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 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?
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 have no ambitions for this article so far as FAC is concerned (too few full-length published sources available for that) but I'm thinking of putting it up for GA, and comments and suggestions for improvement will be most welcome. Tim riley talk11:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have FAC aspirations for this former FA. I requested a peer review for this in 2023 and no one took it on. I am hoping for feedback now. I hope I have addressed the "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" concerns from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have been discussing ways we can get this character's article to featured article status in Talk:Rei Ayanami#Proposals for formatting to WP:FAC standards. @Tintor2: and I discussed some ways we could approach formatting the article to featured article status. I know @TeenAngels1234: worked on this article and nominated it for good article status in Talk:Rei Ayanami/GA1, but I was wondering if anyone else who is familiar with WP:FAC guidelines other than me and Tintor2 are willing to provide input for working on getting it to FA status.
In the talk page, I proposed we could do the following.
Move the Characterization and themes section to Conception section as a subsection.
Translate titles that are not in English into English. I proposed dividing the translation work with someone else, where I could focus on the Japanese and Chinese sources, and another person could work on the French and Italian sources. I am thinking about asking people in the French and Italian Wikipedias if they are willing to help.
I reviewed the images, but I am apprehensive about the license status of File:Aonami-line-ayanami-2020-2-1.jpg. It is licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0, but the train has a picture of the character as she appears in Rebuild of Evangelion, and I am not sure if it is acceptable for a potential FAC.
If I initiate an FAC, I plan to get consent from TeenAngels1234.
I'm not exactly sure about moving Characterization and themes into Conception. Regarding Valnet, I agree: while I situationally use them usually for GA-status articles, maybe for FA we can remove them. I can help with translating Italian and French titles: I'm a native Italian speaker and while not an expert I'm pretty fluent in Spanish and French. Last but not least, we can remove the train image: feel free to remove it if that is the case. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As we go through the sources and translate the non-English names to English, I am wondering if general audiences will read this without problems and not get confused before we potentially have an FAC. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi! copyeditor here! first thing i'd recommend is citing any quotations (like the popularity polls, or anything quoting anno's words) in the lede, per MOS:LEADCITE. will reply with more if i have any ideas :3 astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:319:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'd like to potentially take a few articles from this season of Doctor Who to WP:FA. I wanted to bring this here first to get some general opinions on whether it's within that scope, and if so, anything that can be improved now to make the process less stressful later.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review on prose, and maybe language on this article before re-nominating to FAC.
Thanks, Santi (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Santi, the article is going to need more than a peer review to meet the standards of FA. I would strongly suggest seeking somebody fluent in English to directly rewrite the prose and maybe co-nominating with them. The PR would be more beneficial when just a few finishing touches are required.--NØ17:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pollosito: I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, and remove your entry when this is closed. I highly recommend that you also review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill among FAC reviewers, making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to see it become a FA-Class article and before I nominate it I would like to make sure it is as good as it can be!
I currently can’t give a full review with my schedule, but just from glossing over the article (as someone who knows nothing about Doctor Who other than that there’s doctors and supernatural stuff) I noticed that you name drop Doctor Who Annual but don’t elaborate on it. Could you include a sentence or two talking about what it is, it would make the article easier to understand for non-Who fans. Other than that, it’s a great article, I’m just sure that little tidbit will be brought up in the FA nomination. If you want me to take a further look and tell you of any other confusing parts you could elaborate on, I’d be more than happy to — Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hey, I went through the articles history and I don’t see any edits from you on it. Aren’t you supposed to be a significant contributor to the article before nominating it? Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from an outsider, but technically they can so long as they've consulted key contributors who have given the go-ahead and are able to demonstrate they understand the article they're nominating (Aka know the sources, what the content is, etc), at least if I read the criteria right. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: "The scenes at Wester Drumlins were shot in a derelict house in Newport." We do not know what "Wester Drumlins" means at this point.
The third paragraph of the lead (as of this revision) is not flowing very well; various random facts stringed together.
Plot: "explores the abandoned house Wester Drumlins a second time" either tell us what happened the first time, or drop "a second time" if it is not relevant.
"an impounded fake police box" this is actually the TARDIS. Do they know it is "fake" at this point? I think all they know is that it is locked.
Why not explain the reason the episode is called "blink"?
Writing: is it worth spending a few words about the relevance of the game Statues?
Looking at this diff, it seems that there has been not a huge amount of additions since 2012. Make sure that everything is up to date and look at every single citation to see if any links are dead or can be replaced by newer material. Overall, this doesn't seem ready for Peer Review at this time, as you haven't tried to make it as good as you can. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recently listed GA and I plan on submitting it for FA status. It currently could use some work in its production section, themes section, and potentially the reception section. My main concern is that the article may be difficult to follow due to its structuring (particularly in Production). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Is there any section in particular you feel could benefit from more secondary sources (Production, themes, etc)? I just went back a little bit ago and added some secondary sources to the production section in order to cut down on how many primary sources it uses. I’ve counted and there are 6 sentences in Production where I could not find another source and had to use a primary source, and one in themes (all coming from the DVD bonus features). Crystal Drawers (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: pinging again just in case you haven't seen my recent comment. I've actually gone back and removed all DVD sources, so I think the article is free from primary sources as of now. Are there any other issues or concerns you can see with the article? —Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there and remove this entry when this is closed. I also highly recommend seeking help from a FA mentor as they can provide help and reviews on what needs to be improved upon. Lastly, I recommend that you continue reviewing articles at WP:FAC now: this helps editors learn the FA criteria and builds goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making your article more likely to be reviewed when nominated. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status, but I am unsure about the structure, tone, flow, content, or other aspects. I’d really appreciate any feedback on the article as a whole, Thanks, Lililolol (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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 because I would like to improve this article to FA. This would be my first FA (also my first PR), though not from scratch as this has been at GA since just after the last major update was released in Nov 2021.
Pinging @Panini!: who nominated this article at WP:GAN and who should have been consulted before this WP:PR was initiated. Also pinging @ProtoDrake: who was the GA reviewer. @JuniperChill: it is polite and in the collegial spirit of Wikipedia to consult long-term contributors (via personal contact on their talk page) before launching a PR request, especially when one of them has successfully nominated the article as a GA. 217.158.77.43 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @JuniperChill: I very much admire your enthusiasm, but please slow down and consult others in a generous collaborative spirit before charging into WP:GA, WP:PR or WP:FAC. This is especially important when other editors have put significantly more work into an article than you have (as applies here). 217.158.77.43 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have high-quality sources to become a FA, therefore I'd suggest removing sources such as Metro, Game Rant, TheGamer, and Express.co.uk. Additionally, most references seem to be from 2020, therefore I'd suggest looking for newer ones that talk about the legacy of the game. There are also scholarly articles about the game which should be incorporated into the article. There's also several {{citation needed}} tags that should be fixed. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this article to a B rating and need both to know what improvements are needed, and assistance with the implementation.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this peer review is on an archive page, but here's my two general concerns about the article:
Too many lists - there needs to be effort to rewrite as much as possible as prose.
Much of the formatting gives the article a brochure appearance. Note we aren't here to promote subjects but to describe them. We need less flair. Bolding is typically reserved for headings and lead terms.
I didn't say all the lists should be removed. Now the article has a lot of short sections with single sentences or sentence fragments. My point was that lists were overwhelming compared to prose, and this is solved by converting some lists to prose (as in paragraphs, not single sentences), and adding more pertinent content as prose. This article has been going a long time with a lot of edits and not significantly advancing in quality. Maybe it would be constructive to step aside for a while and give other editors the space to work on it. The article is zigging and zagging too much with not enough care for guidelines, which other experienced editors would generally bring. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk19:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StefenTower please could you assist in finding more information about the general production of English whisky, I have added information I have fond on fermentation but that is only one of five stages of production. ChefBear01 (talk)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to follow in a small pet project. It's a strong B class and I really need to know the vulnerable places.
Use section layout per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs - for example, stuff like "Colours and badge" should be above "Players", not below. Same with "Rivalries".
I would rename "Best pefromances" section to "Records", per layout above.
"See also" section should be above notes and references, and not below, per MOS:LAYOUT.
"Kit suppliers and shirt sponsors" section is based on WP:OR, none of the back / sleeve / shorts etc. sponsors are sourced, and I don't think this is needed anyway. If you can find a source (note that images cannot be used a source - that would be just your interpretation of the image, which is WP:OR - it needs to be a published reliable source that is confirming those sponsors), then include only main front shirt sponsor, and not sleeves, shorts and other trivial stuff. I'm pretty sure that yearly Premier League handbooks are providing this information about sponsors, but this can be used only for 2021–present, unless something like that exists for the lower divisions as well.
Rename that section about stadiums to simply "Stadiums", and I would prefer this to be mentioned in prose, not a bulletin list. Write a few sentences about the current stadium, like the capacity and since when it is used etc., then some words about Griffin Park since it was used for over a century, and lastly you can mention something like "The team has played at several stadiums in its early history, namely Clifden Road (1889–1891), Benn's Field (1891–1895)..." etc.
Some entries in "In popular culture" section are unsourced...and I think this section is kinda trivial?
I would remove "Promoted" from the list of honours. If they finished 2nd, then use "Runners-up", not "Promoted". Being just promoted is not a honour; only winners, runners-up, and play-off winners should be listed.
Since there is only one note in entire article, the "Notes" section is kinda unnecessary. Move that "No system of promotion in place" note directly to the Honours section.
Why is there an asterisk (*) next to the London Senior Cup winners 1897–98 in Honours section? It is not explained anywhere what this asterisk represents.
That's just a general manual of style and layout review for now that needs to be improved if you plan to promote it to GA, I haven't read the prose or checked any of the sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a peer review so that, afterwards, I may nominate it for GAN (Good Article Nomination). Any general corrections or suggestions, significant or minor edits, are greatly welcomed!
There's some stuff in the lede that isn't included within the body. For instance, the lede begins with summarizing the history of fishing in Peru, but there's no section on history within the body; I'd add this before nominating for GA.
The "Related organizations and projects" is broken up into really small subsections. Maybe these can be combined into more of a paragraph describing fishery management with the various non-governmental organizations as a subsection? Fisheries in the Philippines may be a good reference for this. (Also pinging the author of that article Chipmunkdavis as someone who might be able to be give better advice on this then I) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SonofYoutubers has already mentioned this to me but I haven't had time to look. Agree on the oversubsectioning, although I suspect that at least for aquaculture more could be added so it's not an oversubsection in the theoretical ideal article. The FAO Fisheries Sector Overview for example has a large section on aquaculture. Peru does something funky with its maritime claims already noted in the article, the map captions should also note the issue given both use UNCLOS terminology (one wrongly). For GAN, the sources should be updated so they at least have access dates. I don't have time to do a very specific dive, but I may in August if somebody pings me (and more likely the further into August). CMD (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I've listed this former GA for peer review to ensure it meets all GA criteria before resubmitting. A prior peer review and an unsuccessful GA nomination raised some concerns, which I believe have now been addressed. I'd greatly appreciate feedback on any remaining issues to help make this a strong candidate for GAC and potentially FAC. Many thanks in advance for your time and input!
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love for this article to pass FA review the next time around. I feel as though it has improved greatly in my 16-hour editing marathon but I need more opinions.
I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, and remove this entry when this PR is closed. I also suggest that you seek the help of a mentor who can help with getting a successful nomination. Lastly, I suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making your article more likely to be reviewed when it is nominated. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What's been your approach to sourcing this article? There appear to be a number of other references available, eg [1][2][3][4]
To be honest, my approach in sourcing this was to scour the internet, google scholar, and the Wikipedia Library. I will 100% be looking at the sources you attached.
I can do that for every source but one, which I'm trying to find an alternative for. (LORAN History)
It's for the most part in the order they are used, but I plan to alphabetize.
Got it.
I'll have to look into this, image tagging is not my forte.
I figured it would warrant its own section because it is one of the major factors making the island notable.
Not that I could find.
Couldn't find anything exactly about that, but I'll keep digging.
The article does say shrubs and vines, just wondering if there's anything more specific.
Do we know what minerals are represented in the gravel?
Some of the terminology in the lead tends towards jargon - eg haul-out
The infobox says the highest elevation is 2.3 m, but the article body says that's the mean - which is correct? Also why is this number metric-first in the infobox but imperial-first in the body?
Given that the current area, length and width don't match what's in the infobox, I'd suggest at least adding an explanatory note. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I'm finally back in town! The islands infobox doesn't have a mean elevation parameter, so I'm not sure whether to just not include that data in the infobox. It does seem important though. MallardTV Talk to me! 07:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 this article is really messy but has a great potential in reaching GA. I have already nominated this for copy editing and I want to further improve it. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 01:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a first review. Other editors welcome to add (and ping), might add later.
Use the symbol for the Philippine peso and a nbsp. From MOS:CURRENCY.
Done.
I added the slogan quote and translation in the infobox. I will let you add the source/s for it.
So I will also add the sources in the infobox?
Cannot verify the lead's mention of Gwen Garcia in the body.
Fixed.
He was the second overall, losing to Aquino III. You can clarify this lone lead sentence by mentioning the number of votes he had and Aquino's. Also should have a link with the full name Benigno Aquino III.
I found a confusion before my edit that claimed EDSA III started before a march to Malacanang in May 1 (EDSA III) I fixed it. I suggest adding context on EDSA II just before ending the Presidency section and transitioning it to the trial.
"This could have led Estrada to overtake Villar in the presidential race." attach the source's author to this claim, as it seems a bit WP:OR. What's the amount and scope of the "combined expenses" previously mentioned?
(minor) Ref formats such as archive links, publishers, but I might gnome them.
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.
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]
I'm bringing this to PR under the advisement of my elders (possibly) and betters (certainly!). I don't honestly think there's any more information on this in any one place than what's in our article (it's pretty niche), but I'm interested in structural issues—does it flow, is there sufficient context? Views appreciated. —Fortuna, imperatrix17:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a vital article, and is in poor condition. I have done some editing on this article, but still needs lots of work and guiding.
Doesn't look all that bad to me. A few thoughts from a quickish skim-through:
We could do without the load of citations in the lead: a lead should summarise the detailed and cited material from the main text and doesn't need citations of its own except for quotations in direct speech.
On the other hand a few more citations wouldn't go amiss in the main text: penultimate para of Early life; first para of Crimean War; second para of Literature and the women's movement, and footnotes c and k.
For date ranges, as in "Collected Works of Florence Nightingale (2001-2012)" the hyphen should be an unspaced en-dash (MoS)
Duplicate links, once taboo, are now, I gather, no longer regarded as a capital offence. All the same, you might like to revisit those for Crimean War, Ottoman Empire (twice), Mary Clarke, Eliza Roberts, BBC (twice), The Times, Crimea, coxcomb, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Florence Nightingale Museum (twice), St Thomas' Hospital, Claydon House, Alexis Soyer, Aldershot, Lytton Strachey (twice), Eminent Victorians (ditto), Charles Dickens, Mark Bostridge and Church of England.
And my biggest complaint about the article in its present state: there are just too many images crowding each other out and sandwiching the text between them. There are examples of the latter in Early life, Crimean War, Biographies and Other. As you have a nice Gallery at the end of the article you could move a few images down there to relieve the overcrowding in the main text.
I added most of your comments, but can you check the current state of the article before I add the last point. Sorry for the late response. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I am attending to a request to peer review, alongside nominating a DYK's hook for featuring on the main page, for improvement according to WP:FACR. Hopefully, this article will become a potential for FA. Any feedbacks would be appreciated.
This is a really nice presentation. So many math articles dive head-first into technical details that I'm lost before I get to the end of the first sentence. I'm up to Relation to the spheres right now, and still following every word, so that's great, and a great example of WP:MTAU. For context, I was an engineering major in school, so a decent math background, but not my main thing. And I got a head-start on polyhedra by playing lots of D&D in high school :-)
I'm up to Applications now and the reading is getting a little slower, but that's good. Easy at the start, diving deeper into technical esoterica as the article progresses. As it should be.
As a general comment, you do a pretty good job of explaining technical terms, but there's a few more which could use a short in-line definition: cubiod, dihedral, interior angle, Euler characteristic, orthogonal, parallelepiped, congruent, rhomoohedron, trigonal trapezohedron, centroid, isometries, dual (and in dual polyhedron), tesseract, crown graph, bipartite Kneser graph. I'm going to assume that anybody reading this will not have any problem with edges, vertices, faces, polyhedron, or platonic solid.
I had never heard of the Prince Rupert's cube, but I had heard of the Prince Rupert's Drop, which I see are named after the same person. Might be worth dropping that little bit of coolness into the article.
doubling the cube ... compass and straightedge ... Ancient mathematicians could not solve this problem until the French mathematician Pierre Wantzel proved it was impossible in 1837 But it is possible with origami, which is another bit of coolness you could drop in here. But more to the point, this is worded strangely. They still couldn't solve it after 1837, but at least then they knew why.
five cut the cube from the midpoints of its edges, and four are cut diagonally make the gramatical constructions, ahem, conguent: "five cut the cube from the midpoints of its edges, and four cut diagonally"
(image caption) A six-sided dice Ugh. "Dice" is plural. The singular is "die"
Not sure you need to mention this, but Alamo not only sits on a vertix, it spins around its vertical axis. That was my old stomping grounds, and I have indeed spun it. It takes a few people; the bearings aren't very good. But read WP:POPCULTURE and consider how much of this section you really need.
Pyrite is an example of a mineral with a commonly cubic shape Maybe use common table salt as a more familiar example?
That about does it for me. I don't think this will have any problem at WP:FAC but you should enlist somebody with a stronger math background than me to take a look at it. I'm thinking David Eppstein would be a good possibility. RoySmith(talk)20:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith. I think I have completed most of suggestions. You might want to read it by yourself about my writing that is somewhat a little bit of overdetailed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 recently gave the article a significant rewrite and am trying to get it to GA status. I think I have most of the information needed presented and reliably sourced, but I'm unsure about how the article flows and transitions between subtopics.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review of copyediting or grammar issues, which was the main reason for the first GAN's quick fail. Previously, I have requested a copyedit, and it was partially done. But, since English is not my native language, I would like to submit a peer review before submitting another GAN.
I am trying to familiarise myself with the notability of an independence list, which looks more lenient than the Chinese one, so it takes time to split her work.
And, I would like to ask why podcasts done by TBS Radio in the article are still unreliable? I know the WP:SPS guide said podcasts are unreliable because it is close to self-publish, but the podcast in the article is done by TBS Radio, a mass media group in Japan. Do they still unreliable? Is Today in Focus by The Guardian are unreliable here as well? Saimmx (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done most of them, but still some tricky tasks:
Japanese translation: I tried my best to do it, but most of works were only published in Japan.
Too many references: Its original entry has, actually, over a hundred of citations. Even though I have kill one in third, looks like it is still not enough.
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]
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]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
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'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.
Another Olympic article from me to put at peer review, hopefully shall go to FAC as well. Shall respond to questions once I have the time, do ping me! Arconning (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to edit it for a GA nomination in the future. I have written all statements and research from sources on this page. I just require technical advice on Wikipedia criteria and reviews.
Is "Mizo Chieftainship" a proper noun? The C seems to be mostly lowercase in the article, including in the lead sentence, but there are a few exceptions. This should probably be standardized either way, and the article can be moved (renamed) to match if necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering that, since it was the first article I made, I didn't take into account of wiki naming conventions. I have hesitated to move the page because I'm not sure if it has to be page reviewed again and does that affect the search engine index? I would probably uncapitalize chieftainship across the article I feel. Taitesena (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved the article. Moving an article does not generally have any effect on its review/patrol status or whether or not it's indexed by search engines, so no worries on that! I would recommend a pass through the article to make the capitalization consistent. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing that jumps out about the article is that it is very large and reads as unfocused. This may be because it seems to be trying to cover two distinct topics. Firstly, the lead says it covers "the system of chieftainship used by the Mizo people". However, the infobox is about the chieftainships/chiefdoms themselves, which is a different topic from the system. The body seems to cover both at different points. Splitting may also help clarify the currently unusual organisation. The process to create chiefs, and maybe their lineages and history, would fit on a system article, while land, demographics, culture, economy, and similar would fit on a chiefdom article. This might take some time to effectively pull off, but both resulting articles would have a much clearer focus and be easier to give additional comments on. A few other points:
Good articles must meet WP:LEAD. In this lead, there is a unique citation not present in the body, suggesting its attached information is also not in the body (could not find it at a quick glance).
Furthermore, the lead will have to be greatly expanded to effectively summarise the article.
On images, you don't need to caption a map "A map of..." etc (MOS:MAPOF). You may want to consider adding WP:ALTTEXT to the images too.
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?
Thanks for improving this list. I will definitely review it at FLC. Some comments:
Some of the Tamil names do not render on my screen. Do you know why? They are "புக்கிட் பாஞ்சாங்", "பெண்டிங்", " பெட்டீர்", "பொங்கோல்", and "பொங்கோல் பாயிண்ட்".
Maybe it's an issue with your operating system/browser? It works fine for me; I'm editing on Google Chrome in MacOS. CoconutOctopus said that it works fine on Android Firefox.
I question the need for table titles, when there are also section headings and column headings. Seems a bit duplicative. You can use Template:Sronly to produce a title that is only read by a screen reader, like I have done at List of Sydney Metro stations.
Oh and I would like to clarify something; is it necessary to provide a citation for the planning area column? The above lists don't have citations for such info. And is the "key" section fine? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, citations are needed for the planning areas. With regards to the key, why is including the Cross Island line (CRL) in the key necessary? The other lines aren't. I also think the above ground/underground icons should be removed. Its not the most critical info and the two icons are hard to tell apart. Steelkamp (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CRL is included in the key since spelling out its full name would create wasted space and make the column wider, for lack of better words (should I remove it or add more line acronyms to the key? Or just put the acronyms in the lead?). As for the planning areas, I've found a source (a map) but for some reason, it doesn't include Ten Mile Junction station in its past versions, so I've included a footnote explaining that the station was integrated with the Ten Mile Junction shopping mall. Regarding the Tamil characters, should I add Template:Special charaters to the stations section? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 11:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to achieve FL status. I've never gotten content to FA/FL so would appreciate some advice on how to improve this article. I followed the structure of another FL, List of songs written by Harry Styles, so I think this article is also on its way there. Let me know if there's something I have overlooked, or should expand on.
Considering it's a "name" article, you should probably shoot for GA, see Femke. This article itself has a lot of potential so there's a lot to be done.
The origins of the name (etymology, language) should be added.
The history behind the name should be added, if there is any.
The name's popularity over the years should be added, you could gather information from census data and from other relevant statistics
Adding on, the article needs more prose, if you can find information outside of its history and popularity such as its variations.
I apologise for the harshness, but this is nowhere near FL status, or as Arconning stated you should aim for instead GA status. See Waering as a GA name example. Here are some major issues.
There are absolutely 0 sources in the article right now.
There is no prose.
Etymology and history section is necessary.
Images should be added. (Not excessive amounts like one for every person named Alex)
Any alternate spellings should be added if there are any.
Usage of the name through time, (e.g. did it used to be spelled differently).
Other languages' variants should be added if there are any.
The fact that it is commonly used as a nickname for Alexander should be added.
I would like to add that instead of saying things like "American baseball player" (example) since there are so many of them, you may want to add something that makes them stand out among the other baseball players named Alex e.g. ("American baseball player for [team here]") or something like that. Gommeh🎮00:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this list for peer review because I'm a Morgan Wallen fan and would like to bring this list up to FL-Class. I would eventually like to bring all four of his studio albums to GA-Class so that this could become a good topic. It would consist of Morgan Wallen discography and then his four studio albums. I believe this list could be considerably better than it is now, however, I'm not sure what could be improved at the moment. Maybe the lead section.
Just wanted to quickly comment that there appears to be a few discrepancies in the infobox. For one, it claims that Wallen has 13 music videos, where I only count 9 in the section. It also claims that Wallen has 27 singles, where I count 22 not counting features and 29 otherwise, and 7 promotional singles, where I count 11. Leafy46 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi History6042! I've been working on this list for nearly a month now, doing as you instructed. I believe that I'm nearly done with this list, I mainly just need to add more to the lead with reliable sources which will need to be archived. I was wondering if you could look over the page whenever you had a chance before I put it up as a FLC and mention any improvements that could be made. Oh, and, two important things I need you to know: 1) I didn't make a column for the Bubbling Under Hot 100 because Taylor Swift singles discography, a featured list, doesn't give the respective chart it's own column; and 2) the certification sources I can't seem to archive because when I edit them with the visual editor, theirs no link. I can't figure that out to be honest. Anyway, please respond to me when you get the chance and I really appreciate you willing to peer review this article! Thank you so much! JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 24:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work, I have a few more comments:
CT needs to be spelled out in the alt text.
Alt text doesn't need a period, it is a full sentence.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be eligible for featured list quality, but I am unsure whether there needs to be anything else added to the article. Would a sentence in the lead describing the radio series' plot be required? Do plot summaries for the individual episodes need to be added? Do cast members need to be mentioned in the lead? Anything else I'm missing?
Your prefatory prose looks fine to me, though it wouldn't hurt to add the names of the main cast members, as you suggest. But I boggle at the header of the last column in each table: "viewers" – for a radio programme? Tim riley talk08:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The following is a list of episodes for the radio series of the British television sitcom Dad's Army.", this should be removed and instead introduced as "Dad's Army is a..."
Adding on, it should be introduced first as a TV series then mention the radio part.
"The radio series, which was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 from 1974 to 1976, was written by Harold Snoad and Michael Knowles, based on the scripts of the television episodes written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, and was produced by John Dyas.", this could be separated into two or more sentences.
"The television equivalent is the combined episodes", I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct?
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.
