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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded this article but I have no idea if it's okay since I'm not experienced with movie articles. Should the reception be shorter to make more generalizations? I might nominate in the future once it's copyedited.
Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for a peer review because I'd like to put it through the WP:FAC process in the future. I first worked on this article back in 2016, where I received a very helpful GAN review. However, I have rewritten it to include additional sources and hopefully improve the prose. I have already put in a request for a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but I wanted to also put this through the peer review process to hopefully strength the article as much as possible before a FAC. I would greatly appreciate any comments. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I possibly want to take this to FAC. Any constructive comments in improving this article are appreciated.
Thanks! ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk 23:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm looking to see if this article can be improved any further, as I think it's as exhaustive as it gets. Also, I'm curious if an article of this size could be nominated for GA. Nehme1499 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Reopening peer review in arts category since there was not much feedback where it was listed before.
First time here - I'm listing this article for peer review because I really want to get this up to GA status for the possibility of it being nominated for FA next August 11 (20 year anniversary). I've spent a lot of time rearranging the article and adding sources - it was pretty barren before, and a lot of text was completely irrelevant to the point it was nominated for deletion last year. I can imagine there's a lot of improvements that I could still work on however (improving wording and conciseness). I've been using articles such as Cave Story, Ikaruga and Crash Bandicoot (another page in the review process) as examples of what the page should structure like, but I'm still not entirely sure. I don't know if the page is already alright in the image area or if it needs an image of the developer. It's my first time doing this, so all input is very much appreciated. Thank you very much :) Kettleonwater (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because following Sillyfolkboy's helpful review last year when I nominated this as a GA, I'd like some pointers on improvements required to get it ready to nominate as a featured article. Are there any important sources that I've missed? Any sections that need expansion or trimming? I'll try and fill in the gaps in the tables wherever possible, now that it's easier to get into the British Library.
Thanks in advance for any improvement suggestions, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll review this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take thas article to WP:FAC. This is the first time I am attempting such a thing and would like to get a review to see what would need to be done to get that done.
Looking for a peer review to identify issues or objections that would be brought up during a Feature Article nomination. It has been nearly two years since it has been promoted to a Good Article. In that time, I have periodically revisited it to give it a critical read to see where it can be improved. At this point, I think it is ready. Do you? Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll look at this sporadically over the day, right now I will just be doing some minor copyediting. If you disagree with any of the changes I've made, please feel free to revert them. I'll post some more detailed comments later today. Zetana (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I started going through and editing for prose, but I realized a lot of the edits were rather significant. So I've rolled them back. I will just focus on content issues for now, and will take a look at the prose afterward. Zetana (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, here's what I have so far. Overall I think it's pretty good! Zetana (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The week-long hunt became the largest search and rescue operation in the Pacific Ocean at the time. Later, you write in "Search" that The week-long search for the missing plane eventually became the largest search in the Pacific Ocean to date. I would just like to ask if you know if there has been a larger S&R operation or not.
That's a tough one to answer. The phrase "largest search and rescue operation" was used by the press at the time in describing the operation, but it's not very clear what is meant by "largest". The largest in terms of the number of searchers? The costliest? The largest area searched? I've tried to do some searches for the largest search and rescue operations and get bogged down by the precise definition. I worry that trying to further refine that statement would dive pretty far into OR. It generally seems to be agreed that the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is bigger in just about every respect, but it didn't happen in the Pacific Ocean.
The last paragraph of "Flight" seems like it would fit better in the "Search" section as it's talking about the searches conducted on the first day.
I agree, and moved it.
In that incident, all 31 passengers had been rescued... and flight crew as well?
I reworded that unclear statement to indicate that all 31 people on board were rescued.
Was there any information on how the William Payne life insurance situation resolved?
The judge in the case was harshly critical of the insurance company's attempts to avoid paying on the policy and forced them to pay the total amount. I added a statement and reference about that.
Often with crash articles I will see a section that details what changes in the airline industry were made as a result of the investigation, and would just like to know if you came across anything of that sort while researching the topic (aside from the CAB suggestion for a a reassessment of the airline's maintenance practices.
I haven't found anything. The stratocruisers were all phased out by 1961, but that was more due to its general unreliability and uneconomical operating costs than any one particular incident, plus the transition to jet aircraft.
I appreciate you taking the time to take a hard look at the article, and provide the feedback that you have. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've been editing this page fairly continuously since early June. Apart from some contributions from User:Sadads, regarding industry lobbying, everything here is essentially my work. I don't usually edit in this way and my own experience of large single-editor pages is that they can be idiosyncratic. I'd really like to avoid that here. I consider this an important topic and I'd like to see it done right. Primarily I'd like some feedback on what I've done wrong and what improvements or gaps need sorting.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I've written such a comprehensive article since I co-wrote Halo (Beyoncé song) 10 years ago. I would like to turn it initially into a GA and maybe later into a FA. Right now (excluding minor grammar and syntax errors that may exist) I think my main hesitation is the overall structure of the article. While everything is arranged chronologically, I sometimes feel that some things can be omitted or placed elsewhere, or that some sections can be mixed up. I also have a problem with a paragraph in "Immediate aftermath" ("The current and former heads of government of Mexico City, Sheinbaum and Ebrard...) as I feel the paragraph is out of place (I did not add it and it exists since May) and while it is true what it says, I do not think it will affect the candidacies of the politicians, especially since none is (nor will be) under investigation.
If possible, I would also like advice on what could be summarized, omitted or added. Thanks in advance, (CC)Tbhotch™ 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because the last time ISS received a thorough review was over ten years ago. Once upon a time, I did a fair amount of copy-edit work with another major contributor to the article and eventually, it made it to FA. Since then, it has fallen from FA, and is rated as B and sometimes even C class in various projects. I would love to see it achieve GA status or even regain FA status once again, but I thought a good look-over might prove beneficial first.
The article need some touch-up on accessibility, paticularly on the Pirs airlock & Russian docking port at the structure. There are a lot of pictures in the article, consider put them in galleries.
The components, modules and elements sub-section maybe unnecessary, since each of them have its own article.
There's a ton of copyright violation in the article. In fact, it might be enough to bomb most of the content in some sections. I think you should paraphrase them. [[1]]
Would you be able to point out the "ton of copyright violations?" I ran it through the copyvio tool, and comparing the article to other sites, there is very little, if any, actual copyright violation. -PaxVerbum 06:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, I think that the issues have been fixed. Well done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Using the revision available when you posted this review, I see only two CN tags. Can you show me where there are more? I might be missing something. -PaxVerbum 06:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think there is any [citation needed] tag anymore, but there are some sections which don't have enough sources, such as the Pressurised modules section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There is still a cleanup tag on a section.
Yes, it does need to be addressed. Thank you. -PaxVerbum 06:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Use less quotes from the articles. Gut the contents out and fix it.
Basically, there is a lot that the article need to be fixed. However, these issues are solvable, and when all these glaring problems are fixed, I will review the article more throughly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Pax85: Sorry for me coming across a bit combative with your peer review. Don't feel discouraged, I would still help you! It's just that I was having a bad day then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Looking at getting this peer reviewed, as I've expanded it quite a bit and would like some feedback on what else needs improvement, and if anyone sees any glaring issues.
Here are some initial comments. In case you haven't seen it already, WikiProject Energy has some featured articles on power plants that you may find helpful to reference, in terms of what kind of information that could be added. The link is here, I think Scout Moor Wind Farm is most relevant as it's the closest in topic to this article.
I think the article could benefit from some background information (either in a dedicated Background section, or in the History section) which goes into some detail about the political/environmental/regulatory/social/energy climate that Coopers Gap exists in. For example, Scout Moor Wind Farm describes the contemporary political/social climate regarding renewables & wind energy in the UK, as well as the local political & advocacy efforts for and against the project.
In the "Site" section, what are Niagara Road, Jarail Road, etc.? Are they local roads, major arterials, highways? If they are just local/rural roads, I don't think you need all the details for how the site is bounded by the roads, and you can just say "The site is X distance from the Bunya Highway". I think you should also include here the facts you had in the lede: It is located approximately 175 km north-west of the state capital Brisbane, and 50 kilometres south-west of Kingaroy and 65 km north of Dalby. It's a bit of duplication but that information definitely should be in the body of the article.
In "History", you write In April 2011, some local landholders expressed concerns at a community forum related to health effects and the noise of the wind turbines, some of which would be less than a kilometre from homes. It's a bit out of place in this section; the sentence could be spun off into a new "Response" section or something similar, which contains information about how the project has been received, e.g. politicians, advocates, and in this case local residents.
Also in "History", there is information about an emergency drill that was conducted by the operators. I think this is not necessary to include because (a) drills are a fairly routine occurrence and therefore not particularly notable by default; and, (b) as currently written, there isn't something very unusual or unique about the drill & its outcome (that was also reported on in the news) that would necessitate its inclusion.
That's it for now, I may post more comments later if I can figure out how to word them properly. I can also provide a more detailed prose review after any major expansions are complete. Zetana (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important historical part of computing history (and 470 other pages link to it). also i feel it shoukd be listed as importance "Top", it is that fundamental to computer science, however that is something that definitely needs some consensus and feedback on, you don't put computing articles at "top" without a good reason and careful consideration.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively updated it after it had been created by a sockfarm (banned). I would like some feedback on the neutrality of this article to maintain Wiki standards. I also hope to bring this bio up to a B-class.
Hi TsunamiPrincess, I noticed that you have not edited Wikipedia since July. Are you still interested in receiving comments for this article? Z1720 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because...Though I have tried to improve the article recently, not much information is available about the living person. I need to know more about what can be added / removed to avoid future GA failure. I welcome all inputs. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 06:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it was used as a reference by Youtube to determine whether certain channels were government funded. However, according to Webtekno, Youtube later stated that the information in the Wikipedia page was wrong.[2] By the way although Webtekno is an unreliable source per tr:WP:GKDP#Webtekno.com, many mainstream outlets cited their content.[3][4][5] I want to make this article as accurate as possible. Please tell me if there are any mistakes in it.
Thanks, V. E. (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get this article to GA status. I have had a look over it and it seems to be ok, no citation needed or general clean up tags. However, it is a large article and I may well have missed something. If others could have a look and give me an idea of what would be needed to bring it to GA status it would be much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am thinking of trying to get the article to a GA article, but I need advice on how to improve the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks fairly comprehensive and well cited for a GA, but can probably use some formatting and wording fixes (e.g. the Awards and Honours section).
"Career peak outside of the NHL" is missing sourcing; the section only cites one NYT piece, but that article is missing a lot of information that is in the section. E.g. statistics are listed in the section but are not in the NYT article
"Player-coaching career" has a {{citation needed}} tag.
Would prefer a better source for ref 22 (obituary from Legacy.com)
"Honours & achievements" has an over-broad scope at the moment. Some awards make sense (cup wins) but I don't know if all of them have sufficient notability, e.g. "Calgary's Asian Heritage Month Award" & 2009 SONAHHR award. Some statistics also belong better in body: leading scorer statistics & "Nanaimo Clippers sweater hangs in the Hockey Hall of Fame" should be in Career/Legacy sections.
On that note, I think most of the current sections (2/3-5) could be instead subsections inside a single "Career" section
The sweater/HOF statement isn't supported by the cited source (ref 31, "Diversity in our game")
I did some work on the references to fix them up, but which date format would you prefer? Right now the article uses all three (DMY/MDY/YMD).
The "Bibliography" section seems to function as a "Further reading" section rather than sourcing; there's also a lot of material listed that could be used. I think a complete article would make use of Johanson's biography of Kwong, or at least some of the other print sources listed
If this section is supposed to be a "Further reading" section, it needs to be trimmed to perhaps two or three books. Similar issue with "External links"
#6 is the most important issue I see; if some of the bibliography sources were used I'd feel more confident the article would pass a GA. Zetana (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I worked with Ted Cadsby to redesign his website and offered to post information about him on Wikipedia. He provided all the content and I vetted, assembled and published this article. We have done our best to include extra citations where possible to validate Ted's description, and have worked to ensure his entry is within the WikiProject Biography and biographies of living persons. We want to find out how to have the qualifying banner at the top of this page removed or adjusted to reflect sincere efforts to make this a neutral, correct and worthy article.
Can I get some direction please on what to do or how to get assistance so this article does not convey a sense of suspicion or lack of credibility? Otherwise, I have also asked about assistance draftifying or otherwise moving this article to a space where more time can be spent to get it up to article standards/requirements.
Many thanks, VickiZ (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was a split article from Yuzuru Hanyu during its GA review process, and since then it has been updated and developed to be a stand-alone article. As the other split article, List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu, has reached FL status, Henni147 and I are thinking to bring this at least to GA level as well. Since there hasn't been an article on a skater's Olympics seasons like this on Wiki, we don't have any standard to follow and I'm thinking peer-reviewing would be a good chance to gather other ideas before nominating it for GA or FA.
Thanks, Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has evolved into a comprehensive article over time, with a high number of sections and references. It seems near completion, but would benefit from peer reviews on the following aspects: articulation, length, redundancy, adequacy of categories/links/etc. Also suggestions of WikiProjects that could be interested in this article are much welcome.
Thank you, Sekundemal (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I see a lot of good work has been done on this article. I am not an expert but I think the first section after the lead should be "Definition" as I could not understand whether the increase in forest area here in Turkey would be included or not. I think the definition section should explain how it is similar/different from regrowth of former forests and Farmer-managed natural regeneration. If what is happening here should be included then I think the lead is too negative. Also maquis here is generally considered a good thing ecologically as far as I know. The lead says "carbon sequestration effects of woody encroachment are highly context specific and still insufficiently researched" but as the Biden administration has been in power for a while now is there no new USA research? Surely soil carbon/soil moisture/ecology must be a priority research area for them isn't it? I suggest after a week or so you close this peer review and nominate the article for "good article". Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to the article over the past year yet am unsure of whether the information is of value and sourced properly i.e. if they (the sources) are reliable or not.
Thanks, NDNSWMI (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll look in again with detailed comments after a close perusal of the text, but in a first canter through I have spotted a few misspellings etc: Cragisde; Lord Armstong; recored; Alexander Armstong; posted on on the Facebook page; nighttime; localman; majoirty; left ro right; and Alexander Armstong (again). Tim riley talk 11:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the New Albion article is ready to take the next step, namely FA status. I've had a few pieces of advice which I've followed, but nothing which is comprehensive. One particular editor recently stepped in and archived all the websites which were used as sources. All the sources are, I believe, high quality. I've author linked all that I can. I even wrote two new articles about authors just so they could be author linked. Those who are not author linked are of a very high quality, recognized authors in their field.
A GA was awarded after what I believe was a very thorough assessment. You can read it HERE. The article has been significantly improved since then, so I believe it is ready. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments from Niagara
"Initially, details of Drake's voyage were suppressed, and Drake's sailors were pledged not to disclose their route under threat of death." — What was the reason for this? I'm assuming it was to keep the Spanish from finding it.
Completed.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"...concluded that the Indians believed him and his crew to be gods...", "Most likely the Indians..." — Is the term Indian the most accurate for this context? Unless Drake specifically refers to them as Indians, natives (or something similar) might be better.
Completed.I used people and Miwok.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
For centuries, you use both words (sixteenth-century and seventeenth-century), and numerals (20th century and 21st century). For consistency, I would choose one style or the other.
Completed. I chose numerals as they were already most prevalent.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Describing their lack of seamanship experience and navigational knowledge, Davidson recognises a plethora of confusion, chiefly from armchair historians which include distinguished persons such as Samuel Johnson and Jules Verne." — Who's lacking? I would reverse the sentence to clarify that it's the armchair historians.
Completed.Yes, this was a rather awkward sentence.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Suggest: "Davidson recognises a plethora of confusion from armchair historians, which included Samuel Johnson and Jules Verne, owing to their lack of seamanship experience and navigational knowledge."
Completed. I re-wrote using a somewhat different phrase.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nice set-up for your references and the usage of WP:CITESHORT. To ensure consistency, I would make sure that consecutive page numbers are seperated with the En-dash, and only non-consecutive pages use a comma.
Completed. The En-dash is in all such places.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Interesting article. The closest I've been to New Albion was a visit to Point Bonita. I hope this helps, if I notice anything else I'll add it here. Niagara Don't give up the ship 00:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello and thank you Niagara. This certainly does help. I absolutely concur with you comments and will soon make the changes you suggest. And please do let me know of anything else you might see.
One other editor has indicated that in lieu of a FA mentoring that he also take a quick look at the article--which he will do when he returns from holiday. I look at FAs and think this one is close. I am excited to nominate it after it has some further comments from editors such as you. Kind regardsHu Nhu (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Hu Nhu: are you still looking for comments for this article? If so, I suggest posting details of this PR on Wikiprojects or asking editors to comment on it. If not, can you close this? Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article. It is probably unusual for a small populated place to even have a Wikipedia page. However, Seneca was once an important place on the C&O Canal, had a mine that provided sandstone to buildings in Washington, had a minor role in one of the scandals that plagued U.S. Grant, was the site of an important radio astronomy discovery, and currently has excellent outdoor recreation facilities.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like feedback on what improvements will need to be made for consideration as a featured article, as it would be my first nomination. The article passed GA earlier today with Wugapodes providing insightful feedback. I also plan on taking pictures of the skyline that Commons and other free-license websites lack, as I have the equipment to do this.
Thanks, dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[]
{{lang|nl|Jonge Tobias}} -> Correct pronounciation for text-to-speech.
I am not sure what this is referring to? Should I put the pronunciation in the first sentence?
If you use the lang template around non-English words, text-to-speech software will know how to pronounce it. No need to put in the pronunciation otherwise. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Like much of the Rust Belt, Buffalo has focused on recovering from the effects of late-20th-century deindustrialization. needs citation
Done
After the Revolutionary War, settlers from New England and eastern New York began to move into the area. needs citation
With changing demographics and an increased number of refugees from other areas on the city's East Side -> I'm not sure this is supported by the source (FN118, FN119 comes closer at a quick glance). It is the area east of the city or the east part of the city? What is special about the East side?
The term Bible-minded is a bit weird. I'm not sure it's due, but if you think it is, it needs explaining.
The sports section seems underreferenced. Are you sure Buffalo Beauts play in a minor league? This section may benefit from talking about normal/nonprofessional sport too
The Great recession started in 2007. The source you cited only shows the house prices, not whether Buffalo did well overall in the recession
I think you can just say Tesla, instead of adding Inc.
ethnic restaurants -> dunno about US English, but to my ears this sounds a bit insensitive to race, pretending that white people are the normal and don't have an ethnicity.
Is it necessary to list that many highways? Feels a bit unbalanced with the section about walking/cycling.
runs at grade -> dunno what that means
The Buffalo area has a larger-than-average pay disparity than the rest of the U.S -> between men/women, between white/POC?
The table with private employment has two empty columns. Is there a reason to not mention public employment?
FN244: don't shout in titles, even if the original source does
I'm going to leave prose nit-picking to others. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Not reviewing the full article, but just one quick thing I noticed: there are a few ways in which you could probably improve the lead image collage. The whitespace gaps aren't all the same width, so some tiny cropping is needed to get them aligned. Also, some of the images are re-used in the body, which isn't prohibited (as far as I know) but probably isn't ideal if you have a good selection to choose from. I can't comment on the choice of images without knowing Buffalo better, but something to generally consider as you're making changes is that you want the images to represent the full spectrum of life in the city: not just one ward, or not just touristy areas, or not just one type of building, or not just nice-looking wealthy areas. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dekema: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Z1720, Sdkb, and Femkemilene: Yes, I believe I will have time this weekend to shore things up for a change. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a good article and would welcome any comments on how to improve it so it would pass GAN. Any general comments would be much appreciated too! If it helps, I've based the structure of the article on Wicklow Way which is currently a GA.
Hi IndentFirstParagraph, I noticed that you have not edited since July. Are you still interested in receiving feedback in this PR? Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I took a quick skim through the article. I don't think there's anything that would cause it to instantly fail at GA, so I think it's ready to be nominated. Ensure that everything in the article is cited, especially the last sentence in each paragraph. Also, some of the paragraphs are quite long; I suggest reading WP:REDEX and looking for places where the same information can be expressed in fewer words. I hope this is helpful in improving this article. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it would make a great featured list for the Rivers and Minnesota projects. There are two other Lists of longest streams in U.S. states (Oregon and Idaho). This article on Minnesota's longest streams is comparable and has some additional features not in other articles. There is another page for List of rivers of Minnesota. I would be interested in comments that would help this article get to the point of a featured list.
Thanks, Talk to G Moore 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed B-class review and I'd like some input on how to improve it to pass the B-class review.
Thanks, Shimbo (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The article has now passed B-class review, however further comment are welcome in order to reach 'Good Article' status.--Shimbo (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it concerns a fairly obscure topic that I've put a lot of effort into researching. I'd like some thoughts on the state of this article and tips on how to improve it - I've also got scans/copies of the sources used here if needed for verification, I doubt most editors outside of the state of Victoria would be able to find these books. Apologies if this is the wrong category, by the way, feel free to move it if needed. Wasn't sure where this should go.
Thanks, LivelyRatification (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've made some initial copy-edits and prose work (Special:Diff/1047110912), feel free to revert some or all of them if you disagree. I'll post some more feedback in a bit; I'll go section by section. Zetana (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Overall, I think the article has most information that a reader would be looking for. Personally, I'd switch the Electoral system and Background sections so Electoral system is first, followed by Background. I don't know anything about Serbian politics, so I'd be interested in having some summaries of the parties in the running (did they campaign on any specific issues?). I also think the Background and Results sections could use more information (why'd Preševo's city council get dissolved in 2017? what did Movement for Krajina campaign on? what were the results of the "multiple elections"? etc. / was there any polling information predicting election results? what did political parties say about the results? etc.) as well.
Thank you for the cleanup and for the comment. I'm going to expand the article by the end of this week and on top of that, I will add more summaries of things that you have suggested. I'm also going to look through the featured articles since they will probably help me while writing. I appreciate this and thanks again, Cheers --Vacant0 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Of course, no problem. Let me know when you've finished expanding the article, and I can leave more detailed feedback to help refine the prose. Zetana (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm putting this article here for a review because though I'm done with my article. However, I would prefer an article review or nothing, as I have a one-way view, and would like some more support or any assistance in sources/grammar issues
Thanks, J-Man11 (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded fairly extensively from stub class. It is an old article that had no content and isn't likely to be found and reviewed by chance. It is the first article I've attempted to write and I would like any kind of constructive feedback and to hopefully move it out of stub class and in to something more accurate.
Thanks, Mycellenz (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Couple months ago, I sent this article to FAC and had to withdraw it because the prose wasn't quite there yet. I figured I should take the advice given at the review and take the article here. It would be great to get some fixes relating to the FAC criteria (and an idea on what I should've done in hindsight) before I try FAC again later on. Nova Crystallis(Talk) 01:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Nova Crystallis, I am sorry it has taken so long for someone to comment on this PR. My best advice is to go back to reviewing articles at FAC. Reviewing articles helps users understand the FAC criteria, what reviewers are looking for and how to interact with other editors during this process. Also, it builds goodwill among other FAC reviewers and helps get your article reviewed faster. I also suggest that you post a notice at WP:CYCLONE: editors there are very active and can give more technical thoughts than I can about the prose.
Below are some non-expert prose comments. I will assess this article as if it was an FAC. However, instead of fixing minor things in the article I will post all comments here so that you can see what needs to be fixed before nominating FACs. Comments below:
"was a strong typhoon that struck Okinawa" Is strong an official designation for a typhoon? If not, replace it with an official classification.
" and the depression received the name Emma." Who named it Emma?
"$219,586.50 (1959 USD)" -> US$219,586.50, per Wp:$. I would assume it's 1959 dollars so the year isn't necessary.
"A total of four people were killed during the storm," -> Four people were killed during the storm,
"35 mph (30 kn).[nb 3][1] " In the other instances, the note was placed after the reference, so flip the reference and the note for consistency.
"as Charlotte destroyed much of the crops earlier." -> crops earlier that year.
"$219,586.50 (1959 USD, equivalent to $1,949,457 in 2020)." -> Delete 1959 USD, it was established earlier in the article that these are USD and we don't need the 1959 date.
"(1960 USD, equivalent to $874,803 in 2020) " Removed 1960 USD per above
This is looking good on the prose front, but I still suggest finding a cyclone expert to ensure it meets the technical standards. Since this is a PR, you can ask specific editors to comment on this PR without accusations of canvassing. You can also advertise this PR in various Wikiprojects. If you have comments or questions for me, please ping. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because the article certainly can be organized better. For example, the question of cannibalism is discussed in great detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Age and taphonomy; fire is brought up in a lot of detail in taphonomy, palaeoenvironment, and its own section fire; and most sections are incredibly long and could use some subdivisions but I can't think of any logical ones. Also, comments on general grammar and readability would be appreciated
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on getting it to GA at some point and as it was last rated as C want some clarification on what could be improved to get it there. I contacted an expert in the area via email to get some feedback but am still waiting on a response.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to GA status, and I'd like help knowing what it needs for the final push. Any comments appreciated, especially on wording and the shorter sections.
I just wrote Seventy-Six (novel) from scratch (my first article about a novel) and spent a bit of time looking at featured articles about novels as I did to get ideas. But I am way more familiar with articles about older books than newer ones. With that modest experience under my belt, here's what I have to offer:
I found MOS:NOVELS very helpful for understanding what sections I should include in the article I wrote, and what those sections should include. If you're not already familiar, you might find it helpful as I did.
With that said, MOS:NOVELS makes it sound as if any article about a novel is incomplete without a "themes" section. Are there any reliable sources that discuss the themes of this story? As far as this novel is similar to others in the series, perhaps you could see what the Wiki articles for other Wimpy Kid books say about the themes in the series in general, which may well apply here.
Is there anything to say about the writing style of this book? What I said about themes I could say about style as well.
I haven't read this book, but the fourth paragraph of the plot summary reads to me as being overly detailed compared to the rest of the plot summary.
I don't think pool party needs to be hyphenated. But I think party-themed should be.
I think you should add some kind of date, dates, or date range for the pool party promotion so the reader knows when that happened.
Any reason to use the section title "Development" rather than "Background", per MOS:NOVELS?
This might be because I read more articles about old topics with lots of scholarship, but I read that short Reception section and want to see a more overarching, summary style statement about how the book has been viewed by critics and/or fans in general. Are there any reliable sources that can fill that gap? I see that you say this in the lede without citation to back it up, which seems to be a problem to me. You could easily fix that issue in the lede by saying "It received many positive reviews" instead of "It received generally positive reviews".
The Reception and Sales sections are so short, perhaps they should be combined into one "Reception and Sales" section?
Refs 4 and 5 are both YouTube videos, but the citation format is inconsistent between the two.
Your citations are inconsistent in spacing. Compare "Cite web|last=Kantor|first=Emma|date=|title=Wimpy Kid 15 Cover and Title Revealed" with "cite tweet |last=Kinney |first=Jeff |author-link=Jeff Kinney |user=wimpykid". This sounds really picky, but it's the kind of thing that gets brought up in FA and might get brought up in GA.
I'm of the persuasion that with little exception, the lede should only include information written elsewhere in the article, thus it shouldn't need any citations. I realize that a history on the book's publication history is unwarranted for a new book like this, but maybe you fit this in at the end of the Development Section or the beginning of the Reception section? Or the beginning of the promotion section?
I don't see anything from the Development section in the lede. A summary sentence about it could fill it out a little more.
There must be some appropriate external links to post here, right?
That's what I see. I like that everything outside the plot summary is cited. And the prose is easy to read and grammatically correct, so far as I can tell. Good luck in your continued effort! Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Dugan Murphy! I think I have some good stuff to develop the article further now. If I have any questions later, I'll just ask them here. Microwavedfork (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I would like some help to format it according to Wikipedia's canons
Thanks, Max Peltuinum (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello, I'm CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and this article need serious improvement. Peer review is for article that is in high-quality, not for C or B-class articles. Nevertheless, I think you find Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style useful to make the article more wiki-like. You might also want to add more content, polish the grammar, add image to the article, reformat the date, replace euphemisms based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and rephrase some section titles. You might want to have other editor with the same interest to edit with you. Come back when the article is in much higher quality, I wish you a good luck! 08:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get to work right away. I'm not a native speaker of English, so forgive me for any mistakes and, if you can, correct them or help me correct them. I would be very grateful to you.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Are you satisfied with state of the article? I've listed this article for peer review to find out areas of improvement and seek help in references and the article expansion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on the content, particularly with respect to WP:NPOV, and that it is up to par with other articles on non-profit organizations.
Thanks, Varavour (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
The article can be a GA candidate, it needs a grammar check.
Thanks, 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 02:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello, just checking that you want to get this article to GA status? Currently I see a number of content & structural issues I think should be resolved first before any prose work is done. Let me know if you want a more detailed breakdown of what I think should be included to ensure the article's comprehensiveness. Zetana (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi, @Zetana Thank you very much for your interest, I think I need your leading with this, could you please help me with the structural arrangements, or could you do it for me? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, of course, I am a little busy right now but I can provide more detailed feedback this weekend when I have more time. Zetana (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, here's some initial comments to start off. Just a quick note: the two sentences in the lede say very similar things, and basically duplicate a lot of the same content, which was confusing to me at first read. I think you should either merge the sentences, or remove one of them. Personally, I think it would be best if you kept the first sentence (as it is a more general summary-style statement) in the lede, and moved the second sentence down to "Definition" (as it is a more detailed explanation). Here's some structural feedback, I think these are some of the important issues which should be addressed first. They all overlap a bit but I've numbered them so it's a bit easier to read, take them as open-ended questions to think about. Zetana (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
What makes Sorokin, Lind, Anderson, etc. worthy of mention? Why name these scholars in particular? Are they integral to developing the idea of horizontal mobility? If they are, it should be indicated in the article.
The "Timeline" section has some information about horizontal mobility, but it's not clear how to place that within a 'timeline' because there's no dates listed. (I think the section would probably also be more appropriately named "History" if you intend this section to be a historical overview of HM). Here's a non-exhaustive list of questions that crossed my mind while reading: What's the history of HM as a concept? When was it developed? How? By whom? Was it developed in response to other social theories? I think a comprehensive History/Timeline section should be able to answer these kinds of questions.
How should a reader contextualize horizontal mobility within sociology? As a reader who doesn't know anything about the concept, I find myself unable to properly understand what horizontal mobility is in relation to other sociological theories, concepts, and frameworks. What kinds of theories use HM significantly? How do HM and HM-related theories compare against other complementary/opposing theories of social mobility? Who are its general proponents and detractors? Fully developing that context should also help indicate the general importance (or unimportance) of HM in sociology. You provide an example of conflict theory which uses HM, so basically I'm asking for more of that, and in such a way that it summarizes the more common strains of thought in sociology.
There are a couple of case studies in the "Metrology" section. Why these case studies in particular? What makes them unique or important enough to include in the article, as opposed to other case studies? Are there specific aspects of the examples which help illustrate the different dimensions of HM? If so, they should be explained in the article to aid the reader's comprehension.
Let me know if any of these are not straightforward, I'll try to explain further to clear up any confusion. Zetana (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This article deals with the 1970 course by Louis Crompton on society and the homosexual: The Proseminar in Homophile Studies. Described variously at the time as a course about sexual aberration, to a course whose aim was to eradicate homosexuality, to a course about "literary queers" - this was a controversial moment in Nebraskan history. And how fitting, then, is the University to celebrate its 50th anniversary this fall, the same year that a resolution condemning critical race theory also failed.
My intention is to eventually send this off to WP:FAC.
Thanks, Urve (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Lead is a bit bare compared to the rest of the article right now
Work in progress Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The first sentence of the Background is very long.
Tidied up Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Crompton being a gay rights activist is more interesting than him being a George Bernard Shaw scholar, so I would recommend restructuring that sentence as "Professionally a scholar on critic GBS, Crompton was also an activist for gay rights and..."
Do you know what the board's intent was when they wanted to transfer the course to the psychology department? More oversight?
Not particularly known, other than Crompton thinking being gay was natural (and probably that he was gay, but this isn't said) Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"Course" section could use expansion regarding the content and syllabus of the course, if there's sourcing out there
Biggest issue I have now, but I will continue to look. I can resort to primary resources if needed but will thoroughly check over what I have compiled again. Urve (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks!! I did not search GBooks for "homophile studies" because there is a lot of pollution by an institute - I've checked and don't see any more there. I've tried my hand at fixing up the section; there is not much more to say. I'll keep working on the other items while thinking about this. Urve (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sentence about the gubernatorial election: I think it would help to clarify that we're talking about the governor of Nebraska (it might be inferred but I had to go to their articles myself to confirm)
wikilinked to the election page - I think saying Tiemann was governor is clear that it's for the state, but open to suggestion Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
De-link the second J. James Exon; don't need to twice specify that he's a Democrat
"interdisciplinary problem" Cole meant "problem" in the "academic thing to be studied" sense, not the "bad thing that needs to be dealt with" sense, right?
yes, I've tried to clarify this Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"By the fall of 1971"; "In the fall of 2021" — watch out for MOS:SEASON issues
I am using these as references to the academic calendar - I know that "winter" can be ambiguous as a general descriptor, but fall seems clearer to me, and especially in the context of schooling, where fall is usually the latter half of the year. What do you think would be better? I did change out one of these, though; the festival lasts till next year Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"This latter class proved uncontroversial" — completely uncontroversial? That's a little surprising to me. I don't have the source but I'm wondering if it needs to be qualified like "largely uncontroversial" or something
I know the university website says it's celebrating 50 years but it seems strange because it's been 51 years, right?
Nice article overall! If you have time, I also have a peer review open here for what I'm hoping will be my first FAC, and any comments would be appreciated. DanCherek (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks so much!! Your comments are helpful and, as much as I've seen your work, insightful as always. Regarding this Penelope class - yes, there's some students that were upset, calling it misandry, so I'll definitely qualify it with some additional sources. I'll also comment on your peer review - I have a couple open reviews that I need to attend to at the moment but I'll also make yours part of that list. Urve (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it get to at least B standard before the final judgement in the case (due in March/April 2022), then somewhere close to FA at some point there after. What filling out does it need? Referencing? Media? Tags? Indobox data?
I would like a peer review on Wisconsin Dairy Industry. I have substantially expanded the article since its GAN, and I want a more rigorous review of the article and its content.
I've listed this article for peer review as it has had substantial revisions and additions (by many different editors) since being assessed as Start-class in the schools (high-importance), education (mid-importance), and Wales categories 8+ years ago. Would appreciate any pointers to how best to improve the article, and external eyes to highlight where there might be gaps in the content. (ps - not sure what the best "topic" is for this peer review; an educational institution seems to feel loosely within "Social sciences and society" but happy to adjust if there's a better home for it, or if it would be better off in the general list.)
Thanks, Dotx3 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been considering nominating it for GA eventually, but I don't have a lot of experience in politics or language-related articles, so I'm having difficulty assessing any gaps or weaknesses. I've also been the article's only major contributor since I performed an overhaul in 2016, so it would be grand to hear a second opinion, especially because the subject matter is politically charged.
I'm generally looking for a broad second opinion, but I am a little concerned about the weight being given to various elements and about the competency of my summarizations. Some advice on usage examples—whether there's too many, there could stand to be more non-fiction literary, some literary could be swapped out for older ones, more other political speeches—would be appreciated; the wikisource texts on the talk page may be of use there.
Thanks, ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope that I can make this article a Featured Article. This article was recently promoted to GA and I was surprised while originally writing the article. I initially thought that Beverly White would be a short start class article, but I instead found that she was a very active person and deserved far more.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
You may want to get the signature vectorized as an SVG (the folks at the Graphics Lab may be able to assist) for a cleaner look in the infobox
"who would also become involved in politics" → "who also became involved in politics"
"Club which she served as president of" doesn't flow very well, can this be reworded?
The word "served" is used nine times in the lead, 10 times in the "Politics" section, and more beyond that; it gets a bit repetitive. Replacing many of the "served as" with "was" will help.
"she would at times be the only" → "she was at times the only"
Remove "the" before "Utah State University"
Cal Rampton image caption needs a period at the end since it's a complete sentence
Politics section: I mentioned above but most of these sentences are of the form "During the X, she served as Y." Some more variety in sentences would be good!
"She would serve in the state house" → "She served in the state house"
"required to prevent a primary" — should that be "runoff election"? Obviously there was a primary
"who had run a write-in" → "who ran a write-in"
"over sixty percent of the popular vote" — I don't think you need to specify "popular" as there is no separate electoral college–like system being run here
It would be good to give a little more background about the $50,000 debt controversy
"She aided in the creation of a satellite university" and "She aided in the election of Debbie Winn" — possible to be more specific here? What did she actually do?
Abortion section — it sounds like she had mixed views on abortion so I would make that more clear in the first sentence.
Typo in "Capital punishment" (not Capitol)
Nice article overall! If you have time, I also have a peer review open here for what I'm hoping will be my first FAC, and any comments would be appreciated. DanCherek (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jon698: Want to make sure you saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first Wikipedia article I've ever written, and have included a lot more content than previous. I would really appreciate if anyone had the time to take a look!
Hi Tofta22, I notice that you have not edited since June. Are you still interested in receiving comments for this PR? Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly improved this article from a stub. I am doing this for a university unit project. By the time that I finish editing it (2 June 11:59 PM AEST), it will have images, citations and significant information. I would greatly appreciate any feedback and an assessment of what the class of the article is. I have linked it to the politics WikiProject, and it was already linked to the Social Work Project. Any help or feedback would be super helpful.
Thanks, Kafka10
Hi Kafka10, I see that you have not edited since June. Are you still interested in receiving comments in this PR? Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've listed this article for peer review because it desperately needs to be cleaned up. Only issue is, there's no list criteria so basically an character can be added to the page.
Thanks, ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The biggest issue with this page is that there are hardly any sources. Back up as much as you can, and if you can't find something for a claim its deemed unnecessary to mention and can be removed.
As for your character query, it also depends on sources too. For example, the "Poodaboo"; there's nothing to note about these guys except for people writing about them on fan wikis, so it doesn't really pass the inclusion criteria barrier for notability. Same applies for the other ones; if there's nothing talking directly about the character or enemy in question, as in reception and development, and you can't even source in-universe information, it shouldn't be there. Although Characters of Halo is being GA reassessed, its a good basic example of what the character entries should look like. Most of the characters have additional development and evolution info, as well as critical reception. You also keep in line what gets included at List of Roblox games (thanks for patrolling), and similar guidlines for inclusion should apply here.
I'm short on time right now, so I will be back in the future when I can get into specific details and lend a hand directly. Panini!🥪 14:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Panini! I might base the list criteria for the article off of both List of Roblox games and Characters of Halo. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Probably just List of Roblox games because it has a list criteria. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Blaze The Wolf, I've rewritten the Mario portion. If you're nervous evry piece of this list is gonna look like this section, let me calm your nerves; Mario is one of the most important and influential video game characters of all time, so of course there's gonna be a lot to say. Other characters, like Waluigi, wont have this large of text, hopefully. You can use this portion as an example, but keep in mind I only added four-level subheaders because there was so much prose it needed something to break it up. Other characters in this list will probably only have one or two paragraphs and don't need them. Panini!🥪 16:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not actually nervous. I simply just have no idea how to fix it. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
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.
Help
Add this page to your book
Show book (0 pages)
Suggest pages
Thank you