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 have recently expanded and revised this article significantly, and would like to receive feedback on how to improve it so that it could eventually be upgraded to a GA.
This is my first PR so thanks for your help. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Let's make it worthy of being featured in the main page!
I think it fulfills all criteria of an FA!
Thanks, Yoichi Tachibana (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually upgrade the article to Feature List status as is the case with the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book. The main issue however is finding sources for the first 6 ceremonies; from 1990 to 95. Despite substantial searching, I have been unable to find any press releases, announcements, or something akin to that detailing what the nominees for each of those first 6 ceremonies were; ergo, what the nominees for this specific award were. I'm hoping someone else will have more luck than I did, or at least figure out if GLAAD even released information on the nominees before 1996.
I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that the quality of Death Grips articles is usually somewhat lacking, even including their discography page which was promoted to a featured list but later got deformed after Year of the Snitch was released. I'd like some suggestions on how to improve this page as it appears to be salvageable. Getting it to a B-class or higher would be great.
Like its forerunner The Heart of Thomas (which I previously brought to FA after a very helpful peer review), Kaze to Ki no Uta is one of the most influential manga works of the 1970s, contributing significantly to the development of Japanese girls comics. I recently expanded this article significantly and brought it up to GA status, so I wanted to test the waters at peer review in advance of potentially bringing it to FAC.
Thanks, Morgan695 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA status someday. I would like some advice on to how I can expand the article so that it can cover the full topic, as well as any other considerations so I can get it to GA status.
I will try to help out. I may not be proficient in film articles and I may have not seen the film before (though definitely have heard of it), I do know enough about film articles and Wikipedia to help out. Here are my recommendations.
Right off the bat, the reception section needs to be expanded. If this film truly was "received well by critics", there should be enough reviews from news sites and magazines to construct a good reception section.
A lot of the article seems to be backed up by primary sources. Primary sources are OK, but generally, in Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred if possible, as per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Try to find secondary sources.
WP:RSP has a list of discussed sources and their reliability assessments. Try looking up the film in the relevant sources deemed reliable, especially newspapers and pop culture sites. At the bottom is a link to a custom search engine designed for searching sources deemed reliable.
Considering Who Killed Captain Alex was produced in Uganda, it would be a good idea to look through Ugandan newspapers. Wikipedia does have a list of Ugandan newspapers, most of which are in English.
For great examples of film articles to serve as examples, look at the articles that have made it to GA and FA. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Groundhog Day are recent and great examples of film FAs. As for examples of films so bad their good, a particular GA that comes to mind is The Room.
For information about how to write a film article, go to MOS:FILM for guidance.
Don't worry about padding out the length of the article to reach Raiders of the Lost Ark levels. All that is required for a GA is that all the main aspects are covered. Not even FAs have to be that long as they cover all the major aspects of the topic.
Hope these recommendations help. Lazman321 (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review in the hopes that it will one day qualify for GA status. At the moment, the article is still rated as Start-Class on the WikiProject Albums quality scale and I do believe that it should now qualify for a C-Class rating at the least. There is substantial media commentary surrounding this album and there may be room for expansion here and there. I am mostly concerned about making the prose flow more smoothly, especially in the critical reception section.
Thanks, Skyrack95 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Skyrack95, I am going to close this review because I think it is suitable for GAN now. Your article is pretty good, although the reception section could be edited for better flow, I don't think it's an obstacle to GA status. The main issue I'm seeing is that the lead should be expanded to incorporate all the main points in the body per MOS:LEAD, perhaps double or triple the length would be good. But that can be addressed during a GAN, so I'd advise you to nominate it now. (t · c) buidhe 17:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This review has been closed as suitable for a direct nomination. Your request has been reviewed and is considered suitable for direct nomination. No issues have been identified that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Good luck!
Hi all. This article is on a deaf actress who has already broken huge barriers at just the age of 12 or less. I'm gonna try to get this to FA-status. Hopefully, y'all can help me with some comments.
Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I have honestly never heard of this individual so hopefully that perspective will be helpful with my comments. I would be mindful that Mansfield is still in the early stages of her and the article will have to remain up-to-date and could possibly (and will very likely) look different further down her career. However, that should not be an obstacle for a FAC as people like Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga have FAs even though their careers are still quite active. I only bring this up so you can be mindful of it. My comments are below:
I have two comments about the following phrase, former YouTube personality, from the lead. I think it should be YouTuber instead as I do not really see personality used as often in this context. Also, has she officially said that she is done with YouTube?
I have two comments about this part, Then, she starred in a Disney "Unforgettable Story". I would use a different transition word then "then" as it is not the best. Also, more context will be needed for "Unforgettable Story" as I do not know what this is.
The lead should mention where she was born and where she grew up.
Instead of auto-captioning, I would say automatic captioning with the link. I would also link Instagram in the lead.
Have you considered making a request for a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? I am only suggesting this as I think the prose in the lead could use some further work. I also think the prose as a whole could use further work to reach the FA level.
The citation placement in the first sentence of the "2009–2018: Early life and viral videos" subsection cuts the sentence in an awkward way that impairs readability.
I am not really familiar with deafness at all so apologies if this is super obvious, but is this phrasing, Her younger sister, Ivy, is hearing, correct? It just reads as rather odd to me.
Do we have further background about how she started reading Christmas stories on ASL Nook and her parents' likely involvement with that?
I am not really sure what this part, which honors events within the Disney parks and resorts, means.
Do we have further context on what "Unforgettable Stories" is?
Is there more information on Born This Way: Deaf Out Loud, even like who produced it and where it was released.
I get what you mean by this part, The agent arranged to meet with her, but only on that particular day, but I find it awkwardly phrased and it would benefit from revision. The "that particular day" part in particular seems off to me.
The word "helped" does not really make sense in this context, helped In July 2019, she was announced to have.
I do not fully understand this sentence: The production hired multiple ASL interpreters and coaches to ensure accuracy. Why would these interpreters and coaches be needed? To ensure the accuracy of what?
Is there a reason for the invisible comment?
I hope these comments are helpful and encourage other reviewers to participate in this peer review. My primary concern for this article is the prose. I do not think it is on the level expected for a FA/FAC so I would encourage you to request a GOCE copy-edit. If you do pursue this route, I would make sure to specify in the request that this would be a copy-edit in preparation for a FAC as this will influence how the copy-editor approaches the article. Best of luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Pamzeis Are you planning to respond to these comments? Should the PR be closed? (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm kinda waiting for the copy edit to go through first... I would prefer the PR not be closed, since the copy edit can't be that far away... Pamzeis (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Please have a look if all is ok with the article I created. Thanks, ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 17:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Interstellarpoliceman: Hi there! The article is short and sweet (very good!). As far as following layout, formatting and Wikipedia's policies go, this looks sufficient. Citations are also relevant, cite the appropriate text, and are all from RS sources. There are some small changes I would make:
Changing "especially in the field of" to "especially within the fields of", multiple fields were listed so should be plural.
"celebrity interviews" to "interviews with celebrities", the former sounds somewhat tabloid-y/gossipy.
"Responsible for acquisitions, art direction, disc production, marketing. Releases include Joe Swanberg's LOL (2006), Aaron Katz's Dance Party USA and Quiet City (2007), Matthias Glasner's The Free Will (2008), and many others." to "Responsible for acquisitions, art direction, disc production and marketing, releases include Joe Swanberg's LOL (2006), Aaron Katz's Dance Party USA and Quiet City (2007) and Matthias Glasner's The Free Will (2008)." This makes the text flow better, and 'and many others' is removed since the start of the sentence already says 'releases include'.
"The film premiered at SXSW. Praised as "one of SXSW's pleasant surprises, with a great, early Errol Morris feel for American weirdness" (Premiere Magazine) and as "a wistful, thought-provoking rumination on the cost of progress" (Film Threat)." to "The film premiered at SXSW, where it was praised by Premiere Magazine as "one of SXSW's pleasant surprises, with a great, early Errol Morris feel for American weirdness." Film Threat gave a similarly positive review, calling it "a wistful, thought-provoking rumination on the cost of progress."" Text flows better; also wikilinks Errol Morris for context. I also do not think Premiere should be linked.
"The store was awarded three-time "Best Video Store in NYC" (2012–2013: Time Out NY, The Village Voice, The L Magazine." to "The store was awarded the title of "Best Video Store in NYC" on three occasions between 2012–2013, by Time Out NY, The Village Voice and The L Magazine).
"Hillis sold the library to the Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn." to "In 2016, Hillis sold the library to the Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn." Should be dated.
Lastly, a few points: under "career", I would put the first three lines together, but change the last one to end with "Furthermore, Hillis is a frequent moderator of panels in the indie film industry." Can the sentence about the documentary "At the Video Store" be cited? And finally, in the sentence "he has written film reviews and features and conducted hundreds of celebrity interviews" what does features mean here? Thank you for putting it up for review, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
My first time setting up a peer review. I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to get this page to good or featured article status.
You don't seem to be a major contributor to the article? I would start by ensuring all material has an inline citation, if your goal is FAC. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
My first time setting up a peer review. I've listed this article for peer review because it is a well-written article, it's at a good article status and I made a few contributions on it, but it may need some clean up on grammar and some quote check up on sections, including "Career", so we can make it a featured article candidate, as suggested on WP:FILM.
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) 21:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
First time doing a peer review! I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is already very close to GA-status, and just want to try and catch out any major issues before nominating it. What with the recent release of Spider-Man: No Way Home and the demand for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 to be made, I think this article is more than ready to receive the treatment it deserves. Thanks! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Having recently watched this film series (well, kind of, I just mostly skipped through them because they were sorta slow. And this had nothing to do with No Way Home (I'm being honest)), I'll try to have a look. Please don't take any offence if I, uh, quit. I've been doing that a bit recently because, um, stress. Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, he's not my favourite TASM character, and I don't know if he's my favourite Spider-Man, because I haven't seen Spider-Man films outside TASM films. OK, let's not screw this up.
them in the film itself, referred to — is kinda clunky and a bit confusing
Days after Raimi's departure — which is... when?
Tolmach, now president — as in now 2022 or now a decade ago when the film was being developed?
give sharp focus to Parker's — what is a "sharp focus", tho?
British-American actor Andrew Garfield was cast as Peter Parker/Spider-Man for the 2012 film and its sequel, with his casting being officially made on July 1, 2010. — wh- wh- what? OK, am I correct assuming that Garfield's 2010 contract or something like that stated he would also appear in a sequel? And the big after the comma is kinda clunky...
Garfield also performed some of his own stunts in the film — anything that can be elaborated about what stunts he performed in the film?
After leaked information from the hack also indicated Sony to be in talks to have Sam Raimi direct Spider-Man vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, a multiversal crossover film featuring Garfield's Spider-Man encounter Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man, as well as a new trilogy starring Maguire; and to also be in talks with Marvel Studios about integrating a rebooted version of Spider-Man into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), beginning with Captain America: Civil War (2016), a deal was reached in early 2015 between the two studios to make the latter official, effectively cancelling The Amazing Spider-Man franchise. — das a lot to take in... split sentence?
Tom Holland described the inclusion of his Spider-Man precedecessors Garfield and Tobey Maguire in Spider-Man: No Way Home 'was an idea that seemed impossible' before it came to fruition — this reads more like something that would be in the No Way Home article. You don't have to take my suggestion, but personally, I would word it like this: According to Holland, the inclusion of Garfield and Maguire "seemed impossible" before it came to fruition. (Fine, it does read very similar...)
Holland has also stated he regretted not contacting Garfield after he intially succeeded him in the role and felt lucky that Spider-Man: No Way Home had given both actors a second chance to discuss the Spider-Man character. — ...Is this trivia?
Okie, guess I started this off. Yep, there was a 2-week+ delay... Pamzeis (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Fallout is one of the most influential role-playing video games of all time, launching a successful franchise and rejuvenating the genre of role-playing video games on the computer systems. I brought the article to the status of WP:Good article in 2021. This year on October will be the 25th anniversary of Fallout, so I would like to bring this article up to the status of WP:Featured article. Any improvements that need to be made, list down here.
Thanks, Lazman321 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lazman321: Hi Lazman, I'm not really experienced with giving peer reviews of other articles, but there are maybe a couple things that I see compared to a featured article like Bioshock that can be improved.
The lead says the game was critically acclaimed, but Metacritic says "generally favorable reviews". Now, it probably was critically acclaimed, but you'll need some sources that explicitly state it is critically acclaimed.
Lead also says it was a "financial success", expounding on this by adding to that sentence, saying like "... a financial success according to XYZ Magazine's "Best Selling" list" or something like that. Furthermore, the actual commercial success section says that it failed to meet expectations in sales. This could be potentially misleading. The lead could also maybe be more connected and have less seperated sentences.
Plot and Development both have sections named "Characters". Additionally, "Plot" can be renamed as "Synopsis" with "Story" being renamed to "Plot" as they are the same thing.
This is only from a quick glance at the article- I haven't actually read the text or looked at the citations. If you want my advice, I suggest comparing it to a featured article like Bioshock or Half Life 2: Episode One and adapting this article to be more like those if you want it to be FA status. Thanks! shanghai.talk to me 11:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I have dealt with your concerns, including the section name concern and the separated sentence concern. However, I am not attributing the commercially successful statement in the lead because it is not attributed in-text in the sales subsection. Lazman321 (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this to WP:FA status. It's a genre-defining game, and considered a level 5 vital article. Not entirely sure where to begin, but I'll take any and all feedback. Gaps, errors, research, prose. Willing to work at this. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Shooterwalker, I'm not sure how much I could actually help, but I can give you some pointers. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Gameplay needs condensing and more citations added, since at the moment it looks broken and has a rambling style. Also the image needs its licensing seen to as that wouldn't pass muster in an FAR.
Synopsis, could really do with some trimming as at the moment it prompts the eye to glaze over. You could use the other Deus Ex articles as a template for this section.
Development, needs trimming down to something that's concise yet informative, as the game's development now has its own article. Perhaps use Final Fantasy XV and The Last of Us as examples for that.
Release, this section needs tidying and further citations, particularly the original release. Also condensing the mod section down a little and finding more third-party sources.
Reception, needs fewer quotes and more paraphrasing. Also, maybe cut down the number of listicals as it's a slog to read through.
Legacy, generally needs more citations and a little tidying. You can use the other mainline Deus Ex articles for sources.
General, the article needs a copyedit, but that can wait until after major edits.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering making this article a GAN. I've also done some cleanup work following a merge a while back. I think I did a fine job with improving the flow of the article following the merge, but I feel that the lead section needs some work.
comment: (1) Reference 1, the MLIT press release, is a permanent dead link, and i also couldn't find any archived versions. (2) The E5 series fleet list is sourced to "JR EMU Formations - Winter 2018", a book published in November 2017. Data in the table is from up to September 2021; likely the information was updated, but not the source, so a newer source is needed that can verify the dates. (3) There is a Hitachi-built mock-up E5 series end car on display at the Saitama Railway Museum (coverage at trafficnews and tetsudo.com); could be added to the article. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be nice to have other people look at on the article. This article isn't GA quality just yet, but can get there with a little bit of work. I'm listing it here to have other people look at it. I'm looking for a general review of the article.
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) 21:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am wanting to work on the article enough to the point where I can get a DYK. What I'm wanting to get out of this peer review is some ideas how I can improve the article.
Thanks, ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The development section is almost entirely about the DLC. DLC should be it’s own section, especially since this game has so much. Keep the table, though. Sultan the Sultan (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Alright. I'll see what I can find about the actual development of the game. I created the table to condense the info down into a more easily readable format. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Kudos to you for taking the initiative on the article. Here are some general recommendations to improve the article's quality.
Image caption - some more details for the layman would be helpful. Explain any HUD and other on screen elements to give some context.
Organization
There are many paragraphs that are too short to stand on their own. I would combine them with related sentences/paragraphs to improve content flow and give better context to these orphan sentences/ideas.
Rename DLC to "Downloadable content" per MOS:JARGON. Done
The DLC section has too many subsections with small paragraphs. As a result, this section reads more like a catalog than an encyclopedia, which would hurt the article at a quality review like GA or FA. I would remove all subsection headings and combine/summarize everything into prose. It would remove the undue weight and convey the same general ideas.
I would combine the Awards into the Reception section. Template:Video game reviews also has parameters for awards. Since there is only one sentence, it also makes sense to combine the content. Done
If possible, I recommend finding more content for:
Development - it currently reads more like a "Release" section, which is fine but more details about the actual creation would go a long way.
Reception - more than two reviews would be better. The content in this article has to be in English but foreign language reviews are also acceptable as long as it is a reliable source. Doing...
Sources (I didn't do an in depth review for verifiability or reliability)
Formatting - make sure all citations have the necessary information
The article is making progress. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25talk 23:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC))
@Guyinblack25: Thanks! I'll work on that. Some of the sources regarding the DLC are primary sources because there just aren't that many secondary sources regarding them. I feel that at least the map DLC should be kept since it's kinda of a main part of the game. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Would you possibly know how to create a map like the one currently used in the article? The user who maintains it isn't nearly as active as I would hope they'd be and I'd like to update it when it needs to be updated. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your follow up and points:
DLC - I wouldn't remove it completely. I think a short summary of the type of content and range when it was all released would be helpful. Primary sources are fine. An article just can't be supported solely on them and you have third party sources.
I think the same approach (short summary) could be applied to the map expansion packs.
Map file - It's a PNG file so any common image editing software could used to change the colors of countries. GIMP and Photopea are free tools that can edit it if needed.
Hope this helps. (Guyinblack25talk 18:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC))
@Guyinblack25: Ah alright. I'm not removing it completely, I've simply moved it into my sandbox for the time being while I work on it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has changed alot since the last peer review and I want to see what others think and where the attention should be directed in the sense of future edits.
Thanks, -- Jade(Talk) • they/them 12:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking at potentially making it a featured article. As I have not yet made a featured article on Wikipedia, I am requesting a peer review to look at all aspects of the article.
Thanks, Steelkamp (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this article up for a successful Featured Article nomination and really want a review that will show what needs to be improved upon here or if there is anything I really need to add.
Thanks, Paleface Jack (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to a Good Article rating. This is an article that was originally written 10 or 15 years ago, and I have (hopefully) upgraded it to include the citations expected in today's Good Articles. I also added much of the discussion about cavalry. It needs a simple read-through, as some things that a well-read Civil War person may assume everyone knows may be unclear to the average reader. Also, images are important in articles about battles, as they make it easier to comprehend what went on. I have two images that I am uncertain if they add to the article: 1) Would this map be useful in the Background section (replacing the image of Grant); and 2) Would a newspaper article that lists what a single regiment captured be useful in the casualties section? The images, Virginia 1864.png and 5th NY Cavalry New York Herald 11-9-1864 Page 4.png, are in Wikimedia Commons for Battle of Cedar Creek. This battle is a famous one, and contributed to Philip Sheridan's fame. It deserves to be upgraded to a GA or someday a FA. Thanks in advance TwoScars (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive guidance on how to best organize and improve this article for future GAN and DYK submissions. Thanks, West Virginian (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
A few thoughts....
In today's world, I believe images are important.
Find a picture of her, and put it in the infobox. Perhaps from a newspaper article or Library of Congress? Her gravestone? The mural?
Is there a newspaper headline that you could make into an image, maybe from the Library of Congress? This would be for the court case section.
Are there any additional photos of Coketon, or can you take a current photo?
Can you take a closeup picture of at least one of the historical markers, and put it in the last section while replacing your text?
TwoScars, first and foremost, I appreciate you taking the time to perform this thorough and comprehensive peer review of this article. I cannot thank you enough for your comments, guidance, and suggestions. I have added two images I took in 2018–a current photograph from the Coketon area and a photograph of the historical marker detailing the Coketon Colored School's history. I have located a photograph of Mrs. Williams on several websites, including the J. R. Clifford Project website. I am working to determine whether this photograph was taken prior to January 1, 1927 and whether it can be shared in the public domain, but I may upload the image to English Wikipedia under a fair use justification until then. Please let me know if you have any guidance or recommendations on this. – West Virginian (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I like the sign. I wish the other photo had some of the town in it. Assuming you are contacting J.R. Clifford Project about the photo. TwoScars (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I prefer an Intro section of three paragraphs, although that is not anybody's requirement. Perhaps the second (long) paragraph could be split, with the last paragraph summarizing her big accomplishment of the court case.
TwoScars, thank you for this suggestion. I have split the second paragraph of the lead section into two. Please let me know if this requires any further modification in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
You have short (one-paragraph) main sections, and one subsection that is huge. Perhaps the first two paragraphs could be combined into one section. The Williams v. Board.... could then be its own main section, with one or two subsections. The last two main sections (Later life, Legacy) could be combined.
TwoScars, I have re-organized these sections accordingly. Please let me know if this requires any further modification. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the Williams v. Board of Education of Fairfax District section could use a sub-section or two. TwoScars (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
For the salary totaled $120 ($3,456.44), I like to say "in current dollars" or something like (from another article) "In 1889, another flood produced an estimated $1 million (equivalent to $28,803,704 in 2020) in damages...." The Wikicode = ({{Inflation|US|1000000|1889|fmt=eq}})
There needs to be something, maybe a footnote, that explains she is not Carrie Williams Clifford (the writer and activist), nor Carrie Williams (Executive Producer at Paramount) nor Carrie Williams (the Disney character from a 2013 film).
I like the "This article is about the West Virginia educator. For the author and activist, see Carrie Williams Clifford." TwoScars (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@West Virginian: That's all I have. Nice article that needs to be in Wikipedia. TwoScars (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has major improvements as per the previous peer reviews requirements which noticed the article's problems, including:
reducing some WP:Oversection problem which not solved for more than a decade
improving the pupular culture legacy section with each of quotation reference by @KeeperOfThePeace:
summarized the "analysis" section.
reference now has page numbers or at least the link to the page in each books/journals
inline citations improvements, including the quotation from secondary sources such as modern time academic figures & universities researches which gave commentary to the primary sources by @Z1720:
I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to take to FL status. I believe it is a solid article; however, an independent set of eyes will serve the editing process well.
Most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Hu Nhu:, generally a good article here. A few points:
The tense is mostly present, but shifts occasionally to past. It's a historical event, so, per MOS:TENSE, you should default to the past tense with every verb throughout the article. Looking at MOS:BLPTENSE, only literature, philosophy, and art should be described using the historical present.
The prose is occasionally a bit awkward and long-winded: for example Drake makes landfall at four islands which Golden Hinde coasts until 21 October when they anchor to search for water at the largest, Mindanao. This is the first time since the expedition left California, three months earlier, that his crew has landed. could be "Drake makes landfall (the first since California, three months earlier) at four islands; they anchor at the largest, Mindanao, to search for water.
"impressed" should be linked the first occurrence, and not thereafter. This goes for all links.
Make sure all the events make sense in context. For example, on the single day of 8 May 1578, you have The expedition sails south, and Swan is quickly separated from the fleet. Later, on 8 May, a storm cuts Mary from the fleet. Among the Mary’s crew is Drake's brother Thomas and da Silva. "Later, on 8 May", implies that the previous events happened on a previous day — do you mean that, or do you mean that on the 8th, the expedition sailed, Swan was separated and Mary was cut off from the fleet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Listing for peer review, thoughts on how this might be further improved. Could it be worked towards FA? Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
hope will help . Ahendra (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Eddie891: This PR has been open for over a month, but hasn't generated any comments yet. Are you still interested in receiving comments? I suggest posting a request on Wikiproject talk pages, or asking experienced editors to comment here. Thanks for reviewing lots of FA articles recently, and I hope you continue doing so. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The second wife of Joseph Stalin, Nadezhda Alliluyeva had an interesting life of her own, though is of course most famous for who she married (and her death). I expanded this article some time ago and it passed GA, but think it could go for FA, but I'd prefer a look over if possible. Any comments are welcome.
Consider mentioning that Voronezh Oblast is located in (southwestern Russia).
Done
Link study circles. Perhaps "workers' study circles"?
Done
Perhaps "workers' study circles" instead of "worker's study circles"?
Link Bolsheviks and consider introducing them as revolutionary/radical socialists.
Fixed
Done
Mention that the Bolsheviks assumed power in Russia in autumn 1917 and a civil war began.
Done
Why is Kato Svanidze is mentioned between brackets? Why is only her first name mentioned?
Good question. I've changed that to spell her full name.
Was she indeed expelled from the Party? What was the reason?
It's not really clear. As the following sentence notes, Kotkin thinks it was because of a dispute between her and Stalin, but sources from the era are unclear.
Perhaps you could mention that she was expelled for unclear reasons.
Added a note about that to be clearer, thanks.
Mention that Lenin died and Stalin emerged as the paramount leader of the Party. (Otherwise her role as "First Lady" remains unclear.)
Done
At the Academy, Alliluyeva interacted with students from across the Soviet Union, and learned of the issues the collectivization of agriculture, in particular in Ukraine, which was seeing widespread famine, and was causing on them. Consider rewording.
Done.
, who was born to Stalin's first wife Kato in 1907 Consider deleting. Repetition of information mentioned in a previous section.
Done
Perhaps "Alliluyeva's siblings and their families lived nearby the dacha"?
Fixed
Perhaps "a hairdresser thatwho worked in the Kremlin"?
Fixed
, and it would be 10 years before they learned of the specific details Consider deleting this text to avoid duplication, because it is mentioned in the last section.
Good point, removed.
Thank you for this interesting and well-researched article. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Thanks for taking the time to look over the article. I'm glad you found it interesting, and addressed everything you noted. Appreciate your help here. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments from my initial read through. I have some of the sources you've used, so I may come back and have another look over this once I've referred to them...
"The family would often help hide Bolsheviks, a Russian revolutionary group at their home, including Stalin" - at minimum there is a missing comma here after "group", but this sentence is pretty clunky anyway. They weren't hiding a Russian revolutionary group in their home; they were hiding (some of) its members!
"But, it had been many years since they had last seen each other, and over the course of the summer they became close." - the first comma is definitely unnecessary; I would consider whether "but" adds anything to this sentence at all.
"Lenin in a leadership role" - this is kinda vague. I can't remember if Lenin had an official title at this point?
"Alliluyeva transferred to briefly work for Sergo Ordzhonikidze" - not a household name: I would consider briefly glossing who Ordzhoikidze was!
"As per the custom of the time" - "as per" is terrible business!speak, and completely redundant. If you insist on "per", cut the "as"; but "As was the custom" or "In accordance with the custom" is probably more straightforward.
"the Bolsheviks were more sexually liberated than earlier Russian society, so it is possible that he did have liaisons with some of these women" - I'm raising my eyebrows at the idea that men having affairs is evidence of a sexually liberated society! It's hardly as though the Czars didn't have mistresses and illegitimate children!
"At one point, things became even worse between the two, but Montefiore suggested that when Stalin "toasted the destruction of the Enemies of the State", he saw Alliluyeva did not raise her glass as well (she was known to be against Stalin's recent campaign against the peasantry), and became annoyed." - I don't understand why these statements are connected by "but".
"the GUM department store, which was opposite Red Square and the Kremlin" - GUM, the Red Square, and the Kremlin are all still there; cut "which was", which might imply that this is no longer the case.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently updated and I strongly believe that this is worthy of a C or B class with the newfound wealth of information it now contains surrounding this taxon and its history.
Hi, I have somewhat recently developed a distinct interest in fynbos flora and specifically, the genus Brunia due to my encountering it well out of its range in a floral arrangement. I am no stranger to research but I am merely a novice at creating wikipedia content, so I'm trying to become a better wiki editor and writer. I was wondering what kind of things you would like to see added to this page as well as if you know of any more authoritative reading I might cite on South African flora.
Heya! I think it looks absolutely gorgeous right now, clearly a lot of love and work has gone into this article. I think one thing to improve would be changing the sections from a few sentances to maybe small paragraphs if possible. Another thing, I'm not sure the rules on botanical wikipedia, but on paleobiology wikipedia we don't create pages for species, I'm not sure about the plant rules though. Another thing is taxonomy, perhaps a brief explaination of its taxonomic history? If you need a cladogram I'd be happy to make one for you. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for a Good Article review. I think it's close, but a big problem with this type of article is always the technicality and readability of it. Most of the content comes from the description of the species, which is very difficult to write in a way which is accessible for a layperson. I recently got another very similar article promoted to GA over at Hypericum sechmenii, so this article should end up looking pretty much like that one. I'm just hoping to get a second pair of eyes ahead of the GAN to help make that process a bit smoother and quicker than for H. sechmenii. I'm happy to do some quid pro quo and review your article if you're willing to leave a few pieces of constructive criticism.
I'm gonna go on a limb and say that you don't nessesarily have to make it as accessible for a layperson, that's what simple wikipedia is for, plus learning the nessesary jargon is good practise for any layperson who wants to get into a field. It looks great by the way and if you need a cladogram I'd be happy to make one for you. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2022 (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
Corinna is a relatively minor Greek poet, notable mainly for a surprisingly heated debate about when she actually lived, and for being one of the ancient Greek women poets whose work is best (which in the context of Greek lyric really means least worst!) preserved. I have ambitions of featured article status. I brought it to GA back in 2019, but since then it's almost doubled in length, from 1100 words to nearly 2000. Any feedback gratefully received!
I've listed this article for peer review because i've recently expanded it by 6000 bytes and I want to improve it but don't know exactly what there is about the article that needs attention, and I think it would be very cool if I could expand my local library's page even more than i already have.
Cheers love, the cavalries here, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… back in June 2021, I expanded the Doraemon article largely and brought it from a C-class to good article status, and further changes have been made since then. Now I'm willing to get input on how it could improve further, and whether it have a considerable chance for featured status or not.
I won't make specific comments since I've never done an actual FC review, nor do I have the time to read through the entire article, but I do think it stands a chance as is given. It seems pretty well-researched and not too overabundant with information. The only minor fixes I'd recommend are, I guess, things regarding grammar, i.e., I'd change "toys, food, stationery, action figures, gashapon, shoes and clothing, among others" to 'toys, food, stationery, action figures, gashapon, shoes, clothing, and other items.' I think it flows better this way, and there's a few other minor instances like that, but not really too big of a deal. But overall, yeah, I think there's a solid chance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcataclysmal (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sarcataclysmal: I've done that (sorry for late reply); and you forgot to sign your comment with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~), but never mind. Thuyhung2112 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I forgot I even replied to this not gonna lie, it was very late at night, all good tho. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thuyhung2112 There is currently a banner on the article suggesting it could be expanded from Japanese. I'm guessing that the article is already comprehensive according to the FA criteria, in which case the banner should be removed. If there are important aspects missing, of course it is not suitable for FAC. (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Re Buidhe: I looked at the Japanese article and it's been tagged for "multiple issues" (sourcing and OR) since 2019. From what I see only "Doraemon Long Stories" was worth adding (which I have done); otherwise many sections were either already covered in the English version, or completely inadequate. Thuyhung2112 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Through a quick look, the article has good sources and coverage but I'd suggest to reduce the amount of quotes in reception. Also the scene of Doraemon's first apperance does not seem that important unless I missed something. Instead I would suggest posting an image of the main cast.Tintor2 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a GA for over a decade, and I've recently updated and expanded it in preparation for FAC. Since Rand is a controversial figure, any feedback is welcomed but especially any concerns about sourcing, POV, etc. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This isn't really my area, but I appreciate that the article makes an effort to cite high-quality sources and stays concise. One thing I would consider is, are there retrospectives for her works' reception? It seems odd to cite contemporary reviews in #Critical reception when you might rely on later scholarship to point out the most influential or important reviews. (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Thanks for your feedback! There are indeed such retrospectives, such as Mimi Reisel Gladstein's Ayn Rand Companion and a series of articles by Michael Berliner for the Essays on ... series about Rand's novels. Most of the content in the section is cited to such sources. Following your comment, I've reduced the amount of direct quotation and other detail about specific reviews, although I did leave a few of the most famous and striking quotes, all of which are mentioned in multiple secondary sources. Let me know if you see any other areas that can be improved. --RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
What I meant is more like, if the sentence "In National Review, conservative author Whittaker Chambers accused Rand of supporting a godless system (which he related to that of the Soviets), claiming, "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard ... commanding: 'To a gas chamber—go!'"" is supported by multiple secondary sources, you should cite those sources instead of Chambers to show that this review was especially significant for Rand. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. OK, I pulled that fish out of the barrel and shot it. It's one of the most famously negative reviews she ever got. I also added some context for a couple of others that didn't have it stated. Keep 'em coming if you have more feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I recently added a significant amount of information to it with a major expansion. It is my first article to edit, it's a topic I find extremely interesting, and would love to get feedback so I can improve the article, and improve my editing skills for future articles.
Thanks, Kting97 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Drive-by comment. There are a few errors where the {{sfn}} template does not have a reference to refer to. The easiest way to see these errors is to install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm requesting a second peer review of this article after a year since the last review. I've fixed many issues in the article; references are improved, many Manual of Style issues are fixed, and the article is much cleaner overall. However, I'd still like some extra eyes to look at the article before a GAN. I don't have anything in particular this time - just a general sweep would be nice! Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (formerly known as DoggieTimesTwo)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks good enough to be nominated. the structure us well done so far. grammar good enough. inline citation doesnt lacking.
Thanks, Ahendra (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed GA, thanks to insightful comments from Wretchskull and Aza24, and I'm hoping to get this important topic to FAC. My desire is to keep the article concise while making sure it is balanced in its coverage.
Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The lede doesn't summarize the "Public opinion" section.
If emphasized in reliable sources, I'd consider adding another subsection to the "Purpose" section: something along the lines of "Other purposes", where motives such as revenge, sexual gratification, humiliation and sadism can be mentioned.
I see that you incorporated old torture methods in the history section, which I think is the best approach, but only flogging and lingchi are mentioned. What about including methods such as the rack by Europeans, humiliatory methods such as pillory, and torturous executions like scaphism by Persians, Hanged, drawn and quartered in England, etc.?
What makes this image a public domain image? The actual work is ancient, but the source showing it is from 2010.
@Buidhe: No one has commented yet, so I decided to re-read the article. I'd be more than happy to help you get it to FA. Wretchskull (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Note on Assyrian image: As the Commons PD-Art tag explains, simple/faithful photographic reproductions of PD art do not gain new copyright. — Goszei (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not 2-d (which is strictly interpreted), bas relief is a 3-d art form. (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering an FAC for it. I had a good bit of a lashing the last time I brought up a different article for FAC before, so I have been a bit spooked about the process since then... but would love to take another go at it now that some time has passed with an article that I think is stronger overall than my previous attempt was. Would love to specifically address comments that FAC reviewers might make in advance here.
Thanks, Nomader (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Nomader, 2018 was an era when there was a bad shortage of reviewers at FAC; the problem is less acute now so you're less likely to get archived for inactivity. Although I can't really check the sourcing, the article overall looks well-written and well structured. I would just go for it! Worst that can happen is it doesn't get promoted. (t · c) buidhe 08:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This review has been closed as suitable for a direct nomination. Your request has been reviewed and is considered suitable for direct nomination. No issues have been identified that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Good luck!
I've listed this article for peer review because this page has been edited extensively after it was created by a sockfarm (now banned) in an effort to comply with Wiki's pov neutrality and paid contribution requirements. 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 and get the flag removed.
I can see from the talkpage this ended up here as a goodfaith effort to improve the article. The article was in a bad state with the text not reflecting the sources and also some nonreliable sources, so I've simply cleaned it up rather than making detailed suggestions. As a user with a conflict of interest TsunamiPrincess you are probably better off just editing elsewhere or putting requests on the talkpage rather than editing directly. Yes things can take some time to implement, but as others have pointed out wikipedia is run by volunteers and everyone follows their own interests. If you wanted to suggest additions to the article, please come with reliable sources, reputable national newspapers would be a decent start. Mujinga (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mujinga:Thank you for the assistance on the peer review and the advice. Is there further action that needs to be taken to close the review? TsunamiPrincess (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd say you could leave it open for another two weeks if you like, maybe some other people will comment as well. As the proposer, you can close it at any time by following the steps at Wikipedia:Peer_review/guidelines#Step_4:_Closing_a_review. Mujinga (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering taking it to FA. What would people feel is needed in order to improve it to a point where it might have a chance at FAN? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2022 (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) 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Oldelpaso
When browsing peer review for football articles this wasn't what I expected to find! My first impression is that it is heavily Anglocentric.
My biggest question would be, what is the exact scope of the article? We have a bit about players and managers smoking. We have a section on bans on spectators smoking in stadiums. What is there that we would put in an article about this, that doesn't heavily overlap one about societal attitudes to smoking, or something like Regulation of nicotine marketing? Incidentally that article says R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company sponsored the 1982 and 1986 World Cups and has a reference for that.
Cigarette cards, as the Panini of their day and something produced in a number of countries, should be covered more.
Ideally, some idea of the prevalence of smoking among players compared to the general population would be useful, at whatever point in history.
Given that the various countries of the UK banned smoking in enclosed public places in 2006-2007, beyond Goodison being the first, how notable is it that some football grounds did so a year earlier? For countries in general I'd say its differences with policy for public places as a whole that is of note rather than where it simply follows legislation.
This piece lists some prominent examples of tobacco sponsorship in football. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
User:The C of E Do you intend to respond to these comments, or should the PR be archived? (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't aware I needed to. I don't think it is that heavily Anglo-centric, it may have been the base, but there are a lot more worldwide examples in there now. It is important to mention those where smoking was banned ahead of legislation. As for tobacco sponsorship, I can look into that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
PG was a major public figure in the 1960s with dizzying breadth across varied and many disciplines. It's likely the challenge that sunk more than two biographies that were in development in the late 20th century. This article is now the best resource on the Internet on his life, and I'd like to make it better—featured, even. Looking for feedback on any blind spots I might be missing before taking it to FAC. Thanks and happy New Year, czar 20:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Czar: This PR has been open for a month, but hasn't generated comments yet. Are you still interested in receiving comments? I suggest that you post a request on Wikiproject talk pages, and ask experienced editors in this topic area to comment. I also suggest that you continue reviewing articles at WP:FAC, as it will build goodwill among the editors there and will make it more likely that an editor will review your article when you nominate this to FAC. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Z1720, thank you and yes, I'm comfortable leaving it open since this topic area is not exactly flush with editors and peer reviewers czar 02:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thanks, ADWC312 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring this Article into an A Class Article. The page has not been reviewed for years and it failed B Class certification due to in-line citations in 2013. I have since fixed alot of that and need some guidance on what needs to happen to bring the article closer to A-Class.
Thanks, Sputink (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an assessment of the page. I would like to know what would be a grade assessment of the page and how to improve the article towards a GA article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it concerns an important topic, especially in an Australian political and socio-cultural context, but I want to ensure that the information is presented in a verifiable and noteworthy way. It can be difficult to find external sources for the ethnicity of state- and territory-level politicians, without relying primarily on the categories that their individual Wikipedia articles have been placed into. I am looking for suggestions on whether/how to improve the structure and referencing of these lists, and whether there is scope or need for further background before the lists.
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.
Yep, there was a 2-week+ delay... 
Done
Doing...
