Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer Review)
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject

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

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

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

Arts[edit]

Rayman M[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I has been significantly contributing this article and now, despite of the start class assignment, I'm stuck of ideas to do, I has expand every sections, remove some un-needed stuff such as list of glitches and differences between different versions. This game from the Rayman series may not have a good impact or else but I just wanted to read your ideas for this article so Thanks, NatwonTSG2 (talk) 8:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


Selected Ambient Works Volume II[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA status.


Thanks, Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Eternal Blue (album)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article to featured status and am wondering if there is anything big that I'm missing. I know critical reception should be reorganized per WP:RECEPTION, but that's all I've got on my notes so far.

Thanks, dannymusiceditor oops 01:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Godzilla Minus One[edit]


Over the last few months, I've been putting a lot of time and effort into making this page well-written and worthy of GA or even FA status since the movie has become so popular and has been a historical success at the Oscars. I would appreciate any comments on what still needs to be sorted out so I can move forward, thanks. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • I believe the first paragraph in "U.S. performance" is too long. This should be split into two, and the last paragraph merged into the second paragraph.
  • Much of your reception sections fall into the "X said Y" pattern and use direct quotes. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION and rework these sections.
  • The "Critical reception" section is too long. I suggest trimming or splitting this section.
  • Some of the references have titles in all caps. Per MOS:ALLCAPS this should be changed to sentence case.
  • Refs 138, 151, 169 & 201: Per WP:FORBESCON this is considered an unreliable source.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I'll be fixing these issues over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)[edit]


This is currently at GAN, but I am also listing it here because my ultimate goal is to get this to FAC within the next couple months, and I recently learned that a pre-FAC peer review can take place at the same time as a GAN. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to FAC peer review sidebar. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Sims Online[edit]


Requesting this peer review to seek input from readers external to WP:VG on the standard of writing in the article. Whilst I will continue to work on copyediting and concision, it would be great to seek other perspectives on how this article could be improved. I am looking to develop this article to an FA standard which is a new process for me. Thanks! VRXCES (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Worlds (Porter Robinson album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 February 2024, 20:49 UTC
Last edit: 23 March 2024, 14:19 UTC


Nurture (album)[edit]

Previous peer review


Back at peer review after this article has passed a GAN — I plan to take it to FAC later this year. However, as an inexperienced nominator at FAC, I'd sincerely appreciate some more detailed feedback regarding Manual of Style compliance and the featured article criteria. I look forward to hearing your comments! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Skyshifter[edit]

Nice.

  • I recommend replacing Your EDM, Dancing Astronaut and EDM.com with higher quality sources, according to WP:RSN#Electronic music sources.
     In progress —TS
  • Could add prose to the year-end lists section, similarly to A Crow Looked at Me#Accolades. I'm also unsure if the song positions are worthy of inclusion; maybe only the album ones should be kept.
    In progress. I've removed the entries for the songs, and they're already listed on their respective articles anyways. I'll probably summarize the remainder with some prose as well. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Partly done. Entries for the singles removed, as above, but I don't see much point in converting the table to prose. There's already a section above if readers want the reviewers' comments on the album, so there's no additional information to be gained with that change. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshiftertalk 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Piri[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this to FA.

Thanks, Launchballer 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Born to Run

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 10 February 2024, 15:44 UTC
Last edit: 25 March 2024, 01:28 UTC


Stage works of Paul Goodman[edit]


I stumbled into this article as part of my larger project on Paul Goodman oeuvre, finding that rather than writing a stub about Jonah, I could write a little on each of his major plays.

I'm looking for any feedback in advance of taking this neat little morsel to FAC. czar 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Czar: This has been open for over a month without a comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720, yes, thank you. It's a niche topic so I anticipated it sitting for a while. czar 19:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a prose read-through:

  • Page description is missing
  • "Put another way, the plays each have three characters: a traveler (the audience), a spirit (the idea of the poem), and the chorus (that interprets both for each other)." I think this explanation can be worded better, but I'm not sure how. I don't like the "Put another way" sentence starter.
    • Edited
  • I do not think that the names of the plays are supposed to be bolded, as this article is about all of the Stage works, not specific entries. Typically I do not see bolded statements in the body of the article.
  • "The sets and invitations were primitive and the 20-person seating arrangements intimate." Was this chosen by Goodman? If so, why? If not, it should be removed.
    • It was a production decision by the Living Theatre
  • "Attendees included John Cage, Merce Cunningham, and Carl Van Vechten." I think this is off-topic for the article: the reader does not need to know who came to see the performance unless it is important for its development.
    • They were major figures in the New York scene, so I thought it was useful for context, and Cunningham became a collaborator later in the article, but I can remove if it reads as trivia
  • I think it reads as trivia and can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of "Jonah" falls into the "X said Y" pattern. Consider WP:RECEPTION for ideas on how to reword this paragraph.
    • I thought it was rather varied, for the material
  • There are three sentences in a row that use this format (NYT's review, then Commonweal, then New Yorker) which gave me this impression. Is there a way to combine these reviews by themes instead? Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, not really but I played around with it a bit more. I think that should cover everything. czar 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Based on prose I think this is almost ready for an FAC. Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Z1720! Replies above czar 22:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Raichu

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 29 January 2024, 02:44 UTC
Last edit: 21 February 2024, 09:47 UTC


A New World (The Flash)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I created this page a while ago. I want to improve this to GA. The immediate issue I can see is the reception section is quite small which I plan on working so I was wondering if any other improvements could be made before my nomination.

Thanks, Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

Good to see you, OlifanofmrTennant! This article looks pretty interesting, and I know you've been super on top of those Arrowverse topics; I'll be around to contribute some comments soon. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69 So when will you contribute those comments? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey OlifanofmrTennant, I realized only once I came back from my wikibreak last week that I forgot to leave a message on this PR; sorry about that! I've actually been drafting some comments over the last couple of days, which I should have done either today or tomorrow. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but I'm now back from my wikibreak; time for a quick review! Citation numbers from this revision.

  • The lead needs a rewrite or significant expansion. MOS:LEAD needs all of the article's sections to be represented in the lead in some form, which is currently missing.
  • If the actors who come in for the guest appearances are listed in the show's credits, the citations for those lines can be removed in the spirit of MOS:INFOBOXCITE.

 Done

 Done

  • Make sure the plot summaries for each episode are under the 200-word limit set by MOS:TVPLOT.

 Done

  • "Barry Allen gets transported ..." This needs elaboration — I'm assuming this is time travel, but how?
    • The answer isn't clear he is transported through time but the how/who isn't ever explained.
  • In § References: The Flash/'The Flash'The Flash

 Done

  • Citation 22 looks like an unreliable source; I'd recommend removing it.

 Done

  • Add quotation marks around the episode titles in the footnotes.

 Done

  • Footnote c is formatted pretty strangely. I think I'd prefer a couple of sentences of prose here rather than a list, which lacks context and is confusing for someone just reading through § Notes.

 Done
@OlifanofmrTennant: Feel free to reply to my comments in line, and let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments because why not. Now using this revision for citation numbers.

  • Consider adding a frame of one of the episodes to the infobox to help in the identification of the subject to the reader.
  • § Critical reception is really bare-bones right now. I'm not sure if any more reviews for the episodes exist, but more information needs to be pulled from the existing sources. For example, citation 12 has been reduced to just a short statement about the convoluted plot.
  • The long list of guest appearances in § Casting is really breaking up the flow of the prose, in my opinion, and is bordering on an MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue.

 Done

  • I made a couple of edits correcting MOS:DASH issues, but I'd appreciate if you could do another pass to make sure I didn't miss anything.

 Done TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • "Despite this neither Thawne nor Zolomon fight Barry instead being paired off with Allegra and Khione respectively." Needs a citation

 Done

  • A lot of the article has excessive detail about actor's thoughts on returning for the episode. This makes the "Casting" section very long. This should be summarised more effectively.
  • The "Reception" section falls into the "X says Y" pattern. See WP:RECEPTION for advice on how to avoid this. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Campbell's Soup Cans[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended at the failed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2. When it was demoted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 the review mentioned both "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" as well as MOS concerns. Please point out any remaining problems from either of those two reviews and help me address them. I believe I have addressed the image issues.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Be advised that I intend to pursue WP:GA, WP:DYK and WP:FA for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Everyday life[edit]

Engineering and technology[edit]

Cross-site leaks[edit]

Previous peer review


Following the recently archived FA nomination, I'd like to continue the unfinished discussions about the quality of the article and get some feedback in a informal setting on the latest changes I made, so that I can make another nomination later this year (assuming Knittel et al. or Van Goethem et al. doesn't publish another paper on XSLeaks at the 2024 conferences 😄 that requires a rewrite). @JimKillock and TechnoSquirrel69: I've addressed some of the issues surrounding the lede. (hemingwayapp.com gives me a Grade 13. OK. for the lede) Let me know if I can make any further changes.

Thanks, Sohom (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JimKillock and TechnoSquirrel69: Fix ping Sohom (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

As mentioned earlier, I intend to complete the review of the prose I started earlier this week. Expect some comments in the next few days! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur O. Austin[edit]


This is still a bit of a work in progress, but heading towards WP:FAC at some point. If you've ever listened to a radio broadcast, the antenna that transmitted the signal was probably using a special type of transformer invented by Austin. This article is your chance to learn about a neat bit of technology which has touched your life but you never knew existed, and about the person who invented it. Thanks, RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I know the lead is too short; I've already got that on my list of things I need to do. done RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly interested in evaluation of the sources vis-a-vis WP:RS. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


2020 Coulson Aviation Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to get some comments and feedback for the purpose of a Featured article review. Thanks, GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at FAC peer review sidebar. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

@GMH Melbourne: I recently reviewed this for GAN, so I wanted to give my thoughts here while they were fresh in my mind:

  • A lot more sources are needed for this article since it relies too much on the initial report. I suggest looking through WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, DOAJ.org, or your local library system for additional sources.
  • The article will need a prose clean-up, probably after all the extra prose is included. Right now the prose is good, but some things can be done to make it even better. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing helped me with learning how to write more effectively in Wikipedia articles.
  • The cause and findings section will probably need to be trimmed and written as paragraphs instead of bullet points.

I suggest looking at Paradise Airlines Flight 901A, a recently promoted featured article about an aviation disaster, for ideas on how your article should be formatted and sourced. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: It is more than likely that there won't be many other sources on available on the topic, do you think that will be a deal-breaker? GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith[edit]

I agree with Z1720 about the sources, but I'll go a bit further than he did (and my apologies in advance in this reads harshly). This is overwhelmingly sourced to a single source (the ATSB report), and it's a WP:PRIMARY source at that. Of the remaining sources, Johnson and Wong 404's, three others are human-interest biographies of the crew that died which say nothing about the crash which isn't just cherry-picking facts from the ATSB report. The BBC article is a routine news report from the day of the crash. There's zero secondary sources that go into any significant detail about the crash, leading me to wonder if this even meets WP:GNG based on the sources presented.

Aviation fire fighting is a dangerous business and sadly, crashes happen. The aircraft involved was an aging transport plane that had been retrofitted for fire fighting, which is true of most planes used in this type of service. They were flying low-level runs in crappy conditions; again typical of this type of operation. The probable cause (an unrecoverable low-altitude stall due to wind shear) is also, sadly, not unusual. What makes this crash special? But, more importantly, other that the ATSB report and a handful of news articles which just rehash what the ATSB said, what significant coverage of this has there been? RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate your frankness. A google search show the abundance of sources on the topic. When writing the article I essentially used the ATSB report as the main source as it was all the info in the one place and was very comprehensive. After a delving deeper into the sources available I am confident I'll be to integrate better quality sources into the article, and diversify the sources presented in the article. The sources range from reporting the initial incident, victim profiles, reporting the ATSB report, and a law suit from the victims' family to the NSW RFS. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to look for not just more sources, but sources which add something new. Were there any other independent investigations of the crash? The accident aircraft was manufactured by a US company and had a US registry and US crew, so I would assume the NTSB would be involved in some way. See if you can find anything from them. Likewise, the plane was owned by a Canadian company, so was the TSBC involved in any way? Was there any independent coverage in the aviation industry press? Are there any analyses by independent aviation experts which explain what wind shear is and why it's hazardous?
More news reports immediately after the accident aren't going to add much. More victim profiles aren't going to add much. More rehashes of the same ATSB report aren't going to add much. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Alexander Dash[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for wider consensus on how images should be laid out in such smaller articles. Compare the current revision to the one I made roughly a year ago - does the article need that many images to go into detail about windscreens and bus rears? A number of UK bus articles have had images shifted around or removed and replaced entirely over the past year, which has caused some contention within the UK side of WP:WikiProject Buses, so opinions neutral to the WikiProject would be gladly appreciated.

Thanks, Hullian111 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment: I'm not sure if it might be just me or something, but when I read on Google Chrome at the normal 100% size, the image arrangement is, well, pretty ugly. In this screenshot "The" word (pun intended) is...there, and the rest of the passage does not get seen until after the First Hampshire&Dorset picture (here). Like I said, it might just be me, and shrinking the page to 75% for example helps, but I just felt I needed to point that out because it really does not look very good. In my opinion this needs a cleanup in terms of image placement regardless of whether it's a bus article or not. S5A-0043Talk 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the image placement. See MOS:IMAGELOC. Left-aligned images before the main text look out of place. A better choice would be a "Gallery" section.-Ich (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ich Hi, just stopping in a month after your suggestion - never replied in the first place as I'm not totally sure whether I should to keep a neutral perspective. That gallery edit has been done, just wondering if I can canvas your (and maybe @S5A-0043's) thoughts on it. I think its not very... flush from my perspective, as the images form some sort of Jenga formation for want of a better description, but it does the job. Hullian111 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullian111 I think it looks better; maybe take a look at it with a {{clear}} tag before the gallery? Still better than before, and more in line with how other image-heavy articles of this length look.-Ich (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there was originally a clear tag in there before I removed it for seemingly being out of place, I'll just put it back in. Hullian111 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Voyager 1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 3 February 2024, 17:26 UTC
Last edit: 20 March 2024, 16:11 UTC


General[edit]

Hogwarts Legacy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 31 October 2023, 12:17 UTC
Last edit: 20 March 2024, 16:09 UTC


Vegas Golden Knights[edit]


Article's already achieved GA status, but I'm curious as to how close it is/how much work it might need for FAC and would appreciate any feedback. The Kip 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am interested in taking a go at a review. But I cannot commit completely, because the article is massive and will take up a lot of time. Matarisvan (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take all the time you need, any feedback at this point is appreciated and I'm in no rush to make it a FAC. The Kip 06:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: It has been over a month since this has been opened, and there has been no response. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’d still like to see what needs to be done before getting it to FAC. The Kip 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Since you are still working on your first successful WP:FAC, I suggest that you seek a WP:FAM who can comment in this PR. I also suggest posting on the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are attached to this article, asking for comments. Lastly, I suggest commenting on FACs now to build goodwill amongst the FAC reviewers and help with your understanding of the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan[edit]

Did an image review first, will look at the infobox and sources next.

Image review:

  • I'd be very careful including the logo and jerseys. I see the GA reviewer did not comment on this, but it could be a problem at FAC. The expert on this is Nikkimaria, so you should ask at their talk page, they could comment here too.
  • Your alt texts for the images are great, perhaps too long at places but that is a matter of opinion. For the images of players early on in the article, I would recommend adding the name of the team the match was against. I see you have done this for the images later on in the article, so why not for the earlier ones? Do we not know what teams they were playing against?

This is all for now, I will be back soon. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Kip, checking in, you there? Matarisvan (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late response, this and the associated updates/concerns slipped my mind. I’ll take care of them soon. The Kip 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll consult Nikkimaria on that.
  • I added the opponent details to the earlier photos - as they weren't in-game photos like the later three, I didn't consider it relevant, but it's not an issue to add them.
The Kip 04:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logo and jerseys are pretty much standard with all NHL team articles. dannymusiceditor oops 05:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any FA class NHL articles which have those? If yes then we can pass over this. Matarisvan (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils appear to be the only ones, albeit they were promoted quite a while ago. NJD had both the logo and uniform in it when it was reviewed and kept as an FA in 2015, though. The Kip 09:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calgary Flames seem to have an alternate logo and the article uses the same fair usw rationale for both of them. That said, it has been 9 years since that article was reviewed, policies have changed since then. Also, do NJ Devils not have an alternate logo? I just skimmed through the article and could not see one. Matarisvan (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Devils don’t - I was confused and believed the rationale issue was with the uniforms, not the alternate logo. The Kip 19:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issue is resolved, I will be looking at the body and lead now. Matarisvan (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Bigfoot[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating this article to reach Good Article and/or Featured Article status, as the article has made a tremendous amount of progress since its previous nomination in 2006.

Thanks, TNstingray (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • "Wallace was inspired by another hoaxer, Rant Mullens, who revealed information about his hoaxes in 1982." Needs a citation
  • "both within the range of anecdotal Bigfoot reports." Needs a citation
  • "The consensus view is that G. blacki was quadrupedal, as its enormous mass would have made it difficult for it to adopt a bipedal gait." Needs a citation.
  • "—despite the fact that fossils of Paranthropus are found only in Africa." Needs a citation.
  • "One study was conducted by John Napier and published in his book Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality in 1973.[137][better source needed]" This needs to be resolved.
  • Ref 71, 148: History.com is not a reliable source, per WP:RS/P
  • Ref 224: International Business Times is not considered a reliable source, per WP:IBTIMES
  • Ref 232: Why is Brave Wilderness a reliable source?

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Done Moved this sentence to the second paragraph, where the sourcing and details of Mullens' hoaxes are located.
2.  Comment: Tentatively removed this line as a violation of WP:SYNTH.
3.  Done Added a citation specifying consensus regarding G. blacki's gait.
4.  Done Added a citation specifying Paranthropus' geographic range.
5.  Comment: "Better source needed" tag was removed, as the citation is referencing Napier's book. Additional sourcing is needed to address the scientific response to Napier in order to avoid violating WP:UNDUE.
6-8.  Not done yet.
Thank you for your initial round of comments. TNstingray (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

I don't have time for a full review, but the refs in the lead should be removed/moved to the body of the article per MOS:LEADCITE. Hope to see this article eventually reach FAC. Good luck! -- ZooBlazer 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The citation section of the lead states "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." This subject has proven to be incredibly controversial, perhaps unsurprisingly. Every assertion needs to be heavily cited to avoid the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. There are several Wikipedia:Fringe theories that have challenged many points, and the citation heavy lead is a result of this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 08:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Pornography[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it has good potential to get a GA grade and if possible go further higher.

Thanks, Rim sim (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Roberto Clemente[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because there is a lot of work to be done. The page needs rewriting and heavy editing. I would like to have some outside perspective on how to do so.

Thanks, Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Maryam Nawaz[edit]


Recently, I've considerably expanding this BLP, aiming to elevate it to GA status, especially given the significance of the individual as Pakistan's first-ever female chief minister. I've substantially expanded the political career section, but I like to ensure that the content aligns with WP:BLP standards. I welcome any feedback or suggestions on areas that still need improvement so that I can continue to refine the article. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

  • The article has very long sections, like the "Poitical career". I suggest trimming information and splitting these up with Level 3 headings. Typically, a section should have 3-4 paragraphs.
  • "so he could travel to the United Kingdom for medical care." Needs a citation
  • "Maryam Nawaz, who was also granted bail in 2019, appealed the accountability court's 2018 decision before the Islamabad High Court in October of last year." Needs a citation.
  • Per WP:IBTIMES, this is not considered a reliable source and should probably be removed.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Could you please go through the political career section and tell me if its meets the WP:ACHIEVE NPOV? One editor raised concerns here about the section possibly giving undue weight. Also, any suggestions for alternative section titles for the content currently under the political career section would be appreciated. I will address the citation issue as pointed out. Thanks. --Saqib (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The political section feels too daunting for me to want to read it because of the length without it broken up into Level 3 headings. I suggest that you read the section paragraph-by-paragraph and remove anything that is not the most important information about this person. Remember, the more text there is in an article, the less likely someone is going to read it. For inspiration and guidance on how to format the page, I recommend using Liz Truss, a recently promoted featured article, as a guide. To break up the section using level 3 heading, I would find significant changes in her life and divide the sections with those changes as the headings. For example, "Parliamentary debut" is an excellent heading title. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I understand that the section is lengthy, but perhaps you should have skipped this if you wasn't prepared to read through it entirely. I also acknowledge that the section requires division into subsections for better readability, and that's why I sought input from others as well. For your information, prior to making this peer review request, I also looked at some FA for guidance, but couldn't help me much. For instance, you recommended Liz Truss's page, it has subsections like "Backbencher", "Education under-secretary," etc reflecting her various roles before becoming prime minister. However, in Maryam's case, she didn't hold any public office before her parliamentary debut, so I'm unsure what to name the subsections. I hope this clarifies my position. --Saqib (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've divided the political career section. Could you please review it? Let's focus on the political career section for now. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 16:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discord[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to insure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of this article.

Thanks, SouthParkFan65 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks @SouthParkFan65 I think this article is close to being GA nomination worthy. I will will review it with that in mind. I have not yet gone through the sources and that will be my next step after getting to some of these writing comments.

Notability[edit]

  • "An inside source called this one of the first steps for the company towards a potential initial public offering, though co-founder and chief executive officer Jason Citron had stated earlier in the month he was not thinking about taking the company public." I don't think this is that notable and I would delete it. You can keep the source and work in the info about their new CFO and associated growth into the more notable comments about Microsoft looking to buy Discord. I think a section on why they decided (and have remained) private would be notable but a different/additional source with more detail would be needed. This seems to be part of the story "Citron states that they are still in talks with several potential buyers including all major gaming console manufacturers."
  • "In July 2021, Discord acquired Sentropy, an internet moderation company." I think more could be said here and I recommend you look for additional sources. I can assist if needed.
  • "As of March 2022, Discord employs 600 people globally." Weird out of place and outdated fact. Is it particularly notable that this number of people was employed at this time?
  • "In August 2023, Discord cut 4% of its staff, laying off 40 employees as part of a restructuring effort" This seems like the opposite of notable. Is this the only time staff was cut?
  • "After a five-fold increase in employees between 2020 and 2024, the company laid off 17%, or—170 employees, in January 2024." This seems to better communicate the point. I am not sure if there is a page on the recent wave of tech layoffs but it seems like this could at least be on a list of companies that went through a similar cycle.
  • "In 2023, Discord paused their verification program while they performed maintenance. The program has not been reopened as of January 2024" I don't think this is true anymore? Which would mean there was a somewhat longer than expected period where people had to wait to verify their server? That does not seem notable.

Sourcing[edit]

  • WP:Medium is used twice as a source and it is not reliable. Search the article for the two places it is used and try to find other sources. If you have trouble I can help with this part. I think the info is notable.
  • "Discord has stated that it has plans to implement changes that would "rid the platform of the issue" This is a 7 year old source about a plan. It should either be updated to reflect what they did or removed.
  • "Discord gained popularity with the alt-right due to the pseudonymity and privacy offered by Discord's service. Analyst Keegan Hankes from the Southern Poverty Law Center stated, "It's pretty unavoidable to be a leader in this [alt-right] movement without participating in Discord."" Neither of the sources mentioned pseudonymity. This should be reworked to reflect what is verifiable.
  • "The New York state attorney general's office announced an investigation of Discord among other online services in the wake of the shooting to determine if they had taken enough steps to prevent such content from being broadcast on their services, with which Discord said they would comply." This announcement of the beginning of an investigation is multiple years old there should be some update.

Layout[edit]

  • History is kind of long and detailed. Maybe it should be this way maybe not. I'll give it another read.
  • Discord Nitro is mentioned without introducing what it is.
  • "While these features somewhat mimic the livestreaming capabilities of platforms like Twitch" It seems odd to me that Twitch is called out but not Zoom?
  • "Discord Nitro subscribers will also gain access to a rotating set of games as part of their subscription, with the price of Nitro being bumped from $4.99 to $9.99 a month" This reads like an add and uses the company blog as a source. I recommend this is reworked. I think a section on Discord Nitro within monetization would be best and then it does not need to be mentioned in every other section.
  • Why is it "Digital Distribution" and not just "Video Game Distribution" ?
  • Weird to have a section on bans but then only mention one Ban when there are known to be many.


Beth Mead[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting the article promoted to GA. I've been a long-term 'follower' of the article but most of my edits have been minor to date. I believe that the article is already of a very good quality and is one of the best women's football articles. I believe it would be helpful for someone less familiar with the subject to read the article and to assist me in making the necessary improvements.

Thanks, Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Keith D[edit]

Comments after a quick scan:

  • In the references there is a mixture of Arsenal, Arsenal, www.arsenal.com and Arsenal FC. I would standardise on one of these.

Keith D (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I believe 'Arsenal FC' is the most appropriate and concise one out of these so I'll use that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Geography and places[edit]

History[edit]

Battle of Pandu[edit]


Hello there, With the aim to identify any more areas that this article needs or may be improved upon before It is nominated for a good article nomination, especially when this is my first time, I have put it up for peer review...

Thanks, Rahim231 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Nezak Huns[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take a stab at a FA in a few months. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Muckrach Castle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 3 March 2024, 20:25 UTC
Last edit: 24 March 2024, 18:25 UTC


Gaetano Bresci

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 1 March 2024, 09:51 UTC
Last edit: 8 March 2024, 18:01 UTC


Eleanor of Castile

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 February 2024, 19:24 UTC
Last edit: 6 March 2024, 13:56 UTC


Tomb of Kha and Merit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 February 2024, 02:02 UTC
Last edit: 3 March 2024, 20:23 UTC


Joseph Merrick[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC fairly soon. It was last nominated in Feb 2015 (nine years ago) and it appears to have matured significantly since then. I'd like to canvas opinion on anything that needs working on and I can address that in my own time, without being constrained by the time pressures of FA coordinators! I did a pretty thorough copyedit last year, which addresses one of the concerns of the previous FAC review. I can check for unsourced statements and either verify or remove them.

Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


John Rolph[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for FAC in a couple of months. General comments are welcome. Particular focus on the quality of the sources is appreciated. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Central America under Mexican rule

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 December 2023, 06:42 UTC
Last edit: 27 March 2024, 17:47 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

February 1983 North American blizzard[edit]


I've been looking at this article and considering a Featured Article nomination soon. Before this, I'd like for this article to be peer-reviewed. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 23:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about taking it to FAC.

Thanks, The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Domestic rabbit[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because after cleaning up all the maintenance templates I've found that the quality is all over the place. I would like to have someone else's eyes on it to see if there are redundant sections or obvious problems that I missed; ideally, I'd like to promote this to GA in the future.

Thanks, Reconrabbit 18:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Virgo interferometer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 2 February 2024, 22:38 UTC
Last edit: 16 March 2024, 10:21 UTC


Hyper-Kamiokande[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to check if it's understandable for non-experts.

Thanks, Batmann (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of Johnson solids

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 20 December 2023, 14:15 UTC
Last edit: 21 March 2024, 16:57 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Max Lawton[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like for the page to be reviewed for structure, citations, and selected works as it would normally apply to a writer / translator. I have created pages for other notable people in the past, but never for a writer. I understand with writers there may be limitless amount that could be added from books, articles, short stories, but trying to find the right amount for notability and encyclopedic content.

✨ Thank you in advance!, Lacanic (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Idris Bazorkin[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for FA. I'm mostly concerned about the grammar and the possible close paraphrasing. Thanks in advance. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Added to FAC peer review sidebar. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added link to Ingush in first summary sentence, might not be obvious to readers. Lacanic (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Existence[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: This has been posted for over a month without comment. Are you still looking for feedback? Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks for the ping, I'll wait a little longer to see if some responses come up. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: I recommend reaching out to editors who are interested in this topic area, or posting in the Wikiprojects attached to the article. Many editors do not check PR for articles to review, so this is a great way to inform editors of this PR. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


William L. Breckinridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 January 2024, 18:08 UTC
Last edit: 11 March 2024, 01:38 UTC


Social sciences and society[edit]

Rahul Gandhi[edit]

Previous peer review


I've added some information and expanded a few sections, but not all have necessary details. I aim to elevate this article to GA level and welcome input from interested editors to enhance the article. Thank you in advance for your contributions 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @SpacemanSpiff, Black Kite, Capitals00, Sammi Brie, Mujinga, Vanamonde93, DaxServer, and Fowler&fowler:. Seeking your valuable inputs on this article. Although I've attempted to make it as concise as possible, it's not yet ready for serious GA nomination. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difficulty with a page like this is that Gandhi is prominent enough to receive lots of moment-to-moment news coverage, but not prominent enough to receive the sort of scholarly coverage that is needed to write a truly high-quality biography. Even so, we need to do our best to find long-form coverage where it exists. I salute the effort put into this page, but at the moment it is relying heavily on the daily news, and as such I'm concerned about due weight. I lack the time to look for sources, though this may be a starting point. Newspapers outside India have probably done profiles of him at various points in time; that would be another place to look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding @Vanamonde93. I completely agree with you. When it comes to Indian media, it's very tough to find long-form coverage. Could you recommend some citations, generals, or any kind of citations that could potentially help me write it in a GA way? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't do more besides the recommendations I already made; search through prominent foreign news sources. BBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Al Jazeera, and a few others are likely to have written profiles at critical moments. I'm guessing there were a few before the 2014 election, for instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot. I have corrected a few citation formats. Could you please take a look, for example, at the "Bharat Jodo Yatra (2022–2023)" section and let me know if the reference formatting is acceptable? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any urgent issues with the article. Given how strictly this article has been maintained for so many years, I believe you can try nominating it for GA. Capitals00 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding @Capitals00. I am afraid it might fail quickly if I nominate it now. I feel something is missing regarding the chronology of all sections. What do you recommend? How should this BLP be lined up in terms of sections? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those who review articles for GA will better guide you what to do in order to achieve the GA status. There is no need to make a perfect article in order to seek GA status. You can try nominating this article for GA. Capitals00 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even if I make it a perfect article, the chances are very slim that it will sustain given the day-to-day coverage this BLP receives. Could you please assist me with sections like "Electoral Performance" and "Positions Held"? Should I include a couple of sentences or are tables sufficient for those two sections? Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Technikart[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first I created, and it looks like it could use an expert's final cuts.

Thank you! Innerhinge (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Social identity threat[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on possible additional sections that others would be interested in and to see whether the current contents make sense to audiences. Thanks, Stran20 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Lists[edit]

List of X-Men members[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review regarding orders of listing in this page. This article List of X-Men members is based on chronological order which is one of the format listed in Manual of Style/Comics. My question is what about those characters who joined in same issue but chronological order is not clear. For example X-Force and Phalanx invasion team members in Substitute teams section are in alphabetical order (another format listed in Manual of Style/Comics). I am asking for peer review for arrangement of those members who joined in same issue, should be in which order (for the organisation)?
The major topic is what I mentioned above but I also want a reviewer to review this whole stable page again.
Thanks, Sewnbegun! — Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Cat Empire discography[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to get it to featured list status by September this year, and I want to get some feedback before I nominate it. The goal is to make this TFL on 25 October 2024 (the Friday closest to the twenty-first anniversary of their self-titled debut). I'd love some feedback on the lead section specifically, but if there's anything problematic with the rest of the article, let me know.

Thanks, SupremeLordBagel (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm thinking of trying it out at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and I'd very much appreciate some additional eyes on it. It grew quite a bit from the original bullet list, and I think it's now comprehensive, apart from an irritating red-link and a couple of missing images. Thoughts on the table, the introductory paragraphs, and indeed anything else, would be most welcome.

Thanks, KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From TR[edit]

KJP1, I've just clocked this. A delightful piece of work and a pleasure to pick one's way through. There is much fun to be had from tut-tutting at the inclusion of buildings that would be better dynamited (such as the Festival Hall) and at the scandalous omission of one's favourites. Be that as it may, my only substantial comment is that I can't work out your thinking as regards the order of the listings. I know the table is sortable, but even so, a default order might be expected to follow either alphabetical or chronological order (of completion or listing) within the various sub-categories. Am I missing something? (Wouldn't be the first time, of course.) A more minor point is that there's a bit of in-and-out running as regards addresses. Why, for instance, in my native city does the Liver Building get details of its address but the Cathedral is just "Liverpool"? Not a matter of huge importance, but I'm all for consistency when it's conveniently possible. Tim riley talk 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - I'd totally forgotten I've even put this here! I'm glad it gave pleasure. You're absolutely right - there is no real order. I didn't start it from scratch, and added things rather randomly. Then I thought it should have some order, and grouped: cathedrals/churches/war memorials/country houses/lots of random others, etc. But I didn't do that thoroughly. What would be best - strictly chronological, or chronological within groups? I'll pick up the addresses as I go. KJP1 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've gone chronologically, within groups, those being: Cathedrals / Churches / War Memorials / Other Memorials / Houses / Other. Does that make more sense? Or not?! Have also tried to tidy/standardise the addresses. Thanks muchly for taking a look. KJP1 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid stuff! I've just noticed that the date ranges need a bit of work. The manual of style decrees, or did when last I looked, that we don't put 1993–96 but drag the second date out: 1993–1996. Tim riley talk 13:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody MoS! I shall get right on to it. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Whatever you think about Leslie Martin's effort, I'm sure you're pleased to see Liverpool Cathedral and the British Library on the list. What would you have put in that's not currently there? KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love Liverpool Cathedral above most others. (Lincoln, perhaps, or Rheims might almost pip it to the post for me.) I used to look out of my school windows and watch the place being built. The BL is no thing of beauty, but I wouldn't be without it for an instant. As to the Festival Hall, I don't mind its outward appearance, and inside it's rather a nice environment, but it's the damnable acoustics I object to. They were going to rebuild the Queen's Hall after the war, but Herbert Morrison's vanity project left us stuck with the RFH instead, blast it! Tim riley talk 14:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But to answer your question, I'd put the Barbican, Paddy's Wigwam, Cockfosters and Gants Hill tube stations, Guildford Cathedral and Battersea power station in the top bracket. Et toi? Tim riley talk 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well not Paddy's Wigwam! Lutyen's ziggurat, [1] would have been a great improvement. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

It's been a while since I did anything on a list page, so I may be a bit rusty, but I'll chip in shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of best-selling Latin albums

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 27 December 2023, 18:42 UTC
Last edit: 11 March 2024, 17:06 UTC


List of landmarks of St. Louis[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want an outside perspective on how to make it best align to the featured list standards. Specifically, the lead section and sources.

Thanks, Stl archivist314 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Arena Corinthians[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it was a former good article, and definitely has potential to become a good article again.

Thanks, Matthew is here zero (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Jona discography[edit]


I've been working on this article for a while now and I want it to improve better. I know there's alot to improve so I want to know if the lead is okay and/or if the sections are okay too. Looking forward to your comments.

Thanks, Loibird90 (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject peer reviews[edit]