Wikipedia:Peer review

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

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

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

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

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



Beatriz Romilly

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

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

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 September 2017, 21:30 UTC
Last edit: 10 September 2017, 08:18 UTC

National Museum of African Art

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 22 August 2017, 01:31 UTC
Last edit: 3 September 2017, 19:49 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because a group of editors, including myself, are willing to improve this page in a way that meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Some comments:
  • I'd stick the YouTube infobox directly below the main infobox, not in the History section.  Done by Jd22292 02:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The history section seems to spend way too much time on 2017: the label has definitely been active between 2012-2014 and 2015-2017, and some of that history should slot into this section. This section has the most potential for expansion
  • Singles and artists section needs sourcing
  • Some of the information from the Monstercat template at the end of the article, such as its official rosters, could be folded into the article as well
  • Needs more reputable third-party sources, not just music blogs but also national coverage to establish notability (I know Monstercat is huge but this article does not convey that).

I'd call this a C-class article until some of these changes are made. Good luck and happy editing! TritonsRising (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because…

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

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

Power Rangers (film)

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get ideas on how to improve it and possibly do a good article nomination.

Thanks, Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


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

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

Comments by Ojorojo

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

Kathy Mattea

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to WP:GA status. Kathy Mattea is one of my favorite country singers and her article was sorely lacking until very recently when I decided to tackle it.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Silence (2016 film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 August 2017, 15:51 UTC
Last edit: 13 August 2017, 16:30 UTC

Inertia Creeps

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping, to perhaps get it to GA. At least improve it.

Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 08:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ojorojo

Amor Prohibido

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to bring it to FAC. It has since gone through several revisions to meet the standards of an FA album. The last review was done back in November 2011 from Ruhrfisch and since then has greatly improved. I would like some feedback to see if there is anything else that needs to be improved/fixed before submitting to FAC. Thanks! – jona 18:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, – jona 18:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mosaics of Delos

After a successful GA nomination, I'm seeking some help in getting this article into tip-top shape for an FA candidacy. If you like history, ancient Greece, or ancient artwork in general, then this just might be the article for you! Step right up! Take a swing at her. I won't mind. :D I think the section on the Houses and city quarters could use some work, perhaps some more additions to beef up the small sub-sections, but I'm not terribly sure about it. The lead section could probably say a few more things, but I'm not sure what else that should be! Perhaps material should even be removed from the article for one reason or another. I don't know! I need some serious feedback, because it is hard for me to critique my own work. You know how it is. Unlike cooking, where too many cooks spoil the broth, I honestly would prefer to have as many decent and competent editors as possible looking over my shoulder and judging if certain material is crap or not. Hehe. So then, do your worst! Or best, I meant best. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it!

Thanks, Pericles of AthensTalk 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto

I did a little bit of copy-editing in a few places while reading this...

  • "Delos, Greece, an Aegean island in the Cyclades": can this be simplified to "Delos, an island in the Cyclades"? The first sentence has already established that the mosaics are ancient Greek.
  • If the "nominally undated" pieces are dated by their style to the late Hellenistic period, how are the other mosaics dated? Archaeological context?
  • Lots of the claims made in the article are cited inline as being the opinions of particular scholars when I am not sure they really need to be. For instance: "Hariclia Brecoulaki asserts that the Delos mosaics represent the single largest collection of Greek mosaics". This claim is either correct or not; I can't see how there can be any scholarly debate over it, and it is enough to just cite the work the claim comes from in a footnote. I generally only give in-text attributions for either specific quotes, or for questions where scholarly opinion differs.
  • In the section on connections to other forms of Greek art, red-figure pottery is discussed, but not Hellenistic pottery styles. Is there anything to say about those? (It looks like West Slope Ware is closer, and that also used a black ground...)
  • There are loads of good pictures used in this article, and this is exactly the type of article which benefits from that, but... do we really need three separate pictures of the dolphin-and-anchor mosaic from the House of the Trident? What do the last two images in that section add?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Martha Elizabeth Burchfield Richter

I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article I have submitted to Wikipedia. It was written collaboratively with multiple people, and advice on how to improve would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia has a ton of specialized formatting, which I have not been introduced to, so any advice on how to nominate this article for the various options "featured", etc., would also be very helpful.

Thanks, Erikaschoene (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A quick query from KJP1

Can I ask if you have a connection to Louise Simon Schoene, mentioned in the article as owner of "the largest collection of Burchfield's paintings and studies (and) the copyright to all of (her) works"? If you do, I think that would need to be declared as a Conflict of interest. I'm not saying that such a CoI would necessarily prevent you from writing about Burchfield, but I think it would certainly need to be declared, and Wikipedia strongly discourages editors with CoIs from directly editing the pages in which they have such a CoI. KJP1 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Tracer (Overwatch)

I've listed this article for peer review because after spending quite some time editing the article, having it go through a GA review and a copyedit, I would like to prep it for a Featured Article candidacy. Any feedback is much appreciated :^)

Thanks, Soulbust (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Soulbust! Going for the four award I suspect?
  • First of all, pictures have no alt text. This is quite a problem, because alt text is used for users unable to read the text and using other means e.g. listening to the article.
  • Second of all, you should really make a "See also" section. It will help interested users continue reading.
  • And lastly, you should probably move the real name part into the lead as it is done with other characters with pseudonyms (Darth Vader, Black Widow (Natasha Romanova), e.g.).

Hope you succeed! Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions on where to start:

  • Reduce overquoting throughout. Almost all of the quotes would be better off paraphrased, which lets you vary your sentence structure more too for FA-quality prose
  • Combine and reduce subsections in the Appearances section (oversectioning)
  • Parts like the character's "real name" and "country of origin" are all fictional, in-universe detail. Needs to be rewritten for out-of-universe tone with almost all of the lore/plot details clearly described as fictional elements, not "real".
  • You'll want to get a few ce passes on this before FAC—quite a few clunky sentences

I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Emotion (Carly Rae Jepsen album)

I've listed this article for peer review mainly because I believe Wikipedia is a valuable source of information and initiatives like these help to make it more reliable, and partly because I'd like to have my own editing skills assessed. I've firmly believed that Jepsen's work was especially underrated in pop discourse, but my interest in her heightened as new developments on her album were made regarding Ariel Rechtshaid and Dev Hynes's involvement in it; a beautiful intersection of my music taste. Naturally, I followed every bit of information that trickled out; interview, radio show appearances, reviews, think pieces and op-eds as it developed into the "mindie" lore it is now. I've contributed to this article here and there over the past two years, tripling it in size. Of course, as a fan of this given topic it would be natural for me to develop biases when contributing to it which should be identified and rectified in a timely manner.

Thanks in advance, diplomat’s son 08:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SBD PM here

The tone is slightly biased, which can be seen right from the start. The first line of "Background" says "Following the sudden worldwide success ... really overshadowed the rest of out project". It implies that Jepson should not have made her "Call Me Maybe" single too sucessful, which is an opinion. To improve neutrality: quote figures for sales to support the idea that the single was a "worldwide success"; Say "Jepson was worried that her new album will not get as much sales and reviews as her single" and quote a relevant line to support your judgement; limit usage of words like "success" and "timeless", which involves opinions; limit usage of emotive words like "overshadowed", "disappointed" and "scrapped" (Scrapped is informal and suggests anger/disappointment, say "discarded" or "abundened" instead). The overall tone gives me an impression that the Emotion is a "big come-back" for Jepson, which is not good for neutrality.

There are judgements in the article which suggests original research (But I know its not, because I am a CRJ fan aswell). First line of composition, "Emotion is primarily characterized as a synthpop album, with tinges of new wave respective of Jepsen's influences". The phrasing gives an impression of original research, especially the usage of words like "tinges". Rather, say "Many music critics, including The New York Times, said that Emotion is characterised primarily as synthpop, with elements of 80s pop" etc. 张雨涵 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Anna F.

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

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

Comments from Hmlarson

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

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

Lady Gaga

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 June 2017, 18:24 UTC
Last edit: 11 September 2017, 21:40 UTC


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 June 2017, 10:29 UTC
Last edit: 9 August 2017, 19:35 UTC

M. G. Ramachandran filmography

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

Like a Prayer (song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 May 2017, 05:17 UTC
Last edit: 19 September 2017, 05:32 UTC

Ben Affleck

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 29 April 2017, 07:10 UTC
Last edit: 30 July 2017, 14:32 UTC

Definitely Maybe

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 April 2017, 22:05 UTC
Last edit: 21 August 2017, 19:34 UTC

Everyday life

Casey Stengel

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to take it to FAC and would welcome feedback

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Politics and Prose

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

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

Engineering and technology

Grok (JPEG 2000)

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

Thanks, Aaron Boxer

Second Avenue Subway

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I still want to improve it to Featured Article status in the future. The previous peer review was archived due to inactivity, and I would appreciate some feedback.

Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazon Echo

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

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


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

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

Google Earth

I am trying to prepare this article for Good Article re-nomination. The primary issue I'm facing is with the Controversy section, which seems horribly disorganized to me, but I'm at a loss. I'm not sure how I can organize it more coherently without necessarily removing sourced content. I also welcome other suggestions for other areas of the article. I'm aware the history section is very small, but I'm in the process of building it up. BruzerFox 03:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Calgary International Airport

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 August 2017, 17:38 UTC
Last edit: 14 September 2017, 10:27 UTC

Supermarine Spitfire

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a very significant topic about WW2 and it would be great to make this into an A-class article.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not really that good at reviewing other articles, but I think if you'd like to get this to FA or A-class, the first thing you should do is fix the citation needed tags. Also like you said at my Tracer peer review request, make sure there are alt text for the images. I'm not sure if there's any other things you should tweak, it looks all good aside from those minor issues.
Good luck with the article! Best wishes Soulbust (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, aircraft topics aren't my forte, but I grew up reading about the Spitfire and the Hurricane, so this piqued my interest. I didn't take a long look, but one thing struck me as potentially incorrect: "The Spitfire also served in the Pacific Theater. During the Malaya campaign in defense of Singapore, the Spitfire met its match in the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero." As far as I'm aware, the Spitfire did not serve in Malaya during World War II. It did, of course, though fight over Darwin. I would also argue that the article should use British English spelling given the topic. Per the above, I would also echo the need for more citations. For A-class, each paragraph will need to end with a citation. Anyway, good luck and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Attempted to fix these myself with these edits: [1]. If I've got it wrong, please feel free to adjust as necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Added a little about the type's heavy losses over Darwin largely due to fuel capacity. [2] Also, there appear to be a few "citation needed" tags that will need to be dealt with prior to taking the article to ACR or FAC. I can confirm the point about Piece of Cake as I have read the book and seen the series, but as yet haven't been able to find a ref. Will keep looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I have found a ref for this now: [3]. There are still a couple more citation needed tags, though, which I can't find refs for. If anyone can help, that would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Hi, I have had a read in response to the posting on the Milhist page. Again, aircraft aren't my thing. The first thing I notice is that it tends to use long sentence structures which reduce readability. Readability would be enhanced by a bit of copy-editing. I have made a few edits along these lines. Listing notable pilot: " Alan Deere (17 e/a)". The meaning of "e/a" is not made clear. There are also style guide issues I have seen: use of rank abbreviations, use of full name after first occurrence, overuse of capitals, links and over-linking. I suspect that there are more. While I am not suggesting it is badly written, these issues should be addressed in an A-class article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Micro Devices

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

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

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

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

Dolphin (emulator)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 July 2017, 00:52 UTC
Last edit: 25 July 2017, 11:43 UTC


Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 July 2017, 04:17 UTC
Last edit: 17 September 2017, 07:00 UTC

Lisa Blue Baron

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

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

Cub Swanson

I've listed this article for peer review because:

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

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

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

Black & White (video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because this is an FA target of mine. I would like some feedback on whether it's worth going for in the near future. I've expanded the development section and added headings to it since this became a GA, but am concerned that it might be too long, But there really is a hell of a lot of info out there, and there are still many bits in the sources that are not in the article. Have I gone into too much detail anywhere? Is the flow good enough?

Also, do I need to rework the reception section?

Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Jarrett

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

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Najiba Faiz

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

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

The page contains so many non-RS sources. --Saqib (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Huma Nawab

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

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

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

Jeay Sindh Muttahida Mahaz

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

Tour De Cure Australia

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

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

Geography and places


I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent extensive time researching and building this article with hopes of eventually nominating it as a Featured article on Wikipedia. I hope to receive feedback from someone with more experience reviewing articles against Good article or Featured article criteria. One worry I have is that certain sections of the article are too large and need to be tightened.

Thanks for your time, Momoneymoproblemz (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be an A-class article and eventually a Featured Article and a peer review is a necessary to know what improvements are needed. This article is already a "Good Article" but the community wants to improve it further.

Thanks, Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Elcor, Minnesota

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

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

 Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Further comments

A fascinating, well-written and engaging article. I suggest you try state for good article status and even featured article status in the future. Really interesting. Great use of images, very easy to read. One suggestion is that there are sometimes a few too many sources. I would suggest trimming citations down to (at most) 1-2 per sentence, rather than the mammoth 3-5 as currently. Other than that, I suggest give it a shot. Sorry for your long wait, DrGregMN --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the author strays just a bit from Wiki's encyclopedic tone but it certainly gives the article some zest and makes it more interesting to read; e.g., the stubborn smokestack. Overkill on the citations agreed.--Eagledj (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tom (LT) and Eagledj. I did directly nominate the article as a GA candidate; it never even crossed my mind to seek FA status. Thanks for planting the seed. That being said, I have made changes to the article. I am somewhat reticent to remove sources; in my experience, it is always nice to have corroborating evidence from many different sources. I have not seen anything specific to Wikipedia as to how many sources can be cited, but if sources need to be removed, I am open to suggestion. What I have done is examined other FAs (including the four current FAs about ghost towns). I have added a sources section to the article, in addition to a book for further reading (which does not specifically talk about Elcor, but does talk about why some Iron Range towns became prosperous cities while others became ghost towns). I also added external links to the Iron Range Historical Society, since manuscripts of the interviews, other sources and photographs for this article are archived there, as well as to the song "This Town (Ghost Town)" by Rich Mattson and the Northstars since a passing mention of Sparta is made in this article. There is also a website maintained by a Dan Turner of Zenith City Online with an article about Elcor that contains a lot of misinformation. I have emailed him twice suggesting that he re-examine the sources for his information and have never received a response, so I'm combatting that by adding some additional sources to refute his information (the erroneous spelling of "Elcore" and his contention that the mines were owned by the Oliver Mining Company). Please feel free to have a second look. DrGregMN (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Thornton Chase

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see about improving the article and it would be good to have more eyes on it. It was recently saved from a deletion request and I think could be improved to the point of consideration for GA.

Thanks, Smkolins (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
  • Are any more images available?
  • Further reading should go after references
  • Some of the phrasing used in this article doesn't seem encyclopedic in nature - eg. "the inner vacuum he felt apparently set him on a quest for love", "experience pulled him back from the brink of destruction, renewed his hope, and set him on a religious search". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll volunteer to try and track down more images of Chase. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 13:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikkimaria - I've addressed most of that and thanks to dragfyre for finding a relevant image. I was considering a map of places he lived in the different phases but not sold that would really help. There are lots of early pictures of him but not published until more recent years. For example the gravesite has changed markedly. Perhaps I can see if someone is willing to donate a more recent picture. Smkolins (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Spiro Agnew

I've listed this article for peer review because… We'd like feedback before FAC. Note that this is on behalf of Brianboulton and myself.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 September 2017, 20:05 UTC
Last edit: 19 September 2017, 08:33 UTC

Romanian Navy during World War II

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article, and so far my most vast article. I am still rather new, barely been active for 2 weeks, so I would appreciate all the help and advice I can get.

Thanks, Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Hi Brown Water Admiral, welcome. Here are some suggestions:

  • Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have an introduction of 2-3 paragraphs
  • I'm a bit confused by your infoboxes here: the first is for the Black Sea Campaign, but the second says it is part of the Black Sea Campaign - so should we read this as the second is a subset of (and thus included in) the first? Based on the losses it doesn't seem so. I also note a sandwiching problem.
  • I'd suggest providing a bit more background - you could borrow some from the Interwar period at Romanian Naval Forces
  • Citations are generally lacking publisher info. You could opt to split them into short citations and a bibliography, or provide full citation details in footnotes, but either way the full details should be provided at some point. You may also want to include ISBNs. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria Greetings and thankyou for your reply and suggestions. I've already adressed one of them, changing the second infobox from Black Sea Campaigns to Eastern Front of World War II. I will improve the lead and references later though, as it is a bit more of a work and currently I don't have the time for it. I checked out what sandwiching means, but let me ask, is it that much of a problem? I mentioned many warships in the article, I figured people would want to see, what are they reading about. Regards. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
      • People's settings with regards to image size vary, and on some screens there are only a couple of words between the images and infoboxes - this does make it quite difficult to read. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Maurice, Count de Benyovszky

I've listed this article for peer review because of the large rewrite MurdoMondane (talk · contribs) has recently contributed. Although I entirely appreciate MurdoMondane's interest in the subject of which I know very little, I must note that compared to what the article looked like before the present revision looks in desperate need of a cleanup. Any thoughts?

Thanks, --Nevéselbert 14:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Colleague - a correction to your note above: the previous version is not here (as cited):what the article looked like before; but here: what the article looked like before I rewrote it. That version was full of unverified claims, factual inaccuracies and frankly irrelevant information about his ancestors; and was the subject of many pointless talk arguments about how one spells his name. My rewrite was an attempt to cut through opinion and nationalism to the facts. I will be interested to learn about this "desperate need of a cleanup", though? Your only comment so far is about the lead-section, which I have asked you to talk to me about...

MurdoMondane (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@MurdoMondane: I don't deny that you have improved the content of the article. It's just the way the content is presented that I find rather messy.--Nevéselbert 16:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevé OK, understood. Let's see what the peer-review comes back with, then. Thanks

MurdoMondane (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important part of history and I want it to reach feature article status. Any help to improve is welcomed. Thanks, Seiya (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working on getting it ready for FAC. I nominated it in January, but it was closed due to serious concerns about it not being ready for FA. I believe I have fixed all the problems mentioned there, and nearly doubled the article in size since then, but I would like some feedback on what could/should be improved before/if I nominate it again.

Thanks, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

Just a few things from me:

  • The lead should be expanded to a summary of the article, needs major events to be mentioned at least
  • did you use the same structure as another similar article that is a FA or similar? I just found that starting with Culture and Geography jarred a bit, given we later learn things about them in the History section.
    The culture section is much newer, previously only the history section existed. Someone had suggested I start out with the culture, to give an idea about the people.Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the various names bit of the lead would be better in a section rather than the lead (perhaps the first section), that would also mean you could dispense with citations in the lead, which should not usually be necessary as everything in the lead should be in the body
  • Is there nothing known about them prior to their migration other than where they lived?
    I have found nothing even mentioning them at that point, unless to talk about their migration and the reasoning. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • link Aorsi and Roxolani


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

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

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

czar 22:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Gongsun Hong

Article uses sources currently available to me (I could possibly add a background section, but non-specific research would be a project in itself) and has been incorporated into the Confucianism and Legalism templates, but has no rating or incorporation into WikiProjects yet.FourLights (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I decided to be bold and fixed some of the parts that I thought were problematic, hope you don't mind. The "Discourse" title is not conventional, I was tempted to change it to something like "Political beliefs" to re-organize it after "Career", but I will leave it to your discretion. Many of your writing are incompatible with the style manual, I hope you can review the guidelines if you haven't had the chance to do so. Great work with the article overall, thank you! Alex ShihTalk 21:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Lucius Neratius Marcellus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 20 June 2017, 17:17 UTC
Last edit: 9 August 2017, 21:19 UTC


The article deals with a post-WW2 lobby group formed in West Germany by former Waffen-SS members. The topic is multi-faceted, dealing with the post-war integration of veterans into society, politics, historical revisionism and the impact of the organisation on the contemporary popular culture. I'm looking for feedback that could help bring the article to a successful FA nomination in the future.

Thank you, K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that the HIAG claimed its aims as providing comradeship, legal assistance, support for those in Allied captivity, help for families, and aid in searches for those still missing, I assume it did those things (as well as other things that are already voluminously documented in the article) and would expect its actions in those respects to be covered in this article. Such coverage is completely absent at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

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

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

Nice article. A number of common terms such as conservative, do not need to be wikilinked.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The subject is very much a surprise to me, especially as I was reasonably attentive to the events of the 2016 election & this is the first I heard of this assassination attempt! While the numerous sources cited do enable this article to pass the Notability standard, IMHO it still feels to be a subject that does not merit the title, especially when compared to the equally unsuccessful actions of, say, Squeaky Fromme. Then again, if there are other attempts to assassinate Trump, the article title would then be used to collect all of those events under one rubric, as was done with Assassination threats against Barack Obama, none of which I was aware of. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to expand the BBC section a bit more? It's quite small, and if it has more coverage it definitely warrants more than two sentences. Nice article though. Jdcomix (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this is good: it's comprehensive, clear, succinct and well-sourced. I can't think of any changes that need making. Richard75 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Arab Agricultural Revolution

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

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

Comments from User:Anotheronewiki

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

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

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

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

Natural sciences and mathematics


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to FA status, but this article attained GA status back in 2008 (meaning I didn't write a bulk of it). I'm worried about referencing issues mainly because of that

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Half of the citations seem to be Wouldn't it be better to directly use the sources the website cites? Or at least condense it somehow. "Monster Shark" also doesn't seem to be a reliable source, most of such TV shows are overly exaggerated. "" and "" also seems like dubious sources, and that is just at a glance. In general, most of such sources should be replaced with academic, peer-reviewed sources, not pop-science articles and TV-shows. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Bhut jolokia

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like a good topic and overall an interesting article. I would like to improve the article and bring it to GA stage.

Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 07:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi FriyMan. This is an interesting topic. First the lead probably needs some work so it is a better overview of the article. Do we need all the bolded alternative names? None are mentioned in Etymology. In fact Bhut jolokia is not even in etymology. We generally don't use unencylopaedic sentences like The images on this page show examples of both the rough and the smooth fruit. It would be better to say that they come in rough and smooth and have a accompanying picture demonstrating this. Image captions need some work as they should relate somewhat to the section and tell us something about the plant. Prose in defense could be improved. It is also missing quite a lot of information on the plant itself. Habitat, evolution, varieties, taxonomy, cultivation, pests, diseases, nutritional information and production information are all lacking. While the hotness issue is interesting this is still an article on a crop and needs to cover the typical details found within these types of articles as well. Also the Dorset Naga section seems to fit within the Scoville rating section. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aircorn: The article captions definitely need some work. For example, some of the captions use different capitalization for "Bhut jolokia" (like "Bhut jolokia" and "bhut jolokia"). Plus, several of the images in the article gallery do not have any captions; maybe some can be added. Name goes here (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You should say what SHU stands for
  • don't bolden "chili pepper" and "Naga morich" in the lead as neither are the ghost pepper   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems ref no. 25 is incomplete and a deadlink, and refs no. 19 and 26 are also incomplete
  • Internet news sources (like ref no. 30) need an access date parameter, also, though it's not a requirement, I'd recommend that you stay consistent on how you style it (like either use "24 April 2012", "April 24, 2012," "24-4-17," or "4-24-17")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Use this converter to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN
  • refs no. 6, 10, and 13 are a deadlinks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you have the wrong url for ref no. 20   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I clicked on the link for ref no. 26 and it came up with a warning that said "site contains malware"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

North American beaver

I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently a B-class article, and I'd like to get some specific ideas on how to eventually bring it up to FA-class.

Thanks, Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leptictidium. I don't usually have much to do with FA, but I can offer some ideas on improvement. First the lead is too brief. It should summerise the article and I feel it needs quite a bit more information to reach that point. Most of it covers the naming, which is only a small part of the whole article. Sourcing is a little light for an article looking to be considered a FA. While there is only one [citation needed] tag, other sentences could also be tagged. The ecology section is massive and possible a little WP:Undue. I would consider WP:Spliting it off into a new article and condensing what is here. The sentence New Zealand has giardia outbreaks, but no beavers, whereas Norway has plenty of beavers, but had no giardia outbreaks until recently (in a southern part of Norway densely populated by humans but no beaver) seems a little WP:Synthy. Although it is probably accurate I would prefer a source that makes the connection. Prose is generally very good. Nothing jumps out as missing. If you haven't already you might like to look at some articles under Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Animals to see what standards are required. They are pretty strict on reference formatting so that will probably need to be checked. Also you may have to explain why this is a reliable source. Other than that it is a pretty good article and not a million miles off being considered a great one. Good luck going forward with this one. AIRcorn (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Leptictidium, as the article is currently rated at B-Class, I would suggest aiming for WP:GA before WP:FAC. Therefore, your first step would be to ascertain which of the currently listed WikiProjects on the Talk page the article most falls under, and ensure that this article meets their quality criteria for GA first. I would suggest either Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. I cannot see what value the other projects bring to this article other than "badging" - that is not the purpose of adding WikiProjects onto a Talk page. (Personally I would remove the other two but it is not my call). My best wishes to you in this worthy undertaking. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd have to say that it needs a section that discusses taxonomy, specifically taxonomic history (like who's the species authority and stuff like that). Also, in some parts, it's seems like the images are clumping together and stacked on top of each other, and other parts don't have a picture.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Language and literature

Brothers Poem

Discovered in 2014, the Brothers Poem was the subject of international media attention; I brought the article to WP:GA status last December. Having come back to it recently, I'm looking to bring it up to Featured status.

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

First things first, this is a very well-written article. I can easily seeing it go to FAN one day (I assume that's the goal?) and it rightfully should! Here are a few things I noticed upon a read-through. I'll try to pop back in and offer some more comments later one—perhaps do a deeper review of the notes and sources, etc.

  • I know that Sappho is an archaic poet, but the lede (while mentioning this fact) also notes that the poem was first published in 2014. This too is true, but for the lay reader, this might be a little confusing, since it could come across as saying the poem is only 3 years old. Is there a better way of expressing what I know you mean?
  • Several of the lettered footnotes don’t have sources. I feel like you might want to add some since they aren’t really expressing “Paris is the capital of France”-style facts.
  • Is the Brothers Poem on the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2289? If so, does that mean that parts of the pome was published in 1951?
  • It might be a good idea to explain who certain people are in the analyses sections. Why, for instance, should we trust André Lardinois or Camillo Neri? (I was told something similar during either the FAN or a peer-review for the ‘’Astronomica’’. If you think it would be clunky, feel free to ignore)
  • Herodotus should be linked when his name first appears (second paragraph of “Content”) and the link in the second paragraph of “Characters” should be removed
  • “Despite Bär's arguments, most authors accept that the Brother's Poem is missing at least one stanza.” This effectively repeats the first line of the previous paragraph.
  • Should you link the papers in the “Reception” section?
  • It might be nice to archive all of the web-based citations, as well as provide JSTOR numbers etc.

That's all for now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, Gen. Quon! I will have to think carefully about some of these points, but I've fixed the linking for Herodotus. I don't really want to link the newspapers, as that's not really relevant to the article, nor do I like explaining who the scholars cited are (generally, if they aren't otherwise described in the text, they are a classicist who focuses on Greek lyric poetry or papyrology; there are only so many ways you can say that before the reader starts thinking "okay, I get it already!"), but in both cases I shall bear it in mind, and if I get more feedback along the same lines I might change it. I probably should archive all of the web-based citations; I seem to recall that there's a way of automating that (perhaps with InternetArchiveBot).

Re. Brothers Poem and P. Oxy. 2289: yes, part of the poem was technically published in 1951. (At least, unless you are Silvio Bär, and believe that the overlap is a coincidence.) It didn't contain a single complete word, though, and so didn't make it into the Lobel-Page or Voigt editions of Sappho. Possibly this should be made clearer, but reliable sources do generally call the poem newly discovered...

Reworking the lead is something which needs careful thinking about. I might find time to have a look tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks for all the useful comments! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

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

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

Philosophy and religion


I am nominating this article for peer review. I hope to eventually bring this article up to GA status, but I think it still has a long way to go. I am interested in any kind of advice you can offer to help improve the quality of the article. There are a few sections I think still need quite a bit of work (particularly the "Character" and "Alleged associations with Easter" sections), but I would very much like to hear a neutral second opinion. Any and all advice is appreciated. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Papal conclave

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if we could possibly get it to FA again after more than a decade, and I've never done an FA before. Personally I have some concerns on the sourcing as I recognize a few unreliable or self-published sources in the list (Guruge and Miranda in particular), but I am pretty good at sorting out reliability of sourcing on religious history articles myself. The thing I am looking for is seeing what would be needed to bring this up to FA standards.

Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony. "for almost a thousand years" wouldn't cut much mustard with many historians. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Removed. I don't have access to the Baumgartner article it is cited to, but his book on conclaves certainly doesn't make that claim, so I suspect it is unlikely he made the claim as presented in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Tony, that level of vagueness would be a fatal red flag at FAC. I would comp for similar issues. Over all however, very nice work. Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Ceoil, I wish I could claim credit, but it is not my work at all. Its been GA for years and I have been working on other specific conclave articles, and thought it might be worth trying to get the general topic to FA. Having never done one before, I thought peer review might be the best place to start to see what needs cleaning up in the article :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Grand. I'm not seeing commitment here so advise against FAC. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
No, there certainly is commitment to the topic. I just have no idea where to begin on such a significant article that has been at GA status for over a decade and hasn't had any talk page conversation in three years. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments by jfhutson

I can't commit to much right now as I'm busy irl, but here are a few comments.

  • This seems to focus on the process. I think to be comprehensive (a FAC requirement) you need to give a history of the actual conclaves. I'm not sure how you would want to do that, whether integrating it in with the history of the development of the system or as a separate section, but I was expecting to learn at least a summary about the conclaves.
  • Since you're looking for where to start, I would echo what you said about sourcing. Check out some good books and order some good articles, and hopefully that will give you direction. --JFH (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There's already a history of the conclaves. The article as a whole is pretty comprehensive. To add more detail, it would probably be necessary to create a new article, to prevent this one becoming too long. Richard75 (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Luang Por Dattajivo

Hello fellow Wikpedians, I've listed this article for peer review because it has been greatly rewritten since it was last assessed. I also like to check it for writing and want to know if it is understandable for outsiders. I would appreciate it if it received a new quality assessment.

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs improvement through the input of editors who have some knowledge in philosophy, Arabic-Islamic thought, etc. Thanks, AcademeEditorial (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to soon take it to FAN. Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi is a fourth-century AD Latin poem, which was arranged by Faltonia Betitia Proba. The work takes verses extracted from Virgil and rearranged them so that they tell stories from the Old and New Testament of the Christian Bible, focusing on the story of Jesus Christ. This is a rather important poem, because it is likely the first Christian poem penned by a female author (I also just find it fascinating).

It received one peer-review almost two years ago, but has been greatly expanded since then. I have also had it copy-edited. I would love some more feedback to make it even better.

Thanks, --Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Only a few comments from me this time around:

  • The section on the characterisation of Mary gives three different interpretations of her characterisation, one which claims that Mary's maternal qualities are stressed in the poem; another that Mary has no maternal qualities. Given that these interpretations are so diametrically opposed, it might be a good idea to expand on them a little more. As it stands, I don't really get any sense from the article of why there is such disagreement, or whether there is any scholarly consensus.
  • I would be interested to see more discussion of the literary context: centos were an established genre by the time Proba wrote, but hers is the first substantial Christian cento. How does her work relate to earlier centos? What about later ones – Aelia Eudocia wrote a Homeric cento covering the same subjects (Genesis, the life of Christ) as Proba's.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'll try to respond to them this week.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Astronomica (Manilius)

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

Social sciences and society

Grace Hutchins

I'm requesting a peer review for this because this was very much a group effort between two or three editors, and so it is possibly a mixture of styles (although I have blind spot for stuff I've written, so couldn't readilly identify such myself). But prior to a further nomination, I'd appreciate it if uninvolved eyes could make suggestions, commentary etc to even it out and generally improve i. Many thanks! — fortunavelut luna 16:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. I'd never heard of Grace Hutchins before now. I think the biggest problem with the article is the prose; most of my comments below focus on tightening up particularly weak spots. With a little bit of work I think you can get this up to GA standard, though.

  • From the lead: She spent many years of her life writing about labor and economics, in addition to being a lifelong dedicated member of the Communist Party, along with Anna Rochester, a Marxist economist and historian and her companion of 45 years. This is a little bit tortured. I think this is really trying to convey three related ideas: she was a lifelong member of the Communist Party; she wrote about labor and economics; and her "companion" (is this a case of "serious historians are reluctant to say 'lover'"?) of 45 years was Anna Rochester. Try something like: A lifelong member of the Communist Party, Hutchins wrote for many years on labor and economics. For 45 years, she lived with the Marxist economist and historian Anna Rochester, with whom she promoted radical Christian pacifism in the United States.? I'm not entirely happy with the way the second sentence further sidelines the relationship between Rochester and Hutchins, which the article never quite comes out and says was more than platonic, though...
  • And for that matter, the prominence Hutchins' writings are given in the lead seems disproportionate to the single paragraph they get in the article body. Her leftist activism, meanwhile, is barely treated in the lead, but gets the best part of the article body.
  • Her parents had English ancestors that settled in Massachusetts during the colonial period. Not sure about this. Presumably, if her parents' ancestors were English, then so too were hers! Her ancestors, originally from England, had settled in Massachusetts during the colonial period.?
  • Is it worth saying where she was privately educated? Does this mean taught by private tutors, or sent to a private school?
  • What did she study at Bryn Mawr?
  • When the US entered the war with the Allies in 1917, she found herself in protests against the war. the passive voice has its place, but this is possibly the most uncommitted construction I have ever seen. she protested against the war or she was involved in protests against the war or she began to protest against the war or really anything other than she found herself in protests!
  • Her political stance impacted her private life do we have any details on how?
  • "served as" twice in one sentence. change one of them.
  • It was during this period that she was suggested to have "learned firsthand" on many women's labor conditions by working "ten-hour days in a cigar factory". ungrammatical. suggest During this period she gained first-hand experience of women's labor conditions, working "ten-hour days in a cigar factory".
  • According to Janet Lee, author of a biography about the two womenHutchins and Rochester, they "were a part of [a] cohort of women whose commitment to social activism was integrated with their lesbian orientation".
  • Hutchins and Rochester travelled[...] travelling as far as India: repetition of travelled/travelling...
  • she ran for state office in NY, presumably?
  • Bail Bond fund: is this correct capitalisation? I would have expected either "Bail Bond Fund" or "bail bond fund"...
  • might be worth briefly explaining what the Smith Act trials were: I had to click away from the article to find out...
  • The significance of their joint work: again, the previous paragraph was solely about Hutchins. Signpost that we are back on to H&R
  • She co-edited several reference series for the group which group? she was associated with dozens, it seems.
  • "cofounders" is this okay in US English? As a Brit, I would expect "co-founders".
  • in 1948, during the Alger Hiss espionage trial it is my understanding that Hiss was never tried for espionage; he was convicted of perjury. And while we are at it, the Hiss trial began, at least according to our article, in 1949.
  • Her father did not approve of her political activities, and he was disappointed about her 1927 arrest This is a bit of a jump back in time from the Red Scare!
  • After having been ill for an extended period, she died at her home on July 15, 1969. a little short for a stormtrooper an entire subsection. The section "Legacy" is pretty insubstantial too.

Hope this helps! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Revelle College

I'm interested in how complete this article appears, what can be done to improve it, and how much work remains before this can be considered A-class or a GA. Thanks, TritonsRising (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Chetham's School of Music

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… it became a good article back in 2011, but since then the school has had some significant events occuring, namely in 2012, following the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal a former teacher was convicted of abusing a pupil at the school, and with this came more allegations of abuse by school staff. This has been added into the article add-hoc by multiple editors. As well as this, a major new building project was completed, with a new concert hall.

Furthermore, I was absent from Wikipedia from early 2012 until last year, so have not been able to keep on top of the additions. So, I'm looking for someone to review this with a fresh pair of eyes - I haven't made any major changes to the article at all.

Thanks, Aiken D 18:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Billie Jean King

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the likelihood of it passing WP:GAR and ultimately WP:FAR. Input is welcome.

Thanks, Hmlarson (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The scores need to be removed from prose unless they are some kind of record... sources for those events should be added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Fyunck(click) - can you provide the guideline your suggestion is based on? Hmlarson (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. You can see it in all the major player articles such as Federer, Nadal, Williams, etc... Here is the link to the The Tennis Project Guideline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

Previous peer review

Though not perfect, I've reworked the article.FourLights (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Government of India

I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to get it to GA or FA status which ever it will be ready for. All comments are welcomed

Thanks, RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Brief comments, since the article is in rather poor shape and concerns over details are likely to be rendered irrelevant by any later improvements. The article is far too short, and what is currently there is often unsourced. The "Issues" section appears to be synth at best; there is little evidence that the points listed there are considered to be the most serious issues with the government by reliable sources. There is absolutely no reason to give the details of a specific, recent budget in the finance section. The "PIL" and "Cabinet secretary" sections are probably undue weight. Much of the content is in the form of lists, rather than substantive prose. Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93I have addressed you concerns about undue weight and the inclusion of the budget details. Please take a look.Hopeful to adress the other issues within the nxt two days -RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 05:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Women's sport in Saudi Arabia

Since I created this article back in 2012 it has received scant attantion from other editors. I believe the subject deserves attention as a serious social issue in a major country. Recent changes to government policies pertaining to women's freedom of movement in Saudi are an indication that further changes in women's rights may be possible which could affect the topic of this article. As I am not a specialist in women's rights, sport, or Saudi social policy, I'm hoping others who are better versed in these topic areas could help to develop the article to reach at least a B grade now, then I might push for GA at a later stage.

Thanks, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a link from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia maybe the article will get more traffic and revisions then. Sorry I can't do more, I am not very knowledgeable on the topic.Fred (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


List of United States Senators from Ohio

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

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

List of songs recorded by Syd Barrett

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has the criteria to become featured but would like more feedback to improve it in case it doesn't.

Thanks, BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Georgetown University alumni

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is almost ready for GA status. I would like feedback on how to improve it, especially as it relates to the lead section. I am new to writing lists.

Thanks,  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

John Ford filmography

I've listed this article for peer review because John Ford is arguably the greatest movie director of all time. He deserves a filmography listing that is worthy of FL status. A peer review seems the first logical step in achieving this.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews

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