Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA. Igor is among the most recognizable albums of the 2010s, and I think it at least deserves to be a quality article.
Hi LunaEclipse, this will be my first peer review, so I'd recommend a third point of view but here's what I identified as areas of improvement:
1. Why not add a See also section?
2. Why not incorporate audio segments into the article?
3. Why not add the year-end lists and industry award charts into the Charts area at the bottom of the article, and then add a "Accolades" subheading under Critical reception?
4. Can we expand on the Commerical performance section?
5. Perhaps an External links section to the album?
6. I did proof-read, but there's nothing that stood out to me in this area.
7. Archive any links in references that might be vulnerable to linkrot.
In addition to AlaskanGrass's above commemt, as for audio samples, the editor must pick at least one song from the album that best define the album and discuss it's sound, themes and lyrics thoroughly before they can attach the audio sample, but since they are aiming for GA (not FA), few lines will do.
I would suggest you add something about the certifications in the lead.
I think discussing the sound of the album in the body of the article is better than individually referencing each genre in the infobox.
To expand the Commercial performance section, you can easily turn the chart performance and certifications into prose. Also, don't forget to reuse the auto-generated refs.
Add the Release history section. I noticed that there's a standard edition and bonus edition.
Personnel: although the Tidal source is also fine, I think the media notes ref is enough, and Tidal is not necessary. What do you think?
Introduce External links section, and add Discorgs URL under the section.
Ref12: Red sources are highly discouraged, any reason why you find an alternative to DJBooth?
This is my second, and perhaps last, peer review for the article about Sarah Geronimo. I nominated the article for GAN, but was not listed due to prose and sourcing issues. Afterwards, I have addressed the issues raised in the said nomination. Now, I believe this is ready for GAN, or possibly FAC. Let me know ASAP if it is ready.
"Her family was poor and struggled financially, and frequently moved houses" ----> "Her family struggled financially and frequently moved houses"
"During her first amateur singing competition, she performed Shirley Bassey's..." ----> "During her first competition, she performed Shirley Bassey's..."
"Later that month, she starred in a leading role on the television series Sarah the Teen Princess.[27] and had a..." replace that period with a comma
"The following month, she Catch Me, I'm in Love, where she portrayed..." I assume there had to be a cheeky brainfart here
In the section Perfectly Imperfect and The Great Unknown, "public relations" is linked the second time it was stated rather than the first
I see the article phasing in and out of the use of Oxford commas (WP:Oxford comma)
I don't believe the lead section covers anything past her career enough
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it promoted to FA class and also just generally make the article a better read whilst also bettering myself as an editor to see how more experienced individuals would alter the text.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status and it was suggested to me that could be a Featured Article candidate. I've not participated in the FA process before, but would be interested to hear feedback on whether this could be an FA candidate.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
im considering to promote it to FA to accommodate more songs for the 1989 topic on wikipedia, as part of project 1989. it would really help if you can spotcheck the little blemishes that might be left inside the article before nomination.
Thanks, brachy08(chat here lol)06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have been working on this article for a few days. Adi Meyerson is a jazz double bassist currently operating in New York City. I'm a fairly new editor, but my goal is to get this article up to GA status, as I think its achievable. One thing I know I might have to do but don't know how to is to split off the discography, as it is getting a bit large.
I hope that whoever reviews this can give me some good suggestions and reassess the article, as I don't want to overrate it.
This is what the article looked like just 1 week ago:
Are there any photos of the subject that could be added or requested?
Ensembles of which she was a guest rather than a member should not generally appear in |current_member_of=
Fixed, also changed the discography section to reflect this.
The lead could be streamlined - her beginning to play double bass is mentioned twice, which could be consolidated
Fixed, removed second second mention.
The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing, in particular for punctuation and capitalization in places where it isn't needed - eg "She has Synesthesia" should be "She has synesthesia"
Done
Subdoctoral academic designations are not generally included as honorific suffixes
Done
Is a date for her MM known?
Done
Publications should generally be italicized
Done
The article is on the shorter size for a potential GA. The Discography section suggests many collaborations which aren't discussed in the text, which would be one area for potential expansion.
Added paragraph on Dark Matter, a quartet she leads, and Works For Me, a musical collective she was in.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to feature article status at some point in the future, and I want to ensure that it is as complete as possible. If any additional changes could be made to the "Release" and "Reception" sections, please let me know. Moreover, if any additional sources exist that could be used to enlarge either one, I'll be happy to make the appropriate changes.
The section I'm most interested in improving is the film's "Production". I feel like I've exhausted my resources regarding either print or online sources, so if anyone is familiar with any additional sources that could be used, I'd really appreciate that. Lastly, if someone has access to a DVD of the film and could upload the audio commentary somewhere—a tall order, I know—that would be the most useful addition to the article after the behind-the-scenes documentary.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am trying to get this up for a successful Featured Article nomination. An outside look into its prose and sources to see what needs to be strengthened would be much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because... this article got GA'd in 2017, but in 2023 and 2024 I did a lot of content changes and additions that have kinda reshaped the whole thing, bar maybe the reception (which I'm planning on redoing) and the composition section. I am planning on having this article re-reviewed in full for Good Article status due to the amount of changes made once I am finished. There are several things in need of discussion:
A lot of the 2023 edits sucked. Around that time I generally approached things in an overly passionate/potentially biased manner, and I've slowly attempted to weed out those issues since then or otherwise. A common problem or area I question a lot due to this is the "aftermath" section, which details the media reception to Kittie, its consequences/effects(??) and some retrospective praise. Whilst there are sources detailing Kittie's frustration I am unsure if I have presented things correctly or got things wrong. If there's a way to improve it or otherwise, do tell. Or if I'm making it a bigger deal than it's supposed to be.
Check for citation issues, typos, prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, and missing information and anything else.
A Space for the Unbound is an Indonesian adventure video game developed by Mojiken Studio and published by Toge Productions. It was released on January 19, 2023, for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S. The game is set in the late 1990s and follows Atma and his girlfriend Raya, who live in a suburban area in Indonesia, as they explore their newly attained magical abilities and deal with supernatural powers that threaten their existence.
The sections Gameplay, Development, and Reception each contain 2-3 paragraphs, which I can't gauge whether it's comprehensive for a non-player. For the Plot, I reduced it to less than 700 words (691 words), so I wanted to see whether the plot summary is satisfactory.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how someone who hasn't played the game can improve it. Being promoted to a B-list article can do for me, but I'd like to see points on bringing it to A or above.
The plot length is technically okay (under the 700-word style guide limit) but it could be condensed a little more – I gave an example on Discord.
"He wanted to highlight his personal experience of growing up in 1990s Indonesia" and "Dimas said that it was his goal to preserve his memories as an Indonesian growing up in the 1990s in the game" are a bit repetitive. You could combine these into one sentence.
"Dimas and the rest of the development team consulted professionals". You should specify what kind of professional – I'm assuming psychological or psychiatric professionals. You can also shorten "Dimas and the rest of the development team" by a lot, probably to just "The developers".
You used a hyphen in the plot summary, which I have replaced with a colon. An en dash or em dash would also have been okay. Outside of specific phrases like "point-and-click", you should basically never use hyphens as punctuation – use en dashes or em dashes instead. Details at MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:DASH. Toadspike[Talk]08:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did (1), (2), and (3). Problem is, I can't find a specific for the professionals so far, so I assumed psychiatric professionals. In the Jakarta Post interview, the professionals statement was a quote. I also modified the paragraph in Development to do (2) "He wanted to highlight..." RFNirmala (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it provides a comprehensive overview of the electric vehicle manufacturer EKA Mobility, but I would like feedback on the following areas:
Clarity and depth of the company's history and operations.
Coverage of its partnerships, investments, and future outlook.
Whether the references are sufficient and reliable.
Suggestions for any additional sections or information to enhance the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to take it to FAC. Would appreciate feedback from @Femke and UndercoverClassist:, who left many comments at the failed FAC (but did not leave a supporting vote). Thanks, 750h+12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping: at the moment, I don't have much to add to what I wrote at the FAC, but I'd be happy to take another look if the article's content were to change substantially. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of has (went from around 5 and a half thousand words since you last reviewed to 6.1K) but I can wait until Femke leaves her comments if that’s fine. 750h+16:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad to see this PR. This is a tough article to get right due to the hype and hatred around Tesla, which means we need a more critical look at sources compared to other car articles. I will review some more, but not sure when as I've got family visiting and might have a long covid crash afterwards. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got a few minutes, so I'll continue where we left off, the environmental impact section.
The sentence about unintuitiveness still doesn't work for me. Now, it's unclear what unintuitive. The point the guy wanted to make is that Tesla's batteries have very high recyclability, not that it's unintuitive.
Dana Thompson is unlikely to be notable (she's a PhD student or postdoc I think). WP:Red links are for notable topics.
should i remove her part?
In terms of organisation of the section:
I would start with the CO2 emissions story, which in my (biased) opinion, is more important than the battery story.
done
I would group all the bits around recycling of batteries into one paragraph as much as possible
this is a gigantic paragraph, i think i will have to leave it as two
It may be nice to talk about how Tesla repurposes old batteries as home batteries (reuse), rather than go the recycle route.
A 2021 scientific study by iScience --> Usually, we don't say a study is by the publisher. The journal only printed it, they didn't write it. Best to say "A 2021 study" instead.
Given that 2015 is 9 years in the past, the word "current" in "due to limited data on current recycling practices" is off. It can be omitted, or replaced with "at the time" after recycling practices. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: thoughts now? Is there any way you think i should expand on "It may be nice to talk about how Tesla repurposes old batteries as home batteries (reuse), rather than go the recycle route", bit confused here. Sorry for the late response 750h+10:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I have done a fair bit of work to the article and feel it is no longer a Stub article. Prior to this the article had not been updated since 2023.
Any comments or contributions are greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen for any suggestions for improvement. I would also like the page to be indexed on search engines to encourage contributions by the broader wikipedia community.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to continue developing the page. Any assistance or ideas onto what I could do to develop it (improving/adding sections etc) would really help. I'm not great with citations but I have added as I have edited the page. If anyone would like to take the initiative to also edit the page and add more info, it'd be great. Not requested a peer review before either so hope I've done this correctly.
Some quick tips: The first sentences in Early life are unsourced. Good articles often avoid very short paragraphs. Are you able to find out which part of Bergen he is from?
Quite many sections start with "On [date] [year]," which might come across as somewhat repetitive and prose that could be improved.
Thank you for correcting the spelling mistake. Regarding the first sentence of Early life, I could not find a citation from a reliable source. Should I delete Early life in such a case? Meganenohito (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete the name of the parents, a real danger here is WP:CITOGENESIS i.e. introducing sources that originally copied Wikipedia. There are lots of sources for his being born in Northampton, though, such as this, which also states the borough of grew up in, Fana. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listed for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA (which I didn't think would happen - really thought it would fail and that I'd get feedback but hey-ho) and I'd like to gain a peer review so that I can improve the article. I do think it needs improving but I'm not sure how to action this.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this page to GA status soon. In addition to the standard stuff for peer reviews I want to know if there are any missing sections that are needed for an article about a geographical region. I also want to know how can I expand the Lede section of this article.
Thanks, Abo Yemen✉09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears what this article needs most is more citations to support existing information, and presumably to add new information. In terms of what content could be developed, there is presumably a lot that could be added for late 20th century and 21st century history, as well as items such as when Pasacao became a municipality. More information could be added about the barangays, and about demographics. There are existing sources in demographics that could be used for more prose. The infobox has an oil depot image, but this is not mentioned in Economy. There is also economic information in the infobox not in the article. Culture looks like it could use a lot of expansion. There is a lack of coverage of politics and administration. Best, CMD (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... it was suggested in the GA review that this may be a future FAC. I've never written a featured article before, but I wanted feedback on the article geared towards that to see if it's within reach or not. I'm pretty familiar with GAN but don't know a ton about FAC.
Extraterrestrial rivers are not discussed. I believe there are active methane rivers on Titan and dried river beds on Mars?
Types of rivers are not discussed (e.g., Braided river) and how rivers can be classified based on morphology.
Geology is missing. What geological features are caused by rivers, what is the impact of rivers on sedimentation and rock formation, etc.
Also, earth history seems to be missing. 400 million years ago, before plants, rivers tended to be wide and straight, right?
A common misconception holds that all or most rivers flow from North to South, but this is not true. – I don't think that is accurate. The source talks about the US but the statement seems to be for the entire world. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-Earth rivers thing is kind of interesting, the old River article used to talk about it. There is a blurb about Mars in the article, but could be expanded. The problem with the rivers on Titan is that they are not made of water, to my knowledge. Therefore by our definition they are not rivers. Which may be a little out of step with colloquial practice but is a notable distinction. ForksForks (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mars mention seems a bit out of place in my opinion. In my opinion, a separate section on extraterrestrial rivers is a good solution. I would also include Titan rivers there, because they are called rivers in the respective sources. I don't think that the definition of the article precludes this mention. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is by far my most complete thus far, and the one of which I am proudest. I've yet to participate in the FAC process, so besides the FAs and guidelines that I have read, I have no clue if it's anywhere near those standards. I'd like help getting it there, or, if it's still a long ways away, help improving the article in general. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe all comments from the FAC decline have been addressed and would love a final check before resubmitting.
I would like a review for neutrality and MOS covering the entire article in preparation for a potential FAC (which would be my first one), and in general any other advice to prepare this article for FAC. Thanks. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question with what might be a complicated answer - is this article ready to take to FAC? Thanks for any constructive comments! Mujinga (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed (I withdrew it per advice), and someone suggested that I take it to peer review. I'm hoping for this to become a featured article soon, but I think I need some help/guidance/advice before taking it there again.
There is a page warning {{copyedit}} in Eat Bulaga article, I can't find exactly what I will change on words or grammar, there is a {{cn}} too. I want to fix this before I nominate on Featured Article. Royiswariii (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to take this to FAC at some point, but I realize an entire historical era is a pretty sizeable topic compared to my usual fare of coins and biographies. I would like to get people's eyes on this and see if there's anything else that needs to be fixed up before it's ready for candidacy. I would especially appreciate any feedback from editors who can comprehend the Japanese-language academic literature on the subject, as I can't tell if there's recent studies I haven't been incorporating if they haven't been mentioned in the English sources! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I found the article to be confusing and badly structured, not only that, but the article was lacking key information. Therefore for the first 2 weeks of October this year (2024), I reshuffled, added, moved and created a few new paragraphs, culminating in this edit. However, my edits were later changed 10 days later and reverted to it's form prior to October (see discussion: Talk:Madoc), but editors were clear in watching the article and following my review precisely over the weeks and no one complained but in fact helped my progress in amending the article. Therefore, I am requesting the article Madoc be peer reviewed, but if at all possible, could someone please also look my copyedit dated 10/17 to compare and contrast which edit would be better for the overall presentation of the article, as in the copyedited or the original messy article..?
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it into a good article, but I'm unsure how else to do so. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is through peer review.
Hello, fellow editors. Despite it being home to one of the worst cases of human rights abuses in South Korean history, the article for Brothers Home had been in a poor state ([1]) since its creation in 2016. I have been working on it for about a month, and major sections of the article are still in progress. While I would love to see the article GA nominated, it is still far from meeting all its criteria.
As the center has only gathered interest in Western media in recent years, many sources are inevitably in Korean. I will notify Wikiproject Korea with the PR, but any commentary, whether it'd be on formatting, references, or style, will be greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially re-wrote, re-structured, and ref-filled the article.
I am seeking an upgrade of the rating to at least "B", with comments and recommendation for further improvement.
I've listed this article for peer review because
I’m not sure if I worded my sources good enough on the page and I wanted to hear you guys thoughts about it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this for featured article and there are sourcing questions on other related articles.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten it and I would like to develop it further and improve the prose and style, as an inexperienced editor I am struggling to do so and would appreciate feedback.
I think it is developing well, given the paucity of solid evidence. An obvious improvement would be a look at sourcing. In-line citation is going well but when you look at it, it is drawing from very few sources. It is also heavy on the use of the Auchinleck Chronicle, which would count as a primary source and therefore, not ideal in wiki's eyes. I think this small number of sources is particularly highlighted because the article has an extensive "Further Reading" section, which does not seem to have been used in creating the article. I'm no subject expert but from I can see, there are some solid works in that list that might be used to diversify the source base. Monstrelet (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SeanPadraig, I will add more comments soon. For now, consider incorporating Monstrelet's advice, and remove the usage of primary sources. From what I've seen, WP prefers sources from after 1950 more, so 1800s sources are obviously no-goes. Academic sources are prioritised and government sources should only be used if the former are rare or unavailable. Thus you should incorporate the sources listed in the Further Reading section, as Monstrelet has said. Also, I would recommend linking, in the infobox, to the pages for the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland and those of the commanders we have pages for (for example, Hugh Douglas, Earl of Ormonde). After that, I would advice using the coordinates we have listed to add a map in the infobox. More to come once you've done these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to know if it could qualify to be a good article. Also if it needs any change in the wording, etc.
I'd remove the combat infobox; this wasn't a both-sided thing, and it wasn't only against Shining Path members.
I would add in the section of background context that eugenics had been proposed but never implemented until Fujimori's regime to the beginning part of the lede.
I feel some reviewers might be confused why three of the journal articles (the two Chaparro‐Buitrago sources and Chávez & Coe 2007) aren't used but are cited. I'd recommend using these or putting them in further reading if not useful.
I think you want to generally avoid hatnoting red links.
There's a complete lack of images here; for the act itself I can imagine that there'd be little in the way of PD/CC images, but you can at least put in a picture of Fujimori, and any later feminist activists etc.
Giulia Tamayo uses the term "health festivals" but this isn't ever discussed earlier in the article (and should probably be given a Spanish translation if thats a translated phrase)
I did a complete re-write of this article and would love peer feedback. I corrected a few factual errors I found. I removed text that was either plagiarized by previous editors, or had been plagiarized by other websites, as it was word-for-word the same as text found elsewhere on the Internet. I also addressed the issues raised in previous cleanup banners. I added structure to the article, and brought in more context to help fill in the story beyond the obviously entertaining "cow flew" information to frame Elm Farm Ollie's adventure within the larger historical scope.
I know there is still room for improvement. I appreciate feedback on all elements of the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a good deal of effort into it and would appreciate commentary on how to make it accessible to a wide audience, which Celtic Studies is historically lacking, making it subject to all sorts of pseudo historical writing in the public field.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status. Over the past few months I redid most of the citations and greatly expanded the article and I want to get a second pair of eyes on it. I'm also trying to track down a pair of citations (discussed in the talk page).
It's been a while since this article's last Good Article Nomination, and it has expanded considerably since then. I don't see any obvious issues at first glance, other than the History.com ref, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on this.
I consider peer review of this article important, since Encyclopedia Britannicastill hasn't covered possibly the worst post-Cold War mass genocide, happening in 1994 with 500K-1M dead (though to be fair, they were busy going broke competing with Microsoft Encarta).⸺(Random)staplers22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some drive by comments, not a deep dive by any means
- In the Preparation for genocide section there are several one or two sentence paragraphs and one massive paragraph. The way this is structured feels unfortunate to me and the information presentation would be improved by altering this
- sexual violence, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- Killing of the Twa, one paragraph level-one heading - should either be expanded to show its significance for that level of heading or folded into another section if it's not
- Rwandan Patriotic Front's military campaign and victory, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
-France and Opération Turquoise, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- "HBO Films released the made-for-television historical drama film titled Sometimes in April in 2005." unsourced
- "Pierre Rutare, the Tutsi father of Belgian-Rwandan singer Stromae, was killed in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide." unsourced
- Commemoration, another level-one one paragraph heading. this feels like it can be significantly expanded
- Maps of Rwanda any particular reason why this is here
citations:
The citation formatting is generally inconsistent. Some news sources are rendered as long cites and some are in bibliography and given shortened cites. Pick one or the other for news/non-paginated sources. formatting should be more consistent also
- many sources need to be properly formatted for consistency
- need page on kirschke citation
- there has to be a better source than the unlinked Akayesu trial document
- citation from Genin, Aaron should be sentence or title case not all caps
- citation from huffpost should be replaced, there has to be a better source for this given the scholarship available on this topic
Thank you for this important article on one of the most tragic events of post-WWII world history. I think the article is really near to GA or even FA.
Please find my comments below:
Consider introducing people when they are first mentioned: Kanyarwanda > the mythical king Kanyarwanda; Ruhanga > the god Ruhanga, Yoweri Museveni > the military strongman Yoweri Museveni etc.
Citation style should be standardised (for instance, citation No [28] differs from the previous ones)
Make sure that all pieces of information are properly introduced (for instance, the reference to a pro-Tutsi party comes out of the blue in section 1.2 in lack of a previous reference to the party system in Rwanda; we are not informed why the Belgians started to support the Hutu; who created the republic?, etc).
Please doublecheck the use of tenses: "the Tutsi origin myth holds that Kanyarwanda had several sons, including Gatutsi and Gahutu, ancestors of the Tutsi and Hutu who are therefore brothers"; These exiles, unlike the Banyarwanda who migrated during the pre-colonial and colonial era, were regarded as refugees, etc.
Please consider using a more neutral language in some cases: "a force of over 4,000 rebels"
Consolidate short sections into one, especially if a single sentence makes up a section.
Make sure that duplications are avoided (for instance, the establishment of palamilitary forces Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi is mentioned twice)
There are still massive sourcing problems in the article.
At the FAC, you defended the reliability of Ali Khan 1925; I cannot see why. It is deeply clear from the first pages that it is a hagiography designed to portray the man in as positive a light as possible. It endlessly waxes lyrical about his accomplishments and merits; if he had one fault, it is not mentioned in the book. We have one section in the book titled "Sher Shah as an apostle of Indian unity" which starts with the following, completely non-neutral sentence:
"In contemplating the career of this man of exceptional gifts whose horizon was far wider than that of most of the rulers before or after him, the student is profoundly impressed with the idea that he has never come across the account of any other ruler who has occupied a mighty throne with so admirable a combination of heart and intelligence, nor one so uncontaminated by false political doctrine, nor one so honest and joyful in his laborious mission
For other sources, I looked at the Conquest of Marwar (1543–1544) subsection: most of what is cited to Chaudhuri is borderline WP:CLOP: you should be looking to summarise, not paraphrase. What is not near-closely-paraphrased is not supported by the source: for example the assertion that "several of his generals were killed" is not verified by the source.
@AirshipJungleman29 The area for the "Conquest of Marwar" was pretty much untouched by me since I revamped the page, that's an area that's been untouched since 2022. Here's the version before I did major revamps unto the page and you can see the Conquest of Marwar is pretty much identical, and I've pretty much only added sources to it when it was first touched over by me. - [2]. That's an area I will definitely fix though. I'll also look into Khan. Noorullah (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 I've begun removing Ali Khan entirely, and I did this with the first half of the article thus far, replacing him with the much more reliable Satish Chandra. I'll work on getting this through the rest of the article soon. (and fixing that Marwar section). Noorullah (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 I think I'm done with that now. I've removed Ali Khan entirely, replacing him with a myriad of other citations that are much more reliable, while also adding/cutting down on content, and also reworking the Marwar section to clear up any WP:CLOP (that was not as a result of me I believe).
I first made an attempt at GA review on one of the most frustrating prehistoric animals there is, something which unfortunately failed. As obviously, no one had done the same on Kronosaurus, I am asking this time for a review of the article before proceeding with a second GA attempt later. I thank in advance anyone who will do so, best regards. Amirani1746 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for FA review. Since the last PR, I've incorporated more information from the Spanish-language sources and reworked parts of the article. Article is quite content-heavy and the first time I've dedicated that much effort in making the best use of available sources and organising them. Yet this is my first time so I'm looking for guidance.
I'm looking for reviewers who can guide me in organising/polishing the content to FA standards. And addressing all other issues that are holding back this article.
Hi @Volcanoguy @Jo-Jo Eumerus, both of you have experience in FA geology topics. I plan to make this FAC which would be my first time. Are you able to dedicate some time for this PR? @Ceranthor, Hi this article has gone through significant changes since your last PR especially with new information from the original 1922 report. Could you revisit this PR again for your take? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have much experience in bringing earthquake articles to FA so I'm not sure what this article would need. The only earthquake article I brought to FA was 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes in 2010 and I haven't worked on any earthquake articles in years. Volcanoguy14:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment on a few things. "Major towns including Xalapa, Teocelo, and Cosautlán experienced fewer casualties compared to the rural mountainous area but suffered more collapsed buildings." I dunno if I would say that a town "suffered" from collapsed buildings. Why does this article use US dollars as its currency? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An area around the epicenter, located between Chilchotla and Patlanalán, was assigned the maximum intensity" odd formulation, an area doesn't have an intensity.
"the slab gradually plunge to about" I think that's "plunges"
"with later estimates of 700 to 4,000 also presented." a bit wordy.
I kinda wonder if there is something special about these mudslides. Earthquake-caused landslides are common; did the earthquake happen during rainy season and thus produced so many deadly mudslides?
"Sections of walls and a tower in the town's church felled" is felled the right word here?
"Cándido Aguilar resumed his position" did he quit it before?
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it as a "good articles" or "featured articles" candidate. I'd like an overall review to see if it is adequate to continue the proccess.
Hi there, and thanks for working on an important article like this! I will quickly point out some general issues for now, but, if time allows, will be happy to do more detailed comments once you sorted these out:
There are many paragraphs without inline citations towards the end of the article, and a number of "citation needed" tags. Every statement should be sourced with an inline citation, this is super important (or it will quick-fail at the good article nominees).
The article seems quite unbalanced and goes into detail that is simply to much for this overview article. A good example are the two tables listing crops that benefit from pollination. The first one is ok I think (have it collapsed by default, though). The second one is definitely too much ("that are at least occasionally or potentially pollinated by stingless bees"). We should not write articles by shovelling in any detail that we can possibly find; we instead have to comprehensively cover the important aspects of the topic in a concise way. There should be a balance; it is not good to have sections that are very general and sections that are super detailed; the depth of detail should remain about equal throughout the article.
Sections "Taxonomy" (including etymology and evolution) and "Description" are missing. The former could include a nice cladogram showing the interrelationships.
The structure seems to be non-standard. I am not convinced that the grouping by geographical region (Stingless bees of Australia …) is a good choice. I recommend to have a look at some Featured Articles, such as Mantis, Coccinellidae, or Mayfly, and use these as a template.
There is also a strong bias in the article as stingless bees of Africa do not really seem to be discussed.
This is a serious disease that affects many people, so I want to get it to the featured article status that it deserves. I've overhauled and updated every section of the article. Please review my work so we can make this a good resource for others.
I feel like the differential diagnosis section could be expanded a bit.
Per WP:MEDDATE "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." I would suggest trying to find alternatives for any sources that were published pre-2014 and limiting the number of sources published pre-2019.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Hi. I recently created this article on a book written by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors. It’s about Donald trump’s financial and business life and is bound to reach #1 on the NYT list. Looking for people to improve the summary and maybe add a new section or two covering release and promotion. Also open to feedback on language and prose.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get more feedback on how to further improve this before I submit for GA. Thanks, DrunkenJoe (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got this article as far as I can apart from a few minor things, but I'm not super experienced with writing, nor was I super familiar with this topic before I started researching. I was hoping to get some feedback to bring up the quality of the article.
Thanks, Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in all things climbing and this is an important 'head article' on the topic that covers many sub-topics and concepts, almost all of which I have tried to link into this article.
It had fallen into poor shape so I decided to try and improve it (I have been bringing the main sub-topic articles up to standard). The subject matter is reasonably stable, as the only developments in rock climbing are new "hardest" routes that only happen every decade, or the creation of new sub-disciplines, which have not happened for over twenty years. The sport continues to expand globally and is now in the Olympics.
Generally, this seems to be in good shape. If you like to nominate this at WP:FAC, I think that covering different areas around the world is necessary, as well as a "Cultural impact" section (at the moment, there is only a list "In film", that that should be text). It helps to look at existing FAs to see what the expectations are, such as Baseball. Note that the "history" section in that article has a much broader scope, including a section "Around the world". Also notice the "Popularity and cultural impact" section, again with subsections on different parts of the world, and the "In popular culture" subsection (that is just text, not a list of movies). If the article fails at FAC, then it is probably because coverage of these aspects are weak, and a strong bias on Europe/US may not be accepted there.
I understand what you are saying and let me think about how to build this as a section. There is probably less on the 'cultural' impact of rock climbing as it is still a newish sport, however, it is growing quite fast now (e.g. The Guardian, Forbes), and I could cover its global growth.
The listing of particular websites and magazines in-text will probably be questioned at FAC, too. I see that these mentions have practical value, but remember that we are an Encyclopedia, and this level of detail might be better placed in the main article Climbing guidebook, unless they are really pertinent to the topic.
Understand. I had a great academic paper done on climbing media but could not find it when I was writing the article; if I can't find a high-quality coverage of this, I will take these out.
Make sure that everything is covered by the cited sources. For example, this sentence is only partly covered: Important new first ascents are also chronicled in specialist rock climbing media, including climbing magazines such as Alpinist, Climbing, Desnivel (in Spanish), Grimper [fr] (in French), Klettern [de] (in German), Outside, and on major climbing websites — several of which that were former magazines — such as PlanetMountain (Italian-based site), Gripped (Canadian-based site), and UKClimbing (UK-based site).[31] – The source [31] does not seem to mention those websites and some of the magazines, or the fact that they were former magazines and so on. If there is no source that lists the most important websites, that would be another argument not to mention specific ones at all (making an own selection here is already fishy). At FAC, there will be a spotcheck – a sample of sources will be checked for text-source integrity.
Understand. Per above, was missing a very good source I had on this, but can't find it. Your point is well made and will give the article a good run-through for source-checking and make sure that it is tight.
Great comments as always Jens. Let me have a longer look at addressing the first one, which I think is important and will take me a little more time. I will ping you again if that is okay when I have updated it. Thanks again, Aszx5000 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear how close this article is to passing a featured article candidacy. It is largely unchanged since I brought it to GA last December. At the time, I remember doing as comprehensive a review as I possibly could of the available academic sources discussing the topic, but I've never touched the FA process before, so any input is very welcome!
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like an important topic in this field, gets a lot of traffic, and needs some more work to become a solid article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm not sure how else to improve it. I think getting extra feedback from more people will help push the article to B-class or even Good Article status.
Lede seems particularly short; it should be a couple sentences, a brief summary of the article as a whole.
You have a few uncited claims;
Last paragraph of Early life
Last paragraph of Imprisonments (also, this should probably be part of the previous paragraph; one sentence paragraphs are generally to be avoided.
as well as the co-chairman of Chongryon in 1947 at the end of Formation of Chongryon
The sentence ending held the position of chairman of Chongryun until his death in 2001 (this has a CN tag)
There's a few prose correction's I'd make too, to conform with MoS and such.
You call him "Deok-su" throughout the article. For one, I think it might be better to rename the page to Han Deok-su to conform to this; but moreover, it's better to refer to people by their surname (Han in this case) unless they're nobility or you're talking about them in the context of other people with the same surname.
Shouldn't it be Higashiizu? (also, he was in a labor union in a different town than he lived in?)
When beginning a new paragraph, don't say "he"; say Han.
Wikilink Chongryon and give more context for what it is and what it does.
Specify what the Nine Wolseobang is; a bookstore I presume?
Are there any pictures of early Chongryon meetings or such you could use?
I was able to find some academic sources which mention him; these should definitely be incorporated for a B/GA level article. These are just English ones; I don't have access to databases for Japanese/Korean academic articles, but if you do, you should search for articles there! These here should be accessible via WP:LIBRARY
Kim, M. (2015). How Does Diaspora Mobilization Become a Causal Feature of Structural Change? Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 2(3), 266-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797015601915
Hasegawa, Kenji, and Kenji Hasegawa. "Postwar Departures and Reversions in Mid-1950s Japan: Chongryon, Okinawa, and ‘Bloody Sunagawa’." Student Radicalism and the Formation of Postwar Japan (2019): 167-212. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-1777-4
Ryang, Sonia. "The Rise and Fall of Chongryun—From Chōsenjin to Zainichi and beyond." The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 14, no. 15 (2016): 1-16. https://apjjf.org/2016/15/ryang
Thanks for the feedback and even the extra sources! I've fixed some of the typos and citations, and I'll be sure to add the extra references once I get an exam done. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 00:56, 5 October 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.
