Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.
Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. 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.
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created the article from a redirect and greatly expanded it. Would love some additional input on the article on how to improve it. Hoping to get this article up to GA status at some point.
I wrote this article and I hope it can qualify for "Good" or even "Featured" status, but I am uneasy about nominating my own work for promotion. The community is welcome to provide comments in that direction. I have a few "citation needed" tags for things I'm pretty sure are true but can't quite verify, and hoped that an expert would come to the rescue (no luck yet). See also the article's talk page for some more details on things that are tough to verify. Thanks for any comments you can offer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the title: it seems the rock scene came to an abrupt end in 1975, so isn't using "1960s–1970s" somewhat misleading? ("1960s–70s" is used several times in the article; two-digit ending years have limitations, see MOS:DOB). An earlier title was "Cambodian rock (1960s-70)",[1] was "Cambodian rock (1960–1975)" considered? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There are about three people in all of Wikipedia who know anything about this topic. I started a discussion with that group in which I proposed writing this article but admitted that I could not think of a good title. (Here is that discussion: [2]) Nobody else could really think of one either, and there are also rules to follow at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Consider the current article title to be a "lesser of all evils" choice and I am open to any suggestions. Also, "1970s" vs. "70s" in the article text is an oversight on my part and easily fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Another installment in Jimi Hendrix lists (Jimi Hendrix discography, Jimi Hendrix videography) that I hope to become a FL. It's gone through a couple versions and I feel this is by far the best. Of course, another set of eyes or two always helps. Looking forward to your comments.
As a lifelong Hendrix fanatic, I find this article very useful and you did a good job differentiating among multiple versions of the same song with slightly different titles, released both before and after his death, and other tricky technicalities like that. Here are some peer review comments. I noticed that some of your lettered footnotes have a period at the end but others do not. More importantly, in the second paragraph you use "about" a few times, as in Hendrix did not write "about" 36 songs, "about" 61 were issued during his lifetime, etc. Now that you have color-coded and differentiated all of the minor variations, it appears to me that these quantities could now be counted precisely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, there is so much material out there now, I hope that this makes it more accessible for everybody. I went ahead with your suggestions; I'll just have to be diligent when Experience Hendrix has a new release and update the totals! —Ojorojo (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I truly believe its widespread acclaim and "cult-following" notability make it a unique subject to be a Featured Article (FA) contender. While it currently meets Good Article (GA) guidelines, I hope other editors can strengthen its prose and structure.
You did a great job compiling a vast amount of information on this album that has received vast media coverage. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." In other words, a photo of Paul Simon (for example) is relevant for articles about him, but here he is merely mentioned obliquely. Nobody may care enough to bring this up, but don't be surprised if it happens. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a joint effort by SchroCat and Tim riley. Round the Horne was a BBC radio comedy of the 1960s, a formative influence on one of us as a teenager (the other wasn't alive in the 1960s and so has no excuse whatever). We have been revising the article with the aim of bringing it up to FA standard. We have tried to give the show comprehensive coverage though we hope we have avoided being too solemn about it. We regret the lack of pictures, but we are restricted by Wikipedia's rules on copyight images, and have tried to break the text up with, we hope, enlivening quote boxes. All comments and suggestions on this and indeed on anything else will be gratefully received. We hope you find the article wangles your nurdles. – SchroCat and Tim riley talk 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry - technical hitch (me, probably). Having to shut this page and open a new PR. Apologies! Tim riley talk 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking this to FAC but am unsure what would need to be done to improve on it. Not much information on Soultaker in general, with its modern relevance today being its feature on Mystery Science Theater 3000. So just to cover my bases I just want to hear any suggestions on how to make it better in any way. GamerPro64 05:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Colin M
Soultaker_(film)#Reception starts by saying "Critical reception for Soultaker has been mostly negative", but the article intro gives the opposite impression.
I think someone added that without me looking. I removed that sentence. GamerPro64 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
But that sentence (the one saying critical reception was mostly negative) seems like it accurately reflects reality. The article says the film has 0% on Rotten Tomatoes over 5 reviews, with an average rating of 2/10. Of the specific reviews it mentions, 4 seem to be negative, and the other 3 seem to be mixed. I would call that "mostly negative". Putting The film received positive reviews from Billboard and Variety in the intro seems like WP:UNDUE weight. (Side note: I don't suppose the Billboard or Variety reviews are available online anywhere? It'd be nice if the reader could read the full reviews themselves to judge how positive they are, especially if they're going to be featured prominently in the lead). Colin M (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok I see what you're saying now. I think I remedied the issue now. Also here is the Billboard review. GamerPro64 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems like it may be worth mentioning the film's low budget in the intro (and maybe its limited theatrical release?)
As well as writing the script for the film, Vivian Schilling played the female lead Natalie McMillan. Schilling had previously acted in Fred Olen Ray's Prison Ship and a nurse in the soap opera General Hospital. That second sentence doesn't seem like a noteworthy piece of information in the context of the film. (Unless the point is to say that Schilling had little acting experience before this film? In which case I would try to be more explicit about it.)
I expanded on the fact this was her fourth film she was in, as well as her first starring role. GamerPro64 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this directly to FAC instead of GAN beforehand. I'm aware that for FA the article's prose needs to be brilliant, so I hope fellow reviewers can be really critical and constructive :). Thanks in advance, HĐ (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
He is unemployed, but writes about how he wants to work and find love. Miedzianik writes about specific examples pertaining to those desires. could be written formally. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat) 17:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed two consecutive FACs, despite my best efforts (the first time, I withdrew it to rework). Before I take this to FAC for the fourth time, I want to know what is wrong and fix it. Thanks, Kailash29792(talk) 07:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Was the NFAI poster different from its theatrical release one?
Dunno, it looks that way. The caption "NFAI poster" was chosen after much deliberation; I wonder why no-one was okay with simple captions like "poster" or "film poster". --Kailash29792(talk) 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
You should also mention the editor's name somewhere in the lead's second para.
Yash, I removed Directormahendran.in since it basically takes content from his book which I have already used as a source here. Kailash29792(talk) 07:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
3,915.46 metres (12,846.0 ft) may be a bit over precise?
That's because I used the {{convert}} template. Any problem with that? --Kailash29792(talk) 07:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are convinced that it's accurate to 1 cm, that's OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Oedipal doesn't really apply to brother-sister, but if that's the quote...
Agreed, or maybe there's a mistranslation by the editor. The original book was in French, and I cited the English edition. Would it be fine to put {{sic}} anywhere? --Kailash29792(talk) 07:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds OK. I've been on holiday, and I'm about to start TFA scheduling, so I won't have time to have another read, all looks pretty good though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am eyeing an FA candidacy in the future. I’ve put a lot of work into this article, now a very recently promoted GA, but feel it falls just short of meeting the FA criteria. I think presently, barring minor prose issues in the rest of the body, the critical response section is the biggest issue standing in the way of a successful FAC because of sentence rhythm and overall structure. This was a similar issue I had with another article I was successful at getting to FA status (with the help of Mike Christie, and also after seven attempts!). Some feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Going to take this up, hopefully will get the review up soon! Stilistic (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn't it be that it was a longtime project rather than is, considering it is now released?
I’ve gone back and forth with it, but I believe either is appropriate.
"However, Doc threatens him back into a life of crime, threatening to harm Debora and Joseph if he resists." I feel this could be condensed a touch.
Revised.
Is there anything that can be added with respect to the casting of Kevin Spacey?
He wasn’t active in the film’s press tour barring less than a handful of interviews, in which he speaks about his character’s motivations and praises Wright for his artistic vision. Unfortunately, as a result, I was unable to find any useful information about his casting.
Is "R. Marcos Taylor as gun runner Armie" necessary, given that the actor has no article and the character is not otherwise mentioned in the article?
Revised.
Gonna add more later. Stilistic (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Take as long as you need. Thank you for taking up the task! DAP💅 16:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh my god I'm so sorry, I fell off the face of the Earth! I'll try and get this done ASAP. - Stilistic (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help with verification. The main aspect I would like help with has to do with the year 2000. It is, unfortunately, the only year that I haven't been able to find a single reference detailing the nominees. I was able to find one for that year's winner—from GLAAD itself—which at least proves that Strangers in Paradise was one of the nominees (and winner), but that's it. While it isn't necessary, it would also be great to include some more reliable sources regarding the 1990s nominees; as the current references are all press releases.
Thank you in advance. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
PanagiotisZois, this is much more difficult than I anticipated. After quite a bit of searching, I've had no joy. A frustrating hair away from it: archive.org has GLAAD's home page from 2000, but didn't capture the page it linked to with the nominees; similarly, the Advocate lists nominees in other categories, but the second part of the nominations, which probably had the comic books, didn't get saved to archive.org. Variety may have seen the category as the equivalent of those technical Oscars they don't show on TV. The only youtube video from that year's awards is of Elizabeth Taylor.
Wow, thank you so much for trying @BlackcurrantTea:. I understand it must have been hard. And yeah, I was aware of archive.org having GLAAD's website from 2000 but not the nominees list; still pisses me off to no end. I'll try some of your suggestions. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I think is a pretty good article and just wanted to see what others think can be improved. It was last reviewed in 2006, which is a lifetime ago!
Thanks, Superegz (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged into longer ones.
Some things are missing inline citations. Some examples of this:
The brief alliance and subsequent invasion may allude to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa.[original research?]
In his London Letter on 17 April 1944 for Partisan Review, Orwell wrote that it was "now next door to impossible to get anything overtly anti-Russian printed. Anti-Russian books do appear, but mostly from Catholic publishing firms and always from a religious or frankly reactionary angle."
Although not required, I personally would try to reference the plot inline to reliable sources. This step improves verifiability.
The citation styles used are a total mishmash. Pick one style and stick with it.
A considerable amount of the references are to online WP:UGC or WP:SPS, therefore not qualifying as RS.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed the drafting process for the article. I think that the references are not strong as the the majority of the information came from online blogs because of lack of official resources on the topic. I would also like to improve the sections that are slightly lacking in information, mainly the history section and the modern section, although I would also like to improve the traditional examples category.
I would also like to add more images such as of the Lorne jewels and the Stewart jewels but have been hindered by copyright restrictions.
Thanks,
Dream8047! Dream8047! (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm! It's not that impressive. There are plenty of "official" sources, and I'm sure quite a few online, but you haven't found them. The History section is pretty poor. This is a selection of Bronze Age Scottish jewellery from the MOS, some from about 1,000 years before you suggest it started. These beads from Skara Brae are from "Between 3100 and 2400 BC". If you scratch around on the MOS site (not the easiest to navigate I know) you will find tons of information on all periods. I changed the date you had - misinterpreted from what is anyway not a WP:RS - as no "Celtic-style" metalwork appears in the British Isles before about 300BC. Most of the time Scottish jewellery is not all that different from English, Irish, or indeed European styles, which it would be good to see recognised sometimes. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting article but here are my two or three suggestions on how to improve: The article is broken into too many subsections, consisting of a sentence or two- there is no need for that. The series of the sections can change. I 'd prefer history section go first. And something must be done about sources, I am not certain that visitscotland.com or kilt society or claddaghdesign.com] meet RS criteria. On the other hand, nice photos and a lot of space for improvement! Cheers,Cinadon36 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed its FA review back in October. I did not get a lot of great input then, only some recommendations and some - as I felt rather impolite - comments from the only reviewer. I see that the prose has some problems. Since I am German, I tend to use longer sentences (which is just the style you use in German), but it does not work well in English. So suggestions as to clearing that up a little bit would be welcome. I am also concerned about the "Background" section of the article, since I am not sure how well this can be understood by people not overly familiar with Formula 1.
I am very much looking forward to your suggestions!
Comment from Jamez42 I made this edit per WP:NPOV and WP:BLOWITUP since the article currently has a lot of promotional and non-encyclopedic content. A peer review would definitely help. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Richard3120: Honestly, I think it's too long, and it sounds more like a travel guidebook than an encyclopedia article. It contains lots of trivia, statements that are unsourced or from unreliable sources, and personal opinion ("to really improve the conditions of the Sabana Grande district, it is necessary that the Venezuelan middle class thrive"). 38 pictures is probably too many as well. The lede is too long and again full of trivia like listing names of shops (why are these important?) or anecdotes like it was the last place that Gustavo Cerati went out to party. Maybe Jamez42 was a bit drastic with his edit, but it definitely needs cutting down and rewriting in parts. Richard3120 (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Domdeparis This article is way too long it is almost twice as long as the article for Caracas the capital of which it is a collection of districts. I don't even know how many people live in this are nor how much surface it covers. The lead vaguely refers to it as such The Sabana Grande district is divided into several middle class urbanizations located in the Parroquia El Recreo of the Libertador Municipality, in the geographical center of the Metropolitan District of Greater Caracas and owes its name to the old town of Sabana Grande.. There isn't even a map to show what area it covers. I even think the article that was accepted at AFC was way too long with far too many photos. I am afraid that I agree with Jamez42 and this article is a prime candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. This reads like a guidebook for the district and clearly fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTPLUG. The time spent in copyediting this would be I am afraid a serious waste. I would be of the opinion of moving it to draft space to allow QuinteroP the time to work on it themselves and for it to be submitted as at AFC again. I would also suggest merging anything in this article Boulevard of Sabana Grande and creating a redirect to here. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe there's a chance that this could potentially make it to FA one day. I've also requested a copyedit from the WP:GOCE and I'm actively searching for a statistics source for the missing seasons in the stats table. Look forward to any comments. Thanks, Kosack (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
This following article is well written piece, thoroughly researched and presented without neglecting any important information.
By FA Criteria, I hope it meets all 5 points, that is
(a) well written as summarised as prose and hope of professional standard
(b) comprehensive as it does not neglect any vital or important information as the article leans to history, it accounts all sphere of events,
(c)well researched, almost every part is provided with consistent citation with high quality reliable sources
(d) neutral and a stable article as no edit wars or conflicts or vandalism or any such things happened till date.
With that, it is well structured with a good lead and summary along with photographs of events and is not lengthy and but covers all historical events happened. I hope the article is well maintained and deserves a FA status. Please do review and assess the article status.
Thanks, Dey subrata (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Distributed element circuit should perhaps mention tapers in the Circuit components section. At present it says Departures from constructing with uniform transmission lines in distributed element circuits are rare, yet in the lede picture there are two stick-insect networks with tapered bodies. These networks are unusual, but got me thinking of other examples of tapers, including; horns, vivaldi antennas, matched loads and various tapered transitions. Smooth bends and twists are also considered to be tapers. catslash (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I added a bit to the article lede connecting it to a very similar article: distributed element model. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's pretty good as it stands. I am aiming for good article status, and then feature later. There is a problem with when we can add the medical sections, here or at social media addiction, but I've posted several notices about that. Attempting to attract more comment so we can get consensus as to how WP:MEDRS applies with the relevant linguistics.
I want to start discussing ontology, linguistics, and philosophy more directly. It is required, but I'm not an expert. I need to bring in the ADHD psychologist, but we're pretty much consnsus opposed at the moment, bit of an impasse. Philosophy I think is needed! E.3 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I am currently improving or rewriting this article because I have an enormous amount of energy for this. I notice that some areas need a rewrite, a few areas need a source, and of course, the Criticisms section is evidently being considered for its own article. The reason for a peer review is that I need advice on how this should be formatted. There are so many areas needing fixing that even know I know how I can fix them, I am not entirely how they should be fixed, specifically reformatted. Any help would be appreciated. Gamingforfun365 23:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel the lead could be trimmed down, with paragraph 2 trimmed down and paragraph 3 moved entirely into "History". WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know whether editors would be in favour of Gapes being nominated as a Good Article or otherwise. As a member of the Independent Group, Gapes will obviously be the subject of increased notability as time goes on.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is about an important person in North Carolina history and could use some input on what needs to be done.
Thanks. I learned something new today. TwoScars (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggest referring to the Guild before GA nomination, as there are some infelicities of language - eg. "guerella warfare"
I definitely need to make sure I always use the spelling used in the Wikipedia article. Infelicities? Is it bad to use the term "guerrilla warfare"? I can cite a book on it including a definition. Mosby was mentioned on one page in that book. Could replace with "hit-and-run tactics".TwoScars (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"Guerrilla warfare" is fine; "guerella warfare" less so - referring here to misspellings, grammar errors, problems with clarity and flow, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Should use |upright= rather than fixed px size for images
Will experiment with that. As someone with no-so-great eyesight, I prefer pictures as big as possible while still staying within the guidelines. TwoScars (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The point of upright scaling is to provide more flexibility in meeting those needs - it scales images relative to your default image size, so if you've set your default size larger than I have the images will look larger for you than they will for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Need more context for the map, as the indicators from the prose are absent - is that "Wa" that's cut off on the right side Washington?
Yes, the "Wa" is Washington, DC. I can make a bigger map, and possibly highlight the railroad. I was hoping that "Fauquier County, Virginia, is located slightly less than 50 miles (80 km) west of Washington, DC,...." would cover context for the map, but that does not appear to be the case.
Your references include several harv errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yikes—several errors, a dead link, and one cited twice. I will clean up. Thanks TwoScars (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The 23rd (Northumbrian) Division had a short history during the Second World War: an untrained infantry unit untimely deployed overseas to conduct labour duties in support of the British Expeditionary Force, it was thrown onto the frontlines with mixed results as the Battle of France entered the final stages.
The article has recently been overhauled and expanded. I have also requested that the Guild of Copy Editors give the article the once over to help improve the prose. I will be looking to take the article through its GA, A, and FA reviews in the coming months. It would much appreciated for a peer review to help whip the article into shape with that in mind.
Currently Hewitson is in the References list but there are no citations to it
Suggest scaling up the maps
Suggest moving the "It had been envisioned" piece into the end of the Background section - would seem to fit better there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have edited many changes since a previous peer review was archived. I believe the edits are improvements in the article yet this is unconfirmed by others, and I do believe this article may reach a Featured Article status with assistance from advisors. I believe a necessary improvement is in the introduction, yet I hesitate to revise the introduction because it was not so identified for the reasons I believe it should be revised. I believe it is somewhat too detailed.
Thank you and kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished add references to the page. It should pass GA now, but I can't help think it could stand a great deal more improvement. Curtin is often regarded as Australia's greatest prime minister, and the only one from Western Australia. The article is listed as a level 4 vital article.
I've listed this article for peer review because…within the last year, but especially the last few weeks, citations have been found for unsourced claims in the article. As a result, this has gone from a largely uncited article to one with no missing citations.
Keep working on it. It's a good start, but some important information still needs to be included. Think about the types of questions that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter might be looking for. For example, the city is a UNESCO World Heritage site. but why? All the article says is "an archaeological site bearing testimony to the development of human settlements in Central Asia, from the 4th millennium BCE to the end of the 3rd millennium BC" and I don't find that until all the way to the end of the article, but it still isn't clear enough why it is clear in world history. What does that mean, anyway? Tell me why this is important. After you fill in important facts like that, you'll need to transform the article from its current form that seems like a fairly loose collection of cut-and-pasted facts into a coherent story or article. When you've turned it into more of a story, rewrite the lead to summarize the important points of what you've written in the rest of the article. I find that reading the article out loud helps me identify areas where the prose does not flow well. Keep at it! RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added over 94% of the content currently and the topic is related to a report that had far reaching implications for the Indian security system at a national level which are still being implemented to date. I would also request for comments related to any copyright violations, if found. Although I have checked for copyright violations, but I would still request someone to double check. (I have reduced copyvio as much as possible, names and quotes etc aside, of course). If possible, fact checking would be a good idea too. I have tried to make sure that the content is as accurate as possible, but again, since I have added over 94% os the content, asking for a peer review would also be a good idea. Before any more major expansion is done from my side, I want to be ensure that the current content is a good base, structured well, has no copy vios and is fact checked reasonably. This is a lot to ask, so accordingly I will add to other review requests shortly.
DiplomatTesterMan, congratulations on your first article! I took a quick glance through the results of Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and I don't seen anything that raises a warning flag. The vast majority of the matching text can't or shouldn't be changed, such as the names of groups. If you want to work on finer details, you could look for bits of matching text you can change, and reword those. For example in this comparison, you see 'Age profile of the army','could perhaps have been avoided', and 'surprise to the Indian government'.
This isn't mandatory, more a low-pressure suggestion which might give you a fresh view of the article. I'll let another editor (or several) work with you on the fact-checking and structure, and wish you the best of luck. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because, for the first time, I've put a fair deal of work into researching and adding content to an article. I think this article could be close to GA status and would really love some feedback on what's still lacking or could be improved.
Thanks, ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 03:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
First question that comes to mind is Payne, Australian, Astronomer... any relations to Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look! I can't be sure but I don't think there's a connection. Although Under the Radar has reasonable coverage of Payne-Scott's genealogy, I was unable to quickly find information on Edward John Payne's parents. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 04:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Animalparty
First, the lead section is far too short. It should serve as a concise summary of the subject, touching on major accomplishments and the most noteworthy aspects of the subject.
Second, the string of degrees after the name in the ntroduciton is uncalled for: almost every scientist has a bachelor's degree and many have a PhD. Generally only very prestigious honorifics like OBE, FRS, etc. should be appended to the name. A string of lesser degrees just gives the appearance of (needlessly) trying to increase the notability of the subject. Payne-Scott is perfectly notable as is, no puffery or overcompensation is needed.
The infobox caption is needlessly complex: captions should be concise, especially infobox captions. Extraneous metadata about where or when can be relegated to the file description page. "Payne Scott in the 1930s" is perfectly adequate to provide context. See MOS:CAPTIONS and WP:CAP for more guidance.
The word "pioneer" in the lead is somewhat vague and can be construed as a "peacock phrase" that promotes without imparting information. What did she do in radiophysics and radio astronomy besides being the first female radio astronomer?
If you haven't already, review Wikipedia:Writing about women, and ask yourself if content in this article would be equally appropriate, or given the same emphasis and presentation, if the subject was male. For instance, it may be verifiable that she enjoyed knitting and loved cats, but unless such aspects were a substantial part of her personal life, they may not raise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia is not a place for everything), or at least not until other parts of the article can be expanded to give better proportion.
Avoid sections composed of disjunct sentences. Information is better be presented in paragraph form (WP:PARAGRAPH).
The list of publications should be considered. While somewhat of matter of personal taste, it risks becoming (or appearing) as indiscriminate info, or as trying to artificially inflate the importance of the subject. I don't know if it's comprehensive or a selection, but publishing articles is par for the course for most scientists: a selective list might include just the most significant publications, books, etc. Newspaper submissions and other lesser publications might be omitted.
The Further reading section is largely extraneous and can be removed: per MOS:FURTHER, it should generally not include sources already used as references, or as External links.
Lastly, the External links section should be judiciously trimmed per WP:ELNO #1: Links "should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." This means that standard biographical articles with redundant information should generally be omitted, or used as citations to expand the article. Links already used as references need not appear here. Per WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE a short, well-curated list of links might include resources for more specialist readers (i.e. links to collection archives or museum records), and links that offer unique perspectives (e.g. video clips of, or interviews with the subject). Cheers, and happy editing! --Animalparty! (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
This is my first ground-up, complicated article. It is now substantially complete, with illustrations, infobox, and as much information as could be useful to the layman reader. I don't know if "Low Importance" articles can become "Good Articles," but I'm at least shooting for "B" with, perhaps, an understanding of what it might take to get "GA." Once I have gone through this process at least once, I will have a better understanding of it and can start helping to review other pages.
Thanks! :) Neopeius (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
"Low Importance" is completely irrelevant w. respect to FA/A/GA etc. Will look a bit but you might wanna make friends at wikiproject spaceflight to help you more. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Siddiqi, Asaf (1989). Challenge to Apollo. p. 240. Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
Garland, Kenneth (1989). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology. p. 127. Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
Both missing Location of publisher. This is optional, but some people really care (most don't perhaps). Safest thing to do is add it. OH, the one thing that IS kinda required is consistency, so do your best to have either ALL with Location or NONE with. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks much. :) I am having difficulty getting Wikipedia to take any ISBN I give it. Please take a gander at the Bison Books ref in this article and advise? --Neopeius (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I left a msg on your user talk page. BTW, you're supposed to put images at the top of the relevant section, not the bottom. I believe that as per WP:ACCESS or similar. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead describes these as a series of "particle physics satellites". As a lay reader, it's not clear to me what this means. Might be better to say something like "a series of satellites launched by the Soviet Union in 1964 used for particle physics research" (if indeed that's what's meant). Colin M (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it very recently, believing the subject was worthy of an article. It has had 300 views so it seems there is interest. Feedback would be welcomed, and it would be nice if the article could be graded with an assessment too, as it is currently of unknown status. I believe literature is the best category for this request although the subject also encompasses LGBT and religious themes.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to be a good article. This is the third article I've done a plot summary for, and I feel that I've done really well for that part. I have found reliable sources and balanced out real world coverage. I would like to see if other people like this article as well.
Looks like a good work there, however, I would say it looks slightly underlinked. I found good coverage in the plot section, but found no sources. I will welcome new opinions to the review. See you I will, I know the best wiki (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
I agree that there could be more links, but I can't find any places to put them without them being generic subjects. I found a review in a magazine that covered a bit of the plot, so I sourced that for the parts it covered. I don't think I really need any plot sources, though, as it's pretty easy to figure out that all the plot comes from the book itself. Thank you for your review. Scrooge200 (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Promoted to GA recently, and I've continued to work at it. Sending to PR with an eye towards FAC. Any general feedback would be appreciated; there's no particular sections/aspects I have in mind. Thanks! — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had issues with COI in the past and, as a level-5 vital article for people in law enforcement, the article could be elevated to a higher standard. I personally think most of the content currently present on the article is alright but with the COI issues (I also have a COI as I was previously paid to make some edits, so I can't directly implement any suggestions made from this peer review), it would be best for another editor to comb through it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering nominating it as an FAC, and am hoping to hear valuable feedback from other editors before I do. The article was last reviewed in 2013 and was deemed a good article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have created this page and want to check that it is done well, as well as to have an idea on what needs to happen to get this to 'Good Article' status. I was planning on going back and creating similar articles for all the missing years of this event and wanted a check on what I had done before doing so.
Percy Glading operated in an earlier phase of Russian espionage in Britain that preceded the far more famous Cambridge Five, and was not so successful, eventually being caught by means of an MI5 mole—"the Maidstone Mata Hari" reported one newspaper at the time—and doing stir. There is a connection, however: the security services let an opportunity slip to capture those Russian agents who would eventually recruit the Five. Chock full of bizarre incidents in India and lessons in how not to balance cameras on books, Glading has already received a thorough GoCE copy-edit (many thanks, Twofingered Typist) and an equally-thorough good article review from Buidhe. The subject is somewhat out of my comfort zone, so all comments welcome: hopefully we can get Percy to the rank of his more well-known—and better educated—comrade. Thanks in advance to all who look in! ——SerialNumber54129 18:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Doing...: My close reading speeds are slow at the moment, so this will take me a little time. I hope to post some initial comments in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Lead: I'll reserve detailed comments on the lead until I've read through the article, but a couple of points strike me initially. First, I think there is a tendency towards over-detailing, particularly in the first paragraph. I believe that opening paragraphs should be short and punchy, dealing only with the essence of the subject – what makes him notable? In this case its that he was an early active British communist, a co-founder of the CPGB, a trade union activist and a convicted Soviet spy. This could be covered briefly thus:
Percy Eded Glading ( 29 November 1893 – 15 April 1970) was an English communist and a co-founder of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). He was also a trade union activist, an author, and from the mid-1930s he spied on Britain for the Soviet Union, for which activity he was convicted and imprisoned.
A second point relates to the lead image, which is not particularly impressive, although I appreciate that it may be the best available. This is a case where I think its appearance might be enhanced if it was incorporated into a small infobox – I faced a similar problem with Burgess, and went down the infobox route there.
Background and Early career
I've read down to the start of the Indian expedition section, and find the text somewhat muddled. I found the reading hard going in its present form. The "Background" section begins with some early life details, followed by a brief physical description of Glading presumably in maturity, and ends with an out of context account on MI5's infiltration of the CPGB and a summary Soviet activity from the 1920s and 1930s. We then move on to his "Early career", which begins in 1925 when he had been working for almost 20 years. The chronology is confusing; for example, exactly when was Glading at the Royal Arsenal? He appears to have left by 1921 to work at Harland & Wolff, but a little later we read "In 1925 he moved from grinding at the Arsenal to the Naval Department as a gun examiner".
Missing altogether is any detail relating to Glading's part in the founding of the CPGB in 1920. You simply say: "Glading and Pollitt had been among the founders of the CPGB" but don't provide any details, nor do you mention the "forerunner" body of which Glading was a member according to the lead. I've looked at the Communist Party of Great Britain article, which does not mention Glading anywhere, so are we on sure ground in elevating him as one of its founders? Would "original member" be a fairer description?
I personally would replace the Background section with "Early life" section, containing a clear chronology up to about 1925, when he was 32, so that we know where he was and what he was doing. I'd omit the stuff about MI5 infiltration and Soviet activity until we have established a much clearer context.
I'd also scrap the title "Early career" as being inappropriate, and call it "In the CPGB" or something similar.
A couple of minor points: Readers may be confused by the statement that Glading was born in Wanstead, when the image caption gives the birthplace as 50, Millais Rd, Leyton. Also, The image is overbearingly large and needs to be reduced.
So, some structural rethinking is necessary, and I'll give you time to consider this before I tackle the remainder of the text. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it for Good Article status, but I first want to make sure it meets all the criteria, is written accessibly, and contains sufficient information on all parts of the election.
(Note: I recognize that the article would be better if it contained info about polling and predictions for the outcome of the election; however, I was unable to find any such data, given that the election was nearly 50 years ago and newspaper articles from the time are few & far between. If you feel the lack of polling info/predictions is a serious impediment to GA status, let me know!)
Thanks, MoreExtra (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get some feedback about the general article. I'm thinking about nominating it for GA, and this is the first article I've really written. All feedback/constructive criticism is welcome.
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Heh, ok.....will jot some notes Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
On the plus side it is written in plainer English since last time I looked, which is a good thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the DYK nomination, something on the legacy or context - has anyone discussed this in relation to low-level radioactive waste policy of the United States? Placing the case in context of this would really assist it in GA nomination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Question. Would it be possible to bold the term "Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact" or similar? Since, I can't imagine that would ever get it's own article. It might be worth going more into detail about it. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It arose from a disagreement between the state of North Carolina and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact over the funding for the project. What is "the project"? Is it the "Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact"? I didn't find that clear the first time I read it. I think you need to briefly describe the Compact the first time it's named.
I'm skeptical of the capitalization of "Commission" throughout
The discussion of the oral arguments and decision seems surprisingly brief. There's only one short sentence about the oral arguments. I would try to give more clarity about what topics the justices asked questions about. It might also be worth mentioning who was representing each side during oral arguments. As for the decision, I would at least expect some mention of how the justices split (in terms of concurrences and dissents), and who wrote the majority opinion. I think you could go into more detail about how the decision was reached, possibly including some quotes from the majority opinion. It may also be worth summarizing the dissenting opinions.
Is there anything worth adding about the legacy of the case? Did it establish or overturn any important precedents? Has it been cited since in similar cases?
@Colin M: I addressed your first point (I think). I have no strong attachment to the capitalization of Commision, but why exactly are you skeptical of it? I'll try to add more about the oral arguments, decision, and aftermath. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The word first appears in this sentence: It was run by a Commission, which was tasked.... There, and in all subsequent uses, it seems like it's being used as a common noun, in which case capitalizing does not make sense. It could make sense to capitalize it it's being used as an abbreviated form of a particular named entity (e.g. 'The Radioactive Waste Management Commission' or whatever), but no such entity is named in the article. And even then, I'd want to think about it some more and double-check the WP:MOS. For example, I checked the article on the 9/11 Commission and it mostly doesn't capitalize commission when it appears alone. Same with the word organization in the articles on UNESCO and World Health Organization. Colin M (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually submit it for consideration as a Featured List, but it is the first list I have made, and would appreciate any/all feedback on the entire article.
To match the standard of the other "corporate merger and acquisition articles", I restructured this article and added to it so that most of its information is in table form. I also added images to it and expanded the text at the beginning to give a bit more background to the data. My ultimate goal is for this article to at least be a good article, so I am looking for feedback on how it can be improved to match the quality of the other "corporate merger and acquisition articles".
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to take the article to WP:FL status. I have recently been working on a few Triple Crown events, and taken them to GA, (such as 2018 UK Championship, 2018 World Snooker Championship), and would eventually like to do this for future Triple Crown events. If this article were an FL, then we can also create Good topics for these seasons.
I am completely new to the FL process, so I am looking for any help that the article can get. Actual information on the origins of the term seem to be quite lacking, however, so if any sources can be found, I would appreciate that as well. The article lede needs a little work, as it's quite bare at the moment, please let me know if there is anything that should be added.
Thanks for your time, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Look at other Featured lists of the same sort and replicate their table format. List of international cricket centuries by Ross Taylor is a relatively recent example. Making the table sortable and accessible is a good first step.
Then the lead needs tidying up. Language such as "was came earlier than" is not of Featured quality. It needs to flow as prose, and reflect the key information from the table.
The article should be supported by references from multiple reliable sources. While ESPNcricinfo is a great source, it would need other sources too. Harriastalk 11:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get suggestions from outside editors before I plan to take it to FLC. Any comments on how we can improve this list would be very much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer
Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harriastalk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
Doing...: My close reading speeds are slow at the moment, so this will take me a little time. I hope to post some initial comments in a day or two. 
Done I created a redirect from 
