Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, 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.

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.



Pod (The Breeders album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 November 2018, 05:48 UTC
Last edit: 17 November 2018, 06:55 UTC

The Jew of Malta[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think there's still some more work to do here, and I'd like feedback as to where it stands at this moment!

Thanks, Tobymsinger (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Atellan Farce[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because there are some sections specifically such as the lead, stock characters and controversy section that I am wondering if they come across as fluid and easy to read for others. I also am seeking overall opinions and areas for growth as I continue to conduct research on this subject.

Thanks,AngRenzi (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know which ways I can improve the page. I already know that I need a bit more information, so what I'm looking for would be suggestions on what information people would like to see. If I skipped over a certain amount of years, or if there's more information to add during specific years would be helpful. Also, if there's a better way to organize the article, and elements such as that. Grammar/writing would be great, but I'm focusing on content at the moment.

Thanks, AsbennAsbenn (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think with a little work it can be a GA and I wanted to know what needs to be improved before I nominate it. I've already worked on it a little bit but I am aware this isn't enough for GA. Any help welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, ArturSik (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 31 October 2018, 05:10 UTC
Last edit: 16 November 2018, 16:29 UTC

Black Panther (soundtrack)[edit]

I am thinking about nominating this article for GA and just wanted to see if anyone had some helpful thoughts about the general structure and scope. Note that I am approaching this from more of a WP:FILM perspective (particularly how the music was made for the film) than a WP:ALBUM one. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Ref 67 has an error of some kind. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Argento. I am in the process of trying to get that figured out. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled from Marilyn Monroe by Andy Warhol

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 October 2018, 12:10 UTC
Last edit: 24 October 2018, 09:16 UTC

Bara (genre)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently revised the article for the first time since it was originally written in 2009-2010. I'd like to have this material reviewed in advance of a possible move of the article to the gay manga namespace which, in the near-decade since this article was first written, has become the preferred nomenclature for the genre (rough version can be viewed at User:Morgan695/sandbox/Bara).

Thanks, Morgan695 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Cypriot art[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like get some advice as to whether my expression throughout the article is appropriate by Wikipedia standards, and any other criticisms are welcome.

Thanks, Jqitan (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Bedroom Production[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new article and I would like to check that it is all in line with the Wikipedia guidelines for a new article. I would also like comments in regard to the article structure, there were some paragraphs relating to bedroom production such as about sampling and MIDI which I was not sure how to interweave into the article specifically for the case of bedroom production when most of the available information online mostly talks about these topics in regards to traditional record producing not bedroom production and Wikipedia does not allow original research. It would be good to have some expansion on the history and characteristics sections and more media added.

Thanks, Tom TommyTom10 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Australian Poetry Slam[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm new to Wikipedia and would like some help ensuring the overall article is of good quality. I additionally need specific help removing the user sandbox template Thanks, Sue.daa.nim (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Pheasant[edit]

Hi I'm a university student and I had to write a Wikipedia article I was hoping to get some feedback on it like what needs to be changed, added or taken away and anything that will allow me to make this a suitable Wikipedia article. --CJAEAA (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@CJAEAA: Hi, a few quick comments:
Peacock words: You should remove the subjective, unsubstantiated words of praise like award winning, internationally recognised from the intro. Take a look at MOS:INTRO and WP:PEACOCK. Same with is well known for his collaboration: just say has collaborated.
Bold name at first mention: I've added markup to the first sentence to put his name in boldface: see MOS:BOLDTITLE.
Early life: It would be helpful to provide some dates here: What year was he born? When did he get his first fashion job? When did the local paper write about him? Also, the line about the local paper should include a citation.
External links: External links generally shouldn't be directly embedded in the body of an article: see WP:ELPOINTS. You should remove the external links in the Collections and Book subsections. If you think they are necessary to support the article, consider using footnoted citations or putting them in the external links section. (The link in that section right now, to '', should be removed).
Overall: I suggest that you continue researching Pheasant, looking for external, reliable sources (Newspaper profiles/architectural reviews, e.g.), and try to avoid a press-release-y or overly promotional tone. For example, in He has worked with many famous clients on prestigious hotels and residential projects., you should remove the vague, overly effusive famous and prestigious, and instead provide more details of his clients and their projects.
Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Educational management[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback of my work from an editor's perspective and change my writing accordingly to meet the high standards of the Wikipedia community. Some areas of concerns include: definitions; descriptions of the scope of educational management; and the educational management of the country Finland.

Thanks, Siennahua (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Kazakh art[edit]

Hi! This is an article about Kazakh art, created as my university project and now I've listed this article for peer review. I like this country and really appreciate the opportunity to write an article about the beautiful Kazakh art. I am not a native English speaker, so please feel free to correct any stylistic, grammatical or other mistake I made.

Thanks, Ceiba chodatii (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Huda Beauty[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Luoluoyipai (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

To me this reads like a promotional article. Does the author have an undeclared Conflict of interest? Many of the puffery statements, e.g. "on (sic) of the top beauty influencer of Iraq immigrants in America giving a new standard of Mid Eastern beauty", are completely uncited. Many of the references are to the beauty industry in general, rather than this company. Those that do reference the company often have all the hallmarks of PR-placed pieces. Some of the claims seem odd: 26 million Instagram followers and 2 YouTube subscribers? The sources for these are 1) the company's own site and 2) an "interview" that begins, "So what's your coffee order?" Hard-hitting investigative reporting. The company's size probably means it does warrant an article, but this needs a lot of work. KJP1 (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have finished my draft but would really appreciate some assistance with ensuring I am fulfilling the Wikipedia formatting and referencing guidelines. I am new to Wikipedia so any assistance would be much appreciated.

Thanks, OLEWiki99 (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Bass Coast Festival[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure this article meets all the conditions.

Thanks, Krystinuuu (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Escape to the Chateau (TV series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Emmy3669 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Please comment on areas the content or structures needs to be improved, or areas that need to be changed as they don't align with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks.Emmy3669 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hide (musician)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because...

I never really cared for the genre movement he was involved with as a whole, but hide and X were absolutely kickass musicians. It looks to be in pretty good shape. I'd love to nominate it for a marker position (at least GA), but since I'm fairly new to editing the article I'd like some insight from others first (I have read it over several times, though).

Thanks, dannymusiceditor oops 22:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, one minor comment: The X Japan section includes the line Dahlia, which would become the band's last album, was released on November 4, 1996 and once again, it reached the number one spot. Hasn't Yoshiki been mentioning plans for a new album release for the past few years? I know they've been going on tour and releasing singles recently. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I have changed it to say "last album to date". If you think it should still be different, be WP:Bold. dannymusiceditor oops 21:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bear and the Nightingale[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a draft and I know that there are some areas that are not 100% so I would like some feedback as to how to improve and what other information I can include about the novel. I still need to include a context section that talks about the incorporation of Slavic myths. Any feedback regarding how to improve the article to Wikipedia's recommended structure style would be very much appreciated. I have had a look at the Wikiproject for Novels and have tried to stick to their structure as much as possible.

Thanks, Farrah Mohammed (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Barry Allen (The Flash 2014 series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Pavement 1997 (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please review whether my season summaries are concise enough and if I am being too repetitive in my language.

Comments from Kailash

The article is in pathetic shape. It can be expanded with the sources found here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Kamaal Williams[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It may require review in regard to the language and structure. I have attempted to organise the article logically and coherently, but there may be established practices that I have failed to reflect in my article.

Thanks, Joe Joe 33445 (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Jirga (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to make sure the article fits within the guidelines for the film manual of style and find out what sections could be added to in order to push the article to feature status. Particularly the reception section seems thin. Some pages include a themes section, perhaps one of these could be added, however I don't know if it is relevant enough. Does the plot section require additional information? Thanks, EoinFeeney1 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Scottish jewellery[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed the drafting process for the article. I think that the references are not strong as the the majority of the information came from online blogs because of lack of official resources on the topic. I would also like to improve the sections that are slightly lacking in information, mainly the history section and the modern section, although I would also like to improve the traditional examples category. I would also like to add more images such as of the Lorne jewels and the Stewart jewels but have been hindered by copyright restrictions.

Thanks, Dream8047!

Dream8047! (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council mural[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on the grammatical structure of the article written to ensure it is clear, concise and easy to read.

Thanks, Jstr0053 (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kamogawa Sea World[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I am a new editor and I am not sure whether I am doing right. When I am writing this article, I found a lot of sentences which highly praise the Kamogawa Sea World. I think they are not neutral so I didn't use them. But in this case the introducing sentences seem to be too simple. Is there any better way to deal with such sentences? Also, I found a lot of images when I looked the main webpage of Kamogawa Sea World itself especially about the activity and facility. I don't know whether I can use them? Where can I find more images besides wikimedia? Finally, do you think some of my sections are helpless? Can you give me some advice about that? Thanks, YIFAN Andrew Wang (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@YIFAN Andrew Wang: I'd be glad to give some pointers, although I'm not an expert nor a peer reviewer, I am from Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks if you're interested in joining such communities to ask for help. Sources that either give positive or negative point of view can be used if the information is factual. Though when writing the article, editors should deal with such in a neutral point of view, that being, to give due weight. If something seems bias, try re-writing it according to all reliable sources view points on the subject matter. A good way to compare writing would to look at policies that give examples for such like Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial or articles that have Good Article or Featured status, such as Cedar Point; looking at our project guidelines to amusement park articles layout as a guidance tool is helpful when creating or expanding articles as well as MOS:Layout for general Wikipedia articles. Where you can, you may expand or merge section together where there's little information. Make sure the article has a flow, and don't list too many things where they can be in the form of a paragraph.
Images on Wikipedia and WikiCommons are not usually my forte, although great resources to ask about would be to confer at commons:Commons:Village pump or Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia's Teahouse, or look at our policies on images and copyrighted material (I find creative-commons to be a useful tool to finding freely licensed content, though make sure to refer to the image policy)
On sections, I wouldn't say they're helpless, though they would need to be reworded as to not sound like a travel guide. For instance, removing the instances of "you" for "guests", and to not be too specific; give a general understanding of what the park has to offer for attractions and an overview of its history, attractions, entertainment, awards, and other information that may adhere to amusement parks. Moreover, I would try to find more secondary sources that are reliable and verifiable and limit the usage of primary sources or sources that have information from basic review channels (i.e. TripAdvisor I would avoid, attempt to find more professional reviews from reliable secondary sources). If needing help to citing sources properly, I would suggest reading WP:CITE as it is very useful to different kinds of sources. I would say you're on the right track for editing though so be bold and keep on editing! And if needed, you're welcome to seek help from our projects talk page as there are editors there that specialize better in amusement parks and roller coaster subjects! Adog104 Talk to me 22:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I remove the template about insufficient inline citation?[edit]

Hello, I noticed that I receive a template said my article has insufficient inline citation.

After asking my teacher, I think it because I added citation after the subheadings rather than the inline sentences. But it seems the article has over citation now. Is it fine now?

Also, since I have added inline citation now, can I remove the template now or not? Although the wikipage Help:Maintenance template removal said I can remove the template when the issue has been adequately addressed, I am not sure whether I did right or I had fixed the issue.

Thank you.YIFAN Andrew Wang (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@YIFAN Andrew Wang: Yes you may remove the template since you have properly fixed the inline citation. Adog104 Talk to me 18:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.YIFAN Andrew Wang (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dexter's Laboratory[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be very close to FA status. I have personally spent a lot of hours on this article, which, in my favor, resulted in its promotion to GA status in early 2013. I want to eventually make this one a FA. There are no cleanup/maintenance banners on it, and as of this edit, there are no "citation needed" notices either. I previously nominated this article in 2013, but the nomination was declined. I'm looking to find what does or doesn't work in this article to make it fit for a FA candidate.

Thanks, Paper Luigi TC 06:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 4 October 2018, 04:22 UTC
Last edit: 1 November 2018, 21:31 UTC


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 27 September 2018, 17:56 UTC
Last edit: 21 October 2018, 02:57 UTC

Ultrawide formats[edit]

I've created a new article, please peer review it.

Thanks, Ne0 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dialectric

Hi Ne0,

The scope of this article is challenging - according to the lede, it attempts to cover film, still photography, digital video, and digital displays. You may find it easier to improve if you narrow the focus. I see that this article started out as a table, so something similar to Comparison of display technology covering just wide formats might be a suitable restructuring.

1. Article Scope. Do you intend to cover photography? It is only mentioned in the lede, and the existing Panoramic photography may cover the topic adequately.

2. Article Scope. Do you have more references that specifically refer to all mentioned film formats as Ultra-wide or Ultrawide? Apart from IMAX, most of your references for films use this wording incidentally, for things like viewing angle and lens angle, but do not specifically describe the format as ultrawide. If you have trouble finding references specifically using the wording, you could run into problems with WP:OR. You may want to leave the film history to Widescreen and focus more on digital formats.

3. References. You make use of bare URLs for some citations. Full bibliographic citations are better. Per WP:CITESTYLE, avoiding bare URLs helps with verifiability and helps avoid linkrot.

3. Original research. Unless supported by references, some wording appears OR:

- using the heading “Widescreen revolution”, without a ref that uses this terminology.

- describing the 1964 IBM 704 mainframe display image as having a “TV display” when the same image used in IBM_704 is described as an IBM 780 CRT Display - ie. a purpose built computer display.

- “Before monitors became a separate product line, televisions were used as monitors.” is unreferenced and likely inaccurate. See Vector monitor and the discussion of the IBM 780 CRT Display at IBM 740 - there were purpose-built monitors for early computer systems, and some early systems had no displays at all.

If you have questions about any of these suggestions, please reply here. Dialectric (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lana Turner

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 26 August 2018, 05:10 UTC
Last edit: 24 October 2018, 02:00 UTC

Rossa Matilda Richter

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 August 2018, 23:58 UTC
Last edit: 28 September 2018, 14:11 UTC

List of Casualty specials[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I belive it has the potential to reach Featured List status. I have decided to complete a peer review first in order to minimise any potential problems that I may have not yet noticed. I appreciate the help of anyone who will review the article.

Thanks, Soaper1234 - talk 19:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Jackson singles discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i think that this article has Featured List potential. The list is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other FL of singles discography (Madonna's for example). I think that Michael Jackson singles discography meets the FL criteria. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions to help/improve the article, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lirim.Z[edit]

  • there are refs missing for certifications
  • Songs with no article and which did not chart need references.--Lirim | Talk 18:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently working on it.Need few days btw.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Everyday life[edit]

Cardiff City F.C.[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FA status. I nominated the page in September 2017 but it was closed due to lack of attention. I've decided to try another run at it, so I've brought it here to hopefully get it up to scratch. Thanks, Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Raising hands[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am uncertain of the reliability of some of my sources, I am unsure of the names of some sections or if they require subsections and I am also unsure of how much information should be included in the lead section.

Thanks, Giselle136 (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Blue wine[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because maybe there are some mistakes on grammar and sentence structure.

Thanks, XV123 (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Animal cafe[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve especially a controversy part but any parts are fine. Thanks, Hwan yoon (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Fiji national football team[edit]

I've been expanding this article for a good little bit and I am just wondering what I will need to get this to GA-status because I do know that won't be a start-class for much longer now.

Thanks, Animation is developing 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Passing comments

@Matt294069: Just wanted to leave a few tips before this gets archived.

  • A few of your paragraphs lack sources, most notably in the stadium section.
  • Use endashes to mark scores (e.g. 2–0 instead of 2-0).
  • Decide on a single date format for your references. You can use this script to automate this.
  • The lead could be a bit longer and go in-depth in summarizing the team's history.

Overall, the article doesn't look too bad. I suggest taking this over to a copyeditor before trying GAN. SounderBruce 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Ok, they for the response I will put those into action. Not Homura (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dizzy (series)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first article that I've worked on to such a major extent and I think that feedback could help improve both the article and my skills as an editor. Ideally, I would also like to try to get it to good article status, but that is a lower priority.

There are two particular areas of feedback I would appreciate. First, if there are any relevant policies or manual of style issues that I seem to be unaware of, then I'd love to know about them even if they are relatively minor; it's the only way I will learn. Second, before I started to work on the article, it was badly undersourced and also full of excessive unnecessary detail. In updating it, I tried to salvage as much of the existing material as I reasonably could, but found it a fairly difficult tightrope to walk. I would especially appreciate any opinions on anything that I kept that I should have cut or vice versa.

Thanks, Lowercaserho (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

comments from genericusername57[edit]

In the line

The rest of the games in the series have different gameplay that is unrelated either to the adventure games or to each other, and are connected only by branding, themes and character,

there are two grammatical issues: first, the beginning of the first clause distinguishes between a game and its gameplay, but the second half compares gameplay to games. I suppose that a quick fix would be The rest of the games in the series have different gameplay that is unrelated either to that of the adventure games..., but to me that sounds terribly clunky. How about simply The rest of the games in the series all have different gameplay from the adventure games and from...? The second grammatical issue is easier to address: in formal English writing, 'each other' is used when two things are mutually related, and 'one another' for more than two. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback; I've gone ahead and edited that sentence accordingly. Out of curiosity, do you happen to have any links (from Wikipedia or otherwise) that discuss the difference between each other and one another? It's not a rule I've come across before, and I'm more likely to remember it if I engage with it a bit more. If not, then it's not a problem as I can probably find something myself. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979[edit]

I plan to move this article towards Featured status, but I'm concerned about how it reads to a layperson, so I'm particularly looking for reviews from non-cricket fans (though I have no objection to expert reviews too!) Harrias talk 09:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

To check how comprehensible the article would be to an absolute layman (or laywoman), I ran it past a friend who wouldn't know a leg-break from a sprained ankle, and he understood it well enough. I remember this cause célèbre very clearly, and I think the article encapsulates it admirably.

A few drafting points:

  • "although the paper was on strike at the time" – the paper was not on strike: its printers were. I don't think it necessary to mention the fact at all here but if you feel you must, it would be more accurate to say something like "although publication of the paper was temporarily halted by a printers' strike".
  • we could do with a citation for Arlott's quote in the second para of Reaction and aftermath.
  • "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack were" – strange use of plural verb. The almanack was, surely?
  • "due to" – there are rather a lot of "due to"s in this article – six of them, in fact, clustered together in groups of three. We could have a debate about whether "due to" is now accepted as a compound preposition in BrE, but even if you think it is (I don't) a bit of variety would be welcome. "Because of" is a perfectly good phrase, as is "owing to".
  • "while Rose considered similar" – this reads oddly. I think the adjective needs to be an adverb. Perhaps "likewise" for "similar"?
  • "who felt like they were being" – rather colloquial phrasing: perhaps "felt that" or "felt as though"? And we need a citation for this statement.
  • "They need not have worried" – WP:EDITORIAL.
  • "...also their league title, however a league…" needs a stronger stop than a comma: either a full stop or a semicolon.

That's all from me. I don't see why this article shouldn't prosper at FAC, and I trust you will ping me when it gets there. – Tim riley talk 19:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

The article appears solid for the most part. The match summary is much shorter than the ones in most sports event FAs, but that's unavoidable given the nature of what happened and I wouldn't hold it against the article. Only a handful or so of points from me:

  • Background: "with 6,500 of that being awarded to the winning team." This is one of those "noun plus -ing" sentence structures that FAC prose reviewers sometimes complain about. You could try just removing "being" and seeing if what remains works, or give it a slight rewrite to fix the issue.
  • The en dash after "and there was no significant opposition" should be spaced per the Manual of Style, or converted into the larger em dash.
  • Reaction and aftermatch: The period after "It's Brian Rose I do declare!" isn't needed as the exclamation serves as end-of-sentence punctuation here.
  • Because the use of the Daily Main was strongly discouraged in an RFC last year, you'll want to have a good argument ready as to why reference 21 is a high-quality reliable source. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Just noting that I haven't forgotten this! I wonder if we are a little light on sourcing? This must have made a few biographies/autobiographies? Vic Marks, Botham or Roebuck surely mentioned it somewhere? I'll try to have a bit of a dig and see what I can find. Sarastro (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I've surprisingly found very little. Botham doesn't mention it himself, Simon Widle's biography of him only has a short paragraph about it. I don't have Roebuck's autobiography (though have just ordered it), and Chasing Shadows doesn't mention it. Harrias talk 11:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Engineering and technology[edit]


Hi! I've listed this article for peer review. It has still not been finalised yet, and in particular I am planning to refine and add to the sections, incorporate suitable images and tidy up the references. I would appreciate some general feedback regarding areas such as formatting, depth of converage, referencing etc. as this is my first Wikipedia article.

Thanks so much for your time, Writerforthedigitalworld (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wally Schirra[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to bring this article up to FA status. I am hoping to get feedback on my writing style, the content of this article, as well as any other areas of improvement.

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Fuchs wheel[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new page i have created

Thanks, Jmk98 (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Xiaomi Mi 5s[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i just completed to create the article. I'm the new of the engineering,then might have some errors of the detail. By the way, i'm the new to the editor on Wikipedia. If there's some mistakes on formatting, please make leave some changes and say so. If the grammar is not right, please help me to correct it. And if there's any information missing, i glad to see you to add it.

Appreciate for any helps!!

Thessaloniki Metro[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it significantly over the past couple of months and got it from Start-class to B-class. The goal is to get it to FA-class if possible, and I would appreciate any feedback before reaching that point.

Thanks, Michail (blah) 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear power[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to GA. I recently reorganized and cleaned up the article, and I would appreciate suggestions on how to improve it further. This is a very important topic and the article receives over 1,000 visits per day.

Thanks, Ita140188 (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment from philly_boy92

The lead of an article should generally avoid citations, per WP:LEADCITE. It is assumed that the contents of the lead are a summary of the contents of the article - not new information. You should remove non-controversial the citations from there and put them further down. If there is a controversy with something in the lead, you should be able to point people to the appropriate citation in the main text, or if not remove it from the lead. There are currently 24 references in the lead. There are also number of bare URLs or improperly cited sources in the article, like 1, 43, 69, and 95. You could maybe start by fixing those, since they are easy fixes. --Michail (blah) 16:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I cleaned up the lead removing unnecessary or duplicated references, however I left references for potentially controversial statements. There are now only 7 references left in the lead. I also started to cleanup other references, but this would take some time. Ideally they should all use the cite templates. In the meanwhile if you have any other comment it would be very helpful. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not your fault obviously and perhaps a problem with wikis generally but I feel the main problem is that the article lacks coherence and that similar points are repeated in different places - presumably different pro and anti nuclear campaigners have edited it over the years.

Suggest you:

Make article more organised and shorten it partly by removing or summarising repetitive points.

remove update or summarize some old numbers

add info on and link to Small modular reactors

update economics section for SMR and current figures for "firm power" wind, solar and carbon price (e.g. EU China and UK) or zero emission credits (some places in US). More info on the economics of extending lifetimes of existing nuclear plants. What will happen if President Trump is defeated next election and US introduces a carbon price? Cross border tariffs on carbon content of electricity - Economist mag says no but could it happen?

perhaps ideas for updates in and

Chidgk1 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Might there be any studies on sensible criteria to use when deciding whether to keep old plants running e.g. safety versus carbon emissions? It seems illogical that Japanese plants have been shut whereas the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant is still running. Surely it should be the other way around. Presumably some political influences? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree that many points can be summarized and the article can be made clearer and with less repetitions. I am also surprised there was no discussion or link to SMRs. I will work on the article as suggested as soon as I have time. As for the decision to keep a plant running, these are mostly up to each country. Japan has extremely strict safety requirements for nuclear power plants, that were further updated and made stricter after Fukushima. It should be noted that all the 40+ reactors in Japan that were operating during the earthquake in 2011 safely shut down and did not suffer any accident due to the earthquake itself (the third largest earthquake ever registered in history). It was the tsunami that caused the crisis. The least safe and oldest of the Japanese reactors that was shut down after 2011 was way way safer than the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 3 August 2018, 02:18 UTC
Last edit: 23 September 2018, 20:30 UTC


Juvenal Juvêncio[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has potential to be a very good article. Juvenal Juvêncio is very important to the world of Brazilian soccer, and a well-done peer review would help to showcase that more directly. I would be eternally grateful.

Thanks, Jmanlucas (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, three quick comments:
  • The lead mentions a number of Juvêncio's occupations, but the article only covers his football-related activities after 1984. Information about his earlier activities as lawyer and government official should be included in the article as well.
  • The article is greatly in need of copy-editing. The controversy section is nearly incomprehensible—as though it were passed through machine translation with no human editing. The direct quotations and some colloquial expressions are particularly in need of better translation. At points Juvêncio is referred to as JJ—I think he should be referred to by his surname throughout.
  • The length of the controversy section overwhelms the article. I suggest that rather than grouping all of his controversies under one heading, you instead base the structure of the article on the chronological sequence of notable events in his life, noting after each the reception/criticisms.
Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 August 2018, 14:50 UTC
Last edit: 20 September 2018, 19:36 UTC

Sunil Wadhwani[edit]

I worked on cleaning the article after a major contributor was banned for not disclosing COI. However, I would like a second pair of eyes to review it, and also be part of the review process. The reason is, I find that it's reasonably well-cited presently, and would like to eventually work on it and push it toward a Good Article status.

Thanks, MakersBreath (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

400-series highways (British Columbia)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently changed this page from a redirect to a full article.

Thanks, MuzikMachine (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


(Putting this in Arts felt a bit pretentious)

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently gave it substantial content (esp. re: Mega Rayquaza and the Trading Card Game) as well as copyediting help, and think its current C-Class rating is now outdated. I would like to know how it could be further improved, where it lies on the Article Quality scale, and what (if anything) should be done to progress it to Good Article candidacy.

Thanks! TheTiksiBranch (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, TheTiksiBranch, I'd say you have to add sources for the parts that are not covered by them. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Pam Hupp[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a newly created article on a somewhat sensitive topic (someone charged with a murder and implicated, but not charged, into two other murders) so would definitely benefit from a review to ensure the wording is all appropriate.

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

1: I suggest that you rearrange the lead paragraph to make clear the sequence of events. Mention all of the murders/accusations in the first sentence, then devote a sentence or two apiece to the alleged murder of Betsy Faria, the alleged framing of Russell Faria, the new evidence implicating Hupp, and the Gumpenburger situation, with the information about Neumann either inserted into the chronology or appended at the end.
2: Some of the information about personal lives (e.g., that Hupp's first marriage lasted 6 years), seems to me to not be notable, especially where it involves unrelated people.
3: At several points 'Faria' could plausibly refer to either husband or wife (Faria's laptop, e.g.). I suggest using first names as well at these points of ambiguity. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: - thanks very much for these suggestions. I've actioned points 2 and 3; I had a go at point 1 but couldn't find a wording that I felt worked well. McPhail (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Tajikistan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 9 October 2018, 19:55 UTC
Last edit: 24 October 2018, 17:26 UTC

American Bank Note Company Printing Plant[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to get this to the point where it could be a GA or FA, but even if not that, then just improving the overall quality. One particular question I have is about the History and Post Bank Note era sections. When I first wrote the article, these were much larger. I trimmed them substantially (and in the case of history, spun off some of the sections into their own articles). I'm wondering if they really add anything to the article at all, or if I'd do better to trim them even more aggressively? Please don't limit your comments to just that, however.

Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the history section seems bloated. In particular, the block quote about the building's purchase should be pared down and better incorporated into the text. The post Bank Note era section doesn't seem too bad to me—but the preconstruction planning and staged construction sections could definitely do with a trim. On the whole, though, the article is clear, well-written, and engaging. I made a few very minor edits to clear up small ambiguities and enhance readability; I would suggest also that the lead paragraph to be modified to better reflect the whole of the article. Cheers,Genericusername57 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Circular trading[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for feedback on making this a better page. I am new to wikipedia so am not sure why the 2nd paragraph in the Examples section is in a different format. However this is not intended and I am unsure about how to fix it. I intend to continue adding content to the next page, almost doubling it in size, within the next few weeks. Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks, Hbat4478 (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Allostatic load[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like people to review my article is to ensure that I have covered everything and that the information I have provided is accurate and verfiable.

Thanks, Ranamourtada (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hubert Geralds[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to make sure all my citations are correct, I am following all the steps for 'Good Article' criteria, I am using correct wikipedia technique and that my information is valid and important. All minor errors including spelling and correct grammar are also points of concern for the peer review.

Thanks, Jchedge (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

French Civil Protection[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm still new to the community. Upgrades, advice, reviews and rating are welcome!

Thanks, Kvasyrr (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Architecture of Angola[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I will improve it by looking the reviews. It shows the architecture of the Angola. It is interesting to review, by looking this it includes amount of interesting information.

Thanks, Colinlixiangji (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by KJP1[edit]

You've put a lot of work and effort into this. Well done for that. It's an interesting topic and certainly warrants an article on here. Some suggestions/ideas below.

  • Follow good examples. Find some similar articles, ideally of GA or FA standard, to get an idea of how they approach studies of national architectures. The portal for the Wikipedia Architecture project is a good place to start, Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and some like these, Architecture of Madagascar, Architecture of Norway could be helpful. The first uses a structure based on building materials, the second takes a historical approach.
  • Use of the first person. We don't write articles in the first person, e.g. "In this articles, I will discuss the architecture of Angola." This stuff needs to come out.
  • Prose - this needs some work. There are some errors and sometimes the meaning isn't clear, e.g. "The campaign began with a resumption of free fiction. The name is a photo coffee table book."
  • Structure - I don't think this quite works. The first section is about the 20th century but it is very general and doesn't tell me much about architecture in Angola. Also, what about pre-20th century construction? Then we get a section on cinemas. Sure, this has a place, but I doubt they're the most important part of Angolan architecture. Then the section on settlement patterns, while useful, doesn't tell me much about buildings. Then there's a section on 21st century plans and finally a bit on churches. I think you need to rethink the structure of the article.
  • References - refs. are king on Wikipedia. We like lots of them. As a minimum, every paragraph needs a cite. For an article on a country's architecture you will need a lot more than 7 to meet GA standard. Norway's got 40 and actually that's a bit light. I don't think it would make GA today as quite a lot of the sections are uncited.

Best of luck with working the article up. KJP1 (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

2019 Roland Garros[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be reviewed by someone who's more knowledgeable than me Please report any problems on the peer review talk page Thanks, Dzungnm Dzungnm (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Guri Weinberg[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs to be read through and edited in case of any grammatical or other errors. I also hope other editors will be able to supplement any information provided in this article, and add more sources, especially credible and reliable ones. Thanks in advance for all your help.

Thanks, Soumboom63 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

European Drag Racing Championship[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to ensure my article satisfies the six good article criteria for Wikipedia. Especially, the structure of the article and if the article is well writing. Thanks, ClaytonSquires (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Chinese traditional house types[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This article is talk about Chinese traditional house type, and concludes the characteristics of the architectures as well as description of main architecture types. Thanks, Ruoyudong26 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The disappearance of LeeAnna Warner[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first time writing a wikipedia article and want to make sure it is up to the best standard possible! Any constructive criticism on what needs to be changed would be greatly appreciated, especially regarding the formatting of the article as that was a little challenging.

Thanks, Alishajorji (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Coffee flour[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the language style seems like an advertisement for Coffee flour. Also, please do check for any odd sentences or grammatical mistakes.

Thanks, Evkgoh (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The changes in pearl milk tea[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, JENNYNICHKHUN (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Consumer awareness[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because �i want the article to be improved and checked mistakes…

Thanks, Quanmu Liu (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Rainbow Chip[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about the article and whether it is written well and neutral, but also if it is broad enough in coverage. I have some concerns regarding the fact I was unable to add any of the images I had regarding the product and its packaging, nutritional value and ingredients list.

Thanks, Nnshodan16 (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Geckop[edit]

Nnshodan16, I'm not going to fully review the article, but there are a few things I'd like to say:

  • First and foremost, Wikipedia's rules permit only articles about "notable" subjects to exist. You can read the rules regarding notability here. In general, the article should have several reliable sources in which the subject is covered in detail that are independent of the subject. The third and the fifth ones satisfy these requirements, so it should be alright.
  • The article relies heavily on primary sources that are not independent of the subject. This is a big problem, though I'm not sure what should be done about it. Can you perhaps use the Consumerist article more?
  • The Tori Avey reference doesn't seem relevant to this article.
  • The Walmart reference isn't reliable and the sentence that precedes it isn't encyclopedic.
  • The Consumerist reference doesn't validate any part of the sentence that precedes it. In fact, it says that Rainbow Chips look differently ("much cooler") from the alternative.
  • The spaces before the footnotes following the first sentences of the lead section and the general history section should be deleted.
  • The YouTube video in the sixth reference is currently inaccessible.
  • I assume the eighth reference (LinkedIn) establishes that Melissa Guarnaccia is a spokesperson of Betty Crocker (I can't access it as I don't have a LinkedIn account). However, she spoke in her capacity as marketing manager and seemingly described the company's official position, so I don't think the additional source is needed to describe her as a company spokesperson.
  • Section headings should be in sentence case.
  • in the consumer interaction section, the dates use different formats, neither of which is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Change them to May 22 and June 11.
  • "Consumer response" isn't a good name for a section about the discontinuation of the product. Given that it hasn't even been mentioned before, "discontinuation" might be a good name for this section even though it mostly covers the consumer responses to the said discontinuation.
  • I'm not sure I like all of the other section names either (especially "resurrection"). Do you have any alternative ideas for names for any of them?
  • The ingredients/nutritional value section is entirely unencyclopedic. I think it does the article more harm than good.
  • You should always refer to decades as "the 1980s" rather than "the 80's".
  • You should always use straight quotation marks and apostrophes. Replace all (“) and (”) marks with (") (say, “Bring back Rainbow Chip Frosting” should become "Bring back Rainbow Chip Frosting") and all (’) marks with (') (say, Johnson’s should become Johnson's).
  • The category you have added to the article is inappropriate as it is a category of lists rather than ordinary articles. I think this article should be in category:General Mills brands instead.

Note that this is not a thorough review despite its length, and the article will still need work after all of this. As for the issues you've had with adding pictures, could you please describe them? Note that the copyright status of images taken from the web may (and usually does) prohibit Wikipedia from using them. You'd have to take a picture of the product yourself, and the packaging itself may have copyright restrictions, so it'd have to be a picture of the product itself rather than the packaging. If you'd like to use a picture from the website of Betty Crocker or General Mills (whether of the packaging or the product itself), I suppose asking them to release it under an appropriate Creative Commons license can't hurt.

If you reply, please notify me. You can do that by adding a link to my user page somewhere in your comment (like I did at the start of this comment) and signing at the end of your comment by adding four tildes. If you're not sure how to do that, write [[user:Geckop|]] at the start of your reply and ~~~~ at the end of your reply.

I hope I've been of help! Geckop (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Salt crust[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first one

Thanks, Chocobit98 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Coal in Turkey[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because so far I have written most of it so need a second opinion on how to improve it.

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Big Red Machine (Justin Vernon & Aaron Dessner)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want advice on the style of writing, and the relevance of the information included. I want suggestions to edit, and perhaps suggestions for a better layout of information.

Thanks, Denielhooch (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Zhong An[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like some input on how to improve the article better such as what other areas I should cover for this topic (if there are more sub-headings I should have) or anything else relevant to improve it. Thanks, Yenit3425 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating it for featured article status in December (or earlier if its possible). I believe its a pretty solid article at this point but it needs reviewing about (mainly) the sources, as well as any other concerns that may exist. An image review would also be great. All commentary here is appreciated!

Thanks, NØ 05:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Geography and places[edit]

Olancha Earthquake Sequence (2009)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need further help with grammatical errors alongside some information, particularly on liquefaction could be further analysed.

Thanks, Jcol4533 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… because I wish to promote the article to GA status or FA status. So far, this article looks good.

Thanks, --ZKang123 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros[edit]

Here's an interesting character, who was, arguably, a Lancastrian before there was a House of Lancaster. Took an active part in the 1399 revolution, but seems generally to have worked hard and been a bit of a goody two shoes...I hope the article is more interesting than I've made him sound! All comments and suggestions welcome. Thank you all! ——SerialNumber54129 08:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Darwin High School[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is detailed enough and if any improvements can be made upon it. There may also be grammatical changes required which were over looked upon the editing process.

Thanks, Rofl2018 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Human rights in Ireland[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm unsure as to if I've chosen relevant information. Would appreciate advice on chronology and historical background! Thanks, Gtyn8856 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

History of Socialism in Germany[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have concerns regarding the neutrality of the article, and the disputed originality of my claims, as well as the relevance of the SPD sections.

Thanks, Immafinnabustanedit (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A few things stand out:
  1. The formatting of the citations is incorrect. As a result, this article technically cites no sources.
  2. There are many sections, but most of of them are very short. Consider consolidating them.
  3. The tone and choice of words makes this page read like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article (an example of this being sentences starting with "Indeed, ...")
  4. The lead (the paragraph that precedes any section) is quite long. The lead should be concise and touch on subjects that will later be mentioned during the article, providing a helpful overview of the article, but not act as an introductory paragraph or thesis statement. Both the number of paragraphs and the size of the lead need significant changes.
  5. The SPD is frequently cited as the primary example of socialism in Germany, but the SPD (social democratic party) believes specifically in social democracy, which is often regarded as a form of welfare-state style capitalism, not necessarily a socialist or post-capitalist philosophy, and it is very out of place to group it with mentions of Marxism. "Socialism" is a very loaded term with many wildly different definitions ranging from anarchism to communalism to progressivism to socialism in one country, etc. This is not to say that the term can't be used, but it should be used clearly with sufficient context. In the current state of the article, it's unclear what is and is not to be included or excluded in the history of socialism in Germany. Other terms such as "communism" and "democratic socialism" can also refer to different ideologies depending on the context, so just be sure that there is no ambiguity.
  6. This page has no in-text links to other articles.
  7. There are no images in the article; images, while not necessary, are recommended.
  8. Please read the Manual of Style. This article may need to be thoroughly rewritten to comply with it.
  9. This article has no categories.
  10. The following recommendations are from the automatic peer review tools. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  11. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.
  12. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  13. You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
I have added a number of these notes to the article. I may recommend that - for the time being - the article is moved back into draft space.
Cheers, Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the page back into draft space with a redirect. The redirect may or may not be deleted by another editor. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Military history of Nigeria during WWII[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is now a stand alone-history for Nigeria throughout WWII. Any feedback on the Homefront/after the war sections would be appreciated.

Thanks, J.Hohne (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

  • My main observation is that this article is largely limited by the sources it uses. Generally speaking, website posts and articles will only give a cursory amount of information about topics as a large and deep as this one.
    • Pulse and Vanguard News are both online Nigerian newspapers and can be considered to be generally reliable. South African History Online is of limited usefulness, but it's reliable.
    • I share Peacemaker's concerns about being of dubious reliability.
    • The source does not at all discuss the information that it's supposed to be supporting in the article.
    • The British Military History website was once apparently "affiliated" with some reliable publishing houses, but I'd be reticent in relying upon its information, as it appears to be the research of a hobbyist.
  • In order to properly flesh out certain sections of this article, book sources are essentially a must. I recommend Africa and World War II and The British Empire and the Second World War. These books include discussion on:
    • Nigeria's relations with neighboring colonies during the war, especially Vichy territory
    • War production, including specific commodities and figures
    • The opinions of the Nigerian intelligentsia
  • This article hints at WWII shaping nationalism in Nigeria, which is incredibly important. More specifics on this matter need to be discusses, such as which group became the most motivated by the war to seek self-determination (e.g. the veterans, the farmers, or the intelligentsia, etc.).

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, J., thanks for your efforts so far. I have made a few minor tweaks to the article, and added some tags where I think references are required. I have also recommended on the talk page that the article be listed over at WP:GOCE for a more thorough copy edit. In terms of referencing, one improvement that I think you could make is to include the page numbers for the book citations you have provided. For example, take a look at how it is done in the Military history of Australia during World War II article.

Additionally, I think some of the images may need the licencing or sourcing adjusted. For instance File:Nigerian recruits.jpg. You have listed this as your "own work", which is essentially stating that you were there at the time and physically took the photograph yourself. Unless this is actually correct (which seems unlikely given how long ago it was), then you need to adjust the source to list the book or website you have taken it from. Additionally, the licencing will probably need to be adjusted if it has come from somewhere else, as in that case you aren't the copyright holder, so cannot use the "self|cc-by-sa-4.0" licence. The same applies to File:Nigerian Cocoa Farmer.jpg. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesse H. Jones[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article is expanded, there are more images, and most important of all, the sourcing is improved. Please evaluate it against a B-checklist and suggest preparations for a GA review. What needs to be culled? What needs elaboration? Can the organization be improved? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceremonies of ancient greece[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first wikipedia page. I am doing it for a university project and would greatly appreciate pointers on how to improve the article. I already have certain ideas about where to expand it into new topics so i'm looking more for ways to improve the writing and presentation etc. or possible mistakes i might have made.

Thanks, Drakmonde

Trinbagonian nationalism[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to have the citation and manual of style reviewed along with the general writing of the article

Thanks, SammyJ1234 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles T. Webber[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is ready to be published. There are some areas which I think could be improved, as outlined below.

I am concerned about the fact that I could not find much information to include in the 'Early Life' sub-section. As well as this, I think that the whole 'Biography' could be improved -- I think perhaps it is too broad and that I did not transition between the different sub-sections very well. Compared to other sections ('Contributions to the Artistic Scene in Cincinnati', for example), I think I did not include enough relevant information. However, I did have trouble finding anything else to include, so I was hoping for some guidance regarding this issue.

Aside from this, I also had a bit of trouble figuring out a way to present the information from a neutral point of view, due to the fact that I have written about a public figure, and included biographical information. For this in particular, I hope to receive feedback which outlines whether or not my article is neutral enough, and how I can fix it if it is not.

Overall, I hope to receive feedback about the quality of my article in terms of writing, and with the references I have used. I would also like to know if there is anything I could change to make the article flow more nicely (perhaps merging some of the sections I have included, or adding more sections to add clarity).

Thanks, Catk6193 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Law in Nazi Germany[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know if I need to add any specific areas/events/laws. Also how the article flows and whether it is an appropriate first draft.

Thanks, Aclark98 (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sinicization of the Manchus[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, XQ97 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump’s speech in Warsaw, Poland[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like others to come in and contribute ideas and information!

Thanks, Yizhi Wei (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yizhi Wei: May I suggest that you craft your articles in draft or user space, and use the articles for creation process? ——SerialNumber54129 06:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Mao Sui[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think there may be some mistakes about reliability in my article, because there is very little information about 'Mao Sui' on internet and history book, the only famous event is 'Mao Sui Zi Jian'. My writing style may also not be very academic, I am still the beginner of Wikipedia writing. Therefore, if you can help me to correct these mistakes and add more information about Mao Sui, I will be really if there are mistakes in my article, please point out and correct it. Thanks, Yuweihua666 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a newly created article and I would like to ensure it adheres to the wiki guidelines. I would also like to know if I need to add more information or sources etc.

Thank you, Lella32 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Tang He[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

The section I want to be reviewed is the passage before heading "2.5	Conquer North of China" and the references list. I want to know if I should reconsider about headings and the structure of the article, and how should I make a good heading. Also, I am not sure if citations and references in the article is appropriate. What should I do to improve them. Have I meet any of the six good article criteria? What should I do to meet them.

Thanks, Zhenghanzhou (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

South Polar Times[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

The article belongs to study related to Antarctic exploration and the media/communications field since it is a magazine.

I would like this article to be reviewed for the purposes of feedback regarding the Manual of style requirements. Feedback on the lead section, particularly the appropriateness of linking to other articles is sought. Feedback regarding the lead section's effectiveness in explaining why the topic is notable would also be helpful.

Further, any recommendations of appropriate media content (photos or other) to incorporate into the article would ensure the article is more in line with wikipedia style.

Finally, the topic fits under the wikiproject magazines. Any comments in ensuring this work complies with that wikiproject would also be helpful.

Thanks, JemMcL2018 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Morocco in World War II[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some templates, I have worries it is not set out properly or that my explanations may be too complex. I am also wondering what wikiproject it would belong to.

Thanks, 113ADP68 (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, 113ADP68, thank you for your efforts so far. I had a quick look and have a few suggestions. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the topic, so I can only give you general advice, I'm sorry: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • the lead probably needs expansion to adequately summarise the whole article - probably two or three paragraphs in this instance
  • in the lead, link "Axis", "Allies", "Vichy France" etc.
  • link Vichy France on first mention
  • in the References, avoid using all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • where Churchill and Roosevelt -- add full names and wikilinks on first mention, and explain who these people were
  • In the lead up to the beginning of World War II --> "In the lead up to World War II"
  • Sultan Mohammad V: --> remove the colon here as it isn't necessary
  • same as above for Medical care on the Moroccan frontier:
  • are there any photographs that can be added? I would suggest adding one to the lead, and a couple more in the body of the article. Commons is likely to have some
  • I suggest maybe adding an Aftermath section to discuss the lasting impacts, if there were any (e.g on society, the economy, etc)
  • wikilink "Operation Torch" on first mention
  • General Schaeffer: full name and wikilink (if one exists) on first mention
  • many rapings and killings --> "many rapes and murders"?
  • in the mediterranean theatre --> capitalise "Mediterranean"
  • Mount Cassino --> "Monte Cassino"? Also, I suggest wikilinking the article on the battle here
  • add a wikilink for "Gustav line"...overall, I think there are probably quite a few terms or names that need wikilinking in the article, so I would suggest checking for these throughout (add a link first time the term or name is mentioned, if the subject is notable)
  • overall, I'd suggest you list the article for a copy edit over at WP:GOCE, so that you can get another set of eyes on it
  • anyway, that's it from me. Good luck with developing it further.

Connecticut Witch Trials[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for review to ensure there are no gramamr mistakes. I would also like for reviewers to make sure my paraprhasing is done properly, to avoid any possiblity of plagarism. I would aslo appreicate some suggestion to find more images related to the actual events. Any sources that can help fill out the thinner sections of the article, particularly for the "hartford" and 'witchcraft & the modern day" sections. I would also like for someone to make surt my refrecning and citations are being done correctly.

Thanks, Jack-Donohoe (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Engel's Pause[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am new to Wikipedia and would like to get some feedback from more experienced users on my article, and whether it abides by the Good Article Criteria. Please have a look at the content and see if there is overuse of economic jargon, if the article is difficult to understand, if it is not verifiable, etc. Thank you so much and I appreciate it!

Thanks, Garnet.h2 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Garnet.h2 - great start on the article! I've taken a quick look over it and here are some improvements that I think need to be made to it:
  • Refs should be placed directly after the punctuation and directly after each other. There shouldn't be any spacing between a period and a ref, or between two refs.
  • Common nouns in headings should be decapitalized per MOS:HEAD
  • The article currently contains no links to other articles, and is thus a dead end page. You should add some links to the article, but try to follow at least the basics of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
  • Many of the sources call this the Engels Pause, without the apostrophe. Is this the more common name? If so, then you should move the article to that title. At the least, you should mention somewhere in the article that some sources call it this.
  • None of the online sources you have are actually linked to, due to nowiki tags being around them, which is probably the result of using the Visual Editor to create this page. To fix this problem, go into the source editor and remove all of the <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags around the refs.
  • You should add categories to the article. HotCat is a semi-automated tool which makes this easier. You can install it in the gadgets section of your preferences.
  • If there's nothing to add in the external links section, just remove it. It isn't very helpful to have an empty external links section.
  • It would be nice to get the article deorphaned, by introducing links from relevant articles.
  • With the length of the article you could probably expand the lead section some more.
That should give you some basic ideas of what you can do. Overall, it looks very nice, especially considering how new you are. This may seem complicated, so if you have any questions, don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I withdraw my request.LeGabrie (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a article that goes through a lot of change. It did have a failed FAC some time ago and it would be worth getting some baseline feedback in case it goes for a second attempt anytime soon. It carries GA and Milhist A-class status from previous versions so should be robust, but it does prompt controversy

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Malaspina family[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I finished translating it from Italian just now and since I'm new to this Wikipedia stuff I was keen on getting someones opinion/improvement on the changes I have made! I hope I can learn from u guys! Thanks, Spaicol (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, two quick comments:
  • I was initially baffled by the line the marquisate of Massa and lordship of Carrara, then Duchy of Massa and Carrara, and latterly Principality of Massa and Marquisate of Carrara in the first sentence. Would it be appropriate to just say Massa and Carrara, moving the information about their changing status to the Cybo-Malaspina or Malaspina of Fivizzano sections of the article? Otherwise, please consider adding an explanatory bit like 'which later became'. Then in this context would indicate 'at that time', but I think you meant it to indicate 'at a later time'; latterly is not typically used in this context.
  • For the paragraph in the Family's history section about different theories of the surname's origin, it would be helpful to provide a literal translation of 'Malaspina', to make obvious the significance of the death legend and bad-attitude legend.
Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Genericusername57 hey man, I followed your suggestions please check them out, also, if u have any other critiques to make id gladly oblige to work on a fix <3 Spaicol (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Irakli Tsereteli[edit]

This recently went through FAC and was closed with little comment. The coordinators there suggested someone, somewhere review it, so I'm bringing it here before I attempt another go at FAC. Any help is appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Stockton

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 September 2018, 13:25 UTC
Last edit: 7 October 2018, 21:18 UTC

Joseph "Diamond Jo" Reynolds[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded this article from a stub. I would like feedback on how well it meets the B-standard and if it merits a GA-review. My main concern is the length of the article, though I suspect I may have exhausted the reliable sources on the subject. The article is thoroughly sourced, reasonably well-written, and stylistically consistent. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This needs more work than I expected. This edit [1] in 2015 added unsourced material, but I have now discovered its source: [2] (see pp. 207–208), revealing some possible COPYVIOs. This needs a serious re-write, so I will not waste more of anyone else's time. Thanks Eddie891 for your feedback. I also need to do some more reading on Diamond Jo. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


  • Lede can use some expansion, by a few sentences.
  • Perhaps add what year he married Mary Morton.
  • The article seems to have some WP:NPOV problems, with phrases like "The finest mill in the region"
  • "Ever after he was called "Diamond Jo"." the sentence just sounds a bit odd, perhaps re word
  • I'd like to see more information about the shipping business, if it's what he was most known for. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Eddie891: Starting with the most critical issue, point No. 3...There was part of the text I kept working around because I could not locate the source, even to validate the reference, which was incomplete. The language was stilted because some of those phrases are repetitions from Peterson, Willliam J. "Joseph Reynolds" The Palimpsest 24:7 (1943), p. 207 (long download times, so be patient if you can): [3]. I just deleted those sentences and the associated citation.
  • Marriage to Mary Morton: all of the sources I have located so far are vague on this point.
  • Looking for additional sources for information about his transportation businesses.
  • Will edit to address points 1 and 4. Thanks for your help, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

William Pūnohu White[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have been trying to get this through FAC but have only gotten a few supports. They have failed each time due to not enough people not commenting/reviewing. Instead of putting this on FAC for a fourth time and playing the waiting game there. I can’t anyway. I am starting another peer review as recommended by a coordinator to ask people to look into this article and review it for another possible attempt at FAC. Image reviews and source reviews have been done. I just need help or input for prose and other areas of improvement.

Thanks, KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick table comment
  • The table could do with reformatting to give it appropriate row and column scopes as per MOS:DTT (a how-to guide to help meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS). If you have any issues following it, ping me back. Harrias talk 13:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS???KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Two quick comments:
1: The early life and family section gets a bit bogged down in pronouns, as it isn't immediately clear at several points whether 'him' or 'his' refers to White or to one of his relatives. Also, the information contained in the quotation from Ka Nupepa Kuokoa could be better incorporated into the text: I suggest beginning with the most distant, ancient one of White's notable Hawaiian relatives and moving forward through the others up to him, rather than first mentioning his grandmother, then his great-grandfather, then that great-grandfather's own complex genealogy. Perhaps consider creating a new article about Kaiakea, if you have access to sources about him and consider him sufficiently notable.
2: Much of the 1901 legislature section, while presumably important to Hawaiian history in general, seems to have little relevance to White in particular. Please consider trimming this section of unnecessary detail and making clear which faction White belonged to and what role he personally played in the acts of the legislature. I suggest that you remove the block quote, if the author is not specifically addressing White.Genericusername57 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ira T. Wyche

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 12 August 2018, 11:44 UTC
Last edit: 3 October 2018, 01:14 UTC

Louis Agassiz[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of copyediting.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment. There are a number of unreferenced statements and 'citation needed' comments. You really need to make sure that everything is properly referenced before asking editors to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware that I needed to do that. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 11 November 2018, 12:49 UTC
Last edit: 15 November 2018, 22:41 UTC


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to se how close it is to FA status. Oxalaia went pretty smoothly for a first time nomination, but Irritator/Angaturama has clearly grown much larger and has been more heavily discussed in palaeontological circles, so it will certainly take a lot more work. I've already listed it at the guild[4], It'll probably get started in the next couple days so that should take care of most of the prose and grammar issues.

Suggestions are much appreciated. As well as any sources I might have missed, can't be too comprehensive! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'll have a closer look soon, but seems the info on olfaction I brought up during the GA hasn't been added? I imagine I'll do a full review here and when done, I'll just support at the FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good! As for the olfaction info, it was added during the GA (check the second para of Paleobiology). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, seems I didn't find it because I searched for olfaction. Since this seems to be close to getting a copy edit, I'll wait until that is done, as there can be significant changes after. Also note that sometimes copy editors can change the meaning of sentences because they are unfamiliar with a subject, so take some of it with a grain of salt... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
By the way, by weird coincidence, after I expanded Baryonyx, it and Irritator are now the same size (82 kilobytes)...
Great work on expanding Baryonyx! It's certainly been beefed up since the last time I saw it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if there is something to say about spinosaurid palaeogeography here?
Definitely, though I seem to have trouble finding sources for that. Do you know of any relevant papers? I've seen various ones before but I keep forgetting about their names since I was looking for different info at the time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The evolution section in the Baryonyx article is pretty much just about that. I think there is something more specific about Brazilian taxa in some of those sources. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • One thing I noticed is that "obturator notch" (under the Postcrania section) could use an explanation, but I'm unable to find any online reference on what an obturator notch specifically is. Perhaps Jens Lallensack knows? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The definition is already in the glossary, see entry for pubis. Please let me know if you can understand it easily, otherwise I will try my best to make it clearer. I'm planning to put the glossary in article space quite soon, btw, so that articles can link directly to the definitions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I understood the definition perfectly, though I think my explanation ended up a bit convoluted in an attempt to make it shorter.[5] Not sure... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Transfusion dependent anemia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made this article for a university assessment and one of the requirements of the assessment is to publish an article to mainspace.

Thanks, Munchkaa (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Munchkaa I would like you to know that, although (I assume) you are paying your university fees, it's clear the teaching component has been outsourced to Wikipedia volunteers who are expected to do it for free. This entire article should be deleted and merged into Anaemia. Transfusion dependent anaemia describes anaemia that is transfusion dependent. It's not an actual pathological subtype. It's confusing and will waste the time of future editors to have this as a duplicate article. I would work on your other assignments who I hope are not being also outsourced to eg. Reddit or Yahoo Answers for marking. Yours, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bruun Rule[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the 'History', 'Criticism' and 'See Also' sections require elaboration to advance the quality of this article. The 'See Also' section needs particular attention, requiring references and possible concise explanations, however I am hesitant to add redlinks to any of the models.

Thanks, TortoiseCat (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hayes-Wheelright matrix[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like the "advantage" and "disadvantages" as well as the "the four stages" to be reviewed. Thanks, Thnyjmik (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard W. Cottle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want some advice to make this wiki article better. Especially for the "Contribution" part, I got some definitions for mathematics terms, but I don't know if I cited them correctly.

Thanks, Aki1995 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 October 2018, 23:02 UTC
Last edit: 12 November 2018, 16:32 UTC

Carlos F Barbas III[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the "Works" part and "Awards" part need improving. If you have any suggestions on how to deliver Carlos F. Barbas III's works and the awards he gained, please leave the message below.

Thanks, Freyr71 (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 19 October 2018, 12:50 UTC
Last edit: 16 November 2018, 04:40 UTC

Corneal button[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first Wikipedia article and wanted to make sure I followed all rules and regulations and any for advice from more experienced editors.

Thanks, Mncmt (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Cerebellar degeneration[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback on how I can improve the article. I would like to have the whole article reviewed, specifically 'signs and symptoms' in order to distinguish if any more information is needed on this topic.

Thanks, Stephanie021299 (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Enhydriodon dikikae[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if there is any other information that should be added.

Thanks, Koda8416 (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Per WP:WikiProject Palaeontology guidelines, this article should be merged back into the Enhydriodon genus article, which is extremely short anyway. Articles about prehistoric species should be kept at genus level, unless they are too long, which is certainly not the case here. Especially considering that most of what is written in the species article applies to the genus as a whole. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Canine Gallbladder Mucocele[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I just finished it and it would great if someone could check the grammar and vocabulary as well reviewing the accuracy of the article Thanks, Ausyd0814 (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Calcium cycle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because there is currently no page outlining the calcium cycle, its importance and how it impacts the world around us. It has been listen on the 'requested articles' page so its creation will help provide a useful resource for those interested and wanting to learn about the significance of the calcium cycle

Thanks, OLEsem2 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make sure it is an article of high quality worthy to be put on the wikipedia site.

Thanks, Eliashelou (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

DMH-11 Mustard[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first time writing a wikipedia article, and I am not completely confident in the format I have written this article. I would your opinion and help to point out errors in the article.

Thanks, Ssha0495 (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Bungonia national park[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… The overall article quality needs reviewing. If there are any suggestions for sections I should shorten or lengthen they would be appreciated. Additionally, if there any issues with terminology or referencing than please critique. Thanks, Ewanmaddog (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Neomammalian brain[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure that the information conveyed is understandable and concise for the reader.

Thanks, Bcush99 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Chremistica ochracea[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as this is my first ever article and I want to get comments and more guidance on my article so that I can improve it in the future. I find it hard to find sources that solely talk about this beautiful insect, so any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks!, --Izzatul Daud (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Rubidium azide[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that this article is as good as possible, and because I would like someone other than me to make sure of that.

Thanks, WhittleMario (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WhittleMario for your hard work in not only creating but also putting in a lot of edits on this page!

  • The paragraph lifted straight from the research paper doesn't add much and is confusing to the average reader. It would be better if it were summarized in the traditional WP style.
  • The word 'azide' is used throughout the page, it would help if there was a description of azide in the intro, alongside the existing link to the azide page.
  • If possible, more sources should be found to try to beef up the article.
  • The description of the structure change and the Structure section in general may be too technical for most readers, try to keep the same information but make sure that it is accessible.
  • If possible, a picture of the chemical would be a good addition (make sure to follow WP:Image Use Policy). A representation of its atomic structure would also be a good visual.

Language and literature[edit]

Mortal wound[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would be grateful if I could get a class and importance rating for my article. Thank you so much, --MeerkatShadow (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Poetic devices[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would someone to proofread the content.

Thanks, Sarahjiayin (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Epiphany (literature)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I started this for my university assignment and it is still an ongoing process and there is still more to add, but I would appreciate some feedback on what i have done so far

Thanks, USYDGW99 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Red Pyramid[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is only listed as Start class. I would like to know how I could improve it. --Boothsift (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Boothsift (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Today is Friday[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like more detailed feedback on my article related to the Literature Project. Also, I'd be interested in attaching this article to the Wikiproject for American Literature.

Thanks, Jedidiah evans (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hypertext Magazine[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need help with whether my referencing is corrent, and ensuring my article is in the right format.


Arab American Literature[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about whether I am abiding by all the MoS guidelines, and whether I have not covered adequate grounds for an appropriate literature Wikipedia article.

Thanks, JayMah (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Childhood in Literature[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I like to ascertain the clarity of the writing and receive suggestions about the content in order to expand the breadth of coverage.

Thanks, USYDBM99 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Gender novels[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in order to get professional feedback and revision.

Thanks, Alexb99.ab24091999 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

An Artist of the Floating World[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made some major changes through including sections such as: Publication History, Autobiographical Elements, Novel Structure (how it is formatted not the plot line), characters, Major ThemesLiterary Significance and Reception and Awards. I would like any feedback/improvements that I could make in order to make this article better as well as if these changes are beneficial.

Thanks, Eboy763 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Arkady Leokum[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was listed as a stub. (It was just an abbreviated/incomplete list of the well-known "Tell Me Why" book series that were seminal and well-loved by kids in the 1960s and 1970s). I wrote the text for the article, using independent sourcing. As it turns out, Arkady Leokum had a full and brilliant advertising career in New York City. He was a playwright and novelist, too, and his stage plays were recorded and broadcast on PBS. The article would benefit as follows:

1) Special note about ONE sentence that can either be cut or saved.

I have asked source of this sentence (someone who created a Google Group for this, and posted several interesting links, including his obituary information) if she has a verifiable reference that can be used in the Wikipedia, as I cannot locate another.!topic/alt.obituaries/OnHLdAmQzbg

Sentence: "In the advertising world, Arkady Leokum may be best known for his slogan for the Chock full o'Nuts coffee ad campaign, "a slogan that pushed Chock full o'Nuts from a seventh-rank position to third," in what is considered America's toughest taste market, New York City: "Don't spend the extra money for this coffee . . . unless you're just plain crazy about good coffee!"

2) Edit any grammar (add/subtract) as needed. 3) Remove flags, so that the article becomes permanent. 4) Consider it for a Featured Article.

Thanks, Lettucecup (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup


  • Be careful about using a tone that is too promotion or unencyclopedic, particularly not without attribution - for example, who says that NYC is "considered America's toughest taste market"?
  • Biographical articles are typically organized in a more chronological way, with the lead as simply a summary of what is presented in the article body. Generally speaking, nothing should be in the lead that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. You're essentially using the lead like a Personal life section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nikkimaria. I have made changes -- your comments are useful and appreciated. The promotional language has been removed (it was in a quote, but I am awaiting to see if we can locate the original source attribution). If you can advise ... is there a next-step for removing the flags, moving it to article space, now that the article isn't any longer a stub? Lettucecup (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup

Hi Lettucecup, I'm not sure what you mean - it appears that the article is already in article space? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 581[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's capable of attaining FA status, I'm fairly sure it's coverage is comprehensive in any event. Shouldn't be too taxing for the passing editor either, I'm grateful for all suggestions.

Cheers, Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Oxyrhynchus Papyri! One for me, I think!

  • I would rework the lead. We don't find out until the second paragraph what P.Oxy.581 actually is; the lead should tell us such a key piece of information sooner. (I am obviously biased because I wrote it, but Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1231 tells us in the second sentence that "The papyrus preserves fragments of the second half of Book I of a Hellenistic edition of the poetry of the archaic poet Sappho."). Something as simple as:

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 581 (P. Oxy. 581 or P. Oxy. III 581) is a papyrus fragment written in Ancient Greek, apparently recording the sale of a slave girl.

  • "consisting of 17 textual lines": simply "consisting of 17 lines of text"
  • "The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a collection of rare manuscripts discovered at an ancient landfill in Oxyrhynchus, modern-day Egypt"; okay, literally a manuscript is just something written by hand, but I feel like it normally connotes something rather more... complete... than the Oxyrhynchus papyri. I would instead have written "...are a collection of papyrus fragments..." (which is not ideal because of the repetition of Papyri/papyrus, but...)
  • "during both the Hellenistic Ptolemaic Kingdom (305 BC–30 BC)": does "Hellenistic" really add any information when we are given both "Ptolemaic" and the dates? Especially as P.Oxy.581 is very decidedly not Hellenistic.
  • "the fragment signifies the conclusion of a longer message." The fragment doesn't merely signify, it is the conclusion of a longer piece of writing.
  • "the President and Committee of the Graeco-Roman Branch voted to present the papyrus to University College, Dundee[...] It is the only Oxyrhynchus Papyri currently held by the university's collection" Do we know why it was sent to Dundee?
  • "mounted between glass": phrasing seems a bit odd to me. I would say "to be mounted in glass" or "to be mounted between panes of glass", but not "to be mounted between glass".
  • "[h]ouse-born slaves could not legally be sold for the purpose of export beyond the borders of Egypt.": what is a house-born slave? and how do we know that the P.Oxy.581 slave was one such? (This is a symptom of a potential problem with this whole paragraph, which is that it seems to be based on sources who are talking about roman slavery generally, not P.Oxy.581, or even slavery in Roman Oxyrhynchus, specifically.)

Hope some of this is helpful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks so much for your helpful comments, apologies for taking so long to respond! I've taken on board your reccomendations - hopefully my implementation has done them justice. Let me know! Curlymanjaro (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Wedding superstitions[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • I am having a few issues with how I think it should be set up and laid out... I am concerned with euro-centricity in terms of the superstition bc a lot of them seem to have originated in medieval Europe / ancient Rome. Should I put all the Ancient Rome origin superstitions underneath Italy, or have a 'general' European section that could include the ancient roman superstition and how to evolved in medieval Europe?

Thanks, Sydgal (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because of the class and I am looking to improve verbiage of the article.

Thanks, Pawilsong (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Aesthetic judgement[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in order to receive any advice on how to improve the article, and if it needs to be reformed in order to better comply with the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks, Denihox (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a level 3 vital article and deserves GA. I've been trying to promote it to GA since a couple of years now. It would be highly appreciated if you could pinpoint improvements or tag them in the article itself, whichever can prevent GA rejections. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 06:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Festival of India[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need constructive feedback to enhance the article. Sections that need work include more example of these festivals happening across the globe, the controversy section is very limited and needs serious enhancement. Better sources can be found to further the discussion of the controversy.

Thanks, Manon1998 (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Medieval aesthetics[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am a university student who has had to write an article for Wikipedia.

Thanks, Maimonides Marxe (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Postmodern mathematics[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the topic "Postmodern Mathematics" meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia and is one of the requested articles of Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if the the page is peer reviewed so it can meet the criteria for a good article and thus rank as such. I would participatory be grateful if the reviewers could suggest edits, and other material that needs to be added to the article.

Thanks, Taiba.ebrahimi (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ethics of animal research[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I picked it up from the philosophy projects but it didn't have a clear cut style. I ended up formatting it in the general/ introductory style from the philosophy style guide. I hope that works. The article is not as long as it could be becasue I opted to stick to the point rather than elaborate as that seemed to fit the style. I'm sure there's plenty that needs work and look forward to seeing the page grow.

Thanks, ExistentialMariachi (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hobbes's moral and political philosophy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm concerned about the scope of the article (whether it is broad enough in its coverage). There is a substantial amount of writing already on aspects of Hobbes's philosophy so I want to make sure that the article presents a broad enough view of his moral and political philosophy. Also want to ensure that the article is well-written and clear in its expression. Because a lot of the ideas are quite complex, I'm not sure if they're being explained clearly enough or in a logical manner.

Thanks,Echidi (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Postmodern Mathematics[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am currently doing a course on Wikipedia for my major in university and as a requirement,we are asked to make a Wikipedia article that can rate as a good article. I would appreciate it if the reviewers reviewed my article and gave me feedback. I also think that the article "Postmodern Mathematics" meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia and would be a useful article to add to the Wikipedia community and thus would really appreciate the reviewers help in making it a good article.

Thanks, Taiba.ebrahimi (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Quiet Revolution (Republic of Ireland)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

"Quiet Revolution" in Ireland was a requested article. I think it might need layout improvement. I think phrasing might be complex / confusing / unclear at times. I’m not sure if more information could be added into a new section?

Thanks, Mle4028 (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Polanyi’s paradox[edit]

I've listed my article on Polanyi's paradox for peer review because I want to expand my discussion further. Could you please give me some suggestions?

Thanks, Handslv (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Handslv: I made several copy edits, mostly concerning formatting. Sometimes I need to review the WP:MOS, and maybe this would also be helpful to you. I would suggest trying for cleaner copy before submitting an article for peer review. This is an interesting article and most of the article seems to be appropriately sourced, though it could be improved by replacing edits sourced by primary sources with reliable secondary sources. Several times the article used Polanyi's work as a source, which in this context, would be a primary source. So these parts of the article appear to be original research, even if they are correct descriptions. It also looks like OR in the description of Gilbert Ryle, for example. As you work on expanding the article, please consider addressing these other issues. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC) edited once by Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what is needed to get this up to FA status.

Thanks, Sir Joseph (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Social sciences and society[edit]

Slovak Three

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Watch review
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 13 November 2018, 11:32 UTC
Last edit: 14 November 2018, 13:42 UTC

Human sexual promiscuity[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Apr12m (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC) hi, this is the article about human sexual promiscuity, if anyone can give me some advice, i am really happy to improve it. thanks.

Scandinavian law[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first time writing an article for Wikipedia and would like feedback as to where I can improve. Please note this is the draft version and I will be adding onto the article over the next couple of days - including references and content. Suggestions regarding my writing style, structure or any useful links/information you may have regarding the Scandinavian law will be very helpful. Any feedback and comments will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sv.oles (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The Masters Champions Dinner[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

The article is relatively new, and whilst it has been already reviewed, it might need some more grammatical and language editing Thanks, Serby1986 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Myanmar peace process[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it is of a high enough standard as an article. I would also like to know whether or not the layout of the article is okay.

Thanks, Gcon5054 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Australian Chinese cuisine[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believed this is an important and unique topic to discuss. It covers a variety of key aspects including culture, identity and others. Furthermore, I believed it is notable enough as it was listed in the Requested Articles Page.

I would also like to point out that this is only a draft; I just wanted to see my progress and whether or not I am developing this article in the right direction. Feedback will be taken serious and I would edit this article so it meets all the guidelines required for Wikipedia.

Thanks, 1802v1807n (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Great start! It could benefit from a wider variety of sources, and to discuss the 'Chinese style' food dishes that became popular in the 1960s (per the ABC program Back in Time for Dinner: Think Women's Weekly recipes). Prominent Chinese Australian chefs like Kylie Kwong could also be mentioned. -- (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you seem to have replaced the article with another version in this edit, losing the pictures and fixes that have been added since you posted your first draft. -- (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Authoritarian Capitalism[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm not sure on if I've managed to successfully capture the tone of a wikipedia article, particularly in my examples section and contention sections, and how I might go about improving it. I'm unsure as to if my use of photos is appropriate and where it should be expanded or reduced. Unsure as to anything else I can add to the article and feel it's likely lacking in some areas. Also not sure if I've gone about covering the overlap with State Capitalism adequately and in an appropriate manner. Thanks, Harkde (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because the F2 Freestylers are one of the largest internet sporting personalities in the United Kingdom and believe that they are of genuine notability, as they have over 8 million YouTube subscribers and a large following on social media.

Thanks, Chrisball1708 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Poverty in Algeria[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am writing this for a university course and would like some feedback on my article. It is not complete yet and there are still sections what I would like to add but some feedback would be greatly appreciates.

Thanks, Willandmac (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

First Nations Workers Alliance[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Artsandsocialwork (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Algeria and poverty[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as I have created this for a university assessment and wanted to make sure it doesn't violate any wikipedia rules or if it needs any additional information! Thank you in advance

Thanks, Christopher White 98 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

David Francis Hoffman[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if my perspective is suffiencently neutral, and the language and information used is precise and to the point, rather than irrelevant and wafting

Thanks, Jackmacwood (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first time creating a Wikipedia article draft as a university assignment. So I would like some help with feedbacks to ensure this meets the quality requirement.

Thanks, Perks of writing (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sociology in Japan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am particularly concerned for the referencing for the "development" section as most knowledge are obtained from the encyclopedia alone. I'm wondering if a wider range of references is needed for supporting the information.

Thanks, S.Zhang18 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Spontaneous trait inference[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because feedback on areas in the article that are in need of improvement would be greatly appreciated, especially in terms of phrasing, so that good and accurate work can be eventually published. This was a requested topic taken from the wikipedia requested article page. In regards to the article itself, further information regarding measurement of spontaneous trait inference, applications and issues, are still to come at a later date. Thank you! Thanks, TnaanaK (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Algeria and Poverty[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because there is no page currently like it on wikipedia, and I wanted to make sure the article doesn't violate any wikipedia outlines! I also want to make sure all sources are accurate and suitable for wikipedia standards. Any additional information, such as the effects of poverty on the mindset of Algerians, would improve the article, however I couldn't find any information regarding this topic, so feel free to edit and add in any information you deem necessary!

Thanks a lot for your time, Christopher White 98 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Purnell Model for Cultural Competence[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first article I have published to Wikipedia and would like some feedback to improve the overall quality. Some areas that I would like to be reviewed on (especially in terms of “The Purnell Model” section) include: the overall style and layout, the standard of the prose, clarity of writing, and if there are any issues in terms of the manual of style that I have been oblivious to. Overall I want to ensure that others can understand the article, so any comments even general ones would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Aimee.ball (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Rat Farming[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Maxmeares (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Community Services (SCS)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is first being published. Comments on how it is written and formatting would be very appreciated.

Thanks, A.ivkovic (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semantic Amnesia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to gain more insight and feedback on the content, and perhaps any suggestions on ways to improve it.

Thanks, Orchid2018 (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Moldova–Transnistria relations[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see whether this article is of a high enough standard.

Thanks, Top516 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

National Reconstruction Front (Ecuador)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am a first time user of Wikipedia and would appreciate the feedback of other editors who are more experienced than me. I would also appreciate feedback on the content and structure of my article: How can the information be improved? what else is missing? What other information, tools and resources can improve my article? The article would interest editors who are knowledgeable about Ecuadorian politics between the 1970s and on-ward.

In the article talk page I have outlined some potential areas of improvement:

- Translation issues

- external links

- Media to include in article

- The role of the National Reconstruction Front in advancing neoliberalism in Ecuador

- What is the relationship between the Partido Social Cristiano (Social Christian Party) and Guayaquil businessmen

Thanks, Unamaduraverde91 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that the information contained in the article is verifiable and as accurate as possible, which can be difficult in areas of this nature (sociology, religion etc.). Furthermore, I would also like to have the objectivity of the writing verified to avoid any bias and/or opinionated writing.

Thanks, Wcha0851 (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Top-Line Growth[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I believe it needs work on structure and content. I am unsure if some parts should be combined or broken down further. The article also needs work on streamlining content, I am unsure if all the included content is relevant. Perhaps too much detail in the strategies section.

Thanks, Roy the border collie (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

McGinty v Western Australia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need review of current written work, as it is a WIP

Thanks, Jjer8356 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Poverty in Kenya[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make sure the accuracy and readability of this new article and get ideas about how to improve this article.

Thanks, Christina Christinallliu (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Son preference in China[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Chinese son preference is a form of gender bias. However, limited research has conducted on the factors that led to the phenomenon patriarchal in China. However, except for the last section, I haven't finished this Wikipedia article. I hope that I can get useful suggestions in my details and the title of all sections. I will add more details as possible as I can to make the article better. regards Thanks, Ellin777 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

ISIL in Bangladesh[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first time composing and publishing a wiki article. A review of the layout and the breath and detail of the content would be very helpful. In particular, are the sections within the Chonology too brief? I wasn't sure how much detail to go into for these events.

Thanks, Kninss (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Distributional effects[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Chenzhenwill (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Substantive equality[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want some feedback on the writing style/prose and referencing used throughout my article. I am also a bit concerned about the formatting. This is for a university subject.

Thanks, Jsim2008 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Lane Murdock[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like thoughts on the article's tone - ensuring it is neutral. I'd also like reviews on the last two sections: 'Responses' and 'Continuing Advocacy'. Any sections that you think I could add more to? Also, have the images been correctly cited?

Thanks, Verseaille (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Human Rights in Cote D'Ivoire[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some guidance as to how I can improve upon my paragraphs.

Thanks, G Blackford (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of New South Wales[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like help adhering to the Wikipedia Manual Style. I think that my citations need improvement and also the structure of the page probably needs to be revised. Also how do I connect this to the Wikiproject Australian law

Thanks, Bofn8828 (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Human rights in Sweden[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get peer feedback on my draft article. An overview of the prose and correct grammar used would be beneficial. I am unsure about the section on human rights influencing Swedish foreign policy. I am also unsure on the photo used (UN Secretary general) and whether I should include a section on important human rights activists in Sweden.

Thanks, JAMGLAM (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kiki Sanford[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it's no longer a start class, and if it is need assistance in figuring out how to improve it. I do feel it's substantially complete.

Thanks, Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1995 University of Maryland conference on crime and genetics[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's decent now but not good enough to pass GA, and I want feedback that I can use to build it up to where it could pass a GA nomination.

Thanks, IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I peer-reviewed and edited this article. The content was well-presented and seemingly well-supported with both information and sources. The phrasing was in need of conciseness, though, particularly needing removal of inefficient phrasing that states the obvious e.g. As a result of this revised scope vs After the change in scope

obvious or redundant extensions to the point of the sentences. e.g. After the conference ended, a report based on the talks (removed: that were) given

Best regards! Also sorry if I put this review in the wrong place! TheTiksiBranch (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Makassar mayoral election, 2018[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to get it to GA status - it's really uncommon for a none of the above option to win with several hundred thousand voters.

Thanks, Juxlos (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the article still needs much expansion, especially the aftermath section. What happened after that? Since the winner is none of the above, who will be the mayor of Makassar before an election will be held in 2020? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has considerable importance as one of the worst examples of systemic abuse by UK police; I have much expanded it but need some feedback about how to get it to a decent level.

Thanks, Jim Killock (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

This is just my impression from a very quick look. Since this article contains contentious material about living people, it's important that all facts are referenced with a citation at the end of each paragraph. In addition, you need to use ref={{sfnref|publisher|date}} with some of your citations (those with no author) in order to make the sfn template link properly (see my article Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz for examples).

The lede needs to be edited to fit MOS:LEDE (no more than four paragraphs). Some of the sections are quite short; consider adding information or merging sections. (Sometimes it is suitable to have a paragraph on each subtopic, rather than different sub-sub sections.) I suggest that you split off the lists into a different article, perhaps List of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad cases. Catrìona (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Catrìona, I have made most of those changes including moving the lists to a new page, shortening the lede and merging sections and adding information. I will do the citations later, this is simple enough. If anyone has further feedback I would be very grateful. Jim Killock (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

California housing shortage[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in the topic (though I didn't write this article), and I want to know what's missing from it before I shoot for a GA. Could it use charts or graphs? A different arrangement of the relevant information?

Thanks, grendel|khan 07:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The article has major problems with bias, emphasizing one side of a political divide instead of telling the reader about all the views found in the literature. It jumps to conclusions and makes sweeping statements not supported by the mainstream sources. It takes the stance of anti-regulation commentators and presents their opinions in Wikipedia's voice, as if that stance is the absolute truth. So if the article is nominated for Good Article it ought to be quick-failed. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, I have to agree with Binksternet. It has also been argued that demand for housing in California is just too high to be met, even with deregulation. The picture is more complex than is presented here. Catrìona (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Foreign aid for gender equality in Jordan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can make it complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. Thus I want to know if the article provides a complete picture of how the field of "gender equality" funding in Jordan is being addressed as well as connects to the broader picture of development aid in Jordan.

Thanks, D.Thompson (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been here long enough. I'll print it out and take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
OK ... sorry it took so long, but as you can see I did a light copy edit that addressed some issues, particular some areas where the English still has a non-native feel (i.e. unusual prepositions used, the definite article used where I, as a native speaker, would not).
Some more specific issues:
  • As noted by the tag, the intro is far too short even for what the article has become. It reads as if it were still the stub. As you expand an article you must also expand the intro to reflect the expansion.
  • Generally the prose, my efforts at copyediting notwithstanding, still has a very dry institutional feel to it, more appropriate to what the entities might write in their annual reports or on their websites. Rewrite it to make it more what we expect an encyclopedia article for the general population to sound like.
    • You need also to decide whether you will use US or Commonwealth spellings. Most of the spellings ("labour") and usage ("whilst") suggest the latter, which is actually what you'd expect in this context. However, about 12 times by my browser's "find" count, the article uses "organization", with a minority of "organisation". Not all of those are in proper names. One or the other.
  • You might want to subdivide the programs section into governmental and non-governmental ones.
  • Lastly it would be nice to see what results the various programs have gotten, and what reaction this might have stirred up domestically in Jordan. Have the agencies reported on this? Have the sort of news agencies that cover this sort of thing? (Independent sourcing would be great).

I hope this is helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


List of contenders in men's major golf tournaments 2018[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to become a featured list and I would like to know if more experienced editors share that view. I welcome any and all constructive feedback as I consider this to be primarily a learning process. Please feel free to ask me about anything that may be unclear and I will do my best to assist.

Thanks, Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I hate the use of "contenders". It makes it sound like a boxing match. "Qualifiers" seems more suitable to me and more accurate. User:Tewapack has been maintaining a somewhat similar list in his own space for a number of years (see User:Tewapack/2018 Majors results and back to 2009), so I suppose my main concern is whether the article is really useful. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Ha, ha! I agree with you, Nigej. It does sound like "seconds out" or, perhaps, "caddies out"! I will change it to "qualifiers" as you suggest but had better leave it alone for the moment while it's still in this PR process. Usefulness is one of the things I'd like advice on because it was a fun thing to do and it sort of got into my mind the full range of good players around now, but I do wonder if it's a bit "niche". I'll see what others have to say but you have expressed one of my own doubts there. Thanks very much. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]