Wikipedia:Peer review
Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking. Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing, it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects. To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on. A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's 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]Margaret (singer)
Kazon[edit]The above article is about a fictional alien race in the Star Trek franchise. I would like to put this through the FAC process sometime in the future, but I would greatly appreciate any constructive criticism or feedback on how to improve the article to its best possible condition prior to doing so. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Rebel Heart[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I believe in terms of structure and content, this is very close to the FA standard. However, might need some extra pair of eyes. I would want a peer review mainly on the prose and some spotchecks and just to make sure that there is no close paraphrasing that comes under plagiarism. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 12:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)' Good work in this article. It covers probably everything about this single. There are few things I would advise:
Other than that I see no massive issues. If you have time one of these days could you also comment in own peer review? Cheers and Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Occult Classic[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because Occult Classic is the largest page i've created and I want to know how to improve it. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 06:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Comments from dnllnd[edit]Hey! Congratulations on creating your first longer form page. Here are a few general comments about the structure and style of the page:
Alfred Hitchcock
Regine Velasquez
Salsa Big Band[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate Salsa Big Band to GA (the album recently won the Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year) and I think the prose can be improved. Thanks, Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Comments by Mike Christie[edit]I'm copyediting as I read through; please fix anything I mess up.
I can't tell whether the coverage is complete, but I think this is in fairly good shape and would probably get through GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC) The Room (film)[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed GA review and I hope to get this article to FAC status. It has been getting increasingly more views this last year because of The Disaster Artist film coming out in December and I think it is a bizarrely interesting topic. Thanks, Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I archived all references using archive box but there are still some issues that might bother reviewers:
That's all I see. If you have free time could you check my peer review? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Beatriz Romilly[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because whilst I have listed the subject's career and a brief overview, I feel it might require some further input from editors more experienced in writing articles about actors. Thanks, Osarius - Want a chat? 11:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) First, the strong points. The article's well structured and "well-cited", in the sense of having a decent number of citations. The absence of a photo is a pity. But the key problem's already been identified in the tag - there are nowhere near enough reliable secondary sources used to indicate that Ms Romilly warrants an article. To elaborate:
I really don't think these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources.
In a nutshell, there's not nearly enough to justify an article on the grounds of notability. If you can find more like Source 4, then throw them in. But a quick Google search suggests that will be a struggle. In which case, I just don't think the article is warranted. Can I ask why you think that it is? KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Comments from dnllnd[edit]I agree with @KJP1:. The page lacks reliable secondary sources, relying too heavily on Romilly's CV and third-party aggregate sites. The page would benefit from better sources and, if possible, more biographical information. Possible areas of interest that would align with biographies of living persons guidelines might be family history, upbringing or training. I did a quick Google search and didn't hit on anything promising, but I wonder if there may be more substantive coverage in Spanish media that could be used in keeping with WP:NOENG?--Dnllnd (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Everyday life[edit]Oxenfree
Engineering and technology[edit]Ice drilling[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take it to WP:FAC, and would like to get feedback on the article first. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC) General[edit]Magnus Carlsen[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a "good article" for over four years and I want to know if there are any improvements that could be made to it or if it is near "featured article" quality. Thanks, Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine
University of Oxford[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's potentially a candidate for WP:FA status. A peer review is a step towards it becoming WP:FAC. Thanks, ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Monterey Bay Aquarium[edit]I rewrote this article from scratch over the course of about a year, leading up to GA status, and have never written on WP so extensively before, so I am open to all nitpick-y feedback… prose, formatting, organization/layout, images, references, etc. I am interested in bringing it to FAC. I've recently commented on two PR requests (1, 2). Thanks! Rhinopias (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Geography and places[edit]Level Mountain[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I believe in terms of structure and content, this is very close to the FA standard. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Volcanoguy 21:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Hