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.
After working on this article for the past month I and @PSA: think it is almost ready for FAC but we'd like to get some feedback for the nomination. Best, 750h+10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...this one's kinda lengthy and ambitious for me, so I've probably messed up. Aiming for GA to lead to Good topic (3). Look out for typos, errors, things worded wrong or if i misunderstood the sentiments of things. or other stuff I could do better with.
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 hope to potentially improve this to GA status, and would also like some advice on how to expand the relatively short lead section.
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 just completely overhauled the content, adding a History section with citations, a membership table, a membership timeline, a list of state champions to come from the conference, and the Wisconsin high school athletic conferences template.
I've listed this article for peer review because the history of this organization wasn't chronicled before its merger into the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association in 2000, and I would appreciate some feedback on how to get this to Good Article status.
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'm listing this article for peer review due to an admitted COI, as described on the Talk page. I'd like an objective opinion whether I should improve this article towards a high rating. Much thanks -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Good Article status at some point and would like a second pair of eyes on it.
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 intend to nominate it to FAC. The article has seen slight changes since being promoted to GA, so I'm interested in getting a prose review and whether there is any missing info that could potentially benefit the readers. Thanks, Vacant0(talk • contribs)17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to prepare this article for a GA review. I've never done a GA review, so I don't really know what I'm doing. I'd mostly like to make sure this article isn't missing any major details, and doesn't have any issues that might cause it to quick-fail. Thank you!
– Farkle Griffen (talk)05:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to bring this to FL but have very little experience with lists and don't know precisely what is looked for. Looking for ways to improve it further. I think it's good now, but it probably is, in fact, not.
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 I'm interested in taking it to GA, but there aren't that many number articles to go off of as models. I basically based this on 69 (number), WP:NUM/G, and 1 in that order. As you will see, because these articles are so abstract, they are kind of a list of properties without depth. I think that's fine because an explanation of the significance of, say, practical numbers does not actually belong in an article about the number unless the number is actually relevant to an applied use of that property. But it's not exactly inspiring reading either.
So, primarily, I want to know three things. 1) Where do you think the article too technical or too brisk? 2) Do you have an idea for a math topic I have not covered? 3) Do you have an idea for an applied-math or a cultural topic to cover?
I will be applying WP:NUM/NOT when considering 3, but we're very much in the "no bad ideas" space when it comes to brainstorming topics. I've been looking into a few numerology sources lately and 54 seems to be an odd enough number that it doesn't get attention from that crowd.
The material on Babylonian mathematics probably does not actually make sense yet because I need to condense and clarify it. The first paragraph of the Trigonometry section, similarly, probably leaps too quickly to the answer. I do welcome feedback on them, but I think I know generally what needs to change about them already.
I've listed this stub for peer review because it is lacking in images, the source I added for procedure duration may need replacing, and the “other words” sections need inspecting. Any suggestions on expanding the article are also welcome.
I'm looking for further feedback and perspectives on this article because I'm planning to nominate it for GA status in the future. I'd like an overall review and suggestions for improvement, since it may still have various problems, especially sources predominantly being in Japanese (since suitable English sources for this topic are quite hard to find)
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'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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am happy with the sources of the article, but want to know if it reads well to someone other than myself, especially as these games are due to start up soon. Cheers! Johnson52418:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article explores the origins and follows the development of the evolutionary approach in economics.
The article lay dormant for many years before a major revamp in 2023-2025 and a reassessment in 2025.
It would be great if one could give advise on whether to go straight to FAC or try GA/A-class first and introduce further improvements to the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is room for improvement and I could advice from more experinced editors on how to improve this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish for it to achieve Featured List status. I am welcome for improvements to it. I am also unsure of whether to change the title to "List of invasive species in the United Arab Emirates". I would like advice on whether I should do it or not; the list also does not cover every single invasive species, just the more notable ones discussed in a variety of sources. I hope that is fine.
I would appreciate feedback on the sourcing of this discography list article, as well as suggestions on formatting or other ways to bring this page in line with other high-quality discographies on Wikipedia.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I wanted other editors opinions on how to broaden the scope of the outline/improve it. I have recently been adding legislation passed into law by George Washington into the outline, though I am unsure whether to continue with this direction. Any feedback would be much appreciated.
