This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
Hi there, this is a nearly ten year old good article that I revisited for an extensive copyedit of the prose, something that unintentionally piqued my curiosity. I don't have much FA ambitions for this article, but I would nonetheless appreciate feedback for improvement in the event I do take up the task.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I think the article suffers from a lot of WP:UNDUE text especially in the background and possibly elsewhere but am struggling to figure out what needs focusing on and how to do it, so I would like some comment. After UNDUE issues resolves I think article it should probably be GA-able, pending other things.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status, but I am unsure about the structure, tone, flow, content, or other aspects. I’d really appreciate any feedback on the article as a whole, Thanks, Lililolol (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I successfully elevated the article to good status a few years ago. I've gone through further review since then and would like to begin the peer review process with the hope to eventually achieve FA status.
I've listed this article for peer review because, although I've put a lot of effort into creating this article, I feel like there's some major improvements that could be made, and I do worry about potential issues I may have inadvertently created in the creation of the article, such as some biases I may have introduced, causing amongst other issues, the page to be kept out of the mainspace.
Hi there, I've just expanded and refurbished this old GA from 2008 so I would like someone to have a look at this article to see if it still meets GA. I would also like some feed back on improving this article since I plan on bringing it to FA at some point in the future.
Hello fellow wikipedians! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured articles. This article is a translation and adaptation of my Ru Wiki article and currently it has been reviewed there and has a status "candidate for a featured article". Both sister projects have different requirements, so I'd like to make it 100% compliant with Eng Wiki requirements for the featured articles.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback before nominating it for Good Article status. In particular, I’d like comments on sourcing precision and consistency, neutral tone, and terminology standardization, as well as on prose clarity.
Thanks, Thegiantofgiants (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get it to FA quality by the end of the year; it's already failed four times. I am aware of some source-to-text inconsistencies (See User:EF5/Greensburg FA checklist) but I simply don't have time to check all 140+ sources myself. Structuring/image/scope comments would be great.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been tagged as having notability issues, however I have made alterations to the article since that was added that may alter the position of it.
This is one of the most important element articles; I improved this article several years ago and now I'd like to bring it to the FA level. I think we're close to that, but I'd appreciate additional input, both from people who specialize in some of the topics this article touches on (physics, chemistry, geology, biology) and from average readers who could ensure this important article is digestible for a common reader.
I want to get this peer reviewed because I just met the guy in person and got a great photo for his page! I think with a good review now, I could nominate it for a GA after all the improvements.
I've listed this article for peer review because... After incubating this for several years, I think it's time to try this at WP:FAC. I'm particularly concerned about the Storyline section. This is the only article I've written where WP:PLOT applies so attention to that aspect would be particularly appreciated (and why I'm putting this under "Language and literature").
I've listed this article because it seems a too scarce, at the very least comparing to the amount of information on the Japanese article. The Influence part also lacks a lot of citations. The Selected Works seems like a bit of a strange way to take care of his bibliography, and might need improvements as well.
Translating most details from the Japanese Wikipedia might be of major use.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done a lot of clean-up and would like feedback from editors with knowledge about theology and/or Romanian politics.
Thanks, --Mapq (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for guidance on how to restructure the article to improve flow, coherence and readability. I'm also looking for guidance on what editing can be undertaken to resolve the maintenance tags.
I'm hoping to get some feedback on what else I could possibly add that would be useful to a general reader. I have a *lot* of information that I could put into this article, but it's very scattered and I'd like to spend my time efficiently.
Another Olympic article from me to put at peer review, hopefully shall go to FAC as well. Shall respond to questions once I have the time, do ping me! Arconning (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
