Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. 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.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Arts[edit]

Danganronpa S: Ultimate Summer Camp[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like advice as to how I can improve its general quality, and potentially bringing up its grade sometime in the future.

Thanks, IanTEB (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Gameplay
  • Needs some first wikilinks for the body..
     Done
  • Since you are mentioning other games people will be confused unless you explain how does it play.
     Done. Explained that Danganronpa V3 is a visual novel game
Plot
  • Is there no ending?
     Done. Added a paragraph explaining the ending
Development
  • First time mentioning the companies in the body requires wikilinks.
     Done
Reception.
  • Seems like Famitsu should be in the score box.
     Not done. Since that is a review of Danganronpa Decadence, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to have in the review box, since the final score doesn't reflect the Famitsu writers' thoughts on Ultimate Summer Camp as a standalone title.

That's all.Tintor2 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed every point. Thanks a lot for the review and input! IanTEB (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series)[edit]


First time doing a peer review! I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is already very close to GA-status, and just want to try and catch out any major issues before nominating it. What with the recent release of Spider-Man: No Way Home and the demand for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 to be made, I think this article is more than ready to receive the treatment it deserves. Thanks! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


The Powerpuff Girls[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to reassess the quality of this GA page as it has not seen a peer review since my request over 10 years ago. Its GA nomination in 2012 was both nominated and approved by the same editor within a 5-minute span with no additional comments or objections from any other user. I feel that this was not an unbiased review but rather a self-promotion from a nominator that went overlooked due to lack of disagreement at the time. A fresh look at this article's status as GA and what can be done to maintain its status is badly needed in my opinion. — Paper Luigi TC 03:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, — Paper Luigi TC 03:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Paper Luigi! This is not the wrong forum, but you might be more likely to get a response at WP:GAR by starting a community GA reassessment. Some editors regularly ask for their articles to be reassessed in that way, especially if the articles have been substantially expanded or updated. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. If this article's peer review doesn't garner enough interest, I'll relist it there. — Paper Luigi TC 02:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


Mick Jagger

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 28 November 2021, 22:18 UTC
Last edit: 26 December 2021, 02:36 UTC


Vincent Figgins[edit]


I've recently raised this article to GA, and considering trying to get it to an FA. If passed, this would be my first, so I'm keen to get input on what could be improved.

Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Budots[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to submit the article for GA.

Thanks, TreseTrese (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit]

Deus Ex (video game)[edit]


I'm trying to get this to WP:FA status. It's a genre-defining game, and considered a level 5 vital article. Not entirely sure where to begin, but I'll take any and all feedback. Gaps, errors, research, prose. Willing to work at this. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Paper Mario: Color Splash

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 24 January 2022, 15:00 UTC
Last edit: 26 January 2022, 21:43 UTC


Saint Vincent Beer[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review I feel like it is close to FA ready

Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Golf Club: Wasteland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 10 January 2022, 14:36 UTC
Last edit: 21 January 2022, 14:48 UTC


Tessa Sanderson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 September 2021, 21:46 UTC
Last edit: 6 January 2022, 15:19 UTC


Engineering and technology[edit]

Saturn V[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it would be nice to have other people look at on the article. This article isn't GA quality just yet, but can get there with a little bit of work. I'm listing it here to have other people look at it. I'm looking for a general review of the article.

Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 03:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


Dylan Field[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's only my third biography of a living person and I'd love advice on how to improve!

Specific help wanted:

  1. How good (or bad) is the WP:NPOV right now, and how could it improve?
  2. Is the amount of attributed statements and quotes in the current article OK? How could it improve?

Thanks, Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


SS Edward L. Ryerson[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of making it a FAC. I would also like to receive feedback on how to improve its quality.

Thanks, GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Rublov[edit]

  • Lead
    • I recommend moving the second sentence of the lead (Throughout her career on the Upper Great Lakes, she has been laid up multiple times.) elsewhere and replace it with more important information, e.g. that the ship was one of the largest built for the Great Lakes at the time. The first paragraph should highlight why the ship is notable for a Great Lakes freighter.
    • Second paragraph is a little scrambled. It begins chronologically with the date of the ship's construction, then a couple of sentences about her physical characteristics (size, speed, appearance), then back to a chronological account of her sea trials and maiden voyage. I recommend moving some of the more important details into the first paragraph of the lead, and keeping the chronological information together.
    • Some of the details in the lead can be omitted, like the exact tonnage of her first load. (The tonnage of her record-breaking load can be kept since it is notable in its own right.) Also which was managed by Central Marine Logistics of Griffith, Indiana in the third paragraph.
    • The third paragraph says In 1998, Inland Steel was acquired by Ispat International N.V., but Inland Steel has not yet been mentioned so the reader cannot discern the significance of this fact.
    • The infobox image could be improved. It's a bit low res and the raised drawbridge behind the ship is distracting.
  • History / Design and construction
    • Lots of parentheses in the sentence beginning Her hull has an overall length..., which makes it hard to parse. Perhaps the second part could be written — a length between perpendiculars... instead (with an initial dash instead of parentheses).
    • She has a gross tonnage of 12,170 tons and a net tonnage of 7,637 tons. — this seems to belong in the previous paragraph. Conversely, The first keel plate was laid on April 20, 1959. more likely belongs in the second paragraph.
    • Enthusiasts consider her to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing freighters ever built. — this is a potentially controversial claim which would be better supported if you included a quote from the source you cite.
  • History / Career
    • there were rumours she would regularly be directed — In my opinion she was regularly directed is better; the conditional sounds off to me.
  • Miscellaneous
    • Perhaps you could add a "See also" section.

I made a few minor edits to the article where it strayed from the Manual of Style. Please let me know if you have any questions. Rublov (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: I have removed the first highlighted sentence, since it has been made redundant. There is not much I can do about the image. Other than that, everything is done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, it looks good to me. Rublov (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


SpaceX Starship

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 December 2021, 06:47 UTC
Last edit: 24 January 2022, 04:54 UTC


Radio Caroline[edit]


I'm someone who is fairly interested in the offshore radio history scene, Not many people know about this story, and I'm trying to (maybe) get it up to a presentable level. From what I've seen I think it's a relatively solid article, maybe the intro lacks a bit. I want to know what needs to be done to make it look and.. feel better for a station with such a amazing history.

Thanks, Fadedmax (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: I just realised there's a sidebar for peer review, and have listed it here, that's the reasoning for the Dec 11 post date vs the Dec 23 Sidebar date. Fadedmax (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini![edit]

I apologize you had to wait this long! It's nothing against you or the article you chose, it's simply due to there being a lack of participants at WP:PR. To help deal with the backlog, giving feedback to other peer reviews might just attract more editors to yours as well. For now, the main issue with the article is the lack of citation for verification. Before I give the article a look for comprehensiveness, I advise dealing with these issues first. A lot of the info that is missing references are large chunks of paragraphs, so it is most likely that a user pulled this information from another source and simply didn't reference it in the article. If you can't find a source to prove it, it might as well be removed. Panini!🥪 15:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


Nintendo 64[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a high importance article for the Nintendo and Japan WikiProjects. I also want to review this article and do some work on it before it gets nominated for GA status

Thanks, Showerstuffthoughts (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


Scott Kelly (astronaut)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review becaus I am looking to get it to FA status. Several years ago, I worked on this article and got it to GA status; as it has been some time since it was last reviewed I would like someone other than me to take a look at it and give feedback before I nominate it for FAC.

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

@Balon Greyjoy: Looks like this place is pretty empty for a while, so I just gonna step in and review it :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • References at the end of ... at the start of Expedition 26. are spaced weirdly
  • Last sentence at the lede should be moved, it broke the lede coherence
  • 1 or 2-sentences paragraphs should be merged
  • ...


The Epic Split[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take thas article to WP:FAC. This is the first time I am attempting such a thing and would like to get a review to see what would need to be done to get that done.

Thanks, PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest some general expansions. @PhotographyEdits Wingwatchers (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek[edit]

Thanks for your work on this article. Some general comments from me on ways that the article could be further improved:

  • I would recommend requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors to firm up the prose.
  • There is some inconsistency between the lead/infobox which say it is 75 seconds long, and the external link box which says it is 1 minute and 16 seconds long.
  • The infobox says it was released on 22 November 2013, but that's not consistent with the Variety source, which says 13 November.
  • I don't see the point of putting Volvo's website in the infobox
  • Piping "Spanish airport" to Ciudad Real International Airport in the lead is a bit of a MOS:EGG; maybe just name the airport?
  • Production agency and director should be moved up earlier in the lead
  • The commercial itself didn't "cause" parodies to be made, people made them in response to the commercial
  • I would add a brief caption to the infobox image indicating that it's a still from the commercial
  • "The commercial then states" is kind of vague wording, and without watching the actual commercial I would have thought that it was a voice-over saying that. If you're going for a comprehensive description of the commercial, I would make it more clear that it is just words on a screen.
  • Background could use some expansion. Maybe some more information on the "Live Tests" series in general, some background on the Forsman & Bodenfors agency and their relationship with Volvo, how Van Damme became involved, etc.? I have not looked at all the sourcing so I'm not sure if some of these suggestions are actually sourceable, but it would be a beneficial addition if they are.
  • "Volvo Trucks has appointed the advertising agency" this was kind of vague and Forsman & Bodenfors have not been mentioned since the lead, so it would be good to name them again here.
  • "It was the sixth advert released in the series called Live Tests" this information is repeated in both the background and production sections, you probably only need it in background
  • Be consistent about capitalizing "Van" in "Van Damme" – there is a lowercase "van" in the Production section
  • Be consistent about whether you are referring to the commercial as "The Epic Split" or "Epic Split" (the former is probably best), and whether it's in quotation marks, italics, or unadorned (the first is probably best).
  • "advert" is an informal term
  • I don't think the first sentence of the Reception section is quite consistent with the source if you're looking at the details. It was watched by over a million people within a week, and over 41 million (or 48.5 million per Visible Measures)
  • "the advert received six prizes" it would be good to be more specific here and discuss what prizes it won
  • "in causing immediate action of the viewer" not sure what this means. Action = purchasing a Volvo?
  • I am a little skeptical of the neuroscience claims about "high memory encoding effectiveness" in the Analysis section – this is veering into scientific claims that have not been peer reviewed
  • "late-2014" hyphen not needed
  • Source states "$3–4.7" million, so you should be specific about that rather than rounding to 4
  • "a face-swapped variant was distributed" this is currently vague – was it like an officially distributed parody or an internet meme?
  • "mayor" can be in lowercase
  • Lots of passive voice in the Parodies section making it unclear who created these parodies
  • "would go on to film" → "filmed"
  • "featuring the real Chuck Norris" – the previous sentences did not make it clear enough that the 2013 parody did not actually feature Norris
  • The Further Reading link looks to be a bachelor's thesis, what makes it scholarly enough to merit listing in the article?

Hope these are helpful. I enjoyed learning about the commercial. DanCherek (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thank you, these are very helpful. I will work through your comments ASAP. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@PhotographyEdits: are you still working on the above comments? Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720 Yes, although I was busy with other stuff at the same time. Sorry, I'll try to work on this soon again. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


Pan Am Flight 7

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 12 October 2021, 16:23 UTC
Last edit: 20 December 2021, 22:40 UTC


General[edit]

Degrassi Junior High[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to get this article of a cult Canadian teen drama series to featured status. At the beginning of this year, the page did little to demonstrate the popularity and legacy the show actually has, such as being named one of the most significant television shows in Canadian history by the Toronto International Film Festival. The article had a total of four sources and consisted mostly of fan cruft, such as a massive paragraph on a character wearing an Australian football sweater. I spent the first half of this year expanding it significantly with hundreds of sources and even getting it successfully assessed for GA. I'd be glad to tweak this article to fit the FA criteria.

Thanks, ToQ100gou (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Alice (Friday the 13th)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because...I have expanded this article to "good article" status recently. I would now like to make it "featured article" quality.

Thanks, The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


KiHa 80 series

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 January 2022, 03:49 UTC
Last edit: 14 January 2022, 08:17 UTC


John Manners (cricketer)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA class. The article is currently a GA.

Thanks, StickyWicket (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Northwest Championship[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's my most substantive new article to date and I would like a general review.

Thanks, PKAMB (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit]

Public housing in Singapore[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten it and I intend to submit it for GAN. I would prefer comments regarding the nature of the article compared to GA standards, and also on the "Design" and "Housing types" sections

Thanks, R22-3877 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


Fort Saskatchewan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 28 December 2021, 00:04 UTC
Last edit: 3 January 2022, 00:29 UTC


History[edit]

Battle of Alsasua[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to take it to GA level in the coming months and wish to iron out issues before then.

Thanks, A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 10:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

hello @A. C. Santacruz:, maybe i can help to point several things here:

  • the lines of:

An alternative northern route avoiding Alsasua would have necessitated crossing the basque mountains, while a southern one would have required either crossing the mountains near modern-day Izki Natural Park or a longer route through Logroño. However, sources do not mention Quesada considering another route and similarly do not mention any Carlist doubts as to the path the convoy would take. Thus, the geographic context set up a pitched battle between the two sides.

  • The reference no 13 & 14 (Galeria Militar Contemporanea - Historia de la Guerra Civil en el Norte y Cataluña) should be inserted with url that can be accessed by Wikipedia users, probably i can help here, just change the current ref with this template:

<ref name="Galeria Militar contemporanea">{{cite book |title=Galeria militar contemporánea, 1: historia de la guerra civil en el norte de Cataluña |date=1846 |publisher=Hortelano & Ca., |pages=373-374 |url=https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Galeria_militar_contempor%C3%A1nea_1.html?id=2CRhmyOluCwC&redir_esc=y |access-date=23 January 2022}}</ref>


cheers Ahendra (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Ahendra! Fixed the second one. Do you mean the first lines need a source? A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
yes, it is important to have the link for the reference source, at least the quotation of the ref. Ahendra (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


Wei Yan[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because the page has major improvements as per the previous peer reviews requirements which noticed the article's problems, including:

  • reducing some WP:Oversection problem which not solved for more than a decade
  • improving the pupular culture legacy section with each of quotation reference by @KeeperOfThePeace:
  • summarized the "analysis" section.
  • reference now has page numbers or at least the link to the page in each books/journals
  • inline citations improvements, including the quotation from secondary sources such as modern time academic figures & universities researches which gave commentary to the primary sources by @Z1720:

i humbly asking for senior member of wikipedia 3kingdom project too for this review @Benjitheijneb:, @Jftsang: @Underbar dk:

Asking fellow peer reviewer volunteers too @Vice regent: @Goldsztajn:

Thanks before, hopefully this page can be improved to GA. Ahendra (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to take to FL status. I believe it is a solid article; however, an independent set of eyes will serve the editing process well. Most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus[edit]


Listing for peer review, thoughts on how this might be further improved. Could it be worked towards FA? Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

lets see for FA criterion list Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

hope will help . Ahendra (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


Nadezhda Alliluyeva[edit]


The second wife of Joseph Stalin, Nadezhda Alliluyeva had an interesting life of her own, though is of course most famous for who she married (and her death). I expanded this article some time ago and it passed GA, but think it could go for FA, but I'd prefer a look over if possible. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive suggestions for its improvement before its GAN. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent article, but I have some comments. The article is actually contains only political history in chronological order. It would be good to write more about the economy (trade, coinage), art (literature, architecture), society and administrative system. English-language sources already exist for these, for instance The Economy of Medieval Hungary (Brill, 2018). --Norden1990 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Fair point. I have the book so I can expand the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Borsoka: from me, probably should add too the list of the monarchs, it really helped readers to understood better if we acknowledged the named monarchs or rulers of historical state/kingdom artical.. regarding the format its up to u, whether a section or an infobox Ahendra (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your proposal. I will add a list. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


Arthur Phillip[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I just recently got it to pass a GA and thought I’d do a peer review before nominating for feature article

Thanks, Knightmare 3112 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder by Kavyansh[edit]

Will take a look in a day or two, or three or four. I reviewed it for GA, and am happy to know that it is being considered for FA! Ping me if I forget. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Z1720. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
  • The structure of the lead can be improved. Currently, we have no information about his "Early life". I'll suggest breaking the lead into four paragraphs.
    • The first one should be a synopsis of the lead. Something like "Admiral Arthur Phillip (11 October 1738 – 31 August 1814) was a British Royal Navy officer who served as the first governor of the Colony of New South Wales." would be better.
    • Start the second paragraph with his early life, covering till 1786.
    • The third paragraph should cover his life from 1786 till 1792, his returned to Britain. This one includes his important career as the governor of New South Wales.
    • The last paragraph should start with his later life, and should cover his death, as well as his legacy. That would definitely frame a better lead section. Feel free to change anything from above suggestion.
  • was appointed by Lord Sydney to the position of commander — why not just "was appointed by Lord Sydney as the commander"?
  • soon saw that New South Wales would need a civil administration and a system for emancipating convicts — I'm sure he did not "saw", he "realized"
  • By the time Phillip sailed home in December 1792, however, the colony — I always try to cut words like "however", "nevertheless", "Anyhow", wherever possible. Here, I think 'however' isn't much required.
  • to receive medical treatment — for what disease?
  • before dying 31 August 1814 — better would be "before his death on 31 August 1814"
  • in the London ward of Bread Street — shouldn't it be "in Bread Street, London"
  • He was the son of an immigrant from Frankfurt, Jacob Phillip, who — suggesting "He was the son of Jacob Phillip, an immigrant from Frankfurt, who"
  • Let me just confirm, was Jacob Phillip his step-father? Because "His mother, Elizabeth Breach, was the widow of a common seaman by the name of John Herbert"
  • In keeping with — how about "In accordance with"?
  • Phillip was "unassuming — should be "Phillip was an "unassuming"
  • considerably longer than the average student stay of twelve months — (1) we shouldn't add 'considerably', as the difference in time of stay itself justifies that it was considerably long (2) "twelve months" = 1 year; should change it.
  • 210-ton — I am not sure, but should be have a conversion to lbs as well??
  • He left the Greenwich Hospital — specify 'Phillip'
  • and spent the winter aboardMOS:SEASON discourages use of season to refer to a particular point of time in the year.
  • as quoted by Hughes — I think Hughes deserves his full name to be mentionned.
  • the summer of 1754MOS:SEASON
  • thirty crew members — should write 30 in number; see MOS:SPELL09
  • As an apprentice, Phillip remained aboard as — we had already been told that he was "an apprentice"
  • On 16 October 1755, he enlisted — specify that 'he' here is 'Philip'
  • In July 1763, he married — same as above
  • Margaret Charlotte Denison née Tibbott (known as Charlott) — suggesting to keep "née Tibbott" in the parenthesis
  • the English press in 1786 — should that be 1777?

That brings me to "Recommissioned into Royal Navy" sub-section. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Do ping me once you have finished with all these, I'll add another lot of comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Edmund the Martyr

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 11 December 2021, 11:41 UTC
Last edit: 16 January 2022, 14:36 UTC


Abdollah Mirza Qajar[edit]


i'm planning to nominate this article for FA, i'm looking forward for any suggestions. thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments
  • The following sources are cited under the Bibliography section, but are not used in the prose as in-line citations. If they have some significant work on the topic, better to cite them. If they provide certain mention of the topic or closely related topics, better move then to "Further reading" section. Else remove.
    • Al Davod, Ali (Winter 2001). "دخمه ارغون" [A look at Tomb of Arghun by Habib Yaghmaei]. Nashr-e Dansh (in Persian) (102): 57–58. ISSN 0259-9090. OCLC 607709011
    • Amanat, Abbas (1997). Pivot of the universe : Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831-1896. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520914056. OCLC 44964072
    • Anosh, Abolhasan Fayyaz (2011). "پديدة رست مالتواريخ؛ تأملي بر شخصيت محمد هاشم آصف و اثر تاريخي او" [Rostam Al- Tavarikh An Analysis of the Character of Mohammad Hashem Asef and his Historical Work] (PDF). Tahqiqat-e Tarikh-e Ejtemai (Social History Studies) (in Persian). 1 (1): 97–122. ISSN 2383-0484. OCLC 7854919621
    • Ostadi Moghadam, Kazem (2015). کتابشناسی خط فارسی و تغییر خط [An Encyclopedia of Persian Calligraphy and It's Changes] (in Persian). Tehran. ISBN 9786000437336. OCLC 1243881046

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

* @Kavyansh.Singh: All removed Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Constant-recursive sequence

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 6 January 2022, 04:12 UTC
Last edit: 21 January 2022, 16:04 UTC


Peking Man[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article certainly can be organized better. For example, the question of cannibalism is discussed in great detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Age and taphonomy; fire is brought up in a lot of detail in taphonomy, palaeoenvironment, and its own section fire; and most sections are incredibly long and could use some subdivisions but I can't think of any logical ones. Also, comments on general grammar and readability would be appreciated

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


Language and literature[edit]

Doraemon[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… back in June 2021, I expanded the Doraemon article largely and brought it from a C-class to good article status, and further changes have been made since then. Now I'm willing to get input on how it could improve further, and whether it have a considerable chance for featured status or not.

Thanks, Thuyhung2112 (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Ayn Rand[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a GA for over a decade, and I've recently updated and expanded it in preparation for FAC. Since Rand is a controversial figure, any feedback is welcomed but especially any concerns about sourcing, POV, etc. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


One Day at HorrorLand[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA status from its current GA status.

Thanks, SL93 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I now see that the first part of the plot summary I added was copied to Goodreads at some point which is so not cool. I will work on rewording it. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Scratch that. A Goodreads reviewer did the deed and not Goodreads itself. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 January 2022, 02:53 UTC
Last edit: 27 January 2022, 08:13 UTC


First circle of hell[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first of a series of articles I've begun working on regarding the divisions of Dante's Inferno. Due to nature of the articles (I have also created the second and third parts so far), any suggestions here will be useful across multiple articles. I have deliberately avoided any of the "popular culture" cruft that can permeate these kinds of articles and want to focus on the actual subject itself; any sources that seem like obvious omissions or any themes not covered here would be welcome additions. Thanks, ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


Levantine Arabic

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 19 December 2021, 11:26 UTC
Last edit: 17 January 2022, 11:53 UTC


Immortality in fiction

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 13 December 2021, 23:42 UTC
Last edit: 24 January 2022, 09:46 UTC


Raoul Whitfield[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because… I recently added a significant amount of information to it with a major expansion. It is my first article to edit, it's a topic I find extremely interesting, and would love to get feedback so I can improve the article, and improve my editing skills for future articles.

Thanks, Kting97 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


Journalism of Early Modern Europe[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on getting it to GA at some point and as it was last rated as C want some clarification on what could be improved to get it there. I contacted an expert in the area via email to get some feedback but am still waiting on a response.

Thanks, A. C. Santacruz Talk 11:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch[edit]

Placeholder. Will take a look this week. JBchrch talk 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  • It seems like the coverage is unduly biased in favor of Italy. If I take a look at Hamish, Scott, ed. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern European History, 1350-1750: Volume I: Peoples and Place. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199597253., and specifically its chapters on "Printing and Printedness" by James Raven, "A Revolution in Information?" by Ann Blair and Devin Fitzgerald and "Travel and Communications" by Hamish Scott, I see a lot of crucial material concerning other countries that is not covered. It also seems like some essential information is missing such as the fact that "Europe’s first weekly newspaper began publication in 1605 in Strassburg" (Scott) or the history of La Gazette. And that is just from a very very cursory reading of this one book.
  • I think the problem is the sourcing, which relies almost exclusively on scholarly articles focusing on Italy. I think you need to find more sources with a broader focus, and preferably WP:TERTIARY ones, such as the Oxford handbook mentioned above (and its sources). JBchrch talk 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Hòa Hảo[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I've made it a GAN, though it will be better to get initial wrongs right before the someone takes the nomination.

Thanks, --► Sincerely: Solavirum 16:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


Egami Church[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make sure it fits the MOS and that no vital information is missing, I hope to nominate this for GA soon.

Thanks, Tai123.123 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RoseCherry64[edit]

Lead[edit]
History[edit]
  • checkY Wikilink Naru Island.
  • checkY Comma after "the location of Egami Church".
  • checkY "this allowed them to" -> "allowing them to", flows better.
  • Comma after "In [years]".
  • checkY Quote shouldn't be italic.
  • "immigrated from" -> "emigrated from"
  • Comma after "preexisting villages on the island".
  • "its current state in 1919." should end with a comma, not a period
  • "as a Important Cultural Property" -> "as an"
Architecture[edit]
  • checkY Put ref tag after "the finest wooden churches in Japan", it looks like you're citing that it's one of the finest wooden churches in general.
  • checkY Comma after "in Japan".
Cited sources[edit]
  • checkY The Japanese references do not have transliterations. I don't think this is required, but it gives people who can't read Japanese more context about the source.
  • checkY UNESCO source is repeated with different page numbers. To reduce WP:INLINECLUTTER, consider using something like <ref>{{harvnb|UNESCO World Heritage Centre|2017|p=82}}</ref> after the first cite. You also need to add a tag for works without authors with harvnb, see Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template for how to do this.
  • checkY UNESCO is written as Unesco in the reference.
  • checkY 横坂剛比古(MARO) -> |last=Yokosaka |first=Takehiko

Not really sure how much this has left for GA, really, but there were numerous issues I spotted on a quick look. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@RoseCherry64 Thank you, I'm unsure how to follow through with the second citation tip you listed so if you have the time could you do it for me. Is there any other problems you see know Tai123.123 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Done, I will look through the article later and see if I have anything to add. RoseCherry64 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I added some more points. As for this being considered for good article status, I think it's too short and doesn't cover everything expected for a fairly comprehensive article about a church. A major problem is that there's nothing about the interior of the church in the article at all. RoseCherry64 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@RoseCherry64, I added content on the interior and expanded the history. Can you check if its enough and if its grammatically correct Tai123.123 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


Al-Fatiha[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks good enough to be nominated. the structure us well done so far. grammar good enough. inline citation doesnt lacking.

Thanks, Ahendra (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


Social sciences and society[edit]

Olive Morris[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently made a good article and I'd like to collaborate with others to make it a featured article. 26 June 2022 would be Olive Morris' 70th birthday if she was still alive and that seems a useful deadline to have to get her article on the frontpage. All comments welcome! Many thanks, Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

An interesting article! A few prose points to consider:

  • Is "Black Women's Movement" in the lead really a proper noun?
  • "police officers pulled from the car and questioned him" - should this be "pulled him from the car"?
  • "A crowd formed around them and then a physical altercation took place" - "then" is perhaps superfluous here
  • "the police reaction being to beat her also" - I don't love this: it reads a little clunkily to me. Consider rephrasing
  • "Morris's account as published in the Black people's news service" - should "Black people's news service" be capitalised as a proper noun?
  • "She did not state how she got involved but does state that she was brutally beaten." - tense change (did vs. does) and repetition of "state"
  • "fined £10" - £10 in 1969 was a rather more significant fine than it sounds today - it might be worth saying what that would be worth adjusted for inflation
  • "Morris squatted buildings" - the OED confirms that "squatted buildings" is an acceptable usage, but it reads oddly to me; I wouldn't be surprised if you get questioned on this
  • "The site subsequently became an anarchist project, known as the 121 Centre, which existed until its eviction in 1999" - can a project be evicted?

Must run now, but I will try to find time to give the article another look over later Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Iymen Chehade[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because this page has been edited extensively after it was created by a sockfarm (now banned) in an effort to comply with Wiki's pov neutrality and paid contribution requirements. I would like some feedback on the neutrality of this article to maintain Wiki standards. I also hope to bring this bio up to a B-class and get the flag removed.

Thanks, TsunamiPrincess (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Smoking in association football[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering taking it to FA. What would people feel is needed in order to improve it to a point where it might have a chance at FAN? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


Joe Biden[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help get this article to GA or maybe even FA status, and need suggestions to help.

Thanks, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


The Walt Disney Company[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because as a level 4 vital article who's name is recognized across the globe by most people, I think the rating being C is extremely annoying, despite being the most famous and powerful media company, it still has major gaps. So I want to restore it to Featured Article quality, and need new advice on how to do it. Many edits have been made since September 2019, and it may not be as helpful as a recent up-to-date review would be.

Cheers, Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


Paul Goodman[edit]


PG was a major public figure in the 1960s with dizzying breadth across varied and many disciplines. It's likely the challenge that sunk more than two biographies that were in development in the late 20th century. This article is now the best resource on the Internet on his life, and I'd like to make it better—featured, even. Looking for feedback on any blind spots I might be missing before taking it to FAC. Thanks and happy New Year, czar 20:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


Corry Tendeloo[edit]


I request a peer review because I would like to nominate this Good Article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). Not being a native speaker I always need help on prose. I would appreciate any help to get the article in such a shape that it is likely to pass at FAC.

Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


Japanese New Zealanders[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks, ADWC312 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


Air Tanzania[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring this Article into an A Class Article. The page has not been reviewed for years and it failed B Class certification due to in-line citations in 2013. I have since fixed alot of that and need some guidance on what needs to happen to bring the article closer to A-Class.

Thanks, Sputink (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


Andre De Grasse[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an assessment of the page. I would like to know what would be a grade assessment of the page and how to improve the article towards a GA article.

Thanks, Words in the Wind(talk) 18:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try to nominate it for a good article. I don't think it is there yet but I am not sure where to get started and where it would need the most help. Anyone who might pull up sources would also be helpful. Jorahm (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment(s) from Extraordinary Writ[edit]

I can help with the sources, Jorahm. Take a look through this Google Scholar search: there are lots of relevant law review articles that discuss the case in detail. I have free HeinOnline access (through WP:TWL), so I can send you PDFs of any of these. Just email me the names of any articles that you're interested in, and I'll send you copies. Oh, and I'll try to leave some comments on the article itself sometime soon. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your offer! I found these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] from the more recent times. These older ones may offer equal but different value [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. What is the best way to get these from you? Jorahm (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Jorahm, the easiest way would be for you to send me an email through the "Email this user" interface (which you can read about here) so that I can reply with the attachments. If that doesn't work for you, I can try to come up with another way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jorahm: I see that your last edit on Wikipedia was November 14. Are you still interested in getting this article to GA status? Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Life got hard for me over the month that just passed. I am still interested in getting this article to GA status but I might not have time at this exact moment. I will take any comments and try to get to them eventually. Jorahm (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


Lists[edit]

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]