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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up toward GAC and then FAC. I had briefly submitted it (I guess ahead of schedule) to FAC at this link but it was suggested I withdraw. I thought I had taken it both through GAC/FAC level standards, but I guess not, or there's more than the listed requirements, or I missed something? How can I get this up to where it apparently still isn't? Thanks!
After a quick skim, I added a "citation needed" tag to the article. Once that sentence is cited this article is ready to be nominated at WP:GAN. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review on prose, and maybe language on this article before re-nominating to FAC.
Thanks, Santi (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Santi, the article is going to need more than a peer review to meet the standards of FA. I would strongly suggest seeking somebody fluent in English to directly rewrite the prose and maybe co-nominating with them. The PR would be more beneficial when just a few finishing touches are required.--NØ17:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pollosito: I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, and remove your entry when this is closed. I highly recommend that you also review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill among FAC reviewers, making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to see it become a FA-Class article and before I nominate it I would like to make sure it is as good as it can be!
I currently can’t give a full review with my schedule, but just from glossing over the article (as someone who knows nothing about Doctor Who other than that there’s doctors and supernatural stuff) I noticed that you name drop Doctor Who Annual but don’t elaborate on it. Could you include a sentence or two talking about what it is, it would make the article easier to understand for non-Who fans. Other than that, it’s a great article, I’m just sure that little tidbit will be brought up in the FA nomination. If you want me to take a further look and tell you of any other confusing parts you could elaborate on, I’d be more than happy to — Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hey, I went through the articles history and I don’t see any edits from you on it. Aren’t you supposed to be a significant contributor to the article before nominating it? Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from an outsider, but technically they can so long as they've consulted key contributors who have given the go-ahead and are able to demonstrate they understand the article they're nominating (Aka know the sources, what the content is, etc), at least if I read the criteria right. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stray Kids participated in JYP Entertainment's "Every Dream Matters!" (EDM) campaign to help support terminally ill children's wishes. This one lacks inline citation. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
refs 1 (Dazed), and 15 and 28 (Billboard) are not linked. Several "Korea Music Content Association" references can be linked. 206 ref (Teen Vogue) isn't linked. Check whether some of the publications can be linked to Korean wiki. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recently listed GA and I plan on submitting it for FA status. It currently could use some work in its production section, themes section, and potentially the reception section. My main concern is that the article may be difficult to follow due to its structuring (particularly in Production). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Is there any section in particular you feel could benefit from more secondary sources (Production, themes, etc)? I just went back a little bit ago and added some secondary sources to the production section in order to cut down on how many primary sources it uses. I’ve counted and there are 6 sentences in Production where I could not find another source and had to use a primary source, and one in themes (all coming from the DVD bonus features). Crystal Drawers (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: pinging again just in case you haven't seen my recent comment. I've actually gone back and removed all DVD sources, so I think the article is free from primary sources as of now. Are there any other issues or concerns you can see with the article? —Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there and remove this entry when this is closed. I also highly recommend seeking help from a FA mentor as they can provide help and reviews on what needs to be improved upon. Lastly, I recommend that you continue reviewing articles at WP:FAC now: this helps editors learn the FA criteria and builds goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making your article more likely to be reviewed when nominated. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Below are some comments based on just the Musical style section.
"it offers a scathing anti-monarchist statement" This corresponds with "Searing, six-minute opener that splits venom at the monarchy" in NME 2016. I am hesitant to utilize "scathing" in wikivoice; consider replacing with the admittedly less eloquent "it is strongly anti-monarchist "
Adjacent to the above passage, the quote "useless, taxpayer-funded tabloid fodder" needs to be clearly attributed in-line. The same issue can be observed elsewhere in the same section with "obvious depression", "jaunty pop backing", "sprightly and carefree", "lightning-fast drum rolls", "shot of punk adrenaline" (unlink "adrenaline", as this is a common idiomatic construction), "lashes out at media and the world", "casual dismissal of gender norms", etc.
"Described by critics as one of his most poetic moments" is not supported by the corresponding "Rarely has Moz sounded more poetic" from NME 2016. This source presumably being the opinion of only one critic. The same over-application of a singular opinions as representing critical consensuses is evident elsewhere in this section.
Overall, Marr's primary-source perspectives might be overrepresented in the section. While it is important to consider his views, the extensive quotations are sometimes unnecessary or unrelated to any commentary on musical style.
As it stands, I would say that an overuse of quotations and the failure to adequately attribute subjective opinions/quotes in-line are significant barriers to this article being promoted as an FA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a peer review for the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. The article has been extensively revised to include a well-developed lead, restructured and fully cited sections (Production, Themes and analysis, Reception, Legacy, Home media), and is aligned with WP:FILM and WP:FAC standards.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- Comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Inline citations and reliability of sources
- Reception balance (Indian and international)
- Any prose, style, or formatting issues
@Thefallguy2025: It has been over a month and there hasn't been a comment here yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for comments at the Wikiprojects attached to this article and reviewing other PRs and FACs. I also suggest asking for feedback from a FA mentor If not, can you close this? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Georgiana Hill was an overlooked character for some years, drowned out by the noise surrounding Mrs Beeton, and being confused by her historian namesake. Sources are a bit spartan about her, but there's enough for a decent article, which I hope to be able to take to FAC after this PR. All constructive comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"then changed to gooseberry desserts for the other half of the year" – how, I wonder, in the days before freezers did people manage to eat gooseberries for six months when the season is only about six weeks? Preserving jars? That sort of thing? But I mean, six months of the blessed things! En passant, I offer you a limerick from my native city:
A girl from our street, called Our Mary,
Selling goosegogs outside of the dairy
I said, "What are they, wack?"
"I dunno", she said back,
"They're like gear little plums, only hairy".
(John Donne or Milton, I forget which.)
"In 2012 Mark Curthoys, the commissioning editor at the Dictionary of National Biography" – wasn't it the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography by then?
"The food historian Sarah Freeman notes that the canon of Hill's work" – I'd be cautious with "notes": it reads like Wikipedia's acknowledgement that what Freeman says is an accepted fact.
"Hill provides the name of the recipe for "Lapereau Enragé" – I wondered how one goes about enraging a lapereau until I remembered that you pour boiling water down its rabbit hole, thus resulting in a hot cross bunny.
Please note that articles usually do not have an "Overview" section, because that is what the lead of an article does. I suggest moving this information to more appropriate parts of the article or renaming the section. Take a look at other good articles on rail stations for inspiration on what sections to have in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to improve it to reach GA status at some point. It's also my first article and I'd love some feedback in general.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve this article to FA. This would be my first FA (also my first PR), though not from scratch as this has been at GA since just after the last major update was released in Nov 2021.
Pinging @Panini!: who nominated this article at WP:GAN and who should have been consulted before this WP:PR was initiated. Also pinging @ProtoDrake: who was the GA reviewer. @JuniperChill: it is polite and in the collegial spirit of Wikipedia to consult long-term contributors (via personal contact on their talk page) before launching a PR request, especially when one of them has successfully nominated the article as a GA. 217.158.77.43 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @JuniperChill: I very much admire your enthusiasm, but please slow down and consult others in a generous collaborative spirit before charging into WP:GA, WP:PR or WP:FAC. This is especially important when other editors have put significantly more work into an article than you have (as applies here). 217.158.77.43 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have high-quality sources to become a FA, therefore I'd suggest removing sources such as Metro, Game Rant, TheGamer, and Express.co.uk. Additionally, most references seem to be from 2020, therefore I'd suggest looking for newer ones that talk about the legacy of the game. There are also scholarly articles about the game which should be incorporated into the article. There's also several {{citation needed}} tags that should be fixed. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this article to a B rating and need both to know what improvements are needed, and assistance with the implementation.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to potentially nominate this article for FA sometime in the future. I've already helped promote this article and Mario Party: Island Tour to GA, and I believe that the former is stronger in terms of reliable sourcing, citation amounts, etc. I previously requested a peer review for Yoshi's New Island, and I found it helpful to hear from a user unfamiliar with video game terminology. It would also be helpful to track down some international responses to the game; I've tried Famitsu without success. Any advice is appreciated!
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love for this article to pass FA review the next time around. I feel as though it has improved greatly in my 16-hour editing marathon but I need more opinions.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA, and if possible FA (FA seems like a bit of a stretch considering I have never gotten one before).
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a vital article, and is in poor condition. I have done some editing on this article, but still needs lots of work and guiding.
Doesn't look all that bad to me. A few thoughts from a quickish skim-through:
We could do without the load of citations in the lead: a lead should summarise the detailed and cited material from the main text and doesn't need citations of its own except for quotations in direct speech.
On the other hand a few more citations wouldn't go amiss in the main text: penultimate para of Early life; first para of Crimean War; second para of Literature and the women's movement, and footnotes c and k.
For date ranges, as in "Collected Works of Florence Nightingale (2001-2012)" the hyphen should be an unspaced en-dash (MoS)
Duplicate links, once taboo, are now, I gather, no longer regarded as a capital offence. All the same, you might like to revisit those for Crimean War, Ottoman Empire (twice), Mary Clarke, Eliza Roberts, BBC (twice), The Times, Crimea, coxcomb, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Florence Nightingale Museum (twice), St Thomas' Hospital, Claydon House, Alexis Soyer, Aldershot, Lytton Strachey (twice), Eminent Victorians (ditto), Charles Dickens, Mark Bostridge and Church of England.
And my biggest complaint about the article in its present state: there are just too many images crowding each other out and sandwiching the text between them. There are examples of the latter in Early life, Crimean War, Biographies and Other. As you have a nice Gallery at the end of the article you could move a few images down there to relieve the overcrowding in the main text.
Recently created this article and wanted to have the content peer reviewed before pursuing a GA nomination. Looking for feedback on the prose, sourcing, and general quality.
Putting myself down as a reviewer because I live in the area and frequently pass the sites of the sit-ins. I also have a book by one of the participants! Expect comments this weekend. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: @Wikipedian1234: The following belated comments were written in Clarendon. Let me know if you want me to swing by any of the sites pertinent to the article to snag photos or pop into the Arlington Central Library for their local history room. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per a discussion I participated in on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, there might be some disagreement on how acronyms are linked. However, I think that the current inclusion of the acronym via piping is acceptable.
In the lead's first paragraph, I think it might be common sense but perhaps alter "opposition to Arlington County's racial segregation" to clearly indicate that the segregation was against Black people (in accordance with MOS:RACECAPS, the article's consistent use of the lowercase form of racial names is good to go).
"As a municipality in the South" I would clarify that we're discussing specifically the Southern United States and link it.
Consider using Template:Harvnb for the Bestebreurtje citations. Certainly not necessary for GA but something to consider.
"Virginia Senator and former governor" Consider reordering this to more clearly indicate that he was a senator at the time of the sit-ins (and to allow the capital-S Senator to be right next to his name).
The description "the day nothing happened" should probably be lowercase per APL source and MOS.
Consider piping the link Greensboro sit-ins to encompass all of "protests at the Woolworth's lunch counter".
Per MOS:ANTISEMITISM, "anti-Semitism" should be rewritten as "antisemitism".
Per MOS:TIME, times like "1:15pm" should be coded 1:15{{nbsp}}pm to render "1:15pm" with a non-breaking space.
My most significant concern is with the fair use images like File:Rockwell confronts Diamond at Cherrydale Drug Fair (June 10, 1960).jpg. While I fully understand why we would really want these images, we need more documentation on the permissions granted by the DC Public Library. Unless we have particularized permissions granted by the copyright holder (which might not be the library but WashPo), these images likely do not satisfy the standards required for fair use. I would encourage you to reach out to someone at the Teahouse if you need help with the relevant templates.
Putting aside that concern and assuming the minor things bulleted above are rectified, I would be strongly inclined towards approving this article as a GA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the thorough review and comments!
Regarding the images, I have acquired permission to use them via direct correspondence with an archivist at the DC Public Library's (DCPL) People's Archive. According to the permissions form that I signed, the images are part of a series of Washington Star images donated by the Washington Post (i.e., the Star Collection) and while the DCPL is licensed to sell/permit use of the images, the Washington Post retains copyright. I'm happy to add these details to the fair use justification if that would be appropriate.
Having taken this article to GA last year, I've put in a bit more work to prepare it for FAC and wanted to get a peer review for submitting it. I would appreciate any comments you have on whether or not you think it is comprehensive, neutral and in keeping with the manual of style.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not yet been placed on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, and additionally is in need of independent review for accuracy.
Hi, I put "citation needed" tags for claims that need to be verified; "although records relating to this marriage are scarce" is probably unverifiable. I think you should add full citation for "Andrew Roberts. Napoleon: a life." —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 21:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for reviewing it, you are probably right that those are accidental weasel words on my part, and I'll go ahead and remove that. I'll also find sources for the other "citation needed" tags. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)12:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"(born Luciano Buonaparte, 1718 - 1791)" – spaced en-dash rather than hyphen in date range here, please: 1718 – 1791.
"Lucien Bonaparte was born Luciano Buonaparte on 9 January, 1718" – Not sure we want that comma, and rather more importantly this is the first and last we hear of a change of given name and surname. When did he change them and why?
"Giuseppe Maria Buonaparte, who was a Corsican politician who served as Delegate" – a bit wordy: you could lose "who was".
"After the death of his brother Giuseppe Maria, Lucien would be the one to take guardianship" – this is the first of nine "would"s in your text: would maintain strong connections ... would be the one to baptize Napoleon ... would encourage Joseph Fesch ... would lead him down the path ... would write a letter and so on. This is woolly and would be much better as a plain past tense in each case: maintained connections ... was the one to baptize Napoleon ... encouraged Joseph Fesch ... led him down the path ... wrote etc.
The citations cause me some concern.
What makes napoleon-empire.org – cited four times – a reliable source? It looks to me like a fan site, with no links to recognised academic or official bodies. There are surely dozens of books about Napoleon from established publishers you could cite: a quick search in the Internet Archive brings up Vincent Cronin's biography (https://archive.org/details/napoleon0000cron) which mentions the archdeacon several times, and there is a book about Napoleon's family (https://archive.org/details/napoleonsfamily0000sewa/mode/2up) that may be of use, as may perhaps be this and this.
You refer three times to Andrew Roberts's book without giving the relevant page numbers.
For Roberts's book (and any other) you should give the bibliographical details. This template is invaluable for that purpose: {{cite book | last = | first = | title = | date = | location = | publisher = | isbn = }} (For older books, published before ISBNs came in, the oclc number should be cited (obtainable in WorldCat).
Thank you for reviewing the article. I can add the page numbers for Roberts's work, I'll try to get around to swapping out the Napoleon-Empire.org citations today. I'll also go ahead and promptly fix the language issues. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)04:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do think there has been a bit of confusion, there is a large difference between Napoleon-empire.org and Napoleon.org. Napoleon.org is far more academic and reliable. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)04:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and implemented nearly every proposed change, and I cannot thank you enough for the sources you provided, as they were of great assistance in sourcing/adding information. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)06:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My goal with this article is to take it to FAC (this would be my second). I would especially appreciate help rewording any awkward phrasing and assuring that the article is fully on-topic (I'm worried it may be a bit too long, but I may be overthinking). Of course, any type of feedback at all would be excellent.
@Kimikel: I recommend asking for comments on the Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC now in order to continue learning about the FA criteria and to build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, causing your nominations to be reviewed more quickly. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the advice. If I have more time for Wikipedia I'll try to be more active in getting this reviewed. Thank you for leaving your comment. Kimikel (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
helloo mind if I just put one picture on Dan Caine article.? If previously is too many and too detail, is it oke if I just put one.? thank you very much and look forward Bettylamerdelaverda (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Helloo I just add some article in the "tenure" section following Caine recent visit to NATO Summit for the first time as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with cited article from Joint Chiefs of Staff page and add just one photos... I hope you don't mind and I hope the edited suited with the wikipedia page... thank you very much 118.136.83.36 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ElijahPepe: I recommend asking for feedback on the talk pages of Wikiprojects connected to this article. Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I recommend getting an FA mentor who can give feedback about the process. I also recommend that you review WP:FAC nominations now: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, making it more likely that your article will get reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
rounded supraorbital torus (the brow ridges) – singular/plural mismatch; should this be (bulge that forms the brow ridges)?
explain occipital bun
male dimensions of maybe 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) and 75 kg (165 lb). – weight is not a dimension, right?
ponchos – I would link this
footnote 2 (b) could be much more concise, it is a bit repetitive
A number of Neanderthal fossils had been discovered before their antiquity was fully understood – You then list Engis 2, but this seems to have been understood as old?
This hypothesis was notably opposed by – do we really need "notably"?
progressive" Neanderthals which would eventually evolve into some local subspecies of H. sapiens (polycentricism), or in Europe into either the modern European subspecies or the "classic" Neanderthals. – progressive ones evolve into classical ones?
"splitters and lumpers" – I suggest to remove this. It is not needed I think.
are more closely related to Neanderthals using nDNA' – "in their nDNA"?
recognisable by a genetic signature – needs explanation
The Neanderthals were the first human species to permanently occupy Europe – earlier in the article you said there might have been an earlier one?
proliferating weakly harmful genes due to the reduced effectivity of natural selection. – stated earlier already, not sure if it needs repetition
Neanderthals may have been at a demographic disadvantage – "disadvantage" compared to whom?
Locations of Neanderthal finds in Eurasia (note, part of Spain is cut off) – I would simply write "finds in Asia", since the map only shows Asia (this is what is highlighted in yellow).
I would think that, per WP:Proportion, the Description section is slightly too short. There are some important points that could be mentioned (e.g., lack of the chin). I mean, not much more, but a bit more is needed I think.
They appear to have eaten predominantly what was abundant within their immediate surroundings.[106] Cro-Magnons, in contrast, seem to have used more complex food extraction strategies – I don't see the contrast because the two points cannot be compared, and no idea what a complex food extraction would be.
Neanderthals, nonetheless, were frequently victims of animal attacks.[94] – already mentioned
The arts – strange title. Why not just "Art"?
As is the case with animal attacks and the incest, traumatic injuries are repeated throughout the article several times.
Neanderthals used ochre, a clay earth pigment. While modern humans have used this for decorative or symbolic colouration, it has also been used as medicine, hide tanning agent, food preservative, and insect repellent. – So what does this say about Neanderthals? Seems to be about modern humams, so why is it here?
The quality of medical care may have ensured their survival as a species for so long. – Nonsensical sentence in my opinion (basically everything ensured their survival)
The behaviour is not indicative of a religious belief of life after death because it could also have had non-symbolic motivations. – For example? Which non-symbolic motivations would have included the mentioned grave goods?
The Finlayson's speculate that Neanderthals viewed the golden eagle as a symbol of power. – I think, if kept, this needs context: Why this particular bird?
introgression – link
Assimilation had long been hypothesised with supposed hybrid specimens, and was revitalised with the discovery of archaic human DNA in modern humans.[191] – There was already an entire section on this, why repeat?
Historically, the cause of extinction of Neanderthals and other archaic humans was viewed under an imperialistic guise – is "imperialistic guise" the right word? Do you mean "white supremacist guise"?
I am also not sure if that quote is warranted, or if that is undue weight (it is the only quote in the article, and a misleading one if people do not read the text).
Refs 37 and 177 are duplicates. Does 177 have to have that quote? 40 and 42, as well as 49, 95, and 102 are also duplicates.
I'm looking to take this to FAC soon, however I am sure I am missing something. I have no experience with the venue, so I would like some eyes beforehand.
Hello! Looks pretty good from a first glance. I will look into the prose later, and also I don't have much biology knowledge so specialist things may be lost on me. I will first focus on what I am best at, images and source formatting.
Source formatting
I see a few issues here.
Several sources are formatted with .com or .org (citation 1, 2, 14, 23, 25) in the name, which generally should not be done (unless it's the name of the website, which isn't common). "Why freeloader baby-eating ants are welcomed to the colony" work title is just the title again. Replace with the actual name of the work there as well (in that case, Ohio State News).
We're very inconsistent on linking journal articles. I would recommend against including a link in the citation parameter for journal articles, unless the link is a free access copy different from the DOI. If it is a free access DOI simply indicating that will make the link automatic. If you link it like this it 1) duplicates the non-free DOI, which will lead you there anyway. E.g. citation 12 and 34 the main paywalled link and the DOI are the same so I don't see the point of linking it again; compare this with citation 31, where we are linking a non-free copy the same as the DOI but not indicating it at all. This way, the reader hits some dead ends.
We're also inconsistent on the linking of journals in citations and magazines. Either link all that have articles or link none (I prefer all, but it's up to you).
We're inconsistent on what identifiers we use. I would recommend just cutting the S2CID ids because they are useless w/o a free copy and only keeping ISSNs and DOIs on citations + pmc/pmid if it has one. Don't know enough about bibcode to say there though maybe that's worth keeping. Consistency is what matters
Citation 48 is capitalized weird and has the publisher in an odd way + should be linked for consistency with other book refs
You're also inconsistent on using long vs short refs. It's acceptable to use long refs only for non-paginated sources or for ones you only cite one page for, but that's not what we're doing here. You are citing individual sources repeatedly over multiple page ranges with long refs and using a handful of sources like once with sfns. You can use a mix but it has to be a consistent mix
some sources are using cs2
no rhyme or reason to usage of lock templates, also mixing orange and green without distinction, seemingly
cite 15 formatted with work as author
cite 32 is formatted in an inconsistent way
cites 24, 41 has authors not listed
Is antkeepers reliable? seems like a pet site? is envirobites a "high quality" source? same with the entheogram
Cite 26 and 36 are marked borderline. 1 is Frontiers which iirc are better for taxonomy than other topics so that may be fine but I'm not sure enough about 36 to say
Images
I feel like the article is a bit bereft of images. But we simply may not have very many relevant ones, so that is fine. If you can find 1 or 2 more relevant ones that would help, but it wouldn't fail without them.
Of the three we have here
all 3 images need alt text
all three look to have valid free licenses.
Generally, good on the image front, but add the alts.
I will look over prose/structuring later as mentioned. My other concern is hard to gauge as I have little specialist knowledge, but while this definitely fits GA's broadness, does it fulfill the FA "comprehensiveness" criterion? How good an overview of the literature on parasitic ants is this? Are there big sources you are leaving out? I have no clue but FA comprehensiveness is a higher bar than GA has PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to bring it up to Good Article standard, and eventually Featured Article standard. In particular, I'm conflicted over whether the Etymology section is excessively detailed.
Thank you for taking this on but I think its a bit far from GA standards:
There's little detail on physical morphology and body plan. There's only a few sentences and then we talk about physiology.
Habitat and diet should be larger with more detail.
Reproduction should be a section/subsection on its own with details on mating and dominance.
I think the cladogram Brennan et al. 2020 is enough as a list of species. The current taxonomy section should be deleted and perhaps moved to a new article "List of monitor lizards" like List of crocodilians. Maybe PresN can help with that?
Thanks for the reply. These are good pointers. I'm currently working on another article, but when I'm done I'll see what I can do. The cladogram is not completely comprehensive however and should not function as a list of species. Bloopityboop (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest taking a look at an established FA-level article for an animal (such as Lion) to get some idea of what topics are missing and a good section structure. I tend to do this kind of thing and it helps me :) CVDX (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for DYK, I think it has a good hook, and it'd be nice if it became a GA as well, if at all possible.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on improving it and want to bring this to GA someday. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks! Relativity ⚡️19:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CMD
Some redundancy in the lead about the lack of description. Saying "undescribed" with a link, probably fine. However, the "although this has yet to be published" is out of place. Firstly, a bit redundant if that is all it is trying to convey. Secondly, surely almost everything is yet to be published, rather than just that fact? "a scientific name has yet to be given" is a similar redundancy. Perhaps a lead rewrite should consolidate the implications for a lack of description into one paragraph.
"The name "Bosavi woolly rat" is still provisional", no source for this, or an explanation for how a non-scientific name can be "provisional".
History seems to mix together information about the crater with the chronological history. It is probably worth separating those topics. There is some location information in the Description section too.
"As of 2025, the Bosavi woolly rat does not have an official scientific name, but it is thought to be in the genus Mallomys, within the family Muridae". These are not exactly linked points, not having an official name is not quite the same as not considered a species, which is what would be the relevant information for genus inclusion.
"It is to be named by Dr. Kristofer Helgen" raises further questions. What does that mean? Is there a timeframe? We are a decade and a half from the initial discovery, so the "it is to be named" could have been an intention 15 years ago or last year.
It could help to define what Lost Land of the Volcano is in the lead.
"40 undocumented species" is a weird construction following "30 species". It's uncertain if these are new species, but it's known that there are exactly 40 of them? What about the 30 species that we already know about?
The title of the picture book doesn't need to be in quotes
Be careful with superlatives here (one of the world's largest rats) especially since it's not clear what its taxonomy is. "Rat" is not a taxonomically specific word.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a review of copyediting or grammar issues, which was the main reason for the first GAN's quick fail. Previously, I have requested a copyedit, and it was partially done. But, since English is not my native language, I would like to submit a peer review before submitting another GAN.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to at least A-class status, but preferably FA if possible. Please ping upon starting the review for a faster response on my part.
I edited the lead a bit, it repeated "Duvno" a lot of times. I also removed the claim about him being the first to write in Latin script, because that honour belongs to Marko Marulić, who predates Ančić by some 150 years (if I am not mistaken). TurboSuperA+(connect)06:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ančić was the first Bosnian Franciscan to do so. I see that I failed to mention that! Thank you so much. There's a whole phenomenon of Bosnian Franciscan Literature, which many consider the first standardised South Slavic language. Also, didn't know that about Marulić. :) Governor Sheng (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be my first featured article candidate. The topic covered in the article (currently a GA) is not known to many people, but to enthusiasts it may be considerably interesting. The religion of the Shang is a complex one, and this article alone cannot describe the whole of it. I was desperate to make it both comprehensive and understandable to readers at the same time, but I'm running out of ideas for further article development.
I'm mostly concerned with the sourcing of the article. Although they are not the majority, Ph.D dissertations are used within some sections. I've given Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP a decent look, but I'm still not sure whether the cited dissertations are valid as reliable sources. Besides, I feel that Wikipedia prefers books to journal articles, so whether my mixed reference list of book and journals is allowed is also a thing I want to know.
Another problem for me is whether the article has covered enough information. For a small religion like this, it's of great importance to me to know what can be added to the main prose. I think the sections about Shang beliefs and practices are broad enough because I devote most of the time to these. But there remain questions when it comes to political influence and history of the religion. If there's something I should improve, please let me know.
Finally, if my article doesn't satisfy certain MOS rules, I'd like to be reminded about this.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
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.
@Xanix1000: PR is used for editors who want feedback on the article. The best way to get an article improved is to WP:BEBOLD and make the edits yourself. Let me know if you need any help! If you want to close this PR, please go to WP:PRG for the instructions: I recommend using the script. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for FAC and need feedback on how it could be improved to meet the criteria. As this is a very abstract article, I'm also looking for places that people find the most difficult to understand so I can try to improve how accessible it is.
This article is about one of the greatest and most influential pop stars of all time—Beyoncé. I plan to take this article to WP:FAC so any and all comments are extremely appreciated, given this is the longest article i've ever written, at 9.5k words. Much thanks to Medxvo, SNUGGUMS and Z1720 for their comments on the article, edits, and help with reducing the article's size. Best, 750h+15:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to acknowledge that when 750h+ started working on this article, it was over 14,000 words long and nominated for GAR. 750+ has done a lot of work fixing up this article than their above statement might be hinting at, and I'm excited for this to reach FAC if it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pretty long, so I'll try to review it entirely before I leave the country.
I'll start from the references:
There's incosistency in how references titles are written, some use title case while some use sentence case. If you want to change them to title case, I'd suggest using the User:ZKang123/TitleCaseConverter.js script, otherwise you'd have to do it manually if you want to use sentence case.
There's also incosistency between the linking of websites in references. Some, like Vulture and HuffPost, aren't wikilinked.
I'm unsure about the reliability of Evening Standard and Kreol International Magazine and whether they can be considered high-quality sources.
Lester (2024) has missing ISSN/JSTOR.
Lede:
Suggest wikilinking R&B.
The lede reads surprisingly well to me. I do not have any concerns regarding this part of the article.
Early life also looks good to me. Did not spot any issues.
Posting this here instead of the talk page: The first paragraph of "Voice and musical style" falls into the "X says Y" pattern. While I will try to do a WP:LIBRARY search for more sources which might help expand this section, should this paragraph be reworded more like WP:RECEPTION suggests, with each sentence having categories of information (and multiple citations supporting it) instead of "reporter says Y about her voice"? Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Songwriting section: The first paragraph mentions awards she has won for songwriting. Would this be more appropriate in the "Life and career" or "Achievements" sections, or is it fine to stay here? Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Achievements section: Many of the achievements listed here are also mentioned in the "Life and career" section, such as the Academy Award and Grammy awards. Should this information be consolidated in one section or another? Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok so i'll remove the repeated awards in the life and career section, i've expanded the Voice and musical section and i can reword it, and i'll move the awards in Songwriting to the section it belongs in. 750h+09:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article can become a FA, but I do not have enough experience in the realm of crime and law articles to properly determine if it is missing something.
Please inform me if this article is missing anything important from it. Comments regarding its writing style and prose are also requested.
This article was recently promoted to GA. As this is the first article I've created that's gone beyond start-class, I'm keen to carry on improving it as much as possible. Any feedback at all is welcome!
I'm already aware of a couple of issues, which we discussed in the GA review:
The article doesn't currently have any images/media, but I'm in contact with Everyone Hates Elon to arrange for some free images to be released, so hopefully the article will soon be illustrated.
The article doesn't include discussion of reactions or feedback to the group's campaigns (for instance, any "critical reception"), as this doesn't currently exist, as far as I can tell. Likely given the contentious topic area, and the risk of attracting drama, sources tend to keep to discussing the facts rather than giving opinions. I'm keeping an eye out for "critical reception"-type sources, and if any do emerge, I'll incorporate them into the article.
I've also posted some thoughts about the WP:RS status of Left Foot Forward (which is the origin of four sources cited in the article) at Talk:Everyone Hates Elon, so I'm interested to hear what others think about this.
@Pineapple Storage: I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles on that list. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst other FA reviewers, thus making it more likely that your article will be reviewed. Lastly, since you are working on your first successful FAC nomination, I recommend getting a mentor to help give comments and guide you through the process. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Okay thank you for this! I wasn't actually sure about aiming for FA with this article straight away, as I don't think it's quite ready yet (eg. no media) but I guess there's no harm in trying to get it FAC-ready anyway! :) I will try and get involved in reviews too, as you suggest. Thanks again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because as a participant in WikiProject Spain this will surely help with its FL status nomination that I want to propose.
I've listed this list for peer review because I'm a Morgan Wallen fan and would like to bring this list up to FL-Class. I would eventually like to bring all four of his studio albums to GA-Class so that this could become a good topic. It would consist of Morgan Wallen discography and then his four studio albums. I believe this list could be considerably better than it is now, however, I'm not sure what could be improved at the moment. Maybe the lead section.
Just wanted to quickly comment that there appears to be a few discrepancies in the infobox. For one, it claims that Wallen has 13 music videos, where I only count 9 in the section. It also claims that Wallen has 27 singles, where I count 22 not counting features and 29 otherwise, and 7 promotional singles, where I count 11. Leafy46 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be eligible for featured list quality, but I am unsure whether there needs to be anything else added to the article. Would a sentence in the lead describing the radio series' plot be required? Do plot summaries for the individual episodes need to be added? Do cast members need to be mentioned in the lead? Anything else I'm missing?
Your prefatory prose looks fine to me, though it wouldn't hurt to add the names of the main cast members, as you suggest. But I boggle at the header of the last column in each table: "viewers" – for a radio programme? Tim riley talk08:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listing this with the intent to head to WP:FLC in the near future. All suggestions and evaluations are welcome. On the logic behind certain choices made during the writing of the article, see here. It's also worth noting the existence of List of Mesopotamian deities, the only comparable article list of deities which has been through FLC that I'm aware of.
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.
.jpg){kind=link}