Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. 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. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA. I recently withdrew its first FA nomination because of a lack of reviews. The review it did receive noted issues with the reception section, and I would mainly like feedback on that section in particular
Courtesy ping: @Aoba47: (please do not feel obligated to engage with this peer review, I know you have a new FAC (which is excellent by the way!) and I don’t want to pressure you to leave a review, and also thank you for your help at the FAC)
I've listed this article for peer review because... I wish to improve the article to Featured Article status. I feel that it is quite complete, so I'm requesting a sanity check to make sure that there's no unknown unknown that emerges during the FA nom.
Japanese animated film from 1986, quite influential and popular outside of Japan. 2026 would be the 40th anniversary of release. It has been expanded with several English language magazine sources since online sources were somewhat lacking. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for PR because I've significantly de-stubbed and think I would like to (eventually) go down the GAN road. I believe everything is pretty well-referenced, but I'm sure the prose could be improved and I'm conflicted about the article's overall structure. Since the subject has been pretty consistently busy on stage/screen for 20+ years, I've had a hard time coming up with easily identifiable career 'eras' to use as sub-section headers.
Hi, everyone. I withdrew this article's FAC after reviewers noted issues with prose. In the months since, it has gone through a copyedit, and I'd like to renominate for FAC at some point.
Requesting WP:PEER because I wanted to submit it at Wikipedia:The United States 20,000 Challenge. Note that I had updated the article back in 2022 by adding the episode summary (for the first time) and expanding the production section.
Lede could be expanded, recommend adding a sentence or two about the plot (maybe weave the current premise section into it?) and summarize some repeated themes across reviews (i.e. reviewers praised performance of xyz but criticized xyz tonal problem.")
Not sure about having a premise section in addition to episode summaries as they seem to sort of serve the same function? I feel like most TV articles I see pick one or the other, although I'm not sure if there's formal guidance about this.
The character description for Anna may be a sentence or two too long- MOS:TVCAST says that in-universe info (such as chicken casseroles or the books she reads) may be better suited to plot/episode summary.
"The rain sequences required Bell to act in 50 °F (10 °C) temperature" I'm not sure this is worth mentioning, 50 F seems like a pretty reasonable outdoor temperature unless she was wearing very little clothing
Some citation overkill in the second para of #production#filming - 5 in-lines in one place (one of which is marked as unreliable source- PopSugar)
The review section could be expanded, maybe summarize at least one other review's comments besides The Guardian. WSJ and Vulture look promising for this purpose.
Please add translated titles to foreign language sources.
Some of the info box statements are uncited.
The lede should generally not have inline citations, instead please incorporate the info and citations in to the article body and remove the citations from the lede.
See WP:GAMESPOT for more information on when it may be incorrect or unreliable.
Dimps and NanaOn-sha as seen in the lede do not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article.
I think the next step is to add information about the game's development. Who created the game? Who was on the creative team, and when did they start working on it? Who proposed creating this game, and why? This is information you can possibly find in news sources or interviews that will add more information to the article. Additional sources can be found using Google, WP:LIBRARY, or databases available from your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for suggestions and help before I submit the article for FA consideration. I've already noted a complex and time consuming change I could make to fix a possibly fine rule violation(the Plot sections word count), but an outside perspective on the matter as well as general help would be much appreciated.
Hello @Crispybeatle: Had my first read and some editors did copy edits. Here are my comments, generally on language accessibility, content conciseness, and such.
Add archive links to save URLs. One dead link is a Rolling Stone article.
Add translations to Spanish sources for those who do not speak the language.
You can add wikilinks to reference publishers if a Wikipedia article of them exists.
Add captions (Spanish and English) for the audio file.
Some of the remarks on Composition from MariskalRock.com may fall under reception or should be removed, such as the final track "giving out hope". You can remove them if such sentences aren't related to how the songs were composed by the studio. Sentences that note what emotions the song may give to listeners are not part of Composition.
The article may use a Reception section. See WP:CRS and generally follow MOS:ALBUM.
"The article may use a Reception section. See WP:CRS and generally follow MOS:ALBUM." I don't have a lot of info for a section, that's why the article doesn't have one, "Personnel section is unsourced." My bad, it doesn't have sources because I thought it worked the same way as lead or an infobox, where it doesn't need sources if a source already states that.
@Crispybeatle: If that's so, then I understand. But try to find as much sources for the reception. And about the point in reception-like sentences in Composition, it's nit yet fully over. There can be more that aren't appropriate for Composition and Lyrics, but some sentences include:
Writer Carlos Prat writes that it permitted the band to show a direct and crude side, while writer Iván Adaime states that Canción Animal has "elegant fury" Who are the writers? And see WP:CRS for what quotations you can include.
author Ariel Olvero writes that the track shows Canción Animal's aggressiveness
has a "grunge like sound" according to MariskalRock.com
@Crispybeatle: Good progress on the recent edits. The Reception section's a good addition. Still, I can't access the references such as [1]. Add archive URLs or find a live URL for each source. I also italicized some of the 'Cancion Animal' terms, noting MOS:ALBUM's first section. You can verify if the sentences refer to the album or the third track. You can also use templates such as transl. or lit. depending on context. RFNirmala (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source you linked is live, maybe there's a problem with your internet? Also, I have verified if it's referring to the third track. Thank you.
@Crispybeatle: Possibly related to my ___location. I'm in SEA, and I can access websites other than those you cited. Can't also see archives in IA. Would be good to archive links and add them while they're still live.RFNirmala (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, they are all archived I'll check on IA if that is the case.
No immediate concerns that would cause this article to quick fail. I think this is ready for a GAN, where an editor will provide more specific comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this is a nearly ten year old good article that I revisited for an extensive copyedit of the prose, something that unintentionally piqued my curiosity. I don't have much FA ambitions for this article, but I would nonetheless appreciate feedback for improvement in the event I do take up the task.
I've listed this article for peer review because after doing lots of cleanup for the page, I'd like to see whether others think it has a chance of passing a GAN soon. The article isn't exactly perfect, and might be missing some things that I overlooked, but are there any glaring problems?
Tell me whether you believe File:Katy Perry Firework Video.png is an improvement, Tbhotch, and I admittedly had a some difficulty finding a good timestamp that included fireworks shooting out from both Katy and other folks. Either way, I addressed everything else except the URL errors, which surprisingly weren't resolved when I ran a bot to archive this page's citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an improvement. Regarding the bot, due to the hack Wayback Machine suffered months ago (I assume), it doesn't fix issues by itself. You'll have to manually fix the issues (if any). (CC)Tbhotch™04:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it's hard, I think, to write an anthem that's not cheesy, and I hope that this could be something in that category"
"displays a breezy maturity and serious set of pipes, a true demonstration of Perry's musicianship without contradicting the kittenish mischief of the bigger picture"
"not an actively painful listen. Sure, the would-be inspirational lyrics ('Baby you're a firework/Come on show them what you're worth') are nonsensical, ... but the chorus gains some momentum and the song would work well enough in a club setting that you could forgive its otherwise glaring weaknesses"
I do not think there are any major concerns with the article, and I think its ready for GAN. If this is planned to go further (towards FAC) I would recommend searching for more information about the song's critical reception: I am surprised that there is only a paragraph of information about it considering that it is a very popular song. Perhaps there can be a paragraph about the reception of the music, and another about the lyrics. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely go to FAC after becoming a GA, Z1720, and I've added a few more reviews now. I'm yet not sure how feasible separating topics within that section will be after implementing others. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Adding more reviews helped improve that reception section. While I gave one suggestion on how to split the reception section, other suggestions can be just as relevant, depending on what various reviews focused on. The reception section now seems to follow the "X says Y" format too much: I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to avoid this. Articles don't need a quote from every source in the review section, and sometimes combining reviews that say similar things is more effective for the reader and allow information about the song's reception to be summarised more succinctly. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I think the article suffers from a lot of WP:UNDUE text especially in the background and possibly elsewhere but am struggling to figure out what needs focusing on and how to do it, so I would like some comment. After UNDUE issues resolves I think article it should probably be GA-able, pending other things.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing to nominate Super Mario Bros. (1985) for Featured Article status. As this is my first nomination, I would greatly appreciate feedback on the article’s comprehensiveness, sourcing, writing quality, and overall suitability for FAC. Thanks, CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the first thing that you need to do is fix the {{Citation needed}} tags by adding sources. Cos(X + Z)16:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave a couple of comments:
You need to fix {{citation needed}} tags by adding reliable sources.
You should remove unreliable / non-high-quality sources from the article (e.g., WP:VALNET, but there are also many more besides Valnet sources)
The article should not rely on primary sources (Nintendo / Iwata).
You should look for scholarly analysis of the game and books about the game and add them to the article.
Also, are you actually sure that you want to bring this article to FAC? You have zero experience at WP:GAN and WP:FAC. My suggestion would be to withdraw this PR and work on something else that is easier than this. This is, after all, one of the most known video games of all time and it'll be extremely complicated to get it to FAC status, especially if you don't have prior experience there. Also, please consider what others at FAC said. PR rules state that you must address FAC issues before bringing the article to PR and you haven't done that. Vacant0(talk • contribs)19:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've also haven't even edited the article... You should really withdraw and work on something else at this point before coming to this stage. My suggestion would be to seek a WP:GAMENTOR and work on a video game article. Vacant0(talk • contribs)19:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As much as you want to have that article at FA level, it takes a lot of work. If you think about it, creating an article (what many Wikipedia users start with) is pretty difficult without prior editing experience but bringing an article to FA is even more so. And I don't think I've seen an editor with 1000 edits or less to bring an article to FA, or bringing an article to FA without ever having a successful GA. JuniperChill (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its somewhat similar to when I planned to nominate Animal Crossing: New Horizons to FAC, via a PR (which I will close shortly, since that plan is on hold) as I needed to remove some low-quality and unreliable sources, as well as adding sources from 2022 onwards. I never nominated that for FAC since its a step too much. I would not that I'm not a significant contributor to ACNH, since I only added a couple of sentences plus made some reverts. JuniperChill (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "Despite" from "Despite the divided critical response" is misleading. Contrary to what such phrasing implies, critics' opinions on an album is a completely separate matter from commercial performance and being a success didn't defy some connection between these things.
Of all the album charts this topped, singling out only six of them in the lead feels quite arbitrary.
Keep MOS:RELTIME in mind for things like "four million copies sold to date". At least give a timeframe for this figure.
"Lead single", "leaked", and "concert tour" are commonly known terms that don't need linking per WP:OVERLINK.
Below are some comments based on just the Musical style section.
"it offers a scathing anti-monarchist statement" This corresponds with "Searing, six-minute opener that splits venom at the monarchy" in NME 2016. I am hesitant to utilize "scathing" in wikivoice; consider replacing with the admittedly less eloquent "it is strongly anti-monarchist "
Adjacent to the above passage, the quote "useless, taxpayer-funded tabloid fodder" needs to be clearly attributed in-line. The same issue can be observed elsewhere in the same section with "obvious depression", "jaunty pop backing", "sprightly and carefree", "lightning-fast drum rolls", "shot of punk adrenaline" (unlink "adrenaline", as this is a common idiomatic construction), "lashes out at media and the world", "casual dismissal of gender norms", etc.
"Described by critics as one of his most poetic moments" is not supported by the corresponding "Rarely has Moz sounded more poetic" from NME 2016. This source presumably being the opinion of only one critic. The same over-application of a singular opinions as representing critical consensuses is evident elsewhere in this section.
Overall, Marr's primary-source perspectives might be overrepresented in the section. While it is important to consider his views, the extensive quotations are sometimes unnecessary or unrelated to any commentary on musical style.
As it stands, I would say that an overuse of quotations and the failure to adequately attribute subjective opinions/quotes in-line are significant barriers to this article being promoted as an FA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the prose needs a lot of work: unclear at times and too journalistic. I might spend a week or so copyediting (if that's ok), before listing specific complaints here.
Disappointed to see that the sources are mainly magazine/news paper/website based when there are so many more in-dept books out there. In particular the omission of "The Severed Alliance" gives pause.
The article is not ready for FAC but has potential, and would be delighted to help but it may take a week or so until I go into the weeds and give actionable feedback. ie this is still a placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a peer review for the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. The article has been extensively revised to include a well-developed lead, restructured and fully cited sections (Production, Themes and analysis, Reception, Legacy, Home media), and is aligned with WP:FILM and WP:FAC standards.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- Comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Inline citations and reliability of sources
- Reception balance (Indian and international)
- Any prose, style, or formatting issues
@Thefallguy2025: It has been over a month and there hasn't been a comment here yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for comments at the Wikiprojects attached to this article and reviewing other PRs and FACs. I also suggest asking for feedback from a FA mentor If not, can you close this? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to firstly, get feedback on the current state of the article. Since I made it, I'm kinda at in a "well, what now?" moment and not exactly sure how to improve it, other than knowing some sections are perhaps too short, the specificifation section, for example. Additonally, I want to push this article to GA/FA, so, any and all feedback would be lovely.
Listed for peer review because I'm considering attempting to bring it to FAC (first time!). I'm fairly confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness but feedback on organization, prose etc. would be especially appreciated.
The hot topic these days is sourcing so (despite the request to concentrate on the prose), I'll mostly stick to sourcing. Since this will be your first FAC, starting here at PR was a good move, and I recommend that after this you move onto WP:GAN to get another round of review.
TorrentFreak is a blog, and thus unlikely to be accepted as a WP:RS. You've used them for almost half of your citations. I'm afraid that's going to exceptionally hard to sell at WP:FAC.
It's not clear to me where TNW falls. I see [Next Web for ProProfs] which is mostly positive, but I suspect you will still get some pushback at FAC about the quality of that source.
London Review of Books appears to be a WP:RS in general, but you are using something from a blog they run, so that's probably not a RS.
Per WP:VICE, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. Not encouraging.
I don't have a good feel for walledculture.org, but my first impression is that it's more of a blog than a RS.
Well, those are the sourcing problems that stand out to me on a quick look. Overall, the elphant in the room is TorrentFreak. I just don't see any way that's going to be accepted as a WP:RS at FAC, and given that so much of your article is sourced to them, unfortunately I think you've got your work cut out for you to find better sourcing. RoySmith(talk)00:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Walled Culture source was also republished on Techdirt (a blog, but apparently a fairly well-respected one for tech news) and the author seems independently credible as a tech writer. If citing TorrentFreak is an issue I don't think there's really any acceptable replacement because there's no other source with an equivalent breadth of coverage. Most of the information they have isn't available anywhere else. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per perennial sources "most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing". In general this is a fairly niche topic without much coverage so TorrentFreak can't be removed without excising most of the article. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the various RSN discussions, I come away with the impression that it's a bit of a grey area. I do note that this thread says "There shouldn't be a problem with using articles from TorrentFreak on a limited basis and with limited weight". You are using them as the (by far) most used source in your article. I really think you're going to have a lot of trouble with this at FAC. RoySmith(talk)01:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review in order to receive feedback regarding the level of detail included throughout the article, (far too detailed, not detailed enough, not an issue, etc), sections for addition or expansion, and general flow and wording of the article.
I'm also wondering whether information surrounding the gorge itself, significant businesses nearby, and conservation and recreation in the gorge should be included in this article briefly, or if they warrant their own article.
Firstly, great work on getting the article improved to this state. There are some minor points for further improvement that I will suggest later on. My initial feedback is about a significant clarification that I think is needed early on in the article.
There are actually two bridges at the site, and this must be made clear early in the article, and also in the lead. A new section, perhaps entitled "Setting" could be useful in the early part of the article. This would describe the narrow gorge in the river, Goat Island, and the flood channel between Goat Island and the south west bank of the river. The description would go on to introduce the fact that there are actually two bridges at the site. I have found that several sources call them No1 and No 2, with the older bridge being No 1. (I note that the article has a photo caption for the concrete bridge that calls it No 2). My view is that it is best for the scope of this article to cover both bridges, as at present, but retain the main focus and the majority of content about the No 1 bridge because of its heritage character. The existence of two bridges just needs to be made clearer from the start. An alternative is to create a new article about the No 2 bridge, but I don't think this is necessary.
With regards to the scope of the article, I suggest that activities in and around the Rakaia Gorge itself are out of scope for this article and would distract from the focus on the main topic. There are activities in the area such as the walkway and jet boating that may warrant coverage, but this should be as part of a new article about the gorge, not the bridge(s). Any new article would take over from the existing redirect page. I would expect that a new article about the gorge would include a significant amount of content about geology and geomorphology - helping to explain how it has formed.
When I have the time, likely tomorrow evening, I'll go through and add the setting section as you've suggested along with clearing up the info surrounding the No 1 and No 2 bridges. I don't think No 2 is deserving of it's own article, as there is pretty much no source material mentioning it anywhere, aside from what's already referenced in the article. As for other activities in the gorge, I agree they'd be out of scope for the current article and, considering the vast amount of source material on the jet boating, walkway, and geology of the gorge itself greatly outnumbering that of the actual bridge, would certainly warrant a second article to takeover from the redirect.
Lots of material remains uncited. I consider this the most important issue with the article and one that should be addressed before other considerations. Unfortunately the Heritage NZ report is truncated and I cannot find any other heritage reports.
As to the proposal for other information: if it isn't mentioned by a source about the bridge itself it is unlikely WP:UNDUE. Mentioning specific businesses and recreation seems to verge more into the guidebook territory than encyclopaedia. I think the current content on the recreation/tourism aspect is fine and is a good summary of it, although the claim about it being used primarily by tourists/recreationists needs to be sourced to confirm it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this I've managed to create an article about this local hilltop, I just want to expand it even more with concise content.
I've listed this article for peer review because, although I've put a lot of effort into creating this article, I feel like there's some major improvements that could be made, and I do worry about potential issues I may have inadvertently created in the creation of the article, such as some biases I may have introduced, causing amongst other issues, the page to be kept out of the mainspace.
Hi there, I've just expanded and refurbished this old GA from 2008 so I would like someone to have a look at this article to see if it still meets GA. I would also like some feed back on improving this article since I plan on bringing it to FA at some point in the future.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been nominated for GA and likely could still use improvements. Thank you for making them as needed.
Hi @Peabodyb, I'm not sure if you've seen the PR nomination instructions, but they say Articles may not be listed for a peer review while they are nominated for good article status, featured article status, or featured list status. It might be a good idea to withdraw either the GA nomination (while actioning the peer review feedback) or the PR request (while waiting for a GA review).In terms of feedback on the article itself, just based on a brief look at this revision:
it's noticeable that there are quite a few shallow references (eg. refs 2, 4, 5, 23, and likely more), which should be made more specific to ensure verifiability
most significantly, in addition to these sourcing issues, a lot of the other concerns raised in the last GA review (particularly §Second review) also haven't actually been addressed, which I think makes it unlikely to have much success at a new GA review
Hello fellow wikipedians! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured articles. This article is a translation and adaptation of my Ru Wiki article and currently it has been reviewed there and has a status "candidate for a featured article". Both sister projects have different requirements, so I'd like to make it 100% compliant with Eng Wiki requirements for the featured articles.
The New York Times reported that Quayle was polling great, it was the funding that was the issue. (And also maybe health.) I'm not sure why I got the opposite conclusion from the same source. It also notes that he very nearly pulled the trigger on running, which the Wikipedia article only sort of conveys. Bremps...02:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created this article a few months ago, which has thus far been rated as B-class. Aiming to get it to GA or beyond going forward. Looking for feedback on prose, sourcing, and general content.
The article relies a lot upon "Bestebreurtje, Lindsey (2024)" as a source. I recommend looking for additional sources on Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, or databases that you have access to through your local library system.
No uncited text concerns.
Recommend replacing px with upright for images per MOS:UPRIGHT
Thanks for the feedback. I'm aware of a few free sources from the US National Park Service pertaining to Arlington Cemetery that describe the history of this settlement, so I'll start by exploring those. How many would you recommend I use for an article of this scope/size? Would appreciate if you could point me to any best practices. Thanks! (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I've finished adding more sourced material from 3 different journal articles, which put together represent a substantial amount of new information on the Village's history. Also added some more images from Wikimedia Commons and another external link to an Arlington National Cemetery pamphlet on the Village. I'll get to the feedback on the image formatting today (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, this article won't take up any large amount of time, because I only need guidance on the subsection 'Historical assessment and anecdotes', this section is filled with information that I didn't know where else to put but still wanted to include it. Thanks in advance for anyone volunteering. Cheers, Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because …I would value independent feedback on neutrality, sourcing depth, structure and balance. The article has been substantially expanded with modern scholarship and contemporary engineering sources. In particular, I’d appreciate comments on:
Neutrality and balance
– Do “Construction in Mexico” and “Oil in Mexico” present viewpoints with clear attribution and without editorial voice?
– Is there undue weight on Mexico relative to Pearson’s UK contracting and political career, or is the balance about right for his lasting significance?
Sourcing mix and verification
– Are any claims under-sourced or leaning too much on a single secondary source?
– Suggestions for high-quality sources on the electric utilities portfolio, Whitehall Securities, and the group’s newspaper interests would be useful.
– Please flag any statements that read as evaluative in Wikipedia’s voice so they can be softened or attributed.
Structure and MOS
– Is the section order logical and easy to follow? Would moving some technical detail to S. Pearson & Son with summary style here improve readability?
– Any issues with headings in sentence case, overlinking, quotation style, or date consistency (dmy)?
Specific checks
1) “Blackwall Tunnel” and “Dover Harbour” paragraphs: do they stay descriptive rather than laudatory, and are captions concise and informative?
2) “Labour relations” content around Tampico 1915–1916: is the balance fair and the sourcing precise for the strike demands and company responses?
3) “Wealth” subsection: is the language appropriately neutral while still conveying scale with sources?
• GA trajectory
– Is the lead adequately summarising the body and proportionate in length?
– Are there uncited paragraphs or close paraphrasing risks that would block GA?
Happy to action line edits, trim wording that feels promotional, or split out content if weight suggests it.
I've listed this article for peer review because during my candidacy in the admin elections last year, an editor said it was not far off Featured Article status. As I've never nominated an FA before, I'd like to know what improvements the article needs to get up to standard.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Hi - I almost completely rewrote this article - not all was bad about it - from 'original research' to well-referenced, generally from academic papers if available (there is surprisingly little that directly talks of Border Reivers) and many now extensive collection of Border Reiver books I can see in the corner of my eye.
Elizabeth Alkin was an interesting figure, if only a minor one. A spy during the English civil war, a publisher and a nurse - she gave her time and (very limited) money freely to her causes, risking her life as she did so. This is an article I created a long while ago as part of the work I did for Women in Red and took it to GA at the time. Since then, more sources have become available (and accessible), and it’s been beefed up from the rather thin piece we had previously. Any further thoughts and comments before this good to FAC are very welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was denounced as a spy by Stephen Fossett, the surgeon to Sir Arthur Aston, the royalist governor of Oxford, and was hanged in summer 1643 An overly-complicated sentence; by the time I got to "the royalist governor of ..." I was starting to get lost.
One of those she certainly uncovered was William Dugard ... defence of Charles I could also use simplifying.
She was paid a further twenty marks (£13 6s 8d) around May 1655 Do we know what led to this payment being in marks instead of pounds? And, it was only when I clicked through that I discovered we're not talking about the German mark; I would say "English marks" (or whatever) to avoid the confusion.
Gruber von Arni suggests it may have been over the Christmas period of 1655 I assume this is referring to when she died, not when she made her last petition? Clarify this.
Unusually for me I have only the most minor quibbles about the text. You paint a credible and seemingly thorough picture of this person as deceitful, untrustworthy and a shameless apologist for the Cromwellian puritans.
I think Akkerman's point is good but she could have chosen another Shakespearian quote, also from Love's Labour's Lost that makes the point rather better: "While greasy Joan doth keel the pot".
You could link "sequestered", or perhaps better, gloss it, as it has two very different meanings. (Gray's Elegy, anyone? "Along the cool sequester'd vale of life. They kept the noiseless tenor of their way").
Are we sure Merchant Taylors needs the definite article?
Red link for Defensio Regia pro Carolo primo: are you proposing to write an article or if not is anyone else likely to?
The l.atin title should have a lang|la tag for the benefit of users who rely on screen readers.
Claudius Salmasius – his possessive plural should be Claudius Salmasius's – ess-apostrophe-ess.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been tagged as having notability issues, however I have made alterations to the article since that was added that may alter the position of it.
I've listed this article for peer review because earlier this year I translated the Polish article (an FA there) and expanded it per the tag that had been on it for years (actually, it's more like I used the Polish article as raw material ... it wouldn't be acceptable here as a word-for-word translation). Since so much of the Polish article relies on Polish sources that do not seem themselves to have been translated into English yet, this article is the first time, I think, that the details of this grim event have been published in English.
So, I am thinking about a GA nomination down the line with this.
Hi! In my first read the article's all well. I just worked on some WP:Oxford comma and copyediting. Wanted if ask if you use an article before Standgerichten? I was a bit confused in the sentence living for a time as a monk... - is this Hudal or Wachter? RFNirmala (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m still in Kenya (for one more day, per the note at the top of my talk page), but I saw this.
It seems like the standard practice with using German words in English is not to use the article. I’ll take a look at that sentence and change it as needed. Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare it as a Featured Article Candidate. I overall think it is one of my best-written articles and am looking for overall feedback. It is already a Good Article.
The writing has a choppy feel to it. By that I mean the sentences, while grammatically correct, don't connect to each other with a continuous flow. They're more a series of individual disjoint statements. As an example, here's one of your paragraphs:
After briefly returning to England, Sampson jumped into Holland on 19 December 1944, landing in a moat around a castle. Participating in the Battle of the Bulge, he ended up being captured by German forces in Belgium, near Bastogne.[1] He spent six months in a German prison near Berlin until the liberation of the camp in April 1945.[3][6] Sampson insisted on being in the enlisted area of the camp rather than the more comfortable area for imprisoned officers.[7] He received the Bronze Star for his work among the prisoners. As the camp was being bombed by Allied forces, Sampson tended to the wounded and dying.[8]
and for illustrative purposes, here it is again presented as a bullet list:
After briefly returning to England, Sampson jumped into Holland on 19 December 1944, landing in a moat around a castle.
Participating in the Battle of the Bulge, he ended up being captured by German forces in Belgium, near Bastogne.[1]
He spent six months in a German prison near Berlin until the liberation of the camp in April 1945.[3][6]
Sampson insisted on being in the enlisted area of the camp rather than the more comfortable area for imprisoned officers.[7]
He received the Bronze Star for his work among the prisoners.
As the camp was being bombed by Allied forces, Sampson tended to the wounded and dying.[8]
There's no real change because the sentences don't have any connection to each other. One way to look at this is to shuffle the bullet points into random order and see if it still makes sense. If it does, that's a hint that there's no real connection between the sentences.
This could get turned into
After briefly returning to England, Sampson participated in the Battle of the Bulge. Jumping into Holland on 19 December 1944, he landed in a castle moat. He was later captured by German forces near Bastogne, Belgium, spending six months in a German prison camp near Berlin until liberated in April 1945. While a prisoner, Sampson insisted on being in the enlisted area of the camp rather than the more comfortable area for officers. During this time, the camp was being bombed by Allied forces and Sampson tended to the wounded and dying, for which he received the Bronze Star.
I'm not entirely happy with that rewrite, but what I'm trying to illustrate is the use of connecting phrases like "later captured", "while a prisoner", "during this time" which show how the events described in one sentence are related to what came before.
I hope you find this useful. You should also google for "choppy writing". There's lots of material written on this particular issue, much of which explains it better than I can. To tie this back to WP:FACR, this is all part of prose is engaging and of a professional standard. RoySmith(talk)11:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Date formats are inconsistent in the infobox and the rest of the article, this should be fixed.
"1896 was the first modern Olympic games", "1896 was the first year that the modern Olympic Games were held in", nevertheless I wouldn't recommend starting the article with this as I'd go for more of a chronological order.
Start with more on the formation of the team rather than the Summer Games itself.
I wouldn't recommend adding "Bulgaria did not win an Olympic medal at these Games" as it can be seen within the body + it isn't really background information.
Legacy section (e.g. what other Olympic Games did Bulgaria attend, medals won, first medal and first gold medal won, what happened to Champaud after the Summer Games)
Gymnastics section isn't in chronological order which bothers me...
The winners of each event as comparison.
"who was also chairman of the gymnastics club, Junak,", this probably refers to the Yunak Gymnastic Society.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in submitting this for Featured Article review. The article is about a species of mosquito that lives in salt pools and has an unusual mating system.
I want to get this peer reviewed because I just met the guy in person and got a great photo for his page! I think with a good review now, I could nominate it for a GA after all the improvements.
The article is quite short, and I think more can be done to expand upon the prose. I suggest looking for additional sources in Google Scholar, archive.org, WP:LIBRARY or databases you have access to through your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last few weeks chipping away at it and I've managed to include all the major academic literature about the series of poems. I'd appreciate any writing tips or advice otherwise on how to make it better.
I've listed this article because it seems a too scarce, at the very least comparing to the amount of information on the Japanese article. The Influence part also lacks a lot of citations. The Selected Works seems like a bit of a strange way to take care of his bibliography, and might need improvements as well.
Translating most details from the Japanese Wikipedia might be of major use.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was working with other editors a few months back to bring the article to GA status. Some time has passed and the collab effort has gone stale, but I wanted to restart the work so that we could finish what we started. I want to know if the added "Academic sources" section looks good, if the cited sources are enough for the info in the article, and if there's anything else that would prevent a successful GA nomination the first time.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have copied this article from the french Wikipedia on translation, and so, there might be some errors.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done a lot of clean-up and would like feedback from editors with knowledge about theology and/or Romanian politics.
Thanks, --Mapq (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mapq: Welcome to Wikipedia! Peer reviews can take some time to attract attention from other volunteers. You can increase the chances you'll receive a review by politely requesting it on people's talk pages, or even reviewing others' nominations in turn. Let me know if you have any questions! (please mention me on reply; thanks!) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could alt text please be added to images.
Many of the references could have more info added to them such as authors, publishers, links, and publication dates.
Secondary sources would be perfected over the primary sources currently in the article.
There is an incomplete tag in the bibliography.
”Neamțu stated in a June 2022 interview that it was not he who had initiated the divorces.” could be phrased better.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for guidance on how to restructure the article to improve flow, coherence and readability. I'm also looking for guidance on what editing can be undertaken to resolve the maintenance tags.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC. Any comments would be appreciated. I should also mention that Mary Elder, the accused, is my direct ancestor; I don't think this creates a conflict of interest, but I mention it for full transparency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at giving FAC a shot after this. I would love to ping users who commented on the previous FARs to please help me take a look and provide their feedback, which would be invaluable in helping this article pass for FA next time I nominate it.
@UndercoverClassicist, Crisco 1492, FrB.TG, Kavyansh.Singh, Toadspike, Esculenta, and Graham Beards:
I think the article could benefit from more images. A holiday is a living, breathing thing. We could have some fireworks, face paint, etc. on the article.
Judiciously weigh whether the #FearlessInOctober protests in 2024, timed to occur on Independence Day, are significant enough to include.
The analysts you mentioned shortly after the USSR's celebration of the second anniversary are American analysts working for the CIA. I think it's important to note this.
Also, you made two failed FA nominations for this article. I would recommend taking it to GA first, then trying a third time.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to work for its status as a GA in the future.
I need GA requirements to be met, I need help with article size and culling. I also need a peer reviewed source integrity spot check. Any other matters relevant to improving the article is helpful and appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because a notability tag has been up for a long time, and I want to know if notability could be established if the correct sources were to be used, in addition to the sources the article uses already being used, by the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a paid contribution (and a translation from the French article that I also wrote). Even if I tried to respect WP:NPOV as much as possible, the text may not be perfectly neutral.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is an interesting article about a whistleblowerYouTube channel. This passed a GA nomination and I'm aiming for this to become a Featured article.
@TheNuggeteer: Good to see you're taking this further. I will say, the featured article criteria for comprehensiveness (1b and 1c) are a lot more stringent than GA criteria for broadness. So if you're planning on taking this to FAC, you'll need to ensure there aren't any details about this case that are being neglected. You may have to take an even deeper dive into the literature to make sure you're covering everything that needs to be covered. Best of luck to you in this peer review and in its future FAC submission. Feel free to ping me if/when you submit it. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick skim, my initial thoughts for the article are that it is quite short. I suggest looking for additional sources in Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org or databases you have access to through your local library system. I also think the lead should include information about the reaction of the summit from various attendees, critical commentators, and other reactions/consequences. Z1720 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on possibly nominating this article for FAC in the coming months. Therefore, I'd appreciate all suggestions on improving the article before nominating it for FAC.
I'm hoping to get some feedback on what else I could possibly add that would be useful to a general reader. I have a *lot* of information that I could put into this article, but it's very scattered and I'd like to spend my time efficiently.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article can become a FA, but I do not have enough experience in the realm of crime and law articles to properly determine if it is missing something.
Please inform me if this article is missing anything important from it. Comments regarding its writing style and prose are also requested.
Why is there a source in the infobox when it's sourced within the body? This should be removed unless there's another explanation for it.
" It was theorized that Jeschke's murder was connected to the murder of Roger Atkison and Rose Burkert, but police in Iowa found no connection.", the site of the murder was in Missouri then it mentions Iowa. Could this be reworded to make it flow better? "was connected to the murders of Roger Atkinson and Rose Bukert in Iowa?, but police in the state..."
"During her guilty plea Hemme stated", "During her guilty plea, Hemme stated"
"The hair in Jeschke's bed sheets, which was from a black man, was alleged to be from Vernon Burris, the only black officer who came to the crime scene, but the FBI reported that it did not match Burris' hair.[54] This information is relevant as Holman was also black", shouldn't mentions of "black" be "Black" as we're talking about people who are African-American?
A thought on sourcing
The overwhelming majority of citations here are to local news. There's absolutely no taboo against using such sources judiciously in FAs, and indeed it's likely that some details will be most easily or perhaps only found in the up-to-the-minute reports that accompanied the case. However, it's also likely that breaking news stories will be incomplete, include information which seems to be true or relevant at the time but may not hold up, convey rumours, or otherwise have deficiencies. Are there any more scholarly retrospective works that could be brought in to support them? Even if the same information is found there, it allows us to use the benefit of hindsight and peer review to endorse that it's reliable.
There are one or two claims where the use of local news seems inappropriate -- see Hemme's wrongful conviction produced the longest ever prison tenure for an exonerated American woman, in particular.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
