Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am debating on whether or not to bring it through the WP:FAC process. I completely rewrote the article, but I am frankly unsure of the prose. I have been looking at it for so long now that I would appreciate any feedback and advice on if it is even remotely ready for a FAC. I am primarily concerned with the prose for the "Analysis" section in particular.
I am pinging @J Milburn: as they were a great help for the GAN review. I will leave this peer review open for a few months (ideally if there is enough commentary to support that amount of time) to avoid rushing anything and to make sure I give this the amount of time it needs.
Thank you in advance. I really do appreciate any help to better improve this article. To be clear, I would completely understand if it is determined that this would not be ready for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for a few months trying to get it as quality as possible, and I've come to sort of a standstill after scouring all the sources I could find, so I wanted to get outside voices. Ideally I want to try to get this up to GA status if possible, but I don't think it's quite ready for a GA nom yet, so I wanted to get feedback on preparing it for that.
I've listed this article for peer review because...GA attempt. typos, malformed ideas, anythihng that needs pointing out (besides more external sources for music ig) please do.
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've listed this article for peer review because I has been significantly contributing this article and now, despite of the start class assignment, I'm stuck of ideas to do, I has expand every sections, remove some un-needed stuff such as list of glitches and differences between different versions. This game from the Rayman series may not have a good impact or else but I just wanted to read your ideas for this article so Thanks, NatwonTSG2 (talk) 8:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article to featured status and am wondering if there is anything big that I'm missing. I know critical reception should be reorganized per WP:RECEPTION, but that's all I've got on my notes so far.
This is currently at GAN, but I am also listing it here because my ultimate goal is to get this to FAC within the next couple months, and I recently learned that a pre-FAC peer review can take place at the same time as a GAN. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting this peer review to seek input from readers external to WP:VG on the standard of writing in the article. Whilst I will continue to work on copyediting and concision, it would be great to seek other perspectives on how this article could be improved. I am looking to develop this article to an FA standard which is a new process for me. Thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! — VAUGHANJ. (TALK) 06:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back at peer review after this article has passed a GAN — I plan to take it to FAC later this year. However, as an inexperienced nominator at FAC, I'd sincerely appreciate some more detailed feedback regarding Manual of Style compliance and the featured article criteria. I look forward to hearing your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend replacing Your EDM, Dancing Astronaut and EDM.com with higher quality sources, according to WP:RSN#Electronic music sources.
In progress —TS
Done for now. Thanks for your help with these, I've replaced citations to these sources wherever possible, and the only remaining ones are for verifying uncontroversial factual statements. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could add prose to the year-end lists section, similarly to A Crow Looked at Me#Accolades. I'm also unsure if the song positions are worthy of inclusion; maybe only the album ones should be kept.
In progress. I've removed the entries for the songs, and they're already listed on their respective articles anyways. I'll probably summarize the remainder with some prose as well. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done. Entries for the singles removed, as above, but I don't see much point in converting the table to prose. There's already a section above if readers want the reviewers' comments on the album, so there's no additional information to be gained with that change. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because, having spent over two years refining its prose and references and being a significant contributor, I believe that receiving suggestions to enhance the article to FA-class status would be immensely valuable. Gates played a pioneering role in the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s. Additionally, he oversees the world's largest private charitable foundation. I look forward to collaborating with the community to enhance the article and elevate its overall quality.
This is still a bit of a work in progress, but heading towards WP:FAC at some point. If you've ever listened to a radio broadcast, the antenna that transmitted the signal was probably using a special type of transformer invented by Austin. This article is your chance to learn about a neat bit of technology which has touched your life but you never knew existed, and about the person who invented it.
Thanks, RoySmith(talk) 17:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I know the lead is too short; I've already got that on my list of things I need to do. done RoySmith(talk) 17:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly interested in evaluation of the sources vis-a-vis WP:RS. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to get some comments and feedback for the purpose of a Featured article review.
Thanks, GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne: I recently reviewed this for GAN, so I wanted to give my thoughts here while they were fresh in my mind:
A lot more sources are needed for this article since it relies too much on the initial report. I suggest looking through WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, DOAJ.org, or your local library system for additional sources.
The article will need a prose clean-up, probably after all the extra prose is included. Right now the prose is good, but some things can be done to make it even better. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing helped me with learning how to write more effectively in Wikipedia articles.
The cause and findings section will probably need to be trimmed and written as paragraphs instead of bullet points.
I suggest looking at Paradise Airlines Flight 901A, a recently promoted featured article about an aviation disaster, for ideas on how your article should be formatted and sourced. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: It is more than likely that there won't be many other sources on available on the topic, do you think that will be a deal-breaker? GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Z1720 about the sources, but I'll go a bit further than he did (and my apologies in advance in this reads harshly). This is overwhelmingly sourced to a single source (the ATSB report), and it's a WP:PRIMARY source at that. Of the remaining sources, Johnson and Wong 404's, three others are human-interest biographies of the crew that died which say nothing about the crash which isn't just cherry-picking facts from the ATSB report. The BBC article is a routine news report from the day of the crash. There's zero secondary sources that go into any significant detail about the crash, leading me to wonder if this even meets WP:GNG based on the sources presented.
Aviation fire fighting is a dangerous business and sadly, crashes happen. The aircraft involved was an aging transport plane that had been retrofitted for fire fighting, which is true of most planes used in this type of service. They were flying low-level runs in crappy conditions; again typical of this type of operation. The probable cause (an unrecoverable low-altitude stall due to wind shear) is also, sadly, not unusual. What makes this crash special? But, more importantly, other that the ATSB report and a handful of news articles which just rehash what the ATSB said, what significant coverage of this has there been? RoySmith(talk) 14:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate your frankness. A google search show the abundance of sources on the topic. When writing the article I essentially used the ATSB report as the main source as it was all the info in the one place and was very comprehensive. After a delving deeper into the sources available I am confident I'll be to integrate better quality sources into the article, and diversify the sources presented in the article. The sources range from reporting the initial incident, victim profiles, reporting the ATSB report, and a law suit from the victims' family to the NSW RFS. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to look for not just more sources, but sources which add something new. Were there any other independent investigations of the crash? The accident aircraft was manufactured by a US company and had a US registry and US crew, so I would assume the NTSB would be involved in some way. See if you can find anything from them. Likewise, the plane was owned by a Canadian company, so was the TSBC involved in any way? Was there any independent coverage in the aviation industry press? Are there any analyses by independent aviation experts which explain what wind shear is and why it's hazardous?
More news reports immediately after the accident aren't going to add much. More victim profiles aren't going to add much. More rehashes of the same ATSB report aren't going to add much. RoySmith(talk) 15:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for wider consensus on how images should be laid out in such smaller articles. Compare the current revision to the one I made roughly a year ago - does the article need that many images to go into detail about windscreens and bus rears? A number of UK bus articles have had images shifted around or removed and replaced entirely over the past year, which has caused some contention within the UK side of WP:WikiProject Buses, so opinions neutral to the WikiProject would be gladly appreciated.
Passing comment: I'm not sure if it might be just me or something, but when I read on Google Chrome at the normal 100% size, the image arrangement is, well, pretty ugly. In this screenshot "The" word (pun intended) is...there, and the rest of the passage does not get seen until after the First Hampshire&Dorset picture (here). Like I said, it might just be me, and shrinking the page to 75% for example helps, but I just felt I needed to point that out because it really does not look very good. In my opinion this needs a cleanup in terms of image placement regardless of whether it's a bus article or not. S5A-0043Talk 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the image placement. See MOS:IMAGELOC. Left-aligned images before the main text look out of place. A better choice would be a "Gallery" section.-Ich(talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ich Hi, just stopping in a month after your suggestion - never replied in the first place as I'm not totally sure whether I should to keep a neutral perspective. That gallery edit has been done, just wondering if I can canvas your (and maybe @S5A-0043's) thoughts on it. I think its not very... flush from my perspective, as the images form some sort of Jenga formation for want of a better description, but it does the job. Hullian111 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullian111 I think it looks better; maybe take a look at it with a {{clear}} tag before the gallery? Still better than before, and more in line with how other image-heavy articles of this length look.-Ich(talk) 22:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there was originally a clear tag in there before I removed it for seemingly being out of place, I'll just put it back in. Hullian111 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Ich's opinion. It does look more presentable now. S5A-0043Talk 12:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because there is a lot of work to be done. The page needs rewriting and heavy editing. I would like to have some outside perspective on how to do so.
Recently, I've considerably expanding this BLP, aiming to elevate it to GA status, especially given the significance of the individual as Pakistan's first-ever female chief minister. I've substantially expanded the political career section, but I like to ensure that the content aligns with WP:BLP standards. I welcome any feedback or suggestions on areas that still need improvement so that I can continue to refine the article. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has very long sections, like the "Poitical career". I suggest trimming information and splitting these up with Level 3 headings. Typically, a section should have 3-4 paragraphs.
"so he could travel to the United Kingdom for medical care." Needs a citation
"Maryam Nawaz, who was also granted bail in 2019, appealed the accountability court's 2018 decision before the Islamabad High Court in October of last year." Needs a citation.
Per WP:IBTIMES, this is not considered a reliable source and should probably be removed.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Could you please go through the political career section and tell me if its meets the WP:ACHIEVE NPOV? One editor raised concerns here about the section possibly giving undue weight. Also, any suggestions for alternative section titles for the content currently under the political career section would be appreciated. I will address the citation issue as pointed out. Thanks. --Saqib (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The political section feels too daunting for me to want to read it because of the length without it broken up into Level 3 headings. I suggest that you read the section paragraph-by-paragraph and remove anything that is not the most important information about this person. Remember, the more text there is in an article, the less likely someone is going to read it. For inspiration and guidance on how to format the page, I recommend using Liz Truss, a recently promoted featured article, as a guide. To break up the section using level 3 heading, I would find significant changes in her life and divide the sections with those changes as the headings. For example, "Parliamentary debut" is an excellent heading title. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I understand that the section is lengthy, but perhaps you should have skipped this if you wasn't prepared to read through it entirely. I also acknowledge that the section requires division into subsections for better readability, and that's why I sought input from others as well. For your information, prior to making this peer review request, I also looked at some FA for guidance, but couldn't help me much. For instance, you recommended Liz Truss's page, it has subsections like "Backbencher", "Education under-secretary," etc reflecting her various roles before becoming prime minister. However, in Maryam's case, she didn't hold any public office before her parliamentary debut, so I'm unsure what to name the subsections. I hope this clarifies my position. --Saqib (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've divided the political career section. Could you please review it? Let's focus on the political career section for now. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 16:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Can you please review it, if still interested, or advise on how to renominate it for peer review? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SouthParkFan65 I think this article is close to being GA nomination worthy. I will will review it with that in mind. I have not yet gone through the sources and that will be my next step after getting to some of these writing comments.
"An inside source called this one of the first steps for the company towards a potential initial public offering, though co-founder and chief executive officer Jason Citron had stated earlier in the month he was not thinking about taking the company public." I don't think this is that notable and I would delete it. You can keep the source and work in the info about their new CFO and associated growth into the more notable comments about Microsoft looking to buy Discord. I think a section on why they decided (and have remained) private would be notable but a different/additional source with more detail would be needed. This seems to be part of the story "Citron states that they are still in talks with several potential buyers including all major gaming console manufacturers."
"In July 2021, Discord acquired Sentropy, an internet moderation company." I think more could be said here and I recommend you look for additional sources. I can assist if needed.
"As of March 2022, Discord employs 600 people globally." Weird out of place and outdated fact. Is it particularly notable that this number of people was employed at this time?
"In August 2023, Discord cut 4% of its staff, laying off 40 employees as part of a restructuring effort" This seems like the opposite of notable. Is this the only time staff was cut?
"After a five-fold increase in employees between 2020 and 2024, the company laid off 17%, or—170 employees, in January 2024." This seems to better communicate the point. I am not sure if there is a page on the recent wave of tech layoffs but it seems like this could at least be on a list of companies that went through a similar cycle.
"In 2023, Discord paused their verification program while they performed maintenance. The program has not been reopened as of January 2024" I don't think this is true anymore? Which would mean there was a somewhat longer than expected period where people had to wait to verify their server? That does not seem notable.
WP:MEDIUM is used twice as a source and it is not reliable. Search the article for the two places it is used and try to find other sources. If you have trouble I can help with this part. I think the info is notable.
"Discord has stated that it has plans to implement changes that would "rid the platform of the issue" This is a 7 year old source about a plan. It should either be updated to reflect what they did or removed.
Consider replacing the The_Daily_Beast source with a better one.
"Discord gained popularity with the alt-right due to the pseudonymity and privacy offered by Discord's service. Analyst Keegan Hankes from the Southern Poverty Law Center stated, "It's pretty unavoidable to be a leader in this [alt-right] movement without participating in Discord."" Neither of the sources mentioned pseudonymity. This should be reworked to reflect what is verifiable.
"The New York state attorney general's office announced an investigation of Discord among other online services in the wake of the shooting to determine if they had taken enough steps to prevent such content from being broadcast on their services, with which Discord said they would comply." This announcement of the beginning of an investigation is multiple years old there should be some update.
History is kind of long and detailed. Maybe it should be this way maybe not. I'll give it another read.
Discord Nitro is mentioned without introducing what it is.
"While these features somewhat mimic the livestreaming capabilities of platforms like Twitch" It seems odd to me that Twitch is called out but not Zoom?
"Discord Nitro subscribers will also gain access to a rotating set of games as part of their subscription, with the price of Nitro being bumped from $4.99 to $9.99 a month" This reads like an add and uses the company blog as a source. I recommend this is reworked. I think a section on Discord Nitro within monetization would be best and then it does not need to be mentioned in every other section.
Why is it "Digital Distribution" and not just "Video Game Distribution" ?
Weird to have a section on bans but then only mention one Ban when there are known to be many.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting the article promoted to GA. I've been a long-term 'follower' of the article but most of my edits have been minor to date. I believe that the article is already of a very good quality and is one of the best women's football articles. I believe it would be helpful for someone less familiar with the subject to read the article and to assist me in making the necessary improvements.
Thanks for the feedback. I believe 'Arsenal FC' is the most appropriate and concise one out of these so I'll use that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I simply wish to see what could be improved! I also wonder if this could be good enough for an A-class assessment
Comment I would like to inform you that WP:VG, which this article falls under, does not assess A-class per WP:VG/A. The only next step from GA would be FA. λNegativeMP1 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed the article for peer review with the hopes that it could potentially pass WP:GA standards. My main concern, however, is that the lead is probably too short for standards, and the article might need copyediting from a more experienced user to bring it in line with the manual of style.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be assessed and rated in relevant WP:PROJECT
Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to GA, but I think it needs some improvement before it goes there, and I'd like an outsider's viewpoint of the article.
Thanks, Relativity 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know if this article has GA possibilities, and what would need to be done to make it eligible.
Thanks, Geogene (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because William, Prince of Wales holds immense importance as the heir apparent to the British throne. His role in the monarchy is pivotal, and any information about him directly impacts the perception of the royal family.
The article provides insights into his life, upbringing, education, and public image. Understanding these aspects is crucial for readers interested in British royalty and contemporary monarchy. As the next in line for the throne, this article has immense significance.
The monarchy evolves, and so does Prince William’s role. An FA article remains current. FAs uphold rigorous citation standards. I hope peer reviewers will help us to verify the article's accuracy. Both I and Keivan have been considering an FA-status for the article for long and we believe its time we initiated a peer review. Looking forward to comments from other users.
Thanks, MSincccc (talk) and Keivan.f (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nick-D I'll focus on the coverage of his military service, though my comments are limited as this material looks good:
"William was admitted to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in January 2006" - on what basis was he admitted to this very competitive training program? Was it due to this royal position, or did he apply separately as I understand was the case for how he entered university?
"During this secondment" - what the secondment was isn't clear given the article states that he held a position in the RAF as well as the Army and Navy Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prince William was admitted to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in January 2006 after graduating from the University of St Andrews in Scotland. His admission was based on successfully completing a 44-week course as an Officer Cadet, which led to his commission as a British Army office³⁴. Unlike his university entry, which was separate from his royal position, his Sandhurst admission was a result of his commitment to military service and training⁴. After graduating from Sandhurst, he joined the Household Cavalry's Blues and Royals, alongside his younger brother, Prince Harry¹⁵. William's military career included training as a reconnaissance troop commander, and he served in various capacities in the army, navy, and air force to prepare for his future role as king¹.
Secondment to the Royal Air Force (RAF): In 2008, Prince William spent four months with the RAF. During this secondment, he learned to pilot helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
Attachment to the Royal Navy: Following his RAF experience, Prince William served on attachment to the Royal Navy. This two-month period included shore training and navigation with sailors and the Royal Marines²³.
I posted comments to suggest areas where the text could be clarified, not because I was curious about these issues. This is how reviews work on Wikipedia. I'd suggest tweaking the article to clarify these issues. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. I have made the required changes to the article.MSincccc (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, With the aim to identify any more areas that this article needs or may be improved upon before It is nominated for a good article nomination, especially when this is my first time, I have put it up for peer review...
1-Agha H amin is a retired Pakistani Major who has written many Scholarly articles and contributed alot in writing the official Pakistani Military history, His books have been used in other wikipedia articles as well therefore i think it would be a reliable source ?
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take a stab at a FA in a few months.
Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The below, fairly disorganised, but with FAC in mind.
The infobox contains too much detail/information not included in the article:
Infobox indicates that the capital was Ghazna and/or Kapisa, without specifying if this was simultaneous or sequential. The article says "Their capital was at modern-day Bagram." Does that refer to one of Ghazna/Kapisa, and if so why not name that settlement?
The "Nezaks" in the box in the infobox map is almost unreadable.
What is the source for File:Nezak_Crown.png being an accurate representation of the crown?
Was "Nezak Shah" the title of the leader? The prose only has it as an alternative name for the state as a whole.
A 448–665 timespan appears twice in the infobox. There should be only one, and the dates should be preceded with a c., as they are not defined with any certainty in the body.
Where in the body is "Nomadic empire" defined as the government type.
Infobox says currency was a "Hunnic Drachm"; body says "There were four types of drachms and obols in circulation." If the point is unclear, it should not be in the infobox. Similarly with the "Alchon Huns" in the "Preceded by" section, and the "Today part of" countries which are nowhere cited in the article.
By contrast, the lead could be longer, to summarize more of the article. It is rather rushed at the minute, which leads to several issues:
The first paragraph says "Despite being traditionally identified as the last of the Hunnic states"; the body says "The Nezaks were the last of the four "Hunic" states". What are the reasons for the Hunnic/Hunic discrepancy, and why is the identification definite in the body and hedged in the lead? Be careful with the word "Hunnic", as in English it primarily refers to the European Huns, and I am given to understand that there is no scholarly consensus for a connection between the European and Asian tribes referred to as "Huns". I note that the "Etymology" section does not touch on this point at all.
"The dynasty is primarily evidenced by coinage inscribing a characteristic water-buffalo-head crown and an eponymous legend" This sentence is not very clear at all. Is the "eponymous legend" inscribed on the coins, or is it just part of the evidence for the dynasty? What is the "eponymous" part of the legend?
"a Huna ally" another word which has not been adequately defined. If "Huna" refers to the Nezaks, you should have an "its inhabitants were known as Hunas" or similar earlier in the lead.
The lead does not summarize any or significant information from the following subsections: "Religion", "Link with Nezak Tarkhans", "Pilgrim Travelogues", "Territory", "Etymology", and "Coinage".
I note that several sections such as "Territory", "Religion", and "Link with Nezak Tarkhans" are rather short; per MOS:OVERSECTION, short sections consisting of single paragraphs are to be avoided.
Some notes are uncited.
It is evident that from an in-depth review of the infobox and lead alone, and a cursory glance at the rest of the article, that significant work is needed. Ping me if you want more comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for both general and specific feedback to further improve the article after the major revisions in the past two years. My intent is to get the article into a suitable state for a GA / A-Class / FA nomination.
Thanks for starting this peer review. My initial comments are about the new log-spiral diagram image (Geologic time scale - spiral - ICS colours (light) - path text.svg) that you have created and placed (on 16 April 2024) in the Introduction section of the article. I like the diagram, particularly that it avoids the problem of the previous diagram (in which present day is joined to the start of the Hadean as if it were a cycle). Please correct the typo spelling error in text annotating the Archaean, in the centre of your new diagram: magenetic should be corrected to magnetic. I suggest that in the dates/ages, the symbol for a zero should be changed from slashed zero to ordinary zero. I think there is no chance of confusing zero for another number in this diagram but slashed zero is relatively niche and will probably confuse more general readers than it helps. GeoWriter (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the first commentary. It took me a while to come up with a design I both liked, thought to be aesthetically pleasing and clearly informative. I've made the requested changes to non-slashed zeros and the spelling correction.
On this particular image, there are multiple versions - two alternative colour schemes for people with colour vision deficiencies. Do you know of any nice way to link them in the lead image with the possibility of the user to switch between them? A kind of slideshow type image frame so that it allows a user to choose a more accessible colour scheme. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FAC. Will not close the PR until I'm given the green light. I'm mostly here for a thorough prose review.
I'll also have a look soon, but please let's take it slowly and by the books this time. Doing things fast is not going to get it ready for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at this article and considering a Featured Article nomination soon. Before this, I'd like for this article to be peer-reviewed. Thanks! :) ~ TailsWx (🐾, me!) 23:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because after cleaning up all the maintenance templates I've found that the quality is all over the place. I would like to have someone else's eyes on it to see if there are redundant sections or obvious problems that I missed; ideally, I'd like to promote this to GA in the future.
I noticed this on a list of articles requesting peer review and swung by just out of curiosity. I have no subject-specific background. That said, here are a few minor suggestions:
The images in the History section display strangely in a way that creates way too much white space, at least on a large monitor.
The lead describes them almost entirely as pets. The body, however, also discusses them more diversely.
I would also consider moving Experimentation down lower in the article to be a section of its own alongside As pets and As livestock. Possibly these three could be grouped under a single header.
The article says there are eleven coat patterns, but only four are shown. If these four somehow form the basis for the eleven, that should be explained more clearly. Otherwise, there should probably be just one picture. Alternatively, although I have no experience working with this template, you could find the other seven and make a gallery.
The Health section is way too long. It also appears to include information not specific to domestic rabbits. I would suggest creating a child page for this content and using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
Although it contains what looks to be some relevant and well-sourced material, I don't believe an encyclopedia should have a section on Advantages and disadvantages. I would move select material elsewhere in the article and eliminate the section.
I see now that there is already a section on experimentation, which I think is probably (?) misclassified as being a form of livestock use. Unless there is a good reason to retain this classification, I would move that up one heading level and integrate the material from the History section into it as appropriate. Experimentation would be worth a sentence or two as part of their history, but this doesn't fit well as the lone subsection of the first section of the article.
Do the sources confirm that rabbits used in these other ways (i.e., not as pets) are, in fact, classified as "domestic"? I'm guessing this is right, but I would at least check.
When you're satisfied with the body of the article, review WP:LEAD and make edits there accordingly.
Thanks for the review. I had done some work on the maintenance of this article and noted initially that the subject was confused on whether it wanted to be about the domesticated rabbit in general or rabbits as pets, but not the specifics on why that was. I'll be working to make the scope more coherent around the end of next week. Reconrabbit 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. If you haven't already, you might consider advertising this request for reviews on the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects or that of the rabbit article in order to get some more content-based feedback. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like for the page to be reviewed for structure, citations, and selected works as it would normally apply to a writer / translator. I have created pages for other notable people in the past, but never for a writer. I understand with writers there may be limitless amount that could be added from books, articles, short stories, but trying to find the right amount for notability and encyclopedic content.
✨ Thank you in advance!, Lacanic (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for FA. I'm mostly concerned about the grammar and the possible close paraphrasing. Thanks in advance. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I've created this article with a light overview of a few religions; however I'm no expert on religious studies and would like either additions or good sources to use for expansion into Chinese or African religions. Furthermore, the article has an example categorization of mythologies, but I am uncomfortable with it as it comes from astronomers and not from a religious studies background. If a peer reviewer knows of a similar eclipse myth categorization that comes from within the field, that would be much better to use in the article.
You have citations in the lead. Lead is generally to be uncited per MOS:LEADCITE
Several sources are missing author names
Need a thorough copy-edit, I do not think this yet meets criteria one due to poor sentence construction and grammar issues. I am giving it a rudimentary tidy, but at GA these issues would need to be addressed. Consider nominating at the guild of copy editors.
Example: When he was young, he spent 18 months in hospital after having an operation which left him with only half a kidney has been changed by me to read When he was young, he spent 18 months in the hospital after undergoing an operation that left him with only half a kidney.. Lazenby did not "have" an operation, he underwent an operation.
Example: Lazenby has portrayed James Bond several times over the years in numerous parodies and unofficial 007 roles, notably the 1983 television film The Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (in which his character is identified only by the initials J.B.), 1996 video game Fox Hunt,(parts of which were reedited into a feature film) and an episode of The New Alfred Hitchcock Presents, entitled "Diamonds Aren't Forever". - This sentence is far too long to read comfortably. Something like Lazenby has appeared as James Bond in various parodies and unofficial 007 roles, including the 1983 television film "The Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E." where his character is identified only by the initials J.B., and the 1996 video game "Fox Hunt," parts of which were reedited into a feature film. Additionally, he appeared in an episode of The New Alfred Hitchcock Presents titled "Diamonds Aren't Forever." reads better as does Lazenby has portrayed James Bond in various parodies and unofficial 007 roles, notably appearing as J.B. in the 1983 television film "The Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E." and contributing to the reediting of parts of the 1996 video game "Fox Hunt" into a feature film. Additionally, he featured in an episode of The New Alfred Hitchcock Presents titled "Diamonds Aren't Forever."
The article is neutral, stable, and well illustrated. So, I recommend going over criteria 1, 2, and 3 more carefully and self assess against these
I've listed this article for peer review because this article underwent a copyedit and sources were added to the article. It is possible this might be a GAN one day. It wouldn't hurt if a peer review was done to evaluate the article in general.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to go for my first ever Four Award, which inevitably means getting an article I created to FA status. I have gotten decent at getting my work through DYK and GA, but FA eludes me. I was wondering if I could have people critique my work the same way they would if it were at FA.
I've added some information and expanded a few sections, but not all have necessary details. I aim to elevate this article to GA level and welcome input from interested editors to enhance the article. Thank you in advance for your contributions 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with a page like this is that Gandhi is prominent enough to receive lots of moment-to-moment news coverage, but not prominent enough to receive the sort of scholarly coverage that is needed to write a truly high-quality biography. Even so, we need to do our best to find long-form coverage where it exists. I salute the effort put into this page, but at the moment it is relying heavily on the daily news, and as such I'm concerned about due weight. I lack the time to look for sources, though this may be a starting point. Newspapers outside India have probably done profiles of him at various points in time; that would be another place to look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding @Vanamonde93. I completely agree with you. When it comes to Indian media, it's very tough to find long-form coverage. Could you recommend some citations, generals, or any kind of citations that could potentially help me write it in a GA way? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do more besides the recommendations I already made; search through prominent foreign news sources. BBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Al Jazeera, and a few others are likely to have written profiles at critical moments. I'm guessing there were a few before the 2014 election, for instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I have corrected a few citation formats. Could you please take a look, for example, at the "Bharat Jodo Yatra (2022–2023)" section and let me know if the reference formatting is acceptable? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 15:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any urgent issues with the article. Given how strictly this article has been maintained for so many years, I believe you can try nominating it for GA. Capitals00 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding @Capitals00. I am afraid it might fail quickly if I nominate it now. I feel something is missing regarding the chronology of all sections. What do you recommend? How should this BLP be lined up in terms of sections? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 12:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those who review articles for GA will better guide you what to do in order to achieve the GA status. There is no need to make a perfect article in order to seek GA status. You can try nominating this article for GA. Capitals00 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even if I make it a perfect article, the chances are very slim that it will sustain given the day-to-day coverage this BLP receives. Could you please assist me with sections like "Electoral Performance" and "Positions Held"? Should I include a couple of sentences or are tables sufficient for those two sections? Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in taking this page through the featured list process so that it can be a good model for this sort of competition-based programme. I want feedback on a couple of things:
Is this (or can it be) a list and not an article?
How should the results tables (which also serve as a list of episodes) be formatted, with accessibility in mind?
Is the structure of the prose clear? (Should some of "Background" be in the lead, or should content be reordered?)
I'm fairly confident the page is comprehensive and that everything is either sourced inline or implicitly verifiable to the primary source (the same way we allow episode summaries for fiction without inline citations). — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review regarding orders of listing in this page. This article List of X-Men members is based on chronological order which is one of the format listed in Manual of Style/Comics. My question is what about those characters who joined in same issue but chronological order is not clear. For example X-Force and Phalanx invasion team members in Substitute teams section are in alphabetical order (another format listed in Manual of Style/Comics). I am asking for peer review for arrangement of those members who joined in same issue, should be in which order (for the organisation)?
The major topic is what I mentioned above but I also want a reviewer to review this whole stable page again.
Thanks, Sewnbegun! — Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 25 March 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.
