Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive Project
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.

Contents

Arts

Gene Hackman

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what needs to be improved in the article so that it's good enough to be nominated for A class or Featured Article status.

Thanks, JC7V-constructive zone 03:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


Ultrawide formats

I've created a new article, please peer review it.

Thanks, Ne0 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dialectric

Hi Ne0,

The scope of this article is challenging - according to the lede, it attempts to cover film, still photography, digital video, and digital displays. You may find it easier to improve if you narrow the focus. I see that this article started out as a table, so something similar to Comparison of display technology covering just wide formats might be a suitable restructuring.

1. Article Scope. Do you intend to cover photography? It is only mentioned in the lede, and the existing Panoramic photography may cover the topic adequately.

2. Article Scope. Do you have more references that specifically refer to all mentioned film formats as Ultra-wide or Ultrawide? Apart from IMAX, most of your references for films use this wording incidentally, for things like viewing angle and lens angle, but do not specifically describe the format as ultrawide. If you have trouble finding references specifically using the wording, you could run into problems with WP:OR. You may want to leave the film history to Widescreen and focus more on digital formats.

3. References. You make use of bare URLs for some citations. Full bibliographic citations are better. Per WP:CITESTYLE, avoiding bare URLs helps with verifiability and helps avoid linkrot.

3. Original research. Unless supported by references, some wording appears OR:

- using the heading “Widescreen revolution”, without a ref that uses this terminology.

- describing the 1964 IBM 704 mainframe display image as having a “TV display” when the same image used in IBM_704 is described as an IBM 780 CRT Display - ie. a purpose built computer display.

- “Before monitors became a separate product line, televisions were used as monitors.” is unreferenced and likely inaccurate. See Vector monitor and the discussion of the IBM 780 CRT Display at IBM 740 - there were purpose-built monitors for early computer systems, and some early systems had no displays at all.

If you have questions about any of these suggestions, please reply here. Dialectric (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Lana Turner

I've listed this article for peer review as it was a previous FA nominee but did not make it to promotion, and I feel it is at FA status at this point. It received rather extensive commentary (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lana Turner/archive1) in the last FA nomination, but it was suggested I submit a peer review request to gather further momentum toward getting the article promoted. Thanks, Drown Soda (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


Tom Thomson

Hi,

I've requested a peer review on the article for the Canadian artist Tom Thomson. I have been spending the past few months editing using my own personal library and have greatly expanded the page from Start-class to where it is now. With that said I realize it's getting a bit too long, and so I'm wondering about areas that I could cut back and potentially start sub-topics (more discussion regarding this is on the talk page). I'm also looking for comments about the general style and format of the article, given that it is essentially my first real attempt at writing a "good" article by myself. I have basically based the format on the page for Vincent van Gogh (which is a FA) figuring that I'll eventually hope to get this article to that point. Let me know what you think!

Thanks, Tkbrett (✉) 21:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona
  • Hello Tkbrett. This article overall looks well referenced and thorough. I'm not going to comment on the content ; it's not my area of expertise ; but here are some suggestions as far as the MOS goes. The lede is very long, especially the second paragraph. Technically it is within MOS:LEDE as only four paragraphs, but I'd recommend trying to cut it down a little. Also, you have some statements with four citations in a row. You should bundle them, remove the least reliable one, or move the citations closer to the content they support. Your next step after this PR closes is probably a Good Article nomination; the reviewer will have additional ideas for improvement and it would help your article get into tip top shape before you put it up for FAC. Good luck! Catrìona (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, Catrìona! I've gone ahead with your suggestions and cut the lede back by 748 bytes as well as bundled instances of four or more bunched citations (I wasn't sure if I should do the same with instances of three citations in a row: WP:BUNDLING wasn't specific, so I've left them as is). Excited to proceed ahead! (This would be my first GA or FA!) Tkbrett (✉) 04:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, three is the usual limit for in a row citations - I should have been more explicit. I'm sorry I can't help more with the content of the article. Good luck! Catrìona (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


Scarface (1932 film)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on nominating this page for Featured Article. I have only promoted pages to good article, so I am inexperienced with the featured article process and criteria. I have had a few editors take a look it already, so I don't think there are any blaring issues or major problems with the page. Consequently, I would like this peer review to focus on quality of prose and manual of style issues; however, I would appreciate any kind of constructive criticism.

Thanks, Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Rossa Matilda Richter

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 August 2018, 23:58 UTC
Last edit: 21 September 2018, 10:43 UTC


Meaning of Life (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it for a good article consideration.

Thanks, Chihciboy (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chihciboy: I would actually recommend going straight to GAN. The article overall looks in really good shape. The only thing that's jumping out at me is that you have some statements with four citations in a row. You should bundle them, remove the least reliable one, or move the citations closer to the content they support. Good luck! Catrìona (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Catrìona! Will rearrange the citation as soon as I'm available. Chihciboy (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Antichrist Superstar

I've listed this article for peer review because it was promoted to GA last year, and I've worked on it quite a bit more since then. I believe it has a decent shot of making FA, and would appreciate any advice.

Thanks, Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Aja (song)

This article's path here is atypical for my requests. I had always meant to bring it here, but in early 2016, a year after I created it and brought it to DYK, someone else nominated it for GA. Perhaps because I hadn't had the chance to do all the prep I usually do, it wound up failing.

I incorporated the suggestions from that review, though, and did my own copy edit before this. Fortunately, that helped me uncover some new information to add, from the album's 40th anniversary last fall. With a good peer review I think I can take it to GAN again and pass this time.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed some deprecated/inapplicable infobox parameters (easier than listing here). Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


List of Casualty specials

I've listed this article for peer review because I belive it has the potential to reach Featured List status. I have decided to complete a peer review first in order to minimise any potential problems that I may have not yet noticed. I appreciate the help of anyone who will review the article.

Thanks, Soaper1234 - talk 19:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


Michael Jackson singles discography

I've listed this article for peer review because i think that this article has Featured List potential. The list is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other FL of singles discography (Madonna's for example). I think that Michael Jackson singles discography meets the FL criteria. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions to help/improve the article, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lirim.Z

  • there are refs missing for certifications
  • Songs with no article and which did not chart need references.--Lirim | Talk 18:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently working on it.Need few days btw.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Chinese Democracy

I've listed this article for peer review because: I have worked significantly on the article and want to expand it to good article standing, or possibly feature article in the future. Thanks, RF23 (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically this should be closed. The rules of PR say a good article nomination shouldn't be running concurrent with a GAN. But it looks like you've passed this anyway, and it's awful close to auto-closing so I won't bother. dannymusiceditor oops 18:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


The Rolling Stones

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 21 June 2018, 15:58 UTC
Last edit: 3 August 2018, 06:06 UTC


Edge (video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wanted to see what I'm missing before I submit this for GAN. Thanks, Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Passing comment: the gameplay section needs more sources. JOEBRO64 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The review scores should be pulled out of prose and placed into a review table. See Template:Video game reviews for help on putting it together. I'd recommend creating a multi-platform table. TarkusABtalk 12:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Many references could be improved citing authors too. Kelesis (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Everyday life

Fiji national football team

I've been expanding this article for a good little bit and I am just wondering what I will need to get this to GA-status because I do know that won't be a start-class for much longer now.

Thanks, Animation is developing 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Dizzy (series)

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first article that I've worked on to such a major extent and I think that feedback could help improve both the article and my skills as an editor. Ideally, I would also like to try to get it to good article status, but that is a lower priority.

There are two particular areas of feedback I would appreciate. First, if there are any relevant policies or manual of style issues that I seem to be unaware of, then I'd love to know about them even if they are relatively minor; it's the only way I will learn. Second, before I started to work on the article, it was badly undersourced and also full of excessive unnecessary detail. In updating it, I tried to salvage as much of the existing material as I reasonably could, but found it a fairly difficult tightrope to walk. I would especially appreciate any opinions on anything that I kept that I should have cut or vice versa.

Thanks, Lowercaserho (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979

I plan to move this article towards Featured status, but I'm concerned about how it reads to a layperson, so I'm particularly looking for reviews from non-cricket fans (though I have no objection to expert reviews too!) Harrias talk 09:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Comments from Tim riley

To check how comprehensible the article would be to an absolute layman (or laywoman), I ran it past a friend who wouldn't know a leg-break from a sprained ankle, and he understood it well enough. I remember this cause célèbre very clearly, and I think the article encapsulates it admirably.

A few drafting points:

  • "although the paper was on strike at the time" – the paper was not on strike: its printers were. I don't think it necessary to mention the fact at all here but if you feel you must, it would be more accurate to say something like "although publication of the paper was temporarily halted by a printers' strike".
  • we could do with a citation for Arlott's quote in the second para of Reaction and aftermath.
  • "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack were" – strange use of plural verb. The almanack was, surely?
  • "due to" – there are rather a lot of "due to"s in this article – six of them, in fact, clustered together in groups of three. We could have a debate about whether "due to" is now accepted as a compound preposition in BrE, but even if you think it is (I don't) a bit of variety would be welcome. "Because of" is a perfectly good phrase, as is "owing to".
  • "while Rose considered similar" – this reads oddly. I think the adjective needs to be an adverb. Perhaps "likewise" for "similar"?
  • "who felt like they were being" – rather colloquial phrasing: perhaps "felt that" or "felt as though"? And we need a citation for this statement.
  • "They need not have worried" – WP:EDITORIAL.
  • "...also their league title, however a league…" needs a stronger stop than a comma: either a full stop or a semicolon.

That's all from me. I don't see why this article shouldn't prosper at FAC, and I trust you will ping me when it gets there. – Tim riley talk 19:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008

The article appears solid for the most part. The match summary is much shorter than the ones in most sports event FAs, but that's unavoidable given the nature of what happened and I wouldn't hold it against the article. Only a handful or so of points from me:

  • Background: "with 6,500 of that being awarded to the winning team." This is one of those "noun plus -ing" sentence structures that FAC prose reviewers sometimes complain about. You could try just removing "being" and seeing if what remains works, or give it a slight rewrite to fix the issue.
  • The en dash after "and there was no significant opposition" should be spaced per the Manual of Style, or converted into the larger em dash.
  • Reaction and aftermatch: The period after "It's Brian Rose I do declare!" isn't needed as the exclamation serves as end-of-sentence punctuation here.
  • Because the use of the Daily Main was strongly discouraged in an RFC last year, you'll want to have a good argument ready as to why reference 21 is a high-quality reliable source. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Just noting that I haven't forgotten this! I wonder if we are a little light on sourcing? This must have made a few biographies/autobiographies? Vic Marks, Botham or Roebuck surely mentioned it somewhere? I'll try to have a bit of a dig and see what I can find. Sarastro (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


Cristiano Ronaldo

Previous peer review

The edit war regarding the opening sentence is resolved, and Ronaldo has moved to Juventus, so when the edit requests have been attended to, and when the full protection status is lifted, it would be best for someone to do a peer review. Purijj (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


Engineering and technology

Thessaloniki Metro

I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it significantly over the past couple of months and got it from Start-class to B-class. The goal is to get it to FA-class if possible, and I would appreciate any feedback before reaching that point.

Thanks, Michail (blah) 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


Nuclear power

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to GA. I recently reorganized and cleaned up the article, and I would appreciate suggestions on how to improve it further. This is a very important topic and the article receives over 1,000 visits per day.

Thanks, Ita140188 (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment from philly_boy92

The lead of an article should generally avoid citations, per WP:LEADCITE. It is assumed that the contents of the lead are a summary of the contents of the article - not new information. You should remove non-controversial the citations from there and put them further down. If there is a controversy with something in the lead, you should be able to point people to the appropriate citation in the main text, or if not remove it from the lead. There are currently 24 references in the lead. There are also number of bare URLs or improperly cited sources in the article, like 1, 43, 69, and 95. You could maybe start by fixing those, since they are easy fixes. --Michail (blah) 16:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I cleaned up the lead removing unnecessary or duplicated references, however I left references for potentially controversial statements. There are now only 7 references left in the lead. I also started to cleanup other references, but this would take some time. Ideally they should all use the cite templates. In the meanwhile if you have any other comment it would be very helpful. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Gold Box

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been extensively working on it collecting sources from reliable sites/books/magazines, and adding/fixing content and images. There is still work to do and I'm still doing researches to expand the article, but I believe the main thing is done. I would greatly appreciate a better rating or improvement feedback. Thanks!

Thanks, Kelesis (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

I've listed this article for peer review because… The article is really a one that someone should take pride on. However, when it was promoted to GA, some concerns were raised, e.g. that the plot section needs more citations and general prose needs to be improved. So, in that light, I am initiating this peer review for other editors to make suggestions to improve this article and potentially get it close to a Featured Article nomination.

Thanks, Abequinn14 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In general, plot sections do not need citations. Obviously, if it can be cited, it should, but it's not something that needs to be done. I'd request a formal copy-edit from WP:GOCE before we start. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I've made a request there for now. Abequinn14 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm the main editor of this article and brought it to GA a few years ago, and yeah, it would be really neat if we could get it to FA. I think the main issues are the reception section, which I think might need to be rewritten completely, and the gameplay section, which relies very heavily on the game's manual.--Alexandra IDVtalk 09:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, hey there. I think GOCE will do a lot of work, but for this peer review we can
  • Check sources listed in the talk page and see what we can do there (add content)
  • Does this comment by an IP have to do with anything?
  • I wonder what we could do with the gameplay section. At least one secondary source describe's how it is (even though the description may not be that formal).
Abequinn14 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, GOCE is in the middle of doing edits in this article. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake

In general, this article looks comprehensive and well structured. There are some small niggles that struck me reading through it.

  • The Plot section's fifth paragraph has way too many commas for comfortable reading. I realise the Ace Attorney series doesn't give itself willingly to concise plots or easy summaries, but I think you could break up that first sentence a bit. This problem applies to the section's other paragraphs, but it's most noticeable in the fifth.
I did some edits to that paragraph, I'll see if there is more issues tomorrowwhen copy edits are done. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Try to avoid too many citations in the middle of sentences and/or without any punctuations near them.
There was a big problem with citations here, but I did some other minor citation moving. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Does the interview with Takumi say when the game began development, or only how long it took to develop.
The former.
It was in 2000 when Mr Mikami said I could make my own game and my original idea was a fairly typical adventure with a detective as the main character.
(1) Abequinn14 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Make sure the references include links to the websites/publishers that have articles to them such as Kotaku and IGN.
Done by User:MrLinkinPark333. Abequinn14 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

--ProtoDrake (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

All done (at least I think so) Abequinn14 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


General

Free Rider HD

I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of my first articles (the second one to be exact) and I would like to know if it is well written, how much it will take for it to deserve a GA nomination and any advice to improve it.

Thanks, Gidev the Dood(Talk) 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • It's far too short to be GA. Each section is only a couple of sentences long. I would expect it to be far more broad and comprehensive than it currently is. I suggest taking a look at some other recently promoted GA articles to see the depth of coverage expected. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to what The1337gamer has said, I suggest taking a look at WP:VG/RS. Of its 11 sources, I can probably count the reliable ones on one hand. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The subject barely (if at all) passes notability issues (see WP:GNG). Anarchyte's arguments about reliable sourcing is a good one. Pocket gamer is a reliable source, as is TouchArcade. These sources don't go into much detail about the game, so personally, it's hard to make a case of the notability. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Participation of women in the Olympics

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA status. I'd appreciate any advice or improvements that could result in the article being ready to be nominated for, and become a GA.

Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Izzat Kutebar

Hello. This is the first PR I've done. I've agreed to get involved after I submitted one of my own articles to PR in the hope that it might have FL potential. Please give me some time to read this and I will them be able to provide some feedback. Let me know if you have any questions for me. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Initial survey

Well, I can provide some immediate feedback about section History of women at the Olympics which would not be acceptable at one of the GA or FA reviews. The two main problem areas are the sub-headings and the lack of paragraphing within the sub-sections.

The sub-headings have been done in several formats. They must all be level three headings (1900 is not) for consistency and they all need to be in format ccyy–ccyy where the dash is an endash and not a hyphen. For example, change 1972 - 1980 to 1972–1980. The full year must be given in every case because none of these date-spans are consecutive years. For example, change 1984–92 to 1984–1992.

In all the sub-sections, the text is in a single block paragraph which needs to broken up for readability. One of the worst cases is, again, 1984–92. As a first step, there should be a paragraph break whenever a new Olympiad commences (i.e., at 1988 and 1992). You should then consider paragraph breaks in each Olympiad depending on subject-matter and probably by winter and summer. Please be aware, though, that single sentence paragraphs are deprecated.

Another comment I have is about the images which sometimes disrupt the text by putting headings out of synch, especially the first three left-side ones (Cooper, Konopacka and Haase). Images need to be carefully place so that they enhance the narrative.

I think this is enough to be going on with for now because this all pretty basic. If you can make these improvements and let me know when you're ready, I'll be happy to continue. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Izzat Kutebar: Hello and thank you for taking the time to review this article! I'd like to apologize for taking so long to get back to you; I haven't been able to get online as much as I would've liked over the past few weeks. I fixed the consistency issue in the headers and also added paragraph breaks to enhance readability. Do you think that it is enough, or should I add more? I also tried to fix the image concern by playing around with size and captions. I also deleted one picture. Would this version suffice, or should I remove more? Once again, thank you for the review. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jith12: Hello again. I just made a couple more tweaks and I think it's looking much better now. It's certainly well sourced so I would say it's getting near to being a good article now. Well done. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 28 June 2018, 11:38 UTC
Last edit: 27 July 2018, 06:06 UTC


Juvenal Juvêncio

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has potential to be a very good article. Juvenal Juvêncio is very important to the world of Brazilian soccer, and a well-done peer review would help to showcase that more directly. I would be eternally grateful.

Thanks, Jmanlucas (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 August 2018, 14:50 UTC
Last edit: 20 September 2018, 19:36 UTC


Sakura Wars (video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I had previously planned to turn this article into an FA. Before I do anything like that, I want other editor's opinions on what aspects of this article might be improved prior to nomination. This article went through the GA process, and was looked over by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I have left this article alone for some time, as I created and made GA this and articles for the three subsequent Sakura Wars titles, in addition to turning the fifth game's article into a GA and expanding the article for the series' anime film adaptation. Any comments are appreciated, as are any editors who return for the FAC when it happens.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Fostoria Glass Company

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to upgrade it to Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Sunil Wadhwani

I worked on cleaning the article after a major contributor was banned for not disclosing COI. However, I would like a second pair of eyes to review it, and also be part of the review process. The reason is, I find that it's reasonably well-cited presently, and would like to eventually work on it and push it toward a Good Article status.

Thanks, MakersBreath (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


400-series highways (British Columbia)

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently changed this page from a redirect to a full article.

Thanks, MuzikMachine (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Rayquaza

(Putting this in Arts felt a bit pretentious)

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently gave it substantial content (esp. re: Mega Rayquaza and the Trading Card Game) as well as copyediting help, and think its current C-Class rating is now outdated. I would like to know how it could be further improved, where it lies on the Article Quality scale, and what (if anything) should be done to progress it to Good Article candidacy.

Thanks! TheTiksiBranch (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


Geography and places

Hong Kong

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's undergone a pretty heavy rewrite since its last one. Given two unsuccessful FAC attempts, it's probably a good idea to run through a PR again.

Thanks, Horserice (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


Hackney Central

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on making this article a good article nomination in the future. I'd like to know what you think needs to be improved until it can be a good article nomination so I can then create a to-do list for everyone.

Thanks, Jamesp88 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Mangalore

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because this article was once a Featured Article, was unlisted due to recentism. This can be a potential Wikipedia:Featured articles in future.

Thanks, CodePanda


Birmingham

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article could, at this point, be nominated for featured article status. This article has been a good article for a very long time. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured but would like some other opinions.

Thanks, IWI (chat) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The first thing I notice that will have to be resolved to pass FA is that beginning with the "Government" section, many of the paragraphs end without a citation, whereas in order to satisfy FAC 1c, every statement must be backed by proper citations. I haven't probed it too deeply, but seeing as this article is pretty thoroughly sourced, I suspect most of the statements are supported by the citations at the end of the last paragraph in the section. Therefore, most of the work would be duplicating those sources where appropriate.
You may also want to consider rephrasing the lede sentence. The dependent clause "the second most populous" does not seem to grammatically correctly fit into the sentence (a period or semicolon would resolve this). Also, the dialect section should not be just one short sentence. It should either be expanded to a reasonable length by incorporating part of the article to which it links or folded into another section and/or the lede. Besides this, the article seems to be in quite good shape.
Hope these comments help. Let me know if you're looking for a review of a more specific matter. I would also appreciate it if you could take a look at the open William Matthews review. Ergo Sum 00:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


History

Irakli Tsereteli

This recently went through FAC and was closed with little comment. The coordinators there suggested someone, somewhere review it, so I'm bringing it here before I attempt another go at FAC. Any help is appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


Battle of Stockton

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to promote the article to GA status. My main concern, other than the length as this is a minor historical event, is one of the sources, The Battle of Stockton: How a Small Town Saw Off Fascists in 1933 published by the Historical Association. While this source is certainly reliable, I don't know what sort of barcode accompanies the book and thus don't know how to reference it (it is an 8 digit code, 1009-1933)

Thanks, ISD (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm not able to find any record of that book online to answer your question about the identifier. From where did you obtain it?
  • This doc has pointers to potential contemporary sources
  • Per this RfC, make sure your Commemoration entries have sources indicating significance, not just existence. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) In reference to your comments:
  • I got the book from a local bookshop, which is mentioned at the bottom of this page that is referenced in the article. I've tried looking for it online myself, but I can't find it being sold online anywhere, just locally.
  • That journal is referenced in the book so that will be useful, so thanks for that.
  • It sounds like the "Commemoration" section needs editing down, so I'll get to work on that.
Thanks. ISD (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Joseph "Diamond Jo" Reynolds

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded this article from a stub. I would like feedback on how well it meets the B-standard and if it merits a GA-review. My main concern is the length of the article, though I suspect I may have exhausted the reliable sources on the subject. The article is thoroughly sourced, reasonably well-written, and stylistically consistent. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This needs more work than I expected. This edit [1] in 2015 added unsourced material, but I have now discovered its source: [2] (see pp. 207–208), revealing some possible COPYVIOs. This needs a serious re-write, so I will not waste more of anyone else's time. Thanks Eddie891 for your feedback. I also need to do some more reading on Diamond Jo. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Eddie891

  • Lede can use some expansion, by a few sentences.
  • Perhaps add what year he married Mary Morton.
  • The article seems to have some WP:NPOV problems, with phrases like "The finest mill in the region"
  • "Ever after he was called "Diamond Jo"." the sentence just sounds a bit odd, perhaps re word
  • I'd like to see more information about the shipping business, if it's what he was most known for. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Eddie891: Starting with the most critical issue, point No. 3...There was part of the text I kept working around because I could not locate the source, even to validate the reference, which was incomplete. The language was stilted because some of those phrases are repetitions from Peterson, Willliam J. "Joseph Reynolds" The Palimpsest 24:7 (1943), p. 207 (long download times, so be patient if you can): [3]. I just deleted those sentences and the associated citation.
  • Marriage to Mary Morton: all of the sources I have located so far are vague on this point.
  • Looking for additional sources for information about his transportation businesses.
  • Will edit to address points 1 and 4. Thanks for your help, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Albert Pierrepoint

Albert Pierrepoint is an interesting individual. The first hangman of the television/mass media age, whose name became well-known in the press (and not through his efforts), despite the home office restrictions of secrecy regarding the role. He hanged some of the most notorious killers of the 20th century, including over 200 Nazi war criminals, the last men executed for treason and treachery (including William Joyce (also known as Lord Haw-Haw) and John Amery) and undertook some of the more contentious executions of the mid to late century, including Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Not much from me

  • General
    • "Focussing" is grudgingly admitted by the OED and Chambers, but the traditional form, "focusing", is much nicer, to my mind.
    • You are inconsistent about piping the "Sir" when linking to knights. Gowers is piped but Monty, and M. O'Dwyer are not. I much prefer the former form.
    • You have slightly inconsistent ways of referring to nicks, too: HM Prison Pentonville, but Strangeways Prison, and Walton Gaol.
  • As lead executioner, 1940–1956
    • "although it was questionable if he were a British citizen, and therefore ineligible for the charge" – this seems to change direction halfway through: I think it should be "...and therefore eligible for" (or, perhaps better, "subject to" or "liable to")
    • "Two weeks after Ellis's execution, he hanged Norman Green" – the last man mentioned is G Lloyd-George. Best use Pierrepoint's surname here.
  • Retirement and later life
    • "stayed over night" – I think "overnight" would be more usual here.
    • "a letter from the sheriff for £4" – "for £4" might perhaps be "offering £4".
    • "The Home Office considered ... they decided" – not quite sure about the plural pronoun. Arguable, but it feels off-key to me.
  • Notes
    • Note e – I'd be inclined to omit the mildly editorial "only".
    • Note g goes off the rails. I think you need to cut the words "a little"
    • Note h – "advisor" – unwelcome Americanism in place of the traditional BrE "adviser".
  • Obiter dicta:
    • Delighted to see Sir Ernest Gowers in a cameo role – one of my heroes.
    • Clive Revill! I had no idea he specialised in playing official executioners: he was Ko-Ko, Lord High Executioner, in the Sadler's Wells Mikado back in the 1960s.

That's my lot. Excellent job. On to FAC, when pray ping me. Tim riley talk 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much, as always - all very useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Keith D

Just a few points

  • The link to City of Bradford cannot be correct for his birth as this was not formed until the 1974 reorganisation. Probably the settlement link to Bradford is more appropriate, though do not know if Clayton was actually in Bradford then.
  • Similarly the reference to Huddersfield, West Yorkshire is incorrect as West Yorkshire was created in the same 1974 reorganisation. Before 1974 it would have been the West Riding of Yorkshire.
  • Minor grammar correction needed in sentence "They travelled to the Mountjoy Prison, Dublin for a the hanging." remove word "a".
  • In following sentence "It was scheduled was 8:00 am, and took less than a minute to undertake." - second "was" change to "for."
  • In section "As lead executioner, 1940–1956" we have both "Wandsworth Prison" & "Wandsworth prison" used.
  • Think "although it was questionable if he were a British citizen" should be "although it was questionable if he was a British citizen".
    • The subjunctive "were" here is fine, although not using it and going for "was" would be equally acceptable grammatically. Tim riley talk 19:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Under "Books" looks like this is alphabetical, apart from the first entry for Dernley. May be reorder.
  • The "See also" section is out of place per WP:ORDER and should be before the "Notes and references"

Thats all. Keith D (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Keith D. All have been done with the exception of the was/were point, as both are correct. Many thanks for your thoughts on this - it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Bratislava Working Group

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it up to FA status. The Bratislava Working Group was an illegal Jewish organization that tried to save Slovak Jews from the Holocaust, with some success, and even sponsored a proposal to bribe Heinrich Himmler into pausing the Final Solution. Mainstream historiography on the group has been attacked from both sides. One school holds that the Nazis were negotiating in good faith, and international Jewish organizations sank the rescue efforts by failing to fund the Working Group. Others claim that the Working Group's negotiations were collaborationist. I'm still not quite sure how to balance these perspectives with due weight in the article.

Thanks, Catrìona (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


John Adams

Previous peer review

I nominated this article for FAC on July 4. It was closed on July 9 after only 5 days, premature in my opinion. By far the biggest issue at FAC was the article's length. All editors who commented expressed the opinion that the article was too long. Between July 4 and now, I, with some assistance, have reduced the article from 189,000 characters to 179,000, 5% of the total. Significant amounts of content have been condensed with much of it being moved into a new subarticle. I am hoping for people to be able to point out any remaining issues which would prevent this article from reaching FA status. I would like, if possible, for editors to apply the same level of vigor and comprehensives that they would at an FA review so that all apparent issues will be addressed once this article is renominated, which will hopefully be within the next month or two.

Thanks, Display name 99 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC) (Correction: The article started off at 186,000 characters when the FA review began and is now at 178,000. That accounts for a 4.3% reduction in total text. My memory and math are apparently horrible.) Display name 99 (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Article size rule of thumb is between 60 and 100 kb 'readable prose' - the article is currently a north of 107 kb - so closer than it was, but if we could get below 100, one can at least point to WP:AS, when the 'too long' objection comes. I would think there might be a skillful "slasher" (heavry blue pen) at the Guild of Copy Editors (remember things can always be restored) - and a copy-edit (and fresh Eyes) is a good idea anyway. Also, as I think I previously mentioned readable prose size can be reduced to good effect by skillful use of moving some things into "Notes" section. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Alanscottwalker. I brought it down to a little over 178,000 characters, which helps a little. Can you please show me how to determine the kb measurement? That would be useful in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I used User:Dr pda/prosesize but there may be others at WP:TOOBIG -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it would also be helpful for me to expand on use of Notes, specifically. The first paragraph of the body contains this sentence "Adams's great-grandfather Henry Adams emigrated to Massachusetts from Braintree, Essex, England, around 1638.[4]" Perhaps useful for those doing a deep dive into Adams heritage but not essential readable prose in this bio (they would get that info from the father link, also). The same section contains this these sentences: "As an adult, Adams was a keen scholar. He was devoted to the works of ancient writers such as Thucydides, Plato, Cicero, and Tacitus, whom he read in their original languages.[8]." An aside, that's chron out of place but could be shifted to notes. Etc. Etc. Think what could be shifted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I've added a Notes section somewhat reluctantly. I admit I'm not enthusiastic about the concept, but have come to the realization that it must be necessary in order to reach a level of readable prose. There are four notations in there at the moment. I'm not very good at technology and don't know how many kb we have at this point, so it would be useful if you would update me. Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It's now north of 103 kB. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I figured out how to use the tool. The length is now down to 100 kB, right on the border. I think most editors will recognize the significant changes that have been made since the last review and length will not get in the way. Are there any other issues that you consider with mentioning that might pose a problem at an FA review? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I have read complaints about length at FARs before, so just be prepared. As for more comments, over the years, I have been heavily involved in editing this article - my suggestion is fresh eyes, so 'hopefully someone else will comment, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


William Pūnohu White

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have been trying to get this through FAC but have only gotten a few supports. They have failed each time due to not enough people not commenting/reviewing. Instead of putting this on FAC for a fourth time and playing the waiting game there. I can’t anyway. I am starting another peer review as recommended by a coordinator to ask people to look into this article and review it for another possible attempt at FAC. Image reviews and source reviews have been done. I just need help or input for prose and other areas of improvement.

Thanks, KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick table comment
  • The table could do with reformatting to give it appropriate row and column scopes as per MOS:DTT (a how-to guide to help meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS). If you have any issues following it, ping me back. Harrias talk 13:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS???KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


Ira T. Wyche

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 August 2018, 11:44 UTC
Last edit: 4 September 2018, 12:23 UTC


Francisco Cano

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded quite a bit from where it started. A few sources were used to expand this article out from a stub, to become a bit more fleshed out. In particular, I'd want to see if the tone of the article is encyclopedic, whether it is arranged logically, and how this article could be improved in terms of sourcing and prose. Finally, I'd like to make sure that anyone who is interested in (a) conquistadors or (b) Spanish history would find this page useful.

Thanks, Themane2 (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions:

Hi and thanks for working to expand this article. The article is arranged logically, and is mostly encyclopedic, though improved use of references could make it a more useful resource and avoid the pitfalls of overstatement or WP:OR. A few comments/suggestions follow.Dialectric (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • For example, ‘His work in the mines was a major asset in the expanding metal trade…’ may be overstating his impact unless you have support from a reference that shows the importance he played in mining or his mine played in the history of the trade. Calling his exploration the “final conquest of the Aztec legacy“ may be similarly overstating unless refs support this.
  • The ‘Early life’ section is unreferenced, as is the ’Land claims’ section. Apart from the lede, for a historical biography article, each section should have references.
  • The references to books used in the article lack page numbers. Page numbers are helpful for others looking up refs to expand upon content and/or check facts.
  • Years of service in the infobox only lists 1568, a surprisingly short time. If he served for more than a year but total service is unknown, you may want to reflect that in the infobox.
  • Is there a reference that shows he died in New Spain? Some conquistadors returned to Spain after their service.


Thank you for the review and your suggestions. I myself find a lot of the information in the article a bit.. speculative, to say the least. The problem is that the sources really are not a biography of this conquistador, but in fact are based on a historical event that this conquistador took part in. Because of that, I think more sources would be needed to try and determine more about his early life, as well as when and where he died. There isn't a lot of solid info out there about this man. I have been trying to find more in Google Books. I might have to see if there are any sources in Spanish, which I'm assuming there must be, since his exploits were mostly in the Spanish Empire (and a couple of undiscovered regions in Northern Mexico).
Since he was a captain, which is an officer rank, that indicates that he probably did serve for a number of years, not just one. That's one of the things I'm going to try and find sources on.
I will add page numbers where possible, and I'll try and find references for each section, if I can, as well as attempt to verify some of the claims made about how influential this exploration. --Themane2 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Anti-Russian sentiment

I've listed this article for peer review because the article contains A LOT of unreferenced, poorly sourced or original research material. I've been going through the article marking all the dubious claims, but it seems too much for one person to handle as the article is also frequently being edited. New or unregistered user edit review has been activated, but the article has already accumulated a lot of information with the aforementioned problems. A thorough review of the article removing all the questionable and unsourced material or rewriting it in a more neutral way and adding citations would be very welcome.

Many thanks, Turaids (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Montana-class battleship

I've listed this article for peer review because has been nine years since the last one, and in the past year in particular, I've added a ton of new information and corrected some misconceptions about the class. In particular, I heavily expanded the armor section and also expanded the design history section. Many (perhaps most?) of these edits were done when logged off. In any case, I referred heavily to well regarded book sources such as Sumrall, Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, and INRO publications in order to reduce the amount of citations to internet sources, many of which are tertiary. Hopefully all the additions are up to FA standards.

Thanks, Steve7c8 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, Steve, thanks for your efforts so far. I'm afraid I only had a quick look, but I have a few comments/suggestions:AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • From what I can see, it would need a few more citations to meet FA referencing standards. I would suggest adding them to the following:
  • "though the Kriegsmarine H-42 through H-44 design concepts would have exceeded both the Montana and Yamato classes in size."
  • "The large caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16-inch (406 mm) shells: an armor-piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high-explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment."
  • "(Rather than having the carrier defend itself by gunnery this would be assigned to other surrounding ships within a carrier battle group.)"
  • as does this whole paragraph: "While the Montana class would not be designed principally for escorting the fast carrier task forces..."
  • "This shift in policy meant that the Montana class would have been the only World War II–era US battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own."
  • "The aircraft would have been floatplanes launched from catapults on the ship's fantail.[8] They would have landed on the water and taxied to the stern of the ship to be lifted by a crane back to the catapult."
  • "Five ships of the Montana class were authorized on 19 July 1940, but they were suspended indefinitely until being canceled on 21 July 1943. The ships were to be built at the New York Navy Yard, Philadelphia Navy Yard, and Norfolk Navy Yard."
  • The referencing style also appears to be a bit inconsistent. For instance compare Note # 1 with # 2. Also compare Note # 1 with # 56, for instance. Also books like Newhart and Yarnall should be listed in the References section like Garzke and Keegan
  • watch out for endash and page range consistency. For instance, "Garzke and Dulin, p. 163-164" should be "Garzke and Dulin, pp. 163–164"
  • I would suggest removing the links to the individual ships of the class (e.g. in the infobox and Note # 20), as the links are self pointing redirects Note # 20
  • watch out for duplicate links. The duplicate link checker tool identifies quite a few, for instance in the lead: Iowa-class battleship, aircraft carrier, Essex-class aircraft carrier. (There are others throughout the article)
Thank you for the input, I'll see what I can do to address this. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Brad101

Please read thoroughly the FAR on the Iowa-class from 2010 where I totally flipped my lid over citations and reliable sources. It's a long read but I'm quite sure that the same issues are going to apply to this article as well. I notice an abundance of original research in describing hull numbers. Low quality sources etc. Brad (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


History of Catalonia

I've listed this article for peer review in order to know if, after two months of editings that increased the extension of the article, adding references and bibliography (from 15 references to more than 50), adjusting the images and trying to made the redaction more academic and neutral, the article of history of Catalonia is ready to reach the next step of quality or not. Also, I need a review of vocabulary and grammar, because maybe my English is a little poor in some aspects.

Regards, Jacobí (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jacobí:, hi. First things first, I guess it depends what you intend by the next step—GA, yes? I just thought I'd let you know, I did look in, thinking that, although I don't know the subject very well, I could do a bit of a copyedit. This is here, and feel free to revert what you like, of course. However: I stopped where I did because—IMHO—the amount of work required is still great (although not insurmountable). The main issue is a lack of sourcing. You've done good work adding all the sources and refs that you have, but an article of this size and breadth will need far more. At the moment, entire sections, let alone paragraphs, are unsourced. I'm afraid this would instantly fail the [WP:WIAGA|good-article criteria]]. Also, I found it difficult on occasion to do a copy edit because the actual sense of what was being said was sometimes difficult to discern. Although I sometimes edited it to say what I thought was trying to be said, frankly that needs an expert in the subject before a copy edit even starts; I'm thinking, just, for example, (rather long) sentences.

There are a few other things, such as the references and bibliography (they don't seem to tie up?) but sourcing is the main thing, along with a degree of expert input. Have you tried Wikiproject spain, perhaps? Some of these editors might be able to help. Sorry if this is really negative feedback, but as an article, it's important enough to warrant being the best we can do for it! Best of luck with it, and don't hesitate to come back to me over this. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Louis Agassiz

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of copyediting.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment. There are a number of unreferenced statements and 'citation needed' comments. You really need to make sure that everything is properly referenced before asking editors to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware that I needed to do that. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


John/Eleanor Rykener

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 26 June 2018, 11:33 UTC
Last edit: 5 September 2018, 20:40 UTC


WAVES

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 May 2018, 04:20 UTC
Last edit: 31 July 2018, 19:51 UTC


New Albion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 March 2018, 00:24 UTC
Last edit: 28 August 2018, 21:57 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics

Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what changes need to be made to it before FAR. The previous peer review automatically closed due to no one picking it up, so I would like to see something happen this time!

Thanks, Codyorb (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


Myliobatis goodei

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 May 2018, 20:32 UTC
Last edit: 31 August 2018, 19:34 UTC


Rubidium azide

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that this article is as good as possible, and because I would like someone other than me to make sure of that.

Thanks, WhittleMario (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WhittleMario for your hard work in not only creating but also putting in a lot of edits on this page!

  • The paragraph lifted straight from the research paper doesn't add much and is confusing to the average reader. It would be better if it were summarized in the traditional WP style.
  • The word 'azide' is used throughout the page, it would help if there was a description of azide in the intro, alongside the existing link to the azide page.
  • If possible, more sources should be found to try to beef up the article.
  • The description of the structure change and the Structure section in general may be too technical for most readers, try to keep the same information but make sure that it is accessible.
  • If possible, a picture of the chemical would be a good addition (make sure to follow WP:Image Use Policy). A representation of its atomic structure would also be a good visual.


Language and literature

Arkady Leokum

I've listed this article for peer review because it was listed as a stub. (It was just an abbreviated/incomplete list of the well-known "Tell Me Why" book series that were seminal and well-loved by kids in the 1960s and 1970s). I wrote the text for the article, using independent sourcing. As it turns out, Arkady Leokum had a full and brilliant advertising career in New York City. He was a playwright and novelist, too, and his stage plays were recorded and broadcast on PBS. The article would benefit as follows:

1) Special note about ONE sentence that can either be cut or saved.

I have asked source of this sentence (someone who created a Google Group for this, and posted several interesting links, including his obituary information) if she has a verifiable reference that can be used in the Wikipedia, as I cannot locate another. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.obituaries/OnHLdAmQzbg

Sentence: "In the advertising world, Arkady Leokum may be best known for his slogan for the Chock full o'Nuts coffee ad campaign, "a slogan that pushed Chock full o'Nuts from a seventh-rank position to third," in what is considered America's toughest taste market, New York City: "Don't spend the extra money for this coffee . . . unless you're just plain crazy about good coffee!"

2) Edit any grammar (add/subtract) as needed. 3) Remove flags, so that the article becomes permanent. 4) Consider it for a Featured Article.

Thanks, Lettucecup (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup

Comments

  • Be careful about using a tone that is too promotion or unencyclopedic, particularly not without attribution - for example, who says that NYC is "considered America's toughest taste market"?
  • Biographical articles are typically organized in a more chronological way, with the lead as simply a summary of what is presented in the article body. Generally speaking, nothing should be in the lead that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. You're essentially using the lead like a Personal life section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nikkimaria. I have made changes -- your comments are useful and appreciated. The promotional language has been removed (it was in a quote, but I am awaiting to see if we can locate the original source attribution). If you can advise ... is there a next-step for removing the flags, moving it to article space, now that the article isn't any longer a stub? Lettucecup (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup

Hi Lettucecup, I'm not sure what you mean - it appears that the article is already in article space? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 581

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's capable of attaining FA status, I'm fairly sure it's coverage is comprehensive in any event. Shouldn't be too taxing for the passing editor either, I'm grateful for all suggestions.

Cheers, Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Oxyrhynchus Papyri! One for me, I think!

  • I would rework the lead. We don't find out until the second paragraph what P.Oxy.581 actually is; the lead should tell us such a key piece of information sooner. (I am obviously biased because I wrote it, but Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1231 tells us in the second sentence that "The papyrus preserves fragments of the second half of Book I of a Hellenistic edition of the poetry of the archaic poet Sappho."). Something as simple as:

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 581 (P. Oxy. 581 or P. Oxy. III 581) is a papyrus fragment written in Ancient Greek, apparently recording the sale of a slave girl.

  • "consisting of 17 textual lines": simply "consisting of 17 lines of text"
  • "The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a collection of rare manuscripts discovered at an ancient landfill in Oxyrhynchus, modern-day Egypt"; okay, literally a manuscript is just something written by hand, but I feel like it normally connotes something rather more... complete... than the Oxyrhynchus papyri. I would instead have written "...are a collection of papyrus fragments..." (which is not ideal because of the repetition of Papyri/papyrus, but...)
  • "during both the Hellenistic Ptolemaic Kingdom (305 BC–30 BC)": does "Hellenistic" really add any information when we are given both "Ptolemaic" and the dates? Especially as P.Oxy.581 is very decidedly not Hellenistic.
  • "the fragment signifies the conclusion of a longer message." The fragment doesn't merely signify, it is the conclusion of a longer piece of writing.
  • "the President and Committee of the Graeco-Roman Branch voted to present the papyrus to University College, Dundee[...] It is the only Oxyrhynchus Papyri currently held by the university's collection" Do we know why it was sent to Dundee?
  • "mounted between glass": phrasing seems a bit odd to me. I would say "to be mounted in glass" or "to be mounted between panes of glass", but not "to be mounted between glass".
  • "[h]ouse-born slaves could not legally be sold for the purpose of export beyond the borders of Egypt.": what is a house-born slave? and how do we know that the P.Oxy.581 slave was one such? (This is a symptom of a potential problem with this whole paragraph, which is that it seems to be based on sources who are talking about roman slavery generally, not P.Oxy.581, or even slavery in Roman Oxyrhynchus, specifically.)

Hope some of this is helpful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


List of Icelandic writers

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 July 2018, 12:57 UTC
Last edit: 1 August 2018, 15:35 UTC


Sex (book)

I've listed this article for peer review because although this is currently a Good Article, I see this with the potential to become a featured article someday. However, prose and some pruning might be needed as when it was written the content was getting added on and on. Would need someone with a comb to prune out the unnecessary content and details and make it FA worthy as much possible. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion

Hortensius (Cicero)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA. Many moons ago, I tried to get it up there, but it wasn't ready at the time (I was younger and made quite a few bone-headed mistakes), and the nomination rightfully failed. Since then, I've added a lot more info, reorganized whole sections, rewritten the prose, and improved the references. I'm sure there are still some areas that are 'off', and I'd love for someone to take a look at the article and tell me what they think.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article is a great entry. I corrected the minor typos that I found while reading and didn't notice any others. I can't speak much to the use of sources given that—besides Confessions—I haven't read many of them since my undergrad. In any case, here are some areas where I think there could be improvement:
  • In the section on the Relation to Aristotle's Protrepticus, there are some weasel words where there could be more specificity. The one that sticks out the most is "later," as in the cases "The English classical scholar Ingram Bywater later agreed..." and "Later, working off Bywater and..."
  • I'm wondering whether it's standard practice to include both the author (Cicero) and the editor (Ruch, Grilli, or Straume-Zimmermann) in the citation. I'm not too sure on this point, I just thought it was worth asking about since it looked odd to me. Making citations with ancient authors that are published in the modern day always confuses me.
Comparing with the previous GA review, it seems like a lot of the previous errors have since been fixed. Hopefully it can move forward this time! Tkbrett (✉) 23:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'll get to work eliminating those weasel words and getting some more specified info in there. As for citing both the author and editor, that's just something I've done, since, in my opinion, it seems weird to have a source just say, for instance, "Cicero (2017)", when I'm citing the work of the editor, or someone else's translation. But of course, I'll change it if there's a better way!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I got some exact dates added in there now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


Social sciences and society

Kiki Sanford

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it's no longer a start class, and if it is need assistance in figuring out how to improve it. I do feel it's substantially complete.

Thanks, Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


1995 University of Maryland conference on crime and genetics

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's decent now but not good enough to pass GA, and I want feedback that I can use to build it up to where it could pass a GA nomination.

Thanks, IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I peer-reviewed and edited this article. The content was well-presented and seemingly well-supported with both information and sources. The phrasing was in need of conciseness, though, particularly needing removal of inefficient phrasing that states the obvious e.g. As a result of this revised scope vs After the change in scope

obvious or redundant extensions to the point of the sentences. e.g. After the conference ended, a report based on the talks (removed: that were) given

Best regards! Also sorry if I put this review in the wrong place! TheTiksiBranch (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


Makassar mayoral election, 2018

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to get it to GA status - it's really uncommon for a none of the above option to win with several hundred thousand voters.

Thanks, Juxlos (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the article still needs much expansion, especially the aftermath section. What happened after that? Since the winner is none of the above, who will be the mayor of Makassar before an election will be held in 2020? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


West Midlands Serious Crime Squad

I've listed this article for peer review because it has considerable importance as one of the worst examples of systemic abuse by UK police; I have much expanded it but need some feedback about how to get it to a decent level.

Thanks, Jim Killock (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

This is just my impression from a very quick look. Since this article contains contentious material about living people, it's important that all facts are referenced with a citation at the end of each paragraph. In addition, you need to use ref={{sfnref|publisher|date}} with some of your citations (those with no author) in order to make the sfn template link properly (see my article Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz for examples).

The lede needs to be edited to fit MOS:LEDE (no more than four paragraphs). Some of the sections are quite short; consider adding information or merging sections. (Sometimes it is suitable to have a paragraph on each subtopic, rather than different sub-sub sections.) I suggest that you split off the lists into a different article, perhaps List of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad cases. Catrìona (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Prison education

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it did not pass its nomination for FAC, yet there was no clear consensus at FAC on what needs to be improved; different editors had different ideas on the matter. In exchange for your comments here I will gladly review any PR, GAN, FAC or FLC of your choice.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I will add some comments about the prose in the near future. Please ping me at the end of next week if I have not posted my remarks; it will take me some time as it is a long article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I want to say that you have done excellent work with this article; it is a difficult topic to work on as it is rather expansive. Issues of coverage/scope with regards to different areas of the world were the primary reasons for the FAC being closed, but my comments are primarily focused on the prose itself. I feel that is the best way for me to help, as I am not entirely sure how to best provide useful commentary for the other stuff. Just wanted to clarify that before my comments below:

  • For this part (Courses can include basic literacy programs, high-school equivalency programs) of the lead, do you think there should be a wikilink for “high-school”, especially if the subsequent items in the list are linked too? I have also seen primarily written as “high school” without the hyphen.
*I have two comments for this part (and in the US the rate is four to five dollars saved for every dollar spent.) from the lead. There should be a comma after “the US” ad I would wikilink dollars, especially since you linked pound in the previous sentence.
  • For this sentence (Sweden is considered to be a pioneer in prison education. It became mandatory for inmates in 1842, and vocational education), I would link “vocational education” as it is the first time that you mention it in the lead. From my understanding, the lead and the body of the article are treated separately so items would need to be linked in both on their first use. Unlink “vocational education” later in the article.
  • I am confused by the citation placement in this part (Iceland, which as of 2011 averaged only 137 prisoners in the country,[6] began implementing education programs in 1971.). If the last part is cited through reference 7 at the end of the paragraph, I would add it to the end of the sentence to make it clear.
  • For this part (By 1900 the states of Massachusetts) and this part (and by the 1930s educational programs could be found in most prisons) make sure to use commas after the years. I would look through the entire article to make sure that the use of commas is consistent one way or the other.
  • This source (Prisons in Latin America: A journey into hell) may be helpful.
  • For this sentence (Each state and territory, however, maintains control over its own prison education systems; there is no national system[20][23] leading to differences in the way education is offered.), I would clarify which references are used to support the second half.
  • For this part (For many years the only prison education offered in Morocco was farming), add a comma after “For many years”.
  • For the (Anonymous prisoner on the difficulties of studying in jail) quote box, do you think that it would be beneficial to specify the nationality of the prisoner or jail in the prose?

Again, great job with this article. I wish that I could be more help with the other comments toward the article. I think that prose-wise that it is on an FA-level. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (it is a super short article). Either way, good luck with this and have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. I've made the suggested prose changes, and will look into the Latin American source shortly. I'll be happy to review your FAC in return. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I hope that I helped out a little. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


California housing shortage

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in the topic (though I didn't write this article), and I want to know what's missing from it before I shoot for a GA. Could it use charts or graphs? A different arrangement of the relevant information?

Thanks, grendel|khan 07:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The article has major problems with bias, emphasizing one side of a political divide instead of telling the reader about all the views found in the literature. It jumps to conclusions and makes sweeping statements not supported by the mainstream sources. It takes the stance of anti-regulation commentators and presents their opinions in Wikipedia's voice, as if that stance is the absolute truth. So if the article is nominated for Good Article it ought to be quick-failed. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


Foreign aid for gender equality in Jordan

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can make it complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. Thus I want to know if the article provides a complete picture of how the field of "gender equality" funding in Jordan is being addressed as well as connects to the broader picture of development aid in Jordan.

Thanks, D.Thompson (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been here long enough. I'll print it out and take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
OK ... sorry it took so long, but as you can see I did a light copy edit that addressed some issues, particular some areas where the English still has a non-native feel (i.e. unusual prepositions used, the definite article used where I, as a native speaker, would not).
Some more specific issues:
  • As noted by the tag, the intro is far too short even for what the article has become. It reads as if it were still the stub. As you expand an article you must also expand the intro to reflect the expansion.
  • Generally the prose, my efforts at copyediting notwithstanding, still has a very dry institutional feel to it, more appropriate to what the entities might write in their annual reports or on their websites. Rewrite it to make it more what we expect an encyclopedia article for the general population to sound like.
    • You need also to decide whether you will use US or Commonwealth spellings. Most of the spellings ("labour") and usage ("whilst") suggest the latter, which is actually what you'd expect in this context. However, about 12 times by my browser's "find" count, the article uses "organization", with a minority of "organisation". Not all of those are in proper names. One or the other.
  • You might want to subdivide the programs section into governmental and non-governmental ones.
  • Lastly it would be nice to see what results the various programs have gotten, and what reaction this might have stirred up domestically in Jordan. Have the agencies reported on this? Have the sort of news agencies that cover this sort of thing? (Independent sourcing would be great).

I hope this is helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


Bolivarian diaspora

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 March 2018, 16:54 UTC
Last edit: 1 August 2018, 22:22 UTC


Lists

List of contenders in men's major golf tournaments 2018

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to become a featured list and I would like to know if more experienced editors share that view. I welcome any and all constructive feedback as I consider this to be primarily a learning process. Please feel free to ask me about anything that may be unclear and I will do my best to assist.

Thanks, Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I hate the use of "contenders". It makes it sound like a boxing match. "Qualifiers" seems more suitable to me and more accurate. User:Tewapack has been maintaining a somewhat similar list in his own space for a number of years (see User:Tewapack/2018 Majors results and back to 2009), so I suppose my main concern is whether the article is really useful. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Ha, ha! I agree with you, Nigej. It does sound like "seconds out" or, perhaps, "caddies out"! I will change it to "qualifiers" as you suggest but had better leave it alone for the moment while it's still in this PR process. Usefulness is one of the things I'd like advice on because it was a fun thing to do and it sort of got into my mind the full range of good players around now, but I do wonder if it's a bit "niche". I'll see what others have to say but you have expressed one of my own doubts there. Thanks very much. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


List of Hypericum species

Hello peer reviewers. I'm putting this list up for review after roughly 2 years of working way too much on it. While I'm not 100% finished inputting all the information I'd like, I'm to the point where I need some constructive criticism on the article on what I can improve, so I don't unknowingly dig the article into a hole it can't be pulled out from. My main goal is to get the article to be a featured list, so I would like some input on how I can improve its chances at passing the Featured List Review with flying colors.

I don't want to sound too picky or anything, but there are a few specific things I really need some input on if at all possible:

  • How can I improve the lead? I've been told before it needs expansion, and I recently added 2 more paragraphs, but I still feel like it is a little rough around the edges.
  • Are the section leads ad descriptions adequate? Should I add more or trim them down?
  • What should I wikilinks? I have been wikilinking countries but not botanists; is that correct?
  • Are the images sized properly? Should I continue to upload low-quality public domain specimen images from the NHS or is it better to just leave no image for some species?
  • Are there ways the habitat column could be slimmed down?
  • I've only been including 3 synonyms per species. Should I include a full list for every species? Or slim it down to a common name and one synonym?
  • I know, there are a lot of references. Are they formatted properly? Should I remove any? Is 5 per species enough? (Also I'd love if you have any more refs for me :))

Thanks so much for your time, it means a lot to have some constructive criticism on this huge and ambitious project of mine. I'm not going to be offended if you don't sugarcoat anything, so lay it on thick!

Your fellow editor, Fritzmann2002 19:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review&oldid=856583074"
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