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 take it to FAC soon, if my current FAC gets promoted hopefully. I have significantly expanded the article in the past couple of days, so please feel free to point out any errors and to leave any comments on any aspect of the article. I wish for everyone to have a great time reading this, and happy holidays :)
I've listed this article for peer review because, this is the second attempt for a Peer Review. I took this to FAC back in July, but it was rejected due to a lack of thorough research. However, I think there are more issues to weed out regarding this. I want this article to be my magnum opus on Wikipedia, like a final project, and making the first Featured article related to the Weeknd on Wikipedia would be an honor. Any help would be so appreciated, whether it be grammar, sources, I don't know how else I cna add sources without it seeming biased towards the Weeknd.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to work on improving it beyond its current quality. It would be nice to have advise relevant to going towards FA status. Nixon in China seems a relevant article to base improvements on, but this is a more recent opera with less to say on historical background and fewer performances to note.
I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there to help attract reviews to your PR. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking this to FAC. It's a shorter article, so I hope it is an easier article to work on.
If I'm not mistaken, I'm the one who reviewed GAC for this piece. I seriously did not think it was anywhere near or fit for FA at that time, but I'll look into it to see what has been improved and what can still be improved. In the meantime, Some of the best minds have worked on these writing guidelines (how to improve your writing), I figured it would come in handy. Please check it out. dxneo (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it promoted to FA class and also just generally make the article a better read whilst also bettering myself as an editor to see how more experienced individuals would alter the text.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status and it was suggested to me that could be a Featured Article candidate. I've not participated in the FA process before, but would be interested to hear feedback on whether this could be an FA candidate.
A very interesting article. As requested, I will provide comments from an FAC standpoint below:
Non-English-language terms should not be simply italicised, but put inside the relevant {{lang}} template (MOS:FORITA), possibly with an English-language gloss if needed. This is very important to increase accessibility—see MOS:OTHERLANG for the details on why.
Be careful that you clearly outline the timeline in the lead—that a once prominent practice was discouraged during the nineteenth century and later disappeared, but has now revived in the twenty-first century. Otherwise you end up saying that "the last daubati was active between 1908 and 1910" and that a 21st century daubatai has tattoed several women. Both can't be true at the same time.
The prose is alright, but could perhaps use a trip to WP:GOCE. There are a fair few errors, I noticed: "Veiqia can cultural impact outside Fiji", "Another example is Theodor Kleinschmidt who many several drawings of veiqia", "Indeed, veiqia were a soure of pride for women", "whether at pubsecence"
The number of illustrations are really good—would be a really nice FA with this level of illustrative detail.
Sometimes the prose gets a bit lost in itself. Take "As anthropologist Karen Jacobs has observed "the tattooed body is hard to collect"." this is somewhat oddly placed, coming just after the statement that records began to be collected, and the "as" at the beginning indicates a sort of logical statement that doesn't really follow. Incidents such as "Ema Tavola also designed a tattoo for Margaret Aull to mark the death of her grandmother" are a little too trivia-like.
Otherwise, I think the article strikes a really good balance between WP:MTAU and giving lots of detail—what FA criterion 2b) demands.
Thanks very much for the review AirshipJungleman29 - these points are all really helpful. I've started with the lang links - but should I add veiqia as a lang link throughout? Or not because it's the topic of the page? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much AirshipJungleman29, for the next step I took a look at the FAC guidence and it suggested to look for a mentor, would you be willing and have capacity? If not, I really appreciate the help so far! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be willing. I'd have to take a look at the sources first (first-timers at FAC have to pass a rigorous source spot-check) but after I do that I'll provide comments below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
im considering to promote it to FA to accommodate more songs for the 1989 topic on wikipedia, as part of project 1989. it would really help if you can spotcheck the little blemishes that might be left inside the article before nomination.
Thanks, brachy08(chat here lol)06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to feature article status at some point in the future, and I want to ensure that it is as complete as possible. If any additional changes could be made to the "Release" and "Reception" sections, please let me know. Moreover, if any additional sources exist that could be used to enlarge either one, I'll be happy to make the appropriate changes.
The section I'm most interested in improving is the film's "Production". I feel like I've exhausted my resources regarding either print or online sources, so if anyone is familiar with any additional sources that could be used, I'd really appreciate that. Lastly, if someone has access to a DVD of the film and could upload the audio commentary somewhere—a tall order, I know—that would be the most useful addition to the article after the behind-the-scenes documentary.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to bring this to WP:FAC in the new year. I'm wondering if there's any problems with the sources or if anything else needs to be added.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed twice at FAC stage. I'm not so sure what's wrong with the article, given I have tried my best to clear up all the issues with it, and it has even gone through a GOCE. As advised from the previous FAC, I shall ping @Epicgenius:, @Premeditated Chaos: and @Mike Christie:, who had been involved in previous nominations.
Honestly, I'm immensely frustrated, given I never encountered this many issues before especially for articles larger in scope like Nicoll Highway collapse or North East MRT line.
Sorry to see that the FAC has been archived. I'll leave some comments here later, pointing out issues as I go along, as if this article were still being nominated for FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
Para 1: "located near the road intersection of Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow." - "Road" isn't necessary here.
Para 1: "The station serves the residential neighbourhood of Buangkok, as well as Buangkok Bus Interchange and Sengkang Grand Residencies – an integrated commercial and residential development." - I would rephrase this to get rid of the awkward endash. For example, you can use semicolons to separate the list items: "The station serves the residential neighbourhood of Buangkok; the Buangkok Bus Interchange; and Sengkang Grand Residencies, an integrated commercial and residential development."
Para 2: "Buangkok was one of two stations on the NEL that remained closed when the line began operations on 20 June 2003, upsetting the area's residents" - Do we really have to say in the lead that Buangkok was one of two stations? We can just say "Buangkok remained closed when the line began operations on 20 June 2003, upsetting the area's residents"
Para 3: "White Teflon sheets cover the station's two entrances." - I feel like we can say more about the station's design in the lead. For example, the fact that it has an island platform (which, weirdly enough, is in the infobox but not the prose), or the names of its architects.
Jumping down to paragraph 2 of the Design section, shouldn't "The new bus interchange opened on 1 December 2024." go into the history section?More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies, I don't intend to do a full PR for this. Since you pinged me and have expressed some frustration with the process, I will point out that many of the prose issues I identified in the first FAC for this article are also present in North East MRT line but weren't noted at that article's FAC. Unfortunately, that article passing without those issues being identified may have given you the impression that they were not a problem. I can see why you would be frustrated by that, but clarity of prose is important and shouldn't be overlooked just because it was in a previous FAC. I've made some minor copyedits to the NEMRT article, just to give you an indication of what I'm talking about. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I'll have a look at the article, keeping in mind a potential FAC nomination.
Few too many section headers for my taste (MOS:OVERSECTION). The "History" section is five paragraphs long; it does not need four subsections. The infrastructure section is one chunky paragraph long, and yet it has three subsections. One subheading in "Network and operations" is literally just a table. I have written FAs almost three times as long with half the section headers.
The WP:LEAD should look to fully summarise the article. In my opinion, the "history" section is undervalued and the "infrastructure" section is not covered at all (even considering its minimal length—perhaps it should be made a subsection of "Network and operations" or "History"?).
Couple of prose tweaks needed: "4-car formation ... are operated"; note MOS:NUM saying numbers less than ten should be spelled out in letters; "was installed in the line".
"Due to the line being single-tracked and being one of the only unelectrified railway lines in Aichi Prefecture prior to the electrification of the line, despite the fact that the line was the closest JR-owned line to Chubu Centrair International Airport, local residents and municipalities requested the modernization of Taketoyo line. In response to demands, JR Central began work in March 2010 to electrify the line. is very clunky, especially the "being one of the only unelectrified railway lines prior to the electrification of the line" bit.
There is also some duplication: the work to elevate Handa station is mentioned twice.
There is an uncited sentence at the end of "History", and in the "Route" subsection".
I've listed this article for peer review as I have done a fair bit of work to the article and feel it is no longer a Stub article. Prior to this the article had not been updated since 2023.
Any comments or contributions are greatly appreciated.
Hi! I would agree that this is probably not a stub. I'll go ahead an reassess it to a Start-class article. My notes:
The first things that stands out to me are the uncited sections:
Volunteers restored the stations to their appearance at the height of the old line's service.
In 2016, the Edmonton Radial Railway Society donated the former Edmonton Transit Service 2001, a 1912 electric locomotive that once ran on this rail line. This locomotive was in turn donated to the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society in 2017. This is because the Oregon Electric Railway was the original owner of this locomotive.
Proper citations (or footnotes, if they are referenced elsewhere) are necessary for these sections.
Reading the article, it's also a bit unclear to me what the society is. It seems like it's an organization that runs a historic streetcar system, but it's also referred to as being itself a railway. This is a bit confusing, and I think that the wording should probably be adjusted for clarity.
It is one of two operating historical tramways in the province.—The two what?
The heritage line is 7.4-kilometre (4.6 mi) long...—Shouldn't the plural "kilometres" be used?
Volunteers restored the stations to their appearance at the height of the old line's service.—If possible, I think this should be expanded upon. When did this happen? What was the condition of the stations before this?
In 2016, the Edmonton Radial Railway Society donated the former Edmonton Transit Service 2001, a 1912 electric locomotive that once ran on this rail line.—On what rail line? The streetcar line?
The "Collection" table looks very detailed to me and I particularly liked learning about all the different cars. Good work!
Wow, it looks much better! You're obviously more familiar with the sources than I am, so you'll be the best judge, but if there aren't any glaring omissions in the article at present, I think you could probably submit it for a Good Article review (see instructions here). Spookyaki (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen for any suggestions for improvement. I would also like the page to be indexed on search engines to encourage contributions by the broader wikipedia community.
The good news is that the page is already indexed on search engines! If you want further comments, focused on general improvement, read below.
It's a short article, but seems fairly broad (and of course the company was only founded in 2017, so there's not much to say). I would still advise expanding the lead, to cover all the entities the company has been involved with, something like "Windracers has worked with the Royal Mail, Royal Navy, British Atlantic Survey, Purdue University, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The "Safety" section doesn't need a separate heading—it can just go under "Aircraft".
I would also advise merging the paragraphs in the "History" section so that it flows better; at the moment the prose is quite disjointed.
The people mentioned in the infobox are not cited or mentioned in the body. Including a sentence on them would be best. Also, the products "see aircraft" parameter isn't needed—it's a short article, people can just scroll down.
The first paragraph of "Aircraft" contains too many "it"s for my liking—try and smoothen the prose a little.
One more point: "The company then expanded into USA" is ungrammatical, and a little bit odd seeing as it wasn't an expansion of selling products, merely a collaboration with a university. Maybe just remove that phrase?
A double check has arrived. This'll be a fairly general review.
In general, a few too many section headers. I would remove all the subsection headers from "Academic Profile" and "Organisations and publications", and the "notable alumni" subsection header too.
Note that only the first word of section headers should be capitalised.
For the "notable people" section, note that faculty members are usually counted as alumni for the purpose of lists. If you cite specific faculty members, they will need citations; at the moment, most are uncited. The same goes for the list of Deans.
I would suggest prosifying most of the section and removing any headers, and instead having three paragraphs: "Notable students include ...", "Notable faculty members include...", "The list of deans are..."
The lead should certainly be expanded. Note that MOS:LEAD advises that it summarise the whole article. At present, very little is summarised.
Sourcing seems generally good, but less primary and more secondary sourcing would always be useful.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to continue developing the page. Any assistance or ideas onto what I could do to develop it (improving/adding sections etc) would really help. I'm not great with citations but I have added as I have edited the page. If anyone would like to take the initiative to also edit the page and add more info, it'd be great. Not requested a peer review before either so hope I've done this correctly.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some external opinions on the article with the view of being upgraded in quality class, potentially to GA – I could not submit this for GA myself (if deemed to meet that criteria), having made multiple minor edits to the page (wikilinks, external links, cats, images from commons). Whilst the subject does not meet notability guidelines for motorsport, they do meet notability guidelines for national sports (Liechtenstein). It appears to be well-sourced and well-written, however page history indicates indirect edit wars over content layout.
I nominated the article on GA but it was unsuccessful . Now, I want to peer review this to check if there is something wrong to the article and fix it and renominate this on GA.
Thanks, RoyiswariiiTalk!15:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be a featured list, but it is not there yet. Issues I would like feedback on:
1) the lede needs to be significantly expanded, but since this list is a supporting article to Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District, I'm not really sure what the lede here would be other than copying info from that article.
2) should coordinates be added to the table, maybe alongside addresses? The buildings are all in the same neighborhood, meaning the coordinates don't change much from entry to entry
3) there is no description column at the end of the table but there are several columns that give descriptive info, specifically "type", "style", and "architect". The table is getting pretty wide, so I'm not sure if another column describing the entry is helpful or not
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this page to GA status soon. In addition to the standard stuff for peer reviews I want to know if there are any missing sections that are needed for an article about a geographical region. I also want to know how can I expand the Lede section of this article.
