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 have listed this article for peer review because I have been discussing ways we can get this character's article to featured article status in Talk:Rei Ayanami#Proposals for formatting to WP:FAC standards. @Tintor2: and I discussed some ways we could approach formatting the article to featured article status. I know @TeenAngels1234: worked on this article and nominated it for good article status in Talk:Rei Ayanami/GA1, but I was wondering if anyone else who is familiar with WP:FAC guidelines other than me and Tintor2 are willing to provide input for working on getting it to FA status.
In the talk page, I proposed we could do the following.
Move the Characterization and themes section to Conception section as a subsection.
Translate titles that are not in English into English. I proposed dividing the translation work with someone else, where I could focus on the Japanese and Chinese sources, and another person could work on the French and Italian sources. I am thinking about asking people in the French and Italian Wikipedias if they are willing to help.
I reviewed the images, but I am apprehensive about the license status of File:Aonami-line-ayanami-2020-2-1.jpg. It is licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0, but the train has a picture of the character as she appears in Rebuild of Evangelion, and I am not sure if it is acceptable for a potential FAC.
If I initiate an FAC, I plan to get consent from TeenAngels1234.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on expanding and improving it, and I'd like to move toward GAC if possible. I'd like to know if it meets B-class article criteria at this point, and what else can be done to improve it.
Hi there, I'd like to potentially take a few articles from this season of Doctor Who to WP:FA. I wanted to bring this here first to get some general opinions on whether it's within that scope, and if so, anything that can be improved now to make the process less stressful later.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up toward GAC and then FAC. I had briefly submitted it (I guess ahead of schedule) to FAC at this link but it was suggested I withdraw. I thought I had taken it both through GAC/FAC level standards, but I guess not, or there's more than the listed requirements, or I missed something? How can I get this up to where it apparently still isn't? Thanks!
After a quick skim, I added a "citation needed" tag to the article. Once that sentence is cited this article is ready to be nominated at WP:GAN. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review on prose, and maybe language on this article before re-nominating to FAC.
Thanks, Santi (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Santi, the article is going to need more than a peer review to meet the standards of FA. I would strongly suggest seeking somebody fluent in English to directly rewrite the prose and maybe co-nominating with them. The PR would be more beneficial when just a few finishing touches are required.--NØ17:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pollosito: I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, and remove your entry when this is closed. I highly recommend that you also review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill among FAC reviewers, making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to see it become a FA-Class article and before I nominate it I would like to make sure it is as good as it can be!
I currently can’t give a full review with my schedule, but just from glossing over the article (as someone who knows nothing about Doctor Who other than that there’s doctors and supernatural stuff) I noticed that you name drop Doctor Who Annual but don’t elaborate on it. Could you include a sentence or two talking about what it is, it would make the article easier to understand for non-Who fans. Other than that, it’s a great article, I’m just sure that little tidbit will be brought up in the FA nomination. If you want me to take a further look and tell you of any other confusing parts you could elaborate on, I’d be more than happy to — Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hey, I went through the articles history and I don’t see any edits from you on it. Aren’t you supposed to be a significant contributor to the article before nominating it? Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from an outsider, but technically they can so long as they've consulted key contributors who have given the go-ahead and are able to demonstrate they understand the article they're nominating (Aka know the sources, what the content is, etc), at least if I read the criteria right. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that most of the prose are either one-liners or some bits of a paragraph. I'd suggest finding more sources and information so that you can link these sentences and make them flow better.
The sourcing could use a bit of work, I do believe "in:spire with..." isn't that reliable.
In the early life and education part, you could include his birthdate here so that it wouldn't be in the lead.
Speaking of the lead, you can expand it by adding more information regarding his career. The current state of the lead is one single sentence so that should be focused on as well.
"McKinney is President of the Penkhull Festival; he was born in Penkhull.", the born in Penkhull tidbit should be moved to the early life and education section of the page.
Stray Kids participated in JYP Entertainment's "Every Dream Matters!" (EDM) campaign to help support terminally ill children's wishes. This one lacks inline citation. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
refs 1 (Dazed), and 15 and 28 (Billboard) are not linked. Several "Korea Music Content Association" references can be linked. 206 ref (Teen Vogue) isn't linked. Check whether some of the publications can be linked to Korean wiki. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Bang Chan handpicked each member to be a part of the band before the filming of the eponymous 2017 reality television show, which is uncommon in K-Pop where that power typically lies with executives and creative directors.", this is taken directly from the source (copyright)? This could be moved to the body of the article.
"Go Live became the group's best-selling album, debuting ", "Go Live became the group's best-selling album at the time, debuting "
" Player Unknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG)", the parentheses can be removed as "PUBG" isn't mentioned anywhere else.
"Stray Kids unexpectedly released", how was it unexpected?
"on the remix version of Lil Durk's "All My Life"", "on one of the remix versions..."
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recently listed GA and I plan on submitting it for FA status. It currently could use some work in its production section, themes section, and potentially the reception section. My main concern is that the article may be difficult to follow due to its structuring (particularly in Production). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Is there any section in particular you feel could benefit from more secondary sources (Production, themes, etc)? I just went back a little bit ago and added some secondary sources to the production section in order to cut down on how many primary sources it uses. I’ve counted and there are 6 sentences in Production where I could not find another source and had to use a primary source, and one in themes (all coming from the DVD bonus features). Crystal Drawers (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: pinging again just in case you haven't seen my recent comment. I've actually gone back and removed all DVD sources, so I think the article is free from primary sources as of now. Are there any other issues or concerns you can see with the article? —Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there and remove this entry when this is closed. I also highly recommend seeking help from a FA mentor as they can provide help and reviews on what needs to be improved upon. Lastly, I recommend that you continue reviewing articles at WP:FAC now: this helps editors learn the FA criteria and builds goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making your article more likely to be reviewed when nominated. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Below are some comments based on just the Musical style section.
"it offers a scathing anti-monarchist statement" This corresponds with "Searing, six-minute opener that splits venom at the monarchy" in NME 2016. I am hesitant to utilize "scathing" in wikivoice; consider replacing with the admittedly less eloquent "it is strongly anti-monarchist "
Adjacent to the above passage, the quote "useless, taxpayer-funded tabloid fodder" needs to be clearly attributed in-line. The same issue can be observed elsewhere in the same section with "obvious depression", "jaunty pop backing", "sprightly and carefree", "lightning-fast drum rolls", "shot of punk adrenaline" (unlink "adrenaline", as this is a common idiomatic construction), "lashes out at media and the world", "casual dismissal of gender norms", etc.
"Described by critics as one of his most poetic moments" is not supported by the corresponding "Rarely has Moz sounded more poetic" from NME 2016. This source presumably being the opinion of only one critic. The same over-application of a singular opinions as representing critical consensuses is evident elsewhere in this section.
Overall, Marr's primary-source perspectives might be overrepresented in the section. While it is important to consider his views, the extensive quotations are sometimes unnecessary or unrelated to any commentary on musical style.
As it stands, I would say that an overuse of quotations and the failure to adequately attribute subjective opinions/quotes in-line are significant barriers to this article being promoted as an FA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a peer review for the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. The article has been extensively revised to include a well-developed lead, restructured and fully cited sections (Production, Themes and analysis, Reception, Legacy, Home media), and is aligned with WP:FILM and WP:FAC standards.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- Comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Inline citations and reliability of sources
- Reception balance (Indian and international)
- Any prose, style, or formatting issues
@Thefallguy2025: It has been over a month and there hasn't been a comment here yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for comments at the Wikiprojects attached to this article and reviewing other PRs and FACs. I also suggest asking for feedback from a FA mentor If not, can you close this? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has just been promoted to GA after a most perceptive and helpful review by Chiswick Chap. I am now wondering about a crack at FAC. I'm a bit worried that an overview article like this cannot meet FA criterion 1b, comprehensiveness, as clearly it doesn't and can't cover every known soup, but does it meet the standard "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"? Is it adequately global in its coverage? Are there any glaring omissions? All contributions grateful received. – Tim riley talk12:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing Tim, I wondered on the omission of Chicken soup. Not so much the simple recipe, but as a cultural staple. Ashkenazi—"Jewish Penicillin"—traditionally the first meal of Passover, but not only Jewish; in the 2nd century BC the Chinese called it "yang food", or warmning; while ~400 years later in Ancient Greece Galen prescribed chicken soup as a medicine. Also Chicken Soup with Barley. It has several symbolic meanings, associated with overcoming hardship and misfortune. Perhaps worth a mention. Rather a tasty article all around! —Fortuna, imperatrix17:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There are advanced techniques that can gain more points than a Tetris" I don't think this is quite right from my reading of the source. I think the source is saying that these techniques are more important in competitive play because they allow quicker line clears, which will interfere with your opponent. Compare to the source for the previous sentence: "Scoring a Tetris should be one of your primary goals because it results in the highest amount of points. However, if you’re playing a competitive version of the game, like Tetris 99, then your goal should be sending the most amount of garbage lines to your opponent by clearing your own lines quickly." I don't know anything about Tetris scoring though so correct me if I'm wrong about that.
"nearly everyone with an IBM computer in Moscow and similar cities had played Tetris" Could maybe do with some clarification of "similar cities" here, i.e. this is referring to other large cities within the Soviet Union but not elsewhere
where a judge ruled that Mino... Since Mino hasn't been mentioned yet, I think it would be useful to say something like "the iOS game Mino"
"over 200 variants" - I don't see that mentioned in the linked source, only 65+ different platforms. Also, do you know what "as of October 2010" is referring to (source doesn't look dated to me)?
"As a result, some publications consider Tetris the best-selling video game of all time" Maybe worth clarifying that these publications are grouping all mobile releases together to get to this conclusion
There is a little bit of repetition in the first paragraph of the cultural impact section from things mentioned in other sections, it would be nice (imo) to replace this with more examples from the "representation in a vast array of media such as architecture, art, and merchandise" if possible - this is just personal opinion though, I think it would be fine for FAC currently.
"first scientifically recognized" What makes this recognition scientific? Reads as just a personal observation atm
Source titles should have consistent capitalisation for FAC, also some books have locations and others don't. I would suggest going through and double-checking formatting is ok for all sources, I noticed "Is That Just Some Game? No, It's a Cultural Artifact" has the author in all caps and nytimes.com instead of The New York Times. Also, I think the page references for the Ichbiah 2009 might be wrong, they don't match up with the page range in the bibliography.
I think image reviewers generally like all images to have alt texts for FAC
Please note that articles usually do not have an "Overview" section, because that is what the lead of an article does. I suggest moving this information to more appropriate parts of the article or renaming the section. Take a look at other good articles on rail stations for inspiration on what sections to have in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"since 8 August 2024.[1] ", couldn't this be moved to the body?
"The success of the Grameen microfinance model inspired similar efforts in about 100 developing countries and even in developed countries including the United States.[2] Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for founding the Grameen Bank and pioneering the concepts of microcredit and microfinance.[3] Yunus has received several other national and international honors, including the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.[4]", most of the sourcing within the lead can be moved to the body
"and his mother was Sufia Khatun.", would there be any sourcing on what she did?
"By 1949, his mother was afflicted with psychological illness.", By 1949, his mother was afflicted with a psychological illness.", + would there be a specific one?
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 I would like to improve this article to FA. This would be my first FA (also my first PR), though not from scratch as this has been at GA since just after the last major update was released in Nov 2021.
Pinging @Panini!: who nominated this article at WP:GAN and who should have been consulted before this WP:PR was initiated. Also pinging @ProtoDrake: who was the GA reviewer. @JuniperChill: it is polite and in the collegial spirit of Wikipedia to consult long-term contributors (via personal contact on their talk page) before launching a PR request, especially when one of them has successfully nominated the article as a GA. 217.158.77.43 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @JuniperChill: I very much admire your enthusiasm, but please slow down and consult others in a generous collaborative spirit before charging into WP:GA, WP:PR or WP:FAC. This is especially important when other editors have put significantly more work into an article than you have (as applies here). 217.158.77.43 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have high-quality sources to become a FA, therefore I'd suggest removing sources such as Metro, Game Rant, TheGamer, and Express.co.uk. Additionally, most references seem to be from 2020, therefore I'd suggest looking for newer ones that talk about the legacy of the game. There are also scholarly articles about the game which should be incorporated into the article. There's also several {{citation needed}} tags that should be fixed. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this article to a B rating and need both to know what improvements are needed, and assistance with the implementation.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to potentially nominate this article for FA sometime in the future. I've already helped promote this article and Mario Party: Island Tour to GA, and I believe that the former is stronger in terms of reliable sourcing, citation amounts, etc. I previously requested a peer review for Yoshi's New Island, and I found it helpful to hear from a user unfamiliar with video game terminology. It would also be helpful to track down some international responses to the game; I've tried Famitsu without success. Any advice is appreciated!
I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there, and remove this entry when this is closed. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, which help get more reviews for your nominated articles. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to follow in a small pet project. It's a strong B class and I really need to know the vulnerable places.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be GA and it's out of my scope so I would like some comments on it, particularly from Wikipedians who frequently work on park-related articles.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love for this article to pass FA review the next time around. I feel as though it has improved greatly in my 16-hour editing marathon but I need more opinions.
I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, and remove this entry when this PR is closed. I also suggest that you seek the help of a mentor who can help with getting a successful nomination. Lastly, I suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making your article more likely to be reviewed when it is nominated. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What's been your approach to sourcing this article? There appear to be a number of other references available, eg [1][2][3][4]
To be honest, my approach in sourcing this was to scour the internet, google scholar, and the Wikipedia Library. I will 100% be looking at the sources you attached.
I can do that for every source but one, which I'm trying to find an alternative for. (LORAN History)
It's for the most part in the order they are used, but I plan to alphabetize.
Got it.
I'll have to look into this, image tagging is not my forte.
I figured it would warrant its own section because it is one of the major factors making the island notable.
Not that I could find.
Couldn't find anything exactly about that, but I'll keep digging.
The article does say shrubs and vines, just wondering if there's anything more specific.
Do we know what minerals are represented in the gravel?
Some of the terminology in the lead tends towards jargon - eg haul-out
The infobox says the highest elevation is 2.3 m, but the article body says that's the mean - which is correct? Also why is this number metric-first in the infobox but imperial-first in the body?
Given that the current area, length and width don't match what's in the infobox, I'd suggest at least adding an explanatory note. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting a peer review for the First Jewish–Roman War article as I plan to nominate it for FAC status in the future. It recently received GA status (review), and it’s currently under ongoing WikiProject Military History A-Class review. Any feedback on structure, content, or citations would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
I've been watching you work on this for a while now, and I'm glad it's time for me to look at it like I wanted to. Remsense 🌈 论00:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The St Valentine's Day Massacre is still a source of contradiction, confusion and debate, even some 96 years after the event and even after a confession by one of the individuals involved in it. That said, it's a fascinating story, pulling in some of the big names of 1920s organised crime and events that have appeared in countless gangster films ever since. This has been through an extensive rewrite recently and is now ready for PR; an run at FAC is the eventual aim. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's inconsistency in the capitalization of "Thompson machine gun" in the lead. I recommend going with the lowercase form (or opting for the more commonly used "submachine gun" description).
And lo! Mayhem and carnage follow in SchroCat's wake. A few thoughts:
Duplicate links – not a hanging matter these days, but does the article benefit from the duplicate blue links for Al Capone, Johnny Torio, Frank Rio, Gus Winkler, Fred Burke and Jack McGurn?
"seventy rounds were fired from the Thompsons, and one was fired from the shotgun" – pure speculation on my part, never having fired a gun in my life, but can you have rounds from a shotgun? I thought you had to shove new cartridges in after each shot.
If you're in AmE, oughtn't "St Valentine's Day Massacre" have a full stop after St?
"bootlegging, running speakeasies" – I think bootlegging and speakeasies both definitely need blue links at first mention.
"Mug shot of Capone, 1930" – "mug shot"? A bit slangy?
"set up a lab in Chicago" – is "lab" preferable to "laboratory"?
"to give credence to the possibility" – I think you mean "credibility" rather than "credence".
"As Capone was in Florida at the time of the shooting, William Russell, Chicago's police commissioner, ordered an investigation of the members of the Chicago Outfit." – If I correctly read this sentence it would be much clearer with "other" in front of "members".
"were all charged with the murders, but these were dropped because of a lack of evidence." – "these" being the charges, of course, but the syntax needs a tweak.
"they were arrested by two police officers who Capone knew" – "whom", surely, even in AmE?
Many thanks, Tim. All dealt with, except I've left a couple of the more valid duplicate links in place (where the predecessor is some distance away, and where it's not one of the common 'big' names). Aside from that, all your suggestions followed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my second PR listing for this article. The first one didn't draw any comments, but I did get a bunch of useful feedback later on the talk page from MSincccc, Gog the Mild, and Rollinginhisgrave for which I am grateful. Having incorporated their suggestions, I'm coming back here to see what else folks can spot before I send it off to FAC.
There's a tie-in to my first FA, Fleetwood Park Racetrack; the oddly crooked West 167th Street, which makes up the southern side of the Home of the Daughters of Jacob property is shaped that way because that's the path the old racetrack took. I got into all this because one day as I was riding my bicycle through the area, I wondered about the unusual street and the even more unusual building. As I dug into the history, I discovered both the race track and Abramson.
Sorry for the delay. I’m presently busy academically but will try to give the article another read before further suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA, and if possible FA (FA seems like a bit of a stretch considering I have never gotten one before).
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a vital article, and is in poor condition. I have done some editing on this article, but still needs lots of work and guiding.
Doesn't look all that bad to me. A few thoughts from a quickish skim-through:
We could do without the load of citations in the lead: a lead should summarise the detailed and cited material from the main text and doesn't need citations of its own except for quotations in direct speech.
On the other hand a few more citations wouldn't go amiss in the main text: penultimate para of Early life; first para of Crimean War; second para of Literature and the women's movement, and footnotes c and k.
For date ranges, as in "Collected Works of Florence Nightingale (2001-2012)" the hyphen should be an unspaced en-dash (MoS)
Duplicate links, once taboo, are now, I gather, no longer regarded as a capital offence. All the same, you might like to revisit those for Crimean War, Ottoman Empire (twice), Mary Clarke, Eliza Roberts, BBC (twice), The Times, Crimea, coxcomb, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Florence Nightingale Museum (twice), St Thomas' Hospital, Claydon House, Alexis Soyer, Aldershot, Lytton Strachey (twice), Eminent Victorians (ditto), Charles Dickens, Mark Bostridge and Church of England.
And my biggest complaint about the article in its present state: there are just too many images crowding each other out and sandwiching the text between them. There are examples of the latter in Early life, Crimean War, Biographies and Other. As you have a nice Gallery at the end of the article you could move a few images down there to relieve the overcrowding in the main text.
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.
Hi, I put "citation needed" tags for claims that need to be verified; "although records relating to this marriage are scarce" is probably unverifiable. I think you should add full citation for "Andrew Roberts. Napoleon: a life." —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 21:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for reviewing it, you are probably right that those are accidental weasel words on my part, and I'll go ahead and remove that. I'll also find sources for the other "citation needed" tags. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)12:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"(born Luciano Buonaparte, 1718 - 1791)" – spaced en-dash rather than hyphen in date range here, please: 1718 – 1791.
"Lucien Bonaparte was born Luciano Buonaparte on 9 January, 1718" – Not sure we want that comma, and rather more importantly this is the first and last we hear of a change of given name and surname. When did he change them and why?
"Giuseppe Maria Buonaparte, who was a Corsican politician who served as Delegate" – a bit wordy: you could lose "who was".
"After the death of his brother Giuseppe Maria, Lucien would be the one to take guardianship" – this is the first of nine "would"s in your text: would maintain strong connections ... would be the one to baptize Napoleon ... would encourage Joseph Fesch ... would lead him down the path ... would write a letter and so on. This is woolly and would be much better as a plain past tense in each case: maintained connections ... was the one to baptize Napoleon ... encouraged Joseph Fesch ... led him down the path ... wrote etc.
The citations cause me some concern.
What makes napoleon-empire.org – cited four times – a reliable source? It looks to me like a fan site, with no links to recognised academic or official bodies. There are surely dozens of books about Napoleon from established publishers you could cite: a quick search in the Internet Archive brings up Vincent Cronin's biography (https://archive.org/details/napoleon0000cron) which mentions the archdeacon several times, and there is a book about Napoleon's family (https://archive.org/details/napoleonsfamily0000sewa/mode/2up) that may be of use, as may perhaps be this and this.
You refer three times to Andrew Roberts's book without giving the relevant page numbers.
For Roberts's book (and any other) you should give the bibliographical details. This template is invaluable for that purpose: {{cite book | last = | first = | title = | date = | location = | publisher = | isbn = }} (For older books, published before ISBNs came in, the oclc number should be cited (obtainable in WorldCat).
Thank you for reviewing the article. I can add the page numbers for Roberts's work, I'll try to get around to swapping out the Napoleon-Empire.org citations today. I'll also go ahead and promptly fix the language issues. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)04:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do think there has been a bit of confusion, there is a large difference between Napoleon-empire.org and Napoleon.org. Napoleon.org is far more academic and reliable. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)04:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and implemented nearly every proposed change, and I cannot thank you enough for the sources you provided, as they were of great assistance in sourcing/adding information. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)06:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Kimikel: I recommend asking for comments on the Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC now in order to continue learning about the FA criteria and to build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, causing your nominations to be reviewed more quickly. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the advice. If I have more time for Wikipedia I'll try to be more active in getting this reviewed. Thank you for leaving your comment. Kimikel (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thank you for taking this on but I think its a bit far from GA standards:
There's little detail on physical morphology and body plan. There's only a few sentences and then we talk about physiology.
Habitat and diet should be larger with more detail.
Reproduction should be a section/subsection on its own with details on mating and dominance.
I think the cladogram Brennan et al. 2020 is enough as a list of species. The current taxonomy section should be deleted and perhaps moved to a new article "List of monitor lizards" like List of crocodilians. Maybe PresN can help with that?
Thanks for the reply. These are good pointers. I'm currently working on another article, but when I'm done I'll see what I can do. The cladogram is not completely comprehensive however and should not function as a list of species. Bloopityboop (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest taking a look at an established FA-level article for an animal (such as Lion) to get some idea of what topics are missing and a good section structure. I tend to do this kind of thing and it helps me :) CVDX (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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've been working on improving it and want to bring this to GA someday. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks! Relativity ⚡️19:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CMD
Some redundancy in the lead about the lack of description. Saying "undescribed" with a link, probably fine. However, the "although this has yet to be published" is out of place. Firstly, a bit redundant if that is all it is trying to convey. Secondly, surely almost everything is yet to be published, rather than just that fact? "a scientific name has yet to be given" is a similar redundancy. Perhaps a lead rewrite should consolidate the implications for a lack of description into one paragraph.
"The name "Bosavi woolly rat" is still provisional", no source for this, or an explanation for how a non-scientific name can be "provisional".
History seems to mix together information about the crater with the chronological history. It is probably worth separating those topics. There is some location information in the Description section too.
"As of 2025, the Bosavi woolly rat does not have an official scientific name, but it is thought to be in the genus Mallomys, within the family Muridae". These are not exactly linked points, not having an official name is not quite the same as not considered a species, which is what would be the relevant information for genus inclusion.
"It is to be named by Dr. Kristofer Helgen" raises further questions. What does that mean? Is there a timeframe? We are a decade and a half from the initial discovery, so the "it is to be named" could have been an intention 15 years ago or last year.
It could help to define what Lost Land of the Volcano is in the lead.
"40 undocumented species" is a weird construction following "30 species". It's uncertain if these are new species, but it's known that there are exactly 40 of them? What about the 30 species that we already know about?
The title of the picture book doesn't need to be in quotes
Be careful with superlatives here (one of the world's largest rats) especially since it's not clear what its taxonomy is. "Rat" is not a taxonomically specific word.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review of copyediting or grammar issues, which was the main reason for the first GAN's quick fail. Previously, I have requested a copyedit, and it was partially done. But, since English is not my native language, I would like to submit a peer review before submitting another GAN.
I am trying to familiarise myself with the notability of an independence list, which looks more lenient than the Chinese one, so it takes time to split her work.
And, I would like to ask why podcasts done by TBS Radio in the article are still unreliable? I know the WP:SPS guide said podcasts are unreliable because it is close to self-publish, but the podcast in the article is done by TBS Radio, a mass media group in Japan. Do they still unreliable? Is Today in Focus by The Guardian are unreliable here as well? Saimmx (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be my first featured article candidate. The topic covered in the article (currently a GA) is not known to many people, but to enthusiasts it may be considerably interesting. The religion of the Shang is a complex one, and this article alone cannot describe the whole of it. I was desperate to make it both comprehensive and understandable to readers at the same time, but I'm running out of ideas for further article development.
I'm mostly concerned with the sourcing of the article. Although they are not the majority, Ph.D dissertations are used within some sections. I've given Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP a decent look, but I'm still not sure whether the cited dissertations are valid as reliable sources. Besides, I feel that Wikipedia prefers books to journal articles, so whether my mixed reference list of book and journals is allowed is also a thing I want to know.
Another problem for me is whether the article has covered enough information. For a small religion like this, it's of great importance to me to know what can be added to the main prose. I think the sections about Shang beliefs and practices are broad enough because I devote most of the time to these. But there remain questions when it comes to political influence and history of the religion. If there's something I should improve, please let me know.
Finally, if my article doesn't satisfy certain MOS rules, I'd like to be reminded about this.
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'm looking for guidance on how to restructure the article to improve flow, coherence and readability. I'm also looking for guidance on what editing can be undertaken to resolve the maintenance tags.
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.
@Z1720: Hi, yes I'm still looking for feedback. I was hoping for feedback from outside Wikiproject Philosophy to make sure this is as accessible as possible but will add a note there if I don't get any comments soon. Shapeyness (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Why is there a source in the infobox when it's sourced within the body? This should be removed unless there's another explanation for it.
" It was theorized that Jeschke's murder was connected to the murder of Roger Atkison and Rose Burkert, but police in Iowa found no connection.", the site of the murder was in Missouri then it mentions Iowa. Could this be reworded to make it flow better? "was connected to the murders of Roger Atkinson and Rose Bukert in Iowa?, but police in the state..."
"During her guilty plea Hemme stated", "During her guilty plea, Hemme stated"
"The hair in Jeschke's bed sheets, which was from a black man, was alleged to be from Vernon Burris, the only black officer who came to the crime scene, but the FBI reported that it did not match Burris' hair.[54] This information is relevant as Holman was also black", shouldn't mentions of "black" be "Black" as we're talking about people who are African-American?
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.
@Pineapple Storage: I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles on that list. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst other FA reviewers, thus making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Lastly, since you are working on your first successful FAC nomination, I recommend getting a mentor to help give comments and guide you through the process. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Okay thank you for this! I wasn't actually sure about aiming for FA with this article straight away, as I don't think it's quite ready yet (eg. no media) but I guess there's no harm in trying to get it FAC-ready anyway! :) I will try and get involved in reviews too, as you suggest. Thanks again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because as a participant in WikiProject Spain this will surely help with its FL status nomination that I want to propose.
Considering it's a "name" article, you should probably shoot for GA, see Femke. This article itself has a lot of potential so there's a lot to be done.
The origins of the name (etymology, language) should be added.
The history behind the name should be added, if there is any.
The name's popularity over the years should be added, you could gather information from census data and from other relevant statistics
Adding on, the article needs more prose, if you can find information outside of its history and popularity such as its variations.
I apologise for the harshness, but this is nowhere near FL status, or as Arconning stated you should aim for instead GA status. See Waering as a GA name example. Here are some major issues.
There are absolutely 0 sources in the article right now.
There is no prose.
Etymology and history section is necessary.
Images should be added. (Not excessive amounts like one for every person named Alex)
Any alternate spellings should be added if there are any.
Usage of the name through time, (e.g. did it used to be spelled differently).
Other languages' variants should be added if there are any.
The fact that it is commonly used as a nickname for Alexander should be added.
I've listed this list for peer review because I'm a Morgan Wallen fan and would like to bring this list up to FL-Class. I would eventually like to bring all four of his studio albums to GA-Class so that this could become a good topic. It would consist of Morgan Wallen discography and then his four studio albums. I believe this list could be considerably better than it is now, however, I'm not sure what could be improved at the moment. Maybe the lead section.
Just wanted to quickly comment that there appears to be a few discrepancies in the infobox. For one, it claims that Wallen has 13 music videos, where I only count 9 in the section. It also claims that Wallen has 27 singles, where I count 22 not counting features and 29 otherwise, and 7 promotional singles, where I count 11. Leafy46 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Your prefatory prose looks fine to me, though it wouldn't hurt to add the names of the main cast members, as you suggest. But I boggle at the header of the last column in each table: "viewers" – for a radio programme? Tim riley talk08:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The following is a list of episodes for the radio series of the British television sitcom Dad's Army.", this should be removed and instead introduced as "Dad's Army is a..."
Adding on, it should be introduced first as a TV series then mention the radio part.
"The radio series, which was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 from 1974 to 1976, was written by Harold Snoad and Michael Knowles, based on the scripts of the television episodes written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, and was produced by John Dyas.", this could be separated into two or more sentences.
"The television equivalent is the combined episodes", I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct?
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.
