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.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
This article is about a song recorded by American socialite Paris Hilton, which was released as a digital download on February 14, 2018, (Valentine's Day). It is a a doo-wop and popballad that features holiday-related puns about love. It is incredibly cheesy and I love it for that very reason. I am a romantic sap who loves pop music so this is very much made for me.
I worked on this article back in 2018, and I am currently debating on bringing it to the FAC level. However, I wanted to bring this article through the peer review process first as it has been some time since I had actively worked on it and I wanted to make sure it is fully prepared for a FAC if I decided to go down that route. I think this would be a very cute TFA for Valentine's Day. I hope everyone is doing well and thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Can't see any reason for the comma after 2018 in the first sentence
Thank you for the help! It has been a while since I have thoroughly looked through this article so I was a little nervous it would be in much worse shape. I believe that I have addressed everything, but feel free to add any more suggestions if you see or think of anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After a major expansion and a succeeded GAN I'm trying my hand into taking this to FAC. Looking forward to any feedback and suggestions for improvements.
I've listed this article for peer review because there have been significant edits since its last edit nearly a year ago; in particular, the edits done were the ones listed on its to-do list (more development info, and removal of the uncited/unnecessary character section). Other minor edits mainly relate to adding more citations, and replacing outdated citation links (thanks, GameSpot).
We've listed this article for peer review because following the very helpful GA review by Kyle Peake, we would like some feedback on any improvements that should be made before taking this forward as a featured article candidate.
1. This sentence on James P Bradley seems unnecessary unless Bradley is particularly notable in this context? I would delete "His response was criticized across social media, with users finding his criticism of the rappers as role models for young women hypocritical due to his support of Donald Trump." The next sentence about Bradley's premise being untrue seems good to me. This keeps the article more focused on the song rather than Bradley's presidential support. I also not that Bradley does not have a WP.
2. The commercial performance section gives a lot of background on other chart toppers. This seems a bit excessive to me.
Overall this is good. I do not have have a lot to add. Czarking0 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review since I'm not English native speaker, so I'd like to see how many typos I've left. Or just, I'd like to ask if my sentences make sense or should they be reworked in some way. And I'm planning to nominate it one day for featured article status, and I simply would like to know what work is left to do so.
Leaving this as a placeholder of sorts. I've worked a bit on "Happier Than Ever" with a goal of bringing it to FA quality, so I'm also interested in seeing how I can improve this one. Will get back to this in two weeks, when I have the most free time. Please don't mind pinging me in every reply as I often forget things after sending them :") elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me 📝see my work 10:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Infsai, hello again! I have some free time today - will be glad to start looking at the sourcing for this. Since this would be your first featured article nomination, I would have to conduct a comprehensive review of the references used to the article. Per the criteria, sources must be of high quality, and directly supports the statements to which it is cited. "High quality" in FAC means that the source has rigorous editorial standards, the author has a background in music journalism or has bylines in other reliable publications, is used by other reliable publications and deemed a reliable source, etc. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me 📝see my work 06:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it by translating it from it.wiki and copy-editing it thanks to the guild. I think it needs to be improved before a possible FLN, especially in terms of language and exposition.
Nice expansion. Not sure if it might be useful considering most of these characters are "monsters of the week". If the Angels were explored in a different way in other works related to the anime then they could be more notable for the FL demands. By the way, I suggest to comment on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hyouka episodes/archive1 to exchange feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: Yeah. I meant FL. Errata corrige, sorry. Anyway, good advice! I'll try.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some outside opinions before attempting a GA nomination. There are no new sources available on this topic, though I did not extract every piece of content possible from what I have. I am wondering how many scores I should screenshot and upload to the page, whether I should create audio of all the pieces (since everything is public domain), etc. Suggestions welcome.
The scores would be a great addition to the article, but at the moment there's not a great place to put them though. My suggestion would be removing the notes column of the table and turning said notes into literal ones like you did with the DR Congo note at Carillon (instead of using the 'note #' function, you could possibly just do 'n #' like at Hector Berlioz to reduce the space it would take up here). If the column is removed you could put the score images alongside it, like what is done with composer pictures at Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Classical Composition. Presumably you would choose the better known pieces, maybe ~10 ish?
Audio, as you mention, of one or two might be nice as well, possibly in the Significance section, since there is a little space there.
Your first two sentences could use a little work, specifically, I think you should mention first how this is a book of carillon sheet music, and then in the second line (or third) include the Antwerp origin detail
"provides a glimpse into the music of the 18th century"—provides a 'rare glimpse', maybe? Otherwise the statement is a bit obvious
I would definitely include some composers' names in the lead, and note that most of the pieces are by anonymous/unknown person(s)
You might include the detail that Antwerp is in Belgium for both the lead and history sections, as its not as famous as London, Paris, Berlin etc.
Are we sure 'De Gruytters' should have a capitalized 'de' when his name does not begin the sentence?
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status at some point in the future, which I'm sure would require a lot of work and additional help. One area where I could definitely use help is with finding additional sources on the topic; especially academic ones. I've looked through various academic sources such as JSTOR and whatnot, and I cannot seem to find any more. During the GA review, User:Figureskatingfan brought up some good points about how to move forward. It would be very helpful if some also looked through the article's prose. Regarding the prose, the use of the sources was also questioned. It would be great if an outside party could go through the (online) sources and see if the way they are used in the article is proper or not; maybe a given source's information that is provided in the article would be better suited in a different section. I've never worked on an article like this before, and unfortunately such an article doesn't exist on Wikipedia either, so someone familiar with the franchise, or the handling of LGBT themes and analyses in media or a specific work would be very helpful. Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's Pride today in London, and I have been too lazy to join the procession, so shall peer review this article as my token contribution to the cause. More over the weekend. Tim riley talk 18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewing I usually have a quick first canter through the text looking for typos etc. Just two points from that:
I imagine the article is intended to be in AmE, in which case " Ali Forney Center … an LGBT community centre" could do with "center" twice rather than one of each.
"capitvating" is in a quote, but even if the original contains the typo we should not replicate it here, and a silent correction is appropriate.
Comments on the content will follow later. Tim riley talk 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding batch of comments from TR
A few minor points on the prose:
Lead
"He-Man received his own series" – it becomes clear fairly quickly that this is a television series rather than a series of comic books, but it would be as well to make that plain at the outset.
"who hails the realm of Eternia – does this mean who hails from the realm of Eternia?
"Despite the original series having aired during the presidency of Ronald Reagan … He-Man's character has contained elements of queer coding" – this may be clear to an American, but to a non-American it looks like a non-sequitur. You hint in the main text that Reagan's administration was rabidly anti-gay, but that needs to be made clear in the lead if the sentence is to make sense.
"his sex appeal towards gay men – does one appeal towards people rather than to them?
Homosexual reading and analyses
"He-Man's muscular body was the "cynosure" – I shouldn't think one reader in a hundred will have run across this word before. As it originally means "a dog's rear end" it would be as well to provide a link to Wiktionary where those wanting to know can see how the word has come to be used.
"wearing clothing similar to a blue-collar worker – the clothing was not similar to the person: you mean "wearing clothing similar to a blue-collar worker's" or "wearing clothing similar to that of a blue-collar worker".
Sex appeal
"Andrew Hayden-Smith said 2016 – missing "in" before the year.
I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. As I'm busy during this period, it will take me some time to revise the article's contents based on your suggestions. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've been editing this page for past few days and want to know how-far it has improved.
Also, I expect your valuable comments for further betterment of the article particularly in the production and references section.
@Wikimama1209: I have checked the whole article. Would you check Basshunter article in return? List of issues:
1. "of KGF fame" - "KGF"? I see it is titled "K.G.F: Chapter 1" so the series title would be "K.G.F" Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Popular Malayalam actor Mamukoya (...)" - I don't think "Popular" is needed. Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Vikram 58 (Chiyaan 58)" - is it on title or the second one is in different language? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Word "flick" is used a few times. It that correct? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. "However, since Vikram is also involved in the shooting of Ponniyin Selvan (...)" - Ponniyin Selvan: I? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. "The first single titled "Thumbi Thullal" released on 22 June 2020." - "was released on"? 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
7. I think section "Music" should be expanded twice. Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. "The release date has been officially announced by the producer of the film, 7 Screen Studio with an innovative video on their Twitter page." - external link. Is it possible to find reference to article than video released by label? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Is "Seven Screen Studios" official variant of name? Eurohunter (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a mentor who can help provide feedback on the article. Posting on various applicable Wikiprojects for help will also solicit comments. I also suggest that you review FACs right now: this will allow you to get to know the FAC process and criteria, as well as build confidence among the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by-comments by LM150
Having recently watched this series.. the article definitely needs a plot/summary
Needs more analysis/discussion on themes. From drugs, gender, sexuality, pornography, hookup/dating culture, violence, dysfunctional childhoods.. the list goes on and on!
Needs more discussion on cinematography etc, eg. I found that the series had a retro/vintage 1980s vibe all over it
Soundtrack section may need cleanup - there's quite a lot of tables/infoboxes. Same with the ratings section - LM150 18:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm preparing this article for an FAC run, and I've stumbled through trying to make the prose more readable and communicate the main points without losing what's important. Long story short, I helped work on this in 2013-2014 and stopped short of finishing its GA nomination, other editors continued to develop from there but the prose is pretty radically different from what I wrote, and in the last little while with their blessing I have been working again to get it FA-ready. I've read and reread it, but I feel like I'm missing a lot and could use some fresh eyes so it won't read clumsily.
Pinging @Popcornfud: as I'm sure he will be interested.
I'll do a big copyediting sweep soon - ping me if I forget. There's a lot there! Popcornfud (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done some trimming of the first sections. As usual this is an impressively researched and comprehensive piece of work. Thoughts so far:
Do we really need so much history of the Genesis and Saturn in the Background section? It strikes me as a little dense right now, I think we can summarise more.
I agree, a little too dense. I think a lot of this was taken from Sega Saturn, and while I didn't write it myself, I probably contributed to huge background sections in this and other Sega console articles. I cut out a whole paragraph and did some condensing; let me know what you think.
From the Development section - As the GD-ROM format can hold about 1 GB of data, illegally copying Dreamcast games onto a 650 MB CD-ROM sometimes required the removal of certain game features, although this did not prevent piracy - this looks like a detail for another section (legacy?), not background.
For now, I moved this to GD-ROM. Actually I may have to do a bit of research more on piracy and home-brew releases, as we don't have a section on this, but I have yet to evaluate how many reliable sources there really are on this subject.
Lead looks a little short considering the amount of info in the article, but this can be expanded after work on the body is done.
I usually do the lead last after all the article stuff is done, so I would like to tackle it after the body's done, for sure. Since I've done major body work and I'm not 100% it was all the right decisions, I wanted to be sure first. Red Phoenixtalk 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tripped up on this: Sega announced that Sonic Adventure, the next game starring the company mascot, Sonic the Hedgehog, would launch with the Dreamcast [...] On November 27, 1998, the Dreamcast launched in Japan at a price of ¥29,000, and the stock sold out by the end of the day. However, of the four games available at launch, only one—a port of Virtua Fighter 3, the most successful arcade game Sega ever released in Japan—sold well. So that sounds like SA didn't sell well, but then: Sega estimated that an additional 200,000–300,000 Dreamcast units could have been sold with sufficient supply. The key games Sonic Adventure and Sega Rally Championship 2, which had been delayed, arrived within the following weeks So we have to read backwards and adjust our interpretation of the previous sentence - can we sequence this info in a linear way instead? Popcornfud (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gave this a whack, let me know what you think.
"As of 2014, it was still supported through various MIL-CD independent releases." What is MIL-CD exactly and what does "supported" mean in this context? Popcornfud (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On August 11, Sega of America confirmed that Stolar had been fired, leaving Moore to direct the launch.[58][62][63][64] - WP:CITEOVERKILL - surely one source could cover this? Popcornfud (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two is better than four for sure! But is one not sufficient?
Thanks for the replies/edits so far. I haven't finished my sweep of the article yet, I'll get back to it over the next few days. Popcornfud (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I finished my ce sweep. Sorry it took a few weeks. It's gonna be a great article, I think! Popcornfud (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Standard note
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I would also like to know what could be done to improve its quality.
I started this article on a former British swimmer/diver not long ago and have expanded it to the point that I feel it's close to being taken to GA. I'd like a peer review beforehand to iron out any obvious errors or issues and think it would benefit to have another set of eyes read over it. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I have tried expanding it as much as I can so far. I have not completed the reviews and touring and aftermath sections (these are WIP however), but for the rest of the article I would like some criticism as to what should be changed, fixed and re-edited; this will be useful as it means I will not have to backtrack to re-editing old sections whilst working on new ones. If anyone has information I have missed or got incorrect, please tell me!!
In short; tell me what is bad and good, so I can fix it.
Hi! I've listed this article for peer review to get an assessment on what I need to add to or improve in the article so that it encapsulates and discusses the history and relevance of cycling in the country.
I've listed this article on the central Dublin postal district for peer review because of differing opinions over its noteworthiness. I am of the opinion that it is noteworthy.
I've listed this article for peer review because I started working on this article in 2007 and I believe it is finally ready to be nominated for FA. It is currently an A-Class article and this will be its second peer review.
Over the past month or so, User:IcebergSings and I have rewritten this article that was not in good shape, and we'd like input on improving it! We're interested in trying to get it to GA. Our goal is to represent this topic in an informative and research-based way, with clear structure and storytelling. This is important because English Wikipedia articles on tattoo history and practices are of very uneven quality, even though this is a popular topic among readers. We have more sources we may work through for adding additional historical details, but I believe it's ready for comments, including on structure and general approach. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a low effort but not unimportant comment, all the photos in the article are currently of men, and white men at that. Female and non-white military sailors also get tattoos. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently brought this article to GA status and would like to take it to FA. I'd be grateful for any comments pointing out things that need fixing before that step! Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Query by Z1720
@Mujinga: This has been open for over a month and has not received a comment yet. Are you still interested in keeping this open? If so, I encourage you to post a request for reviews on the Wikiprojects associated with this article. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, checked this yesterday and I think I'll keep it open a bit longer, cheers! Mujinga (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to see if this article needs to exist or if it just needs to redirect to List of Asian Australian politicians. I also would like to know what other information needs to be added to differentiate it from the list. Also my writing is not the best.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to send it to FAC. Some aspects of the tomb clearance were politically controversial at the time, and their treatment in the sources is changing as academia reassesses the impact of colonialism (I've put some more information about that on the talk page), so I'd like to have as much input as possible to make sure the article meets NPOV.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Query by Z1720
@A. Parrot: This PR has been open for over a month but has not received comments. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest advertising this PR on the Wikiprojects that this article is attached to. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already advertised it on the relevant Wikiprojects, but nobody seems to be interested. I suppose I should close it. A. Parrot (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can ye hold tough for a while; will try and take a look over weekend. Ceoil (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Ceoil! A. Parrot (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil
The article is absorbing, on a topic that is endless facinating . A few quibbles, mostly copy edits until I get up to speed
Lead:
Avoid the phase "had been", its a weird tense, and overused here
"The tomb was uncovered on 4 November 1922 during an effort by Carter and his patron" - don't like "an effort" - dig or excavation
"fad for ancient Egyptian-inspired design motifs in the Western public.." - drop either designs or motifs as are the same thing
"prompting" is bit glib, leading to or something
"subsequent seasons" jarring alliteration - later or following. Don't like "fell away", maybe public interest wained
also helped stimulate stimulated
Overall, the article is over punctuated, eg Since the discovery, the Egyptian government
The use of force by Egyptians against Europeans caused a scandal leading to Carter's resignation.[1] In 1907 he found employment with George Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon, a collector of Egyptian antiquities, as both an advisor for Carnarvon's purchases of artefacts and as an excavator. Carnarvon dug at several sites in Egypt, then bought the concession for the Valley of the Kings when Davis relinquished it in 1914 - From "in 1907" on, this should be a foot note as best; for continuity retain "continued to dig at several sites in Egypt"
Don't like "fruitless", and have removed some "proved to be/was proved"
Its all very good. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get this article to FA and it's already failed FAC twice (due to low participation). I can't think of any other ways to improve it beyond what it is now.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest that you seek a mentor, who can help provide feedback on the article, and post on various applicable Wikiprojects asking for help. I also suggest that you review FACs right now: this will allow you to get to know the FAC process and criteria, as well as build confidence among the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Many FAC reviewers, myself included, prioritize reviewing articles from nominators with high review-to-nomination ratios. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Query by Z1720
@Golden: this PR has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting a request on Wikiprojects attached to this article, asking for reviewers. If you are no longer requesting comments, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try posting on relevant WPs to see if that gains any attention. — Goldencall me maybe? 15:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by GordonGlottal
Great job on this article. I'm concerned that some elements rely on your own interpretation or synthesis of sources, including the list of modern significant members of the Jewish community of Hong Kong and of 20th century most prominent representatives of the Jewish community in Hong Kong. I do think this information is valuable and so possibly should be left as is, but it's a technical issue for FAC. Such are the trade-offs. "The thesis about the absence of antisemitism in Hong Kong is common" is awkward and should be rephrased. When entire sections rely on one source (I'm thinking particularly of Antisemitism but there may be others) it would be better to attribute the analysis. Again, great job here, and thank you for your work. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"An outnumbered Union cavalry division". It is a matter of personal taste, but I think it would make it easier to follow if you left out "outnumbered" here and give details in the next paragraph.
"detachment of a brigade of cavalry, belonging to Brigadier General William E. "Grumble" Jones". "belonging to" sounds odd to me, as if they were his slaves.
"totaling to about 400" to about sounds strange to me. Is it AmerEng?
"captured one company from the 8th Virginia Cavalry" You mean that an entire company surrendered? How many men?
"Historian Robert C. Whisonant wrote that Confederate casualties were 40.[33] Robert Underwood Johnson and Clarence Buel wrote that Confederate casualties were "fifty or sixty".[22] The historian for Morgan's Cavalry, Confederate Brigadier General Basil W. Duke, wrote that casualties were "about fifty". I am not sure that you need that much detail about the different estimates. Maybe just say 40 to 60?
"by a ruse on a telegraph" Details of the ruse would be interesting.
"Major General Philip Sheridan requested his dismissal from the service." Maybe state whether he was dismissed.
This article looks sound. Apart from the minor queries above, I would have like more spelling out of the comparative sizes of the forces in each encounter or other situation - e.g "He also learned that 4,500 Confederate troops led by John Hunt Morgan and William "Grumble" Jones were waiting for him at Saltville." Instead of "waiting for him", "waiting for his [number] troops". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has major improvements as per the previous peer reviews requirements which noticed the article's problems, including:
reducing some WP:Oversection problem which not solved for more than a decade
improving the pupular culture legacy section with each of quotation reference by @KeeperOfThePeace:
summarized the "analysis" section.
reference now has page numbers or at least the link to the page in each books/journals
inline citations improvements, including the quotation from secondary sources such as modern time academic figures & universities researches which gave commentary to the primary sources by @Z1720:
Thanks before, hopefully this page can be improved to GA. Ahendra (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahendra, I'm happy to leave some comments but see that you haven't edited in a while—are you still working on this? Please ping me if you get a chance to respond. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahendra For some reason, I've only just received this ping. As with Aza24, let me know if you are still interested in a response (although I have to admit this is far from an area of strength for me!). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because It is a very important model in the literature, it reproduces the behavior of neurons and it is widely used in scientific research.
Per a request at WP:RB, I'm trying to get a level 1 vital article to GA/FA status. I chose this one for now because it is B-Class and a former good article candidate. I would like some specific points to work on to get it to GA/FA status.
Interstatefive, I think the biggest thing the article needs improvement on is citations. Add citations to everything that don't have citations, except in the lead. That's the easiest thing to do to improve the article significantly. Expanding on short sections, and reduce information in long sections. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm requesting a second peer review of this article after a year since the last review. I've fixed many issues in the article; references are improved, many Manual of Style issues are fixed, and the article is much cleaner overall. However, I'd still like some extra eyes to look at the article before a GAN. I don't have anything in particular this time - just a general sweep would be nice! Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (formerly known as DoggieTimesTwo)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be thoroughly checked/edited for paragraph cohesiveness, sentence flow, tone, and possible grammatical errors.
The article has been listed for peer review as there has not been much interaction by other users and due to the controversial nature of the article's topic. Assistance is also needed with any issues regarding neutrality and WP:BLP, as edits should not be made in a damaging manner.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this page recently and adding a lot of information, and would like to check whether it is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.
@ADWC312 the article looks great! I think you should put it through WP:GA. It was well written, well illustrated, well sourced, and interesting to read. Thanks for your contribution. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ADWC312: Looks pretty good to me too! I also found it interesting to check out. There are a few cases, like "Historians note that the higher proportion of women can be attributed to a larger number of Japanese women in mixed relationships with New Zealand citizens than Japanese men.", where I'm not sure whether the citation for the following sentence is meant to cover the first sentence as well. I'd suggest explicitly citing all those sentences where there could be any doubt, to help readers and future editors looking for a reference. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are assuming you're going for FL and are thus a bit picky, but there is certainly no expectation for you to go for FL
The main article hat note is really only for sections, and not needed here since county is linked in the first sentence. Strongly suggest removing it.
The map is tiny and could benefit from being scaled up, I would use "|upright=1.3" or 1.5 perhaps
See also sections generally do not include items which are already linked in the article, so County (United States should probably not be there and perhaps others
I am not sure about the necessity of many of the notes with "_____ the highest summit of ____", and wonder if they are truly relevant to the information at hand
Many of the notes are missing references, though some of the more explanatory ones like "These elevations have been updated to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988." obviously do not need citations.
Not sure why there is a . after 'county' in the column
A few more sentences in the lead would be ideal, but I don't know what that could consist of! Perhaps you could very briefly explain what elevation is.
The highest elevation column seems a bit too wide, while the county column isn't perhaps wide enough
Is there a point to having those coordinates? I haven't checked where they go to, but if its the highest one, they seem out of place being there for the page as a whole
Overall, your list is certainly very well formatted and concise—a helpful tool for anyone seeking such information! – Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, all All-American Roads are National Scenic Byways. They're merely a subcategory of the other. To gain AAR status, a roadway must already be an NSB. That means those two sections would need to be combined.
According to National Scenic Byway, ordinarily NSBs (and therefore AARs) have to be state byways. There are exceptions. (Michigan has an NSB that is not a Pure Michigan Byway, although it is a National Forest Scenic Byway). On that basis, the NSB list should mostly be a subset of the state byway list (with differentiating details, see below).It looks like the two other federal agencies granting other byway designations have mostly added their designations to roadways with state-level byway status. All three BLM Back Country Byways are also state byways, and all 10 National Forest Scenic Byways are also state byways.
So on the basis of point #2, I would not have created this as a separate list. The existing List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways, if done properly should be sufficient. The biggest problem with that article is that it treated the federal and state designations as the same by confusing and conflating them, even to the point that it appeared that Colorado had designated byways outside of its territory in adjacent states or promulgated designations on multiple dates. Additionally, one should not assume that a byway that enjoys overlapping designations from different agencies has precisely the same name with all of them. Using Michigan's byways again as an example, what is called the "River Road National Scenic Byway" by the FHWA is the "River Road National Forest Scenic Byway" by USFS, and the "Automotive Heritage Trail All-American Road" is the "Woodward Avenue Recreational Heritage Route" or "Woodward Avenue Recreational Byway". So I'm currently suspicious that the listings here may not be technically correct based on the fact that the names are identical from list to list on this page.
I'd like feedback on how I've developed this timeline, especially regarding my use of newspaper sources and how I've chosen to format it. I'd also like to know how far away it is from being a viable FLC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.