Thanks, Abo Yemen✉09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I will review this article from the point of view of achieving GA status.
One very important thing at GA is the presence of inline citations which verify every part of the prose content. This is not the case currently. Many sentences, and even sometimes paragraphs, in the first four sections do not have any citations.
You have correctly identified that the lead section is too short. It is quite easy to expand the lead—all you need to do is make sure that every section in the article is summarised. At the moment, the "History", "Exploration", "Geography and geology", and "Economy" sections are not summarised. If you included those, making sure to balance them appropriately (so the history summary would take up more space than the economy summary), you could easily have a two or even three paragraph lead section.
The sections an article needs often varies depending on the precise nature of the topic. One method that you can very often do is take a look at high-quality articles on similar topics (in this case, regions), which could give you an idea of what you could include. On regions, see Dorset (an FA), Slavonia (a GA), and South India (a GA). Looking at them, I think a "Culture" section might be a good idea, maybe along with a "Politics" section and a "Demographics" section.
I also don't think that there is any real reason to separate the "History" and "Exploration" sections here: surely the latter can be merged into the former?
The prose is better than I expected; there are just a couple of errors in the "Economy" and "diaspora" sections. A visit to WP:GOCE would probably help iron out any remaining deficiencies.
In general, I think that there is an above-average foundation here, but that the article really needs some good work to polish into tip-top condition. Look at Dorset, Slavonia, or South India for inspiration if you get stuck. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First time giving, instead of receiving, feedback on a peer review...
Is it really necessary to list every tributary wadi in a bullet list? I'd give the number and mention the names (less than four) of any especially notable or large ones.
Images are very dense at the top of the article, but nearly absent at the bottom.
Prose itself looks pretty good.
First sentence of § Mountains too detailed... I'd 1) remove the bracketed transliterations etc. and replace "mountain range in Yemen" with something a little more specific. (nearby)
Citation 25 doesn't verify the population stats nor mention Mukalla, unfortunately.
Just my opinion: consider rolling in the (Arabic:) etc. from the lead into [note 1] to reduce clutter.
I've listed this article for peer review because I implemented changes how it functioned. As a list, it described various definitions of samurai, and editors were expected to use their own judgement to see if the historical figures qualified. This was an invitation to SYNTH and disputes. I discussed it with other editors, and it was decided to rely on if the character is referred to as a samurai in RS. I wonder if the list can be further improved and changes made to further reflect reliable sources over OR.
I've listed this article for peer review because I translated it from the French Wiki into English albeit through Machine Translation as I'm not fluent in French. I would like an outsiders perspective on this please.
I've listed this article (about a prolonged war in the Near East during the period of the crusades) for peer review because its neutrality and comprehensiveness are still to be checked. Thank you for your time.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe all comments from the FAC decline have been addressed and would love a final check before resubmitting.
I would like a review for neutrality and MOS covering the entire article in preparation for a potential FAC (which would be my first one), and in general any other advice to prepare this article for FAC. Thanks. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question with what might be a complicated answer - is this article ready to take to FAC? Thanks for any constructive comments! Mujinga (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I found the article to be confusing and badly structured, not only that, but the article was lacking key information. Therefore for the first 2 weeks of October this year (2024), I reshuffled, added, moved and created a few new paragraphs, culminating in this edit. However, my edits were later changed 10 days later and reverted to it's form prior to October (see discussion: Talk:Madoc), but editors were clear in watching the article and following my review precisely over the weeks and no one complained but in fact helped my progress in amending the article. Therefore, I am requesting the article Madoc be peer reviewed, but if at all possible, could someone please also look my copyedit dated 10/17 to compare and contrast which edit would be better for the overall presentation of the article, as in the copyedited or the original messy article..?
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it into a good article, but I'm unsure how else to do so. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is through peer review.
I'll conduct a mini GA review, although the broadness criterion with these articles is always the most important.
I'll note before I continue that if you were to nominate the article, you would need to either add more information to the page, or ask Hzh if it's okay to nominate (or, in my preference, co-nominate). This is because if you have < 10% authorship / < 5th in authorship, the review will be considered a drive-by (see footnote [a]). It's also just good to do this, because you need to have familiarity with the sources. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prose in the lede can be improved by making sentences less stumpy, particularly in the stretch following "Foot binding eventually..."
In the late 19th century, Christian missionaries and Chinese reformers to make this sentence flow better, add "While" to the beginning and restructure around this
Some redundancy in prose:
upper-class and urban women dropped the practice of foot binding sooner
By 2007, only a small handful
Some helpful wikilinks: consort, golden lotus, Padmavati, Kangxi Emperor, bond-servants
In the story, Pan Yunu this sentence is overly long
Li Yu created as with this one
and the excessive smallness of the feet clarify if this was an ideal seen later here as it is a bit confusing.
men would drink from a special shoe, the heel of which contained a small cup. reword this sentence so as not to mislead upfront
Contrary to missionary writings... this sentence needs a source at the end to meet GA's verifiability requirements.
However the rebellion failed and Christian missionaries this bit reads confusingly, as the activity of Christian missionaries also reads as bound in the "however" modifier
placing emphasis on the fact → emphasizing
Christian women in Xiamen attended a meeting
called into doubt the whole of Chinese civilization as in whether it was civilized, or whether it was stable?
and leading intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement saw same as "However the rebellion" comments
bound only until marriage
The broken toes were held tightly against the sole of the foot... Is this paragraph sourced to the next inline source? If so it needs to be copied here.
Unsure where apostrophes should go in footnote a.
In the Song dynasty the status... this sentence is quite wordy
It has been noted that Confucian doctrine in fact prohibits probably errs into editorialising here
Foot binding is an oppressive practice against women who were victims of a sexist culture. every other perspective was attributed; i.e. "a common argument is that". Attribute.
and a major event in the history of Chinese feminism.citation needed
disappeared in China forever after two generations
as it was then practised only by Han women don't you say earlier that it was also practiced by Hui Muslims?
The tag in the In literature, film, and television section will merit this article a quickfail if it is nominated with it remaining. If there are entries that are not sourced, a secondary source should be found to reach Good Article's verifiability requirements, and prevent WP:INDISCRIMINATE / MOS:MISC.
I don't imagine you are very familiar with the sources given your authorship. You should do a spot check to gain some familiarity. A spot check can look like this in a recent GA review I conducted.
Hello, fellow editors. Despite it being home to one of the worst cases of human rights abuses in South Korean history, the article for Brothers Home had been in a poor state ([1]) since its creation in 2016. I have been working on it for about a month, and major sections of the article are still in progress. While I would love to see the article GA nominated, it is still far from meeting all its criteria.
As the center has only gathered interest in Western media in recent years, many sources are inevitably in Korean. I will notify Wikiproject Korea with the PR, but any commentary, whether it'd be on formatting, references, or style, will be greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because
I’m not sure if I worded my sources good enough on the page and I wanted to hear you guys thoughts about it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this for featured article and there are sourcing questions on other related articles.
As requested, I'll review this article while keeping a potential featured article candidacy in mind. Before I start, I will note that the GA review was one of the most superficial I have seen; it certainly does not pass current standards, and if it had been noticed at the time, it would have been ruled invalid. I would advise you to seek input at WT:GAN, because the FAC reviewers will not accept that as a good review.
What is the reasoning behind the start and end dates of this article? Why are four sub-articles necessary to chronicle the history of one newspaper?
The article reads extremely like one massive article was just cut randomly into pieces. There is no attempt to situate the reader in context. WWII is mentioned in the first four words of the lead but never once in the body.
There seems to be extensive reliance on a couple of sources: Talese 1981 and Nagourney 2023, with entire paragraphs and even sections cited to just one source. In my mind, this is a classic sign that the article could be trimmed greatly. Most of the latter half of the article is less a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and more a recounting of Nagourney's work.
The overreliance causes problems, especially when the article gets ahead of the source. A quick look at the opening paragraphs of the 1986–1992 section reveals irregularities. The article describes Frankel rejecting two people and eventually selecting Whitney. Nagourney describes Whitney advising Frankel to reject the two people and select himself. If the internal workings of a newspaper are described in such forensic detail relying on just one source, you need to be certain that you are representing it accurately.
There is also plain, simple close paraphrasing. "Within the week, Whitney sent thirteen letters to presidential candidates demanding their biographical, sexual, professional, and personal information." is almost word-for-word from the source.
I would highly advise a reconsideration of the sourcing, balance, and weighting of this article before any FA nomination. Perhaps even holding a procedural WP:GAR and going through WP:GAN again, with a proper review, would be beneficial. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a complete re-write of this article and would love peer feedback. I corrected a few factual errors I found. I removed text that was either plagiarized by previous editors, or had been plagiarized by other websites, as it was word-for-word the same as text found elsewhere on the Internet. I also addressed the issues raised in previous cleanup banners. I added structure to the article, and brought in more context to help fill in the story beyond the obviously entertaining "cow flew" information to frame Elm Farm Ollie's adventure within the larger historical scope.
I know there is still room for improvement. I appreciate feedback on all elements of the article.
A cute little article. I'll provide comments from a basic standpoint below.
I see my previous revision to bring the article in line with MOS:OVERSECTION was reverted; I won't re-revert, but I will note my continued disatisfaction at the idea that an article with no headings is somehow worse than one artificially divided into single-paragraph sections.
Be careful that the body's careful lack of certainty—"Up until the expo, no cow is known to have flown."—is maintained in the lead. At the moment, it is not, and we have the firm statement "the first cow to fly in an airplane" instead.
While we're on the topic of the lead, it should probably be expanded to at least three sentences (one for each paragraph?)
I can see the relevance of the last two links in the "See also" section—the first three are probably too tangential.
In terms of prose, a couple of points:
"She has been enshrined in Wisconsin" normally means that a literal shrine has been erected in Wisconsin; you'll want to say "in Wisconsinian/Wisconsinite/Wisconsiner tradition" (whichever adjective is correct).
"turned up ... over the decades" is a little too informal for an encyclopedia. "contributions to the Elm Farm Ollie corpus", although quite funny, is probably similar.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a good deal of effort into it and would appreciate commentary on how to make it accessible to a wide audience, which Celtic Studies is historically lacking, making it subject to all sorts of pseudo historical writing in the public field.
I have re-rated the article as C-class. I'll provide comments from a general perspective.
One area that you could work on is sourcing. Although general references are fine for lower-quality articles, higher review processes such as that for good articles or featured articles require that all material be cited using inline citations. There is quite a lot of material that isn't directly verified with inline citations. This also includes note-type references like number 13.
Talking about references, another way of making it accessible is by using one of the the standardised citation templates for sourcing. This helps especially people with actual accessibility concerns. You may also want to look at incorporating the suggestions at MOS:DTAB to improve the accessibility of the big table.
However, in terms of making it accessible to a wide audience (WP:MTAU), I think you have done quite well. There are good explanations for most unfamiliar concepts, and the prose is clear and smoothly organised.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status. Over the past few months I redid most of the citations and greatly expanded the article and I want to get a second pair of eyes on it. I'm also trying to track down a pair of citations (discussed in the talk page).
I'll do a review with GA status in mind, as requested above.
The main problem with the article as it currently stands is that the vast majority of "Snow Town" is cited to one 1831 source. This is almost certainly not fully reliable, and means that the article is pretty far away from meeting GA criterion 2. What you really want are reliable secondary sources which describe the events, to which you can add the primary source details if they give a useful amount of colour or detail (while bearing in mind their bias, being closer to the event).
Because of the above problems, I would honestly have trouble rating this article at C-class—the citations need a lot of work.
I will also say that the prose, while not as error-filled, needs work too. Please pay attention to the finer points of the manual of tyle, such as MOS:NUM, which recommends that you spell out numbers under ten with letters instead of digits, or MOS:TIME, which specifies that a {{nbsp}} should be used in association with am/pm.
While the map is useful, I would recommend that you provide a zoomed-in, cropped version, possibly with annotations, so that readers can have a much better idea of the locations of the events.
If you can replace the references to the 1831 source with secondary, modern scholarship, this article has a hell of a lot of a better chance. Perhaps the Jones source in the Further Reading can help? Otherwise, GA status is far, far away. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article provides a very well-researched overview of nanomedicine, detailing its applications in drug delivery, imaging, sensing, and vaccine development which are supported by numerous examples and references. However, some sections lack citations (e.g., neuro-electronic interfacing and cell repair machines), which might undermine their credibility and completeness.
I am looking for feedback in anticipation of a GA nomination. I'm interested in the balance between "too vague a summary" and "too much detail". I think I've managed to get it right, but feedback in that area, and the quality of the writing, would be useful. And of course any other problems with the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I added more information than it was first review on October 31 2024, plus it was originally supposed to be a draft when it was review however someone submitted to a article, Granted I didn't did it right I just added a "this article is a draft" command,
I first made an attempt at GA review on one of the most frustrating prehistoric animals there is, something which unfortunately failed. As obviously, no one had done the same on Kronosaurus, I am asking this time for a review of the article before proceeding with a second GA attempt later. I thank in advance anyone who will do so, best regards. Amirani1746 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA review seemed to focus primarily on issues with sourcing and prose quality. I am not knowledgeable about this topic area, so I cannot comment on the former; I can however comment on the latter. Firstly, the two web sources are not correctly cited; if you remove the years from their inline citations it should be fixed. Please download User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors to see these errors yourself.
On the prose itself, I think a submission at WP:GOCE would be helpful. There are many very small grammatical errors remaining in the article, along with lots of duplication (it is for example mentioned several times that preparations for the new fossils are still to be prepared or described). Take the following, non-exhaustive list:
"When the material kept in Karlsruhe had the preparation finalized"
"The rostrum measure 60 cm (24 in) long and contain three broken teeth."
The "Size" subsection keeps saying "increased/decreased the length of the specimen"—which doesn't make sense in the slightest. The specimen was however long it was—you cannot increase or decrease that. What you can increase or decrease are proposals, but you can also assume that any literate person knows that 10 is smaller than 12, and so you can replace "further reduced the size of this specimen to between" with "proposed a size of...".
"Some researchers also suggests that"
"The neural tubes are visibly oval in shape" as opposed to ... metaphorically oval?
"the articulations of the ribs with the latter which are quite particular" ... quite particular? what does that mean?
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it as a "good articles" or "featured articles" candidate. I'd like an overall review to see if it is adequate to continue the proccess.
Hi there, and thanks for working on an important article like this! I will quickly point out some general issues for now, but, if time allows, will be happy to do more detailed comments once you sorted these out:
There are many paragraphs without inline citations towards the end of the article, and a number of "citation needed" tags. Every statement should be sourced with an inline citation, this is super important (or it will quick-fail at the good article nominees).
The article seems quite unbalanced and goes into detail that is simply to much for this overview article. A good example are the two tables listing crops that benefit from pollination. The first one is ok I think (have it collapsed by default, though). The second one is definitely too much ("that are at least occasionally or potentially pollinated by stingless bees"). We should not write articles by shovelling in any detail that we can possibly find; we instead have to comprehensively cover the important aspects of the topic in a concise way. There should be a balance; it is not good to have sections that are very general and sections that are super detailed; the depth of detail should remain about equal throughout the article.
Sections "Taxonomy" (including etymology and evolution) and "Description" are missing. The former could include a nice cladogram showing the interrelationships.
The structure seems to be non-standard. I am not convinced that the grouping by geographical region (Stingless bees of Australia …) is a good choice. I recommend to have a look at some Featured Articles, such as Mantis, Coccinellidae, or Mayfly, and use these as a template.
There is also a strong bias in the article as stingless bees of Africa do not really seem to be discussed.
Hey Jens Lallensack Thank you so much! Your comments were already helpful and clear. I'll answer some points and proceed to the article's improvement.
Lack of inline citations: I'll try either to find sources or delete the information. This last part of the article was left by me from the previous version.
Regional sections: This was also information left from the previous version. I don't see it adequate either, but I focused more in adding new verified info than in deleting previous content. I'll see these examples and organize it differently
African bias: The article definitely ended up with this bias, but there's not much literature produced about African stingless bees. You can notice that Brazil (where I'm from) is the center not only in biodiversity, but in scientific production and beekeeping techniques. Anyways, I'll search deeper for publications with these especies.
Glad to hear that these where helpful! I personally strongly recommend to follow the structure of existing FAs instead of the current sectioning based on region. Organising by region might make sense within the "Relationships with humans" section (if you can find sources for Africa), but not when discussing their general biology. I fear that the article will have major problems at GAN or FAC with this current structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious disease that affects many people, so I want to get it to the featured article status that it deserves. I've overhauled and updated every section of the article. Please review my work so we can make this a good resource for others.
I feel like the differential diagnosis section could be expanded a bit.
Per WP:MEDDATE "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." I would suggest trying to find alternatives for any sources that were published pre-2014 and limiting the number of sources published pre-2019.
I'd recommend finding some other sources for the diagnosis section as a lot of the text comes from one source and it's usually ideal to have multiple sources confirming the information present. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Hi. I recently created this article on a book written by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors. It’s about Donald trump’s financial and business life and is bound to reach #1 on the NYT list. Looking for people to improve the summary and maybe add a new section or two covering release and promotion. Also open to feedback on language and prose.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently updated it for a class project and would like some assistance in determining how to improve it further.
I think I got this article as far as I can apart from a few minor things, but I'm not super experienced with writing, nor was I super familiar with this topic before I started researching. I was hoping to get some feedback to bring up the quality of the article.
Thanks, Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks generally good, and ready for a formal review process like GA, which I've kept in mind while reading it. My only comment is that the title chosen is somewhat odd. By the looks of it, there are four names for the "playlist", but no actual playlist is known to have existed and the songs seem to have been more semi-randomly chosen by guards. In addition, most of the article is not about anything that can be called a "playlist", but instead about the mechanisms and reception of the torture. I would thus suggest renaming the article to "Auditory torture at Guantanamo Bay" or something similar.
The title apparently came about from someone copy pasting a bunch of text from a newspaper to start this article, but I wouldn't be opposed to changing it. However, by a very rough count, only about half of the sources focus on Gitmo specifically, while the others generally lump it in with the other detention centers. Maybe it should be renamed to something like "Auditory torture in the War on Terror" (which should be as simple as moving some info from background to use and changing a few words around)?
Per MOS:ALLCAPS, titles in a citation probably should not be in all caps.
Some paragraphs are quite long, making it hard to read (especially on a mobile device). I suggest splitting up some of the paragraphs: my recommended target length is 4-6 sentences per paragraph.
Wikimedia Commons might have some images that could be added to the article.
I would like to hear how close this article is to passing a featured article candidacy. It is largely unchanged since I brought it to GA last December. At the time, I remember doing as comprehensive a review as I possibly could of the available academic sources discussing the topic, but I've never touched the FA process before, so any input is very welcome!
As requested, I'll do a review similar to what I would provide at FAC, in order to help you get a good idea of what reviewers might pick up on. I'm not that familiar with the topic, so it'll likely focus more on prose than sourcing, coverage, or other, less superficial areas.
Very good first paragraph. Fulfils MOS:INTRO as good as any I have seen.
The second sentence of the second paragraph is a bit lengthy and long-winded. This paragraph is also quite focused on the effects on cisnormativity on the healthcare of transgender people; as WP:LEAD favours summarising the whole article, it would be nice if the other effects outlined in "Manifestations" were also summarised in the lead. For example, a sentence summarising "Education" would be nice.
I suppose "trans" is a common enough word to not need one, but perhaps "cis" as the shortened form of "cisgender" could use a gloss before its first use?
Body
I would put Serano's quote later in the first paragraph, and start with the when/where coinage of "cisnormativity". Starts the article body off more focused/encyclopedic and less essay-like.
Although the separation between the first and third lead paragraphs works better, I feel that the sections "Definition" and "Intersectionality..." could be merged, especially as the "Definition" section already considers related concepts.
I must compliment this article's prose, I'm really finding very little to pick at.
Take care with the images though—MOS:IRELEV notes that they "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". With the caption, the poster image is a little tangential—not completely significant in the topic's context. The simple sex-segregated diagram is however an excellent representation.
Short paragraphs generally do not warrant their own subsections per MOS:OVERSECTION. Consider ways to combine short subsections, so that the prose is less cluttered.
Although "Transmedicalism" is a section heading, its meaning is never actually explained, and it is a WP:SEEALSO link. The reader is sort of left wondering.
Merged the intersectionality section into definition.
Removed the image in question.
Changed the section heading to the more general "internalized transphobia", which is explained and wikilinked.
Adjusted the second lead paragraph for balance of topics
@AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry that it took so long. I've done some simpler revisions now. I'm not quite awake enough today to think about the overall structure of the manifestations section, so I'll try to get back to you on that tomorrow. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)17:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I did not in fact get back on to this tomorrow. It hasn't been a very "getting things done" kind of couple of weeks. I'll definitely look at this when I can, but if y'all want to close this request in the meantime, that's find by me. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like an important topic in this field, gets a lot of traffic, and needs some more work to become a solid article.
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except for the lead)
Don't bold text in a citation (Santucci, Jack; Shugart, Matthew; Latner, Michael S. (2023-10-16))
Keep working to find additional sources that can be added to the article. Sources can be found at Google Scholar, Archive.org, WP:LIBRARY or your local library system.
In approximately 4–5 months, I plan to make a good or featured topic about the Seattle Kraken, a topic that this list will be a part of. Since this list is very short, it cannot pass a featured list nom, so I'm doing a peer review instead. If whoever reviews this can compare it to the FL criteria, that would be great. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
