Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing, it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's 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.



Salsa Big Band

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate Salsa Big Band to GA (the album recently won the Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year) and I think the prose can be improved. Thanks, Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Irene ,

The sections about characters and plot in your article are clear and easy to follow. Description is neutral so far. It will be great if you can add more sections, such as its background, adaptions, comments, etc., to make your article's structure integrated. Besides, if you can find more external links for readers to access, it might help them to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the play and will be a good supplement.

Thank you. QsCarolyn (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Le Cid

Hi, Kyra!

Great job on your article so far. The cast of characters was well laid-out, and the plot summary was easy to follow. Have there been performances of Le Cid in recent years? Do you have any way of finding out if it is still performed/how frequently it is?

I definitely think you kept the article neutral and factual.

You may want to try adding in links to other things within the words in the article. For instance, a link to Aristotle's Poetics might help inform the reader as to what standards audience members may have been holding the play to. Also, perhaps a link to Jean Chapelain, mentioned when talking about the critical review of the play, might be helpful to show what role he served.

Otherwise, I think this is a very well thought-out article that uses visuals and content together very well.

Thanks, Emmaosmundson (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kyra!

Your article' structure is clear and comprehensive, and the sections of "Characters" and "Plot summary" are brief, explicit, which is easy for readers, who are not familiar with it, to follow and grasp. I think more information about its background will be great to help readers understand this play. Also, is there any other translations of this script, except for the English and French one? And any other adaptations of the play were performed before? If they have, when and where? Both will be some useful information for the wiki page, if you can find out. Besides, if you can access with some comments/critique articles by later scholars and add in the page, that would be a good supplement.

Hope my suggestion could assist your editing work in some way.

Thank you.

QsCarolyn (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Room (film)

I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed GA review and I hope to get this article to FAC status. It has been getting increasingly more views this last year because of The Disaster Artist film coming out in December and I think it is a bizarrely interesting topic.

Thanks, Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rabinal Achí

I've listed this article for peer review so that I can get some constructive feedback on what I need to complete. Some fields are missing, but I would like to get some thoughts on how to better the structure or make-up of this article.

Thanks, Emmaosmundson (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review.

Thanks, Aoifemahood (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 5 November 2017, 11:59 UTC
Last edit: 9 November 2017, 14:04 UTC

The Breeders Tour 2014

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 5 November 2017, 04:23 UTC
Last edit: 17 November 2017, 08:09 UTC

Legend of a Cowgirl

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to being worthy of a GA nomination. I just want to make sure there aren't any glaring issues with it. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Anotheronewiki (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I updated the infobox as per the current Template:Infobox song#Parameters (easier than listing here). I notice that the video "Synopsis" section has no inline citations and one link to a video. WP:GACR #2 includes "Verifiable with no original research". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the feedback! I think I'll take out the synopsis & replace it with only details about the video that I can cite. -Anotheronewiki (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Scott (TV personality)

I've listed this article for peer review because, as the principal editor, I would like a fresh set of eyes to help improve the quality of the article. Ideally, it would eventually reach GA status.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 16:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Fawad Khan

Fawad Khan is a Pakistani actor who appeares in Pakistani film, dramas and Indian films. I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to improve it for the last three months. It was promoted to GA but has recently failed FA. I am looking forward to your comments.

Thanks, Amirk94391 (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these types of article but I already used the archivebot to archive all references so that it would pass a source review. Nevertheless, one issue I found is that the article has some small paragraphs. Remember that writing in Wikipedia is like writing a formal letter. Every paragraph should be balanced and at the same time avoid a reference overkill like "For his role, Khan went through a body transformation.[71][72][73][74]" The body transformation could be further explained too. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Thank you so much for your precious time. As you mentioned, I've removed unnecessary and extra citations, merged some small paragraphs and explained body transformation. Amirk94391 (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This BLP is no longer a GA. see talk page. --Saqib (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for Tonight

I expanded this article a while ago in 2015, and am aiming for it to reach GA status. I thought I'd open a peer review before nominating it.

Thanks, — Arre 04:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know a lot about music, but I am fairly certain this article is suitable for a
 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Eddie891 Talk Work 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 6 October 2017, 08:27 UTC
Last edit: 23 November 2017, 02:05 UTC

Kwakiutl (statue)

This article is currently a GA, but I'm wondering how else I might OK improve it. Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Beatriz Romilly

I've listed this article for peer review because whilst I have listed the subject's career and a brief overview, I feel it might require some further input from editors more experienced in writing articles about actors.

Thanks, Osarius - Want a chat? 11:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

First, the strong points. The article's well structured and "well-cited", in the sense of having a decent number of citations. The absence of a photo is a pity. But the key problem's already been identified in the tag - there are nowhere near enough reliable secondary sources used to indicate that Ms Romilly warrants an article. To elaborate:

  • Source 1 is her own, self-published cv;
  • Sources 2 and 3 are commercial, promotional, casting websites;

I really don't think these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources.

  • Source 5 is the Globe advertisement for the show and does nothing but list Ms Romilly as a cast member;
  • Which leaves Source 4, the Guardian review. This describes Ms Romilly's performance as "feisty" and "peppery". It's exactly what you need, but it is the only cite, amongst about 57, that, I would suggest, meets the criteria for reliability and notability.

In a nutshell, there's not nearly enough to justify an article on the grounds of notability. If you can find more like Source 4, then throw them in. But a quick Google search suggests that will be a struggle. In which case, I just don't think the article is warranted. Can I ask why you think that it is? KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because…

While there is significant news coverage and a charting album, and sort-of a major award (informal), this is a very new band. Too new for Wikipedia?

Thanks, Ross-c (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it for a FA or a GA status.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The see also section is incredibly and unnecessarily long. It needs to be trimmed down. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ojorojo

  • Updated the infobox based on the current template documentation (easier than listing here – change as you see fit). Used |type=remix single for Bieber's release, although some editors prefer to use |type=single. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Anna F.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article a good article, and I would appreciate your feedback on what you think would be good steps for this article to get that status.

Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hmlarson

in lead/intro
  • Can you add that she won the "Pop" category at the Amadeus Austrian Music Awards 2009?
  • Change published to "released"
under 2001–-present section
  • add reference for first sentence. Can this sentence be expounded upon so it's not a 1-sentence paragraph? Perhaps describing a little more about the role, film, or reception of her performance?
  • add "Her second studio album" (or similar) before "King in the Mirror was released in ... Anything you can add about this album to flesh out a little?

That's it for now. I'll take another look later + run a few checks. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

M. G. Ramachandran filmography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 June 2017, 10:05 UTC
Last edit: 6 August 2017, 11:55 UTC

Like a Prayer (song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 May 2017, 05:17 UTC
Last edit: 2 October 2017, 13:08 UTC

Everyday life

Nodar Kumaritashvili

It just finished an attempt at FAC, and failed mainly due to prose issues. So I'd like anyone interested to go through, as I'd like to get it passed there eventually, and some more commentary is always good.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Kaiser matias. You might want to let Corinne know that you have posted this over here too. I suppose she would want to do her thorough copy edit pass thru after we have all mucked it around. I made some minor progress on the article, but my eyes are too tired to really dig in. Ping me back. Having fun! Face-smile.svg Face-smile.svg Face-smile.svg Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I, too, as the original copy-editor, whose earlier efforts seemed to have been so lacking, plan on going through the article, with a stricter sense of what belongs and where, a process I've already started. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Dhtwiki, if you look at the article revision history, you'll see that many edits had been made to the article since you copy-edited it in June, so I wouldn't feel bad about seeing a second copy-edit.  – Corinne (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Dhtwiki, don't take this request for a critique of your efforts, they were much appreciated on my end, but unfortunately they were apparently not up to the standards of some at FAC. A thanks to you and Checkingfax for going through it again; I hope that this will suffice for round two. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kaiser matias. One thing that is or was a criteria for promotion over in the the Featured Article department is alt text for images. I find them very fickle to write. A good person to review your alt text efforts is editor Graham87 as he relies on them. Ping him when you get them done, and he may be willing to review them. You only have a few to do. It looks like Corinne already did her edits before I did, so I spoke out of turn. Articles are a moving target, so we will all have to keep kneading and polishing, until things are all buffed out. Hopefully other editors jump in with their peering. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
(outdent) Of course the alt-text, I forgot about that. I should be able to handle that myself in the next while, or will at least try to first. And agreed about the ever-moving nature of FACs; it's both good standards are constantly improving (in theory), but can be a hassle to navigate. As it is, I started a different FAC the other day, so that will allow time before I put this one back up. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Politics and Prose

I'm considering going through WP:FAC for the first time ever, and I'd love to have a full peer review done before I jump into the lion's den. Specifically I'd love for the article to be compared against the featured article criteria.

Thanks, Nomader (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Eddie891

FA criteria:

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.  Pass
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; Pass and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)  Pass—see citing sourcesfor suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policyNon-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.  Pass
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.  Pass

I am not sure about the others. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Engineering and technology

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 47

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to be checked and expanded. I cannot find any more sources on LC-47, and what I have written is all I have found. I would love to expand this article if possible.

Thanks, Nickrulercreator (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Grok (JPEG 2000)

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new article, my first wikipedia article, and I would really appreciate feedback so I can make it better.

Thanks, Aaron Boxer

Amazon Echo

I've listed this article for peer review because the article was originally designed when the Echo was a single product; however, it is now a line or products with a virtual assistant, Amazon Alexa. It would be great to have some guideance on how to better format the article, such as whether a comparison of the devices should be present in the article. Also, should the page only talk about the hardware, or the software too. Thanks in advance!

Daylen (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because… It has still not been reviewed after being live for a while and does not appear on a google search.

Thanks, Aberseagul (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Micro Devices

I have recently re-organized and cleaned up the article significantly. I would appreciate a review to find out how the article can be further improved. Eventually I would like it to get to GA status.

Thanks, Dbsseven (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Hi there! I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter myself, so you'll have to excuse me for that, but from this outside perspective, I can offer one broad suggestion. It seems to me that the detail on AMD's specific devices is a bit much for the main article of the company, considering how many of their product lines have their own articles already. It could be possible to condense much of the detail under the CPU/APU and GPU sections. Additionally, I spotted at least three redlinks. Perhaps you're planning to create those articles yourself, which is why I didn't remove them, but I thought I should bring that to your attention. Finally, I noticed a few grammatical mistakes, which I quickly corrected, but you should certainly look out for those. Cheers! BruzerFox 06:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'll start by reviewing the TOC. Remove unnecessary capitalization in heading per MOS:CAPS. Product coverage appears to be duplicated in Current Product Lines section and elsewhere. There are unnecessary bulleted lists in several sections; WP:PROSE is generally preferred. There a lots of "List of AMD..." articles already in existence to fill out this detail. Create more if you feel you need to. Most readers of a high-level article like this are distracted by this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


Lisa Blue Baron

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what information would improve the article.

Thanks, Seporche (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

  • At a cursory glance, the article looks to lack major issues. However, the article does not go into a lot of detail on things such as her $33.5 million house.
  • "n 2012, she was elected Vice-President of the American Association for Justice and began her leadership of the organization in 2014 when she moved to Washington D.C" You can probably go into a LOT more detail on this.
  • I would try to remain consistent (at least in a section) with referring to her as "Blue" or "Baron"
  • I found this in an article, seems worth a mention "A decade ago, the National Law Journal named her a top female lawyer"
  • Her being dyslexic seems worth a mention
  • Seems she was also a prolific contributor to the Clintons in the 1990s as well.
  • You might talk a bit about philanthropy
  • "In May 2010, a court ruled the Hills should receive almost $115 million. About 30 percent of that was to go to three attorneys. But Hill refused to pay, calling the fee “unconscionable,” according to court documents.

Blue and her co-counsel sued. In June, a magistrate awarded them more than $34 million. Hill is appealing." seems bigger than the 55 million case mentioned.

  • overall, I would probably just expand the article with available information. Look at other lawyers for ideas. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Cub Swanson

I've listed this article for peer review because:

  1. The article has been expanded significantly
  2. New aspects of Swanson has been brought in, eg sponsorship, filmatography and sponsorship
  3. Cub Swanson is a rising star in the UFC featherweight division. Let us perfect his biography for all the MMA fans out there.

May fellow Wikipedians kindly give me feedback on whether the article provides a complete picture or does it leave you wanting for more info? Is it worth a GA status?

Thank you very much 张雨涵 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments From Eddie891

  • Per WP:LEDE, an article of that length should have a lead paragraph of about 3-4 paragraphs.
  • The article seems slightly excessively broken up. Sentences like " The adoptive family was religious." are much shorter than could be. You could probably consider merging sentences like "The adoptive family was religious. So Swanson spent most of his early life in church." into one sentence.
  • Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." It seems like you have a large number of single sentence- short paragraphs.

A good article, just needs some style workEddie891 Talk Work 00:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Najiba Faiz

I've listed this article for peer review because I have written it carefully and have left no any mistake writing it. If you find, please share it.

Thanks, SahabAliwadia 16:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The page contains so many non-RS sources. --Saqib (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Did she work in Sawan. By the way, I couldn't find any reliable English language source that covered her, apart from the Sawan mentions. May be something like highbeam will help to find some reliable sources. Otherwise, chances are that the article will not pass a WP:N challenge. Are there any good Urdu or Pashtun sources? Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Huma Nawab

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done best to reach article to good status. And so I think it's best to peer review so that I can see which mistakes I have done.

Thanks, SahabAliwadia 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The page contains so many non-RS sources. --Saqib (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Need to improve basic, such as her DOB, place of birth. Cuterajoo (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeay Sindh Muttahida Mahaz

I've listed this article for peer review because, I am mostly working on improving this page, I want to hear from others about this article' pros and cons. Thanks, Cuterajoo (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Tour De Cure Australia

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first time I've created a page from scratch. Would love some feedback.

Thanks, Wik-ed100 (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Royal Mint

Having expanded the article a great deal, I wish to further develop the article to GA or possibly FA status. Any words of advice or tips are greatly appreciated. Thanks You. Tsange (Talk) 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

I strongly advise you to ask for help from the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. There is clearly good stuff in this article, but the prose is nowhere near GA, let alone FA standard. A few random examples of what I mean:

  • "The original London mint from which the Royal Mint takes heritage" – "takes heritage" is a most peculiar phrase. I imagine you mean something like "…of which the Royal Mint is a successor"
  • "...moving to the now named Royal Mint Court" – "moving to what is now called…" ?
  • "While the mint warden was also responsible for witnessing the delivery of dies." – This is not a sentence.
  • "...king Henry VIII" – The Manual of Style requires King Henry
  • "ending all coin production outside of London being moved to the London mint" – I suppose this means "ending all coin production outside London and moving it to the London mint"
  • "Due to Scotland's heavy debasement of their silver coins" – singular noun with plural pronoun. Scotland as a football team may be "they" but Scotland as a country is not.
  • "which led trader to resume minting" – "traders" plural I imagine

I got as far as the Civil War before concluding that thorough copy-editing was needed. In addition, some other points from the sections I have read:

  • "the mint has been in danger multiple times of being privatised" – this is a blatant WP:POV. Something more neutral such as "...there have frequently been plans to privatise..." is needed.
  • "Kentish tribes ... nearby Marseille" – this would be the Marseille in the south of France, 700 miles away? Not "nearby" I'd say.
  • "few local and episcopals" – I'm sure you know what this means, and I can make a guess of sorts, but "episcopals" should be either explained or linked to a suitable article.

I am sorry to be a wet blanket, but an article of such good content needs equally good prose, and I think the Guild is your best bet. – Tim riley talk 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for taking a look at the article and for your honest comments. I will ask for help from the Guild of Copy Editors, as you have suggested. Tsange (Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Greenwich Judgement

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it reviewed for accuracy. I think it's accurate, based on careful reading of the references, but I'd like corroboration.

Thanks, Slaaamdunch (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Starship Titanic

I've been working on this article for the past two weeks and have done a major expansion on it. I hope to get it to GA or FA status in the future. I would like suggestions for improvement because I'm sure there are problems I'm missing and it can definitely benefit from input by other users. Any comments or suggestions are very much appreciated. Thanks, κατάσταση 19:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I'm listing this for peer review because I would like to explore the possibilities of nominating it for featured article candidacy in the future, but am unsure because of the limited sourcing present on this subject. The only new source I can find on the game is this 1UP article that is unfortunately not archived at (I was able to find it) Any thoughts?

Thanks, JOEBRO64 17:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • If you want this to be FA, you need more sources. For a such an obscure subject, it won't be easy. If it was popular in Asia\Russia, that is where you would need to look.--Vaypertrail (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Geography and places

Sitakunda Upazila

Previous peer review

A GA that has gone through two exhaustive reviews, but still failed FA nomination. I have done some work since the failure. I am pretty much the sole contributor to the article, and working without anyone collaborating can be a lonely experience. I need help with this one. Please, help me with anything you can - copy, format, images, facts, data, organization of the article... Aditya(talkcontribs) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Kings Canyon National Park

I've just spent a lot of time researching and expanding the article for one of my favorite National Parks, and I hope to nominate it eventually at FAC. I've generally had bad experiences at FAC, so I would greatly appreciate any help towards improving this article.

Thanks – Shannon 01:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


Nicholas Exton

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 November 2017, 15:50 UTC
Last edit: 17 November 2017, 18:22 UTC

Lucius Caesar

I'm hoping to get this page to GA status. I'm open to any and all suggestions to help get it there. Also, it's at start class right now, so if it could pass a higher class as it is that would be nice. I'm sure it's at least C-class!

Thanks, SpartaN (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Croxton Play of the Sacrament

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like suggestions on how to make this article better.

Thanks, Jre1991 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Skene (theatre)

I've listed this article for peer review because…I am in the process of significantly improving the quality of the article

Thanks, Stories Alive (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 31 October 2017, 18:44 UTC
Last edit: 11 November 2017, 18:34 UTC

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 28 October 2017, 21:46 UTC
Last edit: 11 November 2017, 20:37 UTC

Gloucestershire Regiment

Article has been extensively expanded, and there's one or two things that still need tweaking, but I'm interested to hear opinions on how it looks now. I intended to submit a Copy-Edit request in due course, so no need for tooth-combs in terms of grammar and WP:MOS unless that's your thing. I am interested to hear about any clunky sentences or confusing prose, anything I've missed, not covered enough or covered too much, and any ideas for improving the article further.

Thanks, FactotEm (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Is it Daniell, or Daniel, or two different sources? Spelling varies. Littlewood cited 29 times but not listed in references. I am picky about citation format and have a preferred style, but others do not agree with me. Having noted that, I find the style a bit messy. Perhaps just let it ride and see if others say the same.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate you taking the time to look at this, and thanks for catching the sourcing errors. Not sure why I started missing off the 2nd L, but it's fixed now. I think Littlewood got inadvertently removed, but he's back now. I'm curious as to why the citation style is messy. As far as I am aware though, the current style is MOS compliant, and it's the one I'm used to, so not really keen to change it. FactotEm (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There are periods/full stops after the p/pp sometimes but often they disappear. There are Notes in the Footnotes and Footnotes in the Notes. Various other small details. I remebr once many years ago someone actually paid attention to the cite formats in FAC, but I am not sure anyone still bothers. Just let it ride.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. I had forgotten the inconsistency with periods after p/pp. Fixed now. FactotEm (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Waste of time, unless you enjoyed it. Anyhow, good luck at FAC.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Insignificant details like that bug me waaaaay more than they should. It's the OCD in me. :) FactotEm (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 October 2017, 22:01 UTC
Last edit: 8 November 2017, 01:13 UTC

Li Shanchang

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Article is finished for the time being. Give it a score.

Thanks, FourLights (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments From Eddie891

  • I'd try and avoid quoting things that can merely be rephrased such as "bored with Li's arrogance" and "planned the organization of the six ministries, shared in the drafting of a new law code, and supervised the compilations of the History of Yuan, the Ancestral Instructions and the Ritual Compendium of the Ming Dynasty."
  • I'd avoid things like "the History of Mingbiography" because it is evident in the source.

more to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

William Henry Powell (soldier)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 September 2017, 20:24 UTC
Last edit: 15 November 2017, 11:49 UTC

Thornton Chase

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 15 September 2017, 20:49 UTC
Last edit: 8 October 2017, 20:06 UTC

Romanian Navy during World War II

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 30 August 2017, 17:18 UTC
Last edit: 13 November 2017, 17:38 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article going for a "Good article" status. I am looking for people to review it for, like, discovering errors like grammar mistakes.

Thanks, LeGabrie (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The lede doesn't accurately summarize the article. It should reflect the major content of each section.
  • Introductory sentences are good ideas for the paragraphs, but each should be referenced. Don't make conclusions that aren't expressly paraphrased from a source. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia aims to summarize the secondary source. If a conclusion is important, a secondary source will make it. Until then, it's fine to just list the related conclusions, as put in the sources, in order.
  • Keep encyclopedic tone by replacing "we" ("If we can believe John", "At least we learn the names", "we can only guess that") with the actual subject ("scholars"?)
  • I'll make some in-line tags. Feel free to resolve (or remove without resolution) in-line, or bring here for discussion if helpful
  • The museum images (Sudan Archaeological Research Society, Archaeological Museum of Gdansk, etc.) need to specifically allow relicensing under the stated licensing (you used cc-by-sa-4.0). You can find the standard consent at commons:Commons:Consent. That permission can be documented by forwarding the email to WP:OTRS.
  • Any reason why you're not using standard citation templates? {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} can make your life much easier, and you can link your short footnotes to the main footnotes with {{sfn}}. (For an example, see User:Czar/drafts/Idia masks.) If you use a citation manager such as Zotero, there are also ways to export direct from there (and import journal articles from their websites).
  • This topic can get thick with jargon. Gear the text for a general audience by explaining new terms and linking to related concepts
  • Let me know if you need help with any of the above and I'll get you started. If it's too much, I can also do most of it for you, though of course, teach a person to fish... and so on

czar 22:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to identify any areas of improvement needed with a view to eventually working towards Good Article status.

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice article. A number of common terms such as conservative, do not need to be wikilinked.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The subject is very much a surprise to me, especially as I was reasonably attentive to the events of the 2016 election & this is the first I heard of this assassination attempt! While the numerous sources cited do enable this article to pass the Notability standard, IMHO it still feels to be a subject that does not merit the title, especially when compared to the equally unsuccessful actions of, say, Squeaky Fromme. Then again, if there are other attempts to assassinate Trump, the article title would then be used to collect all of those events under one rubric, as was done with Assassination threats against Barack Obama, none of which I was aware of. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to expand the BBC section a bit more? It's quite small, and if it has more coverage it definitely warrants more than two sentences. Nice article though. Jdcomix (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah this was my first reaction as well. I think if you're going to have an entire top-level section on the BBC documentary, there should be more on it than it exists -- how was it received in the US? in the UK? Who were people who worked on it? Maybe use a Template:Cite AV media to provide info on the film itself? Umimmak (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this is good: it's comprehensive, clear, succinct and well-sourced. I can't think of any changes that need making. Richard75 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Arab Agricultural Revolution

I've listed this article for peer review because to my surprise this quiet, well-cited article has met with out-of-hand rejection at GAN. Having considered what is needed I've found nothing I wish to alter, but would welcome the independent thoughts of other editors.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:Anotheronewiki

This is my first peer review, so bear with me. Also, I'm not an expert, so I might have missed some problems, or some of what I point out may not be problematic. Here goes.

  • The first sentence in the lead section seems a little unwieldy. It might be a good idea to split it into two or three sentences, or to rearrange it so that the meaning of "Arab Agricultural Revolution" comes before the info on who coined the term.
  • It's best to have the lead section act as an overview of the article as a whole. Try rewording some of the lead so it's broad enough that you need no (or fewer) citations (as long as the info is restated in the body of the article, with citations there).
Moved the list of alternative names out of lead, with their citations.
  • I don't think it's necessary to name specific scholars who disagreed with the idea in the lead. Perhaps you could simply note that some scholars disagreed in the lead, so people can go down and read the "Reception" section if that's what they're interested in.
Watson's paper
  • The first paragraph is really good. I see no blatant issues with it.
  • Three of the four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Watson." I think it would be OK to refer to him as "he" a couple of times, since he's the only individual mentioned in the section.
  • For conciseness, I think you could reword the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the 2nd paragraph to read "according to Watson, had not previously grown these plants; he listed eighteen such crops."
  • The first sentence doesn't sound quite right. Maybe "Watson's work was met with some early scepticism, for example from the historian Jeremy Johns in 1984" could be reworded as "Watson's work was initially met with some scepticism from historians including Jeremy Johns in 1984" or something like that. When you say the skepticism was early, it sounds like the skepticism came before the paper was published.
  • The following sentence, in the 3rd paragraph in the reception section, feels a little too complicated: "In the case of cotton, which the Romans grew mainly in Egypt, cultivation remained minor in the classical Islamic period, the major fibre being flax, as in Roman times." There are so many dependent clauses that it takes a couple of reads to understand the sentence. I'd recommend either splitting it into 2 sentences or rewording it to combine clauses.
  • The rest of the reception section looks pretty good. I can't see anything wrong with it.

Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-researched article. I learned quite a bit from it, and I think that with a few minor changes, it'll have no trouble passing GA Assessment. Good luck! -Anotheronewiki (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Very many thanks for taking the time. I'll see what I can do to incorporate your suggestions and will post details here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics

Laboratory glassware

I've listed this article for peer review because a solid introduction to laboratory glassware is extremely useful to anyone who either works or is learning science.

The quality grades in the banners on the talk page may need to be updated.

Thanks, Agriculturist50 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Agriculturist50: The lead needs to summarize more. It doesn't explain what glassware as used for, which is one of the basic things you'd expect. Lot more cites are needed. Perhaps from a book on glassware. The scope of article needs to be clear, but I'd atleast expect some summary in the body about how glassware is useful and what it is used for. The safety section is mostly irrelevant as we're not a safety guide. Galobtter (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Thanks for looking over the article. I am in the process of expanding the work using more citations.

The lead is tricky because laboratory glassware is used for so many different tasks in labs and there are so many different types of glassware it is mind boggling. The scope has seemed to have crept a good bit because of differing contributions. Students, educators, glass blowers, professors, scientists, medical practitioners, and vendors all come at laboratory glassware from a different angle.

Much of the safety information was derived from content other users already placed in the article. For right now I transferred all the glassware safety material to the article on laboratory safety. Not surprisingly, this article was missing anything on laboratory glassware safety.

Anatomical terms of location

I'd like to get some idea about what (apart from referencing content) could be done to improve this article with a goal to making it well-written and comprehensive enough to attain good article status

Ping to the editors who have played a role in discussions and significant editing:

Thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I've only investigated this page because of links in articles about spiders, as far as I remember; generally resulting in replacing the link. My problem with the page is that its title implies that it's general, but much of it seems to have been written by editors who are only thinking of human anatomy. This is a problem throughout the English Wikipedia, and is thus relevant to what should be done here. Consider, to take a random example, Lung, where the lead begins "The lungs are the primary organs of the respiratory system in humans and many other animals including a few fish and some snails", ignoring book lungs in arachnids, which are definitely lungs, and are mentioned later in a small section Lung#Invertebrates. The sections of Lung headed "Development", "Function", "Gene and protein expression", "Clinical significance" are all essentially only about human lungs, but the section titles don't make this clear. This is, I stress, only one example, and by no means exceptional. So, do we accept that any anatomy article whose title isn't explicitly qualified is primarily about human anatomy, as seems to be the case? If so, then this article should focus on anatomical terms of location in humans, with a shorter sections and links to separate article(s) on anatomical terms of location in non-humans. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Peter coxhead thanks for your response, I have tried to improve this article since you have last looked at it, by deemphasising the human component, and tried to make the article as general as possible. If this particular article is still human-centric, could you provide some concrete examples so I can improve it :)?. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I consider it to be entirely in order to be human-centric, and the example on lungs is adequately written, even if it somewhat unecessarily mentions snails. Spiders are included in the wording "some other animals" are they not? Mentioning fish seems suitable, only because it is somewhat surprising — but listing all possible animals and trivia in the lede is not good for anyone, and such content belong under the "Other animals" header.
I will take a look as soon as I have time. Carl Fredrik talk 10:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to anatomy articles being human-centric if this is made clear in the article title (as per WP:PRECISION). The problem occurs when editors inadvertently create wikilinks to such articles that then provide irrelevant or incorrect information. For example, in articles about arthropods, I sometimes find "Anatomical terms of location#lateral" used as a pipe for "lateral" – which at first sight seems sensible. However, terrestrial arthropods are typically described as if viewed from above with the legs spread out, so "lateral" applied to legs, for example, normally means the surfaces facing towards or away from the anterior tip of the animal; describing "lateral" in terms of left and right as the article makes no sense in this context. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Language and literature

Brothers Poem

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 September 2017, 20:51 UTC
Last edit: 29 September 2017, 19:38 UTC

Isaac Asimov

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a featured article before, but it was demoted because it only had 12 citations. It now has 179, so I want to see if it's ready to be nominated for FA status again, or what other improvements would be advisable first.

Thanks, Richard75 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

Not having enough citations would certainly be a barrier to FA status, but having a bunch isn't enough by itself. I haven't read it from end to end, but some things I noticed skimming:

  • Two sections are headlined by cleanup banners. That's an immediate fail at GA, much less FA.
  • The sources that are provided include some that probably don't meet WP:RS (, for example), and a lot (about half) of the citations are to Asimov's own writings. FA reviewers will want to see independent secondary sources used whenever possible. There are several published books about him already listed under sources, so those are probably a good place to start.
  • There is a great deal of inconsistency in citation styles. A consistent system will be needed for FA. I did a bit of cleanup on this, but there is more to do.
  • I spotted several paragraphs of just one or two sentences. Typically that indicates a problem of choppy writing or unnecessary trivia.
  • Speaking of trivia, the section on "Television, music, and film appearances" looks like a WP:TRIVIA list. Probably this should be rewritten as a narrative that highlights his most noteworthy appearances (based on those secondary sources mentioned above). Every specific time an author showed up on a talk show does not need to be listed in an encyclopedia article.

There are probably more details lurking in the text that I didn't read, but the obvious items above would be enough to block an FA. --RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

Luang Por Dhammajayo

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback how the article can be improved to GA level, but I do not want to nominate it for GA as yet. In Thailand the subject is very sensitive and controversial, but I have tried to show all sides of the story. I would appreciate feedback on the article's prose, neutrality and focus.

The links to the Matichon E-library in the article are now behind a paywall, but I can send any of these sources through a sharing service to anyone wishing to know more about these sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Papal conclave

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 September 2017, 16:32 UTC
Last edit: 23 October 2017, 22:39 UTC

Astronomica (Manilius)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 January 2017, 21:01 UTC
Last edit: 17 July 2017, 16:17 UTC

Social sciences and society

Chinese Neoauthoritarianism

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Because I'd like it graded.

Thanks, FourLights (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis

I've listed this article for peer review because this is an important ongoing event in Australian Politics and I was wondering how other Wikipedia editors think in may be improved

Thanks, Superegz (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a "good article" for over four years and I want to know if there are any improvements that could be made to it or if it is near "featured article" quality.

Thanks, Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Four instances of cites using deprecated parameter |trans_title=   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: I have replaced trans_title with trans-title. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Grace Hutchins

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 September 2017, 16:16 UTC
Last edit: 8 October 2017, 15:55 UTC


List of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize recipients

I've listed this article for peer review because the list is deemed comprehensive and complete as of date.

Thanks, [email protected] (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Score Soundtrack for Visual Media

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's close to meeting the criteria to become featured. My main concerns with it are the lead and the name changes, as this particular award has had many. I'm open to any comments on how to improve these sections and the whole list as a whole.

Thanks, BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program

I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it and I want others' input so I can improve it.

Thanks, TheLawKage (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Semchyshyn

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Annki777 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Ohio

I've listed this article for peer review because…I believe that this is a well written and encyclopedic article. However, AndyZ's automatic peer reviewer says that the lead needs expansion, and I can understand why. Furthermore, I am uncomfortable with the overall lack of content outside of the table.

Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For starters, you can take a look at other corresponding articles such as List of United States Senators from New York. You could add information about which parties have historically held the seats, longest serving senators, and such. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Peer review"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA