Wikipedia:Peer review

PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.


Hell Below/Stars AboveEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have worked for, months for no reason on this outside of how I believe "just because Interscope fucked your album doesn't mean Wikipedia can". I guess. I've probably milked every piece of information about this album from the internet and the WayBack Machine as much as I can. I've covered nearly everything (albeit i need to do a little adding to commercial performance) and then it should be completely good to go with info. It currently stands at B-Class, but I am definitely aiming to get this to Good Article Status (possibly featured; I can try).

Please critique/peer review and look for: 1. Sentences/sections that may be unclear/do not make sense 2. Anything that may be vague or should be expanded upon 3. Formatting issues. I am aware some sections (i.e. the intro and Commercial performance) is in poor state and I will get to it; however, any constructive criticism on the article generally beyond the key points is very much welcomed here.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Like a Virgin (song)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my intention, in a near future, to nominate it to 'featured article'; it is one of the most iconic pop songs of all time and, after an exhausting re-working on the very poorly written original, I believe all relevant information has been covered.

Thanks, Christian (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

La Isla BonitaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to nominate it for 'Featured article' Thanks, Christian (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


  • For this part, "La Isla Bonita" is noted for, I would clarify who noted this in the prose. Was it critics, fans, etc.?  Done
  • I have a question about this part, The lyrics talk about an island named San Pedro, from the lead. Is this confirmed? The article positions this more as media speculation so it does not entirely match up with this part from the lead.
The lyrics do talk about San Pedro; the media speculation is regarding the geographical location of the forementioned San Pedro
Thank you for the clarification. It has been a hot minute since I have listened to this song so I honestly forgot about this in the lyrics. I would clarify in the article that the lyrics specifically mention San Pedro by name as I do not think it is there at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Is the "passionate" quote necessary for the lead? Could it paraphrased? It just seems random to have a quote like this in the lead.  Done
  • For the Patrick Leonard and Michael Jackson photos, I would add the year they were taken to the caption to provide the full context for readers.  Done
  • While I enjoy File:LaIslaBonitaunderGround.jpg, a performance image does not really fit a section about the song's critical reception. Even though the caption mentions critics, it does seem more decorative and out-of-place than informative.
It depicts a live performance of the song, thus it's relevant; many other music articles have pictures of live performances on this particular section :)
  • In the FAC for "Bad Romance", I had also pointed this out and the nominator agreed with my rationale and removed the image. I have gone ahead and removed the performance image from that article and I have said in my edit summary that this matter should be handled on the talk page. I do not see a clear rationale for including a performance image in a section about reviews. The image may be relevant to the article, but it is not relevant to the section, but this can be left to be discussed further by other editors/reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • For File:Janet Jackson 4 (cropped).jpg, I would include the year that the photo was taken to the caption and I would revise the caption to avoid having it awkwardly placed in a possessive phrase.
Done with the year; whatever do you mean 'awkwardly possessive phrase'?
  • The caption currently has Janet Jackson's (pictured in 2008) Control and it is less than ideal to have the pictured parenthetical in the middle of a possessive phrase. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I would expand the WP:FUR for File:La Isla Bonita (music video).jpg as it is rather minimal at the moment. It is encouraged to keep non-free media to a minimal so a strong case should be made for this image's inclusion. You could tie in something about critics or academics and how they viewed these characters and/or Madonna's take on Latin culture, but the argument for its inclusion right now is very weak.  Done
  • Is there a reason for not include any of the chart information for "Mamacita" in this article? The other covers have information about their commercial performance so it makes the absence of this one more noticeable.
Only the chart performance of full-on covers are included, and "Mamacita" uses only a sample.
  • Idolator has been questioned in previous FACs and I do not think it is considered a high-quality source. I admit that I have used it in the past, but I have refrained from doing so after seeing comments against it so I would recommend removing that source here and replacing it with something more high-quality.
I have left just one use of this source
  • I would recommend removing that instance as well for the reasons that I have already stated above. I believe it would be an easy edit as I do not think that part adds a lot of value to the article or enough value to justify a potential problematic source. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe foreign-language citations, such as Citation 82, should have their titles translated into English.  Done
  • I would avoid having words in all capital letters in the citation title, such as Citation 172, even if the publication does so.  Done

Here are some very quick comments to consider. I will likely do a more thorough read-through later next week. I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response so far. I appreciate the time and energy you have put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

High School Musical: The Musical: The Series

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 26 September 2022, 05:03 UTC
Last edit: 2 October 2022, 18:51 UTC

Muisca raftEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping for GA down the line. I'm not asking for an in-depth review at this time (it's probably too soon for that), but rather a quick read and big picture comments. My main question: is there anything big that's totally missing? Grateful for your direction on where to focus my efforts.

