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.



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: 12 December 2017, 20:30 UTC

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

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: 9 December 2017, 04:50 UTC
Last edit: 12 December 2017, 11:29 UTC

Arthur Sullivan

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 December 2017, 22:38 UTC
Last edit: 12 December 2017, 22:24 UTC

Regine Velasquez

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 November 2017, 08:35 UTC
Last edit: 10 December 2017, 13:14 UTC

Salsa Big Band

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate Salsa Big Band to GA (the album recently won the Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year) and I think the prose can be improved. Thanks, Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Irene ,

The sections about characters and plot in your article are clear and easy to follow. Description is neutral so far. It will be great if you can add more sections, such as its background, adaptions, comments, etc., to make your article's structure integrated. Besides, if you can find more external links for readers to access, it might help them to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the play and will be a good supplement.

Thank you. QsCarolyn (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Le Cid

Hi, Kyra!

Great job on your article so far. The cast of characters was well laid-out, and the plot summary was easy to follow. Have there been performances of Le Cid in recent years? Do you have any way of finding out if it is still performed/how frequently it is?

I definitely think you kept the article neutral and factual.

You may want to try adding in links to other things within the words in the article. For instance, a link to Aristotle's Poetics might help inform the reader as to what standards audience members may have been holding the play to. Also, perhaps a link to Jean Chapelain, mentioned when talking about the critical review of the play, might be helpful to show what role he served.

Otherwise, I think this is a very well thought-out article that uses visuals and content together very well.

Thanks, Emmaosmundson (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kyra!

Your article' structure is clear and comprehensive, and the sections of "Characters" and "Plot summary" are brief, explicit, which is easy for readers, who are not familiar with it, to follow and grasp. I think more information about its background will be great to help readers understand this play. Also, is there any other translations of this script, except for the English and French one? And any other adaptations of the play were performed before? If they have, when and where? Both will be some useful information for the wiki page, if you can find out. Besides, if you can access with some comments/critique articles by later scholars and add in the page, that would be a good supplement.

Hope my suggestion could assist your editing work in some way.

Thank you.

QsCarolyn (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tim Riley

An interesting read, but if you are aiming at GA or FA there is some way to go. First, and most important, we are short of citations for too many statements. Secondly, the prose needs polishing.

  • Lead
    • Please see the Manual of Style page on lead sections. They should summarise everything of importance in the main body of the article and should not contain any information that does not feature in the main text.
    • "subject of a heated polemic over the norms of dramatic practice known as the Querelle du Cid" – ambiguous. To make it unambiguous we want something like "subject of a heated polemic, known as the Querelle du Cid, over the norms of dramatic practice"
    • "a heated polemic" – is the noun quite the right one here? Our WP article defines the word as "contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position", whereas a "querelle" suggests a debate or argument.
  • Background
    • based off of the life – this is not English. I imagine it is supposed to mean "based on the life"
    • "lived approximately from 1043" – the adverb is in the wrong position and seems to modify "lived" rather than 1043. "lived from approximately 1043" would more clearly convey your meaning.
    • "a sell-sword figure" – at a guess this neologism means "a mercenary". It occurs in none of the three dictionaries I regularly use: the Oxford, Chambers and Collins.
    • "further given" – "further" seems to serve no purpose here.
  • Performance History and "La Querelle"
    • There is not a single citation in the whole section. In particular, the last sentences of paragraphs, expressing opinions – "rather realistically", "proved" – need to be justified by citing a reliable source for each.
    • "controversial due to" – in good prose "due to" is not used as a compound preposition. "Owing to", which has been accepted as a compound preposition for at least 200 years, would be grammatically acceptable, but "because of" is plainer and better.
    • "Académie Française" – you italicise this in the lead but not here. Consistency needed.
  • Characters
    • I cannot find any firm stipulation in the Manual of Style, but my experience is that it is usual to use spaced en-dashes rather than hyphens in lists of this kind.
  • Plot summary
    • The summary is adequately written, and is clear enough. I prefer to cite the page numbers of a published text for each scene or act, but that's just my view, and uncited plot summaries generally seem to be acceptable at GAN or FAC.

I hope these few points are of use. – Tim riley talk 10:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Afterthought: looking at other recent requests for peer reviews I now realise that your work on this article was part of your course-work, and that some of my jargon, above, (GAN, FAC etc) that would be intelligible to regular contributors to Wikipedia may well be double-Dutch as far as you are concerned. I hope you will pick and choose from my comments above, and follow up the ones that you find useful. Tim riley talk 11:37, 26 November 2017 (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)

Rabinal Achí

I've listed this article for peer review so that I can get some constructive feedback on what I need to complete. Some fields are missing, but I would like to get some thoughts on how to better the structure or make-up of this article.

Thanks, Emmaosmundson (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review.

Thanks, Aoifemahood (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn

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 November 2017, 11:59 UTC
Last edit: 12 December 2017, 19:28 UTC

Legend of a Cowgirl

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to being worthy of a GA nomination. I just want to make sure there aren't any glaring issues with it. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Anotheronewiki (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I updated the infobox as per the current Template:Infobox song#Parameters (easier than listing here). I notice that the video "Synopsis" section has no inline citations and one link to a video. WP:GACR #2 includes "Verifiable with no original research". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the feedback! I think I'll take out the synopsis & replace it with only details about the video that I can cite. -Anotheronewiki (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Scott (TV personality)

I've listed this article for peer review because, as the principal editor, I would like a fresh set of eyes to help improve the quality of the article. Ideally, it would eventually reach GA status.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 16:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Fawad Khan

Fawad Khan is a Pakistani actor who appeares in Pakistani film, dramas and Indian films. I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to improve it for the last three months. It was promoted to GA but has recently failed FA. I am looking forward to your comments.

Thanks, Amirk94391 (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these types of article but I already used the archivebot to archive all references so that it would pass a source review. Nevertheless, one issue I found is that the article has some small paragraphs. Remember that writing in Wikipedia is like writing a formal letter. Every paragraph should be balanced and at the same time avoid a reference overkill like "For his role, Khan went through a body transformation.[71][72][73][74]" The body transformation could be further explained too. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Thank you so much for your precious time. As you mentioned, I've removed unnecessary and extra citations, merged some small paragraphs and explained body transformation. Amirk94391 (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This BLP is no longer a GA. see talk page. --Saqib (talk) 16:12, 16 October 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)

Everyday life


Listing this to get additional feedback on the article with an eye towards taking it to FA status—especially interested in prose comments from fresh eyes. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Politics and Prose

I'm considering going through WP:FAC for the first time ever, and I'd love to have a full peer review done before I jump into the lion's den. Specifically I'd love for the article to be compared against the featured article criteria.

Thanks, Nomader (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Eddie891

FA criteria:

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.  Pass
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; Pass and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)  Pass—see citing sourcesfor suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policyNon-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.  Pass
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.  Pass

I am not sure about the others. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Engineering and technology

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 47

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to be checked and expanded. I cannot find any more sources on LC-47, and what I have written is all I have found. I would love to expand this article if possible.

Thanks, Nickrulercreator (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

it's not bad, for what's there. usually, the best way to expand is to find sources. it may be that there's not much to say, but you might be able to find more -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Grok (JPEG 2000)

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new article, my first wikipedia article, and I would really appreciate feedback so I can make it better.

Thanks, Aaron Boxer

  • well, it's a stub, firstoff. there's not much there. find more sources to expand it. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


Lisa Blue Baron

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what information would improve the article.

Thanks, Seporche (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

  • At a cursory glance, the article looks to lack major issues. However, the article does not go into a lot of detail on things such as her $33.5 million house.
  • "n 2012, she was elected Vice-President of the American Association for Justice and began her leadership of the organization in 2014 when she moved to Washington D.C" You can probably go into a LOT more detail on this.
  • I would try to remain consistent (at least in a section) with referring to her as "Blue" or "Baron"
  • I found this in an article, seems worth a mention "A decade ago, the National Law Journal named her a top female lawyer"
  • Her being dyslexic seems worth a mention
  • Seems she was also a prolific contributor to the Clintons in the 1990s as well.
  • You might talk a bit about philanthropy
  • "In May 2010, a court ruled the Hills should receive almost $115 million. About 30 percent of that was to go to three attorneys. But Hill refused to pay, calling the fee “unconscionable,” according to court documents.

Blue and her co-counsel sued. In June, a magistrate awarded them more than $34 million. Hill is appealing." seems bigger than the 55 million case mentioned.

  • overall, I would probably just expand the article with available information. Look at other lawyers for ideas. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Cub Swanson

I've listed this article for peer review because:

  1. The article has been expanded significantly
  2. New aspects of Swanson has been brought in, eg sponsorship, filmatography and sponsorship
  3. Cub Swanson is a rising star in the UFC featherweight division. Let us perfect his biography for all the MMA fans out there.

May fellow Wikipedians kindly give me feedback on whether the article provides a complete picture or does it leave you wanting for more info? Is it worth a GA status?

Thank you very much 张雨涵 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments From Eddie891

  • Per WP:LEDE, an article of that length should have a lead paragraph of about 3-4 paragraphs.
  • The article seems slightly excessively broken up. Sentences like " The adoptive family was religious." are much shorter than could be. You could probably consider merging sentences like "The adoptive family was religious. So Swanson spent most of his early life in church." into one sentence.
  • Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." It seems like you have a large number of single sentence- short paragraphs.

A good article, just needs some style workEddie891 Talk Work 00:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Najiba Faiz

I've listed this article for peer review because I have written it carefully and have left no any mistake writing it. If you find, please share it.

Thanks, SahabAliwadia 16:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The page contains so many non-RS sources. --Saqib (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Did she work in Sawan. By the way, I couldn't find any reliable English language source that covered her, apart from the Sawan mentions. May be something like highbeam will help to find some reliable sources. Otherwise, chances are that the article will not pass a WP:N challenge. Are there any good Urdu or Pashtun sources? Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Royal Mint

Having expanded the article a great deal, I wish to further develop the article to GA or possibly FA status. Any words of advice or tips are greatly appreciated. Thanks You. Tsange (Talk) 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

I strongly advise you to ask for help from the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. There is clearly good stuff in this article, but the prose is nowhere near GA, let alone FA standard. A few random examples of what I mean:

  • "The original London mint from which the Royal Mint takes heritage" – "takes heritage" is a most peculiar phrase. I imagine you mean something like "…of which the Royal Mint is a successor"
  • "...moving to the now named Royal Mint Court" – "moving to what is now called…" ?
  • "While the mint warden was also responsible for witnessing the delivery of dies." – This is not a sentence.
  • "...king Henry VIII" – The Manual of Style requires King Henry
  • "ending all coin production outside of London being moved to the London mint" – I suppose this means "ending all coin production outside London and moving it to the London mint"
  • "Due to Scotland's heavy debasement of their silver coins" – singular noun with plural pronoun. Scotland as a football team may be "they" but Scotland as a country is not.
  • "which led trader to resume minting" – "traders" plural I imagine

I got as far as the Civil War before concluding that thorough copy-editing was needed. In addition, some other points from the sections I have read:

  • "the mint has been in danger multiple times of being privatised" – this is a blatant WP:POV. Something more neutral such as "...there have frequently been plans to privatise..." is needed.
  • "Kentish tribes ... nearby Marseille" – this would be the Marseille in the south of France, 700 miles away? Not "nearby" I'd say.
  • "few local and episcopals" – I'm sure you know what this means, and I can make a guess of sorts, but "episcopals" should be either explained or linked to a suitable article.

I am sorry to be a wet blanket, but an article of such good content needs equally good prose, and I think the Guild is your best bet. – Tim riley talk 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for taking a look at the article and for your honest comments. I will ask for help from the Guild of Copy Editors, as you have suggested. Tsange (Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I'm listing this for peer review because I would like to explore the possibilities of nominating it for featured article candidacy in the future, but am unsure because of the limited sourcing present on this subject. The only new source I can find on the game is this 1UP article that is unfortunately not archived at (I was able to find it) Any thoughts?

Thanks, JOEBRO64 17:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • If you want this to be FA, you need more sources. For a such an obscure subject, it won't be easy. If it was popular in Asia\Russia, that is where you would need to look.--Vaypertrail (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Canobie Lake Park

Previous peer review

It hasn't been long since the article's last peer review, I know, but I was hoping to get an additional set of eyes to look at this article while I attempt to prepare it for a Good Article nomination further down the line. For one, any suggestions about the ride list, and how to make it look much better than it does, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! BruzerFox 23:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Geography and places


I've listed this article for peer review because, it have had gone under major constructive edits from 2016. After experienced editors gave me some suggestions, I'll correct/add them and will submit this article to GA nomination.

Thanks, IM3847 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sitakunda Upazila

Previous peer review

A GA that has gone through two exhaustive reviews, but still failed FA nomination. I have done some work since the failure. I am pretty much the sole contributor to the article, and working without anyone collaborating can be a lonely experience. I need help with this one. Please, help me with anything you can - copy, format, images, facts, data, organization of the article... Aditya(talkcontribs) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Just tell me what needs to be done. I promise to do all as much I can. Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


19th Grey Cup

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant additions and changes to the page and feel it is worthy of a re-assessment.

Thanks, GNeysmith (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars

Substantially expanded article which I'm hoping to progress to FAC. I'm still trying to source some relevant images, which is proving particularly difficult for the First World War section, but I'm working on a map that shows the extent of 1/1st RGH's movements from Suez to Aleppo, and the article is otherwise pretty much complete as far as I am concerned. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2017 (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)

Nicholas Exton

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 November 2017, 15:50 UTC
Last edit: 8 December 2017, 09:34 UTC

Lucius Caesar

I'm hoping to get this page to GA status. I'm open to any and all suggestions to help get it there. Also, it's at start class right now, so if it could pass a higher class as it is that would be nice. I'm sure it's at least C-class!

Thanks, SpartaN (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Croxton Play of the Sacrament

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like suggestions on how to make this article better.

Thanks, Jre1991 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Skene (theatre)

I've listed this article for peer review because…I am in the process of significantly improving the quality of the article

Thanks, Stories Alive (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2017 (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: 31 October 2017, 18:44 UTC
Last edit: 12 December 2017, 07:04 UTC

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

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: 28 October 2017, 21:46 UTC
Last edit: 11 December 2017, 09:48 UTC

Li Shanchang

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Article is finished for the time being. Give it a score.

Thanks, FourLights (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments From Eddie891

  • I'd try and avoid quoting things that can merely be rephrased such as "bored with Li's arrogance" and "planned the organization of the six ministries, shared in the drafting of a new law code, and supervised the compilations of the History of Yuan, the Ancestral Instructions and the Ritual Compendium of the Ming Dynasty."
  • I'd avoid things like "the History of Mingbiography" because it is evident in the source.

more to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

William Henry Powell (soldier)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 September 2017, 20:24 UTC
Last edit: 15 November 2017, 11:49 UTC

Thornton Chase

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: 15 September 2017, 20:49 UTC
Last edit: 8 October 2017, 20:06 UTC

Romanian Navy during World War II

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 August 2017, 17:18 UTC
Last edit: 13 November 2017, 17:38 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article going for a "Good article" status. I am looking for people to review it for, like, discovering errors like grammar mistakes.

Thanks, LeGabrie (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The lede doesn't accurately summarize the article. It should reflect the major content of each section.
  • Introductory sentences are good ideas for the paragraphs, but each should be referenced. Don't make conclusions that aren't expressly paraphrased from a source. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia aims to summarize the secondary source. If a conclusion is important, a secondary source will make it. Until then, it's fine to just list the related conclusions, as put in the sources, in order.
  • Keep encyclopedic tone by replacing "we" ("If we can believe John", "At least we learn the names", "we can only guess that") with the actual subject ("scholars"?)
  • I'll make some in-line tags. Feel free to resolve (or remove without resolution) in-line, or bring here for discussion if helpful
  • The museum images (Sudan Archaeological Research Society, Archaeological Museum of Gdansk, etc.) need to specifically allow relicensing under the stated licensing (you used cc-by-sa-4.0). You can find the standard consent at commons:Commons:Consent. That permission can be documented by forwarding the email to WP:OTRS.
  • Any reason why you're not using standard citation templates? {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} can make your life much easier, and you can link your short footnotes to the main footnotes with {{sfn}}. (For an example, see User:Czar/drafts/Idia masks.) If you use a citation manager such as Zotero, there are also ways to export direct from there (and import journal articles from their websites).
  • This topic can get thick with jargon. Gear the text for a general audience by explaining new terms and linking to related concepts
  • Let me know if you need help with any of the above and I'll get you started. If it's too much, I can also do most of it for you, though of course, teach a person to fish... and so on

