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

Wikipedia:Peer review

Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
PR icon.png

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

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing, it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects.

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

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


The Cloisters

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 18 February 2018, 10:43 UTC
Last edit: 19 February 2018, 03:38 UTC

Osbert Lancaster

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 February 2018, 01:08 UTC
Last edit: 18 February 2018, 23:51 UTC

Kal Ho Naa Ho

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to take it to FA. Constructive comments are most welcome. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wild Side Story

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

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be patrolled/reviewed to appear on search engines. Yep, it's my first article and I'm pretty excited to see it on Google :P

Thanks, Hunter

Kid Rock

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

Thanks, TheRealBoognish (talk) 21:09, 6 February 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)

Up Where We Belong

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 February 2018, 00:29 UTC
Last edit: 14 February 2018, 22:16 UTC

Species (film)

I've listed this article for peer review because, as it stands, it's fairly substantive and I personal am a fan of this movie (my guilty pleasure, I must say). Since it has already been promoted to GA, I would now like to bring it first to the A-class and then FA. To do so, I need help from the experts (horror buffs and non-horror buffs alike) to provide me notes in order to attain comprehensiveness criteria, ranging from Themes to Reception. I have access to audio commentaries for this movie so I might be able to do something with the artice; meanwhile, this PR is open for anybody who is interested in helping me.

Thanks, Slightlymad 08:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Academic sources

I'm repeating what was said on my talk page here in case you didn't get my reply. In looking for academic sources, Species didn't have a whole lot of material written about it to begin with, especially when compared to a film like Alien. But I did locate 3 dissertations, one of them being a doctoral thesis. These usually take up to a year to write and are typically hundreds of pages long. They are arguably the best academic sources a person could hope for. This particular one was for a doctorate in Philosophy. Here's one passage:

SIL's own desire to reproduce is conflated with the clerk's obviously pregnant body in a brief but significant point-of-view shot from SIL, focusing on the woman's belly, which then immediately cuts to a reaction shot of SIL's face. A brief look of silent understanding passes between the two women and the viewer is asked to identify/conflate the two women through their own looks of mutual recognition. This mirroring and resulting recognition is not a case of Lacanian misrecognition and loss. Rather, this look serves, in the Bakhtinian sense, as a form of mutual authoring, a dialogical intersection of the frontiers between selves.[1]:163

Dr. Bjornsson's doctoral thesis, which covered the movie Species as part of a broader look at the topic of American narratives concerning outsider goups like women and immigrants, is just under 70 pages long and starts on page 154 (pdf reader page 158).

Spintendo ᔦᔭ 04:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bjornsson, Nina Gudrun (1999). "Terminal Visibility in the Reproductive Zone: Species and the California-Mexico Connection" (PDF). Aliens Within: Immigrants, the Feminine, and American National Narrative (Ph.D. thesis). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. pp. 154–223. Document No.9927491 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 
Thanks Spintendo, but I read your reply already. Slightlymad 04:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nadodi Mannan

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to take it to FA. In doing so it would be my second solo attempt at it. Constructive comments are most welcome. Thanks,  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

  • "..action adventure film, co-produced and directed by M. G. Ramachandran."
  • Try loosing few names of the cast from the opening para in lead.
  • Future king?
  • "..after he is abducted". It can be written as 'after getting abducted'.
  • Comma missing at some instances in the third para of lead.
  • I think the re-release bit suits in the legacy section.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Yashthepunisher. Do let me know if there is anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

I may have various comments, but I'd like to see the article add more info from this MGR biography, of which I got quite a few pages. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is as you say, a piece of gem, Kailash29792. I'll get around to it on the 11th January if that's alright as I'll be quite busy due to family matters for a few days.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I've added info from Kannan's books. Do have a look at it now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll give a good readthrough today, and post comments tomorrow. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, here are some comments for a start:

  • The writer field shouldn't have the dialogue writer listed. A good explanation behind this is given here.
  • Mention the film being MGR's directorial debut in the lead.
  • The infobox sources the film's release date, which is already sourced under "Release". Since the infobox is part of the lead section, you may want to comply with WP:LEADCITE.
  • You must mention how the film was a turning point in his later political career.
  • Don't you think there is some inconsistency here? Principal photography took place from 1956 to 1958 over a period of 156 days Because a year has only 365 days. Please re-read the source and edit.
  • Balakrishnan composed the songs - introduce him by his full name.
  • Please try expanding the critical reception section.
  • The "cancelled sequel" section is too small, so you could merge it with legacy.
  • Page 107 of MGR: A Life mentions Dina Thanthi calling the film "Komali Mannan". See where that can fit here.

More to follow soon... --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Kailash29792, Kantha mentions it like this: "Nadodi Mannan (The Vagabond King) was MGR’s grand project of 1956-57, and it was released on August 22, 1958." This indicates that principal photography occurred from 1956 to 1957. This line "Usually 40-50 days of shooting are adequate for a movie. But, for ‘Nadodi Mannan’, it took 156 days" indicates that a period of 156 days (possibly with intervals/break from shooting) was taken to make the film.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll expand the "critical reception" section soon. The rest of your comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Occult Classic

I've listed this article for peer review because Occult Classic is the largest page i've created and I want to know how to improve it.

Thanks, Micro (Talk) 06:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from dnllnd

Hey! Congratulations on creating your first longer form page. Here are a few general comments about the structure and style of the page:

  • The citations in the lead can be dialed back since there isn't anything present that's likely to be challenged. MOS:LEADCITE is a good reference for drafting a page intro.
  • Thoughtful and contextually driven quotations are a good addition to any article, but the number and extent of those included in the Background and composition section veer into quote farm territory. Paraphrasing what you've included into shorter digestible sentences will pull the page inline with the spirit of an encyclopedia and make it easier for people to scan. MOS:QUOTE includes suggestions about how and when to use quotations. In this case, it makes sense to include commentary about the album's development, but they would have a greater impact if used more judiciously.
  • Reception and release section: Make sure to include links to relevant Wikipedia pages to help explain who people and sites you reference are - not all readers are going to be familiar with the genre of music and related figures. For example, what is Who is Michael Sundius? What is Dancing Astronaut? If there aren't relevant pages to link to, include a brief note explaining who or what the are.
  • Alt Classic subheading: Italicize heading.
  • Generally the page would benefit from having more of a narrative flow. Right now much of the information is included as standalone nuggets rather than points that naturally follow each other. Cutting back on the use of quotes might help on this front. You may also want to consider comparing and contrasting reaction to the album as a way of weaving things together. It may also be useful to find a few pages that are more developed for other albums you like that can be used as guides.
  • Consider centralizing references you've used multiple times by naming them so that it's readily obvious to readers how many references come from each source. It can be done using the Cite menu in either the RefToolbar or the Visual Editor.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 December 2017, 18:35 UTC
Last edit: 16 January 2018, 20:38 UTC

The Room (film)

I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed GA review and I hope to get this article to FAC status. It has been getting increasingly more views this last year because of The Disaster Artist film coming out in December and I think it is a bizarrely interesting topic.

Thanks, Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I archived all references using archive box but there are still some issues that might bother reviewers:

  • Avoid references and quotes in the lead per the manual of style. Focus on generalizatons in the lead as it is meant to introduce readers to the article rather than pinpoint certain facts.
  • Avoid small paragraphs.
  • The video game appears to be fanmade so I suggest removing it unless it is notable. Same with music.
  • "In popular culture" might be the trickiest section. While there are many people who know of the Nostalgia Critic, general readers might not care about the reviews, among others. Unless any of these mentions are notable I might advise you to remove them.

That's all I see. If you have free time could you check my peer review? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Beatriz Romilly

I've listed this article for peer review because whilst I have listed the subject's career and a brief overview, I feel it might require some further input from editors more experienced in writing articles about actors.

Thanks, Osarius - Want a chat? 11:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

First, the strong points. The article's well structured and "well-cited", in the sense of having a decent number of citations. The absence of a photo is a pity. But the key problem's already been identified in the tag - there are nowhere near enough reliable secondary sources used to indicate that Ms Romilly warrants an article. To elaborate:

  • Source 1 is her own, self-published cv;
  • Sources 2 and 3 are commercial, promotional, casting websites;

I really don't think these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources.

  • Source 5 is the Globe advertisement for the show and does nothing but list Ms Romilly as a cast member;
  • Which leaves Source 4, the Guardian review. This describes Ms Romilly's performance as "feisty" and "peppery". It's exactly what you need, but it is the only cite, amongst about 57, that, I would suggest, meets the criteria for reliability and notability.

In a nutshell, there's not nearly enough to justify an article on the grounds of notability. If you can find more like Source 4, then throw them in. But a quick Google search suggests that will be a struggle. In which case, I just don't think the article is warranted. Can I ask why you think that it is? KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from dnllnd

I agree with @KJP1:. The page lacks reliable secondary sources, relying too heavily on Romilly's CV and third-party aggregate sites. The page would benefit from better sources and, if possible, more biographical information. Possible areas of interest that would align with biographies of living persons guidelines might be family history, upbringing or training. I did a quick Google search and didn't hit on anything promising, but I wonder if there may be more substantive coverage in Spanish media that could be used in keeping with WP:NOENG?--Dnllnd (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyday life

Chinese home run

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on it and I want to get it to GA. I think it's there, but I'd like to see what other people have to say.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

I've listed this article for peer review to get the artcle to GA status.

Thanks, Govvy (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Pavel Bure

Previous peer review

It was reviewed years ago, and sent to FAC, which it didn't pass. I recently cleaned up the article, removing over 2000 excess words, and then having it sent through WP:COPYEDITORS, with the hopes of sending to FAC in the near future. But before then I'd like one more review if possible.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 5 December 2017, 22:16 UTC
Last edit: 20 January 2018, 13:05 UTC

Engineering and technology


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help it finally get to Good Article status, To do so, I need help from the experts to provide me notes in order to attain comprehensiveness criteria, this review is open for anybody who is interested in helping.

Thanks, Palmpilot (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Essential Phone

I've listed this article for peer review because I want advice before nominating for a GA.

Thanks, Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


University of Oxford

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's potentially a candidate for WP:FA status. A peer review is a step towards it becoming WP:FAC.

Thanks, Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comment

@Bellezzasolo: I am glad you are trying to bring this article to FA and I think that it is definitely an important subject that really ought to be brought up to FA, but I happened to notice that the article seems to be sorely lacking in citations. There are whole paragraphs that are completely uncited. In order to become an FA, every single statement in the entire article needs to be cited to a reliable source (and really this should have been the case with GA also, but apparently that was not a standard eleven years ago when this article became a "Good Article.") I will say that the level of helpful media content in the article is certainly worthy of an FA, though.

Hopefully this advice has helped a little bit. I really do not know very much about the University of Oxford; I am an American who has never left the country, so I cannot really help you much on the accuracy or completeness of the article. Good luck with the article and congratulations on getting into the University of Oxford! (This is coming from someone who has applied to the University of Chicago, which has a 7.9% acceptance rate, a rate which I imagine is probably similar to the University of Oxford's; I still have not yet received notification that I have been rejected, as I inevitably will be.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Indian Administrative Service

Article is a WP:GA nominee, any and all critique is welcome.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Peer Review Bot

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Mount Carmel East

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 January 2018, 00:18 UTC
Last edit: 12 February 2018, 09:21 UTC

Twin Towers 2

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for Good article consideration. It isn't quite Good article satisfactory yet, but I would like some editors inputs on the matter. Thanks! Thanks, CookieMonster755 20:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: I guess you will have better luck getting a copyedit first at WP:GOCE/REQ. Peer review doesn't seem to be very active.
Anyway, you may want to consider splitting the lead up into separate paragraphs. Additionally, you may want to get rid of the "Planning" header. For a GA quality article, the lead should make it obvious that this proposal was never built. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Epicgenius:, I will make those changes soon. CookieMonster755 16:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
For the Get rid of the Planning header part, I meant, bringing up all the subsections with 3 equals signs to main sections with 2 equals signs. epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Geography and places

Level Mountain

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 31 December 2017, 21:12 UTC
Last edit: 6 February 2018, 02:46 UTC

Hong Kong

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because most parts of the article have been exhaustively rewritten and rechecked over the past month and I'm looking to have it re-listed as FA.

Thanks, Horserice (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Since this has gone so long without anyone picking up, and because it's an article about a major global city, and because I worked on the Dubai peer review, and because I've been there, I will print it out and do this. Give me a couple of days ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Cheers, Horserice (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


Arab Agricultural Revolution

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because since it has attained GA status there has been a discussion about its title and focus. We have reached consensus that the article is about the historical events, not just the famous 1974 paper by Watson. I have accordingly extended the article to focus more on the historical events, less on Watson's paper and the subsequent academic arguments. The original GA reviewer has suggested PR "primarily to ascertain that the prose is clear to a person without previous knowledge of this topic."

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Gloucester

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 February 2018, 01:22 UTC
Last edit: 17 February 2018, 08:03 UTC

Kate Sheppard

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 2 February 2018, 18:22 UTC
Last edit: 12 February 2018, 22:04 UTC


Looking for fresh eyes to help get this article into shape for a run at FAC. It's pretty much a 1st draft at the moment, and has not been subjected to my usual obsessive copy-editing process, so I'm not looking for any issues of prose right now. The article obviously lacks images, but I will be sourcing these in due course. What I am interested to learn is how well it all hangs together. Does it flow reasonably well? Have I missed anything? Any issues of clarity or ambiguity? Have I gone into too much detail anywhere? I'm more than happy for a cursory PR and a simple list of "this doesn't work, that could be better..." - there's no requirement to offer solutions with the critique. Thanks, Factotem (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, first of all, to this Australian military historian, "yeomanry" immediately brings to mind the yeomanry regiments in the Sinai and Palestine in the Great War. But this is wound up relatively quickly in the last section. Australian accounts note the yeomanry at this stage as being composed of the landed gentry, and its preference for clean table cloths and silverware. You say that "in 1913, re-united with their swords" but never mention their being parted from them. Did all regiments volunteer for overseas service in the Great War? Actually, there is a whole article on British yeomanry during the First World War, but it isn't referenced in the article, even in the "See also" section.

  • Becke and Perry are listed in the bibliography, but not used. His volume on the AIF was so riddled with errors that I created my own OrBat. I hope his British volumes are better.
  • The images seem fine. Although they look all odd sizes on my screen.
  • Suggest swapping the second and third paragraphs of the lead around
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Very good point. I thought long and hard about the scope of this article, and at one stage it had a lot more content on the actions of the yeomanry regiments in the First and Second World Wars. However, there's a very distinct cut-off in 1908 with the Territorial Force. At this point the discrete "Yeomanry Cavalry" became, alongside their infantry equivalent the Volunteer Force, components of an altogether different, unified auxiliary organisation. Given the length of the article, that seemed to be a quite logical end-point, with the quick winding-up in the last section acting as an aftermath-type section. I've also proposed changing the article name to "Yeomanry Cavalry" to reflect the very specific organisation this article is about. Does this look like a significant issue to you?
    The cut-off seems fine, although you could make it more explicit. Especially given existence of the other article, which can take the story from there. As for the name change, "Yeomanry cavalry" seems to have been a popular term in the 19th century, but its use rapidly declined in the early 20th. That's why I hadn't seen it.[1] "Yeomanry" has always been by far the more common term. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point about making it more explicit, and precisely the kind of feedback I was hoping for. Thank you. I'm working now on a more detailed narrative relating to the Territorial Force, and the continued debate about the role of auxiliary forces in general and the yeomanry in particular that led up to that flawed solution. Factotem (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Did not know about that other yeomanry article. I've added it to the see also section, but I'll look into integrating that better into the last section.
  • The swords were prised from the yeomanry in 1901, when the govt tried to shoe-horn a reluctant and still very exclusive yeomanry into a mounted infantry role. That's already covered in the "Imperial Yeomanry" section.
  • I'll look into the pics. I use various different sizes according to how they look on my screen and, if I'm honest, to disguise the fact that until very recently there were hardly any. Maybe I can just reset them all to default thumbs now.
  • As an aside, this is the first in a series of articles I'm hoping to work on, all based around British auxiliary forces. The next will be the Territorial Force, as that has a nice cut-off when it became the Territorial Army after WWII Factotem (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to upgrade it to at least a "good article", maybe even a "featured article". The last time, nobody bothered to do a review, so I am submitting it again. And I'm going to keep submitting it, again and again and again, until someone has the courtesy to review it. Please, help me out, I would be very grateful.

Thanks, Seiya (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh, bag WP:PR. I'm taking Bengal Famine of 1943 to WP:GA, where they may or may not give the best advice, but at least they will do something.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Seiya: Personally, At the current state of the article, I'd just go ahead and GA nominate it. If you really want, I'll do a review, but I'd recommending GA nominating, then PR nominating, as generally those tend to get more response. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics

Messier 87

I've listed this article for peer review because, it has been a good article for over seven years and has been improved all along. To my mind it is good enough to be nominated for Feature Article Status. But before that, I would like to request feedback from others if it is really as good as I think or if it needs further improvements before being nominated as such.

Thanks ubedjunejo (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Looking now - does look in okay shape at first glance....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • This sentence, "M87 continued to be called an extragalactic nebula for many years thereafter, but by 1956 it had been identified as an E0-type galaxy" - could do with some expansion - e.g. who called it an E0 galaxy and on what evidence did they do so?
Hi, thanks for your comments. As for first one, regarding designation as nebula/galaxy, I have found a couple papers from 1950s. Earlier of them (published in 1954) mentions M87 as nebula, while the latter (published in 1956) calls it an elliptical galaxy, but the authors do not mention the grounds for calling it a galaxy, which means its status as galaxy was established prior to that. The latter is given as reference to the statement you have mentioned. It is not clear exactly when and how it began being labelled as galaxy rather nebula. But it should be somewhere in between 1954 and 1956. I will keep looking for it. Thanks. ubedjunejo (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Does it have any satellite galaxies? If not, mention there are none.
 Done Cas Liber! It does have satellites and I have mentioned them in the article with references. You may have a look. Please share if you have any other ideas. Thanks--ubedjunejo (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sleep paralysis

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article depends on a very small number of references that are almost all primary sources. The section on Pathophysiology is highly technical and highly speculative.

Thanks, Neurorel (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

I've listed this article for peer review because…

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

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

Comments by Ubedjunejo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake

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


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 January 2018, 03:28 UTC
Last edit: 28 January 2018, 15:19 UTC

Language and literature

Philosophy and religion

2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC in due course and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Faith in Buddhism

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it as a Featured Article. I would like to have some feedback before I submit. This is the first time I will submit an article for FA.

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Presbyterian Church in the United States of America

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for this article to one day reach Featured Article status. While I have nominated good articles before, I have never nominated an article for FA status and would like input on what sort of improvements I would need to make to get this article ready. Basically, I'm looking for any advice on issues with prose, sourcing, article layout, illustrations, coverage (is it detailed enough?) and anything else that might keep this article from moving forward.

Thanks, Ltwin (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

David Meade (author)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 30 January 2018, 20:09 UTC
Last edit: 4 February 2018, 03:55 UTC

Mohammad Hamid Ansari

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA. I am facing some difficulties in expanding the article primarily because lack of sufficient information for GA standards. This is because, Mr. Ansari was a diplomat and there is hardly any coverage of him. Also though he became the vice president of India, since it is merely a ceremonial post, not much is to add about. So I need some suggestions to improve this article.

Thanks, RRD (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by CookieMonster755

I will be making some comments soon. However, on a first note, the lead needs improvement. There are only two paragraphs in the lead. Generally, it should be four and should be a summary of the article. I will mention more specifics when I have time. On another note, consistency in capitalization and grammar should be established. Indian Politician, the word politician should be lower cased, as well as vice in Vice president. Thanks. CookieMonster755 20:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Social sciences and society

Ammar Campa-Najjar

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

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

Indian hospital

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

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

Lèse majesté in Thailand

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a potential good article. I would like to receive general suggestions and suggestions per GA criteria.

Thanks, Horus (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nibiru cataclysm

I've listed this article for peer review because it has more than doubled in size since it became a good article and I'm pondering if it's ready for FA consideration.

Thanks, Serendipodous 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from LovelyGirl7

  • Hi @Serendipodous: I think this article looks great. It’s just that I would add a few sentences (at least 1-3 sentences) in the “Cultural influence”. I do think after that, it’s ready for FA. —LovelyGirl7 talk 02:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Phillips Exeter Academy Library

I've listed this article for peer review to prep it for FA nomination.

Thanks, alphalfalfa(talk) 02:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Rhinopias

Hi, alphalfalfa! I've read through the article and here are some suggestions:


  • I rewrote the first paragraph here, feel free to change if desired. I don't think mentioning its size prior to its relationship with the academy makes sense, and I wanted the statement about it being the largest secondary school library before its capacity.
  • Seems like a good representation of the article!

History and services

  • Two sentences which end paragraphs don't have footnotes so their sourcing isn't clear – if adding footnotes would be redundant you could list where the info is from in hidden comments following the sentences
  • Paragraphs can be combined so they're more substantial – I see how they're organized based on the topic, but they could be grouped by date ranges (e.g. 1800s – 1950, new library beginnings – 2006, maybe the latest stuff with most recent statistics on its own if it's substantial enough)
  • Image caption: the architectural points aren't discussed in the body of this section
  • less emphasis on shushing library patrons – could use a reword to replace "shushing"
  • Replace the use of Today, see MOS:DATED
  • I see that In 1995, the library was officially named the Class of 1945 Library, honoring … is from a source, but I don't understand the significance of that; if it's just a bureaucratic thing and no one refers to the library by that name I'd remove the "officially named" part
  • I'm not sure if the library's "services" are really discussed in this section, so it could be called just History (unless it's expanded, of course!)

Choosing Louis Kahn as architect

  • The section title could be more succinctly "Selecting an architect", otherwise please add "the" to the current
  • chosen to design the new library for Phillips Exeter Academy – to clarify after listing others
  • Don't think the second quote from Kahn describing books is necessary, but the first I think gives some context


  • The library's heating and cooling needs are supplied by the nearby dining hall – so there is no HVAC infrastructure in the library? Don't really understand what this means
  • Also, that sentence doesn't need to be on its own line
  • File:Phillips-Exeter-Academy-Library-Exterior-Exeter-New-Hampshire-Apr-2014-b.jpg could be cropped to focus on the building more if the quality is good enough (which it seems to be), so the reader may be able to refer to the image from the text without opening up the image
  • In paragraph two of #Exterior, the last sentence of the quote (The Library at Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire (1967–1972) is a classic example) isn't necessary as that can be summarized
  • Could add "(a form of limestone)" or similar after travertine
  • I think the paragraphs of #Interior could also be combined a bit – the last three are good

Architectural interpretations

  • I'd move this section under the prior one and just call it "Interpretation", or maybe "Critical reception"/"Critical response" as it seems to be critical in nature (especially the second paragraph)?
  • Can you grab a ref from First Unitarian Church of Rochester to source the last sentence of the first paragraph, or is it already in a ref somewhere in the article?
  • Is the use of issue at the beginning of the second paragraph meant to be negative? Or is it just a notable topic to discuss?


  • #Recognition: I think this section could be in prose format rather than a list; one of the three could be expanded a little so the paragraph is more than three quick sentences
  • #External links: can these two bullets be shortened? (e.g. cut "is an excellent resource", maybe "see Figure 6 for …")
  • I fixed up a few of the article's links. I recommend doing some preventative archiving.
  • Is the shortening of the name to Exeter Library an official thing that the library or academy itself uses? I'm not sure if it's an issue if not, but when the name needs to be reiterated you may just want to use the full name and use "the library" when possible
  • I found myself enjoying the quotes, but I think it's bordering on too many. It's not a copyright violation of online sources, but I can't say about offline ones. Perhaps you should evaluate which ones you feel are the most necessary throughout the article and paraphrase the others, mostly in #Architecture and #Architectural interpretations.

Very interesting article. I can't believe this school has such a nice library! Feel free to ping me when you respond to my comments. If you have time and wouldn't mind leaving comments on my open PR I'd really appreciate it! (And it's coincidentally another Twenty-five Year Award winner!) Rhinopias (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


List of Turkish football champions

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

Thanks, Akocsg (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Kollegah discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to get help. My goal is to get this article promoted to a Featured list.

Thanks, Lee (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Song of the Year

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

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews