Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. 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. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about a song which became viral on TikTok in 2022 which is already a good article and can possibly become a featured one. I am planning to request a copyedit, and I would like comments on the prose and comprehensiveness. If this article looks scarce, that is due to the lack of English-language sources which forced me to try to find Vietnamese ones (which was even much harder considering I do not speak Vietnamese). Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first Wikipedia article I've ever created "from the ground up", and also my first time working extensively on a BLP. I'm just hoping to make sure that everything is up to snuff and I didn't forget any necessary element, that there are no MoS issues, notability issues, etc.
Hi @Andre Carrotflower! Thanks for creating a biography of this artist. Here are my points that can help improve the article. They're usually on prose. You can improve the article further to WP:GA if you're interested.
Be careful of promotional warning. Some lines include Philip was just starting out on what would prove to be a long and prestigious career and Beuth has continued to accumulate a lengthy résumé of television work. I copy-edited some of them.
You can detail the lead. You can include the groups he was in, the films and works he was in. These can help make the reader more interested and add some "rapport", instead of a general applaud to the person.
I'm concerned with the claim of his apex being at 1996. It only has one source, and may not authoritative. You can add more sources to expound on the Night Stand appearance.
I've listed this article for peer review because my goal is to have the article reach good article or featured article status. I have recently completed a major overhaul on the article, working extensively on trying to improve readability, organize information in chronological order, review and improve references, and meet policies and guidelines. I am currently the top editor of this article, with my first edit being nearly 4 years ago. It appears that the previous peer review was over a year ago, and the article has gone through extensive updates since then. I appreciate any and all feedback and contributions to achieve this goal.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help it reclaim its Good Article status. I figure it must have many of the qualities that make it due for the accolade, but me being unfamiliar with many of the conventions that come with that had previously troubled me. I need help making sure that these recent stable revisions are ready to go, or if there's anything that can better suit it before we ship it out.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded the article substantially and I neeed advice to improve its structure, as well as its grammar and syntax.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA. I recently withdrew its first FA nomination because of a lack of reviews. The review it did receive noted issues with the reception section, and I would mainly like feedback on that section in particular
Courtesy ping: @Aoba47: (please do not feel obligated to engage with this peer review, I know you have a new FAC (which is excellent by the way!) and I don’t want to pressure you to leave a review, and also thank you for your help at the FAC)
I've listed this article for peer review because... I wish to improve the article to Featured Article status. I feel that it is quite complete, so I'm requesting a sanity check to make sure that there's no unknown unknown that emerges during the FA nom.
Nice topic! The article explains what is needed, but the prose could be improved to make for more compelling reading. Also, to be comprehensive, you need a more thorough survey of the literature.
Lead: MOS:LEADCITE would expect cites only for the direct quotes.
"Deemed "one of cinema's most recognizable shots" by The Daily Telegraph" by everyone in the newspaper, or by a specific writer?
Description and usage: "one of cinema's most recognizable shots" given how short the article is, it is a bit repetitive to see this quote again so soon after the lead.
It would be good to explain what the technique was used for in the other movies. Which of the characters in Full Metal Jacket / The Shining / Silence of the Lambs etc. performs a Kubrick stare and to what effect?
"Anthony Perkins (as Norman Bates) performs something akin to the Kubrick stare in Psycho" when does he do that and for which purpose? Do we know whether Hitchcock was involved in making Perkins do this? Does it just look like a Kubrick stare or does it perform the same function?
If Heath Ledger is so closely associated with the Kubrick stare, why is there no corresponding comment in this section?
Introduce Robbie Collin so we know why we should care what he thinks.
There seem to be a lot of scholarly sources not used in the article. Google Scholar search [1] gives things like [2] and the first place on TWL I checked [3] also seems to have more usable content.
Just sending this comment to acknowledge I've read the suggestions. I've already plucked the low hanging fruit and will get back to you when I've made more substantial progress.
Japanese animated film from 1986, quite influential and popular outside of Japan. 2026 would be the 40th anniversary of release. It has been expanded with several English language magazine sources since online sources were somewhat lacking. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for PR because I've significantly de-stubbed and think I would like to (eventually) go down the GAN road. I believe everything is pretty well-referenced, but I'm sure the prose could be improved and I'm conflicted about the article's overall structure. Since the subject has been pretty consistently busy on stage/screen for 20+ years, I've had a hard time coming up with easily identifiable career 'eras' to use as sub-section headers.
Hi, everyone. I withdrew this article's FAC after reviewers noted issues with prose. In the months since, it has gone through a copyedit, and I'd like to renominate for FAC at some point.
Requesting WP:PEER because I wanted to submit it at Wikipedia:The United States 20,000 Challenge. Note that I had updated the article back in 2022 by adding the episode summary (for the first time) and expanding the production section.
Lede could be expanded, recommend adding a sentence or two about the plot (maybe weave the current premise section into it?) and summarize some repeated themes across reviews (i.e. reviewers praised performance of xyz but criticized xyz tonal problem.")
Not sure about having a premise section in addition to episode summaries as they seem to sort of serve the same function? I feel like most TV articles I see pick one or the other, although I'm not sure if there's formal guidance about this.
The character description for Anna may be a sentence or two too long- MOS:TVCAST says that in-universe info (such as chicken casseroles or the books she reads) may be better suited to plot/episode summary.
"The rain sequences required Bell to act in 50 °F (10 °C) temperature" I'm not sure this is worth mentioning, 50 F seems like a pretty reasonable outdoor temperature unless she was wearing very little clothing
Some citation overkill in the second para of #production#filming - 5 in-lines in one place (one of which is marked as unreliable source- PopSugar)
The review section could be expanded, maybe summarize at least one other review's comments besides The Guardian. WSJ and Vulture look promising for this purpose.
Hi, sure I think the ice-cold water can be mentioned and the PopSugar interview is probably fine especially since it's supporting non-controversial text. You did a good job expanding the reception section w/ more reviews and the award nom, it's nicely fleshed out now! Zzz plant (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The summary "The story revolves around a heartbroken woman, who takes it upon herself to find the truth regardless of whether or not she saw a murder take place.": this is awkward. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to describe "a woman who believes she witnessed a murder"?
It's not clear what "Dual identity" means.
"The murdered teacher" comes out of nowhere when we don't even know what the premise is regarding this teacher; maybe just "a teacher", if she's credited that way?
Is it normal to use two "&" signs if there are more than 2 writers?
Under development: "Netflix gave the production a limited series order": who or what is the production? Gloria Sanchez Productions is mentioned two sentences later.
"had to cancel different ideas in their drafts for getting a comfortable shoot" is awkward, what is "cancelling a draft"?
Under filming: "however," breaks that last sentence uncomfortably, and since Bell is not directly quoted it seems like the tense is changing mid-sentence. I would break this into two sentences, especially since the PopSugar interview doesn't mention the sequel or Close at all.
Under Release: "Revealed" isn't needed, this could just read "Bell defended the title..."
"pointed the film's "worse fortune"" does not make sense to me.
"the series presents a little about "women solving crimes", not found in the "countless movies that already litter Netflix"" this reads as the opposite of what the source says: that the series presents little that is not already present in "countless movies that already litter Netflix about women solving crimes".
Overall this could use some attention from the Guild of Copy Editors, which could be a route to take if this does not leave you in a clear position to go forward. -- Reconrabbit16:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add translated titles to foreign language sources.
Some of the info box statements are uncited.
The lede should generally not have inline citations, instead please incorporate the info and citations in to the article body and remove the citations from the lede.
See WP:GAMESPOT for more information on when it may be incorrect or unreliable.
Dimps and NanaOn-sha as seen in the lede do not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article.
Thanks for your feedback. I believe I have solved most of these issues as detailed below, but please let me know if any more improvements need to be made.
"Please add alt text to the images."
Done
"Please add a development section."
Done
"Please add translated titles to foreign language sources."
Done
"Some of the info box statements are uncited."
Release dates and Designer are now cited in infobox.
"The lede should generally not have inline citations, instead please incorporate the info and citations in to the article body and remove the citations from the lede."
Lede citations removed and incorporated into the body of the article
"See WP:GAMESPOT for more information on when it may be incorrect or unreliable."
I have read WP:GAMESPOT and believe it is okay to use the sources cited here. The sources I cited are articles by games journalists, not user generated information or GameFAQs. Please correct me if wrong.
"Dimps and NanaOn-sha as seen in the lede do not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article."
They are now mentioned in the Development section with citations.
I think the next step is to add information about the game's development. Who created the game? Who was on the creative team, and when did they start working on it? Who proposed creating this game, and why? This is information you can possibly find in news sources or interviews that will add more information to the article. Additional sources can be found using Google, WP:LIBRARY, or databases available from your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for suggestions and help before I submit the article for FA consideration. I've already noted a complex and time consuming change I could make to fix a possibly fine rule violation(the Plot sections word count), but an outside perspective on the matter as well as general help would be much appreciated.
Hi there, this is a nearly ten year old good article that I revisited for an extensive copyedit of the prose, something that unintentionally piqued my curiosity. I don't have much FA ambitions for this article, but I would nonetheless appreciate feedback for improvement in the event I do take up the task.
I've listed this article for peer review because after doing lots of cleanup for the page, I'd like to see whether others think it has a chance of passing a GAN soon. The article isn't exactly perfect, and might be missing some things that I overlooked, but are there any glaring problems?
Tell me whether you believe File:Katy Perry Firework Video.png is an improvement, Tbhotch, and I admittedly had a some difficulty finding a good timestamp that included fireworks shooting out from both Katy and other folks. Either way, I addressed everything else except the URL errors, which surprisingly weren't resolved when I ran a bot to archive this page's citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an improvement. Regarding the bot, due to the hack Wayback Machine suffered months ago (I assume), it doesn't fix issues by itself. You'll have to manually fix the issues (if any). (CC)Tbhotch™04:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it's hard, I think, to write an anthem that's not cheesy, and I hope that this could be something in that category"
"displays a breezy maturity and serious set of pipes, a true demonstration of Perry's musicianship without contradicting the kittenish mischief of the bigger picture"
"not an actively painful listen. Sure, the would-be inspirational lyrics ('Baby you're a firework/Come on show them what you're worth') are nonsensical, ... but the chorus gains some momentum and the song would work well enough in a club setting that you could forgive its otherwise glaring weaknesses"
I do not think there are any major concerns with the article, and I think its ready for GAN. If this is planned to go further (towards FAC) I would recommend searching for more information about the song's critical reception: I am surprised that there is only a paragraph of information about it considering that it is a very popular song. Perhaps there can be a paragraph about the reception of the music, and another about the lyrics. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely go to FAC after becoming a GA, Z1720, and I've added a few more reviews now. I'm yet not sure how feasible separating topics within that section will be after implementing others. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Adding more reviews helped improve that reception section. While I gave one suggestion on how to split the reception section, other suggestions can be just as relevant, depending on what various reviews focused on. The reception section now seems to follow the "X says Y" format too much: I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to avoid this. Articles don't need a quote from every source in the review section, and sometimes combining reviews that say similar things is more effective for the reader and allow information about the song's reception to be summarised more succinctly. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I think the article suffers from a lot of WP:UNDUE text especially in the background and possibly elsewhere but am struggling to figure out what needs focusing on and how to do it, so I would like some comment. After UNDUE issues resolves I think article it should probably be GA-able, pending other things.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing to nominate Super Mario Bros. (1985) for Featured Article status. As this is my first nomination, I would greatly appreciate feedback on the article’s comprehensiveness, sourcing, writing quality, and overall suitability for FAC. Thanks, CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the first thing that you need to do is fix the {{Citation needed}} tags by adding sources. Cos(X + Z)16:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave a couple of comments:
You need to fix {{citation needed}} tags by adding reliable sources.
You should remove unreliable / non-high-quality sources from the article (e.g., WP:VALNET, but there are also many more besides Valnet sources)
The article should not rely on primary sources (Nintendo / Iwata).
You should look for scholarly analysis of the game and books about the game and add them to the article.
Also, are you actually sure that you want to bring this article to FAC? You have zero experience at WP:GAN and WP:FAC. My suggestion would be to withdraw this PR and work on something else that is easier than this. This is, after all, one of the most known video games of all time and it'll be extremely complicated to get it to FAC status, especially if you don't have prior experience there. Also, please consider what others at FAC said. PR rules state that you must address FAC issues before bringing the article to PR and you haven't done that. Vacant0(talk • contribs)19:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've also haven't even edited the article... You should really withdraw and work on something else at this point before coming to this stage. My suggestion would be to seek a WP:GAMENTOR and work on a video game article. Vacant0(talk • contribs)19:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As much as you want to have that article at FA level, it takes a lot of work. If you think about it, creating an article (what many Wikipedia users start with) is pretty difficult without prior editing experience but bringing an article to FA is even more so. And I don't think I've seen an editor with 1000 edits or less to bring an article to FA, or bringing an article to FA without ever having a successful GA. JuniperChill (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its somewhat similar to when I planned to nominate Animal Crossing: New Horizons to FAC, via a PR (which I will close shortly, since that plan is on hold) as I needed to remove some low-quality and unreliable sources, as well as adding sources from 2022 onwards. I never nominated that for FAC since its a step too much. I would not that I'm not a significant contributor to ACNH, since I only added a couple of sentences plus made some reverts. JuniperChill (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "Despite" from "Despite the divided critical response" is misleading. Contrary to what such phrasing implies, critics' opinions on an album is a completely separate matter from commercial performance and being a success didn't defy some connection between these things.
Of all the album charts this topped, singling out only six of them in the lead feels quite arbitrary.
Keep MOS:RELTIME in mind for things like "four million copies sold to date". At least give a timeframe for this figure.
"Lead single", "leaked", and "concert tour" are commonly known terms that don't need linking per WP:OVERLINK.
Below are some comments based on just the Musical style section.
"it offers a scathing anti-monarchist statement" This corresponds with "Searing, six-minute opener that splits venom at the monarchy" in NME 2016. I am hesitant to utilize "scathing" in wikivoice; consider replacing with the admittedly less eloquent "it is strongly anti-monarchist "
Adjacent to the above passage, the quote "useless, taxpayer-funded tabloid fodder" needs to be clearly attributed in-line. The same issue can be observed elsewhere in the same section with "obvious depression", "jaunty pop backing", "sprightly and carefree", "lightning-fast drum rolls", "shot of punk adrenaline" (unlink "adrenaline", as this is a common idiomatic construction), "lashes out at media and the world", "casual dismissal of gender norms", etc.
"Described by critics as one of his most poetic moments" is not supported by the corresponding "Rarely has Moz sounded more poetic" from NME 2016. This source presumably being the opinion of only one critic. The same over-application of a singular opinions as representing critical consensuses is evident elsewhere in this section.
Overall, Marr's primary-source perspectives might be overrepresented in the section. While it is important to consider his views, the extensive quotations are sometimes unnecessary or unrelated to any commentary on musical style.
As it stands, I would say that an overuse of quotations and the failure to adequately attribute subjective opinions/quotes in-line are significant barriers to this article being promoted as an FA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the prose needs a lot of work: unclear at times and too journalistic. I might spend a week or so copyediting (if that's ok), before listing specific complaints here.
Disappointed to see that the sources are mainly magazine/news paper/website based when there are so many more in-dept books out there. In particular the omission of "The Severed Alliance" gives pause.
The article is not ready for FAC but has potential, and would be delighted to help but it may take a week or so until I go into the weeds and give actionable feedback. ie this is still a placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a peer review for the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. The article has been extensively revised to include a well-developed lead, restructured and fully cited sections (Production, Themes and analysis, Reception, Legacy, Home media), and is aligned with WP:FILM and WP:FAC standards.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- Comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Inline citations and reliability of sources
- Reception balance (Indian and international)
- Any prose, style, or formatting issues
@Thefallguy2025: It has been over a month and there hasn't been a comment here yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for comments at the Wikiprojects attached to this article and reviewing other PRs and FACs. I also suggest asking for feedback from a FA mentor If not, can you close this? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this article because I have improved the overall article by writing it from scratch. Actually, I wrote it in Catalan and later ported it to English in order to level the completion. I would like to know if the references are sufficient enough, if not, I can provide even more of them. Having access to the real hardware, I can discern what sources are of quality and which aren't. Also, I am not a native English speaker, so my translation, whose writing was done manually, may be quirky and may need a revision. Finally, I would like to see into which quality category could this article be listed, just for curiosity.
If you need more information or data regarding the article or the machine itself feel free to ask. I will try to solve the issue in the best way I can.
I've listed this article for peer review to firstly, get feedback on the current state of the article. Since I made it, I'm kinda at in a "well, what now?" moment and not exactly sure how to improve it, other than knowing some sections are perhaps too short, the specificifation section, for example. Additonally, I want to push this article to GA/FA, so, any and all feedback would be lovely.
Listed for peer review because I'm considering attempting to bring it to FAC (first time!). I'm fairly confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness but feedback on organization, prose etc. would be especially appreciated.
The hot topic these days is sourcing so (despite the request to concentrate on the prose), I'll mostly stick to sourcing. Since this will be your first FAC, starting here at PR was a good move, and I recommend that after this you move onto WP:GAN to get another round of review.
TorrentFreak is a blog, and thus unlikely to be accepted as a WP:RS. You've used them for almost half of your citations. I'm afraid that's going to exceptionally hard to sell at WP:FAC.
It's not clear to me where TNW falls. I see [Next Web for ProProfs] which is mostly positive, but I suspect you will still get some pushback at FAC about the quality of that source.
London Review of Books appears to be a WP:RS in general, but you are using something from a blog they run, so that's probably not a RS.
Per WP:VICE, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. Not encouraging.
I don't have a good feel for walledculture.org, but my first impression is that it's more of a blog than a RS.
Well, those are the sourcing problems that stand out to me on a quick look. Overall, the elphant in the room is TorrentFreak. I just don't see any way that's going to be accepted as a WP:RS at FAC, and given that so much of your article is sourced to them, unfortunately I think you've got your work cut out for you to find better sourcing. RoySmith(talk)00:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Walled Culture source was also republished on Techdirt (a blog, but apparently a fairly well-respected one for tech news) and the author seems independently credible as a tech writer. If citing TorrentFreak is an issue I don't think there's really any acceptable replacement because there's no other source with an equivalent breadth of coverage. Most of the information they have isn't available anywhere else. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per perennial sources "most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing". In general this is a fairly niche topic without much coverage so TorrentFreak can't be removed without excising most of the article. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the various RSN discussions, I come away with the impression that it's a bit of a grey area. I do note that this thread says "There shouldn't be a problem with using articles from TorrentFreak on a limited basis and with limited weight". You are using them as the (by far) most used source in your article. I really think you're going to have a lot of trouble with this at FAC. RoySmith(talk)01:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review in order to receive feedback regarding the level of detail included throughout the article, (far too detailed, not detailed enough, not an issue, etc), sections for addition or expansion, and general flow and wording of the article.
I'm also wondering whether information surrounding the gorge itself, significant businesses nearby, and conservation and recreation in the gorge should be included in this article briefly, or if they warrant their own article.
Firstly, great work on getting the article improved to this state. There are some minor points for further improvement that I will suggest later on. My initial feedback is about a significant clarification that I think is needed early on in the article.
There are actually two bridges at the site, and this must be made clear early in the article, and also in the lead. A new section, perhaps entitled "Setting" could be useful in the early part of the article. This would describe the narrow gorge in the river, Goat Island, and the flood channel between Goat Island and the south west bank of the river. The description would go on to introduce the fact that there are actually two bridges at the site. I have found that several sources call them No1 and No 2, with the older bridge being No 1. (I note that the article has a photo caption for the concrete bridge that calls it No 2). My view is that it is best for the scope of this article to cover both bridges, as at present, but retain the main focus and the majority of content about the No 1 bridge because of its heritage character. The existence of two bridges just needs to be made clearer from the start. An alternative is to create a new article about the No 2 bridge, but I don't think this is necessary.
With regards to the scope of the article, I suggest that activities in and around the Rakaia Gorge itself are out of scope for this article and would distract from the focus on the main topic. There are activities in the area such as the walkway and jet boating that may warrant coverage, but this should be as part of a new article about the gorge, not the bridge(s). Any new article would take over from the existing redirect page. I would expect that a new article about the gorge would include a significant amount of content about geology and geomorphology - helping to explain how it has formed.
When I have the time, likely tomorrow evening, I'll go through and add the setting section as you've suggested along with clearing up the info surrounding the No 1 and No 2 bridges. I don't think No 2 is deserving of it's own article, as there is pretty much no source material mentioning it anywhere, aside from what's already referenced in the article. As for other activities in the gorge, I agree they'd be out of scope for the current article and, considering the vast amount of source material on the jet boating, walkway, and geology of the gorge itself greatly outnumbering that of the actual bridge, would certainly warrant a second article to takeover from the redirect.
Lots of material remains uncited. I consider this the most important issue with the article and one that should be addressed before other considerations. Unfortunately the Heritage NZ report is truncated and I cannot find any other heritage reports.
As to the proposal for other information: if it isn't mentioned by a source about the bridge itself it is unlikely WP:UNDUE. Mentioning specific businesses and recreation seems to verge more into the guidebook territory than encyclopaedia. I think the current content on the recreation/tourism aspect is fine and is a good summary of it, although the claim about it being used primarily by tourists/recreationists needs to be sourced to confirm it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about trying for FAC in the near future and want to know where it currently stands. I am completely unfamiliar with the FAC process, so it's likely the entire article will need to be looked through. I just got it to GA today. In short, where does the article not meet the FA criteria?
Okay based on the article, it seems pretty fine to me already, although I'm quite confused at how the way it states that Natlan is based jointly on Pre-Columbian American and Sub-Saharan African cultures, especially since the nation's music is the only aspect of the nation inspired by those cultures. So you could change some stuff such as the first sentence in the second paragraph in lead and the infobox. plantCOAL03:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a page I have almost entirely created myself, as can be seen in the xtools report. I'm fairly happy with it, and would like to possibly nominate it for a GA at some point in the future. Before doing that however, I believe it needs more critical eyes on it.
Hello fellow wikipedians! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured articles. This article is a translation and adaptation of my Ru Wiki article and currently it has been reviewed there and has a status "candidate for a featured article". Both sister projects have different requirements, so I'd like to make it 100% compliant with Eng Wiki requirements for the featured articles.
I've listed this article for peer review because this I've managed to create an article about this local hilltop, I just want to expand it even more with concise content.
The lead section should not contain references it should only reflect whats in the rest of the article. The exception to that is when information in the lead is very controversial but that doesnt apply here.
Eg so information like "referred to as Mount Hantu or Amtig." should be move down and summarised in the lead
I've listed this article for peer review because, although I've put a lot of effort into creating this article, I feel like there's some major improvements that could be made, and I do worry about potential issues I may have inadvertently created in the creation of the article, such as some biases I may have introduced, causing amongst other issues, the page to be kept out of the mainspace.
Hi there, I've just expanded and refurbished this old GA from 2008 so I would like someone to have a look at this article to see if it still meets GA. I would also like some feed back on improving this article since I plan on bringing it to FA at some point in the future.
I've listed this article for peer review because i'm planning of pushing this for a good article nomination. Looking for suggestions on how the article can be improved more.
This is my first read (a scan sadly). You can take note of MOS:DUPLICATELINK as some wikilinks duplicate in the same section, but I'd say this is good for a GA review.
I tried to fix some duplicate references. Can you help me check if the page cited in Patajo-Legasto (2008) on the Post-War recovery section verify the adjacent statement? RFNirmala (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I have already omitted it, as the source only supports the recovery of Philippine cinema post-war and how local production firms adopted the Hollywood-style studio system. It seems that mass production of films through the monopolized studio system already appears indirectly in the legacy section, where it states that the Philippines was once producing 350 films per year during that period. Loibird90 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I made some changes, in particular, if a reviewer could consider [B-Class criteria] and update the talk page to reflect their thoughts on the article. In future I might try and get this one to A-class or better any suggestions on what its lacking in that regard would be great too.
Also, the section on the communist era isn't very clear on the fact that Yugoslavia only broke up in the early 90s. You can get the impression that Serbia was independent by 1974 reading the article. Bremps...16:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times reported that Quayle was polling great, it was the funding that was the issue. (And also maybe health.) I'm not sure why I got the opposite conclusion from the same source. It also notes that he very nearly pulled the trigger on running, which the Wikipedia article only sort of conveys. Bremps...02:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I would incorporate that though. It doenst fit under any existing section and he didn't end up running so I don't it's worthy of creating a whole Gubernatorial subheading Olliefant (she/her)07:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The decision against a presidential bid was seen as a surprise to many pundits with various Republicans speculating that the choice was made following health concerns regarding a benign tumor and blood clots that were found in his lungs."
Created this article a few months ago, which has thus far been rated as B-class. Aiming to get it to GA or beyond going forward. Looking for feedback on prose, sourcing, and general content.
The article relies a lot upon "Bestebreurtje, Lindsey (2024)" as a source. I recommend looking for additional sources on Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, or databases that you have access to through your local library system.
No uncited text concerns.
Recommend replacing px with upright for images per MOS:UPRIGHT
Thanks for the feedback. I'm aware of a few free sources from the US National Park Service pertaining to Arlington Cemetery that describe the history of this settlement, so I'll start by exploring those. How many would you recommend I use for an article of this scope/size? Would appreciate if you could point me to any best practices. Thanks! (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I've finished adding more sourced material from 3 different journal articles, which put together represent a substantial amount of new information on the Village's history. Also added some more images from Wikimedia Commons and another external link to an Arlington National Cemetery pamphlet on the Village. I'll get to the feedback on the image formatting today (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because during my candidacy in the admin elections last year, an editor said it was not far off Featured Article status. As I've never nominated an FA before, I'd like to know what improvements the article needs to get up to standard.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Hi - I almost completely rewrote this article - not all was bad about it - from 'original research' to well-referenced, generally from academic papers if available (there is surprisingly little that directly talks of Border Reivers) and many now extensive collection of Border Reiver books I can see in the corner of my eye.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been tagged as having notability issues, however I have made alterations to the article since that was added that may alter the position of it.
I've listed this article for peer review because earlier this year I translated the Polish article (an FA there) and expanded it per the tag that had been on it for years (actually, it's more like I used the Polish article as raw material ... it wouldn't be acceptable here as a word-for-word translation). Since so much of the Polish article relies on Polish sources that do not seem themselves to have been translated into English yet, this article is the first time, I think, that the details of this grim event have been published in English.
So, I am thinking about a GA nomination down the line with this.
Hi! In my first read the article's all well. I just worked on some WP:Oxford comma and copyediting. Wanted if ask if you use an article before Standgerichten? I was a bit confused in the sentence living for a time as a monk... - is this Hudal or Wachter? RFNirmala (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m still in Kenya (for one more day, per the note at the top of my talk page), but I saw this.
It seems like the standard practice with using German words in English is not to use the article. I’ll take a look at that sentence and change it as needed. Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare it as a Featured Article Candidate. I overall think it is one of my best-written articles and am looking for overall feedback. It is already a Good Article.
The writing has a choppy feel to it. By that I mean the sentences, while grammatically correct, don't connect to each other with a continuous flow. They're more a series of individual disjoint statements. As an example, here's one of your paragraphs:
After briefly returning to England, Sampson jumped into Holland on 19 December 1944, landing in a moat around a castle. Participating in the Battle of the Bulge, he ended up being captured by German forces in Belgium, near Bastogne.[1] He spent six months in a German prison near Berlin until the liberation of the camp in April 1945.[3][6] Sampson insisted on being in the enlisted area of the camp rather than the more comfortable area for imprisoned officers.[7] He received the Bronze Star for his work among the prisoners. As the camp was being bombed by Allied forces, Sampson tended to the wounded and dying.[8]
and for illustrative purposes, here it is again presented as a bullet list:
After briefly returning to England, Sampson jumped into Holland on 19 December 1944, landing in a moat around a castle.
Participating in the Battle of the Bulge, he ended up being captured by German forces in Belgium, near Bastogne.[1]
He spent six months in a German prison near Berlin until the liberation of the camp in April 1945.[3][6]
Sampson insisted on being in the enlisted area of the camp rather than the more comfortable area for imprisoned officers.[7]
He received the Bronze Star for his work among the prisoners.
As the camp was being bombed by Allied forces, Sampson tended to the wounded and dying.[8]
There's no real change because the sentences don't have any connection to each other. One way to look at this is to shuffle the bullet points into random order and see if it still makes sense. If it does, that's a hint that there's no real connection between the sentences.
This could get turned into
After briefly returning to England, Sampson participated in the Battle of the Bulge. Jumping into Holland on 19 December 1944, he landed in a castle moat. He was later captured by German forces near Bastogne, Belgium, spending six months in a German prison camp near Berlin until liberated in April 1945. While a prisoner, Sampson insisted on being in the enlisted area of the camp rather than the more comfortable area for officers. During this time, the camp was being bombed by Allied forces and Sampson tended to the wounded and dying, for which he received the Bronze Star.
I'm not entirely happy with that rewrite, but what I'm trying to illustrate is the use of connecting phrases like "later captured", "while a prisoner", "during this time" which show how the events described in one sentence are related to what came before.
I hope you find this useful. You should also google for "choppy writing". There's lots of material written on this particular issue, much of which explains it better than I can. To tie this back to WP:FACR, this is all part of prose is engaging and of a professional standard. RoySmith(talk)11:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this article basically from scratch and it has been recently assessed as a good article, but out of all the lagomorph articles I've worked on this one feels like it's closest to featured article status. I appreciate any input that can help get closer to an acceptable level for that kind of review.
Comment. This might be too detailed for the article, but Gerald Durrell led an expedition in 1967 specifically to collect volcano rabbits for breeding. It's mentioned briefly in the article on Durrell but I can pull out the source information if you want to include anything about it. It was a failure; no breeding pairs could be recovered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the Conservation section, since the biography is available on Internet Archive. The colony is briefly mentioned by Jurgen & Humberto (the establishment of such a colony was suggested as early as 1966, but Durrell was the first to try it). Thank you! -- Reconrabbit14:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to take this to FA-quality sometime soon, after Greensburg tornado hopefully passes. I'm less sure about whether this one would pass, though, so I'm putting it up for a PR to clear up any potential issues.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it for FA status. This would be my first FA nomination, so I'd particularly appreciate feedback on any issues with meeting FA-level MOS compliance.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last few weeks chipping away at it and I've managed to include all the major academic literature about the series of poems. I'd appreciate any writing tips or advice otherwise on how to make it better.
I've listed this article because it seems a too scarce, at the very least comparing to the amount of information on the Japanese article. The Influence part also lacks a lot of citations. The Selected Works seems like a bit of a strange way to take care of his bibliography, and might need improvements as well.
