Hey Aoba47, thanks for the heads-up and it's not a silly question at all! Since the review page doesn't seem to have any substantial contributions from anyone and its associated article is no longer in mainspace, it no longer has any real reason to be around. I've nominated it for speedy deletion under criterion G6. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69: I just wanted to notify you that the deletion request was reverted with this edit by @Tamzin:. While I understand that a PR could be beneficial for a drafted article, I am uncertain about the value of it when the nominator is blocked indefinitely. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I declined because it was not non-controversial maintenance, as I could picture a reasonable person !voting to keep it at MfD. Feel free to take it there, though; I'm not saying it wouldn't be deleted, just that it's not speedyable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Just to be clear, I am not opposed to your edit. I appreciate the clear edit summary, and what you said there and here makes sense to me. I more so just wanted to provide an update about it here. I am not familiar with MfD and that process so I will leave that up to other more experienced editors in those fields. The peer review is not a big deal in my opinion. It was just something that caught my eye, and I was just curious on what is done in these kinds of cases. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, obviously, but as Aoba said it's not a big deal either way. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to take this to MfD either, so that's on the table for someone else if they're more inclined. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article Karl Menninger is still a long ways from a Good Article nomination, yet I would still like some feedback / guidance regarding what is a priority if I want to take it in that direction. I think it still has one tag of citation needed, which maybe is a clearer reason why not to nominate for peer review.
I haven't seen elsewhere in wikipedia where to get feedback / ask for help. I asked 3 editors of wikiproject: biography - maybe that was ok? I think in one piece of the guidance/policy pages it actually talked about how maybe asking for a peer review without it being for GA or FA meant it would get taken care of faster, because less would be at stake. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk00:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: an editor I had contacted was kind enough to give it a read and give some feedback! I hadn't seen! But it seems asking for wikiproject members to give feedback works for situations like mine? Instead of peer review which seems to be more for when it gets closer to GA or FA nominations?User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk01:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dwarf Kirlston, after a quick look through the article I don't see anything major that should prevent you from opening a peer review if you're interested in improving it. Peer reviews can be opened even for articles that need a fair bit of work before a push for good or featured article status; there are no minimum requirements for an article's quality aside from the absence of major cleanup banners, as mentioned in the instructions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to echo the above - peer review is for articles at all stages of development, there are no restrictions on articles being too small or undeveloped, and I think it just as helpful for new editors as for old. Hope you find yours useful (n.b. you can often wait a while to hear back about your review...!). Tom (LT) (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A peer review is requested for the article 'Indira IVF,' which is currently undergoing an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion. The primary focus of this review should be the article's demonstration of notability as per Wikipedia's organizational notability guidelines, specifically WP:NORG, WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:CORPDEPTH. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MH-wiki2025, the peer review process is not well-suited to addressing notability issues, nor would it be appropriate to open a review while the article is actively being considered for deletion. If you'd like to encourage more participation at the AfD, consider leaving neutral notifications for relevant WikiProjects. Let me know if you have any questions about this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
