Wikipedia:Peer review
Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome. Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject. To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
Arts[edit]Toni Collette[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel it is worthy of featured article status. I would like to know if anyone else feels the same way and if not, could give me some suggestions on how to improve the page. Thanks, MuchAdoA (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Raff & Gammon[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I wonder what other people will think about it. I am worried that there is something wrong with the article and I need someone to help me out. I also doing this to learn more about creating articles and how I can create a better one. Sincerely, Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Vaneeza Ahmad[edit]I've added this article for peer review due to uncertainty over whether the discography section recently added is appropriate and correctly used, with it listing primarily television programmes and seemingly no work by the subject of the article; for the sake of the article plus my own future reference, I am wondering whether a different type of section would be more accurate and appropriate in this case, and welcome more experienced opinion. Further, I have found no sources describing the subject as a singer, and therefore a recent edit categorising them as "Singer" is suspect; while they may have sung here and there, Ahmad's established career is reportedly that of a model and actress. Thanks, Moggie2002 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Eric Easton[edit]This is an obscure chap, co-manager of the Rolling Stones with Andrew Loog Oldham but until now without an article. I mean, he was obscure, but not that obscure. Anyway, since this is slightly off my usual FAC tour, I'd like to throw it open to more eyes, particularly regarding chronology, background/context, MOS issues (particularly wrt music) and any good sourcing I've missed. Let's, as they say, spend some time together. Cheers! ——SN54129 19:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC) A few things:
Overall, this article is well-sourced (excluding earlier mentions). I would say to make sure the article doesn't go into too much detail (The article's prose size is approaching 40kB, not too long but definitely long). Username6892 05:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Boys in the Bar[edit]The article was promoted as Good Article in 2012. I plan to nominate it as Featured Article Candidate in the future. I welcome suggestions before doing so. BTW, I was torn between starting the PR discussion and re-requesting copyediting as I did previously in 2013. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Sakura Wars (2019 video game)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because after over 2 years, WT:VG has gotten all the mainline Sakura Wars games up to GA, with the exception of the 2019 Sakura Wars, which will be released worldwide this April. To nominate the games as a good topic and eventually, a featured topic, we should get this article peer reviewed to make sure there are no problems. ProtoDrake and I have been working on the articles quite a bit these past few months. We're looking for any improvements that can be made before the game's international release and the changes associated with it. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Xanthi Carnival[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because…it is about an annual event that is happening right now and it would be extremely helpful for visitors and for the benefit of the local community,but it is still unreviewd by the editors and I'm trying to get some help,maybe there is something wrong ... Thanks, Gnslps (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Warpaint (band)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review, because I replaced class=Start by class=C for an article better than class=C. Thanks, 84.46.53.249 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Game of Thrones[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article can be promoted to FA. I think having a peer review to see what needs to be worked on before a FA nomination will be extremely beneficial. Thank you, -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Fleet Street (album)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it might be worthy of WP:GA status at some point! I've been the only editor on it so far, though, so I would love a second third pair of eyes on it to help me see how to make it better. — Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Monstercat[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to get this article to GA status and am looking for steps to improve the article before nomination. Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Also be aware Earwigs CV check comes up with this: [1]
SpongeBob SquarePants (character)
Fiona Graham
The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like recommendations and suggestions on making it the best it can be. Thanks, TheGravel (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Comments from PotentPotables[edit]I've made a few edits to the article to tidy it up a bit:
Suggestions:
Hope these comments give some help for further development! PotentPotables (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Mullum Malarum
Art Ducko (student magazine)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page. Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry Aoba47, the article has since been deleted. Eric Schucht (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Everyday life[edit]Ng On-yee[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback to assist in bringing it up to GA standard. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Benny, The lede is the big issue with this one. It's quite a well sourced article. I should note, I saw two videos in the references, so you might want to check that they are reliable sources. There are some issues with paragraphing (better to have multiple sentences in a paragraph.) I noticed theres a link to 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games – Six-red snooker, which would be better as saying "she won a medal at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games in the six-red snooker event. I'd also suggest a Copyedit. Otherwise, probably good to go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Engineering and technology[edit]Nokia 3[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because:
Thanks, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Ontario Highway 418[edit]I've listed this article for a 2nd peer review because 400-series highways, a good topic, risks losing good topic status because this article is only C-class. I have asked the Canada Roads WikiProject but I haven't had a response from them yet and the good topic grace period is supposed to end on March 9th (in 2 days) because the highway opened on December 9th. I have made some improvements to it but I'm not sure if the article is B-class or GA quality yet. Thanks, Username6892 02:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Brooklyn Bridge[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this page for Featured Article status someday. This page is about the oldest fixed bridge across New York City's East River, and as one of the most famous bridges in the world, is listed as a level-4 vital topic. While I think this article is generally comprehensive, thanks to a comprehensive GA review by Kingsif and a copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I would like feedback to determine if there are any major outstanding issues, specifically regarding references and coverage. Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because we are interested in advancing the article through the Featured Article Candidate process and need external feedback to determine what we need to do to make the article better. We have been at an impasse for some time as to how technical we need to make the article as well as to whether we are staying well focused on the matter and not diverging away from what should be the main effort. Otherwise the article is relatively stable, well referenced and comprehensive. Thank you! --MONGO (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Comments from Epicgenius[edit]As a long-time follower of this page, I would like to see this at FAC someday. However, I think this needs some improvements first, and that maybe this should first go through GAN. For instance:
These are my initial comments, and I hope to leave more later. If I find any minor issues, I'll fix them myself, but these are things to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Ryzen[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to seek how to move all of the tables being used on this page to a page that already exist for these tables. The talk page has low or no activity at most times. Regice2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for an FA review. It is currently a GA-status article and has undergone many improvements since its promotion 10 years ago. Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Prandtl-D[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the capacity to become a great article and would like other user's feedback on it. I hope to improve the list of vehicle section and overall syntax of the article. Thanks, - AH (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Comments by paul2520[edit]Hi, AttackHelicopter51. I have a few comments:
I think the cites are good otherwise. All from NASA, but that's OK.
General[edit]Mercer County Community College[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I have updated it with appropriate images, stronger citations, and more thorough content than it had previously and would like to have it reevaluated for higher rating than simply start. Thanks, Hollykatharine (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Hollykatharine! Thanks for your impressive efforts on the article. The pictures definitely enhance the content. A couple areas for improvement (and not necessarily to your edits):
Otherwise, I think the page looks great! = paul2520 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Paul2520! Thanks for the good advice. I removed the excess hyperlinks as you suggested. I think you're right that the "Mission" section looks better as you've formatted it. I also updated the caption for the Trey Anastasio photo. I think the MCTV 26 and WWFM aren't clubs so they are okay as is. I appreciate your help. Hollykatharine (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
A couple of things I found:
Other than that, this article is in good shape. Username6892 04:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Institute of International and European Affairs[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know how to improve it further. I have recently updated the page to replace non-neutral content. I have replaced original research and added content and citations to the article, particularly in the history section. I have continued to include the criticisms raised in previous versions of the page (that are not original research) but have included additional information to give these more context. The page has not been reverted in the weeks since I have completed these changes. However, this may simply because it is not read very often. I would be interested to know what other Wikipedia editors think of the page now and what else should be done improve it. I am still new to the Wikipedia process. This is the first article that I have made many modifications to. Thanks, Ballystrahan (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Max Blumenthal[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because the subject has reported concerns about their article. Since WP:BLP is one of the three core content policies of the project, I would appreciate impartial editors reviewing and improving this article. Thanks, --ZiaLater (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
List of Rugby League World Cup hat-tricks[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I was wondering what the article needs to gain featured list status. Any feedback is welcome. Thanks, WDM10 (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Metro (restaurant chain)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded the content from stub level to more details regarding the company and it's background with proper references and citation, and would like to request for grammar and style of writing check to improve the article quality. Thanks, WPSamson (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Landfill[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to good article status. It has already failed GAN once. But I have addressed the issues and would like to disscuss how we can improve the article before renominating it for GA Review. Thanks, DishitaBhowmik 05:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Goel Ratzon[edit]This is my first full article in English Wikipedia, and I'd be happy for reviewing it. Thanks, MagicWord (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kee Mar College[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I'd appreciate suggestions for how to improve the article in light of the available sources. Should the structure be changed? Is there any chance of this passing a GAN given the lack of available sources? Thanks, TJMSmith (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I think a couple of things should definitely be addressed:
--Username6892 04:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Biblioteca Marciana[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because additional information has been added since it received Good Article status in order to prepare it for a Featured Article request. The Biblioteca Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments with a long history, an imposing building, and lavish art. I would like the article to present and cover all of the relevant information in a clear and meaningful manner, both for casual and advanced readers, and would appreciate any guidance and/or suggestions to further improve the article and make it a thorough source for information about the library. Thanks, Venicescapes (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Standby...Lights! Camera! Action![edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what I could do to improve this article to B-class or higher. Thanks, Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Geography and places[edit]Air pollution in Turkey[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before nominating it as a good article Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Morpeth, Northumberland[edit]I would like nominate this article for FA, but would appreciate feedback through a peer review on whether it is ready for a featured article nomination. I welcome any and all comments, suggestions etc. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 02:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Turkey[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it is delisted and i wanna list it again. Thanks, kazekagetr 17:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC) I am glad you would like to improve this important article. Be careful with controversial edits, as discussed on the talk page "Please make edits in such a way, as to enable editors to separate the controversial aspects from the non-controversial ones." I think a lot of non-controversial work is needed to deal with the "update section" and any other tags in the article. Also some information should be moved into the main articles and summarized: for example the "economic history" section and "infrastructure" sections are rather too detailed I think. Then you could nominate it as a good article.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Downtown Ossining Historic District[edit]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could make GA and FA in the future, perhaps after the village concludes its comprehensive plan update. I developed it almost ten years ago, and it's held up well. All I really had to do to prepare it for this was bring the cites up to code and migrate a bunch, plus just a couple of xlinks from the village website. Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hearst Castle
History[edit]Goran Jelisić[edit]I doubled the length of this article by finding new sources, looking at existing sources and expanding the material, and doing some restructuring and copy-editing. I would love to get any pointers about how to improve the overall quality of this page. In addition, I suspect I threw of the weight of the page by adding too much biographical material and by adding too much about the weird complexities of some of the sympathetic witnesses at his trial. Getting an outside look at weight would be great. Finally, I will add information from any relevant sources that are thrown at me; I tried my best to find material, but others may be able to suggest more. Thanks for your time! Jlevi (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
John Alden[edit]I've recently completed a significant expansion of this page and brought (I think) everything into appropriate style standards. I'd like to submit it for GA but first would appreciate any suggestions, comments, corrections, advice, etc. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln[edit]Abraham Lincoln was taken to GA about ten years ago, but fell short of FA. There is new energy to push the article to FA, but much work is needed. The prose size of the article has more than doubled since it reached GA. It will be no small task, but as the 39th most read article of all time, it is very important to take it to FA. Any and all suggestions on how to take it to FA are most appreciated! Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
5th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry
1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom[edit]Janet Parker was the last person to die of smallpox. She worked above research labs in Birmingham, UK, where I was an undergraduate and where smallpox virus was being propagated for research. I have been working on this article for several years. I was a witness to the events as they unfolded and relatively recent contributions by uninvolved editors have proven valuable in obtaining a neutral point of view, which I found tricky. All the photographs and drawings are mine. I am considering submitting the article at WP:FAC. I look forward to any comments. Thanks, Graham Beards (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Here are some things (mainly related to refs) I noticed:
--Username6892 03:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Thank you for these comments. I have fixed the link in reference 23. Reference 11 is list of people one of which if Janet Parker's father. With regard to linking to the Shooter Report in the Bibliography, the citation style is still not established. Graham Beards (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hardwicke Rawnsley
Great grain robbery
Magnus Stenbock[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because four months ago I translated it from the corresponding article on Swedish Wikipedia, of which I am the main writer. Since this article is of GA status as of December last year, I want to get this article up to FA status. But I first want to check if the article requires further grammatical improvements, more sources or other changes. Thanks, Alexander Alejandro (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Augustus Post[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because over a two year period since the last evaluation, when it earned GA, I have continued to update it with appropriate images, stronger citations, and more detailed content than it had previously. Because of its success on Wikipedia the AAA auto club actually decided to make a documentary film on the subject and I was chosen as the chief historical consultant. The film has gone on to win numerous awards and it will be out on PBS stations in May. I believe, at this point, it should qualify for the featured article category. Thanks, Hollykatharine (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Sergo Ordzhonikidze
Samuel May Williams
Battle of Quifangondo[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to GA status. Right now there are 15 GA-class articles listed for WikiProject Angola and 14 of them are articles about animal species endemic throughout southern Africa. A new GA-class article on an Angolan-specific topic like this one (a pivotal battle of the civil war) would be lekker. Thanks, Katangais (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been asked to comment by Katangais. I'm have not yet had a chance to read the article properly (I look forward to doing so!) but I have some provisional comments about referencing which are flagged by the ref plugin. I have fixed one myself, but the following remain broken:
I would also suggest segregating the "References" section to leave only texts that are currently cited in the article. The others could be moved to a "Further Reading" section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. Unfortunately, I can't comment on content, but on the surface it looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor suggestions to polish the article: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]Frances Gertrude McGill[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… after bringing it up to GA class in 2018, I'm interested in nominating it for Featured Article (FA) status this year. Quick summary: Frances Gertrude McGill was a Canadian forensic pathologist in the early 20th century who had an enormous influence on the use of science in Canadian criminal investigations. This will be my first FA project, so I'm looking for advice on how I could further prepare the article before submitting the nomination. Any and all suggestions are welcome (although I'm particularly interested in how I might be able to improve the "Cases and methodology" section). Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
225088 Gonggong
Nicolas Fatio de Duillier[edit]Here's a man who was a friend of Newton, Huygens, Cassini and Jacob Bernoulli, who saved the future King of England from a kidnapping plot, who became a Fellow of the Royal Society at 24 and made significant contributions to astronomy, mathematics, and watchmaking, but also a religious fanatic convinced at one point that a certain London quack doctor would rise from the dead, a man who recklessly precipitated the terrible Leibniz-Newton priority dispute over the invention of the calculus, who invented an "explanation" of gravity that has intrigued great modern physicists like Poincaré and Feynman, and yet who's usually remembered today, if at all, for the almost entirely unsubstantiated suggestion by some 20th-century writers that he might've had a homosexual affair with the prudish Newton. I've personally put in a lot of work on this article over a period of nearly three years. I think that the subject is intrinsically an interesting one and that this article is now one of the best sources of information available online on the subject. I believe that the references are now solid and abundant, and I'd like to see this promoted to a Good Article. However, I'm not familiar enough with the current best practices of Wikipedia for citations and other matters, and therefore would greatly appreciate any help or advice on how to further polish and improve this article, with that goal in view. Thanks, Eb.hoop2 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Global warming
African humid period
Bamboo textile[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it's POV doesn't seem to be neutral. It's more a list of criticisms citing outdated/broken links.
Alright, I'll take this one. Let me print it out and take a look at it ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC) OK, it's been a couple of days. I have not only looked over the article, I have done some editing, which went beyond the usual light copy edit to addressing the POV issue identified by the nominator. This has resulted in a shorter (but IMO improved) article. Primarily I got rid of all the "compare ..." parts of the paragraphs in the "Ecological considerations" subsections where the writer had an axe to grind, and ground it, with cotton production. While that material is not by itself verboten for this article, it should be included only if a reliable source has made those comparisons (per WP:TONE, "[i]t is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them."). Most importantly, Wikipedia articles should never have imperatives directed at the reader, unless in quoted matter that is clearly attributed and sourced. While that section is still weak, and needs further sourcing and expansion, the removal of all those direct attempts to persuade the reader has made me confident enough to remove the POV tag. I also took care of some layout issues, like the sandwiching of text between two images at the beginning of the first section, and (less so) some sentences with two spaces between periods. I also cleaned up some inconsistent spelling (if we start with the Commonwealth "fibre", we need to stick with it) and applied the {{convert}} template where needed. However, the article still has some issues. For one thing, per WP:CRITS, the "controversy" section needs to be eliminated. What's in there that's relevant and sourced could be better off put into a section about the production of bamboo fiber.
Language and literature[edit]Fearsome Tales for Fiendish Kids[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I have just finished a large editing overhaul from my last edit from months back and I want the page to have an official content assessment. Thanks, MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Victoria Lomasko[edit]Hi! I think you've done a good job of arganizing your points so far. That's a great first step. I'd definitely recommend (if possible) adding more sources and more sections/paragraphs. Definitely link more sources as well. For references, I personally like to use other writers pages to get a better sense of what I want mine to look at. I recommend Anna Akhmatova's page or alternatively Sergei Dovlatov 's for examples of really good Russian writers pages. Also, if you can, why not add some images of her art with wikimedia? She's a graphic artist so I believe it fits. If not, I believe you can link to her work on a website or Amazon. All in all I feel like it just needs a touch more information and references, that's all. The structure looks good so far, keep it up and good luck! Thanks, AnnaDiBello (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Zoya Cherkassky-Nnadi[edit]Peer Review[edit]Hey! I think you're off to a really great start, I like it. I really enjoy how you formatted everything into paragraphs and not just a massive block of text so far. In my opinion, you just need to add more sources (ie: Make a reference list. That way, Wikipedia and others will be able to know your information is credible. If you're able to find more info on her, why not divide her life into subsections? I personally find using references on Wikipedia helps a lot--if you find the wikipedia page of an author that you like a lot, you can base it off of theirs. Many Russian authors in particular have very well-constructed Wikis to give you ideas on formatting, such as Aleksandr Blok or Anna Akhmatova. Personally, I would organize the information such as his genre, date of birth and residence into a little box template (which can be found by going to Templates>>infobox writer) where you can add as much or as little information as you require. Do you know Cyrillic? If not, that's alright. One of the interesting things about wikipedia is it almost always displays the writer's native name in his native language. It's totally okay and doable if you don't know Russian-you just need to transliterate. Google translate is surprisingly good with this--just type in Cherkassky's name and copy/paste its Russian equivalent. That's a minor nitpick, though. Also, don't be afraid of links! Links are the best part of Wikipedia--they let you surf the web to untold destinations of hidden beauty. You have a lot of potential places where links would be welcomed! I feel like content-wise, what you've got is just a little bit vague at the moment, which is completely understandable. I feel like going forward it would be a good idea to maybe make a list of her awards and honors, or a Selected Paintings gallery section could also add depth to your page. If you find any trivia of her, no matter how small (ie: "she is married and has a daughter" or "he is divorced") I encourage you to make a personal life section as well. These sections can usually be very short, but can help your article get out of "stub" territory. Finally, I feel like because you are writing about an artist, it would be a good idea to maybe compile critical receptions of her works, and dedicate a section just to dissecting the themes or ideas present. If you need a reference, the article of Edgar Allan Poe has an entire subsection devoted to his literary style. Great work, and good luck!!! --AnnaDiBello (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Mouthful of Birds (story collection)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive recommendations for ways to improve the page, and for it to be officially reviewed so it can be indexed. Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Some comments on both this article and Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection), as they are fundamentally similar. In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:
A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Philosophy and religion[edit]Modern Pagan views on LGBT people[edit]I've previously undergone a huge cleanup and reconstruction of this topic, which was recently merged from its original home at Wiccan views on LGBT people. I would like to make this article as good as it can be and would heavily like some input on how others think it would best be accomplished. Thanks, Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Hi Gwen Hope, I see three areas for improvement in the article.
I hope you found these comments helpful, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Social sciences and society[edit]2019–20 Hong Kong protests[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to improve it to GA/FA status and would like to know what could be improved. Thanks, — RealFakeKimT 11:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Simonie Michael[edit]Hi! I'd be interested in any general comments or ideas for improving this page. I think it's an important one, since this is a major historical first in Canada, and I'd like it to tell a complete story. But I think I've exhausted all the easily located resources online. I'm considering a few next steps: working on building up related historical context (probably on different pages, and then summarising the content from those pages here), or trying to flesh out Michael's early life with materials from print resources in an actual library (which may or may not exist). Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks! - Astrophobe (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Psychology of education[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because… the formating is very off and the actual page contains many misc. additions that through off the entire article. Thanks, Fonsit (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Fonsit, and thanks for nominating this article. I see you are a newer editor, so my assumption is you'd like some direction for improving the article. Great! I did some editing. I noticed several places that are missing references. I marked a few with the citation needed template. That might be tricky if you didn't write the original article... but you could try and find them via Google/JSTOR/other scholarly databases, or by reaching out to the original article author (however, they appear to not be active, so you might post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology). I also replaced one duplicate reference call with a named reference. See here for that edit. I think there is at least one more case of this; do you think you could fix that? I think some redesign of the way the studies are presented is warranted. For example, the first study mentioned is one in Germany, which looks interesting. But does it really merit being the first in this article? I wonder if the section titles might be better worded, like "Education as cause of intelligence" instead of using the word "causal". Likewise, I don't like the second line, "It is correct to say that higher level of education leads to greater level of intelligence and also true the other way around, however, it does not apply for every situation." That's vague, so I've tagged it as such. This page seems much shorter than I would expect! I'm sure a few books (possibly with the title The Psychology of Education or similar) could be linked in a Bibliography or Further reading section. What do you think? Is this enough to get you started improving the article? = paul2520 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, Fonsit. I actually just saw there's a separate, and much more developed article Educational psychology. What do you think about proposing a merge, and posting about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology? = paul2520 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Hi Paul2520, thanks for the contributions. Yes, I was considering proposing a merge to that page as well, but I wanted to have a more seasoned editor's opinions first. Fonsit (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Aishe Ghosh[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because the wikiprojects for it seem inactive and the article has just been created. Thanks, Tayi Arajakate (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Comment from I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Just add in the {{WikiProject Education}} and {{WikiProject Education in India}} templates to the article talk page, the article's education-related. Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sharyl Attkisson[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because User Calton has reverted Bilby's edit on grounds that there was no consensus. While, perhaps, technically true, in that the link provided by Bilby, my rough analysis shows 9-3 in favour of including. To provide a bit of background and context, there are potential WP:BLP issues with respect to Ms. Attkisson's reporting of vaccines. Bilby provided a link to a BLP noticeboard, which appeared to show a substantial consensus in favour of including Ms. Attkisson's refutation; however, that had not been officially closed. Indeed, it had been included in the article prior to significant recent edits, but it was removed. Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it seems prudent to have it back included. I'm not sure why Calton removed it. I have separately tagged Bradv and Diannaa, independent of this peer review process, due to the potential WP:BLP issues here in Calton's removal of her refutation. However, should they decline to re-add it, I wanted to start a peer review in tandem. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Comment from Toa Nidhiki05[edit]As another editor here, I highly contest the claims this article has BLP issues. A small group of editors, as well as Ms. Attkisson herself, seem intent on scrubbing this page of criticism, primarily regarding vaccines. Attkisson has attempted for years to modify the article, and this has now extended to extensive criticisms on her website, some of which specifically attack certain Wikipedia users, including myself, as shills for the “vaccine industry”. Virtually all debate on this page has come from the extent of vaccines. Attkisson is widely regarded as promoting anti-vaccine viewpoints and this has been discussed numerous times. I find the request for peer review extremely unnecessary, given how extensively this article has been worked on by a variety of editors. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Self-managed social center[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it but I'm just getting repeatedly bogged down in discussion with another user, as you can see at Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page and Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page_2. The current structure is not satisfying, since it's split between incomplete coverage of functions and a breakdown by country. I'd welcome some feedback on how to improve the page. Much obliged for any comments, Mujinga (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Lists[edit]List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes[edit]I can't say I've listed this article for peer review because it's not an article, it's a list. I actually have done this request for a peer review of this list for that I was finding out Deidaramonroe's FLC page for it containing appicable suggestions. I made the suggestions (almost all of them, to be honest with you) a reality, as you can see here: [2] Deidaramonroe also created a previous peer review page for this entry. And oh, by the way, Deidaramonroe hardly ever edited after creating that page, so the first FLC process failed. I'd bet the second one must succeed. Cheers, and thanks for this, Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 05:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Arjun Sarja filmography[edit]Previous peer review Thanks and Regards, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Comments from Kailash[edit]All films need to be sourced, and all references formatted correctly (at least the title, website and date in everything). Solve these, and I'll post further comments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! In case you're still looking for comments, I'd be happy to help:
Hope this helps :-) – zmbro (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]
|
Fixed 