Translating most details from the Japanese Wikipedia might be of major use.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was working with other editors a few months back to bring the article to GA status. Some time has passed and the collab effort has gone stale, but I wanted to restart the work so that we could finish what we started. I want to know if the added "Academic sources" section looks good, if the cited sources are enough for the info in the article, and if there's anything else that would prevent a successful GA nomination the first time.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have copied this article from the french Wikipedia on translation, and so, there might be some errors.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done a lot of clean-up and would like feedback from editors with knowledge about theology and/or Romanian politics.
Thanks, --Mapq (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mapq: Welcome to Wikipedia! Peer reviews can take some time to attract attention from other volunteers. You can increase the chances you'll receive a review by politely requesting it on people's talk pages, or even reviewing others' nominations in turn. Let me know if you have any questions! (please mention me on reply; thanks!) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could alt text please be added to images.
Many of the references could have more info added to them such as authors, publishers, links, and publication dates.
Secondary sources would be perfected over the primary sources currently in the article.
There is an incomplete tag in the bibliography.
”Neamțu stated in a June 2022 interview that it was not he who had initiated the divorces.” could be phrased better.
I'm requesting a PR because of how much work has gone into this article lately. I want to see how well it is, especially with it being rated as c-class on 05:12, 30 June 2023.
I agree with the people at the talk page that this article talks about the cultural aspects of plurality, so we don't necessarily have to use MEDRS sources. However, one medical claim remains: Multiplicity is seen as inherently disordered when it is not. There is a similar statement elsewhere in the article saying that Being plural, or identifying as multiple people in one body, is often seen as inherently "disordered". However, most systems do not consider plurality to be necessarily "disordered" in and of itself, which is fine, since it's a cultural claim, not a medical one. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to work for its status as a GA in the future.
I need GA requirements to be met, I need help with article size and culling. I also need a peer reviewed source integrity spot check. Any other matters relevant to improving the article is helpful and appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because a notability tag has been up for a long time, and I want to know if notability could be established if the correct sources were to be used, in addition to the sources the article uses already being used, by the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a paid contribution (and a translation from the French article that I also wrote). Even if I tried to respect WP:NPOV as much as possible, the text may not be perfectly neutral.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on possibly nominating this article for FAC in the coming months. Therefore, I'd appreciate all suggestions on improving the article before nominating it for FAC.
I'm hoping to get some feedback on what else I could possibly add that would be useful to a general reader. I have a *lot* of information that I could put into this article, but it's very scattered and I'd like to spend my time efficiently.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article can become a FA, but I do not have enough experience in the realm of crime and law articles to properly determine if it is missing something.
Please inform me if this article is missing anything important from it. Comments regarding its writing style and prose are also requested.
Why is there a source in the infobox when it's sourced within the body? This should be removed unless there's another explanation for it.
" It was theorized that Jeschke's murder was connected to the murder of Roger Atkison and Rose Burkert, but police in Iowa found no connection.", the site of the murder was in Missouri then it mentions Iowa. Could this be reworded to make it flow better? "was connected to the murders of Roger Atkinson and Rose Bukert in Iowa?, but police in the state..."
"During her guilty plea Hemme stated", "During her guilty plea, Hemme stated"
"The hair in Jeschke's bed sheets, which was from a black man, was alleged to be from Vernon Burris, the only black officer who came to the crime scene, but the FBI reported that it did not match Burris' hair.[54] This information is relevant as Holman was also black", shouldn't mentions of "black" be "Black" as we're talking about people who are African-American?
A thought on sourcing
The overwhelming majority of citations here are to local news. There's absolutely no taboo against using such sources judiciously in FAs, and indeed it's likely that some details will be most easily or perhaps only found in the up-to-the-minute reports that accompanied the case. However, it's also likely that breaking news stories will be incomplete, include information which seems to be true or relevant at the time but may not hold up, convey rumours, or otherwise have deficiencies. Are there any more scholarly retrospective works that could be brought in to support them? Even if the same information is found there, it allows us to use the benefit of hindsight and peer review to endorse that it's reliable.
There are one or two claims where the use of local news seems inappropriate -- see Hemme's wrongful conviction produced the longest ever prison tenure for an exonerated American woman, in particular.
I've listed this article for peer review because I grabbed most of the sources and material from both FAs and GAs, and used example of other featured lists to create the lead and tables. This is my first listicle I'm submitting to do so, and I would love a peer review. Thank you!
The Frank Sinatra article is a comprehensive and well-sourced biography of the legendary singer, actor, and cultural icon. I believe it meets many of the criteria for a Featured Article in terms of coverage, sourcing, and structure, and I would appreciate feedback from experienced editors on whether it is ready for nomination.
Thanks, CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
