Peer review |
Editing articles |
|
Current reviews |
|
Peer review process |
|
Other |
|
|
Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.
Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, 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, 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 such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects.
To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's 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
-
The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise survived both a proposed deletion tag, and an articles for deletion discussion.
It was reviewed by Maile66 and successfully promoted to good article quality, and subsequently Twofingered Typist helpfully provided a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors.
I bring it here to help further along the quality improvement process.
Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Talk:The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise, User talk:Twofingered Typist, User talk:Maile66, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs a copy-edit for FA standard writing style and a prose check. Thanks. NumerounovedantTalk 20:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I had just got this article GA recently and I was wondering if this article has a shot of getting FA. I am open to any and all critiques of the article.
Thanks, Erick (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status ([1]). Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate.
Thanks, Edelseider (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it just got promoted to GA-status and I wish to further improve the article. Any comments are welcome.
Thanks, Mymis (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to Featured status prior to September in the hope that it could be featured on the front page on the 50th anniversary of the episode's first broadcast (and the first broadcast of Star Trek in general). Failing that, we already have a backup episode at FA already, but this would be the perfect choice. I've attempted to base it on "Space Seed" (the episode already at FA), but it could still do with some pointers to make the FA process smoother. Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- General
- All images should have alt text per WP:ALT.
-
- Added. BTW, thanks for reviewing, it's much appreciated. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Writing
- "They gradually become so subtle that the crew have difficulty telling the difference between them and reality." - change have to had.
-
- "that death would be likely quickly afterwards". - afterward.
-
- "Roddenberry felt that Johnson's treatment was wrong, but did not want to lose him entirely As such, Rodenberry switched "The Man Trap" writing duties to him." You're missing a full stop between the words "entirely" & "As such"
-
- "the same plot device has already appeared in pilot episode "The Cage"." - "has" should be spelt "had"; the word "the" should be inserted between "in" & "pilot".
-
- Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Guest appearances
- "the actress had previous guest starred in Perry Mason" - typo (should be spelt "previously")
-
- Direction and filming
- Delink salt shakers since it is linked in the plot subsection.
-
- The creature
- Monster of the week is an soft redirect to the Wikitonary page Villain of the week.
-
- "The head of the costume were first sculpted in clay and then covered in a plaster cast." - was
-
- Overseas broadcasts and re-releases
- "with "The Man Trap" shown nearly three months afterwards on October 4 as the 13th episode." - afterward.
-
- Critical reception
- "as the crewmen who died in "The Man Trap" didn't wear red shirts," - did not.
-
- I thought I'd managed to get out of that habit. Fixed now. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- References
- Can refs 14, 26, 29, 34, 37, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 & 55 be archived in case those links become dead?
- You should say that ref 60 was found via HighBeam Research.
-
I probably have another look and will notify you if anything else stands out. Z105space (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking that this article is a likely FA candidate. I've tinkered with it since 2012, gradually expanding it to the point of reaching GA status. With the the plethora of scholarly literature that's come out since around 2010/2011 onward, I think that this article has become very comprehensive and is able to summarize a rather complicated musical genre. I'd like comments to see what issues would hinder this becoming an FA.
Thanks, 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… this article just got promoted to good article status and is in the process of becoming nominated for featured article. Can anyone help in making this better?
Thanks, Imeldific (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Hi! I created this article in January, and have been expanding it since. English is not my first language, so there might be errors in cohesion. I would like for it to eventually reach B-class status. Help would be much appreciated!
Regards, Bleff (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there! I read your inquiry on my talk page would be glad to help out. Now college has been keeping me rather busy, I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, here's what I've noticed from the get-go:
- Do not source YouTube videos that are not uploaded by the copyright owners. The channel doesn't seem to either affiliated with either band's record label or the TV channel that uploaded it. See WP:YOUTUBE. Since you already have the TV channel that aired the show cited, you can just remove the url (not all sources have to be online).
- Discogs is not a reliable source as it is a user-submitted website. See WP:ALBUM/SOURCE#Sources to avoid
- More to come'
In the meantime, you can use the articles I helped promote to featured article (Romance (Luis Miguel album), Fijación Oral, Vol. 1, and Formula, Vol. 1, as examples of how an ideal article should look like. Best of luck, Erick (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you! I fixed those errors. --Bleff (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bleff: Hey Bless, I'm sorry for not replying lately, I've been going through a loss. So unfortunately, I will have to leave the peer review. I hope you can find someone to review the article in my place. Best of luck, Erick (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you anyway. --Bleff (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 19 March 2016, 15:54 UTC
- Last edit: 10 April 2016, 22:25 UTC
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently has gone through lots of changes and has been a GA since 2010. It would be nice to see how this can be further improved before going for FA. I've been working on this for a while with FrB.TG, GagaNutella, and IndianBio.
Thanks, Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Brief comment by JennKR
- Unfortunately, I don't have time to provide a full review, but I wandered on here after Googling "Lady Gaga" to find something and the preview of Wikipedia given there highlighted the second sentence to me ("She is known for her self-empowering messages, fashion, and live performances"). Taken with the whole first paragraph which explains her musical beginnings, this particular sentence reads a little disjointed. It seems like the beginning of a "legacy paragraph" (c.f. Madonna, Michael Jackson) which aims to summarize a career, but then never really takes off. My suggestion would be to either move the sentence down into the final paragraph of the lead, or perhaps rearrange the lead so the first paragraph gives an insight into her career in the way the leads of Madonna and Michael Jackson do. Best of luck to you Snuggums and all other editors involved on hopefully another music FA! —JennKR | ☎ 19:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Jenn. I do agree that it didn't quite flow right, but couldn't really think of a good way to fix that at first. I moved that down to the third paragraph and reworded it a bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- So true. Thanks for the comment! GagaNutellatalk 22:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting Tomica to give some input. Tomica will you kindly take a look into the article? —IB [ Poke ] 16:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hey Indian and the rest of you guys! Tomorrow, you gonna have some of my input regarding the article. I read the lead though and it's very well written tbh. — Tom(T2ME) 22:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, and I look forward to it :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Tomica
- Okay, so in the lead I see a non-consistency of her sales figures with the List of best-selling music artists. Can we fix this issue and say that Lady Gaga simply sold 114 million records worldwide?
- I really like the 1986–2004: Early life section, the only thing I noted is that you should add nee in the Brackets for her mother maiden name, I guess...
- Shouldn't information about her sexual assault be included in the 2005–07: Career beginnings or the upper-mentioned section? She was raped right? Or am I wrong?
- By 2008, Gaga relocated to Los Angeles in order to work extensively with her record label to complete her debut album, The Fame, and set up her own creative team called the Haus of Gaga, modeled on Andy Warhol's Factory.[31][46] It was released on August 19, 2008, with positive reception. ---> When you read this it's unclear whether The Fame or Haus of Gaga was released. Please clarify.
- and reached the top two in the US ---> Simply saying number-two it's much more better than the top-two IMO.
- The sentence is too long (regarding the upper issue). Can you please c/e by using a semicolon between the charts and the Grammy achievements
- Regarding her involvement with the MJ touring and concerts, can you clarify what happened so the tour was cancelled? It's kinda vague when you read it.
- Please use US before Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard 200
- Taylor Kinney it's a WP:OVERLINK in the 2015–present: American Horror Story and fifth studio album section
- The upper-mentioned section is kind of messed up with the dates, I mean it goes into 2015 then 2016 then comes back into 2015 again, I think a little bit of restructuring would be nice.
- More to come... — Tom(T2ME) 09:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of hard work has gone into it, particularly by User:WFinch, and we would like to see a Peer Review by a veteran reviewer who could give all editors involved very specific and thorough instructions/suggestions on how to get the article ready for a Featured Article review.
Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… for class as well as to make the article stronger
Thanks, Pepito gun (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… i need to do so for class and want to make the article stronger
Thanks, Pepito gun (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… i need to review it for class, and want to make the article stronger
Thanks, Pepito gun (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it as a GAC. I think this article is ready but I need additional input to pass.
Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I remember thinking that this was basically ready for GAC at the end of the last peer review; can I ask why you didn't just nominate it?
- "The tour garnered a large amount of media attention and was billed by MTV as a "potentially volatile mix" due to the public feud between both band's outspoken vocalists." Direct quotes should always have a citation, even in the lead.
- Fixed
- "squabbling" is a little informal
- Reworded
- "which resulted in Hole unwittingly financing most of Manson's production costs at their own expense" Perhaps you could explain why this was- presumably MM's production costs dwarfed Hole's?
- Rephrased
- "Hole revamped their grunge sound into wholesome high-sheen, glitzy alternative pop, while Marilyn Manson abandoned goth subculture-tinged industrial metal in favor of a hedonistic David Bowie-like glam rock." This is a bit informal.
- Rewritten
Other than that (I've not really looked at the sources) this looks pretty good. I made some edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I wanted to push it through another round of peer review before I went to have it nominated because I believe an article can never be too perfect. I'll get to work on the items you listed. TY. -Red marquis (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 13 February 2016, 22:33 UTC
- Last edit: 6 April 2016, 14:53 UTC
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 1 February 2016, 16:25 UTC
- Last edit: 1 April 2016, 14:27 UTC
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 31 January 2016, 05:20 UTC
- Last edit: 10 April 2016, 23:00 UTC
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 26 January 2016, 21:53 UTC
- Last edit: 28 March 2016, 01:48 UTC
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 15 January 2016, 16:12 UTC
- Last edit: 17 March 2016, 11:53 UTC
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have it improved and I'm hoping this will speed up the good article nomination.
Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Everyday life
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it for featured article (FA). It has gone through an extensive overhaul (as documented here) over the past couple months. This included rewrites throughout, condensing of much of the earlier career years, and a cleanup of citations.
I welcome detailed constructive feedback, whether it be related to MoS low-level prose suggestions, or broader structural/content suggestions. I will be happy to discuss and/or address any concerns.
Thanks, Saskoiler (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 27 January 2016, 07:38 UTC
- Last edit: 10 April 2016, 22:32 UTC
Engineering and technology
-
This article has some of components to it that makes it a college of a university, but it also seems too big to fit in one article because the research portion, however much is warranted, is bloated. I would make an attempt at fixing it, but I had been reverted doing so in the past and I don't know where to take this article with respect to other schools such as Texas Tech and its colleges for example.
Thanks, Buffaboy talk 23:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Ergo Sum
The History section seems to be sold short. Relative to the rest of the article, it can be expanded. Additionally, the text for each Research Center section should be complete, grammatically-correct sentences, not continued clauses of the section titles, seeing as the article is not a list. Sections 4 and 5 can be put into prose, instead of the current bullet-format. Ergo Sum 05:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because Ethereum is a growing topic and I think we should check on the Wiki page and clear things up every once in a while. We're moving really quickly on the page, some edit wars are happening, and we really need a review to reset ourselves.
Thanks, Legionof7 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review for getting the points and find the possible mistakes before nominating it for FA. So working on it and brought here for review. Thanks. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- It has been modified and adequately sourced enough with important concepts. Prior, the article was even not in good shape or sourced enough. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 08:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
General
I am nominating this article as it needs attention. Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like a good idea
Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I am requesting editorial review of content and presentation in reaching good article status.
Thank you for your time and consideration, Belshay (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA. I am grateful for every pointer on what needs to be improved to achieve this rating. I know that I need to bring the Motor Sport magazine references in order, we are currently debating which is the best template for that (web or magazine).
Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Ugog Nizdast
Not much experience with FAs, but will do my best.
- The lead needs some expansion given the articles size. Four-five sentences ought to do. WP:LEADLENGTH. Try to give weight to each major section of the article.
- Early life and family
- "Jochen Rindt was born in Mainz, Germany.." Ahem, where's the DOB?
- "the young Rindt has been described..." I'm not sure about the encyclopaedic nature of this statement. Is it really relevant?
- I found a couple of mistakes so far, I think it would be good if you make a request at WP:GOCE.
- Beginnings
- "Rindt entered several rallies... almost all the races he entered.", this sentence is so long, it can be chopped into three smaller ones.
- "...driving to races...", what do you mean here? racing together and just driving to the race?
- "While most drivers slowed for the incoming ambulance, he raced ahead between straw bales and the ambulance to take the lead. " something grammatically wrong with this part. I'm not sure what is meant here. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- "from both heats." is there something that can be linked here?
- "championship, handing the title..." reword to "and the title went"
- "Rindt entered his vehicle with a forward roll ", what's a forward roll?
- "Rindt was able to force Parkes to brake earlier than him...", isn't that cheating? how did he manage to do this?
- "He spun multiple times on the wet track and suffered from a limited-slip differential,", any thing to link here? He spun multiple times and yet kept his lead? put an inline cite here.
- " that many felt could have killed either driver." weasel wording isn't needed usually, if multiple sources says so, it can be stated as fact.
- link "suspension mounted wings" Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me know if I should continue, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Z105space
- General
- You may want to consider adding alt text to images per WP:ALT.
- Early life
- "While on skiing vacation," - You're missing the "a" inbetween "on" and "skiing".
- I assume this article should be written in British English as per WP:F1 guidelines? If so "vacation" should be replaced with "holiday".
- "he got kicked out of schools more than once." - Kicked out is informal, please reword this sentence.
- Team Lotus (1969−1970)
- " Rindt's friend/manager" - Its better to reword this to "Rindt's friend and manager".
- "Organizers" should be spelt as "Organisers".
- Death and legacy
- Milano should be in its English name Milan.
- Personal life
- You don't need to spell out the Grand Prix Drivers Association since it is mentioned beforehand.
That's all I could find. I will read this article again and further comments may appear. Z105space (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Z105space: @Ugog Nizdast: Thank you for your input! I will implement the changes shortly! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ugog Nizdast: It would be great if you could give more feedback. Maybe you can find and correct the mistakes you found? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Geography and places
-
This article just achieved Good article status today. So, I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in improving this article to Featured article status. Any help is very much appreciated. Thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because after being successfully promoted to GA status, I would like to nominate it FA status. Any comments for improvement are welcome. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just achieved GA status That reviewer commented that it already exceeds GA standards, and I am keen to enhance it further. I think I've addressed most of the FA guidance. This is a really important mountain region of the European Alps, and I'm prepared to respond to all criticism to get this to be the first article from within the WP:Alps Project to attain FA status. I am currently working on one area of content weakness -it needs a full section on 'Climate', not just 'Precipitation'. This will be added shortly.
I see two potential style weaknesses. These are:
- I needed to use a gallery at the top of the article to show two very important images side-by-side. Is there a better way to achieve such placement in PC/desktop view and fit in with WP:MOS? (I specifically created two maps of the western and eastern half of the mountain range; placing them side-by-side is much more logical than the stacked view which mobile users inevitably see.)
- I have incorporated three tables listing key components of the mountain range; two are pre-collapsed, and one is two-columned. Have I done this the right way?
Parkywiki (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a Good Article soon. I've done everything to my ability to make this article as good as I can under my own standards, and my understanding of Wikipedia's quality standards. I've seen no one has paid much attention to this article as I've edited it for the past month. And that's okay, but now's the time someone should review it. I've literally added all the sources that I could possibly find that were relevant to the topic. I want someone else to see the article and edit or something at least before I nominate it at GAN.
Thanks, Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from Tom (LT)
Thanks for your edits to this article :). I think this article might need a little bit of work before it can be nominated as a good article. I suggest:
- Expanding the lead to reflect all sections of the article
- Expanding the information about the history of the trail, including why it is on its current route, how it started, and how it developed, and any major figures or incidents that promoted it
- Including more information about what can be seen along the route, such as flora and fauna
- Including more information about particular figures, policies and plans played a role in the design and funding of the trail.
I hope you find this useful. Some existing good articles you can use as models can be found here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Philmonte101 😊😄😞. I am a newbie contributor to Peer Review, so do feel free to (dis)regard my observations accordingly! And please, do not feel discouraged, as your contributions to Wikipedia really are valued, but I'm afraid I do not feel this article reaches GA standard yet. In fact, I have downgraded it from a B-class to a C-class article as I really don't think it gives a complete picture to readers of the Trail's significance, and I support what Tom (LT) suggested. It probably achieves a C-class rating by meeting this description: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Clearly, the Trail itself is incomplete, and I suggest you might wait a while until further details become available. In particular what landscapes, landforms and biodiversity can be encountered along the way? If you feel the Trail is important enough, why not create and include your own map of the trail's route to show where it goes? This is quite easy to do (if time-consuming). Bing aerial maps and OpenStreetMap can both be legitimately used to make a route map in, say, Powerpoint, which can be saved as a jpg and uploaded to Commons. Just paste into PP a screenshot or two saved from an acceptable source; overlay the key features with lines drawn in Powerpoint, then delete the background images. Save this as a jpeg, and you're sorted. Here's one I created by this means which shows the basic geographical features of an area. Maybe you could do the same with the trail route? I suggest you try to include one or two images of the trail, as well. I noted with some concern that two images you recently uploaded to Commons have been flagged for deletion. I have left feedback expressing grounds for rejecting both proposals. Please do not be disheartened if GA status of an article seems an unattainable target. I've been editing for over 5 years and only now feel able to submit content to be assessed at this level. Parkywiki (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree - please don't feel disheartened, some articles take 2-3 years before they are ready :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
History
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to ensure that it provides a comprehensive and neutral presentation of the topic before its GAN.
Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would merely add that the religious situation is a little unclear, who is Latin Catholic, who is Eastern Catholic, who is Armenian and who is Greek Orthodox.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Yes, it is unclear. I assume it is because religious affiliation did not play a significant role in the war. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because a number of Great War (First World War) analysts wish to make comment and correct facts related to the grave site of 2nd Lieutenant John Kipling. I will collect the comments and post them here if the analysts are not able to enter the system to participate in the Peer Review. I will provide the peer review link to the article to the analysts as soon as it is posted.
Subsequent to the initiation of this request, the matter was closed and the links were added to the "talk page" for the article by myself. Please contact me if you require any further information.
Please note that any comments on the Great War Forum (GWF) concerning this matter are the opinion of the individual post authors and in now way represent the opinion, findings or conclusions of the GWF.
Thanks, rlaughton (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to develop it into a FA. I think especially its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be reviewed by editors who have not so far been involved in the development of the article.
Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Some points: Dear Borsoka, the article is well written. However I think you'd better consider the following:
- The structure would better be changed so that we have the "Sources" section after the "Consequences" section. I think the information on the sources, although are necessary, are not more important than the incident itself.
- Get sure that all the citations are consistent. This item may involve correcting some minor issues such as what we have for foot note #58, where multiple pages are cited while, "p" parameter is used. Also, take care of more serious inconsistency issues such as #69, 70, 76, 90, 94, 110 and etc.
These are what I suggest by now. Mhhossein (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your comments above. Sincerely, I am not sure that the "Sources" section should be changed, because there are not many sources. Maybe its contents should restructured. I mean some sentences/parts of the section should be integrated into the subsequent sections. What do you think? Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. However It think sections such as background should come first. Regrading the very "sources" section, I think the subsections shall either have their own sections or be incorporated in other sections; "Written sources" would better move the last parts of the article. As I said before, readers are not willing to read this part as the very first part and they will be seeking to know 'what it is' rather than 'what sources do exist for it'. Same argument may be used for "archaeology" and "Etymology" (although "Etymology" can some time come first). Anyway, these were just some suggestions by me. Mhhossein (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka: You can also check featured articles such as Spanish conquest of Petén and Norman conquest of England to see where the "Historical sources", "Historiography" and "Archaeology" sections are located. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I see, but I am convinced it is not a good solution: one who do not know the sources of a subject cannot understand any information of the subject. Consequently, I think we should begin with the "Sources" section, but I understand it should be shortened or restructured a bit. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- However, I think otherwise. The sources would better go to the end because nearly no one seeks to know what sources do exist for studying the subject unless as the very first point. It was a suggestion as I said and I just wanted to increase your chance of promoting the article. Good luck. Mhhossein (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 14 March 2016, 13:48 UTC
- Last edit: 30 March 2016, 11:48 UTC
-
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I am looking for suggestions to make before nominating the article for GA status. I know it needs some fixing of grammar and spelling mistakes already. I intend to give it a good thorough look over for those in the next day or two. That said, please feel free to point out any and all issues you might see that need to be addressed. My end goal is to put the article through the FA process, eventually.
Thanks, Fpl-dmatzrott (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 5 March 2016, 21:09 UTC
- Last edit: 25 March 2016, 13:16 UTC
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 27 February 2016, 08:50 UTC
- Last edit: 30 March 2016, 14:22 UTC
-
I've brought this article up from stub level , with a view to at least nominating it for GA status. I'd appreciate suggestions for improvement on content and wording in particular, but any pointers would be great!
Thanks, Sotakeit (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
What a great topic. Happy to take a look through.
- Some free images from Geograph- here, here and here. I'm guessing these are the right place?
- "Throughout its life" Is "life" the right word?
- "however due to its poor condition it is considered Heritage at Risk" Included on the Heritage at Risk list, perhaps?
- "Normacot and Bucknall" Are these settlements? Links would be good- don't be scared of redlinks.
- "advowsons" Not a term in my vocabulary! A link or explanation would be good.
- I've tagged a digambiguation link which needs fixing.
- The fact about the fine being reduced is repeated twice in quick succession
- Why put the income/fine in scarequotes?
- You could cite Lewis's research directly.
- There are lots of hits on Google Scholar, as is quite predictable. If you're having trouble accessing stuff, I may be able to help, and WP:RX may be able to help you with those I can't get.
That's all that's jumping out at me. You may want to talk to Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) or Peter I. Vardy (talk · contribs), who specialise in English medieval history and listed buildings respectively. I commend you for taking on the topic! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Sotakeit: In case you missed this. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I have only just recently returned to editing Wikipedia. I would like to try to get this to GA status.
Thanks, Aeonx (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
G'day, good work with this so far. It's great to see someone working on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- for GA, I would like to see all paragraphs referenced, so I think refs should be placed in the following places:
at the end of the paragraph about the corps' role ✔;
after the sentence: "The RACT Banner is currently housed in the Tobruk Barracks Officers' Mess at Puckapunyal." ✔
- all of the equipment items
the RACT abbrev should be introduced formally. I'd suggest just putting it in the lead as follows: "The Royal Australian Corps of Transport (RACT) is a corps within the Australian Army." ✔
link "corps" in the lead ✔;
- I would like to see a broader discussion of where RACT soldiers are employed. For instance, mentioning some of the major transport units (e.g. the FSBs, CSSBs, etc.), but also making it clear that RACT pers are employed broadly in other units, e.g. infantry battalions, engineer units, artillery units, other log (e.g. medical) units, etc.
- Is it possible to mention deployments...one imagines that RACT pers have been deployed on pretty much every major Australian deployment since the corps formed. Is this covered anywhere?
- Good luck with taking this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- I did a little copyediting in the first part and skimmed the rest. I don't think you'll have a problem with prose at GAN. Good luck. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- Suggest expanding the lead considerably - it should summarize the entire article
- File:Wait_for_the_Wagon_March_tune.ogg: what is the licensing status of the performance? The copyright of the original music should also be reflected in the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Natural sciences and mathematics
-
I don't think this article is up to the quality that one would expect of such an important anatomical structure. I'd like to know what other readers and editors think about what could be included to make this article better.
Thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important sub-field of neuroscience and we would like to make sure that all the key areas of research and interest in the field have been covered in this article. Neurogenomics is also extremely relevant to differential diagnosis and network analysis of several psychiatric disorders, and peer review will assist in making this article as authentic as possible.
Thanks, Eneith (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC) eneith
- Comments by Ugog Nizdast
Hey there, I can't offer much in terms of authenticity but I can help you develop this article in terms of our guidelines/MOS and make it accessible to our layperson readers.
- Lead
- Consider adding some WP:CONTEXTLINK to the lead intro statement.
- WP:LEAD sections should summarise content of the rest of the article, preferably giving weight to each major section of the article. Typically, since they don't mention anything new, they don't require inline citations.
- WP:LEADLENGTH, given the length of this article, it should be at least three-four paras.
- Consider linking difficult terms at first instance. For instance, "first reported the association of genome-wide brain gene expression profiling (using microarrays) with a behavioural phenotype in mice". The marked areas need links so that someone like me may understand it. Do the same everywhere else.
- Curious, why is there no History section? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Let me know if I should continue, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by M. A. Broussard
The article is well-written on the whole, but the numerous subsections make it difficult to follow.
- "Research developmental models" - this is a very long section. Could be cut down.
- There are some sections that should be shortened and wikilink to the main article under the header:
- Some sections, like Network Analysis, may not be necessary. The technique is described in Network theory, and could be wikilinked. It is unclear why this section is separate from "Network level expression differences between species".
I agree with Ugog that the introduction should be lengthened and made to summarize the article better. I'd like to see the remainder of the article shortened, cleaned up and linked to related articles. It is on the right path toward a GA. M. A. Broussard (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because this fully details the history, preparations and impact, and preparing this article to be a Good article. Thanks, TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a few observations:
- The lead seems too short.
- "The PAGASA was about to name the tropical storm as Nonoy, yet it was named Nona after entering the Philippine Area of Responsibility on December 12, owing to political reasons": this sentence disrupts the flow a bit and left me with some unanswered questions. For example, why did the PAGASA choose a different name and what was the political reason? Perhaps it should be in a separate paragraph with some clarification added. Also, the article switches to using Nona in the Metro Manila section, then goes back to using Melor.
- "with 15,000 homes, 24,000 families (108,000 people) in evacuation centers": was this supposed to say "homes destroyed"?
- "damages amounted to ₱6.45 billion (US$136.4 million)" this conflicts with the amount listed in the lead.
I hope this helps. Praemonitus (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I made changes to the article:
- I expanded the lead section
- Added the word "destroyed" after "15,000 homes"
- Other changes to be followed up. Thanks.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I followed up the two other changes to be done:
- Added a section regarding the naming of the typhoon.
- Removed conflict of the lead section and the "Impact" section.
- Thanks to all the efforts. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did another change that I forgot:
- Made the name of the typhoon consistent on the "Impact section" by using Nona instead on most cases.
- Thanks. I just placed it to B this time.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 26 December 2015, 14:34 UTC
- Last edit: 5 April 2016, 14:48 UTC
Language and literature
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 30 March 2016, 21:14 UTC
- Last edit: 10 April 2016, 10:28 UTC
- Article ( | edit beta | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 5 February 2016, 02:35 UTC
- Last edit: 9 April 2016, 00:09 UTC
Philosophy and religion
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an exemplary Wikipedia article in the areas of Philosophy and Biography and as such, needs to become more visible.
Thanks, ~~ BlueMist (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Social sciences and society
-
I've listed this article for peer review because several of us are trying to improve it to GA status.
Thanks for your help! - MrX 19:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first substantive article. I have already written one other article on a similar topic (Johan Frederik Holleman), with several more coming. I'd like to get feedback before I am too far in this project. Thanks, Francoisdjvr (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Review by Editør
- Since the entire article is a biography, the article could be divided into sections with more meaningful headings, such as 'Early life', 'Academic career', or any other that you think are appropriate. Sometimes this requires rewriting parts of the text, but it will often improve readability and searchability of the article.
- Parts of the article have inline citations but other parts are unreferenced. It is often easiest to add source references while writing the article, and it becomes clear to the reader what the information is based on. (You can use the same footnote more than once: WP:REFNAME; but this was already used for one of the refs.)
- The lead refers to Holleman as both "Dutch and South African", what is this based on?
- In the Dutch East Indies, did Holleman first live on (East) Java?
Success with the article! – Editør (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've never made a go at a featured article before, and I'm curious as to what would be needed to get this page to that level. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because we have recently added a new section of 'sexual preferences and hormones'
Thanks, Swifty1995 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Lists
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it meets the featured list criteria and I would like to nominate it. Please, someone take a look at it.
Thanks, JAEVI (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject peer-reviews