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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC. Because this article is quite long, I'd appreciate any comments that point out potential prose, MOS, file... issues.
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) 21:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it up to Featured Article candidacy. Most of the sources have been taken from the reliable sources engine at WP:VG, so I think the article primarily needs help with the prose. Additionally, some suggestions on where to find development information would be appreciated, because I have found some sources in the search engine, but not nearly enough to give an in-depth take on the topic.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The infobox states she was born in 2011/2012, the Early Life section in 2012 or 2013, and the lead gives an exact date of June 4, 2012. Which is it? Darylgolden(talk)Ping when replying 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to a Good Article status and I want to receive feedback in order to improve it.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm thinking about taking it to FAC and wanted to get others' input on what it would take to do that.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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).
This is the first B level article I've put together where I've compiled several sources to form a comprehensive summary of a topic. Because there's a lot of content, I'd like to know if I'm on the right track with conforming with GA standards, and would like some help with identifying where I can develop my skills better when drafting against Wikipedia's good article conventions.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I’m interested in what people think of the article and how it can be further improved to assist people in learning about this locomotives
Thanks, ThatArmyDude (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
@GreatLakesShips: It has been over a month since this was posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting on the talk pages of related Wikiprojects. If not, can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fix the referencing. The proper way to disambiguate short-form referencing is to disambiguate the date, not the author so stuff like:
{{cite web |last = Berry (1) |first = Sterling |year = 2021 and {{sfnp|Berry (1)|2021}}
should be:
{{cite web |last=Berry |first=Sterling |date=2021a and {{sfnp|Berry|2021a}}
The reason for this is that {{cite web}}, and all of the other cs1|2 templates, are designed to support date disambiguation but not author-name disambiguation.
When I look at that Berry (1) source, the date 2021 is nowhere mentioned in that source. This seems to be common to web sources cited in this article. The proper 'date' to use is the publication date of the source if one is provided. For Berry, some sort of date is required – except 2 which isn't used in the article – but since none are available from the source and to support disambiguation, do this: |date=n.d.a, |date=n.d.c, etc. and {{sfnp|Berry|n.d.a}}, {{sfnp|Berry|n.d.c}}, etc.
Another common issue is |author= used to hold a name that isn't an author. Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library and Bowling Green State University are websites so:
delete |author=... and change |publisher=[[Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library]] to |website=[[Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library]] (same for Bowling green...)
For cites like Maritime History of the Great Lakes:
{{cite web |author = Maritime History of the Great Lakes |year = 1890 |title = Cayuga (Propeller), aground, 9 Apr 1890 |url = https://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/59985/data?n=487 |access-date = August 1, 2021 |publisher = Maritime History of the Great Lakes |location = Ontario, Canada }}
Maritime History of the Great Lakes (1890). "Cayuga (Propeller), aground, 9 Apr 1890". Ontario, Canada: Maritime History of the Great Lakes. Retrieved August 1, 2021.
it is probably best to rewrite to something like this:
{{cite news |date=April 10, 1890 |title=A Steamer Ashore |newspaper=Buffalo Evening News |url=https://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/59985/data?n=487 |access-date=August 1, 2021 |via=Maritime History of the Great Lakes |ref={{sfnref|''Buffalo Evening News''|1890}}}}
"A Steamer Ashore". Buffalo Evening News. April 10, 1890. Retrieved August 1, 2021 – via Maritime History of the Great Lakes.
with an accompanying short-form reference like this: {{sfnp|''Buffalo Evening News''|1890}} → Buffalo Evening News (1890) harvp error: no target: CITEREFBuffalo_Evening_News1890 (help)
(both with date disambiguation as needed)
No doubt there are other problems but this is a start...
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[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 for peer review because I am planning to send this article to GAN. I would like some pointers towards achieving that goal (if it is achievable), along with some specific opinion on how should I write about the lede or Keegan's 2020 season.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to put if forward as a featured article candidate once it's ready for that process. The article about Whitbread's rival Tessa Sanderson reached featured status thanks to the input of helpful reviewers. Any suggestions that would help improve the article are welcome.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: Keeping in mind that I've only been through the FA process once, I do have a few comments about possible improvements: (1) I've been told that source reliability tends to be intensely scrutinized in FA reviews, and I note that one of the sources used in this article, Daily Mirror, appears on the Wikipedia list of perennial sources as a tabloid source that has been questioned or repeatedly discussed in terms of reliability (with no consensus). It might be wise to reduce or eliminate use of the Daily Mirror. (2) While the early career section provides javelin distance result conversion (metres to feet), later career paragraphs give results in metres only. I think you should aim for consistency in this throughout the article. (3) MOS recommends photos be placed on the righthand side of articles for easier reading. (4) Alt text for photos could be improved -- the infobox photo has no alt text, and existing alt text for the Sanderson and Felke photos should be more clearly descriptive. For example, instead of "A headshot of Tessa Anderson," you could write something like "A brown-skinned woman with straight black hair, wearing a white headband and a gold hoop earring, looks off to one side." I just checked out the MOS guidelines for this, and was surprised to find that they don't seem to put much value on communicating specific visual details about the image. I attended a professional workshop on alt text earlier this year, and we were told that the best alt text, while not being too lengthy (1-3 concise sentences), should still communicate the key visual details of the image in order to give users with screen readers a full, equitable reading experience. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to improve it to an FA. I'm am open to any suggestions or advice you have for me. As noted on the peer review page, I will ping active FAC reviewers: @Hog Farm:, @SandyGeorgia:, @Z1720:, @ChrisTheDude:, and @Buidhe:. Thank you for any comments. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't have a computer right now and won't be able to give a review. Hog FarmTalk 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, as part of WP:APARKS, I would love to see content promoted within our project's scope. Though we do not necessarily have a standard for themed restaurants, I will consider this if it were similar to the standards of an amusement park or attraction article. Some things to consider:
The "History" section seems a bit bare. Is there any additional coverage about its initial planning and construction from reliable sources?
Also, in the "History" section, I would consider rearranging the sentence structure to follow a chronological order of events. I usually try to order articles from concept and planning first to announcements, construction, opening, and further history.
Make sure instances of "Earth" are capitalized.
Is there freely-licensed images to supplement the article's content?
Altogether, the article was a good read. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adog: I can't really find anything for the history section, but have rearanged it. Also there are no other mages of the place. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done a major overhaul of this page over the last few months and I went ahead and put it up for GA review. I didn't really think about the PR process until just now (doh...), but since the GA review backlog is probably still a few weeks long, I wanted to go ahead and see if anyone would be able to take another look at it. Copy editing and editing for flow, making sure they layout is up to spec, that statements are under the correct headings, and help with finding any information on this county regarding its history from 1930 to 1990. I've looked at this too much to be able to reliably find problems anymore!
I've listed this as I'm keen to get the article towards good article status or higher, so it'd be good to get some sort of steer on what I need to do to get it there.
The article seems mostly well written, I think the best way to improve it is to expand it using the currently cited sources as well as any other RSes you can find (doing a brief Google News search, there seems to be a number of other articles in the Irish media). I would also suggest incorporating the content from the lead into the body of the article somehow and rewriting the lead as a summary of the entire article (per WP:LEAD). Given some of the controversial changes that have been made to the street, I would also recommend paying careful attention to making sure the tone of the article is balanced and has a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting that a false sense of balance needs to be created or even that anything currently has to be changed necessarily, but it's at least something to consider as you continue to work on the article (e.g. are any of the wordings in the article more loaded than they could be, are there any additional opinions that could be presented in the article even if they are also negative - this would strengthen the reader's confidence in the consensus opinion towards redevelopments of the street - which statements should be stated as fact and which should be attributed as opinion, etc.). One way of achieving a possibly more well-rounded article would be by expanding on the history of the street prior to any changes or some other aspects of the article that are completely unrelated to any controversies (assuming you can find any good sources for this). One thing I did notice though is that "became a bone of contention between preservationists and the ESB for 50 years" is quite closely paraphrased from the Architects' Journal source and a little unencyclopedic in tone in my opinion, possibly you could alter the wording if you think that's a fair criticism too. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with the feedback from Alduin2000 above. Nothing stands out as particularly problematic with what is in the article now. You might want to consider breaking it up into the following sections (the 1965 and 2013 sections could be sub-sections): History, Location, Demographics (population, etc.), Notable Buildings (e.g., any buildings on the mile listed in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage), Parks and Public Spaces, Notable Residents. I'd also consider adding scans of antique maps that highlight the street, if any are available. Hope this helps! nf utvol (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Comment:BaronNethercross, indeed I certainly consider Dublin 2 as a postal district quite noteworthy because for about 100 years the main post office in Dublin, in fact in Ireland, was located in this area before moving to Dublin 1 when the GPO was completed. I try to write a, well sourced, paragraph or two on this aspect because I have some specialised sources here in my library. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BaronNethercross, as you saw I added some postal details but more to come to bring it into the 20th century. I suggest expanding the notable places section to give some details of the places mentioned. ww2censor (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really informative! I had no idea that was the central postal hub for the city. BaronNethercross (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DMC, Dublin Mail Centre Cardiff Lane, in 2010
BaronNethercross: I added quite a bit more and I'm basically finished though the sorting office in Cardiff Lane was a major restructuring by An Post, having closed Sheriff Street, but did not last too long and I cannot find any reliable sources for it. Since around 2015 the structure has been demolished and replaced by The Sorting Office part of the Grand Canal development that could do with some overview details, as could some of the other areas. ww2censor (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just completed a major cleanup and edit of this page which had a dicey past of COI editors and other issues. I still need to run down a few citations but I think it's coming along. Would appreciate any suggestions and pointers. Andre🚐 15:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 looking for peer review of accuracy and any suggestions on how to improve this article as I’m trying to get it to Good Article Status.
Thanks, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! This article has substantially changed in the last 6 months, so I was looking to gather feedback on how the article is going, and how accessible it is. Any review would be appreciated. Cheers, SuperTah (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a major rewrite but I feel it still needs more work. I don't like the way the history section flows and I am generally struggling with the description section due to lack of source material. I look forward to any suggestions!
The lead should generally summarize the rest of the article as per WP:LEAD. The fact about 400 remaining Ryukyu should be moved to History, and the lead should have one or two paragraphs that briefly touch on the facts in each section.
The second paragraph reads as WP:HOWEVER. It sets up a fact and then argues that the fact is not true, which should be avoided. This should be rewritten so that it consists of only verifiable information and is written in a cohesive manner.
Appearance section needs to be rewritten as WP:PROSE.
Inbreeding does not needs its own subsection if it's only one paragraph. It can just be part of the Health section.
Style and grammar
bay Ryukyu wild boar in packs, and also rarely hunt birds. – This should be rewritten. It reads awkwardly and the comma is unnecessary for a dependent clause.
felt a strong urge to save the breed when he managed to find purebred Ryukyu dogs up in Yanbaru – Keep it simple. For example, a simpler phrasing would be "wished to save the breed when he found purebred Ryukyu dogs in Yanbaru". Phrases such as "felt a strong urge to", "manged to find", and "up in" don't add anything to the article. And of course, this also needs a citation to determine whether it's actually true.
Because of this claw, they can climb trees. – This reads awkwardly. Maybe combine it with the previous sentence so that it reads "a dewclaw on the back of the foot that allows them to climb trees" or something to that effect.
The inline citations under Appearance are currently listed as [6][2][7]. These should be in numerical order. This occurs again in the section Ryukyu Inu Hozonkai, where they display as [9][4], which also have an extra space between them and the end punctuation.
The Ryukyu dog is described as a quiet dog – Described by whom?
They are agile, brave and not sensitive. They are natural hunters and have a high prey drive. – These should be better integrated. Right now they seem like trivia or personal opinion. Maybe the first sentence of this paragraph could start with "The Ryukyu dog is a hunting dog". "They are agile, brave and not sensitive" should probably be removed.
They can be escape artists – Avoid this sort of imagery.
While they are the same breed of dog, there are subtle difference between the two lines. – The sentence switches between singular and plural, but it can probably be removed entirely, as a distinction has already been established in the previous sentence.
the only establishment that recognises the Ryukyu dog thus far – "thus far" is ambiguous. Avoid language that implies relative time as per MOS:REALTIME.
due to the culture of breeding dogs in Japan and Okinawa – What makes this culture of breeding dogs distinct?
the Ryukyu dog Hozonkai have begun registering dogs "on merit" if they meet the breed standard and still continue to do this – MOS:REALTIME. This sentence should probably be rewritten.
Kai (海) is a very well-known Ryukyu Ken in Okinawa – "very well-known" is unnecessary.
Ume (ウメ) was a very light red brindle, almost fawn-coloured Ryukyu, – This imagery is unnecessary. "was a light red brindle Ryukyu" is more to the point.
Ume passed away – Avoid euphemisms as per MOS:EUPHEMISM. "Died" is perfectly acceptable.
References
About half of the sources appear to be from a blog. Blogs should be avoided as sources per WP:SPS.
Bare links should be formatted properly as sources. It appears that two sources are bare links, and both are now dead links.
Overall, most of the information in the article is not sourced.
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a high-importance article in several categories, and, in the past few weeks, I have revised it extensively with almost no engagement from other editors. I have made a concerted effort, however, to document my revisions and create space for discussion on the Talk page. (Previous editors are maybe all on summer vacation?)
While I am an expert on Hegel, I am a novice to Wikipedia. And so it would be wonderful if someone more knowledgeable about Wikipedia's style guidelines and best practices would review the entry to assess for adherence.
It would also be helpful, of course, to flag any content that is overly technical, in need of supporting citations, etc.
My thanks in advance to whomever might take this up —
I've listed this article for peer review because following a successful GAN, I've proceeded to rework and add content to the article and would like feedback on how to further its continued improvement with the tentative eventual goal of putting it up for FAC. Comments on anything from structure, prose/copyediting advice, compliance with the MOS, article content or even work towards the FA criteria would be helpful.
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) 05:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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.
Lede section is too short for an article of this length.
The Incident section borders on having an excessive amount of intricate detail. Not sure all the dialogue is needed. Should be trimmed to fit summary style.
Response section possibly contains undue weight (police subsection for example) and could potentially be reorganized (Grand Rapids Association of Pastors is part of the public response, no?).
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FL status and would like to make sure it's gravy before submitting it for that process. I've done a few now but fresh eyes never hurt :)
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[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.