Thanks, GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 07:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

Not completing a deep read, but instead did a quick scan for major problems. Some things to consider:

  • "Father Santamaría arranged for the object to be acquired by the Bank of the Republic and placed in the Gold Museum[35] where it remains." Does cite 35 verify "where it remains"? If so, the cite should be at the end of the sentence. If not, a new citation is needed or it needs to be removed.
  • The looting section is mainly a block quote. Is this necessary, or can the information be summarised?
  • Many of your harv refs are broken, and do not point to the correct location.
  • "who established one of the great civilisations in the Americas" opinionated statements like this are not in WP:WIKIVOICE and should probably be removed.
  • Use Template:Convert for measurements to include imperial measurements

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Z1720 for your comments. This is exactly the kind of guidance I was looking for. I'll work on addressing each of these issues. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 10:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Richard3120Edit

I live in Bogota, and have seen this piece several times in the Gold Museum, so I'm quite familiar with it. Generally I think the article covers everything... there were two points that struck me while reading it:

  • I'm not sure you need to add a citation after every clause or sentence. For example, references 43 and 48 each appear consecutively three times after three clauses... I think they could just be cited once at the end of the three clauses, having so many citations in the text is a bit distracting.
  • Check the guidance at WP:GALLERY... I'm not sure so many pictures of the raft from different angles would be allowed in a GA-article.

Otherwise, this is a really good piece of work. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments @Richard3120! Your point about excessive citations is well-taken; as I'm going through fixing citations per Z1720's comment, I will combine identical citations and generally try to dial it back. I'll also check WP:GALLERY and make the necessary adjustments.
Note that I am in the process of inquiring whether the museum can provide additional photos. I am aware of excellent photos found in this source:
  • Uribe Villegas, María Alicia; Martinón-Torres, Marcos; Quintero Guzmán, Juan Pablo (2021). "The Muisca Raft: Context, Materiality and Technology" (PDF). In McEwan, Colin; Hoopes, John W. (eds.). Pre-Columbian Central America, Colombia, and Ecuador : toward an integrated approach. Dumbarton Oaks. pp. 275–303.
And I'm currently trying to figure out how to use those photos. In the meantime, if the gallery has too many angles, I will scale back.
Thanks again! Jealous that you get to see it in person! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 05:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, and I might need to post this at the top of the review, but I just discovered that an old version of the lead was blatant plagiarism from this website. The lead has been re-worked several times, but remnants of the lifted material were still present. I just did an emergency edit to remove all remnants. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 05:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Random Years

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 22 September 2022, 02:04 UTC
Last edit: 2 October 2022, 21:05 UTC

The Wandering EarthEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because the citations need some clean up, mainly the usage of Chinese (non-English) sources such as 时光网 (Mtime) and other incomplete citation template usage. Usage of primary sources (Netflix's Facebook, the film's Netflix page, and semi-reliable sources ( may be better avoided as well.

Thanks, DutchOff (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DutchOff: your comments above indicate that you are looking for someone to help make edits to the article. Is this the case? PR is for editors to leave comments on how to improve the article, then the nominator makes those edits themselves. If this is what you are looking for, please indicate below what kind of comments you would like to receive about this article. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for FA status. Prior to 2021, the Wikipedia coverage of Degrassi was not good. A lot of the articles either had a lot of cruft, were never edited to reflect more recent developments, or were poorly sourced. I've been steadily improving and expanding existing articles and making new well-sourced articles to do with the franchise after extensively researching and exhausting all the research databases, purchasing books, etc. For instance, I was able to unearth how important and popular the Degrassi series pre-Next Generation actually were, compare this 2020 version of Degrassi Junior High to the current version.

I think it'd be really neat to have this get featured status especially with the increased attention Degrassi has been getting due to the news of the reboot!

Thanks, ToQ100gou (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Boris Johnson Is a Fucking CuntEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get promoted to featured article status, and indeed for the article to appear on the main page - again (it has been a DYK? and is currently a GA). I admit that I do like the idea of an article entitled "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" to appear on Wikipedia's main page. I'm not entirely sure which bits need improving before it should be put up as a candidate.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Lover (album)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC. Because this article is quite long, I'd appreciate any comments that point out potential prose, MOS, file... issues.

Thanks, Ippantekina (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


I am uncertain if I will have time to commit to full a review, but I wanted to comment on the article's use of audio samples. From my understanding, audio samples should only be used in an album article if they are representative of something in the album as a whole. "The Archer" sample does this very well, but the "Lover" and "Paper Rings" samples are more about the individual songs and less about the album. I would either revise these captions to more better justify their inclusion in this article (i.e. how do they represent something about the album as a whole that cannot be conveyed with just prose) or remove them completely in favor of something else. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Rick and MortyEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on further developing it into a B-class or potentially GA-class article.

Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Making a peer review on this...I should have one within a week. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • [...]“Rick and Morty is an American adult animated science-fiction sitcom created by Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon for Cartoon Network's nighttime programming block Adult Swim.”[...] I think you can remove the part about Cartoon Network and just say Adult Swim.
  • I suggest removing the sentence about it being distributed by Warner Bros, because it is mentioned in the infobox.
  • In the third paragraph of the lead, I’m a bit confused on what it means by “originality”. What exactly in this context is “original”? Is it the humor/settings/characters/etc?
  • I think Screen Rant is kind of a poor citation in the premise section. Since the premise does not necessarily need citations, my preference would be just to remove it.
  • Development, Writing, and Animation sections are acceptable for GA I think.
  • Philosophy : [...] Rick and Morty has been described as "a never-ending fart joke wrapped around a studied look into nihilism"[...] You should mention the author here.
  • Just a little nitpick, but some of the citations could have wikilinks to the articles of their parent outlets, such as Vice Media for VICE citations. Not strictly necessary, but a little helpful.
  • [...]“Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV. —Morty”[...] This quote is uncited. It could be removed through, since the previous sentence basically explains the point that the quote helps convey.
  • I suggest you read WP:RECEPTION and take note of some of the tips there. Since this is a very popular show, I think that the reception section can be expanded.
  • There is a lot of stuff in the other media section that is listed by bullet points. Perhaps this stuff can be merged into paragraphs or split into its own list article?
@FormalDude Those are some of the major things I saw. Some other reviewers are probably a bit more eagle-eyed than me and will notice some other stuff that needs addressing. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @CollectiveSolidarity! I implemented most of that, though some I'll have to save for later. The word "originality" in the lede means novel or unique and I believe is referring to the premise of the show. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Elden RingEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it up to Featured Article candidacy. Most of the sources have been taken from the reliable sources engine at WP:VG, so I think the article primarily needs help with the prose. Additionally, some suggestions on where to find development information would be appreciated, because I have found some sources in the search engine, but not nearly enough to give an in-depth take on the topic.

Thanks, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CollectiveSolidarity! Although I've never heard of this game, I'm glad to read about it. The article looks great to me. I went through the Gameplay section, doing very minor edits such as for clarity and grammar. I hope these edits are helpful. Some additional comments on the Gameplay section:
  • Gameplay image. The image of gameplay has fine detail so I increased its size per MOS:IMGSIZE. However, it is slightly blurry and increasing the size naturally worsened this, so I'm wondering if there is a higher quality image you could obtain?
  • George R. R. Martin image. I moved it to the right side of the page per MOS:PORTRAIT which prefers the portrait to face inwards toward the text.
  • Paragraph 2. "The player can memorize a limited amount of spells". Should this be "The player's character can memorize a limited amount of spells."?
  • Paragraph 3. "increase their statistics" I'm not sure what this means. Possibly MOS:INUNIVERSE or I could just be dense!
  • Paragraph 4. "The game contains crafting mechanics, which require materials in order to create items." This is vague to someone like me who doesn't know this world. You do explain it later in the paragraph, but it might help to name the examples right away?
If you're finding this type of feedback helpful, I would be happy to do similar passes through the other sections. I am new to doing peer reviews, so I won't be offended if you're looking for a different kind of feedback, a more experienced reviewer, or someone is more expert on the topic. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 07:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@GuineaPigC77 Thank you! Sorry for the late response, I've been a bit busy lately. I have changed statistics to attributes, and provided an explanatory wikilink to Attribute (role-playing games). I'll also rephrase the crafting mechanics a bit. Once again, thank you! ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure [email protected]The Night Watch! Best wishes for FAC! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 02:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take this article to GA status and would like to get feedback to help me.

Thanks, Kting97 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

These comments are given after a quick scan of the article:

  • "The screenplay was written by de Leon, Clodualdo del Mundo, Jr., and Raquel Villavicencio, the same team who previously collaborated on de Leon's 1980 film Kakabakaba Ka Ba? and de Leon's then on production hiatus Batch '81." This needs a citation.
  • "Quiling, Tito (2013)." and "David, Joel " are not used as citations in the article: cite them in a footnote (recommended) or remove them.
  • Box office section should have more specific information on how much money the film grossed, if possible.
  • "Critical response" section suffers from "X said Y". WP:RECEPTION has suggestions on how to avoid this.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! Especially the critical response section, something I have been struggling with generally in Wiki editing, the link looks very helpful. Kting97 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Vivien Lyra BlairEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get this to FA-status.

Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The infobox states she was born in 2011/2012, the Early Life section in 2012 or 2013, and the lead gives an exact date of June 4, 2012. Which is it? Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 24 July 2022, 12:28 UTC
Last edit: 11 September 2022, 16:58 UTC

Mega Man Battle Network 5Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because there have been significant edits since its last edit nearly a year ago; in particular, the edits done were the ones listed on its to-do list (more development info, and removal of the uncited/unnecessary character section). Other minor edits mainly relate to adding more citations, and replacing outdated citation links (thanks, GameSpot).

Thanks, Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

@Shadowboxer2005: I have taken a quick skim of the article, and here are some thoughts on how to improve it:

  • Every paragraph needs a citation at the end of it (except the Story section, per MOS:PLOT it doesn't need citations)
  • Move the reception template to the top of the reception section to save white space.
  • The reception section should state what reviewers liked about the game, and why they gave different scores to the GBA and DS versions.
  • Ref 20 title should not be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 2 July 2022, 16:47 UTC
Last edit: 19 September 2022, 17:24 UTC

Everyday lifeEdit

Frank McGee (ice hockey)Edit

This article was promoted to GA many years ago, and I recently have worked to touch it up in anticipation of an FAC nomination. Any commentary would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Engineering and technologyEdit

Turkish Airlines fleetEdit

I have GA and maybe FA ambitions for this. I don't know if the grammar or layout is good. I'd appreciate any comments.

Cheers. — ~StyyxTalk? 20:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Art Data InteractiveEdit

This is the first B level article I've put together where I've compiled several sources to form a comprehensive summary of a topic. Because there's a lot of content, I'd like to know if I'm on the right track with conforming with GA standards, and would like some help with identifying where I can develop my skills better when drafting against Wikipedia's good article conventions.

Thanks, Vrxces (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

Here are some comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede should be expanded to include a summary of the major topics mentioned in the article.
  • There should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum.
  • A lot of the article is about the games, and not necessarily about the company. I suggest reading Namco, one of Wikipedia's featured articles, and structure this article similarly.
  • Dissolution needs more information. Why was the company dissolved?
  • Unreleased projects can be merged together to avoid WP:OVERSECTION or just removed.
  • IMDB cannot be used as a source.
  • Not sure if ref 9 is a reliable source

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Canadian National 3502Edit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I’m interested in what people think of the article and how it can be further improved to assist people in learning about this locomotives Thanks, ThatArmyDude (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

@ThatArmyDude: Here are some comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede can be expanded.
  • Ensure there is a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum
  • If you are looking for additional information, great places to look are WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Google Books, and your local library system.
  • Flickr, YouTube, and blogspot website are typically not used as references because it is hard to verify that the information is reliable.

I hope this helps, Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

SS CayugaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I would also like to know what could be done to improve its quality.

Thanks, GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: It has been over a month since this was posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting on the talk pages of related Wikiprojects. If not, can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: I've posted it at the WikiProject Ships talk page. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 14:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Fix the referencing. The proper way to disambiguate short-form referencing is to disambiguate the date, not the author so stuff like:
{{cite web |last = Berry (1) |first = Sterling |year = 2021 and {{sfnp|Berry (1)|2021}}
should be:
{{cite web |last=Berry |first=Sterling |date=2021a and {{sfnp|Berry|2021a}}
The reason for this is that {{cite web}}, and all of the other cs1|2 templates, are designed to support date disambiguation but not author-name disambiguation.
When I look at that Berry (1) source, the date 2021 is nowhere mentioned in that source. This seems to be common to web sources cited in this article. The proper 'date' to use is the publication date of the source if one is provided. For Berry, some sort of date is required – except 2 which isn't used in the article – but since none are available from the source and to support disambiguation, do this: |date=n.d.a, |date=n.d.c, etc. and {{sfnp|Berry|n.d.a}}, {{sfnp|Berry|n.d.c}}, etc.
Another common issue is |author= used to hold a name that isn't an author. Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library and Bowling Green State University are websites so:
delete |author=... and change |publisher=[[Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library]] to |website=[[Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library]] (same for Bowling green...)
For cites like Maritime History of the Great Lakes:
{{cite web |author = Maritime History of the Great Lakes |year = 1890 |title = Cayuga (Propeller), aground, 9 Apr 1890 |url = |access-date = August 1, 2021 |publisher = Maritime History of the Great Lakes |location = Ontario, Canada }}
Maritime History of the Great Lakes (1890). "Cayuga (Propeller), aground, 9 Apr 1890". Ontario, Canada: Maritime History of the Great Lakes. Retrieved August 1, 2021.
it is probably best to rewrite to something like this:
{{cite news |date=April 10, 1890 |title=A Steamer Ashore |newspaper=Buffalo Evening News |url= |access-date=August 1, 2021 |via=Maritime History of the Great Lakes |ref={{sfnref|''Buffalo Evening News''|1890}}}}
"A Steamer Ashore". Buffalo Evening News. April 10, 1890. Retrieved August 1, 2021 – via Maritime History of the Great Lakes.
with an accompanying short-form reference like this: {{sfnp|''Buffalo Evening News''|1890}}Buffalo Evening News (1890)
(both with date disambiguation as needed)
No doubt there are other problems but this is a start...
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: to ensure they saw the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


Coral FangEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because... I have tried expanding it as much as I can so far. I have not completed the reviews and touring and aftermath sections (these are WIP however), but for the rest of the article I would like some criticism as to what should be changed, fixed and re-edited; this will be useful as it means I will not have to backtrack to re-editing old sections whilst working on new ones. If anyone has information I have missed or got incorrect, please tell me!!

In short; tell me what is bad and good, so I can fix it.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

@Chchcheckit: here are some comments after a quick skim:

  • The paragraphs in the background section are quite long. Can they be divided?
  • Merge the last two paragraphs in "Singles and music videos"
  • Reception should include a paragraph on the critical commentary for this album. What did critics say about this? Use WP:RECEPTION to help structure this.
  • "Personnel" and "Use in media" need citations.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Z1720; thanks, very useful. Just done the first two of these things plus some editing and stuff. I'll get to 3 and 4 in short time (it's late). Thank you very much. Chchcheckit (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Cycling in the PhilippinesEdit

Hi! I've listed this article for peer review to get an assessment on what I need to add to or improve in the article so that it encapsulates and discusses the history and relevance of cycling in the country.

Thanks, Ganmatthew (talkcontribs) 18:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

@Ganmatthew: Comments after a quick skim:

  • "During the second World War and the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the Imperial Japanese Army used bicycle infantry to move around and carry weaponry such as machine guns." Needs a citation
  • "As of July 2021, the Department of Transportation has announced that a 497 kilometers (309 mi) of bike lanes in the country's metropolitan areas have been completed, with 313 kilometers (194 mi) in Metro Manila, 129 kilometers (80 mi) in Metro Cebu, and 55 kilometers (34 mi) in Metro Davao, consisting of pavement markings, physical separators, and road signage." Needs a citation
  • "The use of bicycles as transportation is supported by the inclusion of bicycle parking racks in schools, retail stores, shopping centers, parks and plazas, and transport stops." Needs a citation
  • Criticism sections are discouraged because they are probably not in WP:WIKIVOICE, due to their inherent WP:NPOV nature. Instead, I suggest reworking it to a "Commentary" section that gives different viewpoints on the topic.

Hope this helps.

Dominic KeeganEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to send this article to GAN. I would like some pointers towards achieving that goal (if it is achievable), along with some specific opinion on how should I write about the lede or Keegan's 2020 season.

Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this article is not close to GA. First off, the subject is 22 years old. He's playing in the Florida Complex League. It's not impossible to have a GA on a minor league player, but it will always be a negative because there is so much career to come (one would think). In subjects so young and nascent, there's often not enough content or sourcing. This article is fairly short at 2951 bytes of prose and has only 12 unique citations, and five of them (B-Ref, profile, Vanderbilt athletics profile, and two from Pointstreak) are not in-depth coverage. The Kevin Parada semifinalist article may also be a passing mention, but I haven't checked.
That said, the biggest problem I see here is WP:PROSELINE writing with one sentence paragraphs in the "College career" section: "In x time, y happened". In the 2020 season, cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Keegan appeared in nine games, making eight starts. is unclear. If the season is cancelled, how did he play? (I know that it's games he played before the cancellation, but this is unclear.) Also, committing to Vandy is mentioned twice in the two-sentence paragraph about decommitting from Virginia Tech. I would want to see more college stats in this paragraph.
"Personal life" is usually a title of a section to detail a person's adult life, like marriage/kids, other personal endeavors. In this article, it should read "Early life". The blood clot may be "Personal life" rather than "career", and can go after the career part. I'm not sure if there's guidance against the "Professional career" section having text in the level two header and then having a level three header, but at the very least I don't think it reads well.
Other small points: runs batted in should be abbreviated as "RBIs", not "RBI", since it is plural. The abbreviation CCBL is given without being presented on the first use and linkage of the Cape Cod Baseball League.
I suggest waiting until at least next season, maybe waiting until he's in the majors or his career stalls out in the minors. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Space 220 Restaurant

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 26 August 2022, 12:55 UTC
Last edit: 22 September 2022, 14:22 UTC

Six Flags Great AmericaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring this article up to B-class or possibly nominate it for GA status.

Thanks, from yours truly, Harobouri TC 03:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

@Harobouri: Comments after a quick skim:

  • Lede should be expanded, considering how long the article is.
  • "1970s–1984: Development and operation under Marriott" is very long. Can it be split it with a new level 3 heading? Likewise, it has a lot of lists and I think it can be shortened to prose instead.
  • "Also in 2006, Six Flags announced it would replace its sign that sits along Interstate 94 during the off season. The sign, which had been standing since the park opened in 1976, was replaced with a smaller one featuring an LED screen. The new sign went up within a week after the old one was taken down in December 2006, and uses the old sign's post." Has a citation needed tag.
  • "Mardi Gras is connected to DC Universe and Orleans Place." Needs a citation
  • "DC Universe connects to Mardi Gras and Yukon Territory." needs a citation
  • "The area is located between County Fair and DC Universe, and has a connection to the Picnic Grove near the Wilderness Theater." Needs a citation
  • Ride descriptors in the charts need references.
  • Many other places do not have citations. Ensure there is a citation at the end of each paragraph.
  • "Former attractions" Need prose
  • "In popular culture" section: avoid one-sentence paragraphs and merge them together instead.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Geography and placesEdit

Taiari / Chalky InletEdit

I've listed this as I'm keen to get the article towards good article status or higher, so it'd be good to get some sort of steer on what I need to do to get it there.

Thanks, Turnagra (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

@Turnagra: After skimming through the article, I think the article is ready for a GAN and issues can be resolved in the review. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Dublin 2Edit

I've listed this article on the central Dublin postal district for peer review because of differing opinions over its noteworthiness. I am of the opinion that it is noteworthy.

Thanks, BaronNethercross (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: BaronNethercross, indeed I certainly consider Dublin 2 as a postal district quite noteworthy because for about 100 years the main post office in Dublin, in fact in Ireland, was located in this area before moving to Dublin 1 when the GPO was completed. I try to write a, well sourced, paragraph or two on this aspect because I have some specialised sources here in my library. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

BaronNethercross, as you saw I added some postal details but more to come to bring it into the 20th century. I suggest expanding the notable places section to give some details of the places mentioned. ww2censor (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Really informative! I had no idea that was the central postal hub for the city. BaronNethercross (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
DMC, Dublin Mail Centre Cardiff Lane, in 2010
BaronNethercross: I added quite a bit more and I'm basically finished though the sorting office in Cardiff Lane was a major restructuring by An Post, having closed Sheriff Street, but did not last too long and I cannot find any reliable sources for it. Since around 2015 the structure has been demolished and replaced by The Sorting Office part of the Grand Canal development that could do with some overview details, as could some of the other areas. ww2censor (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 21 June 2022, 09:58 UTC
Last edit: 20 September 2022, 06:58 UTC


Albert LuthuliEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually have it listed as a good article. I have never edited an entire Wikipedia article, only tiny pieces before this. So I want to know if all the sections flow well together; if any sections need to be split up, or maybe merged; if the lead is fine; and most importantly, if I meet Wikipedia's manual of style.

Thanks, Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

Here are some comments after a quick skim:

  • The lede is too long. Per MOS:LEDELENGTH aim for 3-4 paragraphs, max.
  • Second paragraph at the end of Early life needs a citation at the end.
  • Suggest adding alt text to images, per MOS:ALT
  • Ensure that there is no space between a punctuation mark and a footnote
  • "With more restrictions put in place, the ANC leaders decided to end the campaign in January 1953." Needs a citation

I hope this helps. This article looks good so far, and can probably be nominated when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Södermanland Runic Inscription 113Edit

So, I realise the subject is a relatively small one, but that has its own advantages, in its way. I think this article is comprehensive for its subject, and want to know whether it might be suitable for featured article status. If there's any improvements that can be done, let me know.

Thanks, Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 03:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

John Smith (miller)Edit

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new article about an important figure in Rhode Island history.

Thanks, Diogenes99 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720Edit

Some comments after a quick skim:

  • Avoid block quotes when you can. Instead, summarise the information.
  • Per WP:EL, external links should not be placed in the article body.
  • Keep looking for additional sources to add information to the article. I recommend WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Google Books, or your local library system (which might give access to online databases.)

I hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it at FAC. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

2000 Taiwanese presidential electionEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how to improve it to GA status without nominating it yet. In particular I'd like to know what needs work and/or what should be removed.

Thanks, Duonaut (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

These comments are after a quick skim of the article:

  • I am surprised at how short the lede is, and I think it can include more detail.
  • "and opposed a referendum on independence." needs a citation.
  • "All of the candidates promised to work towards opening the Three Links, a largely popular measure.[35]" This needs some context for those who do not know what this project is or why it is important to mention.
  • "tipped the balance to Chen's favor." Needs a citation
  • Ref 44 should not be in all caps, per MOS:ALLCAPS

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Isaac Sardo AbendanaEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to submit it to GA.

Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

@Vortex3427: After a quick skim of this article, I do not think it is ready for GA because there is not enough information in the article. Try looking for more sources by using WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and your local library system. Also, try to find some images that you can include in the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Rockefeller FoundationEdit

I've just completed a major cleanup and edit of this page which had a dicey past of COI editors and other issues. I still need to run down a few citations but I think it's coming along. Would appreciate any suggestions and pointers. Andre🚐 15:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

These comments are based on a quick scan of the article:

  • Citation needed templates need to be resolved.
  • There should probably be a citation at the end of every paragraph (except the lede)
  • "People affiliated with the foundation" needs a lot more citations.
  • Avoid short, one or two sentence paragraphs.

@Andrevan: I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Andre🚐 14:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Mackenzie River huskyEdit

I am requesting a peer review because I am struggling with readability of the history section. I look forward to any suggestions.

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Annwfwn! The article looks like it's coming along nicely. I'm relatively new so take my comments with a grain of salt. (And you might also want to wait for another editor to chime in.)
  • History. I agree the History section doesn't read smoothly. I think one reason could be that it lacks strong topic sentences. It makes sense to put each paragraph in chronological order (after all, you're explaining the history), but within each paragraph it might work better to include a strong topic sentence that summarizes what that paragraph is going to say. I tried doing something along these lines with the first paragraph, see if you think that approach helps.
  • Organization. I checked out Siberian Husky, Alaskan husky, and Alaskan Malamute and noticed they all put the description first, and history later in the article. So I did the same here to see if it works.
  • Scope. Appearance and Behavior sections need to be expanded. I'd also recommend more images to illustrate the physical description. I added one. If possible, a gallery would be nice. I also want to know more about their conservation status; the article states there are very few remaining - are there efforts underway to raise their numbers? I'd like to know more details about the Canadian government's actions and how they affect this breed specifically. Are there any famous Mackenzie River huskies, perhaps acting dogs? Have they been portrayed in popular media?
I'm happy to discuss further, read again after updates, or both! Happy editing! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 09:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematicsEdit

1995 Aigio earthquakeEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA status. This is prep for FAC. Any concerns or criticisms are welcome.

Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


Hi! This article has substantially changed in the last 6 months, so I was looking to gather feedback on how the article is going, and how accessible it is. Any review would be appreciated. Cheers, SuperTah (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As a drive-by comment, you need to massively reduce the number of duplicated links on the article. Arctotherium, for instance, should only be linked to once, not at every mention of one of its species. The general prose also needs revision for clarity. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUPLINK explains it, and has a link to a script that will highlight duplicated links for easier correction. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@SilverTiger12 Cheers! Although I find many links in articles very useful, I agree that in this article it's probably overbearing. I'll start snipping away. Are there any particular areas which need revision for clarity? SuperTah (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't really point out a given part that needs revision, but I'd suggest going through and reading it out loud to yourself. That can help catch where sentences are clunky. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ryukyu dogEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make it more readable.

Thanks, Annwfwn (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ThebiguglyalienEdit

  • Structure and content
    • The lead should generally summarize the rest of the article as per WP:LEAD. The fact about 400 remaining Ryukyu should be moved to History, and the lead should have one or two paragraphs that briefly touch on the facts in each section.
    • The second paragraph reads as WP:HOWEVER. It sets up a fact and then argues that the fact is not true, which should be avoided. This should be rewritten so that it consists of only verifiable information and is written in a cohesive manner.
    • Appearance section needs to be rewritten as WP:PROSE.
    • Inbreeding does not needs its own subsection if it's only one paragraph. It can just be part of the Health section.
  • Style and grammar
    • bay Ryukyu wild boar in packs, and also rarely hunt birds. – This should be rewritten. It reads awkwardly and the comma is unnecessary for a dependent clause.
    • felt a strong urge to save the breed when he managed to find purebred Ryukyu dogs up in Yanbaru – Keep it simple. For example, a simpler phrasing would be "wished to save the breed when he found purebred Ryukyu dogs in Yanbaru". Phrases such as "felt a strong urge to", "manged to find", and "up in" don't add anything to the article. And of course, this also needs a citation to determine whether it's actually true.
    • Because of this claw, they can climb trees. – This reads awkwardly. Maybe combine it with the previous sentence so that it reads "a dewclaw on the back of the foot that allows them to climb trees" or something to that effect.
    • The inline citations under Appearance are currently listed as [6][2][7]. These should be in numerical order. This occurs again in the section Ryukyu Inu Hozonkai, where they display as [9][4], which also have an extra space between them and the end punctuation.
    • The Ryukyu dog is described as a quiet dog – Described by whom?
    • They are agile, brave and not sensitive. They are natural hunters and have a high prey drive. – These should be better integrated. Right now they seem like trivia or personal opinion. Maybe the first sentence of this paragraph could start with "The Ryukyu dog is a hunting dog". "They are agile, brave and not sensitive" should probably be removed.
    • They can be escape artists – Avoid this sort of imagery.
    • While they are the same breed of dog, there are subtle difference between the two lines. – The sentence switches between singular and plural, but it can probably be removed entirely, as a distinction has already been established in the previous sentence.
    • the only establishment that recognises the Ryukyu dog thus far – "thus far" is ambiguous. Avoid language that implies relative time as per MOS:REALTIME.
    • due to the culture of breeding dogs in Japan and Okinawa – What makes this culture of breeding dogs distinct?
    • the Ryukyu dog Hozonkai have begun registering dogs "on merit" if they meet the breed standard and still continue to do thisMOS:REALTIME. This sentence should probably be rewritten.
    • Kai (海) is a very well-known Ryukyu Ken in Okinawa – "very well-known" is unnecessary.
    • Ume (ウメ) was a very light red brindle, almost fawn-coloured Ryukyu, – This imagery is unnecessary. "was a light red brindle Ryukyu" is more to the point.
    • Ume passed away – Avoid euphemisms as per MOS:EUPHEMISM. "Died" is perfectly acceptable.
  • References
    • About half of the sources appear to be from a blog. Blogs should be avoided as sources per WP:SPS.
    • Bare links should be formatted properly as sources. It appears that two sources are bare links, and both are now dead links.
    • Overall, most of the information in the article is not sourced.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Annwfwn: to ensure they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wood-pasture hypothesis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 30 July 2022, 11:25 UTC
Last edit: 2 October 2022, 19:33 UTC

Chialvo mapEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because It is a very important model in the literature, it reproduces the behavior of neurons and it is widely used in scientific research.

Thanks, EyistoA (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @EyistoA! I had previously looked at this article and, since I'm a new reviewer, I mistakenly put my comments on the talk page. If you find my comments helpful, I'm happy to discuss here as well. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 06:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

@EyistoA: The biggest concern with this article is the lack of citations. The end of every paragraph should probably end with a citation (except the lede.). Also, are there any articles that can wikilink this one? Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Language and literatureEdit

Engines of RebellionEdit

A recent creation of mine, I'm hoping to get it to GA eventually. I don't feel very comfortable or confident writing about literature and haven't really done so for over a year, so I'd like someone to look this one over before I nominate.

Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Farseer Trilogy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 27 September 2022, 11:14 UTC
Last edit: 2 October 2022, 20:46 UTC

Isaac AsimovEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a featured article before, but it was demoted because it only had 12 citations. It now has 298, so I want to see if it's ready to be nominated for FA status again, or what other improvements would be advisable first.

Thanks, Richard75 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Asimov; it's nice to see people working on this article. A couple of comments.

  • I recently came across this chapter on Asimov in Wiley-Blackwell's A Companion to Science Fiction. It's written by John Clute, and his assessment of Asimov's legacy is... dazzlingly negative. After reading it, I came to this article to see if Clute's viewpoint represented the consensus of critics, or if it was a minority view, but I couldn't find much here: the Influence/Legacy section seems rather short. I think we'd need to provide that sort of overview – balancing Clute against what other critics think – of Asimov's impact on the field.
  • From a quick look, there are many citations to primary sources such as Asimov's autobiographies. While they can be useful, you'd want to rely more on secondary sources.

Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to do a review on this article, but I suggest that you nominate this for WP:GAN before going to FAC. This will allow you to get additional feedback on the article's quality and improvements before an FA run. Also, since I do not think you have a successful FAC yet, I suggest that you find a FA mentor who can help guide you through the process. Lastly, if you have not already done so, I suggest reviewing articles at FAC now; this will help familiarise yourself with the FA criteria and give confidence to other editors that you understand the criteria, thereby increasing the likelihood that your FAC will be reviewed. Many FAC nominations are archived because of a lack of reviewers, so it is beneficial to build up goodwill at FAC now to help get reviewers later. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy and religionEdit


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 14 September 2022, 10:23 UTC
Last edit: 29 September 2022, 10:22 UTC

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 26 August 2022, 17:52 UTC
Last edit: 19 September 2022, 17:48 UTC


Previous peer review

Hi there! I'm requesting a second peer review of this article after a year since the last review. I've fixed many issues in the article; references are improved, many Manual of Style issues are fixed, and the article is much cleaner overall. However, I'd still like some extra eyes to look at the article before a GAN. I don't have anything in particular this time - just a general sweep would be nice! Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (formerly known as DoggieTimesTwo)

@EpicPupper: I've no idea of the topic so I can only give some very general feedback but I'll go ahead anyways since this article is already waiting for more than 6 months for a peer review. Ideally, before starting a peer review, all the maintenance tags should be addressed, like the "Unreferenced" template in the subsection "Current population" or the "Citation needed" templates in the subsections "Canadian prairies" and "Schism". This is probably not your fault since they are dated May 2022 and presumably were added after the peer review request. In any case, they should be fixed. Most paragraphs have sources but there are still a few paragraphs without sources that are not marked by maintenance tags. The article has many pictures which seem relevant to the topics discussed. In the subsection "Canadian prairies", the names of the areas should not be in bold font.
Some smaller linguistic issues:
  • The archbishop's intent was to mock the Doukhobors as heretics fighting against the Holy Spirit (Russian: Святой Дух, Svyatoy Dukh) but round the beginning of the 19th century, according to SA Inikova,[14]) the dissenters adopted the name "Doukhobors" usually in a shorter form Doukhobory (Russian: духоборы, dukhobory), implying they are fighting alongside rather than against the Holy Spirit.
"round" sounds colloquial, "around" is probably better
  • Later, other groups of Doukhobors were resettled by the government or migrating to Transcaucasia of their own accord.
"migrated" instead of "migrating"
  • While the Small Party cooperated with the state, the Large Party, reacting to arrest of their leaders and inspired by their letters from exile, felt strengthened in their desire to abide by the righteousness of their faith.
it should be "reacting to the arrest"
  • The text seems to jump between English variants: for example "neighboring" and "plow" are American English while "travelled" and "defence" are British English.
I would suggest that these issues are fixed first and maybe later someone more knowledgeable on the subject could give some feedback on the contents themselves. I don't have much experience with GA nominations but I have the impression that there still is some work to be done before that, at the very least by addressing the maintenance tags and the linguistic issues mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Social sciences and societyEdit

Noam ChomskyEdit

The article's in an exceptionally stable state, given the subject. I'm looking for outside opinions on what remains to take it to featured article status: missing major concepts, missing sources, general readability for a general audience, overall structure, etc. Thanks! czar 23:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu UniversityEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be qualified on merit for WP:FL. See also Failed GA Review.

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Serbian general electionEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some feedback before nominating this article for WP:GA.

Thanks, Vacant0 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720Edit

These comments are after a quick scan of the article:

  • Each section of Party campaigns should have a paragraph. Perhaps some of these section can be merged together if they are parties with similar ideologies (maybe left/right parties listed together, or parties by region of dominance? Perhaps major party campaigns have their own section, and smaller parties are merged?
  • "The elections also represented the biggest seat loss in the National Assembly since the 1992 elections, with the SNS-led coalition losing 68 seats." Needs a citation
  • "Vučić managed to win 60% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election," -> "Vučić won 60% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election," managed to win sounds too much like an opinionated statement, and this suggestion reduces the number of words.

@Vacant0: Hope this helps. I think this is pretty much ready for GAN. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

All  Done. Thank you for the peer review. Vacant0 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Presidency of Rodrigo DuterteEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be thoroughly checked/edited for paragraph cohesiveness, sentence flow, tone, and possible grammatical errors.

Thanks, Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86:, as the banner at the top of the article says, this article is quite long and needs a major trim before someone will copyedit the work. Please read through WP:LEDE about the lede length, try summarizing the article, and merge shorter sections. When ready, you can request a copyedit at WP:GOCE. Z1720 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Patrick LyoyaEdit

The article has been listed for peer review as there has not been much interaction by other users and due to the controversial nature of the article's topic. Assistance is also needed with any issues regarding neutrality and WP:BLP, as edits should not be made in a damaging manner.

Thanks, WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from FormalDudeEdit

  • Lede section is too short for an article of this length.
  • The Incident section borders on having an excessive amount of intricate detail. Not sure all the dialogue is needed. Should be trimmed to fit summary style.
  • Response section possibly contains undue weight (police subsection for example) and could potentially be reorganized (Grand Rapids Association of Pastors is part of the public response, no?).

––FormalDude (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@WMrapids: to ensure that they saw the above comments. If you are not interested in receiving more comments, can you close this PR? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

William McAndrew

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 16 April 2022, 19:16 UTC
Last edit: 28 September 2022, 18:51 UTC


Paul Rudd on screen and stageEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FL status and would like to make sure it's gravy before submitting it for that process. I've done a few now but fresh eyes never hurt :)

Thank you! LADY LOTUSTALK 15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Solar System objects by sizeEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a very important list with many diverse contributions over many years.

Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Colorado

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 5 August 2022, 23:12 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2022, 17:54 UTC

List of Lebanon international footballers born outside LebanonEdit

I'm looking to list this article as a Featured List. I'm curious to know if it's up to standard. Nehme1499 14:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the Warren G. Harding presidencyEdit

I'd like feedback on how I've developed this timeline, especially regarding my use of newspaper sources and how I've chosen to format it. I'd also like to know how far away it is from being a viable FLC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Trent BoultEdit

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if it reaches the standards for a Featured List.

Thanks, Alphacx1 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject peer-reviewsEdit