Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive Project
  • WP:PR
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

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

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Arts

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a cantata by Bach first performed OTD in 1725, No. 1 for a reason, and I would like to find out if the present GA has potential for FA.

Thanks, Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Re. "No. 1 for a reason" – I don't know: I never saw a reason given why the Bach Gesellschaft (BG) opened its first publication with precisely this cantata. A few Bach cantatas had been published in the first half of the 19th century, and it seems logical the BG chose previously unpublished works early in their complete works edition. But that still leaves hundreds of works that could have been chosen. Even why the first cantata volumes of the BG edition had so many chorale cantatas seems rather accidental (most of these cantatas had been kept together in Leipzig for a long period of time, so their manuscripts were possibly fairly easy to access for the BG editors). And again, that still leaves a few dozen cantatas which they could have chosen as first item of their first volume. Further, the BG choices are maybe not even solid reasons: their second volume of cantatas already contained two works that didn't belong in a series of cantatas by Bach. So, I doubt this cantata is "No. 1 for a reason" – but look forward to an explanation in a reliable source that can explain it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


Melodifestivalen

Previous peer review

The article was promoted in 2007 and since then has significantly updated. After giving a quick read, I have noticed some of the materials unsourced and therefore I believe it would be communities best interest to have a peer review and decide if the article is worth delisting. Thanks, IW. (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


Toni Collette

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 March 2020, 08:22 UTC
Last edit: 26 March 2020, 11:17 UTC


Raff & Gammon

I've listed this article for peer review because I wonder what other people will think about it. I am worried that there is something wrong with the article and I need someone to help me out. I also doing this to learn more about creating articles and how I can create a better one.

Sincerely, Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


Vaneeza Ahmad

I've added this article for peer review due to uncertainty over whether the discography section recently added is appropriate and correctly used, with it listing primarily television programmes and seemingly no work by the subject of the article; for the sake of the article plus my own future reference, I am wondering whether a different type of section would be more accurate and appropriate in this case, and welcome more experienced opinion. Further, I have found no sources describing the subject as a singer, and therefore a recent edit categorising them as "Singer" is suspect; while they may have sung here and there, Ahmad's established career is reportedly that of a model and actress.

Thanks, Moggie2002 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


Eric Easton

This is an obscure chap, co-manager of the Rolling Stones with Andrew Loog Oldham but until now without an article. I mean, he was obscure, but not that obscure. Anyway, since this is slightly off my usual FAC tour, I'd like to throw it open to more eyes, particularly regarding chronology, background/context, MOS issues (particularly wrt music) and any good sourcing I've missed. Let's, as they say, spend some time together. Cheers! ——SN54129 19:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A few things:

  • I would like to see page numbers for refs 5, 23, 33, 43, 62, and 90
  • There are quite a few red links in the Career with The Rolling Stones section. Are they article-worthy or should they not be there?
  • This article doesn't have an infobox.
  • The first 2-3 lines of the Musical Context section are unsourced

Overall, this article is well-sourced (excluding earlier mentions). I would say to make sure the article doesn't go into too much detail (The article's prose size is approaching 40kB, not too long but definitely long). Username6892 05:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


The Boys in the Bar

The article was promoted as Good Article in 2012. I plan to nominate it as Featured Article Candidate in the future. I welcome suggestions before doing so. BTW, I was torn between starting the PR discussion and re-requesting copyediting as I did previously in 2013. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


Sakura Wars (2019 video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because after over 2 years, WT:VG has gotten all the mainline Sakura Wars games up to GA, with the exception of the 2019 Sakura Wars, which will be released worldwide this April. To nominate the games as a good topic and eventually, a featured topic, we should get this article peer reviewed to make sure there are no problems. ProtoDrake and I have been working on the articles quite a bit these past few months. We're looking for any improvements that can be made before the game's international release and the changes associated with it.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's very little in the way of reception here. Since this game is coming out worldwide in about a month, I'd wait until review sites cover this game extensively before trying to nominate this for a GAN. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


Xanthi Carnival

I've listed this article for peer review because…it is about an annual event that is happening right now and it would be extremely helpful for visitors and for the benefit of the local community,but it is still unreviewd by the editors and I'm trying to get some help,maybe there is something wrong ...

Thanks, Gnslps (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


Warpaint (band)

I've listed this article for peer review, because I replaced class=Start by class=C for an article better than class=C.

Thanks, 84.46.53.249 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


Game of Thrones

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article can be promoted to FA. I think having a peer review to see what needs to be worked on before a FA nomination will be extremely beneficial. Thank you, -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

LuK3 One issue I see is that their is no obvious sumery of the seasons. Other automated problems:
  1. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 219km, use 219 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 219 km.
  2. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  3. Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
  4. The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Doesn't, won't, don't, Couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

RealFakeKimT 18:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


Fleet Street (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it might be worthy of WP:GA status at some point! I've been the only editor on it so far, though, so I would love a second third pair of eyes on it to help me see how to make it better. — Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shrinkydinks: I'll give this one a go.
  • The lede should provide a more thorough summary of the entire article.
  • A cappella, and especially collegiate a cappella, has its roots in covers of popular music. I think the should be elaborated upon a touch. "Has its roots" how?
  • A word or phrase should only be linked once in a given article. I've fixed this for you.
  • There was some overuse of colons. I've corrected these.
  • The quote from Elie Landau, somewhere between the eccentric intellectualism of The Bobs and the somewhat more boisterous, more simplistic Da Vinci's Notebook, doesn't make sense to those who don't know the bands he's referencing. Some context is needed here.
  • I'm not familiar with what the "blend" is in music production. Is this different than the mix? You might want to add a note here on what this term means.
  • I think you need to rethink the "shift in identity" that happened to the group after the album. It sounds like what you're trying to get across is that they wrote more original songs after the album and downplayed humor in their music. You might just say that without characterizing it as a shift in identity.
  • I have some concerns about original research that I've added inline templates for.
  • The article overall is a bit thin. You may want to consider adding material about the recording and production, release and promotion, and any tours that happened around the release.
  • You might find the manual of style for WikiProject Albums to be useful.
An interesting article on an interesting album. Thanks for the work you put in on this one! Qono (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 7 December 2019, 21:39 UTC
Last edit: 7 March 2020, 22:52 UTC


Fiona Graham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 30 November 2019, 13:36 UTC
Last edit: 17 March 2020, 13:54 UTC


The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like recommendations and suggestions on making it the best it can be.

Thanks, TheGravel (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from PotentPotables

I've made a few edits to the article to tidy it up a bit:

  • Removed website external link from main body per WP:EL
  • Changed main body dates to fit British English in line with rest of article (MOS:ARTCON and MOS:DATETIES)
  • Removed "Other theatre awards in London:" from see also section
  • Uncapitalised "Award Ceremony" and "Critics"
  • Deleted some superfluous words, such as "eventual"
  • Removed 2019 heading, and changed to text (headings shouldn't be referenced)

Suggestions:

  • The "recent results" section seems untidy, so perhaps could be replaced with a neater table for each year?
  • The "Carl Woodward" link could be replaced with a better source, as it seems to essentially be a blog. (Though he might be a notable theatre critic?)
  • Reliable third-party/secondary source references might be useful to further establish the notability of the awards, and help develop the article further. (Majority of current references are from the Offies' own website)

Hope these comments give some help for further development! PotentPotables (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


Mullum Malarum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 September 2019, 13:30 UTC
Last edit: 22 February 2020, 12:08 UTC


Everyday life

Lebanon national football team

Previous peer review

I'm looking to nominate the article for FAC. I feel that I have taken care of the issues pointed out in the previous peer review. Just want to make sure everything is good to go before nominating for FA. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


Ng On-yee

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback to assist in bringing it up to GA standard.

Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

comments from Lee Vilenski

Hi Benny,

The lede is the big issue with this one. It's quite a well sourced article. I should note, I saw two videos in the references, so you might want to check that they are reliable sources. There are some issues with paragraphing (better to have multiple sentences in a paragraph.) I noticed theres a link to 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games – Six-red snooker, which would be better as saying "she won a medal at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games in the six-red snooker event. I'd also suggest a Copyedit. Otherwise, probably good to go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


Engineering and technology

Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga

I've listed this article for peer review because… The gameplay is more descriptive, the plots for all 6 films have been edited to fit the lack of dialogue in the game, and the development section has a bit more content (I have a feeling I should add more to that section of the article).

Also, because Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga is coming out in 2020, I want to see if this could somehow become a featured article on whatever day Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga will be released in stores.

Thanks, OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


Nokia 3

I've listed this article for peer review because:

  • I have spent some time editing this article (Nokia 3) by adding, removing and moving stuff
  • I would like to know if the article needs any major changes now
  • I also want to know which article class this could be in

Thanks, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


Ontario Highway 418

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for a 2nd peer review because 400-series highways, a good topic, risks losing good topic status because this article is only C-class. I have asked the Canada Roads WikiProject but I haven't had a response from them yet and the good topic grace period is supposed to end on March 9th (in 2 days) because the highway opened on December 9th. I have made some improvements to it but I'm not sure if the article is B-class or GA quality yet.

Thanks, Username6892 02:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Username6892, I have gone through the article and I believe that the main issue is that you have added info on tolls and exits on the highway, which violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not by making Wikipedia more like a travel guide. Besides that, You just need to make sure there are no obvious blunders in grammar and you should use inline citations as well. Regards, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911, I didn't add either of them but tolling should definitely be looked at. There appears to be no precedent towards tolling for most road-related WikiProjects, including the Canadian one. I would recommend starting a discussion with the people at WP:HWY to set a precedent, but I've opted to keep them for now because both of the other articles on toll highways in Ontario have similar tables and have already passed GAN with said tables. As for the Exit List, it appears to be compliant with WP:RJL. Username6892 18:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


Brooklyn Bridge

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this page for Featured Article status someday. This page is about the oldest fixed bridge across New York City's East River, and as one of the most famous bridges in the world, is listed as a level-4 vital topic. While I think this article is generally comprehensive, thanks to a comprehensive GA review by Kingsif and a copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I would like feedback to determine if there are any major outstanding issues, specifically regarding references and coverage.

Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


Collapse of the World Trade Center

I've listed this article for peer review because we are interested in advancing the article through the Featured Article Candidate process and need external feedback to determine what we need to do to make the article better. We have been at an impasse for some time as to how technical we need to make the article as well as to whether we are staying well focused on the matter and not diverging away from what should be the main effort. Otherwise the article is relatively stable, well referenced and comprehensive.

Thank you! --MONGO (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

As a long-time follower of this page, I would like to see this at FAC someday. However, I think this needs some improvements first, and that maybe this should first go through GAN. For instance:

  • The construction and September 11, 2001 sections have several unsourced paragraphs, but these can be easily fixed since Construction of the World Trade Center and September 11 attacks are quality articles - FA and GA respectively. There are other unsourced sentences and paragraphs that need referencing in other sections.
  • The references need to be formatted consistently. For instance, some New York Times references have urls, some don't, and one ref doesn't even have an article title. Same with NIST and other references.
    • Sometimes, the author format is also mixed up. Some refs have "first name last name" authors and some refs have "last name, first name" authors. The latter is recommended nowadays.
    • Some references are shortened footnotes (e.g. ref 11 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxxi; ref 12 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxvii–lxix). Others are repeating entire bibliographical information and should be shortened footnotes (e.g. refs 19, 20, 21 - all cite Starossek, Uwe (2009). Progressive Collapse of Structures. Thomas Telford Publishing but with different page numbers). Even with shortened footnotes, these are not consistent. Compare refs 65-68, which include links to Eagar & Musso 2001, with refs 11-12, which don't include any links.
  • In regards to prose, there are some things about coverage and wording that need to be improved. Just in the lead, for example:
    • The first two paragraphs of the lead could probably be combined since they are about the attacks themselves.
    • The scale of the destruction initially puzzled engineers - "puzzled" could be replaced with a better word.
    • The cleanup of the World Trade Center site involved round-the-clock operations, many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. - this is an inconsistent list style because you have noun, noun, and verb phrase. Better phrasing would be "round-the-clock operations and many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars."
    • As of July 2019, five new buildings had been erected on the site; the last one, Two World Trade Center, is scheduled for completion in 2022. - not cited in the body, and the second clause is not too relevant, since we can just say "and construction of other structures is still ongoing" or something like that.
  • Spelling and abbreviations may need to be standardized.
    • For instance, WP:ENGVAR: I see "stories" and "storeys". I suggest the former since this is an American topic mostly.
    • I also see "WTC #" and "# WTC" (where # is the number) being used to refer to the WTC towers. This should be standardized, even in places where the numbers and "WTC" are spelled out.

These are my initial comments, and I hope to leave more later. If I find any minor issues, I'll fix them myself, but these are things to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

All excellent insights and I will start addressing them. Greatly appreciate the feedback.--MONGO (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I will be able to dedicate a large portion of time in about a week, but wanted you to know this is on my plate.--MONGO (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@MONGO: No problem. I look forward to providing some more detailed feedback. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Still in process of addressing so lets not close this down.--MONGO (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


Ryzen

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to seek how to move all of the tables being used on this page to a page that already exist for these tables. The talk page has low or no activity at most times. Regice2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • No smartphone users should have to manually scroll through the large amount of table just to look for that specific information.
  • No desktop/laptop users should have to manually scroll long through the large amount of table just to look for that specific information when "find" function is not a option.
  • Not making it easier to clear the technical tag.



Thanks, Regice2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for an FA review. It is currently a GA-status article and has undergone many improvements since its promotion 10 years ago. Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
OK ... my copy edit trimmed the article by almost 2K, which usually means it was necessary, and indeed there was a lot of excess verbiage—peoples' names (and job titles) used in full on multiple references no matter how recent the last reference, more relative pronouns used when not necessary, and a lot of prepositional-phrase constructions where single adjectives or participles would do. You can look at the diffs for details; if there's anything I shouldn't have changed let me know.
That said, it's a pretty complete article that is justifiably a GA. I learned what the intro promised I would learn.
You indicated in your nom that you are looking to get this to FA eventually. I looked at the original FAC for this article from over a decade ago (I know the nominator, actually, or I should say I've met him at a few events); I don't think anything from that one really needs to be addressed, not least because it was quick-failed and indeed you yourself did not think it was ready. I don't know about now, though.
It's good but it's kind of shorter than most FAs, which wouldn't necessarily keep it from getting that gold star. I see two areas where you can expand it some more, both in the history section:
  • In a single sentence, we go from the plans first being brought up in the mid-60s to the decision to start actually building the road in the 1990s when Wynn wanted to build that casino at the marina. I took out the part where the article mentioned that there had been several efforts to build the connector in those 30 years because it wasn't relevant in an article this short.

    But the article doesn't have to be that short, and frankly why the connector plans didn't go through until the third or fourth try, with a particularly big business interest behind it, is relevant in a longer, more researched history.

    In the mid'60s AC was a faded beach resort city that had seen its better days. No one would have imagined casinos there within two decades. And no one saw a need for a connector road to Brigantine.

    Was there an effort to revive the plans in the years after 1978? Why or why not? And why did it not succeed at the time if it could only have helped the city's rebirth?

    A deep dive into this era's history could tell us a lot of interesting stuff. Sometimes, in politics, the real story is what didn't happen and why.

Oops, I gotta go. Be back in a while with more. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The other thing we could read more about, I think, is the decline of the boardwalk casinos. Doubtless the connector has something to do with that, but ... is it all the connector's fault that in 2016 there are half as many boardwalk casinos as there were in 2000? During that time a lot more gambling options became available in the Northeast—Turning Stone, Mohegan Sun etc. Surely that played some role?
Two more things:
  • Since it's such a short road, I think the article might be helped by a video. I suppose a dashcam-type POV single-take vid would do since it is such a short road (I've made a couple of these myself), but I'd love to see a road-article video that looks like it was made by someone who understands how to edit, how to make a film, basically—with intercut scenes showing the view from the sides, traffic passing by the equivalent point on the road, and maybe maps indicating where the vehicle is along the road.
  • Also, the article makes regular reference to these various districts of AC: Marina, Midtown, Broadwalk, Westbeach. Where do these terms come from? We have no Neighborhoods of Atlantic City, New Jersey article, so I can't see if these are common terms; indeed a small city of 40,000 does not usually have a lot of neighborhoods known by name, if any, in my experience. Are these terms used by the city's planning department, perhaps? (They sound like names a planning department would come up with, frankly) It would be helpful to know.
Good luck with the FAC, whenever it happens, and happy editing. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Prandtl-D

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the capacity to become a great article and would like other user's feedback on it. I hope to improve the list of vehicle section and overall syntax of the article.

Thanks, - AH (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520

Hi, AttackHelicopter51. I have a few comments:

  • a couple of the references are duplicated. See Wikipedia:Named reference / I do see some cases where you use named references already.
  • see WP:LAYOUT for section order & remove stray URL from "External links" --> you might convert the content of this section to using a {{cite}} template
  • there are a couple places that could use inline cites: the sentence ending in "...by 11%." (only the first half is sourced?) and the one beginning with "The first two vehicles of the program..." in the Development section.
  • Is there any prose or distinction that could be given in the "List of Vehicles in the Program" section? Also, any sources?
  • I don't think anything should be bold in the Future platforms section.
  • I'm debating about the lead. It's good I think, but a bit long. Might there be a "description" or "history" section? Of course, "Development" covers some of that.

I think the cites are good otherwise. All from NASA, but that's OK.


General

Mercer County Community College

I've listed this article for peer review because I have updated it with appropriate images, stronger citations, and more thorough content than it had previously and would like to have it reevaluated for higher rating than simply start.

Thanks, Hollykatharine (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from paul2520

Hi, Hollykatharine! Thanks for your impressive efforts on the article. The pictures definitely enhance the content. A couple areas for improvement (and not necessarily to your edits):

  • The Voice should not be linked eight times in the student newspaper section. In fact, I'm not a huge fan of external links directly in the text (especially since they're already in the External links section). Could you convert them to references? A quick glance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking seems to suggest references are best.
  • The image currently captioned "Trey-Anastasio2009 2" should have a better caption.
  • I wonder if the MCTV 26 and WWFM sections should be subsections in the Clubs section?
  • I made a couple edits to the page myself, including using the {{quote}} instead of the italicized text in the "Mission" section. Do you think it looks better?

Otherwise, I think the page looks great! = paul2520 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Response to paul2520

Hi, Paul2520! Thanks for the good advice. I removed the excess hyperlinks as you suggested. I think you're right that the "Mission" section looks better as you've formatted it. I also updated the caption for the Trey Anastasio photo. I think the MCTV 26 and WWFM aren't clubs so they are okay as is. I appreciate your help. Hollykatharine (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Username6892

A couple of things I found:

  • Given the size of the article, the lead is very long. MOS:LEADLENGTH says that articles of about that size should have leads that are about 2 paragraphs and this one is 4 paragraphs. I think paragraphs 2-4 are unnecessarily long for the lead.
  • "it is known for strength in soccer, baseball and softball" I don't think that claim can be verified with only one season's statistics cited.

Other than that, this article is in good shape. Username6892 04:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


Institute of International and European Affairs

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know how to improve it further.

I have recently updated the page to replace non-neutral content. I have replaced original research and added content and citations to the article, particularly in the history section. I have continued to include the criticisms raised in previous versions of the page (that are not original research) but have included additional information to give these more context.

The page has not been reverted in the weeks since I have completed these changes. However, this may simply because it is not read very often.

I would be interested to know what other Wikipedia editors think of the page now and what else should be done improve it. I am still new to the Wikipedia process. This is the first article that I have made many modifications to.

Thanks, Ballystrahan (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


Max Blumenthal

I've listed this article for peer review because the subject has reported concerns about their article. Since WP:BLP is one of the three core content policies of the project, I would appreciate impartial editors reviewing and improving this article.

Thanks, --ZiaLater (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


Metro (restaurant chain)

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded the content from stub level to more details regarding the company and it's background with proper references and citation, and would like to request for grammar and style of writing check to improve the article quality.

Thanks, WPSamson (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


Landfill

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to good article status. It has already failed GAN once. But I have addressed the issues and would like to disscuss how we can improve the article before renominating it for GA Review. Thanks, DishitaBhowmik 05:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


Goel Ratzon

This is my first full article in English Wikipedia, and I'd be happy for reviewing it. Thanks, MagicWord (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


Kee Mar College

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd appreciate suggestions for how to improve the article in light of the available sources. Should the structure be changed? Is there any chance of this passing a GAN given the lack of available sources?

Thanks, TJMSmith (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Username6892

I think a couple of things should definitely be addressed:

  • The book cited in ref 4 is very broad, so citing relevant page numbers is a good idea.
  • There are a couple of clarification needed tags. If you feel these have been addressed, you should remove them.

--Username6892 04:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


Biblioteca Marciana

I've listed this article for peer review because additional information has been added since it received Good Article status in order to prepare it for a Featured Article request.

The Biblioteca Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments with a long history, an imposing building, and lavish art. I would like the article to present and cover all of the relevant information in a clear and meaningful manner, both for casual and advanced readers, and would appreciate any guidance and/or suggestions to further improve the article and make it a thorough source for information about the library.

Thanks, Venicescapes (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


Standby...Lights! Camera! Action!

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what I could do to improve this article to B-class or higher.

Thanks, Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chrisnait I read through the artical and here are some things I would like to point out.
  • The lead could be expanded.
  • The descriptions for the individual episodes could be expanded.
    • Full episodes of this show are not available online, only clips, so the descriptions are just what's said in the TV listings. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The first ref isn't behind punctuation (not required).

RealFakeKimT 08:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


Bayonetta

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because let's face it, I hate seeing one of my all time favourite games just languishing in B-Class (I want to get this to at least GA). Any suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thanks, MiasmaEternalTALK 01:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


Geography and places

New York City

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because New York City is an important city and because the article could use some fresh eyes to look it over.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


North Potomac, Maryland

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article. I have not been able to find any examples of a GA for a Census Designated Place, so I am in unfamiliar territory. I am aware of some of the changes being made at Census and the US Geological Survey (major sources), and understand that some changes are scheduled to be finalized March 31. Any suggestions on how to handle those are always welcome. I have found it difficult to get enough reliable sources. For example: anyone who has been in North Potomac will notice that gray squirrels are everywhere, yet I felt like nothing could be said about that because there are no books, government web sites, or newspaper articles that mention this. The other two major items for North Potomac are the Asian population and the good schools—I was able to find a newspaper article or two for those topics.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


Air pollution in Turkey

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before nominating it as a good article

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


Morpeth, Northumberland

I would like nominate this article for FA, but would appreciate feedback through a peer review on whether it is ready for a featured article nomination. I welcome any and all comments, suggestions etc.

Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 02:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


Turkey

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is delisted and i wanna list it again.

Thanks, kazekagetr 17:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you would like to improve this important article. Be careful with controversial edits. I think a lot of non-controversial work is needed to deal with the "update section" tags and any other tags in the article. Not sure the captions of the pics of the ancient library and theatre should also have info on other buildings. Also some information should be moved into the main articles and summarized: for example the "economic history" section is too long and the "infrastructure" section is rather too precise (65,623 kilometres of road! they can distinguish asphalted from dirt or track or path to 3km?) I think. Compare with featured articles about countries like Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, India and Japan. Then you could nominate it as a good article. İyi çalışmalar. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


History

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 March 2020, 17:49 UTC
Last edit: 31 March 2020, 14:06 UTC


Goran Jelisić

I doubled the length of this article by finding new sources, looking at existing sources and expanding the material, and doing some restructuring and copy-editing. I would love to get any pointers about how to improve the overall quality of this page. In addition, I suspect I threw of the weight of the page by adding too much biographical material and by adding too much about the weird complexities of some of the sympathetic witnesses at his trial. Getting an outside look at weight would be great. Finally, I will add information from any relevant sources that are thrown at me; I tried my best to find material, but others may be able to suggest more.

Thanks for your time! Jlevi (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


John Alden

I've recently completed a significant expansion of this page and brought (I think) everything into appropriate style standards. I'd like to submit it for GA but first would appreciate any suggestions, comments, corrections, advice, etc.

Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


Abraham Lincoln

Previous peer review

Abraham Lincoln was taken to GA about ten years ago, but fell short of FA. There is new energy to push the article to FA, but much work is needed. The prose size of the article has more than doubled since it reached GA. It will be no small task, but as the 39th most read article of all time, it is very important to take it to FA. Any and all suggestions on how to take it to FA are most appreciated!

Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Comments

  • Some of the external links included appear to be of limited value, eg MusicBrainz
  • Citation formatting will need significant cleanup before FAC. Similar sources should be formatted similarly - for example, some of the books include publication location and some don't. (It's not mandatory, but either all should have it or none should). |website= is not equivalent to |publisher= - the Park Service for example is a publisher. Some of your book refs are missing page numbers or chapters.
  • Some of the references are of questionable reliability - for example footnote 33 is to a student club. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


5th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 7 February 2020, 22:30 UTC
Last edit: 24 February 2020, 21:39 UTC


Hardwicke Rawnsley

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 31 January 2020, 19:04 UTC
Last edit: 24 March 2020, 18:57 UTC


Great grain robbery

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 29 January 2020, 17:24 UTC
Last edit: 30 March 2020, 18:05 UTC


Magnus Stenbock

I've listed this article for peer review because four months ago I translated it from the corresponding article on Swedish Wikipedia, of which I am the main writer. Since this article is of GA status as of December last year, I want to get this article up to FA status. But I first want to check if the article requires further grammatical improvements, more sources or other changes.

Thanks, Alexander Alejandro (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


Augustus Post

I've listed this article for peer review because over a two year period since the last evaluation, when it earned GA, I have continued to update it with appropriate images, stronger citations, and more detailed content than it had previously. Because of its success on Wikipedia the AAA auto club actually decided to make a documentary film on the subject and I was chosen as the chief historical consultant. The film has gone on to win numerous awards and it will be out on PBS stations in May. I believe, at this point, it should qualify for the featured article category.

Thanks, Hollykatharine (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


Samuel May Williams

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 January 2020, 22:58 UTC
Last edit: 2 February 2020, 18:44 UTC


Battle of Quifangondo

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to GA status. Right now there are 15 GA-class articles listed for WikiProject Angola and 14 of them are articles about animal species endemic throughout southern Africa. A new GA-class article on an Angolan-specific topic like this one (a pivotal battle of the civil war) would be lekker.

Thanks, Katangais (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I think this article is well balanced and resourced and definitely a good candidate for GA status! BoonDock (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


Comment from Brigade Piron

I have been asked to comment by Katangais. I'm have not yet had a chance to read the article properly (I look forward to doing so!) but I have some provisional comments about referencing which are flagged by the ref plugin. I have fixed one myself, but the following remain broken:

  • Domingos 2015
  • Chabal 2002
  • Hamann 2001

I would also suggest segregating the "References" section to leave only texts that are currently cited in the article. The others could be moved to a "Further Reading" section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BP. Thanks for catching those referencing errors! I fixed the three broken refs you mentioned above, and axed the additional three that were in the ref list but didn't end up getting cited. --Katangais (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. Unfortunately, I can't comment on content, but on the surface it looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor suggestions to polish the article: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "File:Battle of quifangondo.JPG": I wonder if it would be possible to have this map translated into English? You might be able to request this at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop
  • "File:War museum ZiS-3.JPG": might be better presented as a left aligned image so that it points into the article
  • South Africa's subsequent delivery of 3 medium guns --> "South Africa's subsequent delivery of three medium guns" per MOS:NUMERAL
  • suggest left aligning "File:FNLA1973.jpg"
  • suggest left aliging "File:Canberra no. 458 a.jpg"
  • suggest right aligning "File:Raketa 122mm M-21.JPG"
  • "South Africa had suffered" --> had is probably unnecessary here (same in this regard to similar constructions which probably don't need the extra word)
  • "suffered 1 wounded", "suffered 5 dead" --> "one" and "five" per MOS:NUMERAL (there are similar constructions that probably need the same treatment)
  • "At 6:00 P.M. that day" --> "At 6:00 p.m. that day" per MOS:TIME
  • "with the 106mm recoilless rifles" --> "with the 106  mm recoilless rifles"
  • "delivered to Angola–possibly" --> spaced emdash or unspaced endash per WP:DASH (there are a few other examples of similar constructions that also should be adjusted in the same regard)
  • in the Bibliography is there an ISBN or OCLC number for Cascudo source
  • suggest sorting the References list alphabetically by the author's surname
  • are there ISSNs or the newspaper and journal articles cited in the References list?
Hi @AustralianRupert:, I made all the minor fixes you suggested with the exception of the map, the translation of which I've requested. Thanks for your input! Let me know if there's anything I missed. --Katangais (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
G'day, nice work. Sorry, I just noticed one other that I missed earlier - citation # 16 "James 2011" is showing a harvnb error (it isn't clear which James 2011 reference it relates to in the Bibliography). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Fixed! --Katangais (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematics

Frances Gertrude McGill

I've listed this article for peer review because… after bringing it up to GA class in 2018, I'm interested in nominating it for Featured Article (FA) status this year. Quick summary: Frances Gertrude McGill was a Canadian forensic pathologist in the early 20th century who had an enormous influence on the use of science in Canadian criminal investigations. This will be my first FA project, so I'm looking for advice on how I could further prepare the article before submitting the nomination. Any and all suggestions are welcome (although I'm particularly interested in how I might be able to improve the "Cases and methodology" section).

Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


225088 Gonggong

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 February 2020, 22:56 UTC
Last edit: 25 February 2020, 06:30 UTC


Nicolas Fatio de Duillier

Here's a man who was a friend of Newton, Huygens, Cassini and Jacob Bernoulli, who saved the future King of England from a kidnapping plot, who became a Fellow of the Royal Society at 24 and made significant contributions to astronomy, mathematics, and watchmaking, but also a religious fanatic convinced at one point that a certain London quack doctor would rise from the dead, a man who recklessly precipitated the terrible Leibniz-Newton priority dispute over the invention of the calculus, who invented an "explanation" of gravity that has intrigued great modern physicists like Poincaré and Feynman, and yet who's usually remembered today, if at all, for the almost entirely unsubstantiated suggestion by some 20th-century writers that he might've had a homosexual affair with the prudish Newton.

I've personally put in a lot of work on this article over a period of nearly three years. I think that the subject is intrinsically an interesting one and that this article is now one of the best sources of information available online on the subject. I believe that the references are now solid and abundant, and I'd like to see this promoted to a Good Article. However, I'm not familiar enough with the current best practices of Wikipedia for citations and other matters, and therefore would greatly appreciate any help or advice on how to further polish and improve this article, with that goal in view.

Thanks, Eb.hoop2 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


African humid period

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 27 December 2019, 11:14 UTC
Last edit: 29 March 2020, 19:50 UTC


Language and literature

Fearsome Tales for Fiendish Kids

I've listed this article for peer review because I have just finished a large editing overhaul from my last edit from months back and I want the page to have an official content assessment.

Thanks, MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


Victoria Lomasko

Hi! I think you've done a good job of arganizing your points so far. That's a great first step. I'd definitely recommend (if possible) adding more sources and more sections/paragraphs. Definitely link more sources as well. For references, I personally like to use other writers pages to get a better sense of what I want mine to look at. I recommend Anna Akhmatova's page or alternatively Sergei Dovlatov 's for examples of really good Russian writers pages. Also, if you can, why not add some images of her art with wikimedia? She's a graphic artist so I believe it fits. If not, I believe you can link to her work on a website or Amazon. All in all I feel like it just needs a touch more information and references, that's all. The structure looks good so far, keep it up and good luck!

Thanks, AnnaDiBello (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


Zoya Cherkassky-Nnadi

Peer Review

Hey! I think you're off to a really great start, I like it. I really enjoy how you formatted everything into paragraphs and not just a massive block of text so far. In my opinion, you just need to add more sources (ie: Make a reference list. That way, Wikipedia and others will be able to know your information is credible. If you're able to find more info on her, why not divide her life into subsections? I personally find using references on Wikipedia helps a lot--if you find the wikipedia page of an author that you like a lot, you can base it off of theirs. Many Russian authors in particular have very well-constructed Wikis to give you ideas on formatting, such as Aleksandr Blok or Anna Akhmatova. Personally, I would organize the information such as his genre, date of birth and residence into a little box template (which can be found by going to Templates>>infobox writer) where you can add as much or as little information as you require. Do you know Cyrillic? If not, that's alright. One of the interesting things about wikipedia is it almost always displays the writer's native name in his native language. It's totally okay and doable if you don't know Russian-you just need to transliterate. Google translate is surprisingly good with this--just type in Cherkassky's name and copy/paste its Russian equivalent. That's a minor nitpick, though. Also, don't be afraid of links! Links are the best part of Wikipedia--they let you surf the web to untold destinations of hidden beauty. You have a lot of potential places where links would be welcomed! I feel like content-wise, what you've got is just a little bit vague at the moment, which is completely understandable. I feel like going forward it would be a good idea to maybe make a list of her awards and honors, or a Selected Paintings gallery section could also add depth to your page. If you find any trivia of her, no matter how small (ie: "she is married and has a daughter" or "he is divorced") I encourage you to make a personal life section as well. These sections can usually be very short, but can help your article get out of "stub" territory. Finally, I feel like because you are writing about an artist, it would be a good idea to maybe compile critical receptions of her works, and dedicate a section just to dissecting the themes or ideas present. If you need a reference, the article of Edgar Allan Poe has an entire subsection devoted to his literary style.

Great work, and good luck!!!

--AnnaDiBello (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


Thanks, AnnaDiBello (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


Mouthful of Birds (story collection)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive recommendations for ways to improve the page, and for it to be officially reviewed so it can be indexed.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Some comments on both this article and Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection), as they are fundamentally similar.

In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:

  • What are the stories about? What genre are they in?
  • Are these collections of previously-published stories (as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is), or are they all originally published in the collection (as For Your Eyes Only), or a mixture of the two (like The Birthday of the World and Other Stories)? In both cases, we hear of two stories whose first English publication was outside of the collection, but it is not clear about publications of the stories pre-dating the Spanish edition of the collection.
  • Basic publication information is unclear. Both articles give publication dates for both the original Spanish and the translated English edition, but only one publisher and ISBN in the infobox. It should be clear what information pertains to what edition, and publisher and publication date should also appear in the body of the article.
  • Is there anything to be said about how the collections were put together? What links them? Is there anything to be said about the order of their arrangement?

A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion

Modern Pagan views on LGBT people

I've previously undergone a huge cleanup and reconstruction of this topic, which was recently merged from its original home at Wiccan views on LGBT people. I would like to make this article as good as it can be and would heavily like some input on how others think it would best be accomplished.

Thanks, Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gwen Hope, I see three areas for improvement in the article.

  • Most important is the use of reliable secondary sources. If you have a question about reliable sources, please consult WP:RS. Footnote 3 cites an article for a journal. If this journal has sound editorial controls or the article cited is subject to peer review, then this would be a good example of a reliable source. Footnotes 2 and 8 refer to the same group blog, WitchVox. Blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources.
  • The second area for improvement is organization. The article is chopped up into many sections, subsections, and sub-subsections, with some of these containing a single sentence. Some of the section names could be simplified, too. The first section could be shortened to "Demographics" and the subsections could be eliminated since there is about ten lines of text for the whole section. Make one paragraph for sexual orientation and the other one for gender.
  • The third area for improvement is neutral tone. For example, the first sentence in the subsection "Gender dualism and stereotypes" the article says "it is unsurprising..." This is the expression of an opinion in Wikipedia voice, so these expressions of opinions and attitudes should be avoided.

I hope you found these comments helpful, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: I've tried (sporadically at times) to improve upon the article as you've mentioned. I hope it looks better than it did, while there are still many areas where room for improvement is very possible and even needed. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gwenhope: Thanks for the note. I can see improvements in the language of the article, much work on sources (including archiving), and some needed simplification of the structure. We are all volunteers here, so it's generally understood that you can make contributions on your own timetable.
I should note that we are coming up to the limits of my competence in offering helpful suggestions. I offered some general principles about evaluating sources, but I lack the requisite knowledge of the subject matter to properly assess your sources. When I decided to contribute to a peer review, I saw the length of time that had passed with no comments, and I figured that it was unlikely that this article would receive a peer review. Knowing that I was inadequate for the task, I thought that a few potentially helpful suggestions absent a full peer review would be better than no response at all.
I have one more suggestion that is potentially helpful. The article over relies on quotations. For Wikipedia policy on quotations, please see MOS:QUOTE. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe2: I've begun restructuring and adding more sources, nesting quotations in the inline citations and such, instead of listing them plain text. Do you feel this is a better practice? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gwenhope: Many articles I work on have no quotes at all. The "quotiest article" I have worked on contains several smallish quotes of either fragments or single sentences, almost all of which are packed into a single section: Samuel May Williams#Death and legacy. Of course, I am writing about a person's life and you are writing about a belief system, so the subject matter is completely different. Another risk you have with quotations, especially extended ones is a problem of imbalance. It amplifies the voice of the writer whom you are quoting compared to other writers whom you are not quoting. I have no firm answer for you, but these are a few things to consider. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


Social sciences and society

Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley

Hi and thank you in advance.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to get GA status and hopefully FA status after that. This page has already been through one unsuccessful GA nomination, which it failed for lack of citations, and for one citation which the reviewer said was a breach of copyright (which has since been removed). I've now done as much as I think I can and I would love for more experienced editors to give their views on what more I could do or amend to get it there.

Thanks, Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


2019–20 Hong Kong protests

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to improve it to GA/FA status and would like to know what could be improved.

Thanks, RealFakeKimT 11:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


Simonie Michael

Hi! I'd be interested in any general comments or ideas for improving this page. I think it's an important one, since this is a major historical first in Canada, and I'd like it to tell a complete story. But I think I've exhausted all the easily located resources online. I'm considering a few next steps: working on building up related historical context (probably on different pages, and then summarising the content from those pages here), or trying to flesh out Michael's early life with materials from print resources in an actual library (which may or may not exist). Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks! - Astrophobe (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


Psychology of education

I've listed this article for peer review because… the formating is very off and the actual page contains many misc. additions that through off the entire article. Thanks, Fonsit (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520

Hi, Fonsit, and thanks for nominating this article. I see you are a newer editor, so my assumption is you'd like some direction for improving the article. Great!

I did some editing. I noticed several places that are missing references. I marked a few with the citation needed template. That might be tricky if you didn't write the original article... but you could try and find them via Google/JSTOR/other scholarly databases, or by reaching out to the original article author (however, they appear to not be active, so you might post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology).

I also replaced one duplicate reference call with a named reference. See here for that edit. I think there is at least one more case of this; do you think you could fix that?

I think some redesign of the way the studies are presented is warranted. For example, the first study mentioned is one in Germany, which looks interesting. But does it really merit being the first in this article? I wonder if the section titles might be better worded, like "Education as cause of intelligence" instead of using the word "causal". Likewise, I don't like the second line, "It is correct to say that higher level of education leads to greater level of intelligence and also true the other way around, however, it does not apply for every situation." That's vague, so I've tagged it as such.

This page seems much shorter than I would expect! I'm sure a few books (possibly with the title The Psychology of Education or similar) could be linked in a Bibliography or Further reading section.

What do you think? Is this enough to get you started improving the article? = paul2520 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible merge?

Hi again, Fonsit. I actually just saw there's a separate, and much more developed article Educational psychology. What do you think about proposing a merge, and posting about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology? = paul2520 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paul2520, thanks for the contributions. Yes, I was considering proposing a merge to that page as well, but I wanted to have a more seasoned editor's opinions first. Fonsit (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


Aishe Ghosh

I've listed this article for peer review because the wikiprojects for it seem inactive and the article has just been created. Thanks, Tayi Arajakate (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment from I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Just add in the {{WikiProject Education}} and {{WikiProject Education in India}} templates to the article talk page, the article's education-related. Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad the template's now in the talk page. Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 12:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


Sharyl Attkisson

I've listed this article for peer review because User Calton has reverted Bilby's edit on grounds that there was no consensus. While, perhaps, technically true, in that the link provided by Bilby, my rough analysis shows 9-3 in favour of including.

To provide a bit of background and context, there are potential WP:BLP issues with respect to Ms. Attkisson's reporting of vaccines. Bilby provided a link to a BLP noticeboard, which appeared to show a substantial consensus in favour of including Ms. Attkisson's refutation; however, that had not been officially closed. Indeed, it had been included in the article prior to significant recent edits, but it was removed. Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it seems prudent to have it back included. I'm not sure why Calton removed it.

I have separately tagged Bradv and Diannaa, independent of this peer review process, due to the potential WP:BLP issues here in Calton's removal of her refutation. However, should they decline to re-add it, I wanted to start a peer review in tandem.

Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Toa Nidhiki05

As another editor here, I highly contest the claims this article has BLP issues. A small group of editors, as well as Ms. Attkisson herself, seem intent on scrubbing this page of criticism, primarily regarding vaccines. Attkisson has attempted for years to modify the article, and this has now extended to extensive criticisms on her website, some of which specifically attack certain Wikipedia users, including myself, as shills for the “vaccine industry”. Virtually all debate on this page has come from the extent of vaccines. Attkisson is widely regarded as promoting anti-vaccine viewpoints and this has been discussed numerous times. I find the request for peer review extremely unnecessary, given how extensively this article has been worked on by a variety of editors. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


Self-managed social center

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it but I'm just getting repeatedly bogged down in discussion with another user, as you can see at Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page and Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page_2. The current structure is not satisfying, since it's split between incomplete coverage of functions and a breakdown by country. I'd welcome some feedback on how to improve the page. Much obliged for any comments, Mujinga (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Mujinga, hello and apologies for the long wait! I'll try to get to reviewing this in the next few days. My only comment for now is that the Italy, United States and United Kingdom sections should probably be subsectioned under a separate header (something like Examples). Hope this helps for now. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 15:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, here we go. Hope this helps!
  • "free schools" is in bold for some reason.
  • "United States" should be linked at its first mention ("for example in Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom".)
  • Uses: "infoshop" is linked despite the link appearing in the lede.
  • History: "enclave" should be linked.
  • "Wobbly union halls" - is this a proper noun?
  • "squatted" should be delinked.
  • The second paragraph doesn't seem to fully talk about autonomous social centers - it seems more of an opinionated viewpoint.
  • Italy: The first sentence links to the main article of this section.
  • United Kingdom: Same problem as above.
  • "infoshop" should be delinked.
  • Infoshops: There seems to be more detail into this description than in the article, but it should be the other way around.
  • Same as above for Free schools, although that doesn't seem to have an article.
  • "economics" should be delinked.
Mujinga, that's everything. Let me know if there are any problems. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 01:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Mujinga (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


Lists

List of X-Men members

I've listed this article for peer review because the article is too long and cluterred with extra information, with other editors suggesting to add back information to the article that is off topic, turning the article into something else.

Thanks, TheHotwiki (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the page could be split into different ones for certain long sections. It would allow users to add extra information they believe is necessary but it wouldn't make navigation impossible. — MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls

I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No one's responded since February 2019. Any more work to be done here? I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review&oldid=935833049"
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