Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.
For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes.
For the review of new pages, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol.
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.

Contents

Arts

Lydia Canaan

I've listed this article for peer review because, classified as B-class, it's been half a year since the article failed GA after having been nominated, and all of the reviewer's recommendations have now been rigorously implemented. Though I did not author this article, I have done an extensive rewrite, and believe that it now meets the standard for Good Article class. In preparation for the article's renomination for GA, I would like to know if there is any way that it can be further improved. Thank you! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Flash vs. Arrow

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA, but would like feedback on what I can do to improve this article before nominating it, specifically what content should be added or expanded on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Brojam (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Mahira Khan

I've listed this bio for peer review because I want to get it to GA status.

Thanks, Saqib (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Not in This Lifetime... Tour

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a well written article that has faced major expansion recently, and I look to help it improve even more.

Thanks, RF23 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Definitely Maybe

I've listed this article for peer review because Oasis' first album seems in nice condition and this was a great album. But because it was such a big hit for a debut album, I want to know if anything needs adjusted or if it needs more research before it becomes a GA. This album is older than me, and I've never had a successful 90's album nomination before, so I wanted to know.

And by the way, I'm sure there are dead links in the article, I have not looked at that yet.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Deep Purple (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I need advice for grammar, syntax and completeness, before attempting a GA promotion. Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, this article doesn't read like it was written from a neutral point of view, especially the musical style and release and promotion sections. I see a lot of stating opinions as facts and judgmental language. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but could you be more specific? The reviews about this album remark the progress shown by Blackmore and Paice as musicians and writers. It's a fact that they had less or no music credits in the previous albums. Lewismaster (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
One example of stating opinions as facts: he also starts to really showcase his talent. And some wording that I think should be changed: a stab at getting a hit single, often hiding in the organ-heavy mix of those releases the instrumental abilities of other musicians (I think I know what you mean here but it isn't 100% clear and should be rephrased), Things were starting to look grim, showing a desire to really back up their artists, as shown with the heavy promotions of "Hush" and "Kentucky Woman" in the US, the label's spending had gotten out of control, keep the company afloat, and In an attempt to salvage their own situation. Littlecarmen (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed those sentences. I hope that they work better now. Lewismaster (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Amnesia (Chumbawamba song)

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's about ready for a GA nomination but I want feedback before I actually nominate it. There's not really one particular area I think is problematic; any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Anotheronewiki (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


List of awards and nominations received by Holby City

I've listed this article for peer review because after recent contributions made to the article, I would like to nominate it for Featured List. However, before doing this I wanted to receive a peer review. I'm also hoping this has been included in the correct category as there wasn't really one that covered media (television, film etc) except this.

Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Usually, these types of lists include a sentence or two at the beginning of each award ceremony's section saying a little about the ceremony and who it is presented by, as well a sentence about how many awards and nominations someone or something has received. For example: The A awards are presented annually by the B Association and recognise accomplishments in film and television. Holby City has received C awards from D nominations. Done
  • You only need to link articles the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article.  Done
  • Why do you use rowspan for the years column but not the category and nominee column?  Done
  • You only need to link publications and their publishers the first time.
    • Do you mean within references? Soaper1234 (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Dead links need to be replaced.
  • Maybe run something like autoFormatter on the article to fix some minor formatting issues.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit messy in my opinion. I would focus it on specific aspects or crew members of the show that have received the most acclaim.  Done - although this made need re-checking.
  • Overall though, this list looks very good to me! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback Littlecarmen. I will now go through and delink extra links, add a few sentences here and there, go through some formatting issues and edit the lead. In reply to the rowspan, I did previously do that in this version but I looked at other featured lists and they didn't adapt that format so I decided not to either. Thanks again. Soaper1234 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


EastEnders

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was previously a good article in 2006 but has since then it has fell into disrepair. I am not sure where to start, hoping for some advise assuming it's salvageable. Additionally I have created a sandbox so you may comment on specific sections.

User:Kelvin 101/EastEnders (Main article draft)

Thanks, Kelvin 101 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


Just some general issues, I will add more as I find them. TsangeTalk 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Images need ALT text
  • Multiple dead links see [1]
  • History section should come before Setting section
  • Not really sure the Realism section adds anything to the article.
  • Character section is too long
  • More of the article consists of
  • Lots of choppy sentences that are short and don't flow well into each other


Comments by Smurrayinchester Smurrayinchester 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • A couple of sections are out of date - the budgets only run to 2010, for instance, and the number of episodes per year is as of 2006.
  • The "Internet" section should probably go - very out of date, and it's no longer especially interesting that people search for TV shows.
  • The "Criticism" section should be split up - maybe something like "Allegations of national and racial stereotypes", "Morality and violence", "Controversial storylines" - and be trimmed a bit. (As the most viewed show in the UK, there will always be some complaints. Priority should be given to the biggest ones.
  • The "Realism" section seems mistitled - "Issues" might be more accurate.
  • I'd expand the "In popular culture" section to "In British culture", since it currently contains nothing but a link to EastEnders in popular culture. Academics have written reams about what EastEnders means to British culture (see 1, 2, 3).


Thanks for both of your comments I shall try and rectify all problems as soon as possible. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Monnow Bridge

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: 4 March 2017, 23:28 UTC
Last edit: 11 April 2017, 13:11 UTC


Hi-5 (Australian band)

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article successfully was listed as a Good Article in 2016, and after a year, I believe it has improved even more. To prepare the article to eventually become a Feature Article, I would like to hear some further feedback. This article sat in Peer Review for 6 months with no comments, so any feedback would be welcome here! Thankyou in advance. SatDis (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


Planet of the Apes

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: 1 February 2017, 22:33 UTC
Last edit: 27 March 2017, 14:41 UTC


Dulcitius

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like feedback about the article's development and direction.

Thanks, Joshuachasegold (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919

  • I support the tagged suggestion of splitting the article. An article about a play and an article about a real person are two very different things, and it is very awkward to have them joined together.
  • The list of scenes should be rewritten to a more conventional plot summary.
  • The section titled "Dulcitius and feminism" doesn't seem to have much to do with feminism. Perhaps it should be re-titled, or is there more material available to expand the discussion?
  • I did some MOS-based copy edits to the punctuation and capitlization.

This is an interesting item and a lot of my article work is on older plays (usually not quite this old!), so I would be happy to help you work on the article beyond peer review if you would like.

  • I agree with previous suggestions that the extent of the biographical info about Hrosvitha's life is unnecessary given the existence of another page about the topic. Beyond that, the page would benefit from a section for a synopsis of the play. While it's useful to have the scenes outlined there isn't any clear summarization of what the play is about or why it is, as noted in the lead, comedic in nature - this explanation is also absent from the Dulcitius as comedy sub-heading. At the same time, it's interesting to know that the play was written in the style of Terence, but if a reader doesn't know anything about that playwright they would have to click into the page for that work to understand the reference. A review of the lead and a consideration of how they align with WP:LEAD guidelines would also help. There is information presented - specifically that Agape, Chionia, and Irena are sisters - that isn't clearly outlined in the remainder of the page. I hope this helps with page revisions moving forward! I have a page submitted for peer review right now, as well, and would appreciate any feedback. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Sept haï-kaïs

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: 26 May 2016, 03:29 UTC
Last edit: 23 February 2017, 10:49 UTC


Everyday life

Meteos

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 April 2017, 02:32 UTC
Last edit: 10 April 2017, 13:52 UTC


Engineering and technology

United Express Flight 3411 incident

  • Article much more stable now after Keep at deletion discussion [2], Keep Endorsed at deletion review [3], and Speedily Kept at 2nd deletion discussion [4].
  • Current issues of debate that can use wider peer review include: (1) Use of word "incident" in the title, (2) How best to use an infobox in the top right of the article to introduce the reader to the material, and (3) how to best and most neutrally describe biographical information about the victim of the incident.
  • Bringing to peer review, now that the article is more stable after three deletion discussions all closed with a result of "Keep", for wider eyes on these issues and any others the community wishes to discuss to improve the article. Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Second Avenue Subway

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there are any improvements to this page that I could make before nominating this for featured status. Although a little long, I believe that the article is comprehensive enough that it sufficiently educates every reader on the topic. It has been improved to GA status already after several years of improvement.

Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox mentions a "near top" image, but I only see the Q and T emblems ("far top"), and the map ("main panel"). Looks like the middle image was deleted. --Golbez (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Nuclear weapon

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get a barnstar submit this article for a GA review and make it into GA. Eventually I would like for this article to become FA again! I would welcome any advice and feedback.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot easier ways to get a barnstar and to get an article to GA. I'll submit a full review soon. In the meantime, the first step would be to get it up to B class. That means that it has to pass criterion B1, which means that everything has to have an inline reference. There are already some "citation required" tags, but there are whole unreferenced sections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The second major problem is the "See Also" section. It's too large. Basically, it is telling you that the article does not cover the subject.
  • Replace the first one with a {{Wikibooks}} template and put it in the external links section with the other Inter-Wiki links.
  • Remove the portal; portals are in a bar down the bottom.
  • Then remove all the links that are in the article. Each of the headings should be present as sections in the article (with a {{Main article}} template) The sub-topics should be mentioned in those sections. Start by eliminating the ones that already are in the article, and then add the ones that are not. You should be left with just a few, starting with the Timeline (although we can use a {{See Also}} card in the history section for that). There's some like the Butter Battle Book that should not be there at all. With any luck, the whole section will disappear. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Bulldozer (microarchitecture)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get a feel for what I need to do to raise it to b-class, and there to GA.

Thanks, -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


Spitzer Space Telescope

I've listed this article for peer review because the is involved in the discovery of TRAPPIST-1, which has been on news and received a crazy amount of visits in February. I believe that this article is quite important and I need your feedback to promote this article to Good or even featured. I need feedback on improving the article based on GA criterion.

Thanks, FriyMan talk 07:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Smurrayinchester

  • "Unlike most telescopes that are named after famous deceased astronomers by a board of scientists, the new name for SIRTF was obtained from a contest open to the general public." - it's not clear to me what this means. Spitzer was deceased at the time of launch - I assume the difference is that it was named by the public. I'd reword this a bit.
  • I think there's too much info about Spitzer in the lead. I'd move it to later in the article.
  • I've given it a copyedit, but it still has some clunky sentences. "Additionally, the atmosphere is opaque at most infrared wavelengths. This necessitates lengthy exposure times and greatly decreases the ability to detect faint objects. It could be compared to trying to observe the stars at noon." is a good comparison, but it could be made smoother.
  • The Instruments section probably needs links - eg, to indium antimonide and spectrometer.
  • The Results section is quite "bitty". Minor discoveries could be lumped together, and the subsections should be consistent (there's nothing until "GLIMPSE and MIPSGAL surveys", which are program names, then there's "2010s", which is a decade, then "Spitzer Beyond", another program name, and then "Planet hunter", a generic description).
  • Images need alt text.

Smurrayinchester 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08

  • Try to get as much information for citations as possible, including an access date when you verified the information was there.
  • Each paragraph should have at least a citation in it. It will not get past GA without it.


General

Voxman Music Building

I've listed this article for peer review because.

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheWarOfArt you haven't provided a reason. The article does however seem well written and well sourced, so I'm not sure what I can add. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:KJP1

General
  • I think buildings/structures articles are much improved by a photograph.
  • In the absence of a photograph, or indeed with one, a building article really needs a description of the building itself. This article doesn't have one. Looking at images of the building online, it is certainly striking, and a description should be relatively easy to craft. This should include reference to architectural style, etc.
  • Something on the building's reception would be useful. Do architectural critics / its users (teachers/students/performers) like it or loathe it?
Lede
  • The lede is very short and will need expansion if your intention is GA.
  • Is an "academic building" a specific type? I know what you mean, but I'm not sure the "academic" isn't academic.
History
  • "located on the bank of the Iowa River" - does the Iowa River only have one bank? The left or the right?
  • "a new location for the new music building" - two "new"s in one sentence. An "alternative location"...?
  • "formally announced" - had it previously been announced "informally"? Suggest "announced" is sufficient.
  • "officially opened" - did it have a soft opening first? Suggest "opened" is sufficient.
Performing spaces
  • "700-seat concert Hall, a 200-seat recital Hall and a 75-seat organ Hall" - in each case, I don't think the capitalisation of "Hall" is necessary.
Citations
  • Link 6 appears to be dead.