czar 22:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Has been a while, but there we go: Reworked the lead section and citations, put references on introductory sentences or deleted them straight away and the "we's" are gone. Concerning the images: How exactly should I do it? Just for clarification: Their creators gave me the full rights for them.
LeGabrie (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
First, determine who holds the copyright. Photos are owned by the original photographer, not the person who happens to have the photo. Illustrations are owned by the artist, etc. The artistry of old artifacts is out of copyright, but a photograph that depicts the work usually has its own copyright. The rights holders need to send their explicit commons:Commons:Consent to license their works under free-use (Wikipedia-compatible) Creative Commons terms to the email address (called "OTRS") listed on that page. The emailer will receive a ticket number, so you might prefer to forward the permissions to that OTRS email address yourself. Someone will eventually review the ticket and archive the permissions for posterity. If you don't know the copyright holder, bring the case here and tell me what you know so I can help. czar 15:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh man, that's complicated as hell. Might as well just ask the copyright holders to upload the pictures with an own account. In the meantime: Is the rest of the entry ok? LeGabrie (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
It's mainly in the interest of protecting the actual rightsholders by confirming eligibility. The most complicated part is having the copyright holders send the license boilerplate from an official email, as there are a variety of ways to handle the subsequent steps. It could be as simple as linking to the uploaded file and including the boilerplate for the copyright holder to copy/paste in return.
Improvements have been good, although on skim I can tell that the jargon will need some finesse for a general audience (Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable) and the lede should still expand in scope to summarize the breadth of the article. I'm booked up right now but try me in a month or so and I can give it a copyedit/read-through. czar 09:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Arab Agricultural Revolution

I've listed this article for peer review because to my surprise this quiet, well-cited article has met with out-of-hand rejection at GAN. Having considered what is needed I've found nothing I wish to alter, but would welcome the independent thoughts of other editors.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:Anotheronewiki

This is my first peer review, so bear with me. Also, I'm not an expert, so I might have missed some problems, or some of what I point out may not be problematic. Here goes.

  • The first sentence in the lead section seems a little unwieldy. It might be a good idea to split it into two or three sentences, or to rearrange it so that the meaning of "Arab Agricultural Revolution" comes before the info on who coined the term.
  • It's best to have the lead section act as an overview of the article as a whole. Try rewording some of the lead so it's broad enough that you need no (or fewer) citations (as long as the info is restated in the body of the article, with citations there).
Moved the list of alternative names out of lead, with their citations.
  • I don't think it's necessary to name specific scholars who disagreed with the idea in the lead. Perhaps you could simply note that some scholars disagreed in the lead, so people can go down and read the "Reception" section if that's what they're interested in.
Watson's paper
  • The first paragraph is really good. I see no blatant issues with it.
  • Three of the four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Watson." I think it would be OK to refer to him as "he" a couple of times, since he's the only individual mentioned in the section.
  • For conciseness, I think you could reword the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the 2nd paragraph to read "according to Watson, had not previously grown these plants; he listed eighteen such crops."
  • The first sentence doesn't sound quite right. Maybe "Watson's work was met with some early scepticism, for example from the historian Jeremy Johns in 1984" could be reworded as "Watson's work was initially met with some scepticism from historians including Jeremy Johns in 1984" or something like that. When you say the skepticism was early, it sounds like the skepticism came before the paper was published.
  • The following sentence, in the 3rd paragraph in the reception section, feels a little too complicated: "In the case of cotton, which the Romans grew mainly in Egypt, cultivation remained minor in the classical Islamic period, the major fibre being flax, as in Roman times." There are so many dependent clauses that it takes a couple of reads to understand the sentence. I'd recommend either splitting it into 2 sentences or rewording it to combine clauses.
  • The rest of the reception section looks pretty good. I can't see anything wrong with it.

Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-researched article. I learned quite a bit from it, and I think that with a few minor changes, it'll have no trouble passing GA Assessment. Good luck! -Anotheronewiki (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Very many thanks for taking the time. I'll see what I can do to incorporate your suggestions and will post details here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd just like general feedback on the article-- possibly suggestions on how to improve the coherency of the article.

Thanks, Rolandogzz (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Laboratory glassware

I've listed this article for peer review because a solid introduction to laboratory glassware is extremely useful to anyone who either works or is learning science.

The quality grades in the banners on the talk page may need to be updated.

Thanks, Agriculturist50 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Agriculturist50: The lead needs to summarize more. It doesn't explain what glassware as used for, which is one of the basic things you'd expect. Lot more cites are needed. Perhaps from a book on glassware. The scope of article needs to be clear, but I'd atleast expect some summary in the body about how glassware is useful and what it is used for. The safety section is mostly irrelevant as we're not a safety guide. Galobtter (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Thanks for looking over the article. I am in the process of expanding the work using more citations.

The lead is tricky because laboratory glassware is used for so many different tasks in labs and there are so many different types of glassware it is mind boggling. The scope has seemed to have crept a good bit because of differing contributions. Students, educators, glass blowers, professors, scientists, medical practitioners, and vendors all come at laboratory glassware from a different angle.

Much of the safety information was derived from content other users already placed in the article. For right now I transferred all the glassware safety material to the article on laboratory safety. Not surprisingly, this article was missing anything on laboratory glassware safety.

Language and literature

Isaac Asimov

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a featured article before, but it was demoted because it only had 12 citations. It now has 179, so I want to see if it's ready to be nominated for FA status again, or what other improvements would be advisable first.

Thanks, Richard75 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

Not having enough citations would certainly be a barrier to FA status, but having a bunch isn't enough by itself. I haven't read it from end to end, but some things I noticed skimming:

  • Two sections are headlined by cleanup banners. That's an immediate fail at GA, much less FA.
  • The sources that are provided include some that probably don't meet WP:RS (, for example), and a lot (about half) of the citations are to Asimov's own writings. FA reviewers will want to see independent secondary sources used whenever possible. There are several published books about him already listed under sources, so those are probably a good place to start.
  • There is a great deal of inconsistency in citation styles. A consistent system will be needed for FA. I did a bit of cleanup on this, but there is more to do.
  • I spotted several paragraphs of just one or two sentences. Typically that indicates a problem of choppy writing or unnecessary trivia.
  • Speaking of trivia, the section on "Television, music, and film appearances" looks like a WP:TRIVIA list. Probably this should be rewritten as a narrative that highlights his most noteworthy appearances (based on those secondary sources mentioned above). Every specific time an author showed up on a talk show does not need to be listed in an encyclopedia article.

There are probably more details lurking in the text that I didn't read, but the obvious items above would be enough to block an FA. --RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

Luang Por Dhammajayo

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback how the article can be improved to GA level, but I do not want to nominate it for GA as yet. In Thailand the subject is very sensitive and controversial, but I have tried to show all sides of the story. I would appreciate feedback on the article's prose, neutrality and focus.

The links to the Matichon E-library in the article are now behind a paywall, but I can send any of these sources through a sharing service to anyone wishing to know more about these sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Papal conclave

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 September 2017, 16:32 UTC
Last edit: 23 October 2017, 22:39 UTC

Social sciences and society

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)

Chinese Neoauthoritarianism

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Because I'd like it graded.

Thanks, FourLights (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis

I've listed this article for peer review because this is an important ongoing event in Australian Politics and I was wondering how other Wikipedia editors think in may be improved

Thanks, Superegz (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a "good article" for over four years and I want to know if there are any improvements that could be made to it or if it is near "featured article" quality.

Thanks, Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Four instances of cites using deprecated parameter |trans_title=   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: I have replaced trans_title with trans-title. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


List of countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

This article has been improved drastically since April this year to emulate the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. I rolled out the changes a day ago and I believe that this article is potentially suitable for a featured list nomination. The relevant updates have been listed here. If you review the article, feel free to ask me to edit an article of your choice in return. Thank you. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 03:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize recipients

I've listed this article for peer review because the list is deemed comprehensive and complete as of date.

Thanks, [email protected] (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Score Soundtrack for Visual Media

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's close to meeting the criteria to become featured. My main concerns with it are the lead and the name changes, as this particular award has had many. I'm open to any comments on how to improve these sections and the whole list as a whole.

Thanks, BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Rhinopias

Hi, BeatlesLedTV. Great job compiling this into a table! Here are some notes:


  • Not sure if (and its many previous names) is useful; a comment like "The award has been known by many names …" somewhere in the lead may flow better, but see my thoughts below on the names
  • When reading the lead the first time I confused the first Grammy Awards ceremony with the first year the award was presented – I think It has been awarded since the 2nd Annual Grammy Awards in 1959 should be in the first paragraph
  • The established in 1958 may not be necessary then as "2nd Annual" covers that, and how long ago was the ceremony called the "Gramophone Awards"? (This is prominently mentioned on Grammy Award)
  • Multiple wins/nominations could be elaborated on more like in Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album § Artists with multiple wins if it's warranted (but maybe not – I don't see many repeating names!)

Name changes

I'm not really sure what to suggest here. I don't know if every single previous name that the award has had is worth mentioning in a list? (Also, are all of those previous names in the three references at the top of the list?) I think that this could be made into just a paragraph mentioning the original name, names used for a while (e.g. the one used from 1979–1986), and when the roles the award is presented to has changed (e.g. 2001, 2007 from lead). Alternatively, maybe just the few most recent changes if readers are not ever likely to come across the oldest of the names.

  • I put all of its previous names into a table. Hopefully it looks good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Much improved! I'm still not sure if all of the name changes—with how very frequent they are—warrant inclusion, but if it's after the recipient list I don't think it detracts. Rhinopias (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the vast number of names (wow – indecisive much?) warrants a section touching on this but would it be better to place it after the list, which I imagine is mostly what readers arrive at the article looking for.

Yeah that's exactly why I brought this to peer review because it has had a LOT of previous names. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


  • Don't think it's a barrier for featured, but would it be better visually for references to be integrated into either the Year or Work column instead of their own?
  • Normally it makes more sense for references in these type of lists to have their own column.
  • I think the footnote on the Year column's heading should be grouped with the other notes from the table, or all of them be present immediately after the table
  • Consistent capitalization of "Various artists"
  • In the notes for awards given to various, maybe mention the work – e.g. "For Beverly Hills Cop, various artists include …"
  • The images all being prior to the table is sort of annoying on mobile, but I'm not really sure how to resolve that with the listing in table format besides breaking the table in half or by decade or something
  • Yeah it's annoying but that's how normally the way it's coded. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Later addition: also, Various artists, John Williams, Howard Shore, Hans Zimmer are a bit overlinked. If the name hasn't appeared in a while it's probably appropriate to redundantly link within the table, but those four appear multiple times in a row in certain parts. Rhinopias (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Thanks so much for your help! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope this helps! Rhinopias (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes thank you so much! I really appreciate it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program

I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it and I want others' input so I can improve it.

Thanks, TheLawKage (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Semchyshyn

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Annki777 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Ohio

I've listed this article for peer review because…I believe that this is a well written and encyclopedic article. However, AndyZ's automatic peer reviewer says that the lead needs expansion, and I can understand why. Furthermore, I am uncomfortable with the overall lack of content outside of the table.

Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For starters, you can take a look at other corresponding articles such as List of United States Senators from New York. You could add information about which parties have historically held the seats, longest serving senators, and such. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any of these lists before now, but the first thing that struck me was that they are hard to read. I acknowledge they may make more sense to experienced editors in this area, but I think it takes a while for a reader to figure out what is going on. My personal advice to WikiProject U.S. Congress is to completely redesign the list by separating the Class 1 and Class 3 senators into two separate tables.
If this is not possible, I advise making SVG words for "Term" and "Congress", as the text looks odd when broken but not rotated. Also, rather than having the "No image" file where senators do not have images, I believe only the name should exist. That way it is centred and looks better. Also "As of December 2016, there is one former Senator who is living, one from Class 1" seems oddly phrased. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 04:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

To chime in, I'd agree with User:Tuxipedia's comments on legibility. Splitting up the senators into side-by-side tables makes this devilishly hard to read, and I'll be bringing it up on the wiki project talk, probably. As for the lead, I'd suggest giving more general details about the senators. How many have there been? Who's served the longest? (I'd also explain the classes of senator here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews