Wikipedia:Peer review

MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

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.

ArtsEdit

I Saw What You Did (1988 film)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it, if possible, to GA status; or as much as is possible anyway with such a film. The main problem is finding sources. What I need is any sources that could provide useful information for the movie's production or its reception. Especially the latter, since something tells me any information on its production is nonexistant.

Thank you in advance for anything you find. I'm sure it wouldn't have been easy. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

This is a fun an interesting selection. If you do not already have a Newspapers.com account, I would encourage you to get one through the Wikipedia Library as I found that resource to be invaluable for older topics like this one. I have clipped a few potential helpful articles from there and included them below:

I hope these sources are a good starting point. Given when the film was released, I would not be surprised if most of the coverage would be in newspapers and magazines, it can be somewhat difficult to get access to those (as I would imagine that a lot of people would not think to digitize articles about this film). Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. :D I did consider using newspaper articles myself, especially since given the age of the movie and its nature as a TV movie of all things, it's doubtful there'd be much coverage in online sources. Sadly, even years later, I still don't know much on where to find them and whatnot. I guess I'll follow your advice. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I am glad that I could help. I did not do a super deep dive into the newspapers sources so hopefully, there are more present in the Newspapers.com. You could also try reaching out to local librarians in your area. I know that is more of a pain, but it may be helpful to locate sources that did not make the jump to digital. Either way, best of luck, and hats off to you for choosing a very obscure subject. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess I can try library sources. But I swear to God, if there's a library in Greece of all countries, near my house, that has newspaper clippings about this movie, I'll kill myself. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I would be surprised if even US libraries have sources lol. You could try emailing librarians in the US. I am not sure if it would help, but just wanted to raise another potential way of getting sources. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


Allie BroshEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because Brosh recently returned to the news with the publication of her second book. I've updated the article with new and overlooked media coverage. I think this reaches B-class now; it is well sourced and covers the subject thoroughly.

Thanks, HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King

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 November 2020, 16:55 UTC
Last edit: 27 November 2020, 23:03 UTC


Dianna AgronEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I've been adding sources to it since August and, from those sources, subsequently expanding it. I know that actor bios run long when they've had multiple main roles (though this is the longest one I've worked on), and I'm fairly certain all the information is DUE, but there's some parts where I've been undecided if the information is about the actor or the actor's process and may belong at the related film article. If someone with a specific bio/film interest can weigh in, I'm looking for comments on how and where best to present/include information - and where it is too detailed, of course, to help cut it back. I've started trying that from the bottom, so it probably looks top-heavy at the moment.

Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Velvet (film)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am upgrading it from a stub article for a university assignment.

Thanks, Esthersullivan (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


RasiyaEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have an interest in non-western music and would appreciate any feedback. Many Thanks


Stonewall Jackson MonumentEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want suggestions on grammar and whether it would be necessary to add a section on his military achievements, specially relating to the civil war which created his name 'stonewall' and his legacy

Thanks, Sholtz49 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Game of Thrones

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: 4 November 2020, 18:59 UTC
Last edit: 16 November 2020, 21:27 UTC


Metallica (album)Edit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been nominated for GA status twice, and both nominations have failed. I'd like to see the issues with this article dealt with in order to renominate it for GA or even FA status. JJP...MASTER!...MASTER!!! master of puppets, i'm pulling your strings (0-3-5)[talk about or to] JJP... master? master? where's the dreams that i've been after (0-3-6-5) 21:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


MCMXC a.D.Edit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to GA status and maybe someday, FA status. So far, I have done substantial work on adding a lot of useful and structured content to this article. I believe it is close to GA status, but I first want to have someone look it over and bring up some suggestions.

Thanks, Lazman321 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brainEdit

General
  • Attention seems needed to ensure the article follows WP:MOS, especially in terms of MOS:NUMERAL. I see for example "No. 6" in the lead which isn't consistent with how you write about chart performance later in the article.
  • There are general spelling and grammar errors throughout, for example typos like "realzation" and awkward grammar like "making the realzation (sic)" which is not a standard phrase in English.
Lead
  • Overall the lead seems short compared with what I've seen on other comprehensive album articles. I think you'll want to expand it considerably to comprise at least 3 good paragraphs.
  • A sentence ends with "in which" — did something get cut off?
  • The narrative in the lead doesn't seem cohesive... you mention the idea for the album first, and then the idea for the band later.
Background and inspiration
  • I don't follow how Cretu pursuing pop music is at odds with his musical education. Are you suggesting he had classical training and then left that path to pursue pop music? That needs clarity.
  • This whole section seems related to the background of Cretu and Enigma, without any specific information about the album. You can start with some context, but you should expand this section to include a narrative for how that context relates to MCMXC a.D..
Development and release
  • There are more non-standard English phrases like "across eight months" that suggest the need for a copyedit from someone with good command of the language.
  • The writing here is awkward where you begin three sentences in a row with "Cretu", "Michael Cretu", and then "Cretu" again. I think as part of your copyedit, more variety needs to be introduced into the writing.
  • "The first song they made for the album was the song" Repetitive phrasing (and who is "they"?) is another example of something to attack with a good copyeditor.
  • "Michael Cretu still wanted to remain anonymous." The narrative around Cretu's anonymity is very lightly touched on and I think you'll want to expand this with additional sources.
Composition
  • You've used a religion journal as a source for genres which is strange. You should be using mainstream music journalism and people who are qualified to comment on musical genres.
  • In this narrative you write that Cretu "debunks" the idea that "the entire album consists of Gregorian chant". Have other journalists asserted this? What is he really arguing? The term "debunk" suggests that he provided evidence against a prevailing theory but I don't think you've written about this in enough detail or provided a cohesive narrative.
  • Have you ensured that you're writing in your own words and paraphrasing sufficiently from your sources? Something like "the album often evoking lust, cruelty, repentance, and redemption" sounds like it was copied from the cited journal as it doesn't match the overall tone of your other writing.
Critical reception
  • Ensure that you are writing this section in your own words based on your understanding of the cited sources rather than just stringing together quotations. This is a common problem I see with album articles.
Commercial performance
  • Check for compliance with MOS:NUMERAL especially compared with other sections and the lead.
  • "indicating that it was shipped to the United States at least four million times" This is a good example of awkward/non-standard English throughout.
Lawsuit
  • Check for consistent capitalization of terms like "Gregorian".
  • The opening sentence is not grammatically correct.
  • What are d-marks?
    • Most likely money or credits. It was never mentioned in the article what "d-marks" are, so saying that it is either money or credits would be original research.

I think you have a solid start here but it strikes me as a long way off from the GA criteria. At the bare minimum it needs a solid copyedit for basic grammar and spelling, followed by work on expanding sections from reliable sources and ensuring there is a cohesive narrative where I have noted issues. Thanks for the opportunity to review! --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I believe I have done at least most of your requests. I will do copyediting for MOS adherence later today. As for copyediting for the prose itself, I will be submitting this article to the guild of copyeditors soon, at least before the backlog drive ends. For the expansion of content, I currently have access to the Wikipedia Library and I am currently applying for access to newpapersARCHIVES.com so I will be able to expand the article soon. I will be leaving this peer review up in the meantime. Lazman321 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


Fanny Mendelssohn

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 October 2020, 10:17 UTC
Last edit: 29 October 2020, 21:26 UTC


Hi-5 (Australian band)

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: 24 October 2020, 09:59 UTC
Last edit: 15 November 2020, 02:01 UTC


+1 (film)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to a higher status. Koridas 📣 22:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo LuisEdit

  • Koridas, It's a relatively short article with not much details; the most being in the plot. While I expect shorter, more dynamic articles to have that FA star, I expect a little bit more content in this article too.
  • Typically, the first paragraph states the writer/director/producer, casts, and the synopsis. Maybe merge para 1 and 2?
  • Lots of redlinks. Redlinks are usually just for subjects that may be worthy to make an article upon. Maybe reduce the number of reds?

GeraldWL 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


Jurassic World Camp CretaceousEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I know that with the right improvements, this article could become a good one in the future. Remember, any suggestions help!

Thanks, Horacio Vara (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


Wong Kar-waiEdit


This is an article about one of the most prolific directors of world cinema. Overall I think the article is in good shape and is meticulously sourced. While I'm not the main editor of the article (the only major thing I've done is the lead), I plan to take this article to GA (will co-nominate with the main editor once I find out who that is), thus I'd appreciate any comments regarding prose issues. Thanks so much, (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Hanif Al HusainiEdit

"Since its release, Fallen Angels has been considered to be one of Wong's greatest and most influential works, along with Chungking Express and In the Mood For Love." Where is the reference for this sentence? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's a big save! I removed the sentence because it appears to be a case of WP:FANCRUFT. (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


Everyday lifeEdit

Cleavage (breasts)

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: 21 September 2020, 09:13 UTC
Last edit: 15 November 2020, 10:50 UTC


Engineering and technologyEdit

Deep reinforcement learningEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten significant portions and want to confirm that its still suitable and understandable for a general audience.

Thanks, Anair13 (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


Paper Mario: The Origami King

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 November 2020, 03:04 UTC
Last edit: 29 November 2020, 08:03 UTC


GeneralEdit

Japan Crude CocktailEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently added a lot of new information to the page so would like to check it is alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks, Popdmas43 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


François St-LaurentEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because... I've been the main curator of this page since I created it under six years ago. I know it needs work (not going to lie). Do I know how to make a Wikipedia page look better? Not really. Should I know what needs to be improved? Of course. I'm looking at Notable games as an area that needs improving, but I don't know how to do it without condensing the entire thing into mush. Any critiques help - just not of the "delete it" kind.

Thanks, Mandoli (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


2017 Pakistan Super LeagueEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to be WP:GA. I wrote some prose for the article a few months ago, but I wasn't confident that it was up to WP:MOS so I got the article copy edited.

Also sorry as I was not sure which topic the article came under so I listed it as general. Thanks in advance, CreativeNorth (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


Geography and placesEdit

Williamsburg HousesEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because it would like to submit for GA in the future. I would like to improve it in any way possible but am not sure how.

Thanks, Williamsburger26 (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


Fort Saskatchewan

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: 24 October 2020, 04:13 UTC
Last edit: 4 November 2020, 17:57 UTC


Darnestown, MarylandEdit


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

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


Southend Pier

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: 5 October 2020, 21:05 UTC
Last edit: 12 November 2020, 22:26 UTC


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)

  • Just a passing comment; I would never support an article this WP:SIZE at FAC, but not all reviewers agree with me. My reasoning (and general FAC advice as a former FAC delegate, now called Coord) is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. I think your best shot at FAC is to rigorously apply WP:SS, and I think sprawling Geography articles become maintenance nightmares very quickly. If you get it to around 7 or 8,000 words of readable prose (currently above 12,000), I would review. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Some comments in addition to the length issue which have been covered: There is some obviously unsourced information in this article. A few reasonably long paragraphs in various sections lack a single source. Other scattered sentences throughout the article also clearly lack sources, and this does make me wonder how much of text in front of sources is from those sources. On the sources themselves, book sources currently included in Further Reading need to be separated from those included solely for Further Reading. The article has a proliferation of hatnotes, many of which seem undue. For example, the History section lists as main articles "American business history, Economic history of the United States, and Labor history of the United States", which are specific subtopics within History rather than being Main articles. On more minor points, there are a few scattered very short paragraphs, and a bit of sandwiching, but both are at much lower levels than I usually see in country articles. CMD (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


HistoryEdit

Jandi massacreEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been written to document a massacre which will otherwise get forgotten due to people not knowing about it. Please review this page as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thanks, Starsign1971 (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


Gerhard BarkhornEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I recently worked on the article, expanding and citing the content. In particular I need feedback on grammar and style.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


WampageEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant revisions to the article over the past year. It is currently rated (by me) as B-class with low importance, but I would like some additional input.

Thanks, Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


List of victories of Rudolf BertholdEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to gain experience at improving lists. I want to submit this as a Featured List nominee. Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


KooriEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am a new editor and would like some guidance on making sure this article meets the "good article" criteria. I'd like to make sure that I have done the Aboriginal history of the topic justice. I have also tried to keep the language of the article neutral, and hope I did so particularly within the sections on European colonisation. Any comments are welcome, about anything that could be improved! Thank you in advance.

Thanks, Bella2129 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


2016 Australian school bomb threatsEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have noted that a lot of information has been added over the past few weeks. I would love to see the value of this article improved for the benefit of the Wikipedia community.

Thanks so much! ZP 64 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi ZP 64! I have reviewed this document with a focus on clarity of language and readability. I have not fact-checked the article, that is, I have not looked at the reference to see if the article's information is supported nor have I looked to see if any information is missing.

  • I have rearranged the header, focusing each paragraph on one subject, and making it so that the culprit is at the start of a paragraph and so easier for a reader to find.
  • Consider adding to first paragraph in heading specific details about how many schools were threatened or how many calls were made.
  • What does "UZ" stand for? It is used in the header. In general, spell out acronyms at their first use (or at least make them a link to an article that explains them).
  • Use plainer English where possible. As an example, instead of "were of low likelihood to be" say "were unlikely to be"; instead of "quintessential", say "key".
  • Date ranges use an en-dash, not a hyphen (5–11 February, not 5-11 February).
  • Headers of sections and subsections do not have title case, just sentence case. You also don't need to format them to be bold, they are automatically formatted.
  • Avoid starting sentences with digits, if possible. It can make it harder for a reader to find the start of a sentence if there is no capital letter at its start.
  • It's not really apparent in the article how Kadar was identified and captured. If this is known I would add this to the "Arrest and sentencing" section.
  • I don't understand why there is a section on the general motivations of those making bomb threats. I would remove that.
  • "In the same period as the threats made against Australian schools (early 2017), a number of bomb threats were made to Jewish community centres..." but the Aus school threats were in 2016, not 2017?
  • "Following these school bomb threats, literature has been published..." Who published this literature?
  • Studies have shown that schools in Australia..." but there is only one citation. Do you mean "A study..."?
  • The syntax of the references is broken. In almost all cases a person cannot click on the links. I recommend you replace all of the references with the automatic reference generator, which ensures everything will be properly formatted in Wikipedia syntax.

Based on what I have seen I have raised the quality rating of this article to C-class. If a review of the sources showed that all facts are well sourced and nothing is missing from the article, I could see this going to B-class or higher.

HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi HenryCrun15! Thank you so much for these suggestions, I would agree with all of them. I have started to apply some of the minor edits from this list, and will continue to work on the article shortly! Thanks again. ZP 64 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


Battle of Droop MountainEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to improve it to a Warfare Good Article. Also open to any guidance for its Order of Battle.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEekEdit

This is in really good shape tbh. You can probably put it up for GA in its current state and just work with a GA reviewer. That being said, I will still provide a few nitpicks.

  • The first two external links don't seem related to the article
Dropped them. You are correct—they are not related to the article, only useful for Civil War in general. TwoScars (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It has zero categories
Great catch! It had a bunch that were commented out—I forgot to "uncomment" them. TwoScars (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The summary of the battle at the end of the infobox is...unusual. I don't think it necessary, as the lead covers that.
Dropped the summary in infobox. TwoScars (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Yam fortressEdit


I've listed this article for peer review to promote it to good articles. It's a translation of good article in Russian, also written by me, so it need spell and grammar checking and maybe some technical help (like choosing of correct templates.

Thanks, Red wanna talk? 20:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

BorsokaEdit

The article requires a comprehensive copyedit before its peer review. A peer review can be requested at the Guilds of Copy Editors. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEekEdit

  • External links are in Russian which is useless to English speakers.
    • Reasonable enough. Deleted them. Red wanna talk? 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Could any more photos be found? Or another contemporary drawing?
    • All pictures are in the commons category, and there's nothing usefull: two plans of 1680 (same fortress with no any changes after 1645 plan), few pictures of unremarkable views of a fortress remains and a bunch of park photos. Red wanna talk? 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that a thorough copyedit is needed. The English is quite rough in patches. 06:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Union of Bulgaria and Romania

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: 28 October 2020, 14:54 UTC
Last edit: 30 November 2020, 14:10 UTC


Francis Saltus Van BoskerckEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… I worked hard on it, it is my first article, and I would like to improve it in any way possible but am not sure how. Not sure what else to say. Thanks, mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mossypiglet:, this is a really interesting biography on a person I've never read about. After reading the article here are some comments below:
  • You use a lot of extra words in your prose. For example, "Van Boskerck would serve in the Coast Guard as commander of the Coast Guard cutters..." could be Van Boskerck served as commander of the Coast Guard cutters.... Unnecessary words cause readers to lose interest in the article more quickly. Try reading every sentence and think of ways to remove words. Here's a great guide for removing extra words
  • All the sentences should be about the person and extra material should go on other Wikipedia pages. For example, {tq|"The institution would become the United States Coast Guard Academy...}} does not give us extra information about Van Boskerck's life or works so should be deleted.
  • Until 1890, the School of Instruction was held on ships,[2] when the first land-based campus for it was established in Curtis Bay, Maryland,[2] likely making it where Van Boskerck lived. On Wikipedia we can not make assumptions based on the research. Instead, we have to use sources to verify the information. If a source can't be found that verifies this then it should be removed. For more details go to WP:SYNTH.
  • He would rise through the ranks of the Coast Guard throughout his career, holding various senior positions. This is a classic case of "show, don't tell". What ranks did he achieve, and when did he achieve them? What was the highest rank he achieved? The subsequent sections are excellent examples of showing me his ranks, and perhaps this sentence isn't needed.
  • Now that he had lyrics and music, Van Boskerck was ready to publish Semper Paratus. This sentence isn't needed. Articles should avoid flourish and excitable sentences like this and instead use quantitative facts to explain the story.
  • The first paragraph in "Publishing" is about the first performance of this song, so the section header should be something like "First performance and publication"
  • You have a reference in every paragraph, but some of these are not needed. For example, the death section uses one reference, so you can put that at the end of the last paragraph. More information can be found at WP:CITEFOOT.
That's it! Congrats on a fantastic first article. Please post below if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thank you very much. As for your criticisms, I will be editing the article accordingly when I get the chance. It may please you to know, I had stopped editing Wikipedia for various reasons but your praise makes me want to come back and I hope I do so. Thanks again, it's very much appreciated. <3 mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mossypiglet: I'm glad to read that you are coming back! I hope to see this article get better over time. Please message my talk page if you have questions or want me to take a second look at the article. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24Edit

  • Will leave some comments in a day or two, thanks for your research work here. Aza24 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


Tobias Watkins

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: 3 October 2020, 00:12 UTC
Last edit: 29 November 2020, 18:21 UTC


Huey Long

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: 20 September 2020, 22:15 UTC
Last edit: 10 November 2020, 03:06 UTC


SennacheribEdit


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)

NOTE, when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SGEdit

I have cleaned up the mess on article talk to consolidate old events to Template:Article history; it would be grand if other editors learned to do this, as the bot that used to roll every template into articlehistory is no more.
Will add more commentary as I read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Check your ps and pps, sample, Barcina Pérez 2016, p. 9–10.
  • Review MOS:CAPTIONS, no punc on sentence fragments.
  • MOS:SANDWICH (eg First Babylonian campaign section, gates of Jerusalem, Construction of Ninevah, )
  • Review text for overuse of however.

No more nits to pick-- competent writing, worthy FAC candidate. I cannot comment on content-- not my area. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've amended the article based on your suggestions, thank you for taking a look! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Jr8825Edit

Apologies for the very long delay in getting back to this. I'm making a small start today. I'll leave some suggestions here and make some smaller tweaks directly to the article. Jr8825Talk 00:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead

  • is among the most famous of all - seems a bit wordy, considering it's the second sentence. How about "is one of the most famous" or "is among the most famous"?
  • Other events of his reign which secured his legacy throughout the millennia following his death include - again, seems a bit too long-winded. Since you've already mentioned that he's one of the most famous kings, I would cut this down to "other events of his reign included"
  • The third para jumps into discussing why the Levantine War of 701 BC was necessary, without really explaining what the war was. It seems to overlap with the para before, which discusses how Marduk-apla-iddina probably instigated the rebellion that led to it. The war needs to be properly introduced, and I think the contextual connection should be a bit more explicit. Perhaps adding small subclause to the second para will resolve this: ...probably instigating Assyrian vassals in the Levant to rebel, leading to the Levantine War of 701 BC, and successfully...?
  • More generally, the lead seems a tad too long to me, but this may be subjective.

Background

  • Though the most popular historical view has been that Sennacherib was the son of Sargon's wife Ataliya, this is probably impossible. - maybe better as "Historically, the most popular view has been that Sennacherib was the son of Sargon's wife Ataliya, although this is now considered unlikely"? (is my interpretation of the existing wording correct?)
  • If Sargon were the son of Tiglath-Pileser and not a non-dynastic usurper, he would probably have lived in the royal palace at Kalhu for several years before becoming king. Sennacherib would then have been born at Kalhu, where he would have grown up and spent most of his youth. I found this phrasing a bit repetitive. I think it would be better simplified to "If Sargon were the son of Tiglath-Pileser and not a non-dynastic usurper, Sennacherib would have grown up in the royal palace at Kalhu and spent most of his youth there."
  • By that point Sennacherib, who served as Sargon's crown prince and designated heir, had already left the city - by what point? It's not clear as the previous sentence ended with him moving to the new capital at Dur-Sharrukin.
No worries about taking a lot of time; I've been quite busy over the last few weeks so a delay worked in my favour as well. I've amended the article based on your input so far. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sennacherib as crown prince


Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit

Panicum decompositumEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm new to Wikipedia and want to contribute well. Please provide any feedback regarding any issues in relation to the accuracy of the information or any subtopics that can be substantially expanded on.

Thanks, Kebinbin (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'll take a look.

  • The first paragraph of the first section is unreferenced, as are both statements in the "Uses" section. Please find and add citations- everything, yes, everything, written on Wikipedia needs to be cited.
  • Your sources are okay, but could be better; i.e. scientific papers and the like. Google Scholar is a good way to find these.
  • It needs some more links: What is a C4 tussock? What does gladrous mean? Hermaphroditic needs to be linked.
  • I don't know about plant articles, but the structure seems off. Maybe check other GA plant articles for the appropriate structure (Asplenium platyneuron, Gaylussacia brachycera are two).

That is just some to start with- I am not a regular reviewer and someone who is will probably have more comments. Happy editing!--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Black-cowled oriole

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: 16 November 2020, 14:25 UTC
Last edit: 22 November 2020, 11:51 UTC


Glandular odontogenic cystEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because much more information was added. The lead section was further expanded, and subsections were added to the article.

Thanks, Shayz2 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now....

A glandular odontogenic cyst is a rare and benign odontogenic cyst developed at the odontogenic epithelium of the mandible or maxilla. - weird grammar, you mean something like "A glandular odontogenic cyst is a rare and benign odontogenic cyst arising from the odontogenic epithelium of the mandible or maxilla."?
Originally, the cyst was labeled as 'sialo-odontogenic cyst' in 1987 - "was described as"?
Following the initial classification, only 60 medically documented cases were present in the population by 2003. --> "Following the initial classification, only 60 medically documented cases had been described in the population by 2003." - also what is "in the population" here refer to?
The cyst is established as its own biological growth after differentiation from other jaw cysts such as the ‘central mucoepidermoid carcinoma’, a popular type of neoplasm at the salivary glands - needs rewording. I ca't follow this

The wording of the lead is odd - I need to read some of the literature before embarking on any copyediting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


Volcanism on IoEdit

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because there exists criticism of Io's volcanos being a geothermal phenomenon. Some scientists believe that the "volcanos" are actually an electromagnetic phenomenon. Someone should update the article to include this. I'd like to direct you to the following sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294458553_Plasma_Gun_Mechanism_on_The_Jovian_Satellite_Io's_Volcanoes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTGbXN4qm_I&ab_channel=ThunderboltsProject

Thanks, JacobIsACoolCat (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I am taking a look but I am rather dubious of both sources:
  • ResearchGate is essentially self-published and it doesn't seem like the proposal in this presentation has been cited anywhere.
  • The YouTube video is also self published and the author does not appear to have much of a reputation. That and I have never seen their theory The Electric Universe mentioned among mainstream cosmology theories, an impression borne out by the off-stream cites that Google Scholar shows.
So to sum it up, it looks like a WP:FRINGE theory. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


MonopsonyEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because its my first review and edit of an article. Interested (if your familiar with the topic) for any suggestions for contents missed, or any improvements to format, style etc.

Thanks, Relox1 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEekEdit

Howdy hello @Relox1:! Economics is not my specialty, but hopefully I can help a bit. Once you've taken this peer review into account, you might try taking this article to WP:GA status!

  • A table in the lead is not standard. I would move the table into the body at a relevant point.
  • Not everything has a source. Every paragraph should have a citation to reliable source that supports it.
  • I would try to provide a section about real world examples and breaking them down a bit.

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Rudolf HaagEdit


I was one of the people in charge of reviewing Rudolf Haag's German Wikipedia article (). We had made substantial additions to the original version and we had recognized Haag's contributions according to their scientific weight. We had also replaced the picture by a newer photo.

I have ported these major changes to the English article. I saw that the previous version of the article was rated as Start-Class. Since the article was improved with substantial changes, I'm requesting a new review.

Thanks, SimoneD89 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 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)

It's been sitting here for the longest time ... I'll print it out, do a copyedit, and then take a look and tell you what I think. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I appreciate this. I just made a few updates and improvements today. Sorry if you have to reprint it at all. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


Language and literatureEdit

The Tolkien ReaderEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it from a stub to an article of about 2000 words, and I would appreciate it if the Wikipedia community could evaluate it to make sure all is in order. The lead section has been expanded, and several new sections have been added. More references have been added, and I have included some more media. Each of these sections should be reviewed. If anyone has any other media which they think would be relevant to the article, such contributions would be welcome.

Thanks, Hofendorf (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


O Captain! My Captain!

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 October 2020, 16:59 UTC
Last edit: 29 November 2020, 21:16 UTC


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)


Philosophy and religionEdit

Islam in American SamoaEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because there have a lot of new contributions to this Wikipedia page.

Thanks, Tww102 (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I made edits to it over the last few weeks, adding much more detail including extensive references, and removing some misleading information.

Thanks, Hanshans23 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


Megan Phelps-RoperEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this for GA and would like ideas on how to improve it.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


Social sciences and societyEdit

Meatballs (advertisement)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because I’m interested in nominating it for GA status in the feature — but first, I’d love to get some feedback on what (if anything) is lacking. On my end, I think the biggest problem is probably its lack of an image, though I’m really not good with image uploading/inserting.

Thank you for your time, and I’ll look forward to your feedback! — Historical-idealist (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


Cannabis in SeychellesEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive some feedback on the overall flow of the page as well as if it fits within the guidelines of what makes a good Wikipedia page, including the tone, relevant media and referencing style.

Thanks, Akriwal (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


The New World Order (Wells book)Edit


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially updated with new information. I've authored the vast majority of this page and am looking for anything I've might of missed.

Thanks, Dos332 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Syrian AustraliansEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like feedback on my references as well as the Culture subsection. Thanks, Querty1234 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New ZealandEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to verify the article's notability and have added additional references. I've done significant research on the topic and am looking for any feedback that would help to improve it. Thank you in advance!

Thanks, Tinylucy191 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Elizabeth College, Guernsey

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: 15 November 2020, 13:04 UTC
Last edit: 22 November 2020, 15:53 UTC


Rebecca PetersonEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because it quick failed for nomination as GA article. The page was reviewed, with explanations what was wrong in general. I would like to hear some ideas on how to improve it. Any comments are appreciated!

Thanks, JamesAndersoon (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


Rural diversityEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a recent creation and I'd like additional opinions on how it could be improved.

Thanks, Joecipsurprise (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Joecipsurprise: from a quick read-through of the article, I had the following comments:
  1. It strikes me that the article is focused entirely on the United States. I wonder whether the article should incorporate a broader world view of the topic, or perhaps if the concept is limited to the US, it should be moved to Rural diversity (United States).
  2. There appear to be several statements and sentences which do not cite any sources, I would suggest that these parts are given immediate attention.
  3. The Media Portrayals section is relatively large and appears ahead of the, in my opinion, more relevant explanation of the different types of rural diversity. I would suggest the Media Portrayals section be condensed or at least moved after the more important sections explaining the subject of the article itself.
  4. This article is largely an explanatory article and so perhaps some images, diagrams and/or graphs could be used effectively to assist the reader in understanding and comprehending the article.
That's all I have for now, I hope it's of some help. —Ave (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
That's very useful, @Ave:, thanks! Joecipsurprise (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


Western MarxismEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I made extensive edits to it earlier this year.

Thanks, Hanshans23 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


Marxist humanismEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I made extensive edits to all year.

