This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
I've listed this article for peer review because another fellow editor and I believe it's close to FA status. However, we feel it could benefit from some refinements. We'd really appreciate feedback from other editors to better understand how the page can be improved.
I am interested in whether this article has potential for passing an FAC and how it could be improved to the level of a Featured Article. Please note that I have never nominated an article for GA or FA before, though I have review a few GANs. This article happens to already be a GA because Czar authored it in 2017. Because of that, I might be clueless on a few things and would need some explanation.
Czar has already given some suggestions on the talk page that I did my best to deal with. I'll add this peer review to the FAC sidebar. Thanks yall. Tarlby(t) (c)01:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first article in which I have an interest in getting it to FA. I created this article fairly recently and have got it promoted to GA. I would appreciate any and all comments, ranging from copyediting to broadness to structuring, etc. I understand it is a fairly short article but I believe it covers all its bases from all available information on the Internet.
I've listed this article for peer review because... at this rate,, I might as well make this a featured article. In the two years of trying/failing to write this thing up, I've essentially scoured the earth for sources and I feel it now covers most if not all bases in terms of content: however, I know I have likely overlooked some things or am aware of things I am struggling to address that I desperately need an outside opinion/comment on, especially on gender (having tried and failed to address this for 2 years and i am tired/head done in). the last two years of versions until the recent march 2025 rewrite have all sucked because I was still processing things whilst trying to write, instead of thinking about the quality of my writing. I need outside comment, because I just want to be over and done with this and I think i can actually do it now, for once.
Stuff I'm aware needs doing
reduction of quotes and rewriting in my own phrasing
reducing number of citations where possible (i.e. random online blog interviews: reviews, in composition and reception, are currently all from reliable sources) to most important ones
i need to check up on some more touring citations: i.e. for sevendust february 2000 tour and i think there was some other tour towards the end of the year
Need to change "Choke" sample because it is citing the band's press kit. Will likely replace this with "Brackish".
Stuff I'm stuck on how to address
Gender issues/gendered writing: pervasive issue in reviews/media that the band didn't like, morgan/mercedes say the media reception to album led to stigma later down the line
Neutrality especially on gender; again because it is a contentious issue. especially in legacy/aftermath section(s) per above point. also the third paragraph of music and lyrics overview which deals with misconceptions about lyrics and song titles and the band's contemporary denial of feminist associations to their lyrics (or smth). either way, i don't know if i'm making a big deal out this than it should be.
Idk. I want to actually get this right for once. I want reviewers to call me out in the bluntest and harshest of tones so I can actually get this right. I am tired of failing and want do succeed at this for once, since I basically don't plan on doing another FA (that isn't an fa list; i.e. discography) after this. // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope that I can make this article a Featured Article. I was concerned that it would not be long enough to be a FA. However, I have looked at some other FAs that are similar to this film (independent, low-budget, unique style, etc.) and found that is is greater in length (11,709 characters and 2,021 words) than Zombie Nightmare (9,505 characters and 1,560 words) and Overdrawn at the Memory Bank (6,891 characters and 1,125 words) and slightly smaller than Soultaker (film) (12,642 characters and 2,102 words). I would like some suggestions regarding its prose and possible expansions, but all other suggestions are wanted as well.
I've listed this article for peer review because i am interested in improving this article (about a girl from essex) into a good article. It is honestly comprehensive in a sense, but i think it would need some copyediting to really really make it ready.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to nominate it for FA status. I've successfully nominated GA's and FL's, but haven't had a Featured Article and would appreciate any feedback!
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to ask what improvements I can make to this article. I'm aiming for C class, but in a perfect world, possibly GA.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to potentially restore it to GA status. One of my main goals here is to improve the coverage of all Wii U related articles on Wikipedia.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly revamped. Highlights include a revised history section with citations, updated membership tables, a membership timeline, list of state champions and inclusion of Wisconsin high school athletic conferences template.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to WP:FAC. This passed GA recently. Since then, I've gone through and done a bunch of rearranging/consolidating of sections for style, and was able to flesh out the material about the Rivera nightclub when an inter-library loan finally came in. There's a list of additional buildings Abramson worked on at Talk:Louis Abramson#Note for future work; I gave those all another look but I'm still unable to find any RS that talk about them, so I'm going to leave them all on the back burner. To anticipate one likely objection, there's not much in the article about Abramson's personal life, but what I've got is what I was able to find.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for feedback and suggestions prior to taking the article to FAC. Marshall was an important figure in both West Indian cricket and for Hampshire in English County Cricket. All feedback greatly received!
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made significant contributions and would like to further improve its quality. As the primary contributor actively working on this page, I'm hoping someone can take the time to review it and offer constructive feedback.
I've listed this article for peer review because it does not have information about the grading systems used by any of the other educational board in India, and the article itself is poorly structured, even though it is about a very important subject regarding education in India.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working on improving this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Operation_Majestic_Titan. I want to list it for review on Good Article status, but as I've never done anything like this before, I'd appreciate feedback on the article. I'd also like to get feedback on improvements that could be made to get it past GA (e.g. to A-Class or Featured Article status.) Thank you very much! DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it to GA. It would be the fourth (AFAIK) US Senate GA and I have modeled it after the previous ones. I hope to beef up the article a bit and just want general notes of where to take it next
Thanks, Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)01:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review in possible preparation for Featured Article Candidacy. Now that a few years have passed since the events of the article, I'd like some fresh eyes on it before going any further.
The article is about a 9th-century archdiocese in Central Europe where Old Church Slavonic liturgy was introduced. I've listed this article for peer review because I need input to improve its prose, comprehensiveness and neutrality. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what specifically I should improve on this article to get it up to an even better rating than it is now. Any sort of feedback is appreciated. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the content, have the sources fixed if there are any formatting errors, and I would also like the article to be ranked.
I've listed this article for peer review because I’m looking to make this a featured list, and if not that then I just want to see how it can be improved.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate this for FA eventually and would like to know what changes, beyond some expansion, are needed.
I'm a relatively new Wikipedia editor and weather weenie aspiring to get some higher-quality articles done. I want to FL this article eventually, but it's probably not there yet. I want the eyes of a more experienced non-weather (because I'm afraid I'm using too much jargon) editor on this list.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Although this page was a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, and is also rated "high-importance" in the Environment category, the quality of information is very poor. Later sections of the article consist almost solely of poorly structured examples, without proper definitions or information regarding international standards. There is no section on psychological hazards, which the introductory part mentions several times.
Thanks, GoldenPhoenix123 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a while since the last review. Me and @Warriorglance would like to send it to GAN and could use the feedback. Any specific advice would be very useful!
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made significant contributions and would like to further improve its quality. As one of the primary contributor actively working on this page, I'm hoping someone can take the time to review it and offer constructive feedback.
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 would like to nominate it for WP:FA; however, the page has been plagued by WP:NPOV issues for basically its entire existence. I would like for comments to particularly focus on any NOPV issues remaining in the article, but generalized feedback (especially any pertaining to FA standards) is also welcome!
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created it, and a second pair of eyes would be invaluable on any issue, e.g., prose, content, structure, templates, etc. The primary aim is to get GA status. Any advice for beyond (A-class or FA) is also welcomed, as I have limited experience with what is needed beyond GA status.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this to GA-status, however I'd like to make sure I synthesized from my sources correctly and would like any research gaps to be addressed.
