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 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.
Over the last few months, I've been putting a lot of time and effort into making this page well-written and worthy of GA or even FA status since the movie has become so popular and has been a historical success at the Oscars. I would appreciate any comments on what still needs to be sorted out so I can move forward, thanks. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:
I believe the first paragraph in "U.S. performance" is too long. This should be split into two, and the last paragraph merged into the second paragraph.
Much of your reception sections fall into the "X said Y" pattern and use direct quotes. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION and rework these sections.
The "Critical reception" section is too long. I suggest trimming or splitting this section.
Some of the references have titles in all caps. Per MOS:ALLCAPS this should be changed to sentence case.
Refs 138, 151, 169 & 201: Per WP:FORBESCON this is considered an unreliable source.
Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I'll be fixing these issues over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love to get it to appear as TFA on August 12, 2024, the tenth anniversary of the album. I'd like to know what can be improved before it goes to FAC.
Thanks, Skyshiftertalk 20:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also nominated the article for GAN, as I've learned that a pre-FAC PR can happen simunatenously with a GAN (like here). Skyshiftertalk 12:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
Nice. I find it kind of funny that both of Porter Robinson's albums are at peer review pre-FAC at the same time. Since I was planning to conduct a pseudo-GAN review for the article on the talk page anyways, saving a spot here for later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I will withhold further comments until the GAN concludes — I'm too involved with the article to take it up myself. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, feel free to include some comments on the PR, even if you don't take the GAN. Skyshiftertalk 12:24, 29 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]
Comments by Skyshifter
Nice.
I recommend replacing Your EDM, Dancing Astronaut and EDM.com with higher quality sources, according to WP:RSN#Electronic music sources.
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]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm planning on taking this to FAC and would like some more input before I do.
Thanks, – zmbro(talk) (cont) 15:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I checked the other day and noticed quite a few other PRs listed under the FAC sidebar haven't had any activity, which is odd. I'll probably reach out to individual editors for comment. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled into this article as part of my larger project on Paul Goodman oeuvre, finding that rather than writing a stub about Jonah, I could write a little on each of his major plays.
I'm looking for any feedback in advance of taking this neat little morsel to FAC. czar 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: This has been open for over a month without a comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, yes, thank you. It's a niche topic so I anticipated it sitting for a while. czar 19:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Z1720
Comments after a prose read-through:
Page description is missing
It has {{short description|none}} because the title is descriptive of its contents
"Put another way, the plays each have three characters: a traveler (the audience), a spirit (the idea of the poem), and the chorus (that interprets both for each other)." I think this explanation can be worded better, but I'm not sure how. I don't like the "Put another way" sentence starter.
Edited
I do not think that the names of the plays are supposed to be bolded, as this article is about all of the Stage works, not specific entries. Typically I do not see bolded statements in the body of the article.
"The sets and invitations were primitive and the 20-person seating arrangements intimate." Was this chosen by Goodman? If so, why? If not, it should be removed.
It was a production decision by the Living Theatre
"Attendees included John Cage, Merce Cunningham, and Carl Van Vechten." I think this is off-topic for the article: the reader does not need to know who came to see the performance unless it is important for its development.
They were major figures in the New York scene, so I thought it was useful for context, and Cunningham became a collaborator later in the article, but I can remove if it reads as trivia
I think it reads as trivia and can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of "Jonah" falls into the "X said Y" pattern. Consider WP:RECEPTION for ideas on how to reword this paragraph.
I thought it was rather varied, for the material
There are three sentences in a row that use this format (NYT's review, then Commonweal, then New Yorker) which gave me this impression. Is there a way to combine these reviews by themes instead? Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, not really but I played around with it a bit more. I think that should cover everything. czar 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my thoughts. Based on prose I think this is almost ready for an FAC. Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Z1720! Replies above czar 22:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I created this page a while ago. I want to improve this to GA. The immediate issue I can see is the reception section is quite small which I plan on working so I was wondering if any other improvements could be made before my nomination.
Good to see you, OlifanofmrTennant! This article looks pretty interesting, and I know you've been super on top of those Arrowverse topics; I'll be around to contribute some comments soon. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey OlifanofmrTennant, I realized only once I came back from my wikibreak last week that I forgot to leave a message on this PR; sorry about that! I've actually been drafting some comments over the last couple of days, which I should have done either today or tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I'm now back from my wikibreak; time for a quick review! Citation numbers from this revision.
The lead needs a rewrite or significant expansion. MOS:LEAD needs all of the article's sections to be represented in the lead in some form, which is currently missing.
If the actors who come in for the guest appearances are listed in the show's credits, the citations for those lines can be removed in the spirit of MOS:INFOBOXCITE.
Make sure the plot summaries for each episode are under the 200-word limit set by MOS:TVPLOT.
Done
"Barry Allen gets transported..." This needs elaboration — I'm assuming this is time travel, but how?
The answer isn't clear he is transported through time but the how/who isn't ever explained.
In § References: The Flash/'The Flash' → The Flash
Done
Citation 22 looks like an unreliable source; I'd recommend removing it.
Done
Add quotation marks around the episode titles in the footnotes.
Done
Footnote c is formatted pretty strangely. I think I'd prefer a couple of sentences of prose here rather than a list, which lacks context and is confusing for someone just reading through § Notes.
Done @OlifanofmrTennant: Feel free to reply to my comments in line, and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments because why not. Now using this revision for citation numbers.
Consider adding a frame of one of the episodes to the infobox to help in the identification of the subject to the reader.
§ Critical reception is really bare-bones right now. I'm not sure if any more reviews for the episodes exist, but more information needs to be pulled from the existing sources. For example, citation 12 has been reduced to just a short statement about the convoluted plot.
The long list of guest appearances in § Casting is really breaking up the flow of the prose, in my opinion, and is bordering on an MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue.
Done
I made a couple of edits correcting MOS:DASH issues, but I'd appreciate if you could do another pass to make sure I didn't miss anything.
"Despite this neither Thawne nor Zolomon fight Barry instead being paired off with Allegra and Khione respectively." Needs a citation
Done
A lot of the article has excessive detail about actor's thoughts on returning for the episode. This makes the "Casting" section very long. This should be summarised more effectively.
The "Reception" section falls into the "X says Y" pattern. See WP:RECEPTION for advice on how to avoid this. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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'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]
RoySmith
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.
Thanks, Hullian111 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I've listed this article for peer review because it was peer reviewed about 10 years ago and reached GA. I am hoping for a FAC this time and did my best. Will try to improve it further and reach FA status.
I made a minor edit to an image caption. Overall the article looks really good! (sdsds - talk) 23:00, 6 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! Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The velocity data part can be entered in the interstellar medium section so the ref is not being invoked in the lead
Can the distance from earth not be mentioned in the body too at the future of the probe section for no refs here?
The lead should definitely be four paras per WP:LEAD as stands out quickly to me; this can be done by making sure that each para is a sufficient length after the merge!
In the current third para, you do not need to use the name Voyagers 1 twice and also the usage of "to" before begin is redundant
The refs for heliopause sentence are not needed since this is fully sourced in the body
Can the December 15, 2014 info be wrote in the body too?
2025 info can be written in full detail in the body moving the ref there, also the part earlier in the sentence does not need a ref here?
Anywhere the unable to continue part can go in the body to avoid ref here?
I think the communication system and power sub sections would work better merged
Computers sub-section would go smoother as one para
Is all of the travel timeline really sourced?
In the mission profile section, please merge the overly short paras with the ones above
Move the declination sentence to the para below
Regarding the first to cross the heliopause sentence, please move the refs around in the sentence to appropriate areas since they are way too many cluttered next to each other and place it in the above para
The second, third and fourth paras of interstellar medium would work better as one para to be honest
"Weaker sets of oscillations measured" should use something like had been measured to indicate it was these previous dates from the aforementioned for better flow
The detection para should be merged with the above one
Maybe add something like introducing planet earth as part of the caption for the audio sample?
All of the references need to cite their places of publication - I can already see refs 8 and 9 do not at a quick glance
Further to this, if citing the same publication on multiple refs it needs to be consistent, i.e website, publisher or other on each instance etc.
Fix MOS:CAPS issues where they should not be in refs please
Overall this looks really good, these tweaks should bring it closer to FA quality - not an expert in this subject, but still interesting to go over! --K. Peake 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not exactly an expert in the field or on such articles, but I'll give it a brief go later sometime this weekend. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article's already achieved GA status, but I'm curious as to how close it is/how much work it might need for FAC and would appreciate any feedback. TheKip 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am interested in taking a go at a review. But I cannot commit completely, because the article is massive and will take up a lot of time. Matarisvan (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take all the time you need, any feedback at this point is appreciated and I'm in no rush to make it a FAC. TheKip 06:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: It has been over a month since this has been opened, and there has been no response. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’d still like to see what needs to be done before getting it to FAC. TheKip 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Since you are still working on your first successful WP:FAC, I suggest that you seek a WP:FAM who can comment in this PR. I also suggest posting on the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are attached to this article, asking for comments. Lastly, I suggest commenting on FACs now to build goodwill amongst the FAC reviewers and help with your understanding of the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan
Did an image review first, will look at the infobox and sources next.
Image review:
I'd be very careful including the logo and jerseys. I see the GA reviewer did not comment on this, but it could be a problem at FAC. The expert on this is Nikkimaria, so you should ask at their talk page, they could comment here too.
Your alt texts for the images are great, perhaps too long at places but that is a matter of opinion. For the images of players early on in the article, I would recommend adding the name of the team the match was against. I see you have done this for the images later on in the article, so why not for the earlier ones? Do we not know what teams they were playing against?
This is all for now, I will be back soon. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @The Kip, checking in, you there? Matarisvan (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late response, this and the associated updates/concerns slipped my mind. I’ll take care of them soon. TheKip 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consult Nikkimaria on that.
I added the opponent details to the earlier photos - as they weren't in-game photos like the later three, I didn't consider it relevant, but it's not an issue to add them.
The logo and jerseys are pretty much standard with all NHL team articles. dannymusiceditoroops 05:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any FA class NHL articles which have those? If yes then we can pass over this. Matarisvan (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils appear to be the only ones, albeit they were promoted quite a while ago. NJD had both the logo and uniform in it when it was reviewed and kept as an FA in 2015, though. TheKip 09:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calgary Flames seem to have an alternate logo and the article uses the same fair usw rationale for both of them. That said, it has been 9 years since that article was reviewed, policies have changed since then. Also, do NJ Devils not have an alternate logo? I just skimmed through the article and could not see one. Matarisvan (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Devils don’t - I was confused and believed the rationale issue was with the uniforms, not the alternate logo. TheKip 19:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issue is resolved, I will be looking at the body and lead now. Matarisvan (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating this article to reach Good Article and/or Featured Article status, as the article has made a tremendous amount of progress since its previous nomination in 2006.
Thanks, TNstingray (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:
"Wallace was inspired by another hoaxer, Rant Mullens, who revealed information about his hoaxes in 1982." Needs a citation
"both within the range of anecdotal Bigfoot reports." Needs a citation
"The consensus view is that G. blacki was quadrupedal, as its enormous mass would have made it difficult for it to adopt a bipedal gait." Needs a citation.
"—despite the fact that fossils of Paranthropus are found only in Africa." Needs a citation.
"One study was conducted by John Napier and published in his book Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality in 1973.[137][better source needed]" This needs to be resolved.
Ref 71, 148: History.com is not a reliable source, per WP:RS/P
Ref 224: International Business Times is not considered a reliable source, per WP:IBTIMES
Ref 232: Why is Brave Wilderness a reliable source?
Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Done Moved this sentence to the second paragraph, where the sourcing and details of Mullens' hoaxes are located.
2. Comment: Tentatively removed this line as a violation of WP:SYNTH.
3. Done Added a citation specifying consensus regarding G. blacki's gait.
4. Done Added a citation specifying Paranthropus' geographic range.
5. Comment: "Better source needed" tag was removed, as the citation is referencing Napier's book. Additional sourcing is needed to address the scientific response to Napier in order to avoid violating WP:UNDUE.
6-8. Not done yet.
Thank you for your initial round of comments. TNstingray (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer
I don't have time for a full review, but the refs in the lead should be removed/moved to the body of the article per MOS:LEADCITE. Hope to see this article eventually reach FAC. Good luck! -- ZooBlazer 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The citation section of the lead states "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." This subject has proven to be incredibly controversial, perhaps unsurprisingly. Every assertion needs to be heavily cited to avoid the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. There are several Wikipedia:Fringe theories that have challenged many points, and the citation heavy lead is a result of this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 08:14, 17 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]
Comments from Z1720
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]
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.
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]
make sure that every sentence has an inline citation (there is one paragraph that does not end in a citation)
Added a citation to that paragraph. I've assumed it's okay in for example the 2nd paragraph of the "20th to 21st century" section that the citations at the end of the paragraph are sufficient for the few sentances preceeding it.
restored by Ian Begg – mention that he is an architect?
Done.
He died in 1626.[3] He had the Tower House built in 1598. It served as the seat of the Grants of Rothiemurchus. – This could be re-formulated for better flow; the sentences are too short.
Done.
By 1876–1878 it was said that the castle "is now in a very serious condition nothing remains of it except the walls. – All quotes need attribution to an author.
Done.
The last paragraph of "Description": I am not sure that the bedroom plan is appropriate for en encyclopedia; consider deleting this paragraph.
I've trimmed it, but thought it was worth having a description of the modern interior.
Is there really nothing known about the history after the castle was built and before it was abandoned? For how long did the "Grants" reside there? Why did they left? Some background/context on this family is essential, I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Thank you for this. Unfortunately I've not been able to find anything at all from that time period beyond basic descriptions of the castle. I'll keep looking though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because,I have just finished significantly expanding this stub article and I hope it to obtain C-Class. What parts of the structure need more attention and for Referencing i have cited more sources same with coverage. This is my first major contribution and I would appreciate any kind of help
Thanks, Rahim231 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B-class review
Hello, Rahim231! Because you commented that you "hope [the article] to obtain C-class" on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, I have done a B-class review of this article.
It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
A few paragraphs are missing in-line citations. Entire paragraphs are attributed to a number of sources, rather than sentences describing the same idea(s). In other words, the citation style is not thorough. The sources cited, however, are of good quality.
It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
There is little coverage of the eponymous Hunza–Nagar side. The article at present is heavily skewed towards the British perspective, including minute personal details between British troops, but only speaking of the Hunza and Nagar troops when they retreat or surrender.
It has a defined structure:
The section titles and layout are logical. A "Legacy" section speaking to the campaign's long-lasting consequences and remembrance should be included if possible, as history articles tend to include them to indicate historical significance.
It is reasonably well-written:
The article is written in an unencyclopedic tone and littered with grammatical mistakes and discouraged words (e.g. referring to soldiers as "guys").
It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
The article contains an appropriate infobox and a few appropriately-placed images.
It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
There is insufficient context for the reader to ascertain the background and major actors of the campaign. Uncommon or foreign words like Mir are presented without explanation. It is evident that the reader's holding of the background knowledge of the topic is assumed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A major issue with this article is that most of its content appears to be closely paraphrased from the sources cited (see Copyvio for caught examples). It is not written in an encyclopedic tone; rather, it evidently employs the narrative techniques of the sources given, which are akin to the storytelling tone common in non-academic literature (such as non-academic books, blogs, video essays, etc.). To obtain a C-class ranking on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, the issues in criterias 3 to 6 would needed to be remedied, including one of criteria 1 or 2. Best of luck on improving this article. Yue🌙 04:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Reviewing the article as i could not know better what to improve here, Myself. Rahim231 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC fairly soon. It was last nominated in Feb 2015 (nine years ago) and it appears to have matured significantly since then. I'd like to canvas opinion on anything that needs working on and I can address that in my own time, without being constrained by the time pressures of FA coordinators! I did a pretty thorough copyedit last year, which addresses one of the concerns of the previous FAC review. I can check for unsourced statements and either verify or remove them.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for FAC in a couple of months. General comments are welcome. Particular focus on the quality of the sources is appreciated. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a translation from a Spanish Wikipedia article and I'd like a second pair of eyes on the translation and general formatting.
Thanks, Salvadorp2001 (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B-class review
@Salvadorp2001: I have peer reviewed and copy edited the article. I gave the article a Start-class rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale based on the article's current state. Yue🌙 06:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
It has a defined structure:
It is reasonably well-written:
It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article to be FL-class. All of the changes before I substitute them to the original article are in my sandbox User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1. I appreciate someone who wants to review and give suggestions for the sake of improvement. Thanks, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is very light on citations. The tables for surface area, volume, and inradius/circumradius/midradius, all lack inline citations and might be verging on original research, even though there is wording above to the effect that the info is taken from WolframAlpha. (This isn't to that I think the info wrong per se; however, for Wikipedia purposes, pretty much everything in articlespace needs to have a citation just as a matter of good practice.) In fact, the entire list article has no inline citations at all, just a list of two presumably-related books and several external links.
I think you (@Dedhert.Jr) should use the refs you've already found to cite as much as you can. Then, for the rest of the tables, I'd guess that you might want to cite a bunch of WolframAlpha queries to cover the rest? Other than that there might not be much one can do in the way of referencing. Duckmather (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just added some citations to deal with the lead section. The body still desperately needs inline citations, which I'm not sure I can provide. Duckmather (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duckmather It's all in my sandbox. I will implement it now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have removed the inradius/circumradius/midradius, which can only be found at a few smaller numbers of Johnson solids. I don't think we should add them, together with the graphs as well (see the talk article). Also, I removed the nets, which is already painful to draw them massively even though we do have a source. I do think that journals and books are more reliable rather than WolframAlpha. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duckmather It's already over one week. Are there any comments? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 The reviewer has already inactive in the process of reviewing over than three weeks. I would not expect that the @Duckmather is AWOL at this point. Do you think I should find another reviewer here? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already listed this page at the unanswered peer reviews sidebar. If you know any particular editor who might be interested in reviewing the article, can can of course request them to do so. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:51, 25 February 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]
This peer review comes off the recent promotion as a GA. I wish to put this article up as an FAC in the near future and feel that any additional eyes on the article before it goes to that step could save a lot of grief during that process. I'll be most available through this week and in the evenings East Coast American time next week. Feel free to ping with questions. If desired, I am willing to privately message print references lacking an online equivalent to ensure accuracy of citations and content. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is from this comment from Gog the Mild on the article's talk page: I only looked at the first two sentences of the lead. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE this does not "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English". Virtually by definition this article fails this bar as it needs a footnote to explain a term. And I suspect that many readers will still be little the wiser, as who understands "affording latitude"? I know it's linked, but MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." At a guess there is more similar in the rest of the article. In haste, but I hope it helps. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: This has been open for over a month without comments. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am, @Z1720:. I intend to nominate this article for FA status sometime this year (preferably before June), but my understanding is that a lot of effort that might be expended on PRs is tied up in other tasks like clearing longstanding backlogs and, very importantly, honoring the memory of Vami IV. For this reason, I'm more than willing to be patient. Thanks for following up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: The longer a PR is open, the less likely it is to receive responses. One option is to advertise on various Wikiprojects, asking for feedback. Another option is to close this for now, and open a new one in a couple months. Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you! I'll consider both options. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.
Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: This has been posted for over a month without comment. Are you still looking for feedback? Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks for the ping, I'll wait a little longer to see if some responses come up. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: I recommend reaching out to editors who are interested in this topic area, or posting in the Wikiprojects attached to the article. Many editors do not check PR for articles to review, so this is a great way to inform editors of this PR. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on possible additional sections that others would be interested in and to see whether the current contents make sense to audiences.
Thanks, Stran20 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to get it to featured list status by September this year, and I want to get some feedback before I nominate it. The goal is to make this TFL on 25 October 2024 (the Friday closest to the twenty-first anniversary of their self-titled debut). I'd love some feedback on the lead section specifically, but if there's anything problematic with the rest of the article, let me know.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm thinking of trying it out at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and I'd very much appreciate some additional eyes on it. It grew quite a bit from the original bullet list, and I think it's now comprehensive, apart from an irritating red-link and a couple of missing images. Thoughts on the table, the introductory paragraphs, and indeed anything else, would be most welcome.
Thanks, KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From TR
KJP1, I've just clocked this. A delightful piece of work and a pleasure to pick one's way through. There is much fun to be had from tut-tutting at the inclusion of buildings that would be better dynamited (such as the Festival Hall) and at the scandalous omission of one's favourites. Be that as it may, my only substantial comment is that I can't work out your thinking as regards the order of the listings. I know the table is sortable, but even so, a default order might be expected to follow either alphabetical or chronological order (of completion or listing) within the various sub-categories. Am I missing something? (Wouldn't be the first time, of course.) A more minor point is that there's a bit of in-and-out running as regards addresses. Why, for instance, in my native city does the Liver Building get details of its address but the Cathedral is just "Liverpool"? Not a matter of huge importance, but I'm all for consistency when it's conveniently possible. Tim riley talk 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - I'd totally forgotten I've even put this here! I'm glad it gave pleasure. You're absolutely right - there is no real order. I didn't start it from scratch, and added things rather randomly. Then I thought it should have some order, and grouped: cathedrals/churches/war memorials/country houses/lots of random others, etc. But I didn't do that thoroughly. What would be best - strictly chronological, or chronological within groups? I'll pick up the addresses as I go. KJP1 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've gone chronologically, within groups, those being: Cathedrals / Churches / War Memorials / Other Memorials / Houses / Other. Does that make more sense? Or not?! Have also tried to tidy/standardise the addresses. Thanks muchly for taking a look. KJP1 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid stuff! I've just noticed that the date ranges need a bit of work. The manual of style decrees, or did when last I looked, that we don't put 1993–96 but drag the second date out: 1993–1996. Tim riley talk 13:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody MoS! I shall get right on to it. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Whatever you think about Leslie Martin's effort, I'm sure you're pleased to see Liverpool Cathedral and the British Library on the list. What would you have put in that's not currently there? KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love Liverpool Cathedral above most others. (Lincoln, perhaps, or Rheims might almost pip it to the post for me.) I used to look out of my school windows and watch the place being built. The BL is no thing of beauty, but I wouldn't be without it for an instant. As to the Festival Hall, I don't mind its outward appearance, and inside it's rather a nice environment, but it's the damnable acoustics I object to. They were going to rebuild the Queen's Hall after the war, but Herbert Morrison's vanity project left us stuck with the RFH instead, blast it! Tim riley talk 14:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But to answer your question, I'd put the Barbican, Paddy's Wigwam, Cockfosters and Gants Hill tube stations, Guildford Cathedral and Battersea power station in the top bracket. Et toi? Tim riley talk 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
It's been a while since I did anything on a list page, so I may be a bit rusty, but I'll chip in shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want an outside perspective on how to make it best align to the featured list standards. Specifically, the lead section and sources.
Thanks, Stl archivist314 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for a while now and I want it to improve better. I know there's alot to improve so I want to know if the lead is okay and/or if the sections are okay too. Looking forward to your comments.
Thanks, Loibird90 (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2023 (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.