This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status, but I am unsure about the structure, tone, flow, content, or other aspects. I’d really appreciate any feedback on the article as a whole, Thanks, Lililolol (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm kinda confused about its current status. This was written years ago when the notability guidelines were not that strict and tried researching more about the character so I'm not sure what material should I get rid of. If anybody finds a more useful source for the reception, I would appreciate it.
I am hoping that I can improve this article to GA. However, I don't have any experience yet of improving typical video game, especially a long-term game like this that is constantly still being updated. I am not sure where to star or people were would be able to get those reliable sources for the gameplay section since its kinda hard to find (I see only few at google search), and was wondering if I uses a lot of primary soruces for gameplay section, mk9would be fine? Need some guidance. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to improve it to reach GA status at some point. It's also my first article and I'd love some feedback in general.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not yet been placed on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, and additionally is in need of independent review for accuracy.
My goal with this article is to take it to FAC (this would be my second). I would especially appreciate help rewording any awkward phrasing and assuring that the article is fully on-topic (I'm worried it may be a bit too long, but I may be overthinking). Of course, any type of feedback at all would be excellent.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to bring it up to Good Article standard, and eventually Featured Article standard. In particular, I'm conflicted over whether the Etymology section is excessively detailed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for DYK, I think it has a good hook, and it'd be nice if it became a GA as well, if at all possible.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for FAC and need feedback on how it could be improved to meet the criteria. As this is a very abstract article, I'm also looking for places that people find the most difficult to understand so I can try to improve how accessible it is.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article can become a FA, but I do not have enough experience in the realm of crime and law articles to properly determine if it is missing something.
Please inform me if this article is missing anything important from it. Comments regarding its writing style and prose are also requested.
This article was recently promoted to GA. As this is the first article I've created that's gone beyond start-class, I'm keen to carry on improving it as much as possible. Any feedback at all is welcome!
I'm already aware of a couple of issues, which we discussed in the GA review:
The article doesn't currently have any images/media, but I'm in contact with Everyone Hates Elon to arrange for some free images to be released, so hopefully the article will soon be illustrated.
The article doesn't include discussion of reactions or feedback to the group's campaigns (for instance, any "critical reception"), as this doesn't currently exist, as far as I can tell. Likely given the contentious topic area, and the risk of attracting drama, sources tend to keep to discussing the facts rather than giving opinions. I'm keeping an eye out for "critical reception"-type sources, and if any do emerge, I'll incorporate them into the article.
I've also posted some thoughts about the WP:RS status of Left Foot Forward (which is the origin of four sources cited in the article) at Talk:Everyone Hates Elon, so I'm interested to hear what others think about this.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be eligible for featured list quality, but I am unsure whether there needs to be anything else added to the article. Would a sentence in the lead describing the radio series' plot be required? Do plot summaries for the individual episodes need to be added? Do cast members need to be mentioned in the lead? Anything else I'm missing?
