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.
This article about the iconic Stravinsky ballet was promoted to GA in March, completely rewritten in July upon an inquiry from User:Wretchskull, and now this PR- I hope to take it to FAC once Appalachian Spring is finished. Excited for everyone's feedback! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As with the Appalachian Spring PR I'm only commenting on the dance side of things, and let someone more qualified to comment on the music side of things.
The first three subsection has very little on dancing. For background, I think you should have more on Diaghilev and Fokine. I'm attaching a list of potential sources below.
I'm happy with the information of subsequent production of the Fokine version, though there are three significant ballet companies you should mention: the Royal Ballet (known as Sadler's Wells Ballet when they debuted it), Bolshoi Ballet, Mariinsky Ballet (formerly Kirov).
A lot of major choreographers made their own versions of the ballet, some with the original as the model and others radically different, and should be at least mentioned. The first four potential sources below should get you started, and you can research further from there. The Rite of Spring#Later choreographies is a good reference point on what to do here. You don't have to mention every single choreographer mentioned below, but in my personal opinion the most important one is Maurice Béjart.
Consider one subsection solely on subsequent production on the Fokine version and another (maybe even an entirely different section?) on different choreographies.
Consider expanding on the Balanchine-Robbins version.
Potential resources:
International Encyclopedia of Dance
The Oxford Dictionary of Dance
The Ballet Lover's Companion by Zoe Anderson
Balanchine's Complete Stories of the Great Ballets by George Balanchine and Francis Mason (in addition to the Balanchine version, also has detailed commentaries on the Fokine and Maurice Béjart versions)
Apollo's Angel by Jennifer Homans (only a couple of pages relevant to Firebird but a good starting point)
Stravinsky's Ballets by Charles M. Joseph
Diaghilev by Sjeng Scheijen
Michel Fokine and His Ballets by Cyril William Beaumont
Dancing Women by Sally Banes
Dancing Swans and Firebirds: "Russianness" Exhibited by Claudia Jeschke and Nicole Haitzinger ([1])
I think Diaghilev's Ballets Russes by Lynn Garafola, already used as a source, can also provide additional information on the dancing. Corachow (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One source I missed: a New York Times article ([2]) that touches a bit of the Fokine, Balanchine-Robbins and Alexei Ratmansky versions. Corachow (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is my first video game article, so I want to make sure this article improves as much as possible. I'm a bit concerned with the gameplay and development sections (the gameplay section has a "clarification needed" tag sitting there).
I can say for certain that the Reception section seems rather sparse. This section should include commentaries and consensuses on at least the game's three major components: the gameplay, the visuals, and the audio. Other aspects may have their own paragraphs as well if enough coverage is lent to them, such as voice-acting, writing, etc.. Here's some examples to study to get a good idea of what a substantial Reception section looks like: 1, 2, 3Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm having a hard time trying to present the information given from some of the sources into my own words, so it ends up being too similar to what is presented in the sources themselves. It failed as a GAN for this reason (you can see specific examples in the article talk page), and although I tried to address this issue I am unsatisfied with what I have so far and I've currently hit a roadblock. I'd like to eventually re-nominate it, but I first need to work on solving this issue.
Find as many sources as possible so that you are synthesizing information from many places. You can find sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, doaj.org, or your local library system.
Only include information that is directly relevant to the article topic. For example, "George Thomas Taylor was born on September 6, 1838, in Fredericton,[2] a British garrison town in the colony of New Brunswick." How does the information about Fredericton ("British garrison town in the colony") directly relate to Taylor? If it doesn't delete it.
Summarise the information into as few words as possible: this relates to the previous point. Books and articles will use flourishing language, but encyclopedic prose on Wikipedia doesn't require this (and sometimes discourages it because of POV concerns). If you shorten the sentences, and then expand it if needed, you might have different language.
Some other comments about the article:
"and while working as a carpenter in the 1850s and 1860s, he continued to develop his photographic skills. He was also a self-taught painter, even though a 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment captain's wife gave him lessons." needs a citation.
Suggest putting "retrieved on" information in all of the sources.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually put it forward as a featured article candidate. There are lots of sources on Stephenson, covering her career as a comedian, psychologist, writer, actress, food safety campaigner, and parliamentary candidate representing the Blancmange Throwers Party. Does the article have the right balance of coverage of these? Thanks in advance for any improvement suggestions.
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) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article has been taken to GAN, but I'm delaying closure of this PR, as a quick-fail is unfortunately likely. I can contribute some comments here later today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Ktkvtsh! Here are some suggestions for how I think this article can be improved.
As noted on the talk page, the most pressing concern is the lack of citations for a significant amount of content. Since this article falls under the biographies of living persons policy, these should probably be removed unless it can be immediately sourced.
§ Career is not in chronological order.
Since only "Rise Up" has appeared on a chart, I think that the columns for the chart positions can be removed, and the table turned into a simple list per MOS:TABLE. The chart appearances for this single could be mentioned in a footnote, or elsewhere in the prose of the article, perhaps in the section discussing Riskykidd's Eurovision performances.
The external links need to be reformatted for style. I'm not sure if the Discogs one should be included at all, but in any case, the section should comply with the external links guideline.
As a general note for improvement, I'd recommend you go through a few of the featured articles on musicians and try to replicate the style and layout they have. A lot of the points I'm bringing up are fixed issues, and taking inspiration from content that has passed an FAC is a good way to get your content up to that level as well.
I hope that's some help. Good luck with your GAN either now or in the future, and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! This is very much appreciated. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey there! I'm planning to bring this article to GAN in the near future, so I'd really appreciate some feedback before that. I've worked on this article only minimally before, so feel free to call out even the most basic fixes. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Skyshifter
Nice, I'm also a Porter Robinson fan. I think the article can still be expanded considerably though. The article lacks a Composition section talking about the album's genre/musical style. It also doesn't really talk about the production of the album specifically, it only mentions a few information regarding background and the album's title and cover art. Looking at the refideas on the talk page, there are a good amount of sources that could be used to expand the article, especially the interviews. In the Reception section, there are sources used in the list of reviews that aren't cited in prose. Skyshiftertalk 12:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long time no see, Skyshifter! (: I'm actually drafting up a "Themes" section right now, which I'll incorporate into the article as you suggested in a little bit.
Hi! Just a small recommendation after scanning the article: it seems redundant to have both "Reception" and "Critical response" as a heading/subheading. I would chose one and remove the subheading; otherwise, nice work! Uri24 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uri24: Thanks for the comment! I'm currently thinking of another subsection about audience responses, which would justify the distinction with critical responses. If that doesn't work out, though, I think I'll implement your suggestion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last two bullet points in "Notes" need citations
Not done; those points are sourced from the album's liner notes — I've moved them up to the top of the list so that will hopefully be more obvious. —TS
The "Critical response" section falls into the "X said Y" pattern, with small paragraphs for each review. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION to improve upon the prose of this section.
In progress, as above. —TS
"The music video of the song was released on February 10, 2021." Needs a citation
Done —TS
The lede is quite short and doesn't include much information the background, album title and artwork or live performances. I suggest expanding it out.
In progress —TS
Each single released from the album does not need its own paragraph. Merge some of these together.
Thanks once again for your comments, Z1720! :) I'm on a semi-wikibreak this week, but I'll get around to implementing your suggestions once I'm back home. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done with the GAN I was working on and can devote more attention to this article. Responded to your comments in line. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I add a lot of reliable sources and there are some sources but outside of sources, I also add my best on the lead section and every section and the infobox. Someone also add the cover art for the game which is for the article. The article also got C-class and I think this article should be higher than that so is there any improvement for this article.
NatwonTSG2 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay so I replaced the [people/websites] said/saying something but there only one of there in the reception section and the "Development and release", I forget to a references to the second paragraph while originally second and third were the same paragraph before I found more details to the development section. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any improvement for the article? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying my hand into taking this to FAC. The article went through a major expansion, a GAN, and was copy edited. Looking forward to any feedback and suggestions for improvements.
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 you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TabooMatters94: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving reviews? If not, can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm still interested in receiving feedback, so it would be good if this would remain open. TabooMatters94 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TabooMatters94: I suggest that you ask for feedback on the Wikiprojects attached to this article and from FA writers who regularly write about songs. I also suggest that you review many FACs to build goodwill amongst the FAC community and get a better understanding of the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chrishm21: This has been open for over a month without comments. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If not, can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still interested in (any) feedback, as I wish to nominate it for FA. Christian (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest that you ask for reviews on the Wikiprojects attached to this article and perhaps from experienced editors who have passed similar articles through WP:FAC. I also suggest that you review FACs if you haven't done so already so that you can build goodwill amongst the FAC community. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
This article does not get altered frequently by many other editors, I feel that it requires some assistance, plus...in future I would like this article to gain featured article status and I'm not entirely sure what I would need to change in order to prepare it for such a review.
Thanks so much!, Joseph1891 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it might add a humorous twist to the normal FA's while it is still written quite well with the good article stamp, along with it being quite innocent in the fact that it's just a pie. (even if it's got fish sticking out of it)
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. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Palmtreegames: This has been open for a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recommend posting a request for reviews on the Wikiprojects attached to this article, and to seek out a FA mentor. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Palmtreegames: It has been another month since this has been opened. Can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Palmtreegames, thanks for sticking around at this PR! This seems like a fun little article to review, so here are some suggestions. (Citation numbers from this revision)
Citation 2 is now a dead link.
Citation 4 fails verification. I'm not sure if there are parts that aren't loading out of the archive or something, but it probably needs to be fixed.
At risk of stating the obvious here, but citation 7 is marked with {{Better source needed}}. This source seems like a pretty strange one to me, and is written more in the tone of a fairy tale than a news article. Is this simply a re-publication of the legend? I'd recommend replacement or removal either way.
MOS:REPEATLINK allows for the linking of terms at the start of each section. Due to the size of the article, I think every section might be overkill, but things such as Tom Bawcock's Eve in § Description could probably be linked for convenience. Up to you, though.
The image caption "The pilchards must retain their heads" needs a citation.
When exactly was "An older feast..." that the prose refers to?
Citation 18 is missing an access date. It also looks like an unreliable source, but I can't be sure.
Other than that, I think this article looks good to go to FAC, can't wait to see this on the main page as a TFA! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of nominating it for good article. People thinking of buying one may like to read an unbiased introduction and background info before talking to salespeople.
The text starting "used to provide interior space heating and cooling even in colder climates, and can be used efficiently for water heating in milder climates ...." was added in 2011 so may not be a copyvio of https://myecogrant.co.uk/airsource-heat-pump as Wayback machine only shows that back to 2021. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Due to a GAN being unanswered because the submitter was a sockpuppet, I am putting this article up for review to allow this to be assessed properly.
I am sorry about the sockpuppet situation. Here are some comments after a quick skim:
I think the article is in good shape for GAN. I am surprised that a topic of this sort would only have 35 sources. Perhaps WP:VG/S might have some additional sources that could be used for this article. I might also separate the History section into "Development" and "Release" to reduce the size of the section. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I have made a large edit to this article which used to be a stub and I want to know where it can be improved. The main things I am worried about are readability and whether or not various details should/shouldn't be in the article. Thank you in advance.
Hello, thanks for your contribution. At first glance this looks interesting, well sourced, and well written. I will be continuing the review below by section. I think once these comments are addressed this should be submitted for GA nomination. Czarking0 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end I think it would be worth mentioning that some of the botnets where migrated from previous versions of Zues. Also this section should include the diagram from Andriesse et al which shows the network topology (Figure 1).
"The DGA generated one thousand domains every week and each bot would attempt to contact every domain; this meant that if the botnet's current C2 servers were in danger of being shut down, the botmasters could set up a new server using a domain in the generated list and re-establish control over the network" Is there a known case of this actually happening? That would be worth mentioning here.
In this section I think the profit sharing agreement and fact that not all members had equal access is notable. [1].
Potentially worth showing the depictions of the C2 GUI from [2].
I like how Curtail is mentioned as the tool for distributing the malware. I think you should mention the use of Dirt Jumper for the DDos attacks. It was also not clear to me how the DDos aids the stealing of the funds until I read Gross, Garrett (March 2016). "Detecting and destroying botnets". Network Security. 2016 (3): 8. doi:10.1016/S1353-4858(16)30027-7. ISSN1353-4858. OCLC6017168570. S2CID29356524..
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article to FA status. I've already done this once before for this article (I got it to GA based on the feedback).
A preemptive thanks! Any and all input would be greatly appreciated! Cessaune[talk] 04:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) 03:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cessaune: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in comments? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if possible. I guess I caan do a few quid pro quo reviews sometime soon if necessary. Still gotta finish a super-lengthy GA review, so I don't know how soon that'll be. Cessaune[talk] 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. What is meant by head of the engine room? was this the chief engineer? engineer on watch? someone else? · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as a few editors and I have made significant improvements and additions to the article. The most concerning sections are economy and demographics.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating the article as a FAC. This would be may first FA attempt, so I want the article to be as prepared as possible. Thanks for any feedback! ––FormalDude(talk) 03:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donald Albury: This has been posted for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am still interested in comments, as I hope to eventually take it to Featured Article quality. However, I am leaving on vacation in five days, and will have very limited access to WP for a couple of weeks. I will review and respond to any comments that have been made after I come back in about three weeks. I am in no particular hurry for a review. I've been contributing to the article off and on for almost 18 years, so I can wait a bit longer. Donald Albury 16:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want some feedback before I nominate it as a featured article. The last time I requested a peer review it was very helpful, and it helped me get the article listed as a good article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently declined for Good Article status and our reviewer, at a loss for precise suggestions to improve the article, recommended peer review. We could use brainstorming for ways to improve the article.
"They retrieved wiretap equipment, burglary tools and some 90,000 pages of incriminating documents." This, and the subsequent sentences, need citations Done
"Hubbard claimed to have been the youngest Eagle Scout in Boy Scouts history, but in fact the organization kept no records of the ages of Eagle Scouts." Needs a citation Done
"Prior to the episode, the story was almost completely unknown in mainstream culture." Needs a citation Done
"The film depicts a Navy washout with psychological issues who is unable to hold down steady employment after the war. Facing potential legal troubles, he flees California by stowing away on a ship captained by self-proclaimed nuclear physicist and philosopher Lancaster Dodd, leader of a movement called "The Cause"." Needs a citation Done
"The birth of Hubbard's second daughter Alexis Valerie, delivered by Winter on March 8, 1950, came in the middle of the preparations to launch Dianetics." Needs a citation Done
There are references that are just quotes, without any citation to where the quote came from. I suggest removing these quotes and citing the source instead. The reader can look up the information later if they want. Done Quotes now properly formatted with explicit sourcing
I'm not a fan of block quotes in articles, as I feel that the information should be summarised for the leader instead. Consider if they are truly needed for the article or if they can be removed.
Page size is a little bit of a problem. At 158,000 bytes its over the recommended length at WP:SIZERULE. I would take another readthrough of the article and remove any information that is not directly related to Hubbard or not the most important.
That's all I have for now. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Z1720, thanks for the feedback, I'll get on it. What tool did you use to calculate page size? The Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget reports: Prose size (text only): 58 kB (9328 words) "readable prose size".Feoffer (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I've addressed the specific critiques. Per above, I'm not sure that page size is actually a problem. Feoffer (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently heavily edited and, in my opinion, is quite improved. I would very much like to nominate this article for FA status since it is, on the whole, a lot better than most featured articles about U.S. Presidents. If there are any more improvements to be made or errors to be fixed, this is the best way to do so before it is nominated again for FAC.
As I stated at the recent FAC, I think the best thing to do with this article would be to take on a comprehensive edit focusing on verifiability and sourcing - making sure the best sources are used, and used in such a way that they support the text. I would also suggest taking on Victoria's comments at article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article has been almost entirely written by one author, and could use some additional eyes. There's also been some conversation on the talk page about how to describe the location in the intro, which remains unresolved. -- Beland (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Beland: Peer review is not the place to discuss content disputes like how to describe the location in the intro. If it can't be resolved on the talk page, you can open a RfC. Are you looking for comments on how to improve upon the article yourself? Z1720 (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: That's fine; mostly I'm looking for comments on the rest of the article. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I’d like to add more to this topic. However, I’d like to know where else I need to focus on relating this article, and what needs to be added / edited. Thank you for your time. Arawoke (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an article about an ancient temple that provided rare insight into the cultic practices of rural Phoenicians in the late Iron Age - Hellenistic Tyre hinterland. The article passed GAN and I believe that, with more input, it can reach FA status.
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) 00:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elias Ziade: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elias Ziade: I suggest asking for feedback from the Wikiprojects attached to this article and from editors who have passed FAs on similar topics. I also suggest reviewing articles at FAC to build goodwill amongst the FAC community: since you have successfully nominated 6 FAs, your feedback will be valuable to other editors. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been doing quite a bit of work on gradually expanding and adding sources to this article, especially since at one point only three or four sources were even being used, and there were tons of completely uncited statistics on the numbers involved in the protests. This was a major event in the history of South Korea as it marked the end of the country being ruled by a series of right-wing dictatorships through the Cold War and becoming a liberal democratic state, but in spite of the fact that South Korea today is considered prominent internationally, this article wasn't in great shape. I've been doing my best with details from both English and also Korean sources, although I can't speak the language.
Hi, thanks for your hard work. I made a few copyedits myself, mostly on style. Let me know if have any thoughts. toobigtokale (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: the unsourced section, I was a little unsure how to deal with the section "In popular culture". I was under the impression such sections were generally discouraged, which led me to consider removing it at some point, although it seems that isn't actually strictly the case. I could try expanding it into some better-sourced and substantial. Totalibe (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems reasonable. Thanks for sharing that essay, I hadn’t read it before toobigtokale (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will admit to being a little unsure about how election results that are mentioned on directly linked pages are typically handled, and wherever they are regarded as being covered by the linked page or not. The first paragraph under "main demonstrations" I did/do definitely intend to work on though (among other things). Totalibe (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. I am requesting this page for peer review since it was last reviewed as a biography on the Wikipedia's content assessment scale over 4 years ago when it was a mere stub with only bare-bones detail. I have since over a period of approximately a year improved this article to have a significantly larger amount of detail for which I could find, therefore I am requesting it is re-reviewed on the content assessment scale to be more appropriate to the current state of the article.
@TheBritinator: For information on content assessment, please go to WP:ASSESS. For levels below a good article, editors to the article can assess the article themselves. When the article is ready for GA status, you can nominate it at WP:GA, where another editor will determine if it meets the GA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been roughly 2 years since the last time I created an article from ground up, so I fear I might be a bit rusty. Also this is a topic I put a lot of work and research into, so I would like a second opinion.
I offer comments as a reader not informed about the topic. I mostly raise presentational issues:
The background section may be made more detailed and comprehensive outlining the historical context; the double emphasis of being a partner and not a vassal may be avoided; the Cassabile armistice may be briefly explained for what implied for Italy's role in the conflict (one sentence); the quotation from Lucaks may be replaced by a more articulate presentation of what happened, rather then presenting an opinion.
Holocaust section: the section seems to rush and give emphasis to value judgments before facts; it would rather be beneficial to present facts and their evolution and then, perhaps, sourced judgments by mainstream historians;
"Romania ranks first" - was there an official ranking?
The trials. It would be useful to contextualise briefly: what happened at the end of the conflict, over and above prosecutions.
Can you provide background on the legal framework for the prosecutions in the different stages ? ideally drawing from legal scholarship.
The presentation may be tidied up in subsections dealing with the different historical phases, now all is lumped under "People's Tribunal" including the post 1990s' cases; and then again we read of the "subsequent trials". It is a bit confusing.
The overturning of the "Journalists' trial" is presented but the post war trial itself is not presented, so the reader is lost.
I suggest eliminating adjectives and adverbs which may carry POV ("notorius", "only")
stats mostly deal with sentences, are there stats about cases brought to justice?
It is an interesting article, tiding up and expanding the presentation may make it more informative and effective. Well done.Tytire (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review (17 years after the first) because though I am not an expert in mathematics, I feel Wiles’ article has become high-quality enough in the intervening years to receive an upgrade, or more importantly, an assessment of what needs to be fixed to make it featured status; I should note his influence on mathematics is powerful enough to perhaps warrant “today’s featured article” status for 19 September 2024, the 30th anniversary of his key insight that led to his correction of his greatest proof, so consider this the start of a yearlong campaign to improve the article to featured status.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve and expand the article and therefore has a status GA. This is the first time I would like to try to expand the article, and I have prepared the writing in my sandbox. Any suggestions or comments about improvement will be appreciated. Thanks, and regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Dedhert.Jr, peer reviews are not done for sandboxes per WP:PR/RP. I'd recommend that you implement the changes that you've drafted in userspace to the main article so other editors can get a chance to take a look at them. Please check in here once you've done that, or this PR may need to be closed. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: Awesome! I see that you're making some substantial changes to the article, so I think I'll be able to supply some comments after you're done. (But keep in mind I'm no mathematician!) Expect to see a review from me in the next few days. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for planning to supply some comments, although there have been some changes recently. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review in advance of taking to to FAC. I've already received input from one other editor and have incorporated those suggestions, but I would appreciate another set of experienced eyes. I am confident in the broadness and coverage of the article, and have spent a great deal of time working to make it less full of jargon and more understandable. I am most concerned about the tightness of the prose; I am looking for places where the writing is not up to FA standard and for ways to improve it. Because it is my first time at FAC, I would also like input on any niche MOS requirements I may have neglected. I don't have any other major obligations at the moment so my responses should be prompt. Thank you in advance, Fritzmann (message me) 15:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After my still finalizing work on the mosasaurKaikaifilu, I realized that most, if not all, of the scientific sources concerning the contemporary plesiosaurAristonectes were free, I I therefore decided to expand it as much as possible in order to obtain GA status (see even FA if future expansions arrive). It is one of the largest plesiosaurs to have been discovered to date, and quite a lot is known about it. This time, I would like people who know more about the subject than me to help me correct potential flaws, or even add things to expand the article. With that, happy reading everyone, Amirani1746 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just been promoted to GA and I would like comment and suggestions to prepare it for FAC. I am mainly looking for gaps to fill, i.e. what have I missed? Also are there things that are not clear enough that need to be explained better without bogging down on excessive detail - there are several supporting articles linked which can carry much of that load. I am aware that the regional sections and history sections could be expanded, and will do so if and when I find suitable sources, so those would also be useful.
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) 00:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to make every article about the Solar System's planets and their major moons a featured article. I'd really appreciate it if you can suggest and comment on what the article needs to be featured. I don't care how long it will take.
I just came to this article because a friend of mine told me she nicknamed me Phobos back then, and I notice this is on PR! I'm not a space editor typically, but here's what I get from a quick read. GeraldWL 06:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typically citations aren't put in leads because it's expected for as much information as possible to be put in the article body. This is unless there's controversial claims or quotes. Same case with infoboxes, though the IPA citations make sense.
One of the FAC criteria is comprehensiveness, and it's odd seeing an article about the SS with only 115 references. It's also a relatively quick read, but I believe much more has been put out on Phobos. The article itself still is B-class, so I think some more research should be done, then nominate it to GA-class-- people don't typically go for FAC directly due to the high scrutiny.
There are several citation needed tags and inconsistent tags-- these need to be resolved.
I'm listing Bachitherium for a peer review because it is a particularly long article, and I'm not sure how easy or difficult it is for laymen to read, and unfortunately, Paleogene mammal specialists are pretty rare in this day and age including in Wikipedia. I wrote this article in part because of my interest in fossil mammals but also because I think that the concept of faunal turnovers are interesting in understanding the evolution of environments. I'm hoping that eventually I can get this article to good article (GA) status at least, so a peer review would definitely help.
Since this is a peer review, I'm going to do a line-by-line of the lede only and a more cursory check of the rest of this article. At first glance, though, the lede is a mess- you're tracking to pack a ton of information into four paragraphs and achieving confusion instead.
First off, bold the instances of Bachitherium in the cladograms.
I am extremely uncertain about the inclusion of the various collapsed charts showing very technical measurements. While informative, I don't think they fit the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. The cranial and dental lengths tables are the worst violators of this; I cannot see what they add to the article.
The Palaeoecology section is... very well-written, but very much wandering down a massive tangent. I'd suggest merging most of it into other articles and using See Also and Main Article links.
I'm not sure you need to use collapsible lists for the synonyms in the taxobox since there's not many synonyms.
Anyway, back to the lede...
Etymology: normally, I see the etymology of a name given in parentheses when it translates directly to a phrase, and given later in the lede as a separate sentence when it doesn't. For example, "Brontosaurus (lit. "thunder lizard")..." as opposed to Mimodactylus. Here, I would suggest moving the etymology to a separate sentence; something like The generic name comes from Bach, the French locality [why that locality? was it first found there?], and the Greek word θήρ, therium "beast". Note that there are templates for putting Greek letters into text.
First sentence: I don't think you need to go into that it lived first in eastern then in western Europe right away; ...that lived in Europe from the late Eocene to the late Oligocene. would be fine.
Previously identified as species of Gelocus, the genus was first erected in 1882 by Henri Filhol with the type species being B. curtum. - Here is where the confusion begins for me. Later in the article, it looks like they were always considered a different genus? My tentative suggestion is you change the sentence to something along the lines of The genus was erected in 1882 by Henry Filhol for two new species: Bachitherium curtum, the type species, and Bachitherium insigne. The points to hit here are: when was the first species described (and as what), and then when was the genus described and for which species.
Bachitherium had gone through a taxonomic history of being classified with ruminant families of the infraorder Tragulina but has since been distinguished as belonging to its own family with 6 known species based on the presence of a caniniform P1 (premolar) tooth, small tusklike I1 (incisor), short upper canines, and other dental and postcranial differences that made it an evolutionarily "advanced" traguline.
Honestly, this whole article is very dense and very wordy. I can understand what it is trying convey most of the time, but only after reading each paragraph at least twice. I suggest you go through and copy-edit it with an eye for concision, summary style, and a focus on the family/genus/species. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because my attempt for the GA on this animal have failed. So, after having expanded out the basic article (which was already well developed by Lythronaxargestes), I am convinced that the article still has potential to be featured. But before that, I would like to see how other users who are more expert than me on the subject can help me to correct these defects, and/or to add interesting things.
I think the GA failed due to a combination of two factors: (1) The reviewer is not familiar with articles from this project and basic palaeontological terminology. I would still take most of their feedback into account, save for the ones that are clearly based on misinterpretations of the text. (2) The article is genuinely jargony, and the recent expansions don't appear to have improved upon my 2016 prose in this regard. There are large swathes of the text under Description that even a technically competent reader would struggle to follow. Wrt mosasaur articles, Mosasaurus is the gold standard for what the prose should look like. I would advise a round of revisions following the example of Mosasaurus before seeking further feedback. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm prepping it for FAC and was wondering what glaring omissions may remain to be fixed before I attempt it.
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) 00:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Serendipodous: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. I suppose I can rely on the FAR comments for the most egregious issues. I don't think keeping this open for much longer will mean much. So yeah, close it. :-( Serendipodous 18:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a potential FA. Furthermore, it is a level 5 vital article, and since it is B-class, it would be hard to improve it under WP:AFI
Hey Brachy0008! I'm pushing the limits of my math knowledge with the content of this article, but I've identified a few things that I feel could be improved on:
The lead doesn't summarize all of the article's content; I didn't catch any mention of the software implementations, for example.
Multiple sections are unreferenced, so many that I can't list them all here.
The citation style is highly inconsistent. There's a lot of information that's missing from citations that are present in others; some citations don't even use a template, and read more like footnotes than citations.
Related to the previous point, citations 28 to 34 are one step away from being bare URLs, with only the names of the documents being mentioned.
Some sections can be merged; for example, "Law of sines" and "Law of cosines" can be made subsections of a new section "Laws".
Since this article gets a little deep in the weeds with some sections, make sure you're following the guidelines on technical content at WP:MTAU. For example, I feel like the term "identity" deserves a short explanation when it's first brought up.
I'd recommend that the {{Math}} template be used to render expressions in running prose in serif.
Hope that gives you a place to start with working on this article. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure. I tried adding software implementations content to the lead, and it got reverted. Brachy08(Talk) 01:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brachy0008: Don't be discouraged by a revert! It's quite normal for another editor to disagree with some of your changes — I would start a discussion on the talk page and ping the reverting editor for their input. See also: WP:BRD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest taking this to WP:GAN before bringing it to FAC so that you can get additional feedback on improving this article. Here are some comments after a quick skim:
The article needs more inline citations. Every paragraph should have an inline citation at the end of it, minimum.
References don't need quotations from the source in them. I suggest removing these.
There's a lot of articles listed in the "See also" section. Are they all necessary? Consult MOS:SEEALSO for Wikipedia's guidance on this.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to put for GA nomination and would appreciate suggestions for improvement or maybe even expansion
Thanks, FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC. My experience with the FAC process is still rather limited so I was hoping to get some feedback on possible problems with the current state of this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a pretty complete article about the topic, and is well-referenced (but many references are hard to check). It has been created through translation of the frwiki featured article. For a freshly translated article, the language isn't so bad. I have expanded the lead and reorganized the body. I would like someone's feedback on what would be the top priority areas for improvement with an article such as this, in anticipation of a theoretical GA at some future date.
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 you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lankyant: This has been open for almost a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lankyant: I suggest that you ask for feedback on the Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also suggest you obtain a mentor who can comment here and guide you through the FA process. Lastly, I suggest that you review some more articles at FAC to build good will amongst FAC editors so that when you nominate this article it is more likely to be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lankyant: It has been another month and still no comments. Can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been working on this article for a while now and I want it to improve better. I know there's alot to improve so I want to know if the lead is okay and/or if the sections are okay too. Looking forward to your comments.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not undergone any reviews since it was promoted to a Featured List in 2011 and it has undergone several revisions since. I think, at worst, it is reasonably close to still being FL standard so I didn't think it was appropriate to nominate it for removal. Instead, I think a Peer Review would be the best way forward.
So this list is a long shot. But I'm curious to know if this list has any chance of being FL. I look forward to addressing any issues. I will have this copy-edited by WP:GOCE to make the prose better.
I'm requesting a peer review for this page. This is my first attempt on PR. I'm hoping to rewrite this once-broken (and severely vandalised) yet important article and attempt to elevate it to FL-status if possible. It is a simple list article that was modeled upon a similar article on US cities (note the section for "Tables", "Distribution", and "Gallery").
Hey PenangLion! A bit late, but here are some things I noticed that could help you improve. I don't usually edit lists, so feel free to take my suggestions with a pinch of salt.
Almost all of the prose has unsourced statements. I know this information is presented in the tables somewhere, but readers should be able to find the source of the information in the prose without having to dig through the list too much.
When using abbreviations, I'd recommend the usage of the {{abbr}} template to display a tooltip when the reader mouses over it.
Footnotes 5–8 are unsourced.
I fixed the other harv errors, but the DOSM 2022f reference has no citation pointing at it. Either there's a citation missing somewhere, or it needs to be removed.
Hopefully that's a little help. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One little thing that may help out your list article, for the Colorado State Quarter I thought it may prove useful to readers to see a visual representation. I created a fair use rationale for your article on the file page, before you insert it into the article you may want to wait. The bots and admins are quite fickle on the fair use rationales. We should wait and see if the rationale runs into problems.
I wish I could help you more, I am going to keep pondering over this article and see if there is any real improvements you can make. Lists and State Symbols aren't really my specialty.
Best of luck, I'll be back with more suggestions soon! --Trey Wainman (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
