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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that we can get it to GA status. Thank you, KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could eventually (sooner than later) be a potential FA candidate. After a peer review, I'll ask for a copyedit as well.
It'd be cool to see what an editor who doesn't really edit video game articles thinks about this one (I think it'd offer a valuable perspective, sort of a "fresh pair of eyes" type of thing), but I'd be happy and appreciative with any peer commentary.
Yeah, I'll probably work on this once my GA and FA assessments are done. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to a GA. This would be my first GA article but I need to know all of the details that are wrong with it so I can fix them.
Again, the entire article needs help and its not even close to GA criteria. Some of the statements were unsourced and this request should be immediately closed. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elaborate how do I help the article? OLI 05:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to PR. I agree that this article is a long way from becoming a GAN. My main issue with this is that it needs more information. Try consulting WP:LIBRARY, Google, archive.org or your local library system for more sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources might also help with finding pop culture sources. I also suggest taking a look at Janet(s), a featured article about a television episode, as it can give ideas on how to format the article and what information should be included. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720 Thank you for the recomendation. I expanded it I feel as if this is a step in the right direction. Could you provide me what needs the most assistance and what is good and can stay? OLI 05:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to bring this article to GAN this year, which will be my first GAN. The article underwent PR in January of this year; it was recommended that it undergoing copy editing. The WP:GUILD copyedited the article last month. I have since added another section. Comments regarding GAN standards / criteria (or otherwise) are greatly appreciated! Neuroxic (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am seeking for help to improve this page. Any kind of comments or review is welcome, really. Even better if other editors feel like going directly to the page and edit it. As background information: I nominated the page for GA and received robust feedback, which I believe I went through point by point. In particular, I focussed the topic of page, removed what sounded like original research, and specified the sources better. I don't think nominating the page for GA again will be high on my priorities, but perhaps helping removing the clean-up banners on top of the page would be helpful. user:TompaDompa spent quite some time on this and I appreciate a lot the efforts.
The first ping worked, the second didn't. The way to get a ping to work is to link to an editor's user page in your comment, either directly (i.e. User:UserNameGoesHere) or using a template such as {{u}} or {{ping}}, and sign your comment with the same edit. If you add the mention and your signature with different edits, it won't work (probably the most common reason pings don't work). Further details about this can be found at WP:MENTION. Alternatively, you can link to an editor's user page in your edit summary (as I did with this edit). Anyway, I'll try to find the time take a look at this, but I'm working on a bunch of other things at the moment and can't make any promises. TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some thoughts about the article after a quick skim:
Add citations to everywhere that says "citation needed". There should also be a citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies the information before it.
Bullet point lists are usually not needed and can be removed or written as prose. Multiple examples are not usually necessary, and only the most important ones should be included. Typically, if the example does not have a Wikipedia article, I do not include it.
You can verify any information where it says "verification needed" If the source says the information that preceeds it, you can remove the tag. If not, the information should be reworded to fit the source, a new source should be found, or the information deleted.
The article suffers from WP:OVERSECTION with some sections containing one paragraph. These should be expanded upon or merged with other sections.
It's been over eight years since this article was last assessed and 13 years since its last peer review. A lot has happened in her career since then, including two studio albums, a return to touring, and a residency. The article has also gone through some format changes, with sections being reorganized and split to focus on specific topics. The article suffers from a lot of problems that need to be addressed, and I feel that this peer review will be very useful. Some sections are bloated, and the wording can be very awkward. Further more some sources might be outdated, since it's been so long since the last time this article was reviewed. However, I still think this article is close to being a GA candidate. Thanks, 204060baby (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lede is quite long, and can possibly be shortened
Done
"She attended Marshall Middle School in Wexford, Pennsylvania and North Allegheny Intermediate High School in McCandless, Pennsylvania before leaving the school to be homeschooled and avoid bullying she experienced there." Needs a citation
"Aguilera starred in the romantic science fiction Zoe, which was premiered at the Tribeca Film festival in April 2018, and was later released on July 20 by Amazon Studios." Needs a citation
Done
Does the book in the Further reading section need to be there? It doesn't seem to do with Aguilera directly and might be promotional.
Forbes contributors are not considered reliable sources, per WP:FORBESCON.
Not a fan of multiple usages of similar terms; rephrase the sentence "Referred to as the "Voice of a Generation", she is known for her four-octave vocal range and signature melismatic singing style" to → "Referred to as the "Voice of a Generation" due to her distinguished four-octave vocal span and distinctive melismatic approach to singing."
The following sentence is also plagued with the same issue; "she is", try "Recognized as an influential figure in popular music, Aguilera is ascribed with forging a path for contemporary artists who integrate frequently controversial motifs like feminism, sexuality, and LGBT culture into their musical repertoire."
"After appearing on television as a child" → "Following appearances on television in her youth"
"and Aguilera won the Grammy Award for Best New Artist." → "and procured the Grammy Award for Best New Artist"
"The latter two constituted a departure from her teen idol image and Stripped became one of the best-selling albums of the 21st century." → "Aguilera achieved sustained success with the releases of Mi Reflejo (2001), Stripped (2002), and the critically acclimed Back to Basics (2006). The latter two albums represented a significant departure from her portrayal as a teen idol, while Stripped became one of the best-selling albums of the 21st century."
"the latter reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 making Aguilera one of the few artists to reach the top spot over three decades." → "the latter peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100, solidifying Aguilera's distinction as one of the select few artists to dominate the pinnacle of the music charts across three successive decades."
"she and was ranked the eighth" → needs fixing
There's dub links (David Browne)
There's also a lot of "her" and "she", needs a variety
I am finding too many instances with "is also"
Is it LGBT or LGBTQ? I found different variations used in the article
The New York Times is linked more than once in the article body as well as Stephen Thomas Erlewine and her honorific name. Possible that there are more instances of this throughout the article.
There are also harv warnings
Overall the article needs additional improvements, especially with the writing. I'd suggest submitting it through WP:GOCE/REQ before going through GA. Best of luck, – jona✉ 20:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggest expanding the lede to summarise/mention all sections in the article. See MOS:LEDE for more details.
Comment: I expanded lead by addig two sentences. Eurohunter (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest adding information about the album's reception in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I added information about chart. Eurohunter (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Professional ratings" chart only has one entry. Try finding additional ratings/reviews at WP:A/S to add to this chart.
Comment: There is no any more ratings. Singles ratings are quite rare. Eurohunter (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did the song place in any charts, perhaps in Sweden? Z1720 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Yes, it charted on Swiss Dance Chart, so I added it to lead. Eurohunter (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personal credits needs a reference.
Comment: Are you sure? I probably never seen sourced section of credits in any of featured articles. Credits are already sourced in Background section.
Any additional personal credits that can be added, like people playing instruments, co-producers or music editors/engineers?
Comment: All credits are already included. There are no more known credits. Eurohunter (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The infobox says the song is "Cold Wave" but this is not mentioned in the body of the article, nor is it cited. I suggest that information about the song's genre is added to the article body (probably under background)
@Z1720: Your comments have been noted, and I want to address issues as fast as possible, just I had no time to deal with it yet. I expect quick responses from others, so as fast as possible, I will let you know if I only take care of it. Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. Eurohunter (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eurohunter: An additional comment: the reception section suffers from "X said Y" formatting. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to avoid this. Replies above. Z1720 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AJona1992: This has been open for over a month without a response. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting on the talk pages of Wikiprojects attached to this article. If not, can this be closed? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll see what I can do. – jona✉ 19:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to FAC in consideration of the bronze star. I have considerably expanded/rewritten this article and meticulously examined the available sources to craft the current prose. Any and all comments are very much appreciated.
@Ippantekina: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for feedback on the Wikiprojects attached to this article or from regular FAC nominators in music topics. If not can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Z1720, thanks for the ping. Let me ask for feedback from FAC contributors and if I see little chance I'd close this soon. Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WP:FUR for File:Don't Blame Me by Taylor Swift song sample.ogg says that critics mention this song as representative of the album, while this is not represented in the actual caption for the audio sample. The caption is more focused on the song rather than justifying its inclusion in the album article. Just to compare the caption for the "Delicate" audio sample does this very well.
Apologies in advance if I missed this. I looked through the sources, and I was curious if you looked into scholarly articles and coverage on the album (like through Google Scholar). I have not looked myself so there may not be anything, but I was wondering if you had looked for these kinds of sources?
I have a quick question about the Eras Tour mention near the end of the article. For this part (tribute to all of Swift's 10 studio albums up-to that point), but according to the article, there doesn't appear to be much if anything with her debut album. I know this is more outside of the scope of this article, but I was just curious on how it was paying tribute to that album?
Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full review of the article. My primary point of this review was the first three points (i.e. pointing out issues with the images and audio sample and asking about the possibility of scholarly coverage), while the fourth point is more of a clarification question for something I noticed along the way. Sorry that this peer review has not received much attention, but I hope these comments are at least somewhat useful. Best of luck with the future FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Aoba47. I understand this article is quite too long for a serious Peer Review, so hopefully I could sort things out for a future FAC. Will act on your comments accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for understanding and take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to upgrade the article status to a featured article, while the previous peer review was not as helpful as I wanted.
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.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Howdy! I'm chiming in real quick based on my first impression on the lead.
Phrasings such as "while", "as well", "additionally" etc. are almost always bad wording. Try to minimise them as much as possible. To demonstrate, I present some crisper alternative wordings as follows,
"Lyrically, "NDA" speaks about Eilish's battles with fame and for privacy, as well as touching on her relationships." → Inspired by her relationships, "NDA" has lyrics about Eilish's struggle with fame and fight for privacy.
"The track's production and vocal performance were acclaimed, while its themes left some critics divided. Additionally, in some reviews, issues were taken with the song's lack of relatability or placement within Happier Than Ever." → Critics acclaimed the production and vocals, but some took issue with its themes and said it was a misplacement on Happier Than Ever's track list.
Passive voice is a no-go. Some examples to demonstrate this point better,
"The track's production and vocal performance were acclaimed" → Critics acclaimed the production and vocals
"issues were taken with the song's lack of relatability" → some took issue with its themes...
""NDA" was promoted by a self-directed music video," → Eilish self-directed the music video for "NDA", which...
"Similarly to the song, the visual also was dubbed as dark, eerie, and moody" → Critics said the video's atmosphere effectively accompanied the song's production and described it as dark...
@Ippantekina: Hi, thanks for those suggestions. I already applied them to the article, and I might start to re-write the article to make it better. It's definitely not the third time I'm going to do this haha. infsai (talkie? UwU) 16:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know prepping for FAs is daunting and the prose is a major criterion. I suggest taking a look at this piece of advice which helped me tremendously. All the best, Ippantekina (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infsai: it has been over a month since the last comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infsai: I suggest asking for comments in the Wikiprojects attached to this article. Since you are also still working on passing your first FAC, I suggest finding a FA mentor who can help by leaving comments for this article. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infsai: It has been another month since the last comments. Is this ready to be closed? Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because Florence Petty was an interesting individual who spent her time trying to improve the lot of others through food. I’m mulling over a possible visit to FAC after this, but I’m not 100 per cent sure yet; any thoughts people have on that step would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You told me you were in two minds about whether the article is substantial enough for FAC. Well, at less than 1,000 words it's certainly on the short side for an FA, but if that's all there is to be said, that's all you should attempt to say: the ODNB article is not much longer (1193 words). Your impressive list of sources shows how diligent you have been in seeking out material on your subject. I suggest you shouldn't hesitate to take the article to FAC.
As to your text:
"of Somers Town, north west London": north west? As it has an NW1 postcode I suppose I can't object, but to me "north London" would give a better idea where it is (i.e. round the back of where we had lunch the other week).
"Blake Perkins, Petty's biographer at the Dictionary of National Biography" – two points here. First "at" seems a strange pronoun. One might expect "in". And secondly the Dictionary of National Biography isn't the same as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and Perkin's article is in the latter.
"In 1910 the St Pancras School for Mothers published an account of their work" – but it was singular – "which was active" – at previous mention
"Petty included instructions to make an oven" – reads a little oddly: perhaps "instructions for making..."? (and incidentally and purely for the pleasure of it, cf. p. 5 of Mrs D's Is there a Nutmeg in the House?)
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on taking it to GA soon. I've created the article from scratch over the last two months, and I'm hoping I can take it all the way. Any feedback would be appreciated.
The article just needs expansion, period. Its gameplay and reception sections are both extremely short - only about several sentences. If one can't pull more information from the collective reviews on the game, I'm not sure what to say. Compare and contrast to the size of those respective sections in an article I brought to GA, Tetris DS and you will see the difference.
Another issue is Development is near nonexistent. Make sure you don't confuse development with original research. I'm not sure if "give the player a sense of advancement" is something the devs said, or just a speculation. I actually found a blogpost by the game designer and general director with legitimate development info here and here (requires Google Translate). There may be more, I didn't look super hard. Its also possible that any dev info for the previous 3DS game that this is based on could be integrated, since they all seem to refer to it as an "evolution" of that game (I'm not sure how similar the two are). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, "give the player a sense of advancement" is something the devs said, albeit rephrased a bit. The second and third paragraphs are sourced to Super Kirby Clash Channel, which sounds like a crappy blog but is actually a channel on the news application for the Nintendo Switch, making it an acceptable primary source. Anyway, I will keep in mind your suggestions. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a caption. Thanks for the help! QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I have modified article class to C. It is still pretty firmly there IMO, not to get into a pitched debate about it or anything. I just don't want to give false illusions about how close it is to GA. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense, I was considering it myself after you made your first comment. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 5th and 6th citations (Super Kirby Clash Channel) do not have a url link or ISBN number, and are repeated. This is strange and I think this would make it fail WP:GACR 2b. Neuroxic (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. You see, those are to the news application for the Nintendo Switch, which does not have an ISBN or URL to provide. It is built-in software for the Switch game console. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this article needs an expansion. WP:VG/S has a list of reliable sources that are typically used in video game articles; this will help find new sources. Also, check out some video game featured articles to see what sections are missing from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it might add a humorous twist to the normal FA's while it is still written quite well with the good article stamp, along with it being quite innocent in the fact that it's just a pie. (even if it's got fish sticking out of it)
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. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About six months before this request, I completely rewrote the article about Path 27, because I've been very fascinated in HVDC technology and chose this page in hopes of earning it a "Good Article" badge. See what you think, and feel free to add any citations you see fit.
The only changes I wish for are more photographs of Path 27, including close-ups of the pylons. I also want a photo of the converter station at the IPP in Delta, UT, for the subsection on the converters. Lastly, there should be images of Path 27's electrode lines and grounding sites if possible.
If you ever need to revise the text, remember this: Avoid intricate detail that might digress from the page’s main subject and context. In short; "Eyes on the prize, keep off the nitty and gritty."
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it can be expanded further and has potential to become a good article or a featured article
I've listed this article for peer review because this article isn't perfect and I, as the author of it, don't have a very good english knowledge. I don't want to t^nominate it for something, just want to improve it, as it has not a really high quality now.
If you are looking for someone to improve the spelling and grammar, I suggest putting in a request at WP:GOCE. The article could also use additional information: more sources for the article can be found at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, doaj.org and your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At a first glance without considering copyediting issues, which are substantial, I am most concerned with this article's ability to survive a notability challenge. As much as I am a fan of the subject matter, in its current state, without performing independent research, I would probably not oppose a nomination for deletion at WP:AFD. More work is needed at this point. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to try and get it to Featured Article status. I put it up for this in 2020 and it was rejected, after which Mark83 and I collaborated in an effort to improve it to a standard where it could potentially be successful. We've now gone through this and I would like to give it another go, but it would probably be a good idea to get someone else's opinion on it before submitting it.
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) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hammersfan: This has been open for a month without a response. Are you still interested in keeping this open? If so, I suggest asking for comments on the talk pages of Wikiprojects attached to this article and seek the help of a mentor. If not, can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the suggestions - please keep it open and i will go to the Wikiproject pages and see if I can rustle up some interest. Thanks Hammersfan (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My name is Zac Bond and I work for Pure Storage. It appears 4 years ago a prior employee disclosed, made some minor edits, and requested larger ones on Talk, which were implemented by a volunteer. The tag alleging Terms of Use violations was added because of user AaronEndre's incomplete disclosure when he started the page 11 years ago. This page has been re-written since then, but the tag was left up due to neutrality/tone concerns.
It's possible I'm not summarizing correctly, but that's what I've gathered. In a nutshell, it appears the current page is still not considered neutral as a result of Talk page contributions from a former Pure Storage employee. I'd like your feedback on how I can fix that, where and how the page sounds promotional, and how for me to best assist. ZacBond (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Hi Z1720, sorry for taking a while to respond. Thank you for the feedback! Here is how it’s coming along:
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
Done I do have one question, though— do you think should I restore the citations which backed up the genre (quasi-documentary)? KH doesn’t get referred to as this throughout the rest of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
Done Not controversial at all; I’ve gone ahead and removed the excess citations. Also, quite a few of those sources appeared to be unreliable, so we’ve just killed two birds.
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
Working on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
Done I also merged a relatively short portion of Reception with Release. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any available info about how the film did at the box office when it was first released. The only numbers I found were those of the 2022 re-release. It seemed more appropriate to merge.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Done by Awkwafaba. Thank you; I was struggling to get the bot running.
If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.
Done Oh yeah! I’d forgotten all about TWL. I signed up and poked around for a bit, but sadly didn’t find anything. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also recommend DOAJ.org and archive.org (sometimes I find results on Google Books, then find the full book on archive.org). Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citations need to specify more clearly what the source is. For example, reference 18 is currently:
"El Día (Madrid. 1916). 19/5/1919". Hemeroteca Digital. Biblioteca Nacional de España. 19 May 1919. p. 5. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.
But this doesn't really tell us that usefully what the source is. So instead, I would recommend this (there is no need for an access date for a newspaper source:
Martin Fernandez, A. (19 May 1919). "El "Arenas Club", de Bilbao, Campeon de España" [The "Arenas Club", from Bilbao, Champions of Spain]. El Día (in Spanish). Madrid. p. 5. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022 – via Hemeroteca Digital, Biblioteca Nacional de España.
All facts need citations to back them up. So, for example, the first paragraph of the Route to the final would need citations for the information provided.
I also can't see a source for the line-ups.
Opinions like those given in the first sentence of the match Summary"Barcelona used a more patient, technical style of play while Arenas relied on a brute-force method of reaching the opponent's goal. The latter's physical advantage and consequent endurance was a major influence on the result" need to have inline attribution. This can be as simple as: "According to Martin Fernandez, Barcelona used a more patient, technical.."
A bit of further context would be useful. How successful were the teams in the subsequent years? When was La Liga formed, and were the teams part of that?
The prose would also need some tidying prior to a FAC, but finer detail like that can be worked on after getting the structure right, I think. Harrias(he/him) •talk 18:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll work on the citations soon, thanks so much for the comments and sorry for replying so late, Harrias. I'm uncertain about where to provide that further context. A section after the Match section could work but I don't know what it would be titled. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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) 01:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.
Since you are still working on nominating your first FA, I would suggest seeking a FA mentor. They can comment on this PR and guide you through the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wani: This has been open for over a month and has yet to receive a response. Are you still interested in comments? If so, I suggest asking for feedback on the talk pages of Wikiprojects attached to this article and seeking the help of a mentor. If not, can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already wrote a request for mentorship on the FAC talkpage and didn't get a response. I'd still like feedback, so I'll post on WP:VG's talkpage and see if I can get any interest. If that fails, then go ahead and close the PR. Wani (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead really doesn't properly cover the contents of the article; it blitzes through a ton of content and is mostly focused on post-release updates and legal woes.
The infobox shouldn't have all the personnel unless they're notable or significantly covered in the prose (they're also unreferenced.)
In general, the prose needs a lot of work, as it's an active stumbling block to understanding some elements. I recommend reading through User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for general tips and exercises to apply.
A good example in the lead: After Autumn Games severed ties with distributor Konami in December 2013, the latter formally requested to have the game removed from the PlayStation and Xbox storefronts. The clunky language just begs more questions (can you informally request a game removal? Did the game get removed or not?
The gameplay section starts off by comparing the gameplay to another game, which I've never played, and which is thus useless for explaining this game's gameplay. Likewise, a ton of jargon is used like "snapbacks", "infinite combos", "generate meter", et al. This should be minimally comprehensible for someone who isn't a serious fighting game player.
The character rosters seems like undue weight, unless these are individually significantly covered in reception or secondary sources.
Weird that the plot section doesn't actually cover the game's plot, which I assumed didn't existed until I saw the mention of a story mode's final boss.
The initial development of the game only merits a single paragraph, while stuff like exact backer rewards and kickstarter stretch goal timeframes deserves the same amount of text? This feels imbalanced and simultaneously needs trimming in some areas and expansion in others.
For all the discussion about the legal changes, it's never explained how the new studio actual comes to manage the IP versus Lab Zero Games.
Why does the soundtrack section start with the soundtrack's release and then go back in time a year to talk about who actually composed the music?
The release section just wallops you with a ton of release dates; I don't see how announcement dates of delayed launches or beta tests are significant enough to need exact dates for (or mentioning, for that matter.)
Skullgirls mobile is a completely different game, so it's weird it's covered in the release section for the Skullgirls console/PC game.
Reception section needs work; the section opens with the Metacritic scores and then never bothers summarizing general critic consensus beyond that; criticism is lumped together in a single section instead of being covered in the respective sections before (e.g. why are the critics lamenting the limited number of game modes not discussed in the gameplay paragraph before it?)
What makes Shoryuken, Fanbyte, Esports.gg, Kakuchopurei, VGR high-quality reliable sources? (Shoryuken in particular is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S.)
I don't think there's solid fair use rationales for two non-free screenshots, especially since File:Skullgirls screenshot 2.png is pretty tough to actually see what's going on in the shot.
I've decided to list this video game article because I want to improve it. I want to at least get this article to a B-Class assessment. This is my first article that I've fully worked on.
Most sentences still have the format of "Author from publication said XYZ". Instead, group the reviews by theme, and if multiple sources agree on an aspect, don't mention the publications but cite both sources at the end of the statement. Z1720 (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional sources for the article can be found at WP:VG/S, Google and WP:LIBRARY. This will help expand the article.
If you can find more development info, that would be helpful.
I feel like there's more dev info in The Washington Post interview. I'll take a look later and see if there is. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the source for the April Fool's Day horse hat? I do not see one, but I might just be missing it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate in the near future as a FAC. The article has been expanded and revised over the previous months and recently has received a thorough copyedit from WP:GUILD.
Hey, Sanglahi86. I'll look into the sourcing and references in a bit, with the standards of featured articles in mind. I hope you'll find my feedback helpful. Tayi ArajakateTalk 00:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look into those issues. I will try searching for better sources for those that you mentioned. For the book sources, since most book sources in the article use direct referencing, would using {{rp}} to cite different page numbers be better than {{sfn}}? (most FAs I have seen have used {{sfn}} though) Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the delay, give me some time and I'll come back to it with a follow-up. Regarding which template to you, you could use either, there is no recommendation other than that it should be consistent. Tayi ArajakateTalk 18:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, citation format is inconsistent. Some books are listed under bibliography while others are directly cited to and present under citations. Used direct references (with {{rp}} for different page numbers)
Duka 2008 (ref 100, 110) appears to be a high school level textbook. While college textbooks including undergraduate ones can be good tertiary sources for history (although depends), high school level ones dont generally undergo scholarly peer review and are usually too simplified, gloss over complexity and can occasionally represent misleading and/or outdated ideas. This would most likely not be considered a high quality reliable source necessary for the FA criteria if considered reliable source at all.
Halili 2004 (ref 72, 76, 98), same problem as the one above. This one is an even more generalised than Duka 2008.
Lazo 2009 (ref 295, 299), same problem as above, this time in relation to polsci. Comment: This seems to be a college textbook; the publisher, Rex Book Store, specializes in law books, so I am unsure if a better source is required.
McAmis 2002 (ref 45, 47) is published by a religious publishing house and the author appears to be a theologian. This too would not be considered a high quality reliable source if considered reliable source at all. Topics on religion need academic sourcing. Used better sources
Rottman 2002 (ref 135) appears to be a popular history book being used to source a death estimate during WW2, much better sourcing can be found for this.
Ref 136, same issue as above and for the same material.
Rowthorn et al. 2006 (ref 255, 622, 736) is a travel guide being used to source facts on topics related to biodiversity, architecture, etc. There are much better sources available for these topics, once again needs peer reviewed academic works. Used better sources
Sulit-Braganza 2005 (ref 238), another high school textbook, this time on earth science. Some of the material it is cited for is alongside peer reviewed work while for other material it is only cited alongside a primary source. Sourcing could be improved. Comment: Not sure what to do here. The textbook cover page says it is a tertiary-level textbook; not a high school one.
Tofighian 2006 (ref 117, 680) is a dissertation which are not generally considered reliable unless it has gone through peer review and published in a reputable journal.
Zibart 2001 (ref 722, 723) is a generalised book on cuisine by someone who appears to be an enthusiast. I understand that the same standards for topics related to cuisine may not be easily applicable but any author should at least be widely considered to be an expert or an established critic (preferably specifically with regards to Philippine cuisine), which doesn't appear to be the case here.
I've listed this article for peer review because Onceinawhile and I believe it is close to meeting FA criteria. Your input would be very much appreciated.
Thanks, el.ziade (talkallam) 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...unearthed in 1855 in the "Phoenician Necropolis"...": What's the reason for the scare quotes?
"Eshmunazar II (Phoenician: 𐤀𐤔𐤌𐤍𐤏𐤆𐤓 ʾšmnʿzr, a theophoric name meaning 'Eshmun helps') was a Phoenician King of Sidon...": The detail on his name, especially in the lead, is unnecessary; instead, I would list his reign dates using the {{reigned|x|x}} template. Same for King Tabnit and Cambyses II.
"More than a dozen scholars across Europe and the United States rushed to translate the sarcophagus inscriptions": When? At the time of his discovery, or in modern times?
Hi, I would need a peer review for this article because it is a translation from french Wikipedia. I wrote the original version and french is my first language so I might have missed obvious errors or things that are specific to english Wikipedia while translating (I used DeepL, it's a great tool but not perfect). I plan to submit this article to Good article nominations so any help in that regard would be great.
I've been working on this article a great deal this year. I have recently got it to good article status and it will be appearing on the front page in the next couple of days. I'm hopping to get it to featured article status over the next few months which would be my first featured article. What kind of changes do you think would be needed to get their?
P.S I'd like to try and avoid adding to much additional detail because this article used to have a problem with being way to long.
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. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because while the listings of people do seem to be overly long and unimportant, I'm not sure what exactly to do with it and would like to know what else can be improved about it, and why it's C-class instead of B. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead does not mention that Theodore was Claimant Byzantine Emperor in exile, but I think it should be added. If not, it should be removed from the infobox.
Deleted from the infobox.
The infobox says that Theodore began his reign on 3 November 1254, but the lead says 4 November 1254.
Fixed.
How do we know that Theodore died aged 36 (in the infobox) if his birth year is not certain?
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because despite working on this article for over a year addressing the issues raised when it was delisted from FA, getting it passed as a GA, having it copyedited by the GOCE and spending many more hours addressing the feedback after listing at FAC, it was not re-promoted to FA. I specifically would love any opinions from FA reviewers or those with featured content on specific ways to address the feedback left at the FAC. Happy for anymore feedback.
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. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on articles about the Oval Office desks for a few years now and this is the first one I believe I have brought to a Featured Article quality. I have gotten lists to Featured List statues before but never an article to Featured Article. I look forward to suggestions and comments on the articles quality in preparation of nominating this at FAC.
@Found5dollar: it has been over a month since this has been posted and there have not been any responses yet. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting a request for comments in the Wikiprojects attached to this article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I've listed this article because I'm a newbie and want to make sure my work has been worth it. I wanna get this page to featured-level quality eventually
Especially uncertain of:
Formatting refs, especially those in other languages
Quality of current refs, especially Monthly Chosun Ilbo refs. I think I need more peer reviewed print book sources, but they're usually unavailable as ebooks and unavailable for print in the US :(
If copyright on current images looks fine
Minor confusion on:
Level of detail so far
If I should split any sections into separate articles
Some FYIs:
Still WIP, missing 1945-1949 bio, expanding death/legacy section, also second pass on early life section
I haven't gotten around to cleaning up ref info yet, but I do appreciate suggestions on how I should do it (or best of all, help doing it 🙌🏻)
Grateful for detailed feedback or help editing. I've already put around 1.5 months of time into it but feel like there's still months of effort left.
I suggest bringing this article to WP:GAN before going for WP:FAC, as that process is a lot easier. Some comments after a quick skim:
Ensure that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
Bibliography section should be below the references.
Delete the selected quote section, it is not needed and can be transferred to Wikiquote
Personal life should be placed before death to keep the timeline.
Formatting of references is a little wonky, as you point out. WP:CS has information about this, and I highly recommend using the templates (as they contain the information that you need and will format everything for you.)
Images need to have a US public domain tag, in addition to the South Korean ones. See this link for more information] on which banner you should add to the images.
For splitting sections, typically for bios you don't need to split off, but if there is information about an event you might create a separate article for that event. This article should only document what this person has done and avoid extra information.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is large and in need of critiscism before I nominate it for featured article status. Glyptodon is a frequently visited article and important to paleontology, being one of the first fossil animals from the New World to be described, and is known from several species and hundreds of fossils.
I'll probably mainly be posting comments here about one section of the article at a time. I'll start in history and work my way downwards, then finish off with the lead if all goes well. To start, here are my comments on the first half of History:
"as it involved confusion with other genera, dubious species, and lack of detailed data." - I think that this should be something more along the lines of "as it involved confusion with other genera and dubious species, as well as a lack of detailed data."
"This was the first recorded discovery of a fossil cingulate or glyptodont" - cingulate should be linked here, perhaps glyptodont as well. I personally would also swap these terms to make it clearer that glyptodont and fossil cingulate aren't synonymous terms, though this is pretty minor.
"when portions of a Glyptodon carapace [...] by a Prussian traveler" -> "when portions of a Glyptodon carapace [...] was found by a Prussian traveler"?
Optional: "theory" -> "hypothesis"
"Another work on the armored Megatherium theory was published in 1833 by Berlin scientist E. D'Alton who described" -> I think that there should be a comma after D'Alton.
Pectoral girdle should be linked (also could be substitued with "shoulder girdle" as it's more immediately recognizable to the lay)
"but he unwittingly implied that all of the "Megatherium armor" was instead from his armadillo" - is "unwitting" correct here? That seems to imply that D'Alton did not intend to have it appear that he supported such an assignment, which the Huxley paper doesn't seem to imply (though I only took a fairly cursory look at it so may have missed something)
"was sent a letter containing an isolated molariform and writing about a discovery" - as in, was sent an actual tooth? If so, it would probably be clearer to phrase along the lines of "was sent an isolated molariform tooth and a letter about the discovery"
"from localities in Las Averias and Villanueva, the latter preserved" - comma should be a semicolon
"The genus name Glyptodon was first mentioned by Richard Owen (1804-1892)" - Perhaps specify that he named it? The current phrasing sounds somewhat odd to me, though I can't put my finger precisely on why
"Within this book, Owen dubbed the fossils found by Parish Glyptodon clavipes, [...], the molariform was designated the lectotype." - I think that this would flow better either as multiple sentences, with a semicolon, or a "with" in front of "the molariform"
Also, was the molariform designated as the lectotype? Cuadrelli et al. (2018) don't seem to mention this, and from my understanding if the lectotype was indeed a specimen of a different genus, then that genus would become Glyptodon, rather than a different specimen being reassigned as lectotype.
"An issue with the lectotype of G. clavipes is that the material is undiagnostic and indistinguishable from other Glyptodon species" - It should be stated who considered it to be undiagnostic
"making it dubious" - should probably be specified here that "it" refers to the species, not the lectotype
"Cuadrelli et al (2018) designated the species a species inquirenda due to this issue and more analyses are necessary." -> "Cuadrelli et al. (2018) designated the species a species inquirenda due to this issue and commented that more analyses are necessary." or something similar
Three sentences in a row are cited exclusively to Cuadrelli et al. (2018) in the first paragraph of the second subsection of history; this can be simplified by just having one citation at the end of the third sentence.
This is looks like a very thorough article! Hopefully these comments are helpful; I'll try to continue providing feedback over the next few days or so. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This geological and paleontological site in Scotland was home to several notable extinct endemics (Westlothiana, Pulmonoscorpius, etc.) and has a peculiar set of geological qualities, with the development of freshwater limestone in a volcanic environment. It's a diverse and unique prehistoric ecosystem which is well-described in the scientific literature. I'm opening this peer review to determine whether I've done a good job in translating the scientific jargon into a digestible format, in the hopes of eventually getting the article to GA class.
"The prevailing view was that, despite rare fresh-water eurypterids, East Kirkton's fossil content was otherwise unremarkable." Needs a citation
"found throughout southern Scotland." Needs a citation
All notes in the charts should have citations, and probably the materials section. Another option is to add a column that gives the references for the row at the end.
Why are the plants charts green? This might make it more difficult for some of our readers to read the information. Suggest not changing the background colour unless there is a specific reason. See MOS:COLOUR for more information
Thank you, this was helpful. I've added in the additional citations. As for the green color of the plant charts, that's a standard format for paleobiota lists. Fossil plant species rarely represent an entire organism, rather they correspond to a certain part of the plant (such as a specific leaf type, seed type, wood type, etc.). The paleobiota key at the top of the section uses green to distinguish these kinds of morphotaxa from more traditional taxa. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been trying to improve it with the advice I was given, but now I would like to know what the next step is. I'm hoping to bring it up to good article status, as it's already pretty close with the B-class assessment.
Hi Pear 2.0 (/User:Pear12345678), I have a few general suggestions, but I'm happy to give more directed feedback if you'd like:
I wasn't familiar with sinus tarsi syndrome; I skimmed some papers on it, and it looks like you've already got most of what's known about STS in this article (thumbs up!).
The goal is for the reading audience to walk away with a clear image of mainstream thinking on the topic. Try to clarify the most important takeaway messages for a reader, e.g. Campbell's Operative Orthopedics has a little blurb on the disorder (access through ClinicalKey, let me know if you'd like me to send it) suggesting STS primarily follows a sprained ankle. The AAPSM page you cite claims it's 80% ankle sprains, 20% soft tissue pinching from severe pronation. If that's true, it's not exactly clear from our article. Perhaps you could highlight that by changing the Causes section from "STS is caused by: [list]", to something like "STS typically follows an inversion (rolling out) ankle sprain (70–80% of cases), though it may also be caused by damage to soft tissue from extreme pronation (20–30% of cases), and more rarely by [the rest of your list]." That thinking can be applied to other sections as well: what's the important takeaway, is that being communicated clearly.
Could you give a sense of which treatments typically work? From my skim -- [2] suggests conservative treatment alone typically gets the job done. The Campbell's blurb suggests a cortisone injection often gives permanent relief, the Arshad review just says that O'Connor claimed conservative treatment rarely worked, and later that many studies don't report how often it worked (thanks scientists!). Several sources said removing the fatpad often gives permanent relief. Idk how you want to untangle that, but I trust your more-educated judgment over my skimming.
Otherwise I think it's in good shape! If I could make a more general comment, I'd say that working on articles on these poorly defined disorders is often hard and frustrating work. Basically our ability to write a decent article is limited by how little the medical folks have written about the disorder. If you're truly interested in STS, by all means, go crazy. But if you'd like an easier article-writing experience, maybe you could pick a joint problem that's slightly more common. If there's any way I can help, just let me know. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ajpolino Thank you so so much! I agree that I didn't make the causes clear and I will go ahead and straighten them up!
Also, I will make it more clear which treatments work. For the record, conservative treatments are considered only partially effective, but what would you rather do, orthotics or have someone cut open your feet?
As for the article subject, I have sinus tarsi syndrome, due to the less common cause of pronation - my bones didn't come out aligned correctly - so it is very close to my heart lol. I understand your concern however, it's been difficult to find information, but I write about niche subjects all the time so I've come to like the challenge. Pear 2.0(say hi!) 18:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lede should be expanded to be a summary of the whole article.
I would look for more sources to expand upon the article. Sources can be found at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Google Books, archive.org, DOAJ.org, or your local library system. Also see WP:MEDRS for medicine specific information about reliable sources.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has the potential to be an FA-class article. I would like some comments on where it can improve before I submit it for FAC.
I suggest using {{sfn}} citations for Greenwood source. Source [7] is a bare URL PDF that needs formatting. Sanglahi86 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the lead image? is it a ball or a microscope image? We need a caption.
Unclear sentence: "Tantalum's heavier analogue was later found to be the transuranic element dubnium – which, however, does not react like tantalum, but like protactinium."
Dmitri Mendeleev's 1871 periodic table should be bigger so we can read Th and U.
Physical properties: there is a comparison, but no values given in the text. Most values are in the infobox, but not all. Please add the numeric values of properties to text. Especially since the infobox is mostly devoid of references, it is important to have text with references.
Please use chem2 and not chem template.
Poor English usage in "allows to improve" and "allowed to reconstruct"
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed GA and I might take it to FA soon. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have run out of ideas for improving the article and I would like input from another editor. I think some of the prose is a little clunky and I would appreciate input on how to make the prose flow together in a more natural way. I'm also not sure if the final paragraph containing reception or praise for the show is good or not. Should the quotes be shortened or paraphrased? Are there general themes of praise or criticism throughout the sources that could be compared or contrasted?
Thank you for your comments Z1720, this is the first peer review I've gone through. Unfortunately I think I've found most of the avilable sources, but I'll do a more thorough search to see if I missed anything. I think the current sources are at least enough to demonstrate notability. If I can't find more sources, would a small article like this ever be able to pass a GA review? Or does the article need more content to ever pass a review like that? I've added a section heading for the reception. Are there any obvious MOS guidelines that I've negelected to adhere to? Or any obvious mistakes I've made that I should correct? Do you have any other recommendations for improving the article? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if my original ping went through because I forgot to sign so I'll ping you again @Z1720:. If you just didn't have the time to respond there's no rush, and if you just didn't want to reply there's of course no obligation to. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TipsyElephant: It's possible for short articles to pass GAN, but it is harder. I'm not sure that information about specific episodes (most of the last paragraph in Background) is necessary, as it causes the reader to wonder why these episodes are mentioned over others. Instead, I think there should be general statements about the categories of content the podcast covers (Christian pop media, TV shows, book series, etc.) and how they choose the topics they cover. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't had much time to work on this lately. Hopefully I'll get to it sometime this coming week. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article that I created has two requests for improvement tags at the top placed there by others, and I'm looking for third-party evaluations to see if any such problems remain. These two tags currently in place are:
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (February 2023)
This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (February 2023)
Of course, any other ideas for improvements would be much appreciated as well.
Update: another editor removed the encyclopedic tone cleanup tag, so that the cleanup tag of "undue weight to certain ideas" is the concern remaining in place. Of course, all improvements with a peer review much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some experienced Wikipedians' word for that it is objective and lives up to Wikipedia's standards as well as suggestions for improvements to ensure that this is/will be the case. This is especially important as it since my submission for peer review has been marked with a NPOV template. I accidentally made two peer review requests. Just delete the other one. It is this one that counts.
Thanks, Marginataen (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some experienced Wikipedians' word for that it is objective and suggestions for improvements.
Thanks, Marginataen (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for a featured article candidate. I worked on this article in January and February 2023, after which it was copy-edited in depth by a GOCE member. I want to know whether there is something more that should be added to the article before I nominate it for a featured article candidate. Also, I want to know whether Ref 256 could be kept, considering that it is a YouTube video, more precisely a video interview. The reference is currently used to back up the "The current leader of DS, Zoran Lutovac, describes himself as a leftist" claim because this seems to be the only source where he was asked this question.
I am putting this article forward for peer review because I would like to propose it as a featured article. I would welcome any constructive comments and in particular I have some specific questions:
As regards names, it's hard to know what name to use after first mention, mainly for Phoolan Devi and Vikram Singh Mallah. Any guidance on that would be appreciated. This was discussed at GAR but not definitely resolved.
Should there be more detail on caste politics, and if so where?
Is her political career significant for anything in particular, since at least in English-language sources there is very little about it?
"formal Hindi draws these aspects from Sanskrit; consequently, the two languages' mutual intelligibility effectively decreases as the factor of formality increases." needs a citation
Why doesn't ref 192 not have a page number?
Ref 310: Answers.com is considered an unreliable source.
Refs 132, 150, 300, and others: quotes are usually not necessary in a reference anymore and can be removed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the topic is very important and I'd like to make sure that the information we provide is of the best possible quality. If and when it will become of good quality, I'd like it to circulate as much as possible
"Indiscriminate attacks are engaged in by employing either tactics or weapons that are indiscriminate, and by launching attacks that are disproportionate." Needs a citation
"The deadliest indiscriminate weapons used during World War II were by far the atomic bombs detonated by the United States over Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Needs a citation
Ref 50: Per MOS:ALLCAPS, titles in citations should not be in all caps.
Websites need access dates.
"van der Wilt, Harmen (2020-10-29)." is listed as the bibliography but not used as an inline citation. This should be used or removed
Thank you, @Z1720, it was very helpful. I think I've fixed all this. However:
"The deadliest indiscriminate weapons used during World War II were by far the atomic bombs". I think that what needs to be sourced here is the claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would qualify, based on contemporarly IHL standards, as indiscriminate attacks (that the bombs were and still are the deadliest weapon is WP:BLUESKY). I've now provided a couple of sources on this.
WP:BLUESKY is an essay and is just advice by individual editors. It has not been endorsed by the community. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Websites need access dates". Do you mean the template:web cite? I've found a couple of missing "access-date" and fixed.
Thanks. Do you think we should drop The deadliest indiscriminate weapons used during WW2 were by far the atomic bombs and replace it with something like Also the atomic bombs detonated by the United States over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, according to the standards of contemporary international humanitarian law, would be considered indiscriminate weapons? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a very long time since the article was peer reviewed or possibly might've never been under a peer-review before, Between November 2022 and April 2023 the article went under a general overhaul via which alot of necessary information was added, after all that I believe an external instance on this topic is now crucial and I request a peer-review
"Wink 2002, p. 203." What source is this? There's no full citation to an author named Wink.
"McIntosh 2008, p. 387:" Same as above
"Dyson 2018, p. 29" Same as above
"Wright 2009," Same as above.
Quotes are usually not necessary in the inline citations, as the reader can look up the source themselves to verify the information. Examples include refs 157, 158, 159
Per MOS:ALLCAPS, titles of works and publishers should not be in all caps in the references sections. Examples include refs 149, 151, 110.
This article failed the last GA review. The main flaws pointed out by the reviewer were that "the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV)". I've made various changes to the article in an attempt to address these problems. I wanted to get some feedback before I renominate it, specifically on the following points. (1) Have these two problems been solved? (2) Are there other problems that should be addressed before a renomination?
Hello voorts and thanks for reviewing this article! You are probably right about the length of the lead. I'll see what I can do about it. Could you go a little more into detail about the problems with the section "Significance" and how it should be changed? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Voorts: I made a few modification to the section "Significance". Do you think that this solved the problem? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section now seems to read more as an application of the D-K effect in various fields, rather than a discussion of its significance writ large. Maybe that section could be retitled as "Research findings" or something similar. When I think "Significance", I think, how did the introduction of the effect as a socio-psychological construct affect research or practice in various fields? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that we have changed this article enough from the previous peer review for featured list status.
I've been rewriting this article for the last couple of months in the hope of getting it to WP:FL level at some point in the future. Currently, no political timelines have yet been promoted to featured list status, and I'm hoping that, if this article is, it will set a precedent for others to follow. However, given that the list is on such a divisive subject, I thought it would be best for the article to go through the PR process before I nominate it. My main concerns are the level of detail (is it comprehensive without being indiscriminate?) and its bias (is it neutral, or does it have a recentism bias?), but I welcome any and all feedback. Thank you. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A simply change which might be helpful could be organising the years into pre-referendum, post-referendum and post withdrawal sections. At the least pre-referendum events could do with having their own section. I also wonder if their is a bit to much focus on recent changes in public opinion in the aftermath section?--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Llewee: Thank you for your review. The layout of this article is based on Timeline of the Manhattan Project (currently a featured list), so the events are divided between eight Level 2 headers, one for each year. I'd be reluctant to instead divide them between just three Level 2 headers (pre-referendum, post-referendum and post-withdrawal) because one section (post-referendum) would contain something like 70% of the list. If the consensus of the community is that I should make the change then I will, but I'm not sure that it would be an improvement. As for using the most recent sources for the paragraph on public opinion, I'm not sure what the solution to that would be – I'd prefer not to remove the paragraph altogether, and obviously using outdated sources wouldn't work either. If/when public opinion evolves, then naturally I'd rewrite the text. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: Hello, I would say on the public opinion section the issue isn't using the most recent sources its the focus on the most recent information. Pre 2022 developments are summarised while individual examples are given for the most recent polling. I suggest summarising
"Surveys conducted by YouGov found that the public felt that the UK was wrong to leave the EU by 56% to 32%, with a quarter of Brexit supporters regretting their vote.[300] Among Leave voters who regretted their decision, the most common reasons were a feeling that things had got worse since the referendum, and concerns over the economy and cost of living.[301] In January 2023, a similar poll by UnHerd and Focaldata concluded that in all but three of the Britain's 632 constituencies, a plurality of people agreed that the UK was wrong to leave the EU.[302][303]
as something like
"Polling from various organisations suggested that most British voters regretted leaving the EU with many leave voters changing their mind.[300][302][303] One YouGov poll suggested that among Leave voters who regretted their decision, the most common reasons were a feeling that things had got worse since the referendum, and concerns over the economy and cost of living.[301]"
You could also link the phrase "cost of living" to "2021–present United Kingdom cost-of-living crisis" for the benefit of readers outside the UK.
On the issue of headings, I think it would undoubtedly be helpful to group pre referendum events into their own section. It might be best to have a pre-referendum section and then keep the year by year structure for later events. My concern with the current structure is that it creates the initial impression that withdrawing from the EU was a policy pursued by the UK government from 2013 onwards.--Llewee (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Llewee: Thank you for your feedback, I've made the changes you've suggested. Please let me know if they match what you were thinking. I've kept the Level 3 year headers in the "Pre-referendum" section, because the dates don't otherwise have the years in them, and obviously readers need to know in which year an event took place. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare for a FLC nomination in the future. The list was forked from Nathan Chen to reduce size of the main article.
I greatly expanded this article a year ago now, almost entirely by translating it from the it.wiki equivalent I personally wrote. I would like to propose it as a candidate for FA status, but before a FAN it is certainly better to hear how it can be improved. Note: I am not a native English speaker, so any advice on prose, grammar, syntax or exposition is especially welcome. Thanks, TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conception:
There seems to be a clash between the Sadamoto concept art and the quote.
Remember to wikilink in the first paragraph of the body
Explain what is Nadia
Is there a translation to what does Kikakusho means?
I would move the image to the first mention of Sadamoto since he is the one made them.
Characters:
Since Shinji and others have their own articles, I would suggest trimming these sections
Remember to reference voices or change them to prose.
The one story characters from a single game or other project might not be needed here.
Reception
The quote from popularity seems kinda random and a bit of undue weight that could parahrased.
I would recommend giving each paragraph each own main topic to make them stand out. Maybe one paragraph could be a general approach, another could be Sadamoto's designs, another could be psycholgycal approach.
BTW, I am also having a peer review here for a movie that I'm sure you have seen its related articles. So I'd appreciate any related feedback. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'm currently workin' on them.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlackShadowG: Sorry. I just noticed your advice. Well, normally yes, but keep in mind this is an anime, so it does not follow the normal TV series guidelines and it would be kinda superfluous to me to add a table.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Done
Working on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