Hope the above comments are of some use. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Nicholas C. Rowley

I've listed this article for peer review because… This is one of my first articles and am looking for any peer feedback. Thanks, BME917 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:KJP1

A few thoughts on what I think are the article's major issues:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - It isn't a Neutral article, reading much more as a publicity piece than a balanced appraisal of the subject's importance and career. A quick google search, [5] suggests a more balanced view of the subject's career could be written.
  • Citations - Many are not independent sources. Nearly half, including the first three, come from websites directly linked to the subject of the article. This includes the very first, which asserts the subject's notability. You really can't use the subject's own website as the source for the claim that he is "one of the most successful attorneys in United States history."
  • Photograph - I see you are the author of the photograph of the subject. This may suggest a personal connection, although it may not. If there is a personal connection between yourself and the subject, you should be clear about this to avoid any suggestion of a COI.
  • Use of subject's first name - to refer to the subject as "Nick" throughout the article comes across as informal and unencyclopedic, and again suggests a closeness between the subject and the author of the article.
  • Incorrect formatting - Four of the citations, 1, 9,10 and 15 are incorrectly formatted.
  • Citation 16 - This leads to a defunct website.
  • Broad Coverage - The bulk of the article comprises, in effect, two lists - his accolades and his notable cases. Where was he born, where educated, where does he live, does he have family, etc. etc.?
  • Prose - "awarded his family with a verdict of $40,000,000.00." I'm not a lawyer, but does a jury award with a verdict? And is $40M a verdict? Isn't the verdict the decision, i.e. the liability or otherwise of the company being sued, and the degree of liability; and the $40M the award?
Hope these comments are helpful. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Canobie Lake Park

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: 23 January 2017, 00:48 UTC
Last edit: 9 April 2017, 17:28 UTC


Underwater diving

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA, and would like comments particularly on completeness of scope, clarity of writing and comprehensibility of explanation. I have already done the automatic checks from the toolbox. I would be happy with a review from an expert in the field, or someone who has no previous knowledge of the subject at all, or anything in between, all could be helpful.

Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

    • I include my comment here only to point out a possible inclusion of material related to aquatic ape hypothesis, a WP:FRINGE theory which includes somewhat dubious claims about the antiquity of diving as a bread-and-butter point. However, the work of Erika Schagatay and her colleagues in documenting the anthropology of the (somewhat offensively named) Sea Gypsies -- Sama-Bajau peoples may be worth of inclusion in your article. Not to mention that there are some images that this group took which are found on WikiCommons which may be of interest to you. jps (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (talk · contribs), could you disambiguate your link to Sea Gypsies and link to the Commons category which contains the images you mention? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought there was a Commons category, but actually there isn't. In any case Chakazul (talk · contribs) uploaded all the images of interest: [6]. jps (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look into this. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Toronto FC

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 February 2017, 22:42 UTC
Last edit: 11 March 2017, 14:52 UTC


CMLL World Welterweight Championship

I've listed this article for peer review because I have gotten it to GA status over time and continued to work on it in the hopes of getting this to Featured Article status at some point. Since I have worked so much on this I tend to get a little blind to certain article issues so I would appreciate other eyes on this before I consider making it a FAC. Thanks in advance for any and all input,  MPJ-DK  23:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


Rachel Scott

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm skeptical as to whether the article surpasses the given criteria for good article. And for the most part, need to know if the sources used in the article are reliable and not COI; most of them was retrieved from the subject's journals and materials written by her parents.

Thanks, Bluesphere 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


1998 NFC Championship Game

Trying to get this article featured. I think I've finally reached a point that it can happen, but obviously, I'd like some feedback first. Helltopay-27 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkish Land Forces

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The listing of corps, divisions, and brigades is almost completely unsourced. That will need to be much better.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • For a successful GA nomination, you will need to modify commentary such as this (adding attribution): "The information below is unconfirmed and may be out of date; it seems likely now that the Training and Doctrine Command controls all the artillery and infantry training brigades."
  • I suggest adding a short paragraph or two to the Equipment and Insignia sections, which summarise the main articles
  • the bare urls should be formatted with author, title, publisher and access dates
  • the "page needed", "dead link" and "unreliable source" tags will need to be dealt with
  • every paragraph should end in a citation
  • suggest moving "Note a" out of the body of the article to the Notes section just above the References (currently empty)

Comments: I've browsed over the article and see a couple major structural issues that need to be tackledXavierGreen (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • In regards to the History section, details regarding Post-Cold War operations are noticably lacking, for example absent are mention of the several Turkish Interventions into Iraq attacking Kurdish forces there and most importantly, entirely missing is the [Turkish campaign in Northern Syria.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_military_intervention_in_Syria)
  • The entire force structure section is reliant on a single source that is marked as potentially unreliable. I imagine there must be some source out there that gives a general order of battle on the brigade or regimental level


Turkish Naval Forces

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkish Air Force

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkish Armed Forces

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Peter Dinklage

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: 4 April 2017, 12:38 UTC
Last edit: 19 April 2017, 15:59 UTC


Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite

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: 10 April 2017, 15:03 UTC
Last edit: 18 April 2017, 17:24 UTC


Geography and places

Vancouver

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a second opinion before nominating this article for GA status.

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Elcor, Minnesota

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have edited this article as much as possible. It is well-sourced, but occasionally I've added an additional source if it provides relevance to the article (which can be tough if you're writing about a ghost town). I know there is some "fluff" which could be re-worded or perhaps eliminated, but I think its beyond a "C" article at this point.

Thanks, DrGregMN (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Turkey

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible FA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Northern England

I'd like to get this article up to Featured Article status. Length-wise, it's more or less at the limit (65k of prose, roughly comparable to our articles on New England or Northern Ireland), so I'd prefer not to add anything, but any other comments would be very welcome.

Cheers, Smurrayinchester 15:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


History

Murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield

I've listed this article for peer review because… It has been new and unreviewed for a while now. Thanks, TheBD2000 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Territorial evolution of the United States

Previous peer review

I've gone through and cleaned up a bunch of entries, found a few errors, and generally cleaned it up. I think it's ready to go for featured list, but I wanted to throw it through PR one more time, the last one was 8 months ago. There's one more thing I want to do (better handling of Indian Territory in the Civil War) but that has to wait for me to get a book, which I hope to do soon.

Thanks, Golbez (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


Vasco Gonçalves

I am requesting a peer review for this article because the subject of this article is an important individual in Portuguese history, specifically in Portugal's transition to democracy. I have hit a wall on how to expand this article, and I am looking for some advice (and maybe some help) on how to improve this article. Also, if its possible it would be very helpful to see what level this article is on the quality scale.

Thanks, Jp16103 23:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by KJP1 KJP1

I think this article requires quite a lot of work and is probably rated appropriately as Start Class at present. I agree as to his importance. As such there must be some appropriate, written, sources (books) which could form the basis of a more complete article. Specific issues below:

Layout
  • It doesn't follow the format of a Wikipedia article. I'd expect to see something like: Lead / Early Life / Military career / Political career / Appraisal / Death.
Focus
  • Not nearly enough detail on the major aspects of his career. The 23 years, 1950-73, are a complete blank. Pretty much a complete blank for the 30 years from 1975 to 2004.
Citations
  • There aren't nearly enough. The whole of the 4th paragraph has a single citation. And see below.
  • There are quite a lot of citation errors, in particular, Sources 2 and 6. Source 4 claims to be from The New York Times but actually links to The Daily Telegraph obituary. Also, it's exactly the same as Source 1, which is the Telegraph obit. re-cycled. Similarly, Sources 2 and 6 are the same and should be linked.
  • The sources are not sufficiently broad. Given that 1 and 4, and 2 and 6, are actually the same two sources, you've got the DT obit., the Independent obit., a short, Portuguese article and a YouTube video. That's not enough.
Copyvio
  • The 4th para. has too close a similarity to the text in Source 3. The Copyvio tool shows a very clear match for much of it. It needs re-wording.
Prose - quite a lot of issues. Examples below:
  • "Vasco dos Santos Gonçalves was born on May 3 1921, in Sintra, Portugal. His father, Vítor Candido Gonçalves, was a professional footballer turned foreign exchange dealer. He graduated from the Portuguese military academy..." - Who graduated, him or his father?
  • "Gonçalves married, in 1950, Aida Rocha Alfonso,.." - did he marry someone else in 1951? Suggest "In 1950, G married ARA..."
  • "Gonçalves short tenure as Prime Minister of Portugal.." - either Gonçalves' or Gonçalves's, here and elsewhere.
  • "Vasco dos Santos Gonçalves passed away on June 11th, 2005" - can we replace "passed away" with "died"?
Image
  • Is there no better photo than this profiled crowd shot?

I hope the above comments aren't discouraging. You've found an interesting subject, and have the basis for a decent article. But there is quite a lot that needs doing. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, actually I did not find your comments discouraging at all. In fact, I am even more motivated to work on this project. Once again, thank you! Jp16103 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Farrukhsiyar

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Muammar Gaddafi

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been GA-rated for some time now and I am planning on taking it to FAC later in the year. It would be great if some other editors could give the prose a read-through and let me know their thoughts. It may be that others pick up on prose problems that I have missed.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Drusus Julius Caesar

I'm working on articles relating to heirs or potential heirs to the Roman Empire, and am hoping to get this promoted to GA. Any input welcome. Psychotic Spartan 123 09:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


British Army

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it into a Featured Article, but I am not sure if it meets all of the criteria. I need feedback on how I can improve this article.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 09:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi FriyMan, the article is in reasonable shape at the minute, but I'm afraid the GA review didn't go into the sort of depth necessary for an article like this. I'm afraid as things stand, an FAC would have no hope of success. What's here is mostly good, though it lacks depth in some places and it gives undue weight to recent history (this is a common problem on Wikipedia—anything that happened since the advent of 24-hour news channels and constantly updated websites gets blown massively out of proportion). My main concern is that it seems to built around websites and news sources, some of them of doubtful reliability, when an article like this needs to be based on books. There are plenty of good, solid histories of the British Army and of of British military history. Some of them are cited here, but not as much as they need to be, and just by glancing at my bookshelf and glancing at the bibliography here, I can see obvious gaps—for example (and these are just examples), no works by Lord Carver or William Jackson (both former army officers and distinguished military historians) are cited.

The other dealbreaker is that the references are a mess. You've got a mix of shortened footnotes (some using {{sfn}}, some not) and full citations in the references section, and a mix of books and web sources in the bibliography. Before you do anything else, I would suggest you gather all the books and multi-page sources into the bibliography and use Harvard-style shortened citations (with or without the template but be consistent) to cite individual pages and page ranges; then gather all your web/single-page sources into the main references section; then gather all your unused sources into another place (a further reading section, the talk page, or this review are all good places) until you can figure out whether you want to cite them or not. Then make sure they're all formatted consistently and contain all the necessary information. Once you've done that, it'll be much easier to figure out what you've got and where the gaps are, and you have a system you can easily follow for any citations added in future ([an example]). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


World War I

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy.

Thanks, kazekagetr 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • The article uses a mix of British and American English - should be consistent
  • Dead links
  • Cleanup tags should be addressed
  • Suggest scaling up maps and graph
  • Several of the short cites have harv errors
  • File:1908-10-07_-_Moritz_Schiller's_Delicatessen.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
  • File:1914-06-29_-_Aftermath_of_attacks_against_Serbs_in_Sarajevo.png: when/where was this first published? Same with File:FirstSerbianArmedPlane1915.jpg
  • File:Hochseeflotte_2.jpg: tag does not match given information. Suggest checking other images for incomplete or incorrect description and copyright tagging
  • Several paragraphs are lacking citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 18 March 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.

Lead
  • 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.
Done.
  • 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.
Done.
Watson's paper
  • The first paragraph is really good. I see no blatant issues with it.
Thanks.
  • 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.
Done.
  • 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."
Done.
Reception
  • 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.
Done.
  • 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.
Tweaked.
  • The rest of the reception section looks pretty good. I can't see anything wrong with it.
Thanks.
Overall

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)


List of sunken battleships

I've listed this article for peer review because I was instructed to do so, upon my original completion of the article, by the evaluators of it at Wikiproject Military history. I want to know what more I must do to get this article to Featured List status.

Thanks, Vami_IV✠ 22:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Comments: G'day, nice work. I only have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I think this should be referenced: "The ship's bell was recovered, restored, and is now displayed in the Merseyside Maritime Museum in Liverpool"
  • "908 Killed, 20 Captured" --> "908 killed, 20 captured" (same for all other instances of "Killed" and "Captured")
  • for King Edward VII what ref provides "under 115 metres (377 ft) of water"?
  • " Off Lisbon, Portugal" --> "off Lisbon, Portugal" (and other similar instances when preceded by co-ordinates)
  • this should be referenced: "HMS Centurion's badge is on display at Shugborough Hall."
  • suggest cropping the caption off "File:Japanese battleship Settsu in old postcard.jpg"
  • suggest replacing "File:USS Nevada (replica).jpg" with a photo of the actual vessel if one exists
  • the External links section should be below the Notes per WP:LAYOUT
  • the bare urls in the External links section should be formatted with a title
  • there is a short citation for "Rohwer, p. 118", but no corresponding long citation in the References section
  • same as above for Lengerer, p. 59, Preston, p. 176, and Schultz, pp. 228–248
  • ref 104 "Grant" needs a page number if possible
  • "ARMOUR-PLATING-FROM-THE-TIRPITZ": the capitalisation should be reduced per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • ref 1 uses a different style to most of the other citations (there are a few inconsistencies throughout)
  • good luck with taking the article further
Implemented, thanks! –Vami_IV✠ 01:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  1.  Done
  2.  Done
  3.  Done (researched and cited)
  4.  Done
  5.  Done
  6.  Done (Replaced image)
  7.  Done
  8.  Done
  9.  Done
  10.  Done
  11.  Done
  12.  Done
  13.  Done
  14.  Done (Removed)
  15. Thanks, I will probably need it


Ezra Weston II

Seeking a peer review for this article. I am considering submitting it for GA and would appreciate any suggestions for improvement, corrections, etc. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Congress of the Confederate States

I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially added narrative from reliable sources Thomas, Coulter and Martis, adding inline citations, images and footnoting previous contributions. Following a peer review, I'd like to nominate the article for a Good Article. Thanks, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


Herbert von Dirksen

I've listed this article for peer review because… As the last diplomat posted in the UK before WWII it seems that this person has got very little written about them here on Wikipedia. However, there are an abundance of sources on the article’s subject so this could be turned into a fantastic article. Shamefully, I simply do not have the time to do any more than I have done so far with it so would like to get some history wigs working on it. Cheers.

Thanks, ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 11:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham

I've listed this article for peer review because: It was a pretty basic start-class article originally, but I have substantially expanded (x4, I think) and thoroughly sourced it, as well as providing more sections and images, bibliog, etc. For the purpose of GA or beyond, hopefully. Many thanks, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Not sure I see the value in having full bibliographic details in both References and Bibliography - usually we either see short cites in the former and full in the latter, or full cites in the former and no latter section.
  • Beyond that, you've got two distinct citation styles going on plus a few link-only refs - suggest making consistent
  • Rather than fixed image sizes, suggest using scaling - see WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why is the article here and at A-class review? I think it should be one or the other, not both. I also think this needs quite a bit of work....just mho, but there it is.... A lot of the issues would have been addressed at a GA review as well.....auntieruth (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Auntieruth55: Out of curiosity, since I am unfamiliar with the GA process, what issues are there in this article that the GA process would address? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • usually a lot of basic issues are covered at ga review. Photo licensing. Basic grammar and punctuation. Etc. Peer review is the next thing I'd do in place of ga. It is just that by skipping that step And putting it at both peer review and a class we duplicate our efforts. Just saying. You can do what you wish. I just think one or the other is appropriate. auntieruth (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Auntieruth55:Oh, this isn't my nom. I'm a reviewer. :-) I was just curious. I'm very surprised that a GA reviewer would look at photo licensing. [I have sworn never to do another GA review again, because everyone complained that I was too picky. They took it to the talk page of GAC, in fact.] And yes, I agree this nom is double-dipping in PR and A-class review.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Belarusian Black Cats

I already proposed this article for deletion because of the lack of trustable sources. It uses obviously nationalist propaganda material as a source while serious historians write very little about this mysterious unit. Biddiscombe writes that the Black Cats consisted only of thirty persons and therefore it definitely cannot be called a guerrilla. Overall, the article conveys nationalist legends of a fictional anti-Soviet guerrila which actually did not exist. I would be very grateful if someone would make improvements in order to present this unit in a differentiated and realistic manner. --Der Rationalist (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Same as my comment at AfD, I suggest that the article be redirected to Michał Vituška#Black_Cats, where the topic is already sufficiently covered. Perhaps a better avenue for this would be the article's Talk page? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Russian military deception


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article to be thorough and well-sourced on a significant and coherent topic, but it appears to arouse passions among some readers. Since it was reviewed in 2015 I have revised it for tone and selected a more neutral title than the one popular in the West. Encouragingly, the text has barely changed since May 2016. I would be interested to know what other editors now think of it, with a view to taking it to GAN when ready.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, Chiswick Chap, nice work with this article. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations (I mainly looked at the citations):AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "Glantz 2006" appears in the citations, but there doesn't appear to be a corresponding entry in the Sources section
Fixed.
  • "Glantz, p. 3" --> which year?
Fixed.
  • "stated that "Surprise has a stunning effect on the...": you can probably silently decapitalise "Surprise" here
Done.
  • same as above here: "claimed early in November that "The Russians no..." (for "The")
Done.
  • "Khitrost' means a commander's...": is the extra apostrophe needed here?
Removed.
  • same as above for: "vnezapnost', so the two are naturally..."
Removed.
  • there are a few short citations that don't link properly to long citations (for example, "Alʹbat︠s︡ & Fitzpatrick 1994"). This script can help highlight these for you: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js (if you install it in your monobook, such as I have here: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js)
Thanks, and fixed.
  • there is some mixture of US and British English variation. For example: "armor" and "armour"
Fixed.
  • there are some overlinked terms: David Glantz and Ivan Konev
Removed.
  • Citations 72 to 80 should have accessdates added to them
Done.
  • "The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote that...": it should possibly be attributed in text that this is being cited by Glantz?
Done.
  • Also, the above quote seems to end in a quote mark, but not begin with one
Removed.
  • Good luck with taking the article further
Many thanks, I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from S Khemadhammo

Great article! I didn't know that the Russians studied Sun Tsu as well. Although I have little knowledge about the subject, I think I can give a few humble comments on the subject, from an outsider's perspective:

  • "surprise was achieved despite very large concentrations of force, both in attack and in defence." This sentence took me a moment to understand. Though the meaning is clear, its structure feels a little unusual. Perhaps using more verbs and less nouns will solve it.
Can't think of a clearer and more compact phrasing: maybe one will come to me.
  • "Civilians within 25 kilometres of the front were evacuated..." No spacing between reference and sentence.
Done.
  • some numbers such as 20 can be written as words instead per WP:MOS.
Have tried to use words for small numbers and digits for large ones.
  • The concluding sentence "Regular Russian troops were...implausible." has too many references and some should be deleted or merged per WP:CITEKILL.
Done.
  • If at all possible, considering the nature of the subject, one could consider adding more from a Russian perspective, therefore increasing neutrality, though the nature of the subject makes this rather difficult.
Indeed. However, the Moscow Times is in there.

I hope this helps.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, just entering GAN but will try to action your suggestions now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, good luck with it! Meanwhile, may I ask you to take a look at an article i just submitted for peer review? It's here. Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you. I'll see if I can say anything on your article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle

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: 19 December 2016, 08:43 UTC
Last edit: 25 February 2017, 01:51 UTC


Vlad the Impaler

I've listed this article for peer review because Vlad the Impaler's personality and rule has always been subject to scholarly debates, often coloured by emotions. Consequently, I think the neutrality of the article about his life should be peer reviewed before its GAN.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This sfn reference is malformed. The year parameter is occupied by a page number (the template expects years to be four digits so is treating the page number as a name). I expect that the correct year value is 1991 but because I cannot know if the page number is supposed to be 217 or 218 or both 217, 218, I have not repaired it.
Also, Harmening in §Secondary sources is not used so may not belong in this list.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, thank you for your copyediting and also for your above remarks. I fixed the problems. Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The article's title bugs me to no end and in the past I've suggested it be changed. It is very Anglo-centric and a term used by his enemies. The article should be re-named to a neutral name used by himself at the time of his life. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. Sorry, I do not understand why do you think that the translation of his Romanian name ("Vlad Țepeș") is Anglo-centric? According to my experiences, Vlad the Impaler is his common name in books published in English. Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Vlad the Impaler" seems like an Anglo-centric and POV term. Just call him by his actual name. Note that name in the article of course. "Vlad Țepeș" is fine. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Like, if in the year 3000, Wikipedia had an article called "Obama the baby eater". And it was okay because that's generally how he was known in the language of the Wikipedia. It's a bit silly. The article should just use a neutral name that he was called at the time, rather than something promoted much later that is slanted. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why the Romanian translation of the Ottoman expression for "Vlad the Impaler" is better than the English translation of the same name. Does Obama habitually eat babies? Does reliable sources commonly refer to him as "Obama the Baby Eater"? Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
What Borsoka is trying to say is that "Vlad Tepes" is actually a Romanian translation of the nickname the Turks give him. "Tepes" can be traslated in english as "the Impaler", so I think the bias towards its use in this article's title is unsubstantial: of course, maybe I'm wrong. Talking of Obama, I think we're really going off the topic. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


Canadian Indian residential school system

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone extensive revision over the past several months to improve overall content and presentation of information. The topic is of significance importance and I believe it is a candidate for good article, or possibly, feature article status. Any and all input as a means of achieving either rating would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Dnllnd (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This appears to be a well-researched, comprehensive and attractive article on a very important subject. I think it needs a little more clarity on the importance of the subject, particularly for readers outside Canada.
I'd like the intro to talk more about the rift between natives and non-natives and to capture what the controversy is. This isn't something everyone always agreed was bad or that everyone knew about (I was about 12 when the last school closed and never heard a word); much of the work lately has been to raise awareness and reconciliation
Comments on writing (generally good!):
I'd avoid : and ;s- "cultural genocide: 'killing the Indian in the child.'" would read better as "cultural genocide, by 'killing the Indian in the child.'"
Should be written in Canadian English- ("centred" rather than "centered" under History header)
Headers lower case: "Religious Involvement" should be lower i
Inconsistent use of "%" and "percent"
Vatican section- "The audience was funded"- say what?
History between 1945 and 1969 appears to be lacking- no developments? Not even proliferation in schools?
References appear to be thorough, a combo of secondary and some primary (the Commission report) where appropriate
"Details of the mistreatment of students were published numerous times throughout the 20th century. Following the government's closure of most of the schools in the 1960s, the work of Indigenous activists and historians led to greater awareness by the public of the damage the schools had caused, as well as to official government and church apologies, and a legal settlement." - Citations? (high priority)
"At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease." - Citation? (low priority)
" It continues to operate today as the Blue Quills First Nations College, a tribal college." - Citation? (low priority)
"In March 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The Foundation was provided with $350 million to fund community-based healing projects addressing the legacy of physical and sexual abuse. In its 2005 budget, the Canadian government committed an additional $40 million to support the work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation." - Citations? (high priority)
Lasting effect section- "collective soul wound." - whose phrase?
"The ADR process was created by the Canadian government without consultation with Indigenous communities or former residential school students. The ADR system also made it the responsibility of the former students to prove that the abuse occurred and was intentional. Many former students found the system difficult to navigate, re-traumatizing, and discriminatory." - why would dispute resolution be re-traumatizing or discriminatory? I realize I'm asking for a lot of detail for a summary, but would a subarticle be appropriate?
Media portrayals section- a header with no text
I'm a bit out of step with what constitutes a FA or GA in history and legal articles today. Ten years ago this would be featured. Today, with a little polishing, I think this would be worthy. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ribbet32: Thanks again for the feedback. I think I've addressed the bulk of what you flagged, but will continue chipping away at things over the next while. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Balfour Declaration

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: 24 April 2016, 13:07 UTC
Last edit: 19 April 2017, 22:53 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics

Aquatic ape hypothesis

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone substantial rewriting over the last two months as a result of some discussion at WP:FTN, the talkpage, and elsewhere. The article was initially considered by myself and others to be overly promotional and in violation of WP:FRINGE, but it is my opinion now that much has improved. Still, it would be good to get outside opinions on the topic. Appreciated. Thanks, jps (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The subject is difficult for the reasons you hint at, and on the whole the article has converged on a correctly neutral text. I'm surprised, though, that all the images that I and others proposed have been removed. There seems to me no reason why the hypothesis should not be neutrally illustrated by the sorts of images suggested by February this year in the article, with suitably neutral captions ("Hardy suggested ..."), once tempers have cooled. The only current illustration is a marginally-relevant timeline which adds little to the article; I'd have thought we could do rather better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to decide on good images mostly because a lot of them are arguably unconnected with the topic. We also have a picture of two skulls which seems a fair image as there is no argument about that. However, what other images would work here? Images of wading great apes, diving people, swimming babies, and the like are not particularly illustrative of the topic in the sense that they don't provide any meaningful exposition. Pictures that are directly connected to the topic would be things such as illustrations from Morgan's books, for example, maybe a picture of David Attenborough, etc. The problem with pictures of the evidence that AAH proponents support is that there is dispute over what actually is evidence. A picture of Elaine Morgan might be nice, and there was one included briefly, though now removed. Other ideas for what kinds of images you think would be appropriate would be appreciated, but when we got into the weeds we quickly found problems with most/all of the ones proposed. jps (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


Rotating locomotion in living systems

I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for a possible attempt at FA. Please note any areas that are likely to be a problem there. Thanks!

Thanks, —swpbT 14:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


Homogenization (climate)

I've listed this article for peer review because I mostly wrote this page and it got a grade-C. I work on the topic and the homogenization of climate data is important in the US climate "debate". Thus I would love to make it better, but would need outside input to know what is apparently missing or unclear or badly formulated.

Thanks, VVenema (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


Cloud

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 October 2016, 21:37 UTC
Last edit: 30 March 2017, 01:02 UTC


Language and literature

The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I would like to take it to FAC. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks, —Bruce1eetalk 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


Sasak language

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first time I write a substantial article about a language. I'd like to bring it to GA status, but I need guidance on what is required to get there.

Thanks, HaEr48 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Randall Flagg

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for years and my goal is to see it achieve featured status someday.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have knowledge of this series but I could see some issues I'll point out. Try using my FA Allen Walker as a guide consider it became FA in late 2016.
  • How about starting as
  • The lead uses quotes and references which is a bit disapproved by guidelines. Try generalizating some of those parts.
  • Try balancing the lead with each paragraph covering something from the main article.
  • Remember to reference as much as possible (the The Dark Tower series section is lacking too much).
  • How come there is no a reception section? Does the comic project's guidelines say nothing about how the media received the character? I'm a little confused. Some parts from characterization could be used in the creation section.

That's all I could find. By the way, I would appreciate if you could comment on my own peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/D.Gray-man/archive1. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    • There was a reception/critical reaction section but they were eventually moved to the characterization section by other editors during another peer review. Thanks for the comments, I'll take a look at yours.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion

Four harmonious animals

This article is an ancient motif in fairy tales and religious folklore. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive some feedback on its writing, as well as reassess its quality class.

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2017 (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: 24 April 2017, 14:06 UTC


Social sciences and society

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video

I've listed this article for peer review in preperation for a future Good article nom.

Thanks, Jerry (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


Schadenfreude

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It would help to have this article nominated to a Featured Article status, as the subject is interesting and also understudied, less-known!
For this, I've expanded the article from then (with 14,828 characters) to current (with 74,382 characters) where I've sourced content via PubMed Central from within their Open Access Subset with CC BY 4.0 Licence statement defeating all/any copyright infringement violations.
Since this is my first, would appreciate all/any insights that would help with having achieved the same.
Thanks, TopCipher (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


David M. Friedman

I've significantly expanded this page since Friedman became notable back in December. I want to make sure that the article is specific enough and not getting bogged down into details, particularly the "Nomination" section. I'm hoping to bring it to GA, and any feedback about how to structure the article and what to focus on would be appreciated.

Thanks, Werónika (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


New York City Fire Department

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to be of a good quality, but definitely not ready for GA. I'm hoping to bring it to GA after improvements are made. I'd wish to see {{citation needed}} tags where necessary and comments on which topics I should elaborate on and which I should summarize. Really any feedback would be great, including where I could find sources.

Thanks, UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States)

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively edited since its beginning (2009) as such I would appreciate knowing what needs to be done to better it.

Thanks, StephenTS42 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • suggest removing the ROK icon from the infobox as it seems confusing for a US Army unit
  • this sentence should be referenced: "At the end of the war (1945), the 38th Anti-Aircraft Brigade was inactivated in Germany"
  • this should be referenced: the paragraph ending "...were collocated at Osan Air Base"
  • this quote should either be rewritten in your own words, or attributed in text: "On 15 July [1981] the 1st Bn, 2nd ADA..."
  • there are too many images in the Inactivation section. I suggest removing the files and rewriting the information in your own words
  • the "Force Planning and Budgetary Implications..." entry is not an internal link and shouldn't be listed in the See also section (potentially it might be in a Further reading section, though, or could be worked into the text as a reference)
  • the bare urls (refs 9 and 14) should be formatted to include title, publisher and access dates
  • anyway, good luck with taking the article further


Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal

I've listed this article for peer review because: I created this article in 2013 about a breaking scandal involving the former mayor of Toronto which attracted a lot of media coverage at the time, well beyond normal coverage for Toronto mayors. I chose the timeline format as what I thought was the best way to present the topic. Several other editors joined me in keeping it up to date. Since then, the mayor left politics and has passed away, and there are no longer any active investigations.

This was an important topic, and I would be interested to see, after the elapse of time, whether it is presented in a neutral and informative manner. I am also interested to know whether the choice of a timeline format was best.

The only disagreement I had with other editors was over the extent of direct quotes from newspapers whether than summarizing what they said. I would be interested in any input on that.

Thanks, TFD (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Debra Ruh

I've listed this article for peer review because it was originally sent to AfD for being too promotional in nature, but received a significant rewrite and expansion with sources from CaroleHenson (see original version here) and was voted as keep just now. On the talk page though Cullen328 commented that "the article needs a major trimming", and in response, I have decided to seek a formal review process - which has the additional side-benefit of evaluating the reworked article for potential GA status.

Thanks, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I see the the request was archived, and then returned. It would be lovely to get at least some high level feedback about the current state of the article.—CaroleHenson(talk) 13:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • References 29 and 30 are dead, both are links to the whitehouse.gov site. The cited material is possibly still available at the archived site at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Update It looks like none of the submitted material was saved — I am not able to find it through searches or going through the menus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The following is the result of an automated review - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Debra_Ruh

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

I hope it's useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67 Yes, that was useful guidance, thanks for taking time to compile the list! The peer request was opened because a user thought "the article needs a major trimming". Do you have an opinion about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
CaroleHenson the section about the TecAccess company could possibly be trimmed, if there are sufficient good sources to sustain a separate article about it. I'll try to throw something on a page at Draft:TecAccess, just to see if it could be viable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67, thanks. Yes, it looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to start a separate article. I'll start drafting the content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
CaroleHenson see Draft:TecAccess, where I made a start. I also added a list of possible sources that we can use to expand the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67, Oh, wow, thanks. I will work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


Parliament of Australia

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made substantial edits and expansions to this page over the last few months and I would like some feedback on how the article is going and how it can be even better!

Thanks, Superegz (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from J947

I'll review this. J947(c) 02:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead
  • There should be no citations in the lead as per WP:CITELEAD.
Infobox
  • I've removed a few spaces.
  • It is very long. You should shorten it by at least a third.
First paragraph
  • I've added the serial comma and removed a space.
  • WP:OVERLINK should be followed for the 'Australia' link.
  • This sentence: The combination of two elected Houses, in which the members of the Senate represent the six States and the two self-governing Territories while the members of the House represent electoral divisions according to population, is modelled on the United States Congress., is rather long and should be split up.
Second paragraph
  • The upper house, the Senate, consists of 76 members:, should use emdashes instead of commas surrounding 'the senate'.
History
  • The Commonwealth of Australia came into being on 1 January 1901. Any reason why? It just seems too much of a coincidence...
  • After the official opening, from 1901 to 1927,. An emdash should be used.
Old Parliament House
  • There shouldn't be links in headings.
First paragraph
  • And, again. :)
Second paragraph
  • was commenced on 28 August 1923[12] and completed in early 1927. Comma.


Qamar Javed Bajwa

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this one up-to GA status.

Thanks, Saqib (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done a, light, copy edit. My particular concerns would be around the, very positive, tone of the article. It doesn't appear to be a fully-balanced appraisal - I know nothing of the man, but I doubt he reached the position he has without attracting some negative commentary along the way. In particular, the "Public image" section reads more like a press release than a considered appraisal.
Also, there's a bit of "over-citing". In the first sentence of the last paragraph on his Military Career, you've 9 references. It's a short, factual sentence, and I really doubt it needs so many.
Best of luck with the GA. KJP1 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Lists

List of UK top 10 singles in 2002

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on improving the lists of UK top 10 singles for each year since 2000, adopting a consistent style and making the content more thorough (background information, sections on chart debuts etc.). I hope this list will eventually become featured and serve as a model for lists on the UK singles chart. A few years ago I played a big role in getting List of UK number-one singles from the 2000s to featured list status. Any feedback on this list would be appreciated. I know I need more references, and a few more images, so comments on the content and the look of the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, 03md 23:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Abasyn University

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have made major changes to this article and should be ranked higher on the quality scale. Currently it is ranked as stub-class Thanks, Xafariqbal (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Zafar


Death Grips discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this discography for featured list status soon and would like to know what I could do to make the article better.

Thanks, Littlecarmen (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


List of awards and nominations received by Daddy Yankee

I've listed this article for peer review because I want other Wikipedians to express their views about my article in order to nominate it for a Featured list criteria.

Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lead is very long and too detailed in my opinion. You don't even mention awards until the last paragraph. I think the entire second paragraph can be removed and the rest should be shortened. The lead should discuss his career and awards he has won, not his life story. Talk about his albums and films and weave some awards he has won into that. This list also shouldn't focus on record sales but awards instead.
  • American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers section cites no sources.
  • Same with Broadcast Music, Inc. Latin Music Awards.
  • You mention that International Casandra is a special award twice but don't say what it means.
  • Grammy Awards section: "Daddy Yankee received no awards from one nominations." One "s" too many.
  • Premios 40 Principales América section doesn't cite any sources.
  • Same with MTV Video Music Awards and MTV Video Music Awards Japan.
  • You don't need to mention that Twentieth Anniversary Award is a special awards twice.
  • Premios People en Español section cites no sources.
  • Same with Premios Oye! and Premios Tu Mundo section.
  • "Presencia Latina is Harvard's Latino and Latin American Cultural Show, established and officially recognized by Harvard University in October 2002." This is a bit redundant.
  • Also, you don't need to note special awards.
  • Society of European Stage Authors and Composers Latina Awards section cites no sources.
  • The other accolades section doesn't cite any sources.
  • Record sales and peak positions belong in his discography, not his list of awards and nominations.
  • You only need to link articles the first time you mention them in the body of the article.
  • It should be "Daddy Yankee has received X award(s) from Y nomination(s)" or "Daddy Yankee has received X nomination(s)."
  • I've never seen that overview over how many awards he won each year anywhere else and I don't think it's necessary.
  • ref #1 doesn't mention author, publication, date, access date etc.
  • You need to link publication and publisher if they have wiki articles. Also, for example, billboard.com should be Billboard. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


List of United States tornado emergencies

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before nominating it for featured list status.

Thanks, Ks0stm (TCGE) 12:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • My notes:
    • Way, way too many "cities" listed, especially in 2011, such that many are redlinks, despite us having articles for pretty much every place in the country. Also, some of the "cities" are simply part of counties. I would remove the city column altogether and just use county.
    • "N/A" means something is not applicable; "Unconfirmed" tornadoes have no rating, but that column is still applicable to them. Needs something other than "N/A", maybe just "Unk."
      • What makes "N/A" different from "EF?"
    • Right now, this isn't a list of emergencies. This is a list of dates, with some emergencies linked to them.
    • Why cannot sort by "Event link"?
    • Why can sort by "Ref"? That's never going to be useful.
    • If a tornado impacted multiple states, rowspan it, so that you don't awkwardly deal with counties from multiple states in a single cell. So, row 1: alabama counties, alabama, rowspanned tornado. row 2: tennessee counties, tennessee.
    • Rowspan the "event link" cells when possible.
    • April 28, 2014, needs work. Black text, misplaced refs, and somehow an "N/A" for a ref and a city; did this tornado exist or didn't it?
    • Ref 265 is unhappy.
  • So it needs quite a bit of work. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review&oldid=761951478"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review
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