Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
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 as I would like to put into consideration for a Featured Article Nomination.
I feel like I have done as much as I could with this article, and would appreciate the help of more experienced editors, particularly specialised for video games, so that this article can be the best it can be. Hopefully this can make the FA nomination process much simpler. Tell me what needs fixed, any problem at all, and I shall hopefully have it corrected in a swift enough time.
Hey! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to featured article candidates soon. Before I do so, I wanted to get some comments to see if there's anything left to improve (OUTSIDE THE COMMERCIAL PERFORMANCE AND RECEPTION SECTIONS I'M GOING TO FIX THOSE. Just had to get that out of the way since I know every comment would bring it up).
Taking a quick look through the article, I think some parts suffer from WP:OVERCITE, such as the "gameplay" section. Like, does the fact that it's a 2D platformer, or that players can choose from either Sonic or Tails really need an in-line citation in the article? Anyone can easily verify these facts just by playing the game, which is widely available (it's the same reason we typically don't cite the "plot" sections of film articles). Even if we are going to cite these in the article, I wouldn't use the same source multiple times in one paragraph.
For example, in this part:
"Sonic 2 introduces the spin dash, which allows the player to curl while stationary for a speed boost,[1][3] and Miles "Tails" Prower, a fox with two tails who acts as Sonic's sidekick. By default, the single-player controls both Sonic and Tails simultaneously; a second player can join in at any time and control Tails separately.[3]"
I would deleted the number 3 citation from the first part. Just having it at the end would suffice. MoonJet (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's an OVERCITE issue. Statements like it being a 2D platformer and letting you choose between Sonic and Tails aren't WP:BLUE statements; they require refs to back them up. JOEBRO64 03:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can explain why they aren't WP:Blue statements? Because personally, I think they are. MoonJet (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the gameplay section is pretty basic MOS:VG stuff... JOEBRO64 02:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was just saying that because it's very easy to self-verify that it's a 2D platform, and that you can play as either Sonic or Tails, especially for a game as widely available as this. I understand having to cite things that are less obvious or open to interpretation, but not those. But if you still think they should still be cited, I won't go any further. I just wanted to put a few thoughts in. MoonJet (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, but is File:Hidden Palace Sonic 2.png a screenshot of the original Sega Genesis version of Sonic 2 (or one of its prototypes), or is it from the 2013 mobile release? This should probably be noted on the file description page. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a prototype—I'm going ahead to note this. JOEBRO64 03:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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) 23:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a major contributor to this article, I have decided to request a peer review. There are only a few parts of the article that need sources, and Reception could be further expanded, but I am more concerned about the article's structure. It is currently the most relevant issue to me since that may mean rewriting the sections.
I have scanned other articles about video game franchises and found that they all contain more than just three sections composing the bodies. This article has History, Titles, and Reception. For this request, I am largely concerned with sections History and Titles. The History section is concise, but gets to the point. The Titles section comes off as a long list of all of the Forza games, including the ill-fated spin-off. I have conflicting views on how to deal with them. One of them says that a Gameplay section would be superfluous since the gameplay elements are already described in all the subsections about the games—and as incremental updates of the previous installation—and nothing needs to be changed other than adding more sources. The other view says that we ought to rewrite the sections. As they stand, come to think of it, Titles appears to jump from a summary of one title to that of another. They are just brief descriptions of the important elements of the games, as well as their release dates for which platforms. I feel as if their contents are treated discretely, rather than in the context of the franchise. Even Gran Turismo does not treat the general gameplay as discretely. Additionally, I do think that the list of subsections about the individual games could become long in the future if all we are doing were to just expand Titles. For my second view, I would suggest having a table of the main installments, their release dates, and their platforms under a new section in History and renaming Titles to Gameplay with their own sections on Forza Motorsport and Forza Horizon, describing all of the common features and new content that would appear in every subsequent update. That may be a huge undertaking for me, but it actually sounds more feasible in the long run. If anyone else has other suggestions on where the development of this article ought to be headed, write them here. Yours may be better than either of my proposals. Thanks, FreeMediaKid$ 02:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for the past few months now, and I'm quite proud of how it turned out. However, I am no Wikipedia expert (or even possess good grammar), and that is why I've listed this article for peer review. I want to know the things that should be addressed to make the article much better from others peoples' perspectives. I am open to any suggestions from any part of the article. Thanks in advance! – SARASALANT(talk|contributions) 10:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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) 16:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to clean it up. I remember that when it was created, it was updated with references every announcement but it got way too much. I basically rewrote most of the reception to fit the more modern way of writing video game reception section similar to the article Final Fantasy XV although I think the only one I edited more was the remake of FFVII. I'm kinda confused about the casting section and characters since some might come across as minor stuff.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed a GAN, but I want to know if it's too far from getting to FA level. I'd like to know if it needs some fixes before going to FAC or if I could nominate it right away.
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.
I also suggest that you start reviewing articles at WP:FAC now. This will help you understand the featured article criteria and build goodwill among FAC editors, making your article more likely to be reviewed when you nominate it. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: It's been over a month since this PR was posted. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest seeking a FA mentor who can comment on this PR and give feedback on what to expect in an FAC. You can also seek the advice of editors who have recently written similar FAs or the article's Wikiprojects. If you are not interested in feedback anymore, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
Pamzeis Are you planning to respond to these comments? Should the PR be closed? (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Timestamping to avoid closure. Pamzeis (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@BattleshipMan: This PR has been open since January and unfortunately, it has not received any comments yet. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest seeking out a featured article mentor who can give some comments here on how to get ready for FAC. You can also post at interested Wikiprojects such as WP:WIG or WP:FILMBIO. I also suggest that you review some featured article candidates: this will help you get to know the FA criteria and build goodwill among FAC reviewers. If you are not interested, can you close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I notified Wikipedia:GOCE to help out with that article to make it FAC. So what do you think I should do about this PR until then? BattleshipMan (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend WP:FAM. While GOCE is fantastic at fixing grammar and flow, they do not usually consider the content within the article or reference structure. A mentor from this subject area will highlight information that is missing from the article and minor MOS problems that can ultimately cause an FAC to not be promoted. If you have trouble finding a mentor, post a note in WT:FAC and hopefully you will get a response there. Z1720 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. Once someone in GOCE fixes the grammar and flow soon, I go to WP:FAM. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
@Shooterwalker: Have you made progress on the comments above? If so, please comment here on what you have done and ping ProtoDrake so they can take another look. If you are not able to work on the article right now, can you close this PR and open a new one when you have more time? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it a featured article in the future, but I am not experienced with getting articles up to featured status and would like to receive feedback before submitting it to WP:FAC.
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.
Since this is your first FAC, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC. This will help you understand the featured article criteria and build goodwill among FAC editors, making your article more likely to be reviewed when you nominate it. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This is my first peer review, so I might not catch everything an experienced reviewer would, but I'll do my best. I tend to make edits by section, so I will start with a couple and add a section or two at a time.
Lead
The first sentence of the lead is a bit long and jargon-filled. Is it possible to move some of the linked adjectives to a different sentence?
History
The fourth paragraph under "Saturn development" in the history section uses a lot of "woulds". Normal past tense should work just fine here.
The last sentence of the fifth paragraph of the aforementioned section is a bit awkwardly worded. Maybe something like "These designs, however, gave NASA a basis on which to determine its best method for landing a man on the Moon"?
The final paragraph of that section mentions controversy about the lunar module choice, but doesn't explain what that controversy is. If adding it wouldn't add too much irrelevant detail, an explanation would be good.
As the second sentence of paragraph #2 of the "Selection for the Apollo lunar landing" section represents a reversal in opinion, an introductory word like "however" would be useful in this context.
Done Added "Despite this"
Description
The first time S-IVB is mentioned is when it is being compared to a different craft; a bit of context should be added so it's clear S-IVB is a part of Saturn V.
Paragraphs 4-6 at the beginning of the description all start with "The Saturn V". Changing the wording for one or two of those would help readability.
Are the italics necessary? I think the paragraphs that contain them (#6 before the subsections, "S-IC first stage", "S-II second stage" #2, "S-IVB third stage") would be fine without them.
This is probably just me, but I'm not sure what "downrange" in the "S-IC first stage" section means.
Done linked to article.
This might also be my mistake, but I couldn't find what Cape the last sentence of the "S-II second stage" section was referring to in the article.
Done, added name.
Assembly
In the second paragraph, it mentions "The third stage and Instrument Unit could be carried by the Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy and Super Guppy, but could also have been carried by barge if warranted." Which method was used?
The fourth paragraph includes two acronyms that are not referenced in the article after they are defined, so they might be good candidates for removal so the prose doesn't look too cluttered with parentheses.
Cost
(I'm trying to go mostly chronologically in the article, so I'll come back to this one.)
This section feels a little out of place; "Post-Apollo proposal" would transition smoother into "Proposed successors". Perhaps it could go either directly after "Assembly" or after "Skylab sequence" in the "Lunar mission launch sequence" section?
Done Moved.
"NASA received its biggest budget of $4.5 billion" – I'm not sure of what the biggest budget is; I assume it's out of all those received for the project?
Lunar mission launch sequence
In the "Startup sequence" section, it mentions "tapered metal pins [were] pulled through dies". What are the dies referenced?
I might have missed it, but does the reference in the "Max Q" section for the sentences describing the reasons for acceleration increase (paragraph #2) include the importance of the factors?
Post-Apollo proposal
The second paragraph includes likely changes – was there any reason why those things were likely to have been changed?
In the fourth paragraph, possible uses are listed of the Saturn V had production not stopped. There should probably either be a citation stating those changes would have helped, or else the instances should be changed to "could".
Saturn V displays
I think the list would work better composed of full sentences: "There are two Saturn V displays at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville:", etc.
Final comments
That's all for things I ran into. I don't have any experience reviewing GAs, but I did check it against the criteria and I think it looks fairly good. I hope I've covered what you're looking for. I must confess that I was not expecting to find this article as interesting as I did, but it was quite a good read – the "Discarded Stages" section was especially fascinating. Best of luck with future improvements and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because This is a high-importance article for Alaska. I have made some substantial improvements and would like another set of eyes to help me find what remains to be fixed.
I'll look it over in greater detail when I have time. Right off the bat, the most glaring issue I see is the lack of weight given to historical development of modern transportation infrastructure and modes of transportation prior to said development. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. The Alaska Steamship Company, the NortWest Railroad, there is a lot that should go in there. Thank you.
As an FYI, I also think the maritime transportation system needs a lot of fleshing out. Name Omitted (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually get it to GA. I'm fairly new to this process, so any suggestions on how to improve it would be welcome.
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)[reply]
Just spotted this. I hope to give you some comments in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 19:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed this article. A few comments and suggestions:
"Kirkby has been known for; its links to Liverpool F.C" – unexpected semicolon.
"It is believed that Kirkby was founded around 870 AD, due to archaeological evidence" – this reads oddly. It is the belief, not the foundation, that is due to the archaeological evidence, but that isn't what the sentence says. Something on the lines of "Archaeological evidence indicates [or suggests] that Kirkby was founded around 870 AD" would be clearer (and shorter).
"Kirk-by derives from the Old Norse kirkja and byr (believed to be of Danish origin), meaning "church" and "settlement" or "village"" – I have checked in Ekwall'sOxford Dictionary of Place Names and this is right enough but it could do with a citation here.
"the Molyneux family were made Earls of Sefton" – the whole family weren't made earls.
"much of its remaining housing stock were slums" – "much" with a plural verb looks a bit odd.
"newly-developed "over-spill" estates" – two points here: you don't want the hyphen in newly-developed and the OED and Chambers Dictionary both make "overspill" a single unhyphenated word.
"He was preceded by … Harold Soref (Conservative, 1970–1974) and Harold Wilson (Labour, 1950–1970)" – This puzzles me. Soref's constituency was Ormskirk and Wilson's was Huyton. Did Kirkby have a boundary change?
"Kirkby Sports College Center for Learning" – does it really use the American version of "centre"?
"The most popular football teams are Liverpool and Everton" – alphabetical order might seem more impartial, unless there are compelling reasons to put Liverpool first.
Services: The first three paragraphs lack citations.
Sources: I don't know whether you have GAN/FAC in mind, but if you have, bear in mind that in some respects IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.
Duplicate links: links to other articles should normally be limited to one apiece in the main text. At present there are duplicate links to Earl of Sefton, ROF Kirkby, Morrisons, the East Lancs Road and Church of England.
I hope you find some or all of these points useful. – Tim riley talk 09:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article I have seriously worked on, taking it from a stub to what I feel could be a C- or even a B-classification article. I am completing this article as part of a university project but am keen to keep contributing to Wikipedia after I finish, so it would be really valuable to get anyone's feedback on how it could be improved, what it's lacking, and if you are able to assist me with getting it re-classified.
I've listed this article for peer review because that can help to take the article to GA level.
Thanks, Jonathansammy (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick look, some rather over-long paras, and seems to use American rather than Indian English ("center", watercolor", "theater"). Perhaps too weighted to the modern period. The lead is too short. But at or near FA level, & certainly should bwe ok for GA. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for your perusal and suggestions because I am hoping to drive it to FA status. Thank you all in advance.el.ziade (talkallam) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick look, seems nearly ready. The lead is far too long, and below that some paras too long. The lead should give approximate dates for the tombs, with alternatives if necessary. Also say where Byblos is "on the Mediterranean coast of modern Lebanon" maybe. You may get complaints about the age of some of the refs used, probably wrongly. English may need some touching up for idioms. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod thank you for the review. I added some details about the tell's location, and tomb dates in the lead. I removed some passages without affecting the coverage of the lead. I understand the concerns regarding the dates, but the works of the French archaeologist are seminal, and form the basis of subsequent studies. el.ziade (talkallam) 09:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, I understand completely, but some FAC reviewers are likely not to. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if it can make it to FA status. It's currently a GA; looking for comments on what can improve further.
Thank you so much! Bsoyka (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsoyka: It's been over a month since this PR was posted. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest seeking a FA mentor who can comment on this PR and give feedback on what to expect in an FAC. You can also seek the advice of editors who have recently written similar FAs or the article's Wikiprojects. If you are not interested in feedback anymore, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely still interested in feedback! I'll reach out for a mentor soon, probably going to give it at least a couple days as I'm working on a GA review currently. Bsoyka (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) 17:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paleface Jack: It has been over a month since this PR was posted. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest seeking a FA mentor who can comment on this PR and give feedback on what to expect in an FAC. You can also seek the advice of editors who have recently written similar FAs or the article's Wikiprojects. If you are not interested in feedback anymore, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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:
@Annwfwn: Hello! Thank you for your creation of this article and others, they look to be well written and important. I'm not a dog expert, but I can give some pointers on how to polish this article. If you want any more specific feedback, please just let me know, but here are my first impressions on the article:
"dog originating from the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Russia"
Link "Nenets people"
"While most famous as the progenitor of the Samoyed dog, Nenets Herding Laika almost died out during the Soviet era due to lack of interest in preserving genetically purebred examples." This sentence could do with a bit of rephrasing. These seem like two separate ideas, and there is probably more encyclopedic wording than "most famous"
"In 1994, the Russian Kynologic Federation (RKF) approved the first official standard of the breed." If you were looking to expand the article, these standards would fit in really well. They are alluded to here in the lead, but never elaborated upon. As a reader, I am curious as to what the "official" description of this breed would be.
"Prized for their efficiency as both a reindeer herding dog and a hunter..." prized by whom?
"Kola Peninsula to Chukotka" could be linked
The info on explorers using the dogs could be split into a separate paragraph
Maybe talk about how Borisov used the dogs?
In regards to the Nansen expedition, my personal opinion is that this is the most interesting part of the article. Is there any more information about this? The fact that these dogs formed the base of a new breed is intriguing, and perhaps briefly speaking to the science of how that occurs would improve the article
"Fortunately, several small populations" I would steer away from "fortunately." Probably just "However" or a similar word would suffice
"2000" should be "2,000"
"There are currently estimated to be around 2000 purebred Nenets Herding Laika herding reindeer in Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug." The source is dated to 2020, so this could have changed since then. Probably change to "As of 2020, there were estimated..."
"Nenets Herding Laika with faimily" faimily-->family
"In 1994, the Russian Kynologic Federation (RKF) approved the first official standard of the breed. is still not registered in the catalog of the International Cynological Federation (FCI)." Second sentence is a fragment
For the references, it is good practice to translate the titles into English. There should be a module to do this in the reference template, if you can't find it let me know
Again, thanks for your articles, and let me know if you have further questions on this review or want any input on other articles! Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the excellent review, I have implemented all your suggestions. I’d love for you to review any other articles I have made. Perhaps the Laika page, as it’s rather large an unwieldy… I do need to go back and look at references to add English translated titles. Annwfwn (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Annwfwn: yeah no problem! For this article and Laika, I think the biggest missing piece of info would be more specific descriptions and guidelines of what makes a Nenets herding Laika that specific breed and what makes a Laika a Laika. Also in the Laika article, the Etymology and History sections should be split up, and the History section could do with some subsections to improve readability.
It looks like you really have a good handle on this subject, so thank you again for contributing your knowledge. My recommendation would be to look at some dog breed Good Articles like Pyrenean Mountain Dog, Russkiy Toy, or many others. Those have a pretty comprehensive spread of information you can use as a guide. If you have an article that you think could get to Good Article status, drop me a ping! I'd love to help polish it and guide you through the nomination process. As I said, if you have any questions don't hesitate to drop me a line. Fritzmann (message me) 15:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'll have a look soonish. Note that it's probably easier to get views by palaeo editors at the specialised WP:PaleoPR. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the cladogram, there are some WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1]
Show images of the other known limb elements? FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Show the frontal comparison image in the white space under classification? FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a life restoration and a size comparison could be requested at WP:Dinoart?
According to this[2] blog post, there is apparently an additional specimen that was mentioned in an abstract.
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'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah it's pretty comprehensive. I also suggest you can work on adding image alts for the media used on the page; that will be useful for FAC image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuyhung2112: It has been over a month since the last comment here. Are you still interested in receiving feedback, or is this ready for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because a previous peer review disappeared into the weeds and the article really needs a fresh pair of eyes, or pairs of eyes, to move forward. What it needs is actionable suggestions for improvement please rather than opinion, sourcing suggestions are always welcome as well. It is a contentious subject and there have been frequent widespread debates across this article and Crusades that frankly prevent improvement & cause experienced editors to avoid the subject.
You may question why this is raised in Philosophy & Religion, rather than History. This is because this is not about the MILHIST; the various campaigns are more than covered in other articles. It is about the movement that lasted centuries, the instituitions of that movement, its philosphies and historiography.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have some feedback: this is my first article on en.wiki - I have some experience on it.wiki, where I've written a few articles, but I imagine that each project has its own rules and standards. English is not my mother tongue and, apart from that, I think I have much to learn about how things get done here. Based on my experience on it.wiki, Peer review and Featured article review may be good ways for learning quickly and for getting an idea of the community and its guidelines. Plus, I've dedicated quite a bit of work to Krabbe and I would like the result to become, with everyone's help, as good as possible. Finally, in a time of war, I hope that the lesson of people who lived between the two World Wars and worked on international law with a cosmopolitan and pacifist commitment might be, if not inspiring, at least of some interest to my new fellows Wikipedians.
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)[reply]
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article covers all the required information with reliable sources. I have worked very hard and re-wrote entire article but I feel I am missing something. Because it got quickfailed twice. I would like to invite expertise including @DaxServer:@Jonathansammy:@Kailash29792:@Fylindfotberserk:@Dwaipayan:@TheWikiholic:@Tito Dutta:@Vanamonde93:@Yunshui:@Chipmunkdavis:@Fowler&fowler: and other editors as well. Please provide me your valuable feedback, it will help me as well the article. Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 10:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the points I made back in the first GAN look like they remain pertinent. The lead remains overly long and focused on history to the detriment of other sections. Similarly little seems to have been done in the body to address the excessive length of the history section (in one place it seems to have grown?). Unsourced text remains, including entire paragraphs and the state/Deputy PM tables (I also note the former PM table source does not make the acting distinction the article makes). Ghose 1993 and Kopstein 2005 don't point anywhere. CMD (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding @Chipmunkdavis:. I have tried my best to summarise history part but considering age of the party its history section is bound to be lengthy. I have created independent section of party's situation post 2000s to avoid the concern that you have raised. Ghose 1993 and Kopstein 2005 removed. As raised in first GAN, contents have been added to section having tables viz. General election results, Presence in states and UTs and List of prime ministers. Coming to List of deputy prime ministers, I will add few sentences. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 16:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is not bound to be lengthy, that is an editorial choice. WP:Summary style is the relevant guideline, and there is already a main article on the subject. CMD (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please advice what steps should I take to overcome this concern? Will it be a good idea if I make Pre / Post -Independence as separate section. I actually liked the idea that main article is there so no need to mention in detail. I have made few changed, please check and let me know if it looks good. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 15:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be summarised, with detail left to the main page. Changing the sectioning doesn't affect this. CMD (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am trying my best to summarise, I cannot exclude notable topics. Consider Indira Gandhi section. She has been PM for 15 years so putting everything in 2-3 paragraphs is quite tough. We will have to include major occurrences under her premiership. Events like Privy purse, Emergency, Nationalisation of Banks and her assassination are notable and we cannot skip them. Or else other editors will question why major matters related to Gandhi is not mentioned. We can get ride of second last paragraph of it. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 11:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 15 days since I have raised peer review request. Sadly, I have not received enough suggestions I was hoping for. I have no option than ask an admin to close this review after few days. Thank you all. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 06:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@25 Cents FC: it is not unusual for a peer review to wait a month to receive a response. Admin are not needed to close a PR; instructions on how to close a peer review are located here, and any editor can close a review. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to get this article to FA and I am seeking a pre-FA peer review. The article was recently promoted to GA and I have never been through the FAC process, so any help to thoroughly comb through the article before starting that process would be greatly helpful.
@Mhawk10: It's been over a month since this PR was posted. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest seeking a FA mentor who can comment on this PR and give feedback on what to expect in an FAC. You can also seek the advice of editors who have recently written similar FAs or the article's Wikiprojects. If you are not interested in feedback anymore, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I am still interested in this receiving a full peer review, yes. I’m generally unfamiliar with the FA process, so I think an FA mentor is going to be helpful—thank you for making me aware of this! I’m going to keep the PR open, since I am still looking for feedback, but I will be sure to check out that page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@The C of E: It has been over a month since the last comment on this PR. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest seeking out editors who have written FAs on similar topics and asking them to comment here. If not, can you close this? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seems like there are some unexplored contradictions here:
Goodman supported American frontier culture, which was only possible because of massive state violence and dispossession of Native Americans. Did Goodman engage with this at all?
He was pro-frontier but apparently preferred living in large cities?
Is "Jeffersonian anarchism" really a thing? Jefferson supported small government, but he also owned slaves. Even without slavery, how is plantation agriculture consistent with Goodman's ideas about individual initiative?
I realize sources may not cover these aspects. (t · c) buidhe 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your questions, @Buidhe. I think "unexplored contradictions" is a good summation of Goodman's legacy.
Jeffersonian anarchism is more of a descriptive term than a school of thought. Goodman uses it in reference to Jefferson's writings/views on decentralization and liberties more than his life as a model for classical or contemporary anarchists (same goes for other late 19th century figures in anarchism, some of whom are cited for their views but were also antisemites and misogynists). Goodman has only been covered marginally as an intellectual in the last 25 years, so there's comparably little contemporary academic discourse reappraising his social/political thought in light of identity politics. (There is at least some coverage with respect to his treatment of women in his lifetime and in Growing Up Absurd but next to nothing on race.) But back to "Jeffersonian anarchism", there is some history of the phrase dating back to both Goodman (mid-century) and Benjamin Tucker (earlier; "Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffsonian Democrats"). Google Books has some on that and Jeffersonian libertarianism (which as a term was synonymous with anarchism prior to the rise of the late-20th century American libertarian movement). I don't believe Goodman or his critics commented in specific relation to Jefferson's plantation agriculture or Native American dispossession, though another Paul Goodman did. I imagine the former would be covered more as an intenral inconsistency within Jefferson's own social/political thought.
Goodman's writing on city planning often touched on a thematic need for urban–rural integration. The line about frontier culture I think is more in relation to his agreement with Jefferson's romanticization of the yeoman farmer. While Goodman grew up in, preferred, and identified with New York City in particular, he did frequently speak about the merits of rural life. Any suggestions on how that might be clarified, if unclear and useful?
"While Goodman grew up in, preferred, and identified with New York City in particular, he did frequently speak about the merits of rural life." <- If this can be sourced, I think it would help clarify. (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Disclaimer: I have no particular expertise in either aviation or Tanzania.
Lead
Don't know what the A-class standards are, but at FAC at least references in the lead are discouraged per WP:CITELEAD as everything in the lead should already be cited in the body.
is the flag carrier airline of Tanzania based in Dar es Salaam with its hub at Julius Nyerere International Airport — Bit of a run-on. Recommend at least adding some commas, but maybe splitting it into two sentences, e.g. is the flag carrier of Tanzania. It is based in Dar es Salaam, with its hub at Julius Nyerere International Airport.
Air Tanzania Corporation should be bolded instead of linked since it redirects here.
Tanzanian Government — "government" should be lower-case.
I think "longhaul" should be hyphenated instead of one word.
Final paragraph has too many extraneous details, should be rephrased in summary style, e.g. A 2021 government report warned that the company's huge debts...
Per MOS:DOLLAR, I think the currency numbers should be written as US$194 million instead of USD 194 million.
In infobox, the name of the CEO shouldn't include "Mr."
Currency formatting in infobox's "Total equity" section is inconsistent with article.
History
According to Andy Chande — I think this sentence should be moved to the end of the previous paragraph.
These aircraft returned to service in the year 1983, but were once again removed. — When were they removed?
Eight airlines submitted Expressions of Interest — "Expressions of Interest" should be lower-case.
The first couple of currency numbers under "ATCL (2002–2006)" don't indicate whether they are US dollars.
It also intended... It also planned — Awkward repetition of "also" here.
to sell 10 percent of its 51 percent stake — Literally this means 10 percent of its current stake, e.g. 5.1 percent of the total ownership, but I'm not sure that's what you mean. Could use clarification even if it is correct as written.
offering direct flights between Johannesburg and Dar es Salaam, but also to Zanzibar and Kilimanjaro. — "and also" instead of "but also". Also, consider incorporating this lone sentence into another paragraph.
It had been hoped to launch services to Dubai, India, and Europe, but these were delayed as Air Tanzania had only Boeing 737-200s in its fleet. — Why did this cause the delay? Are Boeing 737s not able to fly long distances?
Air Tanzania suspended on 31 January 2005 one of its few regional services → On 31 January 2005, Air Tanzania suspended one of its few regional services
four years of losses, which amounted to TZS 24.7 billion — Is there a USD conversion for this number? Would help compare it to the US$30 million later in the same paragraph.
hence officially terminating its partnership with SAA — "hence" is unnecessary.
There's a "citation needed" tag under "Relaunched ATCL (2007–2015)".
while Precision Air moved 583,000 passengers and Coastal Aviation 141,995 passengers. → while local competitors Precision Air moved 583,000 passengers and Coastal Aviation 141,995 passengers. as these airlines' names don't make it obvious that they are Tanzanian.
What happened with the Air Zimbabwe talks? I guess they fell through?
due to its failure to foresee suitable aircraft leases for the duration — Not sure "foresee" is the right word here, unless it's being used in some technical legal/business sense.
For consistency, the en dash in the section title "Revival (2016 – present)" should be unspaced.
of the fear of the planes being impounded → for the fear of the planes being impounded
Destinations
Since there are only eight international destinations, might as well list them, or at least name the major ones.
Fleet
I think this information would be better presented as a list than a table. The importance information (the number of aircraft in service) gets buried with some of the less important stats like passenger capacity.
Accidents and incidents
Might be worth mentioning the airline has never had a fatal accident in the lead.
Overall, looks like a pretty solid article to me. There's a lot of details about business deals in the "History" section; some of them could be cut out. I don't know how strict A-class review is, but I'd look out for any paragraphs that don't end with a citation. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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… I've listed this article for peer review because… it is being presented in an interesting way for the readers; clean, neat, orderly-fashion mode, with lots of information for each of Chaminade's musical pieces. I think she deserves better than what she had from us so far. One more thing, please, I would like your input, not correction, but complementary advice and smiles. If this community believes this list should go straight to FA then... so be it.
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.
Done
