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 would like to take it to a Good Article status and I want to receive feedback in order to improve it. The previous peer review only got one minor suggestion, so I would like to receive more if that is possible.
The "Composition" section is quite long. I suggest cutting unnecessary words/prose or dividing it using level 3 headings
The "Reception" section suffers from a "X said Y" sentence structure. WP:RECEPTION has advice on how to avoid this. I also think that it is quite long and that the information should be summarised more effectively. For example, if multiple sources give the same comments, then each source does not need to be named as giving that comment in the prose. Instead, group the comments together in a sentence, and cite the reviews at the end of the sentence.
I suggest archiving the links in the reference section
The reference for the "Personal" section should be given.
There are many sentences in the article that use multiple sources to verify what it says. Are all of those sources necessary? If possible, take out the sources that are of a lesser quality if there are 3 or more sources used for the sentence (lesser quality, starting from the weakest, would probably be social media posts, then social media posts, then interviews with the artist).
Overall, I think this is almost ready for GAN, and could possibly continue onto FAC after a music-specialist reviews the article (as I do not usually focus on those types of articles). I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I listed this article once before, but only one user commented. Having made some changes based upon the comments I received, I would like to get some additional feedback on how to further improve this article, hopefully to get it to FA status. One of the difficulties with it is that Wikipedia doesn't exactly have another article quite like this, so there no guidelines to follow. If anyone has further sources that could prove useful here, or maybe how one of the existing sources could be better utilized, that would be greatly appreciated.
For the lead's image, I would strengthen the argument that He-Man was connected to homoerotic imagery through the harness. Right now, the caption reads that He-Man wore this type of harness, which is considered homoerotic and part of LGBT culture, but does not fully tie the two ideas together. See something like the lead image in Stucky (fandom) to see how these interpretations are clearly and concisely conveyed. The Comic Book Resource citation has a good example of tying these two ideas directly together with this sentence: To make matters more obvious, turning into He-Man would leave Adam wearing only a harness, which especially in the '80s was a fairly homoerotic image. I think a stronger caption would be beneficial. Let me know if this makes sense by the way as it is a more complicated point that I struggled with conveying here. And to be clear, I think this point and these images are great. They just need some further finessing in my opinion.
For File:Gay He-Man - Cosplay and Alexsander Freitas.jpg, I would archive the source links. It is not required, but it would prevent any potential headaches in the future regarding link rot and death. I would also include author links to the individuals's main Flickr accounts (i.e. istolethetv and Kent)
I would encourage you to link gay icon in the lead and in the article.
Done
The lead repeats that He-Man is a fictional superhero twice so I would find a way to avoid that repetition.
Done
I would remove "many" in this part, established many traits of the character, as from my understanding, those kinds are words not considered examples of FA writing.
Done
I believe this part, especially regarding LGBT subcultures like the gay clone culture, his double life being reminiscent of closetedgay men, and his perceived homosexuality, could be phrase in a clearer and more concise manner.
Has this queer reading ever been addressed by academics? I would think that would be the case, but the lead does not mention anything about academia and instead keeps the focus entirely on media.
These are my comments for the lead. I will go through the rest of the article later in the week, but feel free to go through my comments now as it will honestly take me some time to get to the rest of the review. Best of luck with this peer review and I hope you have better luck this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because, having closed the Peer review for 'La Isla Bonita', I can finally request one for 'Like a Virgin'; I'm interested on taking this article to FA status and would like and need all the help I can get :)
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) 16:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm keen to get it to become a FA (if I succeed it will be the first one for me that isn't about a Norfolk 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) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it may be a featured article candidate sometime in the future (although the plan's not quite set in stone yet). In my view, it looks quite good already, so I'd like to open it up to some fresh pairs of eyes! Review comments related to any part of the article are appreciated and I'd be happy to do QPQs around weekends.
Regards and thanks, NØ 08:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have worked for, months for no reason on this outside of how I believe "just because Interscope fucked your album doesn't mean Wikipedia can". I guess. I've probably milked every piece of information about this album from the internet and the WayBack Machine as much as I can. I've covered nearly everything (albeit i need to do a little adding to commercial performance) and then it should be completely good to go with info. It currently stands at B-Class, but I am definitely aiming to get this to Good Article Status (possibly featured; I can try).
Please critique/peer review and look for: 1. Sentences/sections that may be unclear/do not make sense 2. Anything that may be vague or should be expanded upon 3. Formatting issues. I am aware some sections (i.e. the intro and Commercial performance) is in poor state and I will get to it; however, any constructive criticism on the article generally beyond the key points is very much welcomed here.
"After the album's rejection, the band, who now faced writers' block and were generally unhappy with the album's "mechanical" production, decided to scrap Feeler completely." Needs a citation
"The artwork inside the fold-out liner notes contain an enlarged image of the front cover, with a combination of various words from the album's lyrics running through the middle." Needs a citation
I'm not sure the quote at the top of "Commercial performance" is encyclopedic, and suggest removing it or aligning it to the right.
"Upon its release, Hell Below/Stars Above received generally mixed reviews from critics." Needs a citation.
All sources should include the author's name, if given.
Ref 23 and 49 appear to be the same
Ref 65 uses an sfn template but there's no reference section to point to, so it needs the full reference.
If you are planning on taking this is GAN and/or FAC, I suggest reviewing articles now at both of those locations. This will help you build goodwill among Wikipedia editors, causing your articles to get reviewed faster, and will help acquaint you with the GA and FA criteria. I hope these comments help. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for FA status. Prior to 2021, the Wikipedia coverage of Degrassi was not good. A lot of the articles either had a lot of cruft, were never edited to reflect more recent developments, or were poorly sourced. I've been steadily improving and expanding existing articles and making new well-sourced articles to do with the franchise after extensively researching and exhausting all the research databases, purchasing books, etc. For instance, I was able to unearth how important and popular the Degrassi series pre-Next Generation actually were, compare this 2020 version of Degrassi Junior High to the current version.
I think it'd be really neat to have this get featured status especially with the increased attention Degrassi has been getting due to the news of the reboot!
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) 23:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get promoted to featured article status, and indeed for the article to appear on the main page - again (it has been a DYK? and is currently a GA). I admit that I do like the idea of an article entitled "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" to appear on Wikipedia's main page. I'm not entirely sure which bits need improving before it should be put up as a candidate.
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) 23:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
Aoba47
I am uncertain if I will have time to commit to full a review, but I wanted to comment on the article's use of audio samples. From my understanding, audio samples should only be used in an album article if they are representative of something in the album as a whole. "The Archer" sample does this very well, but the "Lover" and "Paper Rings" samples are more about the individual songs and less about the album. I would either revise these captions to more better justify their inclusion in this article (i.e. how do they represent something about the album as a whole that cannot be conveyed with just prose) or remove them completely in favor of something else. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[...]“Rick and Morty is an American adult animated science-fiction sitcom created by Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon for Cartoon Network's nighttime programming block Adult Swim.”[...] I think you can remove the part about Cartoon Network and just say Adult Swim.
I suggest removing the sentence about it being distributed by Warner Bros, because it is mentioned in the infobox.
In the third paragraph of the lead, I’m a bit confused on what it means by “originality”. What exactly in this context is “original”? Is it the humor/settings/characters/etc?
I think Screen Rant is kind of a poor citation in the premise section. Since the premise does not necessarily need citations, my preference would be just to remove it.
Development, Writing, and Animation sections are acceptable for GA I think.
Philosophy : [...] Rick and Morty has been described as "a never-ending fart joke wrapped around a studied look into nihilism"[...] You should mention the author here.
Just a little nitpick, but some of the citations could have wikilinks to the articles of their parent outlets, such as Vice Media for VICE citations. Not strictly necessary, but a little helpful.
[...]“Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV. —Morty”[...] This quote is uncited. It could be removed through, since the previous sentence basically explains the point that the quote helps convey.
I suggest you read WP:RECEPTION and take note of some of the tips there. Since this is a very popular show, I think that the reception section can be expanded.
There is a lot of stuff in the other media section that is listed by bullet points. Perhaps this stuff can be merged into paragraphs or split into its own list article?
@FormalDude Those are some of the major things I saw. Some other reviewers are probably a bit more eagle-eyed than me and will notice some other stuff that needs addressing. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @CollectiveSolidarity! I implemented most of that, though some I'll have to save for later. The word "originality" in the lede means novel or unique and I believe is referring to the premise of the show. ––FormalDude(talk) 03:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:
"Harmon would later create and produce Community, an NBC sitcom, while Roiland would work primarily in voice acting for Disney's Fish Hooks and Cartoon Network's Adventure Time." Needs a citation
The "Ratings" section has lots of small paragraphs, which I think can be merged together for better prose.
First paragraph of the comics section needs a citation at the end.
Per WP:FORBESCON, ref 27 is not considered a reliable source.
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.
Hi @CollectiveSolidarity! Although I've never heard of this game, I'm glad to read about it. The article looks great to me. I went through the Gameplay section, doing very minor edits such as for clarity and grammar. I hope these edits are helpful. Some additional comments on the Gameplay section:
Gameplay image. The image of gameplay has fine detail so I increased its size per MOS:IMGSIZE. However, it is slightly blurry and increasing the size naturally worsened this, so I'm wondering if there is a higher quality image you could obtain?
George R. R. Martin image. I moved it to the right side of the page per MOS:PORTRAIT which prefers the portrait to face inwards toward the text.
Paragraph 2. "The player can memorize a limited amount of spells". Should this be "The player's character can memorize a limited amount of spells."?
Paragraph 3. "increase their statistics" I'm not sure what this means. Possibly MOS:INUNIVERSE or I could just be dense!
Paragraph 4. "The game contains crafting mechanics, which require materials in order to create items." This is vague to someone like me who doesn't know this world. You do explain it later in the paragraph, but it might help to name the examples right away?
If you're finding this type of feedback helpful, I would be happy to do similar passes through the other sections. I am new to doing peer reviews, so I won't be offended if you're looking for a different kind of feedback, a more experienced reviewer, or someone is more expert on the topic. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GuineaPigC77 Thank you! Sorry for the late response, I've been a bit busy lately. I have changed statistics to attributes, and provided an explanatory wikilink to Attribute (role-playing games). I'll also rephrase the crafting mechanics a bit. Once again, thank you! ‡ Night Watch ω(talk) 01:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These comments are given after a quick scan of the article:
"The screenplay was written by de Leon, Clodualdo del Mundo, Jr., and Raquel Villavicencio, the same team who previously collaborated on de Leon's 1980 film Kakabakaba Ka Ba? and de Leon's then on production hiatus Batch '81." This needs a citation.
"Quiling, Tito (2013)." and "David, Joel " are not used as citations in the article: cite them in a footnote (recommended) or remove them.
Box office section should have more specific information on how much money the film grossed, if possible.
"Critical response" section suffers from "X said Y". WP:RECEPTION has suggestions on how to avoid this.
Thank you for the comments! Especially the critical response section, something I have been struggling with generally in Wiki editing, the link looks very helpful. Kting97 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. 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]
@Pamzeis: to ensure they saw the above comment. I would also suggest that they post notices for this PR in various Wikiprojects or to editors who edit this article's subject matter, to get more comments. Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 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 article was promoted to GA many years ago, and I recently have worked to touch it up in anticipation of an FAC nomination. Any commentary would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
The lede should be expanded to include a summary of the major topics mentioned in the article.
There should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum.
A lot of the article is about the games, and not necessarily about the company. I suggest reading Namco, one of Wikipedia's featured articles, and structure this article similarly.
Dissolution needs more information. Why was the company dissolved?
Unreleased projects can be merged together to avoid WP:OVERSECTION or just removed.
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...
@Z1720: I'm a bit busy with school right now, but I'll sort it out during the weekend. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 19:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
"During the second World War and the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the Imperial Japanese Army used bicycle infantry to move around and carry weaponry such as machine guns." Needs a citation
"As of July 2021, the Department of Transportation has announced that a 497 kilometers (309 mi) of bike lanes in the country's metropolitan areas have been completed, with 313 kilometers (194 mi) in Metro Manila, 129 kilometers (80 mi) in Metro Cebu, and 55 kilometers (34 mi) in Metro Davao, consisting of pavement markings, physical separators, and road signage." Needs a citation
"The use of bicycles as transportation is supported by the inclusion of bicycle parking racks in schools, retail stores, shopping centers, parks and plazas, and transport stops." Needs a citation
Criticism sections are discouraged because they are probably not in WP:WIKIVOICE, due to their inherent WP:NPOV nature. Instead, I suggest reworking it to a "Commentary" section that gives different viewpoints on the topic.
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 think this article is not close to GA. First off, the subject is 22 years old. He's playing in the Florida Complex League. It's not impossible to have a GA on a minor league player, but it will always be a negative because there is so much career to come (one would think). In subjects so young and nascent, there's often not enough content or sourcing. This article is fairly short at 2951 bytes of prose and has only 12 unique citations, and five of them (B-Ref, MLB.com profile, Vanderbilt athletics profile, and two from Pointstreak) are not in-depth coverage. The Kevin Parada semifinalist article may also be a passing mention, but I haven't checked.
That said, the biggest problem I see here is WP:PROSELINE writing with one sentence paragraphs in the "College career" section: "In x time, y happened". In the 2020 season, cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Keegan appeared in nine games, making eight starts. is unclear. If the season is cancelled, how did he play? (I know that it's games he played before the cancellation, but this is unclear.) Also, committing to Vandy is mentioned twice in the two-sentence paragraph about decommitting from Virginia Tech. I would want to see more college stats in this paragraph.
"Personal life" is usually a title of a section to detail a person's adult life, like marriage/kids, other personal endeavors. In this article, it should read "Early life". The blood clot may be "Personal life" rather than "career", and can go after the career part. I'm not sure if there's guidance against the "Professional career" section having text in the level two header and then having a level three header, but at the very least I don't think it reads well.
Other small points: runs batted in should be abbreviated as "RBIs", not "RBI", since it is plural. The abbreviation CCBL is given without being presented on the first use and linkage of the Cape Cod Baseball League.
I suggest waiting until at least next season, maybe waiting until he's in the majors or his career stalls out in the minors. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NotReallySoroka: To ensure they saw the above comments. I agree with Muboshgu and suggest that either new sources are found, or let this player's career play out for a couple years before nominating it for a GAN. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because although I've only written a small part of it (credit goes to Krimuk2.0 for the bulk), I recently took it through GA and I'm interested in what it would take to get it to FA status. (I have not submitted anything to be a FAC before.)
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.
@Turnagra: After skimming through the article, I think the article is ready for a GAN and issues can be resolved in the review. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because of fierce opposition to its FA review. If anyone could give tips and suggestions, it would be much appreciated.
So, I realise the subject is a relatively small one, but that has its own advantages, in its way. I think this article is comprehensive for its subject, and want to know whether it might be suitable for featured article status. If there's any improvements that can be done, let me know.
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) 01:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Avoid block quotes when you can. Instead, summarise the information.
Per WP:EL, external links should not be placed in the article body.
Keep looking for additional sources to add information to the article. I recommend WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Google Books, or your local library system (which might give access to online databases.)
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it at FAC. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how to improve it to GA status without nominating it yet. In particular I'd like to know what needs work and/or what should be removed.
These comments are after a quick skim of the article:
I am surprised at how short the lede is, and I think it can include more detail.
"and opposed a referendum on independence." needs a citation.
"All of the candidates promised to work towards opening the Three Links, a largely popular measure.[35]" This needs some context for those who do not know what this project is or why it is important to mention.
"tipped the balance to Chen's favor." Needs a citation
@Z1720: Thanks for your time. I've been working on this article for quite a while and appreciate it.
I will work on the rest shortly (may remove the Three Links thing as I'm not sure the source verifies it) but I do have one comment. "...tipped the balance to Chen's favor" is verified at each factor, i.e. the actions of China favoring him is cited at "last minute saber-rattling by the PRC". Perhaps not the clearest way to do it, though. Would you suggest moving them to the end, or elsewhere, or do nothing and just clarify when I submit to review? Duonaut(talk | contribs) 06:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Duonaut: In answer to your question: per WP:V, information on Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources say about the subject, and citations tell the reader where to find those source(s). If there is a source that verifies "tipped the balance to Chen's favor.", a citation to that source needs to be placed after the sentence so that the reader can find that information. If the sources cited earlier in the sentence are the ones that verify this statement, then the citation(s) should be moved to the end of the sentence, as it is generally accepted on Wikipedia that citations are to verify the information the precedes it, not the information after it. If you are inferring that information based on other factors, that might be considered original research and thus will probably need to be removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: all you mentioned should be addressed now. If you'd like to do a once-over you may, otherwise I'll close this in a week or upon your reply. I'd like your thoughts on my expansion of the lede, though. Duonaut(talk | contribs) 23:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some comments about the lede:
In general, citations are not necessary in the lede as this information should be included and cited in the body of the article, per MOS:LEDECITE
"Presidential elections were held in Taiwan on 18 March 2000 to elect the 10th-term President and Vice-President of the Republic of China under the 1947 Constitution." Maybe "Presidential elections were held in Taiwan on 18 March 2000 to elect the president and vice-president of the Republic of China." I don't think the term number is necessary, though that'll be up to you. Per MOS:JOBTITLE president and vp shouldn't be capitalised.
"This election put an end to more than half a century of uninterrupted Kuomintang (KMT) rule on the island, having ruled as a one-party state" -> This election ended more than half a century of Kuomintang (KMT) rule on the island, of which it governed as a one-party state..."
The lede should include more information about the results: which regions supported which candidates? Who were the major candidates, and what were their qualifications? Also add more information from the aftermath section to the lede
Those are my thoughts. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 6 October 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]
Comments by Z1720
These comments are based on a quick scan of the article:
Citation needed templates need to be resolved.
There should probably be a citation at the end of every paragraph (except the lede)
"People affiliated with the foundation" needs a lot more citations.
Hi Annwfwn! The article looks like it's coming along nicely. I'm relatively new so take my comments with a grain of salt. (And you might also want to wait for another editor to chime in.)
History. I agree the History section doesn't read smoothly. I think one reason could be that it lacks strong topic sentences. It makes sense to put each paragraph in chronological order (after all, you're explaining the history), but within each paragraph it might work better to include a strong topic sentence that summarizes what that paragraph is going to say. I tried doing something along these lines with the first paragraph, see if you think that approach helps.
Organization. I checked out Siberian Husky, Alaskan husky, and Alaskan Malamute and noticed they all put the description first, and history later in the article. So I did the same here to see if it works.
Scope. Appearance and Behavior sections need to be expanded. I'd also recommend more images to illustrate the physical description. I added one. If possible, a gallery would be nice. I also want to know more about their conservation status; the article states there are very few remaining - are there efforts underway to raise their numbers? I'd like to know more details about the Canadian government's actions and how they affect this breed specifically. Are there any famous Mackenzie River huskies, perhaps acting dogs? Have they been portrayed in popular media?
I'm happy to discuss further, read again after updates, or both! Happy editing! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 09:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Annwfwn: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Detailed morphological analyses published as early as 2009 by Robert K. McAfee also suggest that Paramylodon and Glossotherium are very closely related and share a common ancestor." Needs a citation
First two parargaphs in "Description" need a citation at the end.
The paragraphs in "Skull and dentition characteristics" Are quite long. Any possibility of splitting them up?
"These two species have since been uncovered at the Fairmead Landfill Site and Irvington Site in California." Needs a citation
"The elongated symphysis of the mandible projects well beyond the nasal region. Since there is no ossification of the nasal septum as in Mylodon, a vigorous cartilage development must be assumed here. In addition, the tongue may also have had a supporting function during feeding. Due to the position of the hyoid bone, which was displaced far back in the skull, and its robust construction with strong muscle attachments, the geniohyoideus muscle, for example, was particularly strong and long, so that a very mobile tongue can be assumed." Needs a citation
Sources section is not needed because they are already stated in the references, so this is redundant.
@Z1720Done most of them except for the fourth one, which I don't know where it is. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Magnatyrannus: That fourth bullet point has now been cited. I will note that the diet section paragraph is very long now, and I suggest that it is split up. Z1720 (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been adding bits and pieces to, and copyediting, this article for a long time now and I'm looking for some more substantive input on how far the article is from a viable Featured Article Nomination. Is it too short? How is the prose and page structure? Does it feel like any topics aren't given appropriate weight? Any other feedback 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) 00:30, 7 October 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]
As a drive-by comment, you need to massively reduce the number of duplicated links on the article. Arctotherium, for instance, should only be linked to once, not at every mention of one of its species. The general prose also needs revision for clarity. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:DUPLINK explains it, and has a link to a script that will highlight duplicated links for easier correction. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilverTiger12 Cheers! Although I find many links in articles very useful, I agree that in this article it's probably overbearing. I'll start snipping away. Are there any particular areas which need revision for clarity? SuperTah (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't really point out a given part that needs revision, but I'd suggest going through and reading it out loud to yourself. That can help catch where sentences are clunky. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:
"leading to the diversification of the genus, including the colossal Arctotherium angustidens." Needs a citation
"Typically thought of as an open habitat specialist, Arctodus seems to have also been abundant in mixed habitat where C3 vegetation was available. Based on the wide distribution of the species, Arctodus simus inhabited diverse climatic conditions and all sorts of environments, ranging from boreal forests and mammoth steppe in the north, open plains and highland woodlands in the interior, subtropical woodlands and savannas in the south, to the pine–oak forests of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, the boundary of the Nearctic realm.[13][18][84][60][85][86]" Is this many citations needed? Perhaps move some of them earlier in the paragraph or WP:CITEBUNDLE
"One theory behind the extinction of Arctodus simus is that A. simus may have been out-competed by brown bears as the latter expanded southwards from eastern Beringia, and gradually established itself in North America." Needs a citation
"Brown bears and Arctodus have been discovered together in Alaska (then Beringia) before ∼34,000 BP, and in later Pleistocene deposits in Vancouver Island, Wyoming and Nevada." Needs a citation
Wow, that map is huge. I would consult with an editor more familiar with writing biology articles to see if that map is needed or can be reduced.
"and Utah. The Intermontane Plateau extended deep into Mexico, where it demarked the southernmost habitat of Arctodus simus." Needs a citation
"Additional Irvingtonian remains have been recovered from Arkalon in Kansas, Hay Springs in Nebraska, and Rock Creek in Texas." Needs a citation
"Additional remains have been found at Island Ford Cave in Virginia, and Frankstown in Pennsylvania." Needs a citiation
"A mastodon humerus from the Snowmastodon site in Colorado bears tooth marks also suggested to be from Arctodus" Needs a citation
"These behaviors may be applicable to the giant short-faced bears Arctotherium and Arctodus." Needs a citation
" However, this has been discredited by modern research- evidence continues to maintain a prolonged co-existence of humans and Arctodus across North America." Needs a citatin
"Calico, Hartley Mammoth Site, Pendejo Cave and White Sands suggest that humans co-existed with Arctodus for many thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. This extensive overlap with Arctodus across North America puts significant doubt to the migration barrier hypothesis." Needs a citation
"Below is a table collating radiocarbon dates directly sampled from Arctodus simus specimens (not including dates from associated remains nor stratigraphy).[16][31][38][43][65][78][169][188][204][205][206][207][208][209]" Can these citations be placed in the table instead of here?
I don't think "GeorgiaBeforePeople" is a reliable source and should probably be removed.
Overall, this article looks like it is in great shape, but might be too long. I think with some fixing up and some trims it could be nominated for WP:GAN and possibly WP:FAC. I hope these comments help. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
When I expanded this article a few months ago I didn't do so with the intent of one day taking it to FAC (I'm very happy with my current rate of one FAC per year), but upon reflection the article is of comparable length and scope to the previous manga articles I've taken to FAC (The Heart of Thomas and Kaze to Ki no Uta), so I'd like to submit it here as a float test for FAC, and to identify any gaps or deficiencies in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Tintor2
Some small tidbits that FA reviewers tend to point:
Context is kinda strange. I know Banana Fish is a shojo manga but the series and author are not mentioned until the second paragraph.
You'll recall this came up in the GAR as well; my rationale was that a major component of Banana Fish's notability is how it represented a break from established shōjo manga conventions of the era, so I believe the article needs to devote some space to establishing what those conventions are. Do you have any suggestions for how the section can read better? Morgan695 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't the manga use chapter titles for the list of volumes?
In this case, maybe creating an article for the volumes and summaries might work.
The manga does not use chapter titles; or at least, the English edition does not. Morgan695 (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
References like "Yoshida, Akimi (November 13, 2002). Banana Fish, Vol. 7. ISBN 1569318433." might need a better replacements
I would archive the source link for File:BananaFishVol1.png. It is not required for a FAC, but I'd encourage it to avoid any future headache with potential link rot and death.
From my understanding, it is discouraged to link very well-known cities like New York City.
I have a clarification question about this sentence: Ash begins to investigate the meaning of "banana fish" while simultaneously endeavoring to dismantle Golzine's criminal empire. The first paragraph introduces Ash as a gang leader so what made him change from being a leader in crime to wanting to stop it? Was it because of the man's death, the connection with Dino, etc.? It is not immediately clear to me.
Homoeroticism is not linked on the first use in the article and it is over-linked in the article.
I would specify in the prose that Stand By Me was also released in 1986.
I think the "a killer" quote can be paraphrased.
I am uncertain of the "ignominy" word choice. While there is nothing wrong with it, it is a particularly common word so I am curious if it is the best word choice to best inform readers.
Unless I missed it, manga by itself is not linked. I would link it if anime get a link.
For this part, and stays Eiji, do you mean and stays with Eiji?
Year 24 Group is linked twice in the article. The same applies to shōnen-ai and it seems like this is a particular point with the "Themes and analysis" section.
I would avoid having citation titles in all caps (á la Citation 60 and others) even if the title is presented that way in the source.
Why are the "Further reading" citations not incorporated into the article?
I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will do a more thorough read-through of the article. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC which is about a series that has far, far less impact and has fallen into complete and utter obscurity. Best of luck with the peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A recent creation of mine, I'm hoping to get it to GA eventually. I don't feel very comfortable or confident writing about literature and haven't really done so for over a year, so I'd like someone to look this one over before I nominate.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a featured article before, but it was demoted because it only had 12 citations. It now has 298, so I want to see if it's ready to be nominated for FA status again, or what other improvements would be advisable first.
I'm a big fan of Asimov; it's nice to see people working on this article. A couple of comments.
I recently came across this chapter on Asimov in Wiley-Blackwell's A Companion to Science Fiction. It's written by John Clute, and his assessment of Asimov's legacy is... dazzlingly negative. After reading it, I came to this article to see if Clute's viewpoint represented the consensus of critics, or if it was a minority view, but I couldn't find much here: the Influence/Legacy section seems rather short. I think we'd need to provide that sort of overview – balancing Clute against what other critics think – of Asimov's impact on the field.
From a quick look, there are many citations to primary sources such as Asimov's autobiographies. While they can be useful, you'd want to rely more on secondary sources.
I'm not going to do a review on this article, but I suggest that you nominate this for WP:GAN before going to FAC. This will allow you to get additional feedback on the article's quality and improvements before an FA run. Also, since I do not think you have a successful FAC yet, I suggest that you find a FA mentor who can help guide you through the process. Lastly, if you have not already done so, I suggest reviewing articles at FAC now; this will help familiarise yourself with the FA criteria and give confidence to other editors that you understand the criteria, thereby increasing the likelihood that your FAC will be reviewed. Many FAC nominations are archived because of a lack of reviewers, so it is beneficial to build up goodwill at FAC now to help get reviewers later. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring this to GAN, and eventually FAC, and would like some comments for improvement. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The LDS Church is an important article on the history of American Christianity. With millions of adherents, it is an important topic for Wikipedia to cover completely, fairly, and accurately. I've been working on it actively for the better part of 2 years and it's come a long way in that time. It is currently listed as a GA, but it's changed significantly since being listed last year. I hope to get feedback on the article as it now stands. I would also like feedback if it is close or still a long way from FA status.
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.
I suggest that, since this is your first FAC, that you seek the help of a mentor, who can help give feedback on this article. I also encourage you to review articles at WP:FAC as soon as possible: this will build goodwill among FAC reviewers and will help you learn about the intricacies of the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article's in an exceptionally stable state, given the subject. I'm looking for outside opinions on what remains to take it to featured article status: missing major concepts, missing sources, general readability for a general audience, overall structure, etc. Thanks! czar 23:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting topic. Seems very well written, well sourced, and comprehensive to me. A few items to note:
The last two sentences under the "University" section beginning "He was also interested in..." could be reworked or pruned. The first of the two sentences is a run-on; it seems like a fairly trivial point; and it seems like it's contradictory to say he was intrigued but didn't really believe the thesis.
Early career section: "Chomsky has been open about his employer at this time, saying MIT "was a Pentagon-based university. And I was at a military-funded lab." What is "open" about this? Is he saying he was open about the fact that he worked for the military indirectly? Reword.
"He has said he gave "a good bit of thought" to resigning from MIT during the Vietnam War." I would have said "He later said he gave..." Also, maybe this would be better placed in the next section that deals with the Vietnam War directly.
"Chomsky, photographed in 1977" could read "Chomsky in 1977" instead.
"After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Chomsky was widely interviewed..." I would switch the order of these two clauses. That is, "Chomsky was widely interviewed after the September 11 attacks." Also, I recommend you make more explicit why he was widely interviewed. Lastly I might delete the part about collating and publishing the interviews, as that's not so important to the narrative.
Comma after "international media attention". Also, Security Courts is capitalized - does it need a Wikilink?
Before talking about the Occupy movement, there is a gap of about 10 years. I might say "Later," or "Beginning in 2011," before the start of that paragraph. I would also break it into two sentences since the first part of the current sentence will serve as the topic sentence for the entire paragraph: "He delivered talks at encampments..."
Unfortunately, I have run out of time to finish reading ("real life" calls!) but I've managed to make it through the Lead and Life sections. Really good work from what I've read. I hope to be able to come back and get the rest, but I make no promises: "knowing how way leads onto way, I [question] if I should ever come back." Trevdna (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good edits. Thank you, @Trevdna! Would be curious to hear your take on the other sections as a general reader. czar 07:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These comments are after a quick scan of the article:
Each section of Party campaigns should have a paragraph. Perhaps some of these section can be merged together if they are parties with similar ideologies (maybe left/right parties listed together, or parties by region of dominance? Perhaps major party campaigns have their own section, and smaller parties are merged?
"The elections also represented the biggest seat loss in the National Assembly since the 1992 elections, with the SNS-led coalition losing 68 seats." Needs a citation
"Vučić managed to win 60% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election," -> "Vučić won 60% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election," managed to win sounds too much like an opinionated statement, and this suggestion reduces the number of words.
@Vacant0: Hope this helps. I think this is pretty much ready for GAN. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All Done. Thank you for the peer review. Vacant0 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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?).
@WMrapids: to ensure that they saw the above comments. If you are not interested in receiving more comments, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 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.