Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

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

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.

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



James J. Hill Sapphire[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I decided to have some fun and get this article sourced and improved, and I'm wondering if I can perhaps bring it to a higher status.

Thanks, Stilistic (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Gioachino Rossini[edit]

Rossini's life was unusual: years of highly productive success followed by years of unexplained silence; in between composing operas, his private life was fairly colourful. He was seen in the early to mid- 20th century as something of a one-hit wonder, The Barber of Seville being his only opera to avoid neglect, but in recent years his other operas have been much revived. Smerus and I have been working on an overhaul of the article for some time, and we think it is now at a level for a run at FAC. To that end, any comments, queries or suggestions for improvement will be gladly received. – Tim riley talk 09:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

David Miedzianik[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in seeing what other Wikipedians think of the entry so far.

Thanks, Heepman1997 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed two consecutive FACs, despite my best efforts (the first time, I withdrew it to rework). Before I take this to FAC for the fourth time, I want to know what is wrong and fix it. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Baby Driver[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am eyeing an FA candidacy in the future. I’ve put a lot of work into this article, now a very recently promoted GA, but feel it falls just short of meeting the FA criteria. I think presently, barring minor prose issues in the rest of the body, the critical response section is the biggest issue standing in the way of a successful FAC because of sentence rhythm and overall structure. This was a similar issue I had with another article I was successful at getting to FA status (with the help of Mike Christie, and also after seven attempts!). Some feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, DAP 💅 00:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Going to take this up, hopefully will get the review up soon! Stilistic (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn't it be that it was a longtime project rather than is, considering it is now released?
I’ve gone back and forth with it, but I believe either is appropriate.
  1. "However, Doc threatens him back into a life of crime, threatening to harm Debora and Joseph if he resists." I feel this could be condensed a touch.
  1. Is there anything that can be added with respect to the casting of Kevin Spacey?
He wasn’t active in the film’s press tour barring less than a handful of interviews, in which he speaks about his character’s motivations and praises Wright for his artistic vision. Unfortunately, as a result, I was unable to find any useful information about his casting.
  1. Is "R. Marcos Taylor as gun runner Armie" necessary, given that the actor has no article and the character is not otherwise mentioned in the article?

Gonna add more later. Stilistic (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. Thank you for taking up the task! DAP 💅 16:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Mass Manipulation[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate this article for GA status sometime in the future. The peer review is to help me see what to improve, focus on and to see if the article is even ready for a GAN.

Thanks, Micro (Talk) 23:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help with verification. The main aspect I would like help with has to do with the year 2000. It is, unfortunately, the only year that I haven't been able to find a single reference detailing the nominees. I was able to find one for that year's winner—from GLAAD itself—which at least proves that Strangers in Paradise was one of the nominees (and winner), but that's it. While it isn't necessary, it would also be great to include some more reliable sources regarding the 1990s nominees; as the current references are all press releases.

Thank you in advance. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Art Ducko (student magazine)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Animal Farm[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think is a pretty good article and just wanted to see what others think can be improved. It was last reviewed in 2006, which is a lifetime ago!

Thanks, Superegz (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Some issues that I noticed:
    • MOS:CITELEAD is not followed
    • There are a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged into longer ones.
    • Some things are missing inline citations. Some examples of this:
      • The brief alliance and subsequent invasion may allude to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa.[original research?]
      • In his London Letter on 17 April 1944 for Partisan Review, Orwell wrote that it was "now next door to impossible to get anything overtly anti-Russian printed. Anti-Russian books do appear, but mostly from Catholic publishing firms and always from a religious or frankly reactionary angle."
    • Although not required, I personally would try to reference the plot inline to reliable sources. This step improves verifiability.
    • The citation styles used are a total mishmash. Pick one style and stick with it.
    • A considerable amount of the references are to online WP:UGC or WP:SPS, therefore not qualifying as RS.
    • File:15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).jpg What makes this PD-US?
    • File:Animal Farm artwork.jpg needs the appropriate PD-UK and PD-US tags.
    • Captions on some of the images are far too long. Try to keep them to 3 lines. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Pod (The Breeders album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 November 2018, 05:48 UTC
Last edit: 20 January 2019, 08:49 UTC

The Jew of Malta[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think there's still some more work to do here, and I'd like feedback as to where it stands at this moment!

Thanks, Tobymsinger (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Not a bad start.
  • As an English play, WP:ENGVAR means it should use British English, so "theatre" for a start.
  • The Summary section should at least be referenced with Acts & scenes.
  • It doesn't really cover much beyond a summary & the anti-semitic issue, but there is a good deal more to the play than that. Specific papers on one angle are fine, but need to be balanced with more sources covering the work overall.
  • It was not performed much at all for a long time after Kean, but then quite a bit in the 20th century. You should add from this good source (on the performance history & other things).
  • You might look at this edit, in 2016, by another student. Some babies might have been thrown out with the bathwater.
  • But a decent start.

Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Atellan Farce[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because there are some sections specifically such as the lead, stock characters and controversy section that I am wondering if they come across as fluid and easy to read for others. I also am seeking overall opinions and areas for growth as I continue to conduct research on this subject.

Thanks,AngRenzi (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Lead seems short. The grammar of the first 2 sentences is shaky - signular or plural subject etc.
  • History section very short & seems to contradict lead: "They were originally written in Oscan and imported into Rome in 391 BC." vs "Atellan Farce evidence is scarce, but surviving fragments point to the comedy genre coming about no earlier than 90 BC." If it stays short, merge to lead.
  • Lots of typos in the quotes in refs
  • I think I'd make the whole "connection to similar stock characters in Commedia dell'arte" bit its own section, and move to the bottom. It seems pretty speculative.
  • Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know which ways I can improve the page. I already know that I need a bit more information, so what I'm looking for would be suggestions on what information people would like to see. If I skipped over a certain amount of years, or if there's more information to add during specific years would be helpful. Also, if there's a better way to organize the article, and elements such as that. Grammar/writing would be great, but I'm focusing on content at the moment.

Thanks, AsbennAsbenn (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 31 October 2018, 05:10 UTC
Last edit: 11 December 2018, 15:37 UTC

Hide (musician)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because...

I never really cared for the genre movement he was involved with as a whole, but hide and X were absolutely kickass musicians. It looks to be in pretty good shape. I'd love to nominate it for a marker position (at least GA), but since I'm fairly new to editing the article I'd like some insight from others first (I have read it over several times, though).

Thanks, dannymusiceditor oops 22:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, one minor comment: The X Japan section includes the line Dahlia, which would become the band's last album, was released on November 4, 1996 and once again, it reached the number one spot. Hasn't Yoshiki been mentioning plans for a new album release for the past few years? I know they've been going on tour and releasing singles recently. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I have changed it to say "last album to date". If you think it should still be different, be WP:Bold. dannymusiceditor oops 21:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by JalenFolf[edit]

  • A consensus exists that the article title should be written in plain text, which is how most sources describe musicians, and is also supported by MOS:TM. This should also be reflected in the text where necessary.
  • Per MOS:LEADCITE, references are not typically included in the lead if they are also cited in the text. The lead is meant to summarize the contents of the article.
  • Citation errors exist on references 19 and 26.

So far, I can see this article passing criteria 1a, 2, 3, 4, and 6. I am neutral on 1b for the lead citations and 5 for personal reasons. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for the birthday present Jalen, I didn't even see this until now. Valuable feedback, I appreciate it. As for the cites in the lead, I believe this material is contentious without them, as it may strike as a POV-oriented quote without them, but thank you for the concern. Question: Does this apply to all mentions of hide in the article, or just the title? If it's just the title it's done. dannymusiceditor oops 16:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It applies to all mentions in the article. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Scottish jewellery[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed the drafting process for the article. I think that the references are not strong as the the majority of the information came from online blogs because of lack of official resources on the topic. I would also like to improve the sections that are slightly lacking in information, mainly the history section and the modern section, although I would also like to improve the traditional examples category. I would also like to add more images such as of the Lorne jewels and the Stewart jewels but have been hindered by copyright restrictions.

Thanks, Dream8047! Dream8047! (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm! It's not that impressive. There are plenty of "official" sources, and I'm sure quite a few online, but you haven't found them. The History section is pretty poor. This is a selection of Bronze Age Scottish jewellery from the MOS, some from about 1,000 years before you suggest it started. These beads from Skara Brae are from "Between 3100 and 2400 BC". If you scratch around on the MOS site (not the easiest to navigate I know) you will find tons of information on all periods. I changed the date you had - misinterpreted from what is anyway not a WP:RS - as no "Celtic-style" metalwork appears in the British Isles before about 300BC. Most of the time Scottish jewellery is not all that different from English, Irish, or indeed European styles, which it would be good to see recognised sometimes. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 September 2018, 17:56 UTC
Last edit: 20 November 2018, 21:01 UTC

Lana Turner

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 26 August 2018, 05:10 UTC
Last edit: 27 November 2018, 19:44 UTC

Everyday life[edit]

Becky Lynch

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 January 2019, 17:13 UTC
Last edit: 11 January 2019, 06:51 UTC

Empires of Eve[edit]

I really want to take this article to GA status. I need exact advice on all the steps to take to make it reach GA. Don't be general either, be very specific. Please help me.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo 3DS[edit]

Would like to run this through GA and then maybe FA but I need suggestions on how to get this article ready to meet those criterias. So give me specific exact advice on how make this a GA and then FA article. Thanks.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

:{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • High-level thoughts:
    • I don't know if this is a project-wide choice or not, and feel free to correct me, but the tense for large swaths of this seems a bit weird. This model isn't produced anymore, so to describe its competition as the Vita (which is imminently not going to be produced either) and as "succeeds" the DS rather than "succeeded" seems off.
    • Likewise, "The handheld offers new features"—"new" to what? It's years old at this point.
    • The background section is waaaay too long a section considering it's not talking about the 3DS specifically but rather Nintendo's previous efforts. That should get condensed down to a paragraph at most and merged with development.
    • Other spots of excessive detail include: listing all the games given to ambassadors in the "Launch" section, detailing rumors of the XL model which turned out to be true, and so should just be covered in a line or less; the game card having its own subsection; the paragraphs of detail for system software when there's a separate article for it; etc.
    • There's a lot of useless dates and figures cluttering up the article. Frankly, exact dates are not all that useful or relevant and come off as supremely repetitious when used repeatedly. At the very least, stuff like The Nintendo 3DS launched in Japan on February 26, 2011, priced at ¥25,000. On March 25, 2011, the system launched in Europe, with pricing set by individual retailers. On March 27, 2011 the Nintendo 3DS launched in North America, priced at US$249.99. On March 31, 2011, the system launched in Australia and New Zealand, priced at A$349.95. The system originally launched in all regions in both Aqua Blue and Cosmo Black color variations. can and should be rephrased to not repeat "2011" after every single territory launch, because it should be understood. Do I need to know the exact length of the stylus?
  • Prose:
    • The prose needs a major overhaul. In addition to the tense and dating issues, there's a lot of sections that just read like the fossil record—sequential layers of "on date X Y happened", and are about as exciting.
    • A particular problem with this article is unneeded and redundant phrasing or bits, such as It is also pre-loaded with various applications including these:, The XL version however, is 156 mm (6.1 in) wide, 93 mm (3.7 in) broad, and 22 mm (0.87 in) thick., and The Nintendo 3DS input controls include the following: a round nub analog input [...] There are times when you quote whole lists but still use "include" at the end like you haven't mentioned everything. WP:REDEX would be helpful practice here.
    • Why does the reception section discuss the original SKU and XL model, but not any of the other ones you included in the hardware section earlier?
    • The "legal issues" section at the end feels very much like every controversy section: ungainly, not integrated into the rest of the article, and weirdly stuck at the end. This should go somewhere else, and it should be cleaned up (it appears to reference an entirely different court case before the next sentence talks about the previous one.)
  • References:
    • There's a lot of unreferenced statements, or statements that are cited to a ref but is not covered.
    • Inconsistency in citation schema that should be addressed.
  • What makes, Nintendo World Report,, IndustryGamers, BrightSideofNews, WirelessGoodness, Game Usagi, or COGconnected reliable sources?
    • Some of the archive links (e.g. [1]) don't actually work and thus don't cite the material in question.
    • Weasel words: Some sources claim that an 8 GB version could be produced should a game ever require it.—given that an 8GB card apparently never came out, and the fact that only a single supplier is being used here, a) I think you need a better source for the previous info, and b) I'm wondering why this is relevant.
  • Images:

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

PlayStation Portable[edit]

  • I want to take this to GA and then FA but I need very specific feedback. The FAC reviewer told me "Sources in spots need to be fully formatted, and archiving them would be a good idea as well", can someone point out each source which needs to be fully formatted and tell me how to do so? He/she was too vague.
  • Tell me which concerns from the FAC reviewers that I addressed and which ones I didn't address? I tried to address all of them but if I didn't please tell me
  • Please give me feedback about anything else that needs fixing in the article to bring it to GA/FAC. Specific and exact, don't be vague, I only thrive off of specific and exact feedback. thanks.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C.[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FA status. I nominated the page in September 2017 but it was closed due to lack of attention. I've decided to try another run at it, so I've brought it here to hopefully get it up to scratch. Thanks, Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was surprised it didn't get through then. Football-interested editors are scattered about. Maybe The Rambling Man and Dweller can offer some input. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
In the lead, "and joined the English football league system in 1910, competing in the Southern Football League before joining the Football League in 1920. " is a bit laboured - could be simplified to "and entered the Southern Football League in 1910, before joining the Football League in 1920. "

Comments from Dweller Super article. A few things from me to kick off:

  • "showdown talks" =?
  • Malky's dossier is pretty noteworthy, it brought a lot of media scrutiny on the club
  • nothing about supporter songs?
  • love the little kits - really minor point: is it possible to get the images to line up, perhaps with a consistent top line?
  • switch to red - first time not blue since 1910 or 1908? Compare the text and the kit images.

More to come, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to support this at some point though. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • "Further political divide was caused by the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997." - why? how? Unreferenced. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Alan Curtis, who played for both sides, commented "I think Cardiff has always been perceived [...] to receive whatever funding is going around. It seems to me that everything gets channelled in that direction."[55]" Is that connected to the previous sentence? Whether it is or isn't I don't understand the sentiment or why it's in the article --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dweller: I've expanded in this section a little more to explain clearer and added an extra link to the relevant ref. Hopefully it makes more sense now. I was using the Curtis quote to try and emphasize the feeling of rivalry between the two cities brought on by the referendum . Kosack (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to weigh in here, as well as here and here. The nominators could help one another, me, and the community, by commenting on the other two pages. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both for the comments, I've amended the article to fix the issues raised. Kosack (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hzh The article looks good, but a brief comment - I would expect a featured article on a football club to have a section about the fanbase apart from club rivalries (see for example Manchester United F.C., Arsenal F.C., Liverpool F.C., etc.) perhaps add something on that? Also perhaps add a section on the ownership, although that is already covered to some extent in history, and not all featured articles have a separate section on that. Hzh (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've had a go at adding a section on supporter culture other than simply rivalry so to hopefully provide a better insight there. Kosack (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Fiji national football team[edit]

I've been expanding this article for a good little bit and I am just wondering what I will need to get this to GA-status because I do know that won't be a start-class for much longer now.

Thanks, Animation is developing 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Passing comments

@Matt294069: Just wanted to leave a few tips before this gets archived.

  • A few of your paragraphs lack sources, most notably in the stadium section.
  • Use endashes to mark scores (e.g. 2–0 instead of 2-0).
  • Decide on a single date format for your references. You can use this script to automate this.
  • The lead could be a bit longer and go in-depth in summarizing the team's history.

Overall, the article doesn't look too bad. I suggest taking this over to a copyeditor before trying GAN. SounderBruce 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Ok, they for the response I will put those into action. Not Homura (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Engineering and technology[edit]

Console game[edit]

Due to it's wide scope I believe some direction and focus from a PR would help in improving this article further. I'm aware of the need for some more citations but any feedback is welcome.

Thanks in advance, CrimsonFox talk 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oxford Circus tube station[edit]

I have been working on the article since 2015 and would like to receive suggestions to bring it up to FA status. For now, I can't seem to think of anything else to improve on or add in since it's quite saturated already.

Thanks, VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There hasn’t been any reply for a week so Imma seek for some expert advice from Ritchie333, DavidCane, Redrose64 and Iridescent. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 04:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: If you wish to notify people who don't have this page on their watchlists (basically, everybody except you and me), you need to sign at the same time that you post the links to Ritchie333, DavidCane and Iridescent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
You mean posting talkbacks? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 01:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Saw the ping. Some comments:
  • Coincidentally, I found a picture yesterday of the Bakerloo line platform from a report of the line's opening in the Illustrated London News. I'll upload it later.
  • In the history section I think there needs be a bit more information on the station itself. Almost all of the content of the Central line and Bakerloo line sections is about the lines rather than station and is not really relevant to the article. Much of what is in the Station building section and the station architecture section is actually the history that should be here.
  • The Victoria line section needs to be broken into paragraphs.
  • Technically, the raft constructed under Peter Robinson's was a post-stressed or post-tensioned raft rather than pre-stressed. The video in the external links shows the stressing tendons being fed into the tubes within the concrete raft at about 1:01:10. These are then pulled tight to tension the concrete. Pre-stressing is done by tensioning the steel tendons before the concrete is poured and is usually used for pre-fabricated components.
  • The station today section mentions the reinstatement of the Hans Unger tile motifs, but does not mention Unger previously, or why they needed to be reinstated. The Hans Unger linked is a different Hans Unger. Only the Central line was originally tiled in white. The Bakerloo line was tiled in one of the UERL's multi-coloured patterns.
  • The services section is too detailed. We usually list the stations either side for each line and the start and end times for services.  Done
  • Where groups of refs are used as a set, they should be in ascending order - the ones at the end of the first paragraph of Bakerloo and Central lines need reordering.  Done
  • Some of the notes seem to have been imported from the articles on the CLR and BS&WR. Note 1 could be trimmed to just indicate that the CLR proposal was opposed by existing companies. Notes 2, 3, 4 are rather redundant for this article as they on subjects other than Oxford Circus tube station. Note 6 refers to the L&GFC without explaining that this is the notorious Whitaker Wright's London & Globe Finance Corporation. Note 14 needs rewording.  Done I've decided also to remove note 6 too since it would have been too long to be included as a note. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
--DavidCane (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'll start working on it :) VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear power

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 29 August 2018, 06:15 UTC
Last edit: 24 November 2018, 16:46 UTC


Pam Hupp[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a newly created article on a somewhat sensitive topic (someone charged with a murder and implicated, but not charged, into two other murders) so would definitely benefit from a review to ensure the wording is all appropriate.

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

1: I suggest that you rearrange the lead paragraph to make clear the sequence of events. Mention all of the murders/accusations in the first sentence, then devote a sentence or two apiece to the alleged murder of Betsy Faria, the alleged framing of Russell Faria, the new evidence implicating Hupp, and the Gumpenburger situation, with the information about Neumann either inserted into the chronology or appended at the end.
2: Some of the information about personal lives (e.g., that Hupp's first marriage lasted 6 years), seems to me to not be notable, especially where it involves unrelated people.
3: At several points 'Faria' could plausibly refer to either husband or wife (Faria's laptop, e.g.). I suggest using first names as well at these points of ambiguity. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: - thanks very much for these suggestions. I've actioned points 2 and 3; I had a go at point 1 but couldn't find a wording that I felt worked well. McPhail (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

American Bank Note Company Printing Plant[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to get this to the point where it could be a GA or FA, but even if not that, then just improving the overall quality. One particular question I have is about the History and Post Bank Note era sections. When I first wrote the article, these were much larger. I trimmed them substantially (and in the case of history, spun off some of the sections into their own articles). I'm wondering if they really add anything to the article at all, or if I'd do better to trim them even more aggressively? Please don't limit your comments to just that, however.

Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the history section seems bloated. In particular, the block quote about the building's purchase should be pared down and better incorporated into the text. The post Bank Note era section doesn't seem too bad to me—but the preconstruction planning and staged construction sections could definitely do with a trim. On the whole, though, the article is clear, well-written, and engaging. I made a few very minor edits to clear up small ambiguities and enhance readability; I would suggest also that the lead paragraph to be modified to better reflect the whole of the article. Cheers,Genericusername57 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Salt crust[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first one

Thanks, Chocobit98 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chocobit98: Congrats on your first article! I took a brief read through it (although not a full peer review), and it looks pretty good! You have a lot of good information in there, and a lot of it is backed up by references, which is key. In terms of improvement, one thing you didn't do is add blue links to other Wikipedia articles. I added some, but if you want to add others, you can do so by using double brackets; just make sure to test them to confirm they're going to the articles you want them to, not to a non-existent page (in which case they'll appear red) or a disambiguation page. You may also want to go to the page for salt and add a link to your article where it's relevant; this will help point people to it and integrate it into the rest of Wikipedia. Another improvement that I'd recommend for the article is streamlining its content a bit: in some places, you give a lot of space to anecdotal examples of dishes, which are interesting, but will probably be judged by other editors to be undue weight. For those dishes, just link to their main page so that interested readers can learn more fully about them there. Similarly, in sections like the one on culture, some of the material may be more suitable for the main page on salt. I hope all of that helps, and that you decide to stick around and contribute more articles like this one! - Sdkb (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

SAI Global[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the company has undergone _significant_ change since the then-current Wikipedia entry. To avoid potential whole-page reversion, I've pasted in proposed changes to the talk page. Please review and comment.

Thank you! Kainleb (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

I suspect you want comments on your proposed revision, rather than on the article as it stands. I'm not sure as to the etiquette of peer-reviewing a proposed draft, but some observations below:

  • The draft's completely unsourced which is an absolute no-no.
  • I'm not seeing anything that suggests the company is Notable, as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
  • It's way too detailed, mini biographies of board members, long History list, etc.
  • It's promotional throughout and reads like a company brochure.
  • To me, your editing has all the hallmarks of an undeclared Conflict of interest. I see it's the only article you've worked on. Do you have a connection to the company? If so, this needs to be declared and you need to follow our guidance on COI editing.

All in all, I'd have serious concerns about accepting your revision wholesale. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital dependencies and global mental health[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's pretty good as it stands. I am aiming for good article status, and then feature later. There is a problem with when we can add the medical sections, here or at social media addiction, but I've posted several notices about that. Attempting to attract more comment so we can get consensus as to how WP:MEDRS applies with the relevant linguistics. I want to start discussing ontology, linguistics, and philosophy more directly. It is required, but I'm not an expert. I need to bring in the ADHD psychologist, but we're pretty much consnsus opposed at the moment, bit of an impasse. Philosophy I think is needed! E.3 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

Newberry Volcano[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC in the next month or two, and I would love to get as much detailed feedback as possible to prepare. ceranthor 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ceranthor 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of rapid fire comments:
  • There is some odd verbiage such as "The volcano is extremely dry" and " the volcano once held large volumes of water"
  • You sure that Newberry is in the Cascade Arc? To me it looks more like a backarc volcano.
  • What is the Paulina Prairie?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Drive-by comments...

Glaciers may have once been present at the volcano, though this remains unclear, and the volcano is very dry with low precipitation levels and little surface runoff. - avoid run on 'and' - suggest splitting sentence.

Interstate 30

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 December 2018, 02:27 UTC
Last edit: 5 January 2019, 06:06 UTC


Bengal famine of 1943[edit]

Previous peer review

The article's page views seem to hover around 1,700 or 1,800 per day, with spikes into the area of 6,000. That speaks for itself. The sheer scale of the tragedy makes it a grim landmark in modern history. It has also become a paradigmatic case in the academic study of famines as a whole. Before I touched this article it was clearly in need of a lot of work. I think it is FA quality, but one could very conservatively say its scope, depth and detail are worthy of the topic... if you see any points or sections that seem incomplete or undeveloped, you might wanna skim this full-blown version from long ago.

Since this is a large article on a sensitive topic and with a contentious history, I might leave it here in PR for... maybe 2 months?

Thanks,  Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • After reading this through a couple of times, I'm scratching my head at some of the objections raised at FAC. To me, it seems like a very solid and well-researched article. The one piece of advice I have would be get it through A-class review before going for FAC again, but that's just a suggestion. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe:Thank you for your comments. The MILHIST A review refused to look at it, saying first it wasn't milhist and second it was too hard for them. No other A review seems relevant. I agree of course about that FAC. So this will sit here for maybe 6 or 7 more weeks, then go back to FAC. may I ping you then? Thanks for your feedback, feel free if you have other comments. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Re the A-class review, it might be worth asking Ian or one of the other coords. For example, I got the go-ahead to nominate this article, a non-military resistance group. Feel free to ping me, although I'm really not familiar with the subject so limited in the help that I can provide. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
A few unrelated minor issues: "Harv error: link from CITEREFDyson_and_Maharatna1991 doesn't point to any citation." and Ó Gráda 2010 in the biblio doesn't point to any citation either. Likewise, you should link the author at the first mention, rather than the third. Also, if the article was trimmed down in the past could some of that material be spun off into new articles, such as Denial policies (Bengal famine)? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Quickly: I'm traveling for maybe 8 or 9 days tomorrow. There are already two spin-off from this article. If you saw me mention in the previous FAC that Denial stuff had been trimmed, well, I restored it to the article after FAC. Ian and the milhist Coors are precisely the ones who kicked it out of the A review. Thanks for catching some broken links I will fix when I return. I don't want any more spin-off because the article makes less sense that way PLUS if anyone wants to read only the more gruesome bits after the famine started, all they need to do is click a link in the TOC. thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

George Camocke[edit]

Looking to see what changes that this article needs in order for it to be a Good Article.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

Some suggestions below:

Prose - although I'm aware this has had a copy edit, there are a number of instances where the meaning is unclear, at least to me. In particular;
  • "He repeatedly appealed to and glorified the admiralty";
  • "but instead, Camocke transported Spanish soldiers from Palermo to Alicante via Madrid";
  • "Camocke had wanted to acquit himself by pleasing the lordship with his zest for his Majesty King George's service";
  • "this was once intended for him by the King of Britain";
  • "as opposed to a loan reimbursal that was made to Charles XII from the English Jacobites";
  • "he left behind his king's commission for making admiral of the white along with his treasonable papers".
Sorting these will also address the "clarification" tags.
Phrasing - the phrase "favour had run out" reads rather oddly. "Fallen out of favour" would be more common, but it's not particularly encyclopedic.
  • ISBN numbers - you've a mixture of styles, where you should have consistency.
  • Source 4 - "he has some" - don't think you need this in the title.
  • Not sure why some sources are listed in the References section while others aren't? And what are the two Leslies doing? Are they Further reading? And why is he knighted in one and not in the other?
  • Source 3 says he died in Rouen, though you have Cetua? Also there's a 35% match on this source, which suggests there may be some instances of too-close paraphrasing. I think that's the explanation for "pleasing the lordship with his zest for his Majesty King George's service".
  • Sources 3/10/11 don't have publication dates.
Infobox - not obligatory by any means but I'd suggest it would work here. If it's good enough for Nelson...

It's a good start but I think there's some work to be done before it's ready for GA. KJP1 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


  • Is anything more known about his life before joining the navy?
  • "Camocke's explanation for his actions was considered unsatisfactory, and he was told that he was suspended until he could be cleared by a court-martial. " - source?
  • "Camocke's had fallen out of favour with everyone" - not sure what is meant here
  • Are any images available to illustrate the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexandros Schinas

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 December 2018, 09:28 UTC
Last edit: 8 January 2019, 01:27 UTC

Camp Fire (2018)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status but can you give me suggestions on how to upgrade it? Face-smile.svg

Thanks, I love rpgs (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple suggestions:
  • You can move the lists in the Timeline section into a table or something, because the list breaks up the prose.
  • Good job on the loss of life & structural damage tables!
  • Oh, and, on the photo of the Bay Bridge in this section, you can add the smog explanation to the caption.
I hope these suggestions will give you some ideas! Face-smile.svgBen79487 (talk contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Kargil Review Committee[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added over 94% of the content currently and the topic is related to a report that had far reaching implications for the Indian security system at a national level which are still being implemented to date. I would also request for comments related to any copyright violations, if found. Although I have checked for copyright violations, but I would still request someone to double check. (I have reduced copyvio as much as possible, names and quotes etc aside, of course). If possible, fact checking would be a good idea too. I have tried to make sure that the content is as accurate as possible, but again, since I have added over 94% os the content, asking for a peer review would also be a good idea. Before any more major expansion is done from my side, I want to be ensure that the current content is a good base, structured well, has no copy vios and is fact checked reasonably. This is a lot to ask, so accordingly I will add to other review requests shortly.

Thanks, DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Edward John Newell[edit]

I am listing this article for peer review because I want to see what changes I need to make to this article to get it good enough to nominate for Good Article status.

Thanks, JC7V (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi JC7V7DC5768. I've done a few GA reviews so I'll throw out some thoughts based on a first impression. By and large, in my opinion, this would automatically fail the WP:GAC in its current state. Some of the most noticeable issues:
  1. The lead is very short. It would definitely need to be expanded and rewritten in accordance with WP:MOSLEAD.
  2. Your references are scanty - only seven footnotes for the whole article is far below what's expected.
  3. In addition, the references that do exist lack page numbers or direct links, which would be an immediate failure of GAC 2.a in my opinion (information can't be verified if it isn't clear where it is).
  4. Quotes should be in quotation marks, not in italics.
  5. There should be far fewer quotes in general - many of them are not needed, particularly the ones from his autobiography. We should be writing in an encyclopedic tone, not restating his own words.
  6. Per MOS:WE, no first-person pronouns like "we" or "us".
  7. Overall style and grammar is somewhat archaic/stiff, often all twisted up in commas. "Through his business, he became acquainted with a Mr Murdoch, a hearth-money collector, whose house he visited in order to paint" is one really egregious example. I would recommend asking for a copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors once you're farther along in the revising process.
I'm happy to give it another look in the future if you keep working on it. Just ping me and I'll wander by; I don't have this on my watchlist. ♠PMC(talk) 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Premeditated Chaos Hi, thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and made the changes to the article as you suggested. Tell me if the changes were good enough and if not, what further changes need to be made? JC7V (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a good start, but it still feels like the prose is structured in a way that makes it feel really archaic. As an example, "practising every species of it" is an unnecessarily elaborate description of getting into trouble. You could probably lose that whole sentence and just say "as a child, he was prone to misbehavior" or something similar to that. Another example: "was aged seventeen" is kind of an old-fashioned way of saying "was seventeen". Parts of the article feel more editorial than encyclopedic ("coolly admits", "which he enjoyed for the next two years").
I recommend rewriting the article significantly to put it in simpler, more modern English. If you don't feel confident doing that, Guild of Copy Editors is a good place to look for help. ♠PMC(talk) 21:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Premeditated Chaos I've rewritten the article to sound better. I also enlisted the help of the Guild of Copy Editors to help out further. Thanks for the feedback. JC7V (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
No problem, good luck! ♠PMC(talk) 03:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Taj Mahal[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because we are thinking to prep it up for FAC and make it the best. With about 4 million annual readership, this is a Top Vital level article.

Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


If FAC is the ultimate goal, I would suggest significant attention on the references. Citations should be complete and consistently formatted, and at the moment we're a ways off from that. You'll also want to check that references are of high quality, and that they represent a reasonable survey of the literature on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @The Herald: I'll happily fix all your references etc. if I can convert them all to my preferred format (see Bengal famine of 1943 for example). We'd have to put a notice ("Proposed change to references format") on the article's talk page and wait a while first too, though. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • DONE. I had to delete a couple dead references and some copyvio. It isn't 100% perfect (I have real life things to do), but it's 97 or 98% better. I think you are still weeks of hard work away from FA. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Darwin High School[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is detailed enough and if any improvements can be made upon it. There may also be grammatical changes required which were over looked upon the editing process.

Thanks, Rofl2018 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Rofl2018, thanks for your efforts so far. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  • the article needs a lead section, which summarises the whole article
  • an image or two if possible would be great to break up the text. There are a number of images on Commons that could be used. They can be found here: [2]
  • the language is not neutral in some areas, for instance: "Students with a passion for literature will analyse difficult texts using sophisticated language to formulate complex pieces of work that is of a high calibre". If it is someone's opinion, it should be attributed as such, and also referenced, otherwise it should be rewritten in more neutral terms
  • where the same reference is used multiple times it can be combined into a WP:NAMEDREF
  • don't use all caps in titles per WP:ALLCAPS
  • the External links section should be removed as it currently has no relevant links
  • the article needs more internal/wikilinks per WP:WIKILINK
  • I have added the article to a category, but if possible I suggest trying to find a few more categories that might be relevant and adding the article to those as well
More general than WP:ALLCAPS, MOS:CAPS says to use sentence case rather than title case except for proper nouns. This includes sentence case for section headings. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Military history of Nigeria during WWII[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is now a stand alone-history for Nigeria throughout WWII. Any feedback on the Homefront/after the war sections would be appreciated.

Thanks, J.Hohne (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

  • My main observation is that this article is largely limited by the sources it uses. Generally speaking, website posts and articles will only give a cursory amount of information about topics as a large and deep as this one.
    • Pulse and Vanguard News are both online Nigerian newspapers and can be considered to be generally reliable. South African History Online is of limited usefulness, but it's reliable.
    • I share Peacemaker's concerns about being of dubious reliability.
    • The source does not at all discuss the information that it's supposed to be supporting in the article.
    • The British Military History website was once apparently "affiliated" with some reliable publishing houses, but I'd be reticent in relying upon its information, as it appears to be the research of a hobbyist.
  • In order to properly flesh out certain sections of this article, book sources are essentially a must. I recommend Africa and World War II and The British Empire and the Second World War. These books include discussion on:
    • Nigeria's relations with neighboring colonies during the war, especially Vichy territory
    • War production, including specific commodities and figures
    • The opinions of the Nigerian intelligentsia
  • This article hints at WWII shaping nationalism in Nigeria, which is incredibly important. More specifics on this matter need to be discusses, such as which group became the most motivated by the war to seek self-determination (e.g. the veterans, the farmers, or the intelligentsia, etc.).

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, J., thanks for your efforts so far. I have made a few minor tweaks to the article, and added some tags where I think references are required. I have also recommended on the talk page that the article be listed over at WP:GOCE for a more thorough copy edit. In terms of referencing, one improvement that I think you could make is to include the page numbers for the book citations you have provided. For example, take a look at how it is done in the Military history of Australia during World War II article.

Additionally, I think some of the images may need the licencing or sourcing adjusted. For instance File:Nigerian recruits.jpg. You have listed this as your "own work", which is essentially stating that you were there at the time and physically took the photograph yourself. Unless this is actually correct (which seems unlikely given how long ago it was), then you need to adjust the source to list the book or website you have taken it from. Additionally, the licencing will probably need to be adjusted if it has come from somewhere else, as in that case you aren't the copyright holder, so cannot use the "self|cc-by-sa-4.0" licence. The same applies to File:Nigerian Cocoa Farmer.jpg. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Malaspina family[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I finished translating it from Italian just now and since I'm new to this Wikipedia stuff I was keen on getting someones opinion/improvement on the changes I have made! I hope I can learn from u guys! Thanks, Spaicol (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, two quick comments:
  • I was initially baffled by the line the marquisate of Massa and lordship of Carrara, then Duchy of Massa and Carrara, and latterly Principality of Massa and Marquisate of Carrara in the first sentence. Would it be appropriate to just say Massa and Carrara, moving the information about their changing status to the Cybo-Malaspina or Malaspina of Fivizzano sections of the article? Otherwise, please consider adding an explanatory bit like 'which later became'. Then in this context would indicate 'at that time', but I think you meant it to indicate 'at a later time'; latterly is not typically used in this context.
  • For the paragraph in the Family's history section about different theories of the surname's origin, it would be helpful to provide a literal translation of 'Malaspina', to make obvious the significance of the death legend and bad-attitude legend.
Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Genericusername57 hey man, I followed your suggestions please check them out, also, if u have any other critiques to make id gladly oblige to work on a fix <3 Spaicol (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


I wanted to get this to GA a long while ago, but then I forgot for some reason I don't remember. How is the article, do you think?

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to this, but have noticed that one of the paragraphs under trade (which is under relationship with humans) ends without a citation.Qwerty number1 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm a major contributor and I think it's solid but still a ways off. There is still some missing content, for example there is nothing about wings and flight in the morphology section; distribution and habitat is just distribution at this point; breeding is pretty thin, in fact there is more content seemingly for relationship with humans than behaviour. I think with some work it could get there and it's worthwhile (I've always thought its an important article which is why I've added quite a lot to it) so am happy to work on a more comprehensive work needed if you'd like (and also help with it). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Something’s just come up in real life so I’m gonna be a little slow to edit for the foreseeable future, but I’m happy to work with you   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well on flight, I got this on New World parrots, but I'm not exactly sure what to make of it, and I assume flight isn't that different from other birds? Flight's specific to habitat, I should think, so it should vary from species to species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There's some general observations in HBW that I'll add. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As for the Distribution and habitat and Breeding sections, they seem complete to me. Anything more would just be overkill I should think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If I am right, the Rose-ringed parakeet is found, albeit not natively, in Britain and other European nations. Isn't this further north than South USA? Qwerty number1 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
to explain I am referring to 'have lived as far north as the southern United States' , which seems an odd wording, since this seems to suggest this is basically the furthest north, while it is nowhere near? Qwerty number1 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Typically when describing distribution it is done so in terms of natural range. The New World quails are endemic to the Americas, even if a few species have been introduced to various places. Thusly the natural (former) northernmost point of their distrubution was the southern US. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Elektron (satellite)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This is my first ground-up, complicated article. It is now substantially complete, with illustrations, infobox, and as much information as could be useful to the layman reader. I don't know if "Low Importance" articles can become "Good Articles," but I'm at least shooting for "B" with, perhaps, an understanding of what it might take to get "GA." Once I have gone through this process at least once, I will have a better understanding of it and can start helping to review other pages.

Thanks! :) Neopeius (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • "Low Importance" is completely irrelevant w. respect to FA/A/GA etc. Will look a bit but you might wanna make friends at wikiproject spaceflight to help you more. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Siddiqi, Asaf (1989). Challenge to Apollo. p. 240. Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
    • Garland, Kenneth (1989). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology. p. 127. Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
    • Both missing Location of publisher. This is optional, but some people really care (most don't perhaps). Safest thing to do is add it. OH, the one thing that IS kinda required is consistency, so do your best to have either ALL with Location or NONE with. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks much. :) I am having difficulty getting Wikipedia to take any ISBN I give it. Please take a gander at the Bison Books ref in this article and advise? --Neopeius (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I left a msg on your user talk page. BTW, you're supposed to put images at the top of the relevant section, not the bottom. I believe that as per WP:ACCESS or similar. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 30 November 2018, 08:35 UTC
Last edit: 27 December 2018, 09:53 UTC


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 October 2018, 12:50 UTC
Last edit: 25 November 2018, 09:58 UTC

Language and literature[edit]

Mortal wound[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would be grateful if I could get a class and importance rating for my article. Thank you so much, --MeerkatShadow (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)[edit]

@MeerkatShadow that's great! A fascinating and reasonable well-written article. Some comments:

  • "Being Frightened is not a Moral Wound" in the lead mentions "moral" not "mortal"
  • I think at the moment the article has a good overview of when the words "mortal wound" are used - which might make it more suitable as a list such as List of uses of mortal wound (I'm not sure that list would be notable though). The article could be improved by adding some elements of synthesis - like, what connotations did mortal wound have, what type of wounds are considered mortal and did that change - sort of, general themes that have emerged on review. To do this, you'll need to find some secondary sources that have examined the topic area, as on Wikipedia we don't do original research ourselves.

This is a fascinating topic area and I think you've made a good start. Let me know if you have any other questions. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Red Pyramid[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is only listed as Start class. I would like to know how I could improve it. --Boothsift (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Boothsift (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Presumably the ages of hte pyramids wold help in para 2 of the History section. Needs refs and embellishing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Saint symbolism[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for a featured list and would appreciate help reviewing it. --evrik (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, --evrik (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to check if has FA potential. I don't recall any FA about a Christian hymn, so can't tell. The hymn has quite a history: medieval beginning, Protestant expansion, Catholic expansion, musical settings.

Please don't look at the lead yet which will grow last, depending on the other sections. I plan to write more on the theology behind Luther's expansion, and on translations, unless you say I shouldn't. Would you like more background on Luther, or are the links enough? I'd like to know if the Catholic texts should also be included as far as not under copyright. I am open for suggestions and criticism, and as it's an all-purpose hymn, we have all the time ;)

Thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if this article would qualify for GA-status. I've worked on this article for a while now. Feedback is welcome.

Thanks, HouseGecko (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA soon and was suggested to get a peer review done prior to that.

Thanks, Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Dali (goddess)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 December 2018, 01:55 UTC
Last edit: 8 January 2019, 02:21 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review to see if it needs any major changes, or simply polishing, before it goes to FAC.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: No single source avaiable online? Eurohunter (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: Both the webpages by Kendall and all the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology articles (McClain 2011, Poo 2010, Stadler 2008) are linked in the works cited section and free to read online. Many of the books listed have previews in Google Books, but linking to Google Books isn't a requirement, and because availability of previews varies a lot by geographical location, some Wikipedians actively avoid using them. If you want, I could add those links, but they aren't an FA requirement. A. Parrot (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@A. Parrot: I think if you can additionally link to online version which provide expected information it's positive and could be required from featured article. Eurohunter (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: I've added the links. A. Parrot (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a level 3 vital article and deserves GA. I've been trying to promote it to GA since a couple of years now. It would be highly appreciated if you could pinpoint improvements or tag them in the article itself, whichever can prevent GA rejections. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 06:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • In the lead itself there is a missing fullstop, before the fourth citation. (I would correct it but you really can't be missing out such things, that too in the lead.)
  • In the second paragraph in the lead, why do "non-violence", "many-sidedness", "non-attachment" etc have quotes?
  • There are three citation needed tags near the bottom of the page that need to be sorted out. There is one 'page needed' tag.
  • The last paragraph about Mahatma Gandhi seems out of place. If if is there for wrapping up an article, then it is not needed and can be placed elsewhere, even removed. If you are relating it to the modern era, it needs expansion.
  • The history section is only till the colonial era? Why not include a small subsection related to more recent history too. And here I am not talking about just demographics kind of data listed under the heading "Jains in the modern era". So either the history section should have a new subsection, or the modern era section needs expansion.
  • Maybe a small line can be added somewhere explaining the word "Jaina" as opposed to merely "Jain" and "Jains". They are being used interchangeably. So here I am referring to "Etymology". This is more of a suggestion to be considered an not a necessity, an "Etymology" section.
Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Social sciences and society[edit]

British National (Overseas)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it up to GA. I've recently rewritten the bulk of the article and would like to make sure that it passes GA guidelines before putting it up for that process. One thing I wasn't sure on is consistent/proper formatting for law citations when there's stuff from multiple jurisdictions in the same list. If anyone has any input on that, that'd be especially appreciated.

Thanks, Horserice (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of its high importance and multidisciplinary nature.

Thanks, E.3 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Alabama v. North Carolina[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to get some feedback about the general article. I'm thinking about nominating it for GA, and this is the first article I've really written. All feedback/constructive criticism is welcome.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare the article for a GAN but have never taken an article through that process before. Also, I believe that the article could benefit from being reviewed by someone with more legal expertise than myself.

Thank you, ebbillings (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Kentucky Senate Bill 151[edit]

Even though I’ve started this article, I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what people think about what I did so far. One day I would nominate it for GA but as of now I’m focusing on improving the article itself. Thanks, KYschools1 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Slovak Three

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 November 2018, 11:32 UTC
Last edit: 14 November 2018, 13:42 UTC

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad[edit]

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

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

Comments by Catrìona

This is just my impression from a very quick look. Since this article contains contentious material about living people, it's important that all facts are referenced with a citation at the end of each paragraph. In addition, you need to use ref={{sfnref|publisher|date}} with some of your citations (those with no author) in order to make the sfn template link properly (see my article Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz for examples).

The lede needs to be edited to fit MOS:LEDE (no more than four paragraphs). Some of the sections are quite short; consider adding information or merging sections. (Sometimes it is suitable to have a paragraph on each subtopic, rather than different sub-sub sections.) I suggest that you split off the lists into a different article, perhaps List of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad cases. Catrìona (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Catrìona, I have made most of those changes including moving the lists to a new page, shortening the lede and merging sections and adding information. I will do the citations later, this is simple enough. If anyone has further feedback I would be very grateful. Jim Killock (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I have done what I can here. All the references seem to be working on this page. I have further merged sections and removed subheadings. Does anyone else have feedback? Jim Killock (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Arjun filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate this article for Featured list in the upcoming days. I'm new to wikipedia and this is my first list/article and I hope to improve my writing and editing skills to contribute to the community

Thank You, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
  • Spicyonion is not a WP:RS. Please replace with anything else.
  • Do not use rowspans. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider changing the title from Arjun to Arjun Sarja. Add reference for debut movie. Key indicates yellow background for unreleased movies. Can you change the background color in the table as well. Add reference to his song list as well. Kalyan (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Basshunter discography[edit]

Future FL candidate. I know tables are different than most of the featured discographies but I also seen some exceptions (better look). Eurohunter (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]