Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
"Two of the tracks, "Fingerbib" and "Logan Rock Witch", had previously been for another album James was working on around the same period, titled Melodies from Mars, which remains officially unreleased." Needs a citation.
The "Critical Reception" section follows the "X said Y" pattern. WP:RECEPTION has great advice on how to avoid this. I would also suggest including general statements on the general consensus on the album ("Critics gave a moderately positive/generally positive reception to the album")
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not been reviewed properly in a number of years, and I would like to eventually promote this to FA status. It is currently a GA and has been since 2013. Its most recent FA nomination in 2021 closed without attention or support, and the 2018 peer review went unnoticed. I've spent the past few months improving this article in every way I can think of, so further input would be appreciated!
I have some scattered thoughts, but as a whole I don't think anything is wrong with the article. I am unfamiliar with anything regarding animation so forgive any potential ignorance.
Production section in general: Some of these paragraphs could be separated into a "style" section, and I think some things could be made clearer if there was a section noting the art/animation direction the show had. For example, "stylistic similarities" between this and The Powerpuff Girls would be easier to explain (e.g. "they had a stylistic similarities, such as [xyz lines, colors, etc.]."
Are there any sources describing how voice acting talent was cast? I know that articles on live-action movies and shows tend to describe the casting, but I am unsure if that is the practice for animation articles.
Development: does "six half-hours" mean "six half-hour episodes" or "six-and-a-half-hours" worth of animation?
Conception: This should probably be retitled "characters" or something similar because that's the focus moreso than the origin of the premise.
Controversial episodes: was "Barbequor" removed for any particular reason? Additionally, what does "after broadcast" mean? Was it removed right after or did it take a while?
Legacy: The two sentences at the end of the section are interesting - they may be worth expanding into a paragraph or section regarding academic study of the show, sort of like how Frozen II has a thing on "analysis". It wouldn't be necessary, though; if it clogs up the article then don't do it.
Promotions/Toys: These sections are related (they both involve stuff like licensing and some promotions involve toys in and of themselves) and short enough to contemplate merging into one, unless there is more substantive material that can be found.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to eventually turn it into a featured article. Tulsa King is a fantastic crime and comedy drama starring the one and only Sylvester Stallone. Just this year I have expanded it from basically a stub and turned it into a well fleshed out good article. I nominated it for FA shortly after, but it was quickly closed and suggested that it go through GOCE and PR. The copy edit was just recently performed, so I'm hoping to work out any other issues in this review before I send it back to FAC.
Henry Clay Work was the leading American songwriter of popular music from the 1860s to 1870s. He was one of the Union's preeminent bards in the Civil War whose inspiring songs rallied support for the nation and spurred patriots to quell the rebellion. His impressive catalog includes minstrel songs and seriocomedies such as "Kingdom Coming," "Grafted Into the Army" and the most successful composition of the North, "Marching Through Georgia." Work also played a part in the inception of the postbellum temperance movement cautioning against the intoxication of drink. To top it all off, he penned one of the most recognizable American folk songs, "My Grandfather's Clock." Work died lonely and forgotten, his popularity garnered throughout the Civil War having all but faded away in a matter of years. To this day, almost no one recognizes his name, a grievous disservice to a man who a man who contributed so much to the States' music tradition. I think an uninformed populace deserves a decent source of information on him, hopefully a featured article. I am open to all constructive criticism and advice, especially with regards to language and comprehensibility, not as a moral prerogative, but to do American musical history justice.
This preamble to the PR is too long. Provide a short description of the article, as this will be good practice for the FAC. Please also note that Wikipedia is an international website, and not everyone here is American: statements like "to vindicate Henry Work's valiant service to our nation" is unlikely to encourage non-American reviewers.
The lede is too long. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The block quote is not necessary in the lede.
The article uses too many quotes and block quotes. Instead, articles should summarise what sources have said about the lyrics. Lyrics only need to be in the article if absolutely necessary, and I do not think that is the case from every instance I can see in the article.
Yes @Z1720, it very much helps; in fact, your comments reflect the doubts I had on the article. I will keep all your suggestions in mind and effect them soon. I am eager to collaborate further :) DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All issues brought up should be fixed. However, I am not so confident on the removal of non-neutral language; some must have remained unnoticed, so should any be noticed, don't hesitate to address it. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about SB19's second extended play, Pagtatag!, which they released last year in June. It included the single, "Gento", which is a featured article. I have taken Pagtatag! to FAC recently but was archived due to multiple prose issues and decided to take this to a peer review before nominating it again for FAC. I believe I have addressed the issues raised in the previous FAC nomination and I hope to see more suggestions to improve the article before taking it to another FAC, which I hope will get the article promoted successfully soon. I thank the reviewers in advance for their efforts in this review. – Relayed (t • c) 12:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging Aoba47 and PerfectSoundWhatever for their involvement in the article's previous FAC nomination. Please take a look if I have addressed your comments to your liking. Below are the comments that were not applied in the article, with respective comments.
Unfortunately, the Philippines does not have album charts. The EP also did not enter any international charts, so the chart box is not included in the article.
Same here, local publications do not do album "ratings", nor international publications cover a review of the EP with a rating, so the template is excluded.
I've listed this article for peer review because, first and foremost, I have been heavily contributing to the article (at first anonymously, as 2601:47:100:ac40:...) and hoping to get it to B-class. I think it is right now, but as @PresN: noted at WT:VG#Dr Disrespect, despite some cleanup and copyediting, which is always helpful there are "choppy paragraphs, choppy sentences, a flow so close to WP:Proseline that it's almost uncanny, and most of all almost no information about the person that isn't just a list of controversies". @Sergecross73: added that they currently have "no interest in writing about these ridiculous, over-the-top gaming personalities. Doubly so with someone with the allegations against him he's got going on at the moment". At the article's talk itself, I suggested that there should be a screenshot of a livestream, which was opposed by @Axem Titanium: because both images have Beahm "wearing the same wig and sunglasses he always wears and "He looks like the same middle-aged white dude in both photos to me. I have a hard time imagining readers not believing that they're the same person". There is also a slight contention over a few citations between me and @Rock & roll is not dead:, particularly over Kick (service).
That was what you pointed out to me. Like I said then, I was hoping that participants of the Wikiproject maybe interested. And despite now almost being nothing to add since the streamer's removal from the YT partner program and almost no word from him, there is still interest in the article's improvement. Also, if you're still wondering about his controversies, no, I've not found a good place for them. 2601AC47 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I just don't understand what my comment indicating I wasn't interested in contributing to the article at the Wikiproject discussion does to benefit this peer review. I've made zero contributions to the article. Sergecross73msg me18:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not asking you to do so. Just quoting.
In any case, brief history: On March 19, 2018, Valoem created the article as seen here. It was briefly subjected for deletion in late April that year; with 7 keeps, 1 move to draft and no deletes, it was kept incontrovertibly in May. By then, it looked like this. 2 years later, after he was banned from Twitch, it looked like this. It was semiprotected for the first time afterwards (currently it is through August).
Progressing every mid-year onward: 2021; 2022; 2023; and before a reason was released by Cody Conners in 2024. Each time, it was proven to be notable. I first edited it in July 2020; one little edit in September 2023 here; and my first in a line of 50+ edits on June 29. All in good faith and with the intent to improve this to meet the B-class criteria, which I think definitely does unless proven otherwise. 2601AC47 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try to merge the one-sentence paragraphs with other information.
The "Permanent ban from Twitch and fallout" section is quite long: is there a way to shorten this or split it up?
"Dr Disrespect is a fan of the Golden State Warriors of the NBA, seen at games at Oracle Arena and Chase Center." This probably belongs in "Personal life" unless this is related to his career.
Any additional images of the person to add to the article?
I've listed this article for a second peer review (the first one was for GA, which it passed) because I'd like to bring it to FAC within the next few months. This is probably the largest and most ambitious film article I've ever done and am still a bit unsure about how to format some things, so I'd appreciate any feedback. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in working on an FAC attempt for this. I took this article to GA status in Nov 2022, which involved basically rewriting the entire article, so I can handle any changes/edits from minor to major.
Brief comment: The lacking features subsection in development belongs to Reception, comment on fan expectations here and not development plans. IgelRM (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'll try what I can to bring up all of the article's possible issues. At first glance, there are still some issues with citations. (Also, can you review my FAC if you're able to? =) )
You need to link all the publications/websites that has article
You need to add mission authors from other citations that are missing
Remove ScreenRant and TheGamer sources since they are low quality
Remove ABC news, such a poor quality upon checking it.
Why is The Independent written like "Indy100"?
Citation 21, Engadget isn't italicized
I feel like the reception needs to be expanded. This is just my thought.
The usage of CNET is quite concerning. FAC reviewers hate that source since it's not a good quality source for most people, unfortunately. So omitting causes a lot of work (but it is required).
This is just a partial review. I really think this article needs a lot of work and I'm also aware that this is very hard to do. Best of luck! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Will work on the citations as best as I can, going through all of them does require a lot of effort. Will also try to work on the "Reception" section where possible, reviews at the time of the game's launch address the same few issues (that are already listed), and later reviews of the game (post-2014) are about the DLC packs rather than the base game. Theknine2 (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article when it was the subject of an AfD for a supposed lack of notability, as well as being badly written. As I am Brazilian and would be able to read the Portuguese-language sources, I took it as a fun exercise to try to bring this article about a forgotten former child star up to Wikipedia standards, adding sources, formatting and copy-editing. I now believe it qualifies for C or B-class status, but would like your feedback as to what is appropriate and what could be improved upon (or whether it even meets the criteria for either of these).
hello, cvdx. congratulations on saving this article from getting afd’d. personally, i feel that this article can reach c class, not sure about b tho. i feel that the article definitely improved from its initial state. if you want to, you can jump straight into nominating it for ga status. but if you fell like this article has a long way to go, try to find as many sources as possible (if you are not sure what is reliable or not, this should help a bit, but it is best to use wp:rspbrachy08(chat here lol)05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently a GA, but I want to upgrade it to FA. I don't want to make the same potential mistake I made here, so I'm nominating it here first. I think that in the rest of the criteria for FA the article has no problem, but the prose part is the most complicated for me. In additon, I want a mentor for this.
@Pollosito: I suggest seeking a FA mentor who can give comments in this PR. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you understand the FA criteria, and give confidence to others that you can ensure this article meets the criteria. It will also build goodwill amongst the other FA nominators, making your article more likely to be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have massively expanded this article over the past day week and I'm looking for advice as to if the article would qualify for C-class, or how it can be improved further.
Ref 5: Discogs is generally considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia. Since this is used to verify a lot of information, I recommend that this be replaced. Otherwise, I see no other concerns and recommend that this be nominated to WP:GAN, where a more thorough review can be conducted. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, LunaEclipse! Thanks for your comments—I've removed Ty Burr's blog and any Valnet-owned sources. I'll try and review DJ Kool Herc by the end of next week. Again, thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pamzeis! This will be my first contribution to a PR; delighted to be reviewing your article! Some things I'm noticing below:
Her mother attempted to distract her with activities... — The meaning is obvious, but would benefit from adding the word "other" before "activities"; there's a subtle implication that acting does not fall under "activities" with this wording.
Done
...adding that her family "keep [her] feet on the ground". — Should be "keep[s]", if I'm not mistaken; in American English the word "family" is treated as a single unit. A bit of a pedantic point, but the article is tagged American English, and my American brain clocked it as a bit strange.
Done
Otherwise, it's very well-written as it stands. Well done!
Thanks!
Images look good as far as Creative Commons licensing goes (the one in the main infobox is of exceptional quality for a YouTube screenshot - I wish I could find good screengrabs like that more often). The audio clip of her voice LGTM too.
Thank you for providing alt text for the images :)
MOS:LEADLENGTH feels a bit short given the 3000+ word count – you could likely expound a little bit more on her other ventures and her artistry within reason, I understand you've gone over most of her career highlights in the lead already
Hi, Joeyquism! A belated welcome to PR! Hope you decide to stick around. Apologies for not responding earlier; I have not been the most active on wiki lately. I will try to resolve your comment on the lead (though writing leads are definitely not my strong point), but I may rework some sections of the article before I do so. Thanks for the comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this article has achieved GA, I'd like to aim for FA, but I need some disinterested eyes to help me see if there's anything that needs to be improved and if it stands any chance of getting FA anytime soon - since I'm a fan of the band and the main contributor to the article, I don't think I can be as neutral about the article's quality as I'd like to be, and I don't know enough about the FAC process to know if it's anywhere close to FA.
I think this article should list some important awards and nominations the band has received, highlighting their status and recognition in the music industry. Additionally, it should provide the band's official website and social media links to make it easier for the public to learn about them through performance videos. I hope this helps. Kikolipu (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the late reply - I saw this then completely forgot about it :P The official website is provided in the infobox, and due to being a very new band they haven't received any awards that I can find.
@Suntooooth: I am surprised at how little information there is in the article. Here are some things I would expect in this article:
How the band was formed
Much more critical commentary about the group (probably should get its own section describing what critics think about their work.)
Touring information for 2024.
WP:A/S has a list of sources that are considered reliable that might have additional information about the band that could be included in this article. Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! A lot of lack of information is genuinely because at the time of writing the article this was most of the info available. I'll keep this in mind when I have time to update the article in the future! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia:Peer review/Review closure policy had been incorrectly closed due to a misinterpretation of the inactive discussion rules. An inactive discussion, is one in which a review has begun and received some feedback and the subsequent discourse has become inactive. It is not a review with no feedback. There is a separate set of rules regarding limits for articles hoping for feedback. WP:PR has a noticeboard for reviews that have had no feedback for a long time (well over a month).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the article is long and detailed, but that probably means there is a lot to improve. I'd rather wait another 7 months than go to FAC. Ping me in another 7 months if it still has not been reviewed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get comments. Also, it has been difficult for some PRs to get feedback, especially ones that are to go to FAC or are as long as this article. I am also aware of the fact that this PR should have closed when it was nominated for GAN a couple months ago, per the instructions, step 4. If you want to keep this open, I suggest that you post a request on the Wikiprojects attached to this article to see if anyone would like to leave feedback. Bringing it to FAC might also generate feedback on how to improve the article, even if it is unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can get em. I'm not that active during my busy season, so I might as well sit on this. I checked out a bunch of books on the subject from the Chicago Public Library and have now renewed them for the 15th and final time (due August 27). Still hoping for feedback while I still have all the sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I have done a fair bit of work to the article over the last few days and feel it is no longer a Stub article. Prior to this the article had not been updated since 2023.
However, it has been hard to find additional English language sources for the museum. Most are from the museum's opening in 2017, and I haven't been able to find more recent information aside from what is on the company's website and annual reports from the corporation.
Any help finding additional sources would be appreciated, along with a review of the articles class.
Additional sources can be found at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, or your local library system. I would consider removing most of the images from the article; per WP:GALLERY, this is discouraged in articles. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think it does a good job of being accessible to non-technical readers; as someone not particularly familiar with physics or chemistry, I felt it was a pretty easy read. A few suggestions for improvement:
The final few sentences of the lead section (about the suitability of thorium-229m) are confusing in isolation; the lead doesn't make it clear why energy or laser excitation are relevant. The following section expands on this, but in general, lead sections should stand on their own.
There seem to be several violations of WP:EDITORIAL throughout the article. I fixed one of these myself, but many of them I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to elegantly rephrase the sentences. Some examples: "it is also intriguing", "it is evident", and "fortunately".
The end of the ionization section mentions "the loss is tolerable", which left me wondering what "tolerable" means in this context and should probably be expanded on.
Hoping to take this article to GA, but I'm not sure what still needs to be done to get it there. It certainly doesn't feel like it's ready, and IMO lacks enough prose, but I'm not sure how it can realistically be expanded beyond what it's currently at. TheKip(contribs)20:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the prose length, if you are not able to find additional information about the draft then more information is not necessary. If there are additional sources that can be used, I suggest using them. I do feel that the lede is too short and should be expanded upon, probably to about two paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want additional prose, I think a good idea would be turning the Trades and Post-draft sections from bullet points into prose. Just an idea. XR228 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has ideas on improving this article, it would be a great help. As DID is a complex and often controversial topic within both medical and psychological fields, it would be for the best that this article is accurate, balanced, and accessible to a broad audience. Especially that there is a lot of misinformation about it.
sillygirly97 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking to get a peer review for this page as a high-importance article for WP:WikiProject Geocaching. We're looking to try and improve the article to GA status, and I'd like some suggestions on how we can improve it. I am aware of the lack of sources in some places, so I don't really need that information.
There is a lot of text that is uncited, such as the entire "Geography" section, the paragraph in "Climate" and the "Economy" section. There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, such as at the end of "Conservation and restoration"
Can the source listed in "Further reading" be used in the article as an inline citation?
It's been a while since this article's last Good Article Nomination, and it has expanded considerably since then. I don't see any obvious issues at first glance, other than the History.com ref, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on this.
I consider peer review of this article important, since Encyclopedia Britannicastill hasn't covered possibly the worst post-Cold War mass genocide, happening in 1994 with 500K-1M dead (though to be fair, they were busy going broke competing with Microsoft Encarta).⸺(Random)staplers22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking to nominate this article to FAC soon. As I have no previous nominations and this would be my first one, I would like a peer review to see if this would hold a chance within the criteria.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am unsure of whether the article covers the topic or not. The history section is now a summary of a long article (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). Suggestions as to what else the article should cover and ideas for improvement sought.
Sticking strictly to comprehensiveness, though I'm happy to do a more fine-grained nit-pick if it would be useful. I sympathise that resources may be hard to come by, but at the moment I think this is very much an Anglo-American take on the subject.
The "Etymology and definition" section has three long definitions that are all, basically, American in origin. It's interesting that, for example, we quote Rogers at great length, but not Jomini, when the former is a far more influential military thinker. At the risk of making a milhist cliché, did Clausewitz have anything to say on the subject? Did the Warsaw Pact have its own definition, alongside that of NATO?
On that Farrow quotation, I suppose I'm not totally clear what role it's filling. If it's there as a historical curiosity, it would seem to be in the wrong place (with the definitions/etymology, rather than with the history of thought on the matter), and perhaps something of an island -- we would want similar comments from much older military thinkers (Vegetius, Xenophon, Sun Tzu...?) on the importance and methods of supplying an army. On the other hand, if it's there as a definition - to help readers understand what Military logistics means -- I'm not sure that it says anything not also said by Lutes or NATO.
The "supply options" section is written partly in the past tense, creating the impression that modern military forces never, for example, employ looting.
Most of my comments from the FAC on History of military logistics about comprehensiveness and inclusive language apply to the History section here -- apart from a very quick reference to the Maurya Empire (which is then rapidly lost in a brief discussion of Roman transport costs), the only mention of something outside Europe is an American operation in China. Napoleon gets a whole paragraph while nothing in Africa or the Americas is mentioned at all.
The "Models" section seems to be pretty much a statement of American/NATO doctrine and categorisation. Most of the sources cited are either adjacent to the US military or explicitly discussing its operations.
A relatively small thing, but I notice that we have eight images, all of which seem to be of modern US forces.
I had a flick around the corresponding articles in other languages (by the power of Google Translate) -- the English article is unquestionably the best of them, but there are details in e.g. Russian, Chinese, Spanish and German which might be of some use -- if only their selection of images. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Apologies for not responding sooner.
The "Etymology and definition" section is all about the word logistics. I should dig up some more Jomini. Maybe Farrow is not required. Clausewitz was mostly concerned with operations, but he did have a bit to say about logistics, which I quoted in the History of Logistics article.
Looking at some of the other language articles, the German is just a stub, but the literature section looks very interesting. (The word "logistik" is obvious copied off the English or French.) The Russian version was very interesting. They call it "Тылово́е обеспе́чение" ("rear support"). As the article explains, this is more expansive than the NATO definition.
The history section is just a summary of the history article. I will try to make it more global.
Our policy on images reflects US government stance, so it is always easier to find American images. Australian images, for example, are harder to find because we use creative commons, which, while not prohibited, are considered NFCC. I tried to find striking images, and did not wish to reuse ones in the History of Logistics article. I have swapped one with a Russian image.
I was most interested in what other other sections/topics could be added to the article.
Ah, I see -- glad I've managed to be somewhat helpful, even if I haven't hit the marks you were looking for: I hope someone with better knowledge of the subject can chime in on the sections. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
1. I feel the article is at a good start. I think its missing some events that I didn't find for one reason or another.
I want to add a section about the the mass expulsion of Jewish/ marginalized groups from the medical field in Germany. However, I feel I couldn't do it justice.
2. Also, I cannot read German and rely on AI translations so there might be errors possibly. And makes reading books on the topic much slower / and excludes goldmines of information.
3. I don't know if the formatting is correct for Wikipedia standards.
Overall I'd like to see more historical details and format correction.
While waiting for Kronosaurus to be formally diagnosed using a proposed neotype specimen, I have decided to considerably expand the article. The use of the 2009 McHenry's thesis was very useful to me. I set myself the objective of proposing this article for proofreading so that it reaches the GA level, given that it is a fairly emblematic taxon of pliosaurs. If a redescription is published later, I could possibly upgrade it to FA level.
I suggest taking an article to WP:GA first before nominating it for FA, as a reviewer will give some helpful advice on how to improve the article. After reviewing this article, I do not see any major concerns and suggest that this be nominated at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GAN soon. I have worked extensively on plant species articles, but this is my first on a broader topic in the field. I would appreciate input on broadness, readability, and general manual of style. I do intend to eventually go for FAC with it, so anything beyond GA criteria is also more than welcome. Happy to peer review an article of yours in exchange! Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to take this thing up to FAC one of these days; but it's in a somewhat tricky position. Academic sources *exclusively* take one side of the debate here, and I'm unsure how that jives with the comprehensive coverage of the subject that the FA criteria demand. I'd like it if anyone who has experience taking controversial (esp. controversial cultural issue) articles to FAC can take a look at it, and to see what else I can do to make this article shine! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article some time ago, and I have been considering nominating it for a while now. However, I've never had the courage or patience to do so, mainly because I've never been involved in this kind of process before.
I'm opening this peer review request specifically to gain a second perspective on what might be improved in the article—if there's anything that needs improvement, which is likely the case, as I'm certainly not an all-knowing being. It's possible that I may have overlooked a detail or two regarding the subject of this article.
I believe much has already been done. For example, the manuscript images, which I believe were previously unpublished, were found after extensive searching on Gallica. To give you an idea, some English academics working on a similar manuscript were still searching for this one on Twitter in 2021. Additionally, the information has been compiled, mostly from the works of Rodrigues and Dalby & Hair, which were previously scattered across the internet. I was also able to contextualize and add a brief history of other vocabularies that preceded this one. At the end, there is a brief analysis of the vocabulary's content.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like it's been developed well beyond Start-class. I believe that this article could reasonably achieve GA status with further development, and I would love feedback on how to make that so.
Lede needs to be expanded. Typically, it should summarise all aspects of the article body.
"In 2022, Binnie appeared on Storybound reading an excerpt from Nevada, complete with an original score and sound design by Jude Brewer." Needs a citation.
Two paragraphs in a row in "Reception and legacy" start with "In 2022". This should be varied.
Keep looking for more information about the book. Check Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY or your local library system for additional sources.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it as much as possible. I recently created this article, and I'd like outside feedback. Comments about formatting, content, or general editing are welcome. Hoping to bring this up to good article status at some point in the future.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created it and I want to see how it could be improved to be more clear, concise and understandable to a general audience.
I guess my first recommendation is to be fanatical about finding high-quality sources (because your reviewers at FAC will be). Some of the sources you use are not WP:INDEPENDENT; Holy See Press Office, Vatican News, Aleteia. That doesn't make them impossible to use, but the more you can avoid them, the better off you'll be.
Double-check that the licensing on all your images is OK. For example, I looked at File:Vatican World Taekwondo Demonstration Team.png. It says "Unknown author"; that might not go over well. More importantly, it's a video which was hosted on YouTube, but is no longer available. There's an archive.org link, but when I try to view it, I just get the same "This video isn't available anymore" screen, so it's basically unverifiable.
I took at closer look at the statements cited to Townend 1958. You say The first sporting facility built in what is now Vatican City was the first-century chariot-racing track of the Circus of Nero I don't see where the source says this, nor where it says "The circus itself was constructed on Vatican hill". I'm also unsure how this source should be interpreted vis-a-vis WP:HQRS. It appears to be a book review, and much of it is expressing opinions about how the reviewed book (The Shrine of St. Peter) is incorrect in places where it, in turn, points out errors in a "official Vatican report". This seems like a bit of a long chain.
I'm not sure if Vanysacker 2015 ranks as a WP:HQRS. It's a Catholic theologian writing about the Catholic Church, in a journal which is (according to The Catholic Historical Review) "the official organ of the American Catholic Historical Association". I can't find anything in WP:RSN about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if reviewers at WP:FAC questioned its independence, especially when it's used to back up subjective statements like "The Vatican held positive opinions towards sports as a way of expressing Catholic spirituality and principles".
Vatican plans to form National Olympic Committee and march at Paris 2024 Opening Ceremony That's history now, so this should be rephrased accordingly.
The Vatican supplied two athletes to symbolically compete avoid the split infinitive.
children who have autism and Down syndrome it seems odd that you capitalize Down syndrome but not autism. I would think either both or neither, but if you've got something which back that up as accepted style for each, that's fine.
I'm opening a new peer review for this article after the last one failed to get any response. I'm hoping to bring this article to FAC, but it's a big topic and more feedback would be helpful. I'm especially interested in comprehensiveness, but as always, any feedback is appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see a high quality article on this important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:
The 'Formation process' section is dismissive of the role of political ideology in military coups and dictatorships, implying that this is a pretext. I don't think that this is correct, as there are a number of examples of where the military see themselves as having the right to overthrow the government and rule if political parties adopt non-military related policies they don't approve of - Turkey and Pakistan are examples of where the military has historically seen itself as being the guardian of the constitution (as defined by the military high command).
The 'Factors' section is a bit hard to follow
It would be good to discuss somewhere the role of indoctrination and political ideologies within the military in forming and sustaining military dictatorships. For instance, extremely few officers in modern western militaries would ever consider it appropriate to overthrow the government and if they took any steps to do this their comrades would either stop them or the rank and file soldiers would refuse to follow orders. This is due to the way in which officers are trained, as well as the strength of other political institutions.
The role of training in ending military dictatorships could also be noted - some sources argue that sending officers overseas for training where they were indoctrinated about the importance of civilian rule contributed to the downfall of military dictatorships in Europe in particular during the 1970s and 1980s.
I'd suggest expanding a bit on the situation where the military shares power with the civilian government as part of a democratisation process and the tensions this results in - Myanmar is a good example.
Likewise, I'd suggest covering the situation where while the country is led by non-democratic civilian regime the the military is a significant political player in supporting it - Zimbabwe is an example.
The 'use of force' section should note that the extent to which military dictatorships use repressive and violent tactics domestically varies. For instance, the Cold War era military regime in Brazil was much less likely to kill its opponents than those in Argentina and Chile.
The 'South Asia' section is under-developed and should discuss the role the Army sees for itself in Pakistan.
You could possibly more explicitly flesh out the material on the self-defeating nature of military dictatorships for the military in many countries, where political instability, slow economic growth and a lack of international support undermine funding for the military and its prestige over time, especially in relation to the external opponents the military is meant to be countering. Pakistan and Thailand are good examples. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to say that I've seen this, I just want to wait a bit to see if there's other feedback or additional considerations that touch on the same areas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for almost a month and planning to take it onto a FAC. Just wanted to run it by the Peer Review for reviews and suggestions as it's my first FAC nom.
Since you have never attempted the FAC process, I recommend bringing this article to WP:GAN first. This is a lower-stakes assessment that will give feedback on how to improve the article. Afterwards, get a FA mentor who can help you during the FAC process. After a quick skim, my only concern is that the third paragraph in "Super 8 summary" and first paragraph of "Final" need a citation. Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "sources too closely associated" orange banner needs to be resolved. Find additional, independent sources using Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, or your local library system.
The lede needs to be expanded.
The "better source needed" tags need to be resolved.
Lost of information is missing. Consider the information at Pomona College and see what sections can be added to the article.
Bearing in mind WP:NOTNEWS, could you outline the notability case for this subject? Most of the sources seem either to be connected to his trials or to be closer to sensationalist tabloidism than scholarly sources (the Vice article, namely). Can we demonstrate that this person has enduring notability, beyond the interest that existed in his crimes and trial at the time?
The tone of the article sometimes gets a little too empathetic, or a little too close to journalistic, for an encyclopaedia. A few illustrative examples:
Johnson's early life was marked by familial challenges: better to be factual about what these challenges were.
His most infamous crime: infamous is not a neutral word or really one we can verify. Better to simply state that he committed this crime.
There are a lot of slightly euphemistic references to "troubled youths", "difficulties" etc in his childhood -- as above, we should be dispassionate and factual here.
Johnson became involved in the use of amphetamines, marijuana, and prescription medication at the age of 15: became involved in seems like a mealy-mouthed way of saying that he began misusing them (unless you mean that he dealt them).
Johnson went to multiple youth training centres and even jail for burglary: phrases like this as WP:EDITORIALISING and always best avoided.
Johnson secured employment as a concreter and was able to stay out of trouble until he suffered a workplace injury: likewise, euphemistic and slightly informal. Better to cut to the chase: "In 1997 (or whenever), he was injured at work [and lost his job?]; in January 1998, he carried out [again: euphemism of "was involved in" should be avoided] a series of armed robberies..."
In general, try to make sure that people from around the world can understand it: so "at the age of 11 or 12" is better than "in Year 7". Similarly, it's a good idea to convert AUSD amounts into USD.
Our paragraph on the Conyers murder casts the very strong aspersion that he was guilty, despite the jury's verdict to the contrary. Are we following sources in doing so? If not, the detailed account of what was "alleged", which is presumably untrue (at least as far as the law is concerned), should be cut down or reworded as what happened to Conyers.
What makes Roberta Williams notable enough for a redlink?
I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.
This article has been GA-level for years and has degraded over time. It was recently delisted despite being nearly completely rewritten, cited, and checked. A peer review can help identify any remaining problems before the article is again submitted for GAN. Thanks! Sirberus (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.