Thanks, Hanshans23 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


Willie Mays

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: 6 November 2020, 14:14 UTC
Last edit: 14 November 2020, 22:42 UTC


Iron MarchEdit


Hi there! I'm hoping to get some feedback to move this article towards a GA and eventually an FA review. I've scoured the internet quite thoroughly for information on this subject, so I believe that I've accumulated a reasonable percentage of everything that has ever been written on Iron March. Now to move slowly towards ~perfection~ of this page.

Looking forward to any suggestions, Jlevi (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by BungleEdit

I had a quick skim through, not exhaustive by any means and others would surely pick up more. I may come back to it with further comments, but a few things that stood out to me:

  • Lead does not summarise the article at all. It mentions that a non-profit org suggests that murders could be linked to the site, but we have no idea what the site was, what it stood for or ultimately its fate until reading the history section
  • Readlinking Alexander "Slavros" Mukhitdinov isn't good, especially because the middle name is in quotations and forms part of the link. This would never be an article in that format. The "slavros" is redundant in this context
  • Two refs are appended to the quoted text after the second paragraph, but the latter of this paragraph should really have the quotes there instead, especially as it ends directly referencing the quote that follows
  • The section about posters mentions only American universities. Is it reasonable to assume that this promotion was targetted or limited specifically to the USA, or was it perhaps a faction operating in that area within a wider cross-continent group?
  • There is mention of a new site "Fascist Forge", but this is placed in the history section. It doesn't quite fit here to me, as by the nature of the fact this is a follow-up site, it doesn't directly have any bearing on the Iron March "history" (and couldn't influence its timeline if it came after the collapse).
  • I am also unsure when it was considered to have dissolved in its entirety. If the forum itself ceased in November 2017, but there were affiliated discord servers operational for a few months after that, would the dissolution still be considered when the forum fell, or when any affiliated servers/platforms also ceased?
    • "The website closed in November 2017; the reasons for its closure remain unclear[2] in 2020" - this reads a bit awkwardly to me and the ref placement is not ideal
  • Maybe the "leak" section could have a better title, as it details more about the contents of this then the database "leak" itself. The section already places an emphasis on those that were identified as being involved. Was it a leak in the sense of previously confidential data or more just bringing it to public attention?
  • Seems to be lacking in imagery. Are there any public available ones, even of individuals closely linked/infamously affiliated?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talkcontribs) 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: Just checking you are aware I posted some comments a few days ago? Bungle (talkcontribs) 09:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, I noticed and greatly appreciate your feedback. Haven't had a chance to sit down with the article, but I am going to heavily incorporate your suggestions soon. Sorry for the delay, and thanks again for your suggestions. Jlevi (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)t


Erin O'TooleEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about the following things:

  1. The lead. I'm aware that the lead likely has problems and needs improvement, but I would like some advice on how to improve it, especially when it comes to O'Toole's political positions. I made a summary of some of his positions in the lead, but I'm not entirely sure what should and shouldn't be included.
  2. Content in the "Background" and "Political Career" sections (before "Leadership of the Conservative Party"). I'm not sure whether those sections have all the encyclopedic content that would fit in the article.

My goal with this article is to get it to GA, possibly FA if I can get that far. If you feel this article is a good enough GA candidate (I doubt it is), please tell me! Thanks, Username6892 19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


ListsEdit

List of international goals scored by Phil YounghusbandEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to be a WP:FL à la List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri or List of international goals scored by Miroslav Klose. One of my main concerns is the lead because I do not consider myself a strong writer.

Thanks,  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


List of notable residents in Barnes, LondonEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to Featured list status.

Thanks, Headhitter (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


MTV Video Music Award for Best Group VideoEdit


Submitting this list for peer review to determine whether my improvements have brought it up to FL standards or not, and to get suggestions on what can be done to make it a potential FLC if possible.

Thanks, Carlobunnie (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


Gibraltar national football team resultsEdit


I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to become a feature list. I believe the list entries (matches) are as detailed as possible with notable information and each entry is referenced. The main area I wanted reviewing was the introduction. Prose has never been my strong point but I've tried to include as much detail as possible without it being too long. I would appreciate any feedback and welcome any suggestions for improvement. Also any comment on whether this list has a chance at becoming a featured list.

Thanks, 6ii9 (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit