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.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I believe the article has strong potential to reach Featured Article status and it just doesn't sit right to me for it to stay at GA status since May. This is one of my first major article expansions and Good Article nominations since February (and probably my longest article), and I would like feedback on any sourcing or prose issues that I may have overlooked.
Hello! I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it further, or at the very least, raise it from start-class status. I think the article is in a good place at this moment, but it hasn't been properly assessed yet. Additionally, I would appreciate some suggestions on how to improve this article so it meets the standards of other video game articles, despite being on a subject with less available information. Essentially, feedback and an assessment of the article would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your brief input, although it is important to note that the development of the game is not really known. Still, I created a development section as per your request, although instead of writing behind-the-scenes information of how it was made (which is publicly unavailable to my knowledge), I added information mostly pertaining to Eighting/Nintendo and their development history, which should be notable for that section. I was also able to find sales data for the game, so that should improve the already solid reception section. With this added to the article, I think a proper peer review is in order, and I'm always open to potential additions or further improvements. - Z-Gamer Guys (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring this article to featured status and wish to know what is most important to address in order to accomplish that.
"The episode premiered on MBS and TBS on November 15, 2024, and was released shortly thereafter on streaming platforms such as Crunchyroll, Hulu, and Netflix internationally." I don't think calling every single platform is needed in the lead
Done
Also "such as" implies more streamers had it when the body only lists those three
Fixed
I'd remove the "See also: Dandadan § Plot" as most episode articles don't include one. Is there any reason why its justified here?
I've not made any episodes aside from another Dandadan episode (and a Futurama episode a decade ago); I included it because I thought that the reader may benefit from seeing the general plot summary, since it is a somewhat complicated plot. I'm not married to including it, however
I'd link yokai in the plot summary
Done
Any numbers on viewership?
Nothing I can see; closest I can find is general viewership of the series, and even then, not with any specificity.
Under reception "Anime News Network" is italicized on the first mention but not on the second, these should be consistent.
Fixed
Screen Rant typically isn't seen as an FA (or sometimes GA/FL) quality source, why is it's inclusion justified here?
Removed Valnet content. The only one I thought might be valuable to include would be the Hideo Kojima mention since it's verifiable due to it being a tweet, but it's no huge loss.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to make a featured article out of it and I need to know what else to do with it. GA was a breeze on this article, but I've had some struggles on anything higher.
Make sure your p.s and pp.s aren't muddled in sfns. p. is for single pages, pp. is for multiple.
Also check for hyphens for page ranges; these should be dashes
Unrelated to fixing the article, but you wouldn't happen to know an easy way to type those when using the citation toolbar, would you? This would make it so I don't do that to my magazine cites anymore and solve a lot more headache in the future. mftp danoops01:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Use of archive links is not consistent, suggest running IA Bot or taking a trip to the Wayback Machine
Inconsistent use of publisher parameter for magazine sources
Is it just one, or multiple? If it's only a couple, would you mind pointing out which ones? Maybe they were here before I started expanding the article. I usually don't go that far. mftp danoops00:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you UpTheOctave! I will address these tonight once I am home from work. Regarding the Mohr interview, it entirely could be copyvio without me being aware of it, I took it at the suggestion of the Russian Wikipedia's example. Admittedly, I was not sure how to format that one, hence the extra instructions, though I am sure it is reliable. As for Noisey, it was an online music imprint of Vice, a print magazine with editorial oversight. If the latter is the case, I find it unlikely the case should be any different with Noisey. I understand it's part of Vice, but the only place it appears is in an interview with Jerry Cantrell. In fact, its only purpose is to quote him. Wouldn't that be acceptable as an account of the artist's own work? I don't believe it is absolutely dire that we keep the quote, but I'd prefer to. mftp danoops13:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine. I was just commenting on the usual sort of culture articles Vice produces, which can certainly vary in quality. I've replied above (I think one of my replies got messed up in indenting). Two more comments as well: there's a couple of errors showing in the sfns, and I think ref 74 is a cite journal instead of a cite magazine by mistake? UpTheOctave! • 8va?21:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if I missed anything or if there are any big violations I've caused. I've never made an article this way (my first article was made by draft and my second was by scratch), and I don't know how much of the original text should be left or if I should edit Beggin' and trim that. What I did was just copy and paste. I was told that cover versions can be separate articles. I've never pursued a DYK, and so making a new page and trying to Frankenstein what was on the original Beggin' page into a separate article for the Måneskin version would be a good way to keep me out of trouble.
Thanks, Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 17:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that you may have found yourself in more trouble. Per WP:COPYWITHIN, all users who contributed to a page must be credited when you copy and paste content like this; however, you did not include this attribution process, so a good chunk of this page is technically a copyright violation. I'd take a look at WP:RIA and take steps from there.
Other than that, this article is likely ineligible for DYK. Per WP:DYKSPLIT, "splits from non-new articles are ineligible", as is relevant to this particular case. It also doesn't seem to fit the 5x expansion criteria, so it doesn't seem like this article is quite fit for DYK unfortunately. Leafy46 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio detector reads minimal copyvios. The DYK thing is disheartening, but not surprising. Thank you for your response and links! Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 13:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: That's fair. I assumed that the attribution needed to be done by the user who actually did the copy-and-paste move in the first place, and I was hoping that Babysharkboss2 would do it given that it is indeed quite simple (and given that they were the one who opened up the peer review to begin with). If any user can do a belated attribution like this, though, I'll keep that in mind going forward. Leafy46 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because my goal is to have the article to reach either good article or featured article status. I have recently completed a major overhaul on the article, working on and off on trying to improve readability, organize information in chronological order, review and improve references, and meet policies and guidelines as well as creating all works related to the subject. I appreciate any and all feedback and contributions to achieve this goal. If there any changes or improvement that should be made, please let me know.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering bringing this to good article status. However, I'm not sure what else I need to include in the article. As the subject is an anime character, I imagine much of the relevant sourcing is in Japanese, so I'm not sure where to start in finding information that can be used to beef up the article, particularly the development and reception sections.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help it reclaim its Good Article status. I figure it must have many of the qualities that make it due for the accolade, but me being unfamiliar with many of the conventions that come with that had previously troubled me. I need help making sure that these recent stable revisions are ready to go, or if there's anything that can better suit it before we ship it out.
First glance at the references, I noticed that some are wiki linked and some aren't. Some references use their website domain name, and some use URLs. Some use |publisher=, most use |website=. First source, Mixmag is a magazine, you should use |magazine=. Consistency is key, either use domain name or URLs, you cannot use both. Clean-up is highly recommended. dxneo (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you are done. I'll drop more constructive suggestions, and if you don't agree with some, let me know. Goodluck! dxneo (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Dxneo :) It has been some time now since I have hashed out many of the reference issues and I don't know if I missed any. If I'm in the clear, or even if I'm not, I would love to hear more criticisms on this article. Thank you, Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk)17:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First thing first, run this script to remove all the redlinks. Also run the WP:IABot to archive all the refs simultaneously.
I see there are still a lot .com's around here, you might have a problem at GA if you get a strict reviewer.
ref14 and 15 are missing author
ref22 is missing a lot of information
ref22, author
ref32 is missing access-date
Please lookout for those kind of things 'cause most are either missing access-date, date or author.
Another thing I would advise, is to keep the lead clean, meaning there shouldn't be any refs in the lead per WP:CITELEAD. Keep refs in the body of the article. The lead is for summarizing what's referenced in the body. Not sure if I make sense. dxneo (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for PR because I've significantly de-stubbed and think I would like to (eventually) go down the GAN road. I believe everything is pretty well-referenced, but I'm sure the prose could be improved and I'm conflicted about the article's overall structure. Since the subject has been pretty consistently busy on stage/screen for 20+ years, I've had a hard time coming up with easily identifiable career 'eras' to use as sub-section headers.
Hi, everyone. I withdrew this article's FAC after reviewers noted issues with prose. In the months since, it has gone through a copyedit, and I'd like to renominate for FAC at some point.
Looking for suggestions and help before I submit the article for FA consideration. I've already noted a complex and time consuming change I could make to fix a possibly fine rule violation(the Plot sections word count), but an outside perspective on the matter as well as general help would be much appreciated.
I'm still interested. I do not need assistance with the candidacy, but a quick outside perspective from someone else would be helpful, so I would like to keep this open for the time being. SapphireBandit (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: I will be reviewing the article for suitability to submit as an FAC.
Image review:
File:THPS2GBA box.png — Fair use
File:THPS2GBA gameplay.png — Fair use
Based on my image review, the illustrations used seem to be appropriate for a potential FAC.
Is Pocket Tactics a reliable source? According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, there are inconclusive decisions about it. If we can, we should try to find high-quality sources for FACs.
You may want to make sure the web sources are archived by running the WP:IABOT tool.
Numerical citations need to be put in order, for example, the citations after the sentence Other actions include jumping, braking, crouching, and switching stances.
Unless we are directly quoting a source, I see no need to use two consecutive citations from the same source. For example, the below passage in the article is where two consecutive citations for the same source exist (Source 12 in the article).
After completing development of the Game Boy Color version of the video game Spider-Man, developer Vicarious Visions wanted to move on to the Game Boy Advance, avoiding common projects for the platform like Super Nintendo ports and Mode 7racing games. The idea of a Tony Hawk game came up during brainstorming, which was considered both a fun and high risk idea, due in part to it being an important brand to publisher Activision. Development of this version of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 began in August 2000, Vicarious Visions having received an early development kit for the platform.
The phrase "skate punk-like artists" is a direct quote from the source. I would place a citation at the end of the sentence that has that direct quote. The same holds true with the sentence that has "technically impressive" and the sentence that has "surprisingly good", as they are direct quotes. Another user informed me that I should follow this practice when he was reviewing my GANs.
Per MOS:EDITORIAL, "only" is a word to watch out for. I would change The team intended to use the source code Neversoft used, only for it to turn out that it was programmed in C++, while the development kit's documentation said they could only use C. to The team intended to use the source code Neversoft used, but the code was programmed in C++, and the development kit's documentation said they must use C.
Overall, I think the work you did is solid for an FAC. The good article will need some polishing and revision, as I noted above, so it can become a featured article.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I think the article suffers from a lot of WP:UNDUE text especially in the background and possibly elsewhere but am struggling to figure out what needs focusing on and how to do it, so I would like some comment. After UNDUE issues resolves I think article it should probably be GA-able, pending other things.
Hi all, over the last couple of months I've rewritten and expanded most of the wikipage for the Japan Cup, a horse racing event held in Japan every year. Since the vast majority of this page is now my work, I'd love to hear other people's opinions of the article's current state to make sure I've not overlooked anything; this is the first time I've given an article such a large overhaul, so all advice is welcomed!
Having come this far, I'm very keen to get this to GA status, and if successful see if I can take the page the whole way and get it to Featured Article status; any and all feedback and contributions to achieve either of these goals would be greatly appreciated. I believe this page follows nearly all MOSs I know of, though I'm aware MOS:LEADCITE is an exception to that currently - I'm still mulling over a graceful way to include the remaining references in the main text.
This article was recently rejected at FAC and I'm looking to improve it. Some of the issues raised included confusing prose, strange phrasing, and overciting. I'd like help with fixing these and seeing what other things I can do to improve it. Another thing is doing fair-use rationales so that would be appreciated as well.
I would start by attacking the WP:citation overkill called out in the FAC. For each statement, find the one best source which supports it. Sometimes it's difficult to write a good sentence without pulling from multiple sources, but I would expect a maximum of two sources per sentence is a good rule. By the time you've got three for a single sentence, that's a real red flag. This is not just for style, it's also to help your reviewers who are going to need to check that the claims in your article are supported by the sources. If you give them three, four, or more sources to pick from, that makes their job harder. This is why I suggest starting here.
After you've done that, the next place I'd work on is "Basic game" and "Campaign" Both of these sections contain many very short paragraphs. There's no hard and fast rule on how long a paragraph should be, but my general rule is "Each paragraph should cover a complete idea". That being said, a series of short paragraphs is difficult to read, so sometimes it makes sense to combine a bunch of ideas into a single paragraph just for reading ease. I like to think paragraph breaks (and to a smaller extent, sentence breaks) as hints to the reader that this is a good place to stop to make sure they understood what they just read, and then reset their short-term memory before jumping into the next idea.
I've implemented the changes suggested where possible. No other editors have reviewed this, however, so do you have any other suggestions? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. I believe the article nearly meets the FA criteria, but I'd like an independent editor to assess whether it is FA quality. In particular: is the prose professional and engaging? Are there any aspects of bridges that you feel the article is overlooking? Thanks! Noleander (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it however I don't know if what I have done is good and I need some ideas on improving it
I've listed this article for peer review because I am determined to get it to FA but unfortunately we couldn't quite get there at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Jacomb-Hood/archive1. My plan is to fix anything during the peer review then hopefully we can have a nice and easy FAC at a later date.
While I'm sure this article isn't close enough for FA for me to put this in FAC peer review (I'm still unsure of sending this to FAC), I think that I've made an effort to address the issues raised in the previous PR. I want to see if there are still major problems that would warrant a quick FAC fail
Please ping me when you make a comment, so that I can reply as soon as possible.
I would heavily recommend looking at North East Line as an example
Is "Ōbu" the same as "Obu"? If so, consistent diacritical marks are needed
Some linking could be helpful, like "Higashiura station", "The Japanese government" (this was a different Japanese government than the present one), etc. With that said, is it possible to integrate ILL in this article?
"On September 25, 1953, a typhoon hit the line and washed out the section between Taketoyo and Higashi-Narawa stations, killing a JNR worker" did this have any sort of important impact, like closing the line for an extended period of time, or leading to safety reforms? If not, this should be deleted
"replacing 211 series trains that were in use since the electrification" info on the 211 series train should be added, like when it was introduced on the line, its specifications, etc.
I think it's worth adding an external link section with the station's wbesite
You have inconsistent citations. To be quite honest, this could lead to a speedy oppose if this article was nominated. The issues include, but are not limited to:
ISBNs
Archived links
Translated titles
Pages (not to mention Kokoris 1948 is cited as a reference instead of a sfn/harvcite)
Non-proper publications like "Taketoyo Town Official Website" and "Town of Higashiura" should not be italicised.
I have listed this article because I have improved the overall article by writing it from scratch. Actually, I wrote it in Catalan and later ported it to English in order to level the completion. I would like to know if the references are sufficient enough, if not, I can provide even more of them. Having access to the real hardware, I can discern what sources are of quality and which aren't. Also, I am not a native English speaker, so my translation, whose writing was done manually, may be quirky and may need a revision. Finally, I would like to see into which quality category could this article be listed, just for curiosity.
If you need more information or data regarding the article or the machine itself feel free to ask. I will try to solve the issue in the best way I can.
I've listed this article for peer review to firstly, get feedback on the current state of the article. Since I made it, I'm kinda at in a "well, what now?" moment and not exactly sure how to improve it, other than knowing some sections are perhaps too short, the specificifation section, for example. Additonally, I want to push this article to GA/FA, so, any and all feedback would be lovely.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about trying for FAC in the near future and want to know where it currently stands. I am completely unfamiliar with the FAC process, so it's likely the entire article will need to be looked through. I just got it to GA today. In short, where does the article not meet the FA criteria?
Okay based on the article, it seems pretty fine to me already, although I'm quite confused at how the way it states that Natlan is based jointly on Pre-Columbian American and Sub-Saharan African cultures, especially since the nation's music is the only aspect of the nation inspired by those cultures. So you could change some stuff such as the first sentence in the second paragraph in lead and the infobox. plantCOAL03:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I want an honest opinon. It is gonna help me improve my writing as well as catch mistakes which I did not see.
Thanks, Shizasohail (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I created this a couple of months ago and it looks great but now i am at the point of how I can expand this more. It is an important organisation in new zealand for the Rainbow community and people living with HIV so I want to make sure it is an amazing article and in hopes to have a GA one day.
I've listed this article for peer review because... prior to GAN and future FA nomination and to assess the bottom of the article to see if it needs removal.
Please suggest your ideas and critiques based on other Mountain articles of GA or higher here is what I was thinking but extend on it or go your own route.
Suggestions for better places for Headings...
Suggestions for better places for Sections...
Should I take a photo to help that section? note: I take photos.
Thanks for the feedback. How would you recommend this be incorporated into the article? As the USNSCC is one of many military/government organizations headquartered in Arlington County, it may be best to include it in this list. Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedian1234 My idea is... ...Congress also introduced the United States Sea Cadet Corps in 1962, and later the (any subject of same year). Thereafter, in 1967 (any subject)... would also be in introduced in Arlington County... as the first organization for fries (made up). Tokeamour (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be for the History section? I'm not sure why we'd need to call out this organization's establishment specifically. There are many government agencies with some presence in Arlington, and I don't think it would be feasible or appropriate to highlight/list their individual foundation dates in this article, unless their establishment had a significant economic/physical impact on the county (e.g., the construction of the Pentagon). Appreciate the suggestion, though! Wikipedian1234 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not outweigh the importance of anything else, also if you think it belongs in a list I like your idea of where to put it. Tokeamour (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedian1234 But I would still like do help so is there something else you want me to assess and critique or give general recommendations in? Because it seems that my suggestion is not the best for the article and that's totally fine. Tokeamour (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry have been quite busy as of late and am only just getting to this. I've been unable to find any specific guidance in the MOS regarding this terminology. Could you point me to anything specific? Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a page I have almost entirely created myself, as can be seen in the xtools report. I'm fairly happy with it, and would like to possibly nominate it for a GA at some point in the future. Before doing that however, I believe it needs more critical eyes on it.
Hello fellow wikipedians! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured articles. This article is a translation and adaptation of my Ru Wiki article and currently it has been reviewed there and has a status "candidate for a featured article". Both sister projects have different requirements, so I'd like to make it 100% compliant with Eng Wiki requirements for the featured articles.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Thanks, Wiki Editor mq (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi everyone, this is my first wikipedia article and I have been working on improving it by adding reliable sources, page numbers, and expanding sections on its history, decline, and cultural memory. I would really appreciate if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know if the article seems anywhere at all close to meeting B class standards, or if there are areas that still need alot more work. Thanks you, I appreciate your time[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting this article to Featured Article status in the future. I believe I have addressed the concerns of the GA review and want more eyes on this article for potential issues.
Thanks, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I am hoping to get this article up to at least B-class or GA status. There are a few areas where there is an obvious need for expansion (such as the section Sequence of main trends and just general sourcework), but I was wondering if anyone has any input regarding content or alterations to structure, or good sources to consult for the article that aren't already listed under the bibliography.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made some changes, in particular, if a reviewer could consider [B-Class criteria] and update the talk page to reflect their thoughts on the article. In future I might try and get this one to A-class or better any suggestions on what its lacking in that regard would be great too.
I've listed this article for peer review because during my candidacy in the admin elections last year, an editor said it was not far off Featured Article status. As I've never nominated an FA before, I'd like to know what improvements the article needs to get up to standard.
Off the top of my head, I feel the lead is rather short. The lead shouldn't be as long as Rockwell's article, but I think there's enough material here for a maybe 3 paragraph lead? Or a longer one than now, anyway. I think more information on particularly how he was received in the neo-Nazi movement (the widespread dislike of him and how it basically killed the party and led to numerous schisms) could be emphazied more, as that with his esoteric Hitlerlist stuff is a big part of his legacy. Maybe more on his views and background too, like the groups he was in prior. Really I just think the lead is too short and doesn't give enough context to understand him.
All the sources are reliable though there are 1 or 2 that I think may be a problem at FAC. But I'll check those again in a bit to be sure, they might be fine.
"Koehl was very concerned with finding a way to get more people to join the group, and so as a solution, formed the National Socialist Liberation Front, a group targeting high school and college-aged people to join the movement. This group more or less failed in attracting people to the organization, and his attempts failed to stop the party's splitting."
This is cited to Moore 1983. Every other source I am aware of suggests that the original NSLF was founded by Pierce and Tommasi, so I am curious what this is citing. It seems contradictory. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even more confusingly, Sunshine says this: "Calling itself the “Student Activist Arm of the National Socialist Movement,” the NSLF was founded at the NSWPP conference in April 1969. The party triumvirate of Robert Lloyd, William Pierce, and Matthias Koehl all took part in setting it up." PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had to look into this claim for a while and I'd add the Sunshine source to that and say he helped to set it up, but it wasn't just him. It seems like he helped.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the level of GA-class. As this is the first article I've ever created (which is done by draft), I currently do not have experience on how to improve a C-class article to B-class, let alone meet GA standards. Therefore I'd like some suggestions and guidance for improving the article.
Update. I've added a new section about the properties of the number. Hopefully this improves the quality of the article closer to B-Class. Electorus (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first edit in Wikipedia and I did rewrite most of the article so I'd be happy if someone could review it, fix some typos and errors and maybe even give some feedback.
Additionally, English is not my first language, so there might be some unusual phrases.
I am also very unsure if I used the LaTeX style math environment correctly because it felt more annoying than in LaTeX.
Greetings. After reviewing the article on Megalneusaurus (which is still not finished), I decided this time to do the same with the "Monster of Aramberri", which, in my opinion, covers the entire topic about this wonderful specimen. If the peer review is successful, I will propose immediately this article to the GA. I originally submitted this article to the GA and then to a peer review a few months ago. Unfortunately, I was very busy with other projects, and the peer reviewers were clearly not very interested in paleontology. Now that I am available again and my work is more detailed than before, I hope it can be given a second chance. As usual for this kind of review, I'm asking for users like FunkMonk and/or Jens Lallensack to help me. Slate Weasel is also welcome, but since he hasn't shown any sign of activity since late July 2025, I doubt he'll see this message.
I'm hoping to take this to FA-quality sometime soon, after Greensburg tornado hopefully passes. I'm less sure about whether this one would pass, though, so I'm putting it up for a PR to clear up any potential issues.
An obviously notable topic, but one that has been scarcely discussed in the literature. Apparently there are only two academic sources about it and one news article that mentions it tangentially; I really had to work with very limited material (tirar leite de pedra), which even included going to the National Library to photograph the manuscript, until then unpublished online. I would appreciate some feedback on how to better structure the article and, if possible, expand it without engaging in original research. I wonder whether the available material is sufficient for it to qualify as a good article (I imagine featured status is out of the question...).
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it for FA status. This would be my first FA nomination, so I'd particularly appreciate feedback on any issues with meeting FA-level MOS compliance.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last few weeks chipping away at it and I've managed to include all the major academic literature about the series of poems. I'd appreciate any writing tips or advice otherwise on how to make it better.
I've listed this article because it seems a too scarce, at the very least comparing to the amount of information on the Japanese article. The Influence part also lacks a lot of citations. The Selected Works seems like a bit of a strange way to take care of his bibliography, and might need improvements as well.
Translating most details from the Japanese Wikipedia might be of major use.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
I'm not going to do a detailed review, & may not add more comments, but while I think the article is a strong GA, the references lean far too heavily on a few sources for FAC. Now it is GA it may get more attention & improvements follow, so I wouldn't push to FAC very soon. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Johnbod and thanks for looking at the article. Reviewers are more likely to point out that I'm overdoing it with the sources, so it's refreshing to have a different perspective. The article currently has 143 sources and 211 bundled references with 448 individual citations. I could add more but my impression is that this is not at the lower end of FA articles. If you could be more specific about where exactly the problem lies in the article, or if you know of specific overview sources that the article should cite, then I would be happy to look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty specific! Most come from The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics or the Oxford Handbook. I won't be doing any of that. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your point. It's possible that we have different interpretations of what "few sources" means. My understanding is that if two articles on different topics are written independently by separate authors, they are considered two sources and not a single source, even if they are bundled in a collected volume like The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. Nonetheless, I tried to follow your suggestion and replaced many of them with alternative sources. However, they are among the highest-quality sources, so there is a strong case for retaining several of them, like the articles that focus on one specific art form cited in the section "The individual arts". I hope this serves as a workable compromise and I would like to hear your thoughts. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I was working with other editors a few months back to bring the article to GA status. Some time has passed and the collab effort has gone stale, but I wanted to restart the work so that we could finish what we started. I want to know if the added "Academic sources" section looks good, if the cited sources are enough for the info in the article, and if there's anything else that would prevent a successful GA nomination the first time.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to Featured Article quality. As a subject, I think it's a fascinating case study of how misinformation and social panic can spread through a population. I've received a thorough Good Article review from Viriditas, and I think with some more refinement it might be FA-ready. I would appreciate additional input from editors, especially those interested in society and politics, skepticism, or recent American history. In particular, I'm curious whether the prose needs to be further refined or the narrative made more compelling.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there are any mistakes/excess detail on the article or any info i missed abt the school. I want to make this a Good article someday so I need feedback from an uninvolved editor to see if I can improve
The article heavily relies on primary sourcing, mostly information put out by the school itself. The article probably needs more secondary sourcing for neutrality.
The Governance section based on Elizabeth College's is well-written though the table could use a little work, adding a title for the table using "|+" would be better + it's sources to be cited on the title itself. Not done(Note: will most likely be moved back into a separate section and the YouTube sources will be rechecked)
"A man living near the Primary campus claims a bus from the school crashed into his fence on September 2024. The school claims the bus incident was investigated and dealt with internally.", I don't entirely see how this is relevant to the school's history. Technically it happened but I don't think it's substantial enough to be worth a mention, it's more of a trivial fact. Not done(Note: will most likely be moved into a controversy section only if more sources with greater detail are found, otherwise it will be removed)
Considering the College was founded quite recently in terms of a College, the History section looks alright though could probably use some more expanding.
References used in the article could use some work, proper formatting with enough information in the citation.
"Life Festival", this could probably be merged rather than be made into it's own section. Not doneNote: More research into Life Festival needs to be conducted prior to going forward with this suggestion, for example it has its own website [2], this source may also help: [3]
"According to Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority data:", this could probably be removed and instead be integrated into the first paragraph. Done
Hi there! This is the second time I have requested a peer review on Wikipedia. I am currently working on creating the first Vanier Cup page to become featured on Wikipedia. Hence, I want to get a peer review where I meet all expectations for FAC, so I can then apply for FAC around November 2025, to honour the game aforementioned. Any help towards this journey would be appreciated.
Hi there! I made some suggested edits to the page in my sandbox. I'm not making the edits directly because I might have a slight conflict of interest in editing this article because I have taken a class taught by Prof. Powell. However, I believe the edits have made the article more informative, more readable, and better cited.
Thanks, Tommyren (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a paid contribution (and a translation from the French article that I also wrote). Even if I tried to respect WP:NPOV as much as possible, the text may not be perfectly neutral.
Hey Jul.H, are you still interested in comments here, or can this be closed? If you are, you might want to reach out to some of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page for assistance. Let me know either way! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TechnoSquirrel69, yes I'm still interested in a review. I'll reach out to some project members as you suggested, but I don't see many other options if it doesn't work. I'll let you know. Tank you! Jul.H (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to get some feedback on what else I could possibly add that would be useful to a general reader. I have a *lot* of information that I could put into this article, but it's very scattered and I'd like to spend my time efficiently.
@Grumpylawnchair: One more ping; if you're still interested in reviews, you may want to ask editors on their talk pages if they'd be willing to provide comments, or reviewing other nominations and inviting the nominators here. You might also be interested in an FAC mentor, since it looks like this would be your first candidate. Let me know! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate this list to FL and I'm open to suggestions/criticism about the page before I'm sure enough to nominate this list.
Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. I don't see one so this should be added.
Some of the sources need better formatting. An example of this would be citation where it's just the url, title, and source.
All of the citations need archive links to avoid linkrot.
The article could mention how the nation used to be a monarchy and were led by sultans and how the nation became a republic.
"Muliaage, official residence of the president", needs a citation.
"The President's Office, office of the president", this as well needs a citation.
"The incumbent president is Mohamed Muizzu, who assumed office on 17 November 2023.", this could be merged with the second paragraph.
" Since the declaration of the second republic in 1968, there have been seven presidents.", as of what date?
From List of presidents of Burundi, " The powers of the president derive from the latest constitution,...", this is quite relevant based on how the current constitution is quite recent, should be added here as well.
Hi @Arconning, thanks for giving me some feedback about the article. I've added all the things you said in your comment except for the first one. I don't understand when you said that the tables need captions, so would you mind further clarifying? UnilandofmaTalk04:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tables need caption for accessibility, basically if a reader with a sight disability were to click on the article and would need a TTS application to read the article out, the caption helps out as an identifier Arconning (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Unilandofma The table itself needs a caption. Please check MOS:DTAB, basically use a "|+" thingy to put a caption on the top of your table, "List of presidents of the Maldives" + a source citing all of the presidents would suffice iirc. Arconning (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a featured list. I've been editing here for a while, but nothing of this scope. I would like to know if anything is missing and what other changes would be necessary to nominate it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I grabbed most of the sources and material from both FAs and GAs, and used example of other featured lists to create the lead and tables. This is my first listicle I'm submitting to do so, and I would love a peer review. Thank you!
The Frank Sinatra article is a comprehensive and well-sourced biography of the legendary singer, actor, and cultural icon. I believe it meets many of the criteria for a Featured Article in terms of coverage, sourcing, and structure, and I would appreciate feedback from experienced editors on whether it is ready for nomination.
Thanks, CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2025 (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.
![[1]](https://media.tenor.com/MpON90e63bUAAAAM/surprised-surprise.gif){kind=link}