Wikipedia:Peer review

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.


Cuca RosetaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it recently and would like to submit for GA in the future. I would like to get some feedback and what needs to be improved in order to get there.

Thanks, Alan Islas (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Can't Get You Out of My Head

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 September 2020, 09:15 UTC
Last edit: 22 September 2020, 09:11 UTC

Tracing FacesEdit

I wish for this article to be peer reviewed because I would like to one day nominate it for good article status. I would also appreciate any general comments on improvements that could be made. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


I wish for this this article to be peer reviewed because I would like to ensure it follows all relevant policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BLP. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Rant (The Futureheads album)Edit

I've rewritten the article from scratch thanks to interviews describing the making of the album and with critical reception. I'm still learning how to contribute effectively on Wikipedia, and I wonder what kind of article status this can get.

I'm looking forward to your reviews. Thanks, Cryoclaste (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In general I don't have much to add. Only a couple of comments:
  • In accordance to Wikipedia:Lead the lead should summarise the entire article. The lead here seems a little short, and could be expanded.
  • It is unclear where the quote in the 'Background' section comes from. Could you please add a citation to make this clearer?
Hope this helps. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you CSJJ104 for your feedback,
I've clarified where the quote in the 'Background' section came from, as the whole paragraph relies on the same source.
I've also expanded the lead a bit, re-contextualising this release in the band's whole career.
I'll try improving the article every once in a while now.
Thank you, Cryoclaste (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Candy (Foxy Brown song)Edit

Previous peer review

I would like to put this article through the FAC process sometime in the future (although I do not have any specific time in mind), and I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to better improve it prior to a nomination. I have successfully worked on two song FACs in the past, but this is still really out of my comfort zone. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Infinite (Eminem album)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it back up to GA status. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, RealFakeKimT 18:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


  • The citation is unnecessary.
  • "Recording sessions took place at the Bass Brothers' studio" Citation needed.
  • "on the track "Searchin" remove this.
  • "The copies were made on cassette and vinyl, and Eminem sold them out of the trunk of his car in Detroit. It is not officially available on any online music stores and only the album's title track Infinite is available on Spotify. However, on November 17, 2016, five days after the 20th anniversary of the album, Eminem posted a remaster and remix of the title track, made by the Bass Brothers, to his Vevo channel, made available digitally for the first time." all of this needs citations, included in the body of the article.
  • "The copies were made on cassette and vinyl" → "Physical copies of the album were released on cassette and vinyl
  • "However, on November 17, 2016" remove "however".

Background and recordingEdit

  • "...the rapper initially signed..." → "Eminem signed..."
  • "get rich" → "become rich"
  • Was Eminem's suicide attempt related or caused by the release of infinite? Did its commercial failing inspire the attempt? if no then it shouldn't be in the article.
  • "On November 17, 2016, a remix of the album's title track "Infinite" was released in commemoration of the album's 20th anniversary, followed by a documentary about the making of the album on the same day." Citation needed.


  • "Eminem later referred to the album on his songs "Not Afraid" (2010) and "Castle", from his 2017 album Revival." Citation needed.


  • Remove the Discogs citation. Crowdsourced websites are prohibited.

RealFakeKim Overall the article needs work before it goes to GA.DMT biscuit (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Kylie (album)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to maintain its GA status. I have expanded it for over a year and the article has already received a copyedit. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Damian Vo (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Blair TheatreEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article and it's been a while since I've done a major contribution to Wikipedia.

Thanks, Lekogm (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lekogm looks fine! I think what you've written is interesting and well written and for the most part well sourced. The images are also helpful. There are some things that you could do to improve the article:
  • flesh out the lead section to better reflect the contents of the article
  • expand about who / why it was constructed (as it is called Blair Theatre, made by Blair Enterprises, I am really curious as to who the original Blair was)
  • some areas lack references, such as "Currently, the Blair presents movies and is a host for local community events."
  • sometimes local organisations, such as Blair Center for the Arts Foundation, don't need a wikilink, although as we're not complete it's good you've made space for it.
  • you could include some Wikilinks for terms readers might not understand (such as "While most of the work on the audience side of the proscenium", linking proscenium)
  • some parts of the article are not entirely neutral (see WP:WEASELWORDS) - for example, "in order to offer more programming to the local community"
  • a sentence is incomplete ("the Blair chose to temporarily close until. On")

Overall these are just some small thoughts, the article is quite good as it is :). Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lekogm: Hi. So I skimmed through it, and the article needs quite a bit of help:
  • History of the Blair" → History
  • Make the "P" lowercase in "COVID-19 Pandemic"
  • Remove the subsection titles that divide the history section by years (Early 1900s, Late 1900s, 1980s, 1990s, etc.). It really disrupts the flow and also makes the TOC pretty big.
  • Merge "Current programming" with the History section. This section is extremely short and doesn't need to be separated.
  • Possibly merge "Restoration efforts" with the History section.
  • Expand the lead. Some suggestions for the lead: mention how old the theater is, when it was closed, reopened, who built it, etc.

 Melofors  TC  23:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Follow GodEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have continuously worked on it even after I promoted the article to GA status back in May 2020, so it would be great to see if any suggestions could be made due to some certain being added more recently. Specifically, the In popular culture section should be focused on since it is entirely new, while the lead needs to have a look taken at it quite a bit due to having gone through expansion; the same can be said for the Background and development section, as well as Commercial performance one.

Thanks, it should be great to hear any relevant comments for help!

--K. Peake 20:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A Crow Looked at MeEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FAR. Requesting specific attention to sources.

Thanks, DMT biscuit (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyday lifeEdit

Cleavage (breasts)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this to a GA status, and if possible a FA status later. It has gone through three bouts of copyediting, four bouts of content editing, and has been checked by editors from about six wikiprojects. The biggest thing left is citation formatting (but that can wait till I submit this for GAN). One big problem I have is shortening the article (does it really need shortening?). Thanks. Aditya(talkcontribs) 09:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

List of heists in the United KingdomEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit as a featured list. This would be my first such submission so I'm grateful for any tips to improve the article. Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Engineering and technologyEdit

Vidyasagar SetuEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to FA. Its my first FA attempt. It was listed GA back in 2013.

Thanks, ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Dwarf FortressEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because after quickly passing a GA from five years ago, I feel that this article is ready for FA. However, I would like some feedback on problems with the article so they can be fixed before FAR.

Thanks, Aven13 14:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC) @Aven13 looks like you're still waiting here :( - I suggest you directly comment some people that are active in this area (have a look at WP:FAC and contact some editors there), as well as post at WikiProject Video Games. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Hey, I'm going to try and review this. I'll be gone this weekend so look for feedback next week (and if I don't respond ping me, I've probably forgotten.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I note that there are sources on the talk page that aren't incorporated into the article.
  • There's inconsistent formatting in the references; some are missing publisher information, for example.
  • The line in the lead The game influenced Minecraft and was selected among other games to be featured in the Museum of Modern Art to show the history of video gaming in 2012. seems weirdly placed, as it's discussing the impact of the game which is later on in the article than the development and release information.
  • The names depend on the area's good/evil variable (the alignment) If you're going to explain what alignment is (and you should, along with the "savagery" parameter) you should do this when it's first introduced earlier.
  • and though in English, they are originally in one of the four in-game languages of dwarves, elves, humans and goblins—I'm not sure what this bit about "originally" being in the other languages means.
  • In Legends mode, players can view maps, histories of each civilization and any figure who has lived or died in the generated world. Any noticeable achievement made by the player in any of the two game modes is recorded in the Legends—first off, it's weird that the Legends mode bullet starts off like a complete sentence, whereas the previous two bullets are not. Secondly, what do you mean by "any of the two game modes" later on? You've just said that the game has three game modes.
  • In 2006, a saga called "Boatmurdered" where fans passed around a single fortress and each played the game and saved it before sending it to another, was portrayed in detail from the start to its destructive end. I don't really know what this sentence is trying to say. What is this "saga", how is it being "portrayed"? (Was there a documentary made?)
  • I'm not sure a single Turtle Beach fan poll deserves the amount of attention it gets in the "legacy" section.
  • He predicted that the game's popularity "will reach its apex" at its final release. citation needed, and I'm not sure why this random dev is being given the last word on the game's legacy.
  • If there's not enough content to make a >2 sentence paragraph for "use in academia", I'm not sure it should have a subsection of its own.
  • In terms of coverage, I feel like the gameplay section starts getting way too detailed and into the weeds, actively harming a general understanding of the gameplay. Understanding that the guy has realistic geology or simulation of seasons makes sense; spending time talking about water level tiles does not. The gameplay section is almost as long as the entire rest of the article sections combined.
  • Prose could use some tightening; you've got sentences like Before playing, the player has to set in motion a process which generates worlds with continents, oceans and histories documenting civilizations. that are good examples of unnecessary extra words ("the player has to set in motion a process which..." Versus something simpler like "The player begins by generating a world with..."
    • Likewise there's a general misuse of "which" instead of "that".
    • There's a lot of repetitious phrasing, especially with Adams saying X kind of stuff that gets tiring to read.
  • Images:

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


International StreetEdit

Hi! This article last underwent peer review in 2011, and received Good Article status in 2016. I'm wondering how it stacks up under today's standards, and whether it might be viably nominated for Featured article. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Al Ahly SCEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to Know what improves should i do so it could be a GA

Thanks, Crosskimo (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremonyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now stable and I would like input as to whether or not to advance it as candidate for FA. The 2012 Opening Ceremony was a key event of that year and for the UK, was widely seen as an innovative success both artistically and for the history of the Olympics, winning multiple awards and worldwide recognition. I believe the article is comprehensive without becoming unwieldy and well referenced and illustrated (contrary views are of course welcome!); comments on whether the writing style and flow are good enough for FA would be particularly helpful.

Thanks, MapReader (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You might consider submitting a request here to have someone from the Guild of Copy Editors review the article's prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Time Traveler (roller coaster)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in nominating this article in the future as a potential candidate for WP:FA. In doing this listing, I want to know if there is any key details that appears to be missing from the timeline of the roller coaster's history or within any of the sections that may be important, any grammatical issues that the article has in its prose, or items that are stated that a general reader may-or-may-not understand based off the general language of the article. Any input would be welcomed!

Thanks, Adog (TalkCont) 00:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Juventus F.C.Edit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because...I want to nominate this article for FAC. and would like to get others thoughts about it.

Thanks, REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in potentially bringing its class up to A or Good-class. As I'm accustomed to editing this article for months, I'm interested to see if there's anything missing that readers would want to know.

Thanks, —  Melofors  TC  22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm just only commenting here, but it's unusual that this is the first anyone's attempting to get a Minecraft server article to GA status. Let me imitate FitMC here: "Did you know that a Wikipedia article about the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft is about to become a good article?!" I wonder if this article needs a "Gameplay" section, since people talk about how the 2b2t server is played, and I also wonder another thing... The article has a "Renders" section, but I wish there's a lot of text outside of the image captions. -iaspostb□x+ 13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you're planning a "Culture" section for this article, okay, perhaps we don't need a "Gameplay" section then, and we also don't need the lot of text outside of the image captions in the "Renders" section. Just found out from the article talk page. -iaspostb□x+ 14:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I AM NOT PEER REVIEWING THIS ARTICLE. -iaspostb□x+ 15:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Yep, the Culture section is pretty much what you described. Gameplay is definitely an interesting and I might change the name to that if needed. Just wondering, why do you find it unusual I'm trying to get this article to GA? —  Melofors  TC  19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Because no one took an article about a Minecraft server to GA status before, and because no one took an article about an anarchy server to GA status before. -iaspostb□x+ 07:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Yep. I'm not surprised. Minecraft servers are relatively new to the block on Wikipedia. There are four servers with articles currently, the oldest created in late 2018. Not many servers are notable anyways and don't have enough coverage to be a GA. Hypixel and now 2b2t would probably be the only ones that could be a GA. 2b2t being a GA would never have even crossed my mind, but looking at how big it's gotten, I think it definitely has a chance now. —  Melofors  TC  21:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The Legend of DragoonEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on how to improve upon it to make this a WP:GA.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Geography and placesEdit

United StatesEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA status (and maybe one day, FA status...), primarily because of its high visibility. It was delisted in August of this year due to concerns about length and excessive detail. The readable prose size has decreased significantly thanks to the work of several editors, including myself, but my recent nomination for GA was deleted without explanation—I'm guessing because of length. Thus, I thought I might open a request for peer review.

I think one important area of improvement is the History section. It's just too detailed, but I feel like there will be significant resistance to removing/moving content from it.

Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Swains LockEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to receive feedback on areas of the article that may require more attention in order to bring it to Featured Article standards. Sections that may require more scrutiny than others include History and Economy. The latter section could probably be shortened and a new article started to accommodate the depth of the current information.

Thanks, Momoneymoproblemz (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


Ada Winifred Weekes BakerEdit

I've listed this article for peer review to check on structure, grammar and to check on its overall quality. It is my good faith belief it is complete, anything missing I consider to be ephemera, however I am not against people arguing that I’ve missed something!

In particular, I’m not clear about the title. I suspect it should be "Ada Baker" only and the disambig page is wrong, with a “for any article about Ada Bakker, see Ada Bakker”, but I’m not certain...

Thanks, Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Huey LongEdit

Although I am quite active with Featured lists, I really have little concrete understanding of what distinguishes a GA from an FA. I personally think that the "impeachment" and "assassination" sections are of the highest quality. If I ensured that the rest of the article was up to that standard, would I be good to go? Please tell me if anything else is lacking. I may not be able to act on everything now, but I hope to begin another big improving push once I can get my hands on a few more books. Thanks, ~ HAL333 22:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


  • Some drive by comments:
  • If you're going for FA then a 5 paragraph lead will be advised against by many FAC reviewers. There's some where in the MOS that prefers 4
  • The songs in the Discography should be in quotes, not italicized (you can see that the song you linked already does this in its article)
  • Later this week I'll look more in depth Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

National CovenantEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am unused to creating this type of article, and I am unsure what sort of structure or headings it should have. Any other suggestions for improvements appreciated.

Thanks, CSJJ104 (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to FA eventually - it has recently undergone a copyedit and has already passed GA. Sennacherib is by far (only rivalled by Ashurbanipal) the most famous Assyrian king, remembered as an aggressive "enemy of God" thanks to the Bible. The real Sennacherib was superstitious, had daddy issues, preferred building stuff over conquering nations and was plagued by constant insurrections instigated by his arch-enemy, an ex-king of Babylon.

Thanks, Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ksour Essef cuirassEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I think I have improved it good.

Thanks, Schweiz41 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Tajuddin AhmadEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has went through extensive expansion and editing over the last 10 days or so. There are lot more to be done; there are obvious omissions. Still I am interested particularly in the following:

  • How far accessible the article is to an uninitiated audience, with little or no knowledge about Bangladesh or South-East Asian politics and history.
  • Pointing out parts of the article that need clarification/elaboration.
  • Suggestions on improving flow of ideas and events.

Thanks, Farhan nasim (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Turning point of World War IIEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would consider it (relatively) high on the importance scale and knowing myself I've probably made a bunch of mistakes that I could resolve with a fresh pair of eyes

Thanks, Loafiewa (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Churchill knew the war was won when the USA entered. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit

2018 Pacific hurricane seasonEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article on WikiProject:Tropical cyclone's vital article list and is the flagship article for the future featured topic of the same name. @Master of Time and MarioProtIV:, if you would be willing to take a look at the prose of the article (for sentence structure/grammar as well as accuracy), it would be greatly appreciated. I am trying to prepare the article for FAC. If anyone else would like to chime in, feel free to do so.

Thanks, NoahTalk 22:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 Midwest derechoEdit

I've done the best I can to make this a high-quality article about this recently severe-weather event. However I would like the assistance of more experienced editors in the field to help make this article B or GA quality.

Thanks, Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 29 August 2020, 22:45 UTC
Last edit: 16 September 2020, 00:22 UTC

Australopithecus sedibaEdit

Australopithecus sediba is a possible (but possibly not) human ancestor from South Africa, known from 2 skeletons dating to about 2 million years ago. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to FA as the first featured hominin article, and the 2nd featured great ape article (after Orangutan)

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 27 July 2020, 06:51 UTC
Last edit: 23 September 2020, 23:29 UTC

Language and literatureEdit

Brotherhood of the BoltEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this article to at least a B-Class rating or higher. I need feedback so I can finish the editing and work on it more.

Thanks, Go-Tsumaroki (chat) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mah Laqa BaiEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to nominate it for FA.

Thanks, Omer123hussain (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Isaac AsimovEdit

Previous peer review

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 284, 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) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy and religionEdit

Social sciences and societyEdit

New Wave science fictionEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I just completely restructured and rewrote it.

Thanks, Johncdraper (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify the following?
The British and American New Waves overlapped but were different. Judith Merril, "whose annual anthologies were the first heralds of the coming of the [New Wave] cult,"[4]:105 writing in 1967 in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction contrasted the SF New Wave (which she here terms 'The New Thing') in England and the United States.
It quoted someone, but unless I look at the reference I do t know who it is quoting. Also I’m uncertain why the material being quoted is important.
I’m still going over it now. Fascinating article, overall the structure seems sound (so far!), seems well researched and I can see a lot of hard work has gone into it. I’ve made a few small copy edits to clarify some things, but nevertheless I find the prose engaging though haven’t read the whole thing so far. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I had a stab at changing this, but not sure I quite got it right. Can you see if this edit is accurate? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I just fixed the Merrill ref and moved it to Authors and works section. Johncdraper (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: can we get a one line description of “New Wave fabulism”? I am completely unclear what this is... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if we should expand out the following:
The concept of a 'new wave' has been applied to science fiction in other countries, including in Arabic[8] and Chinese[9][10] science fiction.
That would be fascinating... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Working on it. Johncdraper (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in IslamEdit

I've listed this article to request peer review since in one of article talk page discussions it was claim that since Women in Islam article is available there is no need of separate article for Rights of women in Islam.

So I wish and request to review the article

1) Is Women is Islam article is giving through and proper coverage to Muslim women and related aspects if not what are the gap areas?

2) Is Women in Islam article covering Muslim women's rights comprehensively enough ? ( I see only two proper sections at the end but not comprehensive what is your opinion?)

3) According to you what is the scope for having separate comprehensive article for Rights of women in Islam?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bookku (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in Islam should be considered a high priority article and I can give a review for it from the perspective of Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria, although it will take a few days. In the meanwhile, to answer your questions:
1. This is something that should become clear during the review. This article is already quite comprehensive, but some gaps might become apparent once I survey the literature.
2. At first glance, it seems so. The article discusses women's rights when it comes to education, employment, financial and legal matters, marriage, dress code, political participation and emancipation (7 sections). Again, gaps might become clear as the review goes on.
3. It seems there are already several articles on Islamic prescriptions on women: Islamic clothing, Islamic marital jurisprudence, Divorce in Islam, Polygyny in Islam, Islam and domestic violence, Status of women's testimony in Islam, Women as imams, Female labor force in the Muslim world (that article needs to talk about labor laws). There are other article which have a section on women's rights, like Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence#Women_and_inheritance, Madrasa#Female_education etc. Are there any other areas of women's rights that are not already covered by these articles?
One of the best things for a review would be to find scholarly sources that deal with the whole of the topic of "Women in Islam" (i.e. they give the topic comprehensive coverage as opposed to focus on one part of it). That would help in identifying areas on which the article doesn't focus enough, as well as areas on which it focuses too much. I can see a few such sources at [Women_in_Islam#Further_reading]], do you have any other suggestions? VR talk 13:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit