well researched and has lots of citations, but I lost track and need to clean some aspects so that citations match better with some materials. But it is ready enough. My biggest challenge is how to correctly transplant the revision from my sandbox. Please look at the revised article there (Monomelic amyotrophy -sandbox revision) but comment here. I'll also put a note there about this review request, with link to here.

Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


Oxalaia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 May 2018, 05:17 UTC
Last edit: 14 June 2018, 03:55 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)

Just a few quick comments. It's an interesting article with, sadly, a poor infobox illustration. Why not use this real photo rather than a derived sketch?
  • In the lead, swap round the sentence about its size with the one that follows it. Dimensions are less important than habitat and distribution, in my view.
  • "Its width is somewhat bigger than its length," - ugh! I think "somewhat greater than..." sounds much better.
  • "Southern eagle rays usually have a darker brown colored back." Darker than what? Other species? Or darker than its underside? I think this needs to be clarified. Do rays have backs? I'd prefer to use upper side or dorsal surface, not 'back'.
  • The lead sentence is a bit tautologous, effectively saying the "Southern eagle ray is a species of eagle ray." (That's how it looks when previewed in a hovercard.) I'd suggest saying "Southern eagle ray is a species of ray in the family Myliobatidae. As that link redirects to eagle ray, you've said the same thing, but in a more informative manner, I feel.
  • I would suggest rereading some of your references. I think you could extract a lot more; in fact, you have drawn a wrong conclusion on threat in a single sentence, whereas you could have expanded the content by creating a 'Conservation and status' section. I don't think it's correct to simply say it is threatened by fishing. It clearly is a bycatch component, and there have been significant declines, however the reference makes it clear that more research is needed, hence its IUCN listing as 'data deficient', and the taxon has no conservation measures in place.
  • "A sighting was also recently reported in the island of Maldives," - beware the use of 'recently'. Tell us when, because this page may survive for 100 years. It won't be recent then!
  • Galleries: I thought these were deprecated, and I really don't think one is needed here at all. Just use the images within the article, avoiding phrases like "You can see that it is a rather dark color.." because this sounds much too chatty, and not encyclopaedic in tone. Try to find a different way to draw attention to colour differences.
  • There's nothing on their life cycle, or being Ovoviviparous. As a result, the rather clumsy statement about feeding on yolk and then uterine fluid leaves the reader wondering what on earth they're up to. Again, re-read the sources and take care not to omit or misinterpret key information.
  • Comparison chart. There's nothing about depth of water found in. You do have this information for both taxa, and the differences are quite significant, and worth mentioning. (i.e. M. freminvillei not found below 10 metres depth)
I hope this gets you off to a good start; no doubt other reviewers will add their additional thoughts, too. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to read the article thoroughly and provide this feedback. I've implemented some of your suggestions in my last edit - specifically, I think I have satisfied your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th comments so far (out of the 9 total). I am definitely planning on trying to take the rest of your feedback and add it to the article - just those will probably take a bit more time. Thank you!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
What about "The species is somewhat wider than it is long" or some variant of that? Fritzmann2002 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Does this look better for phrasing? Btw, I think I have now addressed all of the points that Nick Moyes pointed out, but I could be forgetting something.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:55, 12 August 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)

@Peterzlondon: I'm new to Wikipedia and I know nothing about statistics, so don't expect much help from me. However, here are a few questions regarding references:
  • The article begins with "Bayesian model reduction [1][2]". Here, the references indicate that's the method's name, right?
  • In the neurobiology subsection of the applications section, you use reference [5] mid-sentence. Is there any reason for it?
  • Is there any reason you "define" the references the first time you use them, instead of down in the reference list? Given the amount of information you include in them, they take up a lot of space.
  • Same question about not using template:r, which I personally like.
Additional questions:
  • Is there any non-aesthetic reason you number the equations? I don't see it much here in Wikipedia (I'm not saying it's a bad thing!).
  • Do you think the article could fit in any of the subcategories of category:statistical methods? I'd just add it to that category, but articles should always be in the narrowest subcategory possible.
  • Finally, and most importantly: What exactly is the article's audience? Is it beginner statistics students, beginner statisticians, or somewhere in between?
I'll do the changes I want once you answer.
Professor Proof (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


@Professor Proof: Thanks for going through this! I'll reply to each point in turn:
  • Regarding the references in the first sentence - "Bayesian model reduction [1][2]". The statistical method was first introduced in reference 1, for a specific application. Reference 2 generalised it to broader applications and gave it the name 'Bayesian model reduction', which is the title of the article. So I thought it better to include both references, to ensure they each get equal credit. However, it would probably be OK just to cite reference 2 here, given reference 1 is detailed below.
  • In the sentence 'it has been proposed [5] that the brain...' I used the reference mid-sentence to make it clear that the reference is linked to the proposal. At the end of the sentence, I reference another paper (about sleep) and I didn't want to cause confusion. If you think this is inelegant, please feel free to adjust.
  • Regarding 'defining' the references the first time I use them - I am not sure I fully understand, please can you give an example?
  • Thank you for telling me about template template:r - I wasn't aware of that. Happy to use it.
Additional questions:
  • I numbered the equations to make it easier to reference (I could say 'take a look at Equation 4 on the Wikipedia page'). However, it does introduce an annoyance - the numbering is not compatible with Wikipedia's graphical equation editor. So this may be good reason for getting rid of them.
  • The page is listed in the more specific category:Bayesian_statistics
  • The audience I had in mind is anyone working in science or engineering, who use mathematical models to understand their measurements. They could be students, academic researchers or people working in industry. I expected the reader to have an awareness of Bayesian statistics and an interest in Scientific modelling.
Thanks again.
Peterzlondon (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peterzlondon: OK, made the change I wanted to make (moving refs to the end of sentences and "defining them at the bottom"). What do you think?
As for the categories, category:Bayesian statistics isn't "more detailed" (i.e. a subcategory, sub-subcategory, etc.) than category:statistical methods. It makes sense to me—some subjects in Bayesian statistics aren't methods.
I wish I could help more, but I don't think I have the skills to really improve things. It's great for a first article, by the way. The subject is a bit heavy for me, but it seems well-presented and well-organized. Professor Proof (talk) 18:38, 30 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)

@Nick Thorne: one of the things I did early on was try to park articles at GA or FA status, which is the closest thing we have to stable versions. I have buffed Pacific blue-eye and smooth toadfish to FA status. I took some liberties in tweaking the article but figured you'd get the idea...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • It still needs a lead section. It also needs some notes on its classification. elaborate on harvest. Does it have predators? what does it eat? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick Thorne: Hi! Here are just a few things that you could do which I think would improve the article:
  • Complete sentences are always better imo. I noticed a few incomplete sentences in the prose of the article, such as "A slender, spindle shaped scale-less fish that grows to a maximum length of 77 mm, commonly 65 mm."
  • You're missing a bit of punctuation here and there. For example, "Originally named Tasmanian whitebait the species was renamed Australian whitebait following the discovery of a population in southern Victoria on the Australian mainland in 1993" has a missing comma after "whitebait."
  • I think you could expand the lead a bit to comply with the length of the article more. Maybe include one sentence about the description and one more about its life cycle?
  • Per WP:REPCITE, there's not really any need to have the same citation 9 times in the same paragraph - it just looks cluttered. Per the link I provided, "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient."
  • If you're able to find more information about its behavior, that would be great. I definitely think finding out and adding what it eats, as Casliber mentioned above, would be a good start.
I hope you find this information helpful, and good luck! :)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I just went ahead and completed that one sentence for you. =)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:41, 6 July 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)

Comments by Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WhittleMario for your hard work in not only creating but also putting in a lot of edits on this page!

  • The paragraph lifted straight from the research paper doesn't add much and is confusing to the average reader. It would be better if it were summarized in the traditional WP style.
  • The word 'azide' is used throughout the page, it would help if there was a description of azide in the intro, alongside the existing link to the azide page.
  • If possible, more sources should be found to try to beef up the article.
  • The description of the structure change and the Structure section in general may be too technical for most readers, try to keep the same information but make sure that it is accessible.
  • If possible, a picture of the chemical would be a good addition (make sure to follow WP:Image Use Policy). A representation of its atomic structure would also be a good visual.


SDS-PAGE

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)
Just at a glance, several of the longer paragraphs/sections (especially Applications and the beginning of Procedure) have great/most likely accurate information but no in-line citations. The information is most likely verifiable in many of the references already provided, but it might be good to add one or two into the longer sections with no citations. On the opposite end, the bit on silver staining has 6 citations, some of which might not be necessary. That's all I've got :) originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 00:28, 5 June 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.
Altered.


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


  • 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)


Language and literature

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 581

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's capable of attaining FA status, I'm fairly sure it's coverage is comprehensive in any event. Shouldn't be too taxing for the passing editor either, I'm grateful for all suggestions.

Cheers, Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Oxyrhynchus Papyri! One for me, I think!

  • I would rework the lead. We don't find out until the second paragraph what P.Oxy.581 actually is; the lead should tell us such a key piece of information sooner. (I am obviously biased because I wrote it, but Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1231 tells us in the second sentence that "The papyrus preserves fragments of the second half of Book I of a Hellenistic edition of the poetry of the archaic poet Sappho."). Something as simple as:

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 581 (P. Oxy. 581 or P. Oxy. III 581) is a papyrus fragment written in Ancient Greek, apparently recording the sale of a slave girl.

  • "consisting of 17 textual lines": simply "consisting of 17 lines of text"
  • "The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a collection of rare manuscripts discovered at an ancient landfill in Oxyrhynchus, modern-day Egypt"; okay, literally a manuscript is just something written by hand, but I feel like it normally connotes something rather more... complete... than the Oxyrhynchus papyri. I would instead have written "...are a collection of papyrus fragments..." (which is not ideal because of the repetition of Papyri/papyrus, but...)
  • "during both the Hellenistic Ptolemaic Kingdom (305 BC–30 BC)": does "Hellenistic" really add any information when we are given both "Ptolemaic" and the dates? Especially as P.Oxy.581 is very decidedly not Hellenistic.
  • "the fragment signifies the conclusion of a longer message." The fragment doesn't merely signify, it is the conclusion of a longer piece of writing.
  • "the President and Committee of the Graeco-Roman Branch voted to present the papyrus to University College, Dundee[...] It is the only Oxyrhynchus Papyri currently held by the university's collection" Do we know why it was sent to Dundee?
  • "mounted between glass": phrasing seems a bit odd to me. I would say "to be mounted in glass" or "to be mounted between panes of glass", but not "to be mounted between glass".
  • "[h]ouse-born slaves could not legally be sold for the purpose of export beyond the borders of Egypt.": what is a house-born slave? and how do we know that the P.Oxy.581 slave was one such? (This is a symptom of a potential problem with this whole paragraph, which is that it seems to be based on sources who are talking about roman slavery generally, not P.Oxy.581, or even slavery in Roman Oxyrhynchus, specifically.)

Hope some of this is helpful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


List of Icelandic writers

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 July 2018, 12:57 UTC
Last edit: 1 August 2018, 15:35 UTC


Puella Magi Madoka Magica

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to send this article to FAC. I've never done a FAC before and I've already asked for help from other users on the process, but in the meantime, while preparing for the nomination, I just want to make sure that the article is ready. If there are still any suggestions this has before I can take it to FA, please list them here.

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I would advise you to avoid the reception structure to be like "X says this, Y says this and instead come with generalization. See Sasuke Uchiha's reception section which went through a major rewrite during a review. Remember to talk about all of the series' aspects there too like music. Other than that, I would also suggest you to ask for a copyedit since the prose's quality is often commented in FACs.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot about possible scholars' response. User talk:122.108.141.214 helped me a lot with it while working in the Captain Tsubasa article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


Sex (book)

I've listed this article for peer review because although this is currently 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 prune out the unnecessary content and details and make it FA worthy as much possible. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Annales (Ennius)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 1 May 2018, 17:24 UTC
Last edit: 30 June 2018, 09:48 UTC


Philosophy and religion

William Matthews (priest)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it ready for the FA process. It is currently a good article and I previously listed in as a FAC, but it went unanswered. I've cleaned the article up quite a bit recently, so it should be in pretty good shape. Thanks for any input in advance. Ergo Sum 00:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


Hortensius (Cicero)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA. Many moons ago, I tried to get it up there, but it wasn't ready at the time (I was younger and made quite a few bone-headed mistakes), and the nomination rightfully failed. Since then, I've added a lot more info, reorganized whole sections, rewritten the prose, and improved the references. I'm sure there are still some areas that are 'off', and I'd love for someone to take a look at the article and tell me what they think.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


Biblical criticism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 July 2018, 20:49 UTC
Last edit: 8 August 2018, 05:12 UTC


Papal conclave, March 1605

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 June 2018, 18:39 UTC
Last edit: 15 June 2018, 16:54 UTC


Social sciences and society

Makassar mayoral election, 2018

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to get it to GA status - it's really uncommon for a none of the above option to win with several hundred thousand voters.

Thanks, Juxlos (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


West Midlands Serious Crime Squad

I've listed this article for peer review because it has considerable importance as one of the worst examples of systemic abuse by UK police; I have much expanded it but need some feedback about how to get it to a decent level.

Thanks, Jim Killock (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


Prison education

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it did not pass its nomination for FAC, yet there was no clear consensus at FAC on what needs to be improved; different editors had different ideas on the matter. In exchange for your comments here I will gladly review any PR, GAN, FAC or FLC of your choice.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I will add some comments about the prose in the near future. Please ping me at the end of next week if I have not posted my remarks; it will take me some time as it is a long article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I want to say that you have done excellent work with this article; it is a difficult topic to work on as it is rather expansive. Issues of coverage/scope with regards to different areas of the world were the primary reasons for the FAC being closed, but my comments are primarily focused on the prose itself. I feel that is the best way for me to help, as I am not entirely sure how to best provide useful commentary for the other stuff. Just wanted to clarify that before my comments below:

  • For this part (Courses can include basic literacy programs, high-school equivalency programs) of the lead, do you think there should be a wikilink for “high-school”, especially if the subsequent items in the list are linked too? I have also seen primarily written as “high school” without the hyphen.
*I have two comments for this part (and in the US the rate is four to five dollars saved for every dollar spent.) from the lead. There should be a comma after “the US” ad I would wikilink dollars, especially since you linked pound in the previous sentence.
  • For this sentence (Sweden is considered to be a pioneer in prison education. It became mandatory for inmates in 1842, and vocational education), I would link “vocational education” as it is the first time that you mention it in the lead. From my understanding, the lead and the body of the article are treated separately so items would need to be linked in both on their first use. Unlink “vocational education” later in the article.
  • I am confused by the citation placement in this part (Iceland, which as of 2011 averaged only 137 prisoners in the country,[6] began implementing education programs in 1971.). If the last part is cited through reference 7 at the end of the paragraph, I would add it to the end of the sentence to make it clear.
  • For this part (By 1900 the states of Massachusetts) and this part (and by the 1930s educational programs could be found in most prisons) make sure to use commas after the years. I would look through the entire article to make sure that the use of commas is consistent one way or the other.
  • This source (Prisons in Latin America: A journey into hell) may be helpful.
  • For this sentence (Each state and territory, however, maintains control over its own prison education systems; there is no national system[20][23] leading to differences in the way education is offered.), I would clarify which references are used to support the second half.
  • For this part (For many years the only prison education offered in Morocco was farming), add a comma after “For many years”.
  • For the (Anonymous prisoner on the difficulties of studying in jail) quote box, do you think that it would be beneficial to specify the nationality of the prisoner or jail in the prose?

Again, great job with this article. I wish that I could be more help with the other comments toward the article. I think that prose-wise that it is on an FA-level. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (it is a super short article). Either way, good luck with this and have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. I've made the suggested prose changes, and will look into the Latin American source shortly. I'll be happy to review your FAC in return. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I hope that I helped out a little. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Electoral College (United States)

This article has been expanded substantially since it was last formally reviewed (over 12 years ago). It's an important subject, and a component of an ongoing debate within the nature of American electoral politics. I would like to field a more formal discussion on the article and future points of improvement.

Thanks, Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


Africa Italy Excellence Awards

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like the article to be critiqued in order to be improved upon before I submit it for publication. Thanks, Esmenkah (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


California housing shortage

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in the topic (though I didn't write this article), and I want to know what's missing from it before I shoot for a GA. Could it use charts or graphs? A different arrangement of the relevant information?

Thanks, grendel|khan 07:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


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)


Bolivarian diaspora

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 March 2018, 16:54 UTC
Last edit: 1 August 2018, 22:22 UTC


Lists

List of contenders in men's major golf tournaments 2018

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to become a featured list and I would like to know if more experienced editors share that view. I welcome any and all constructive feedback as I consider this to be primarily a learning process. Please feel free to ask me about anything that may be unclear and I will do my best to assist.

Thanks, Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I hate the use of "contenders". It makes it sound like a boxing match. "Qualifiers" seems more suitable to me and more accurate. User:Tewapack has been maintaining a somewhat similar list in his own space for a number of years (see User:Tewapack/2018 Majors results and back to 2009), so I suppose my main concern is whether the article is really useful. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Ha, ha! I agree with you, Nigej. It does sound like "seconds out" or, perhaps, "caddies out"! I will change it to "qualifiers" as you suggest but had better leave it alone for the moment while it's still in this PR process. Usefulness is one of the things I'd like advice on because it was a fun thing to do and it sort of got into my mind the full range of good players around now, but I do wonder if it's a bit "niche". I'll see what others have to say but you have expressed one of my own doubts there. Thanks very much. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


List of Hypericum species

Hello peer reviewers. I'm putting this list up for review after roughly 2 years of working way too much on it. While I'm not 100% finished inputting all the information I'd like, I'm to the point where I need some constructive criticism on the article on what I can improve, so I don't unknowingly dig the article into a hole it can't be pulled out from. My main goal is to get the article to be a featured list, so I would like some input on how I can improve its chances at passing the Featured List Review with flying colors.

I don't want to sound too picky or anything, but there are a few specific things I really need some input on if at all possible:

  • How can I improve the lead? I've been told before it needs expansion, and I recently added 2 more paragraphs, but I still feel like it is a little rough around the edges.
  • Are the section leads ad descriptions adequate? Should I add more or trim them down?
  • What should I wikilinks? I have been wikilinking countries but not botanists; is that correct?
  • Are the images sized properly? Should I continue to upload low-quality public domain specimen images from the NHS or is it better to just leave no image for some species?
  • Are there ways the habitat column could be slimmed down?
  • I've only been including 3 synonyms per species. Should I include a full list for every species? Or slim it down to a common name and one synonym?
  • I know, there are a lot of references. Are they formatted properly? Should I remove any? Is 5 per species enough? (Also I'd love if you have any more refs for me :))

Thanks so much for your time, it means a lot to have some constructive criticism on this huge and ambitious project of mine. I'm not going to be offended if you don't sugarcoat anything, so lay it on thick!

Your fellow editor, Fritzmann2002 19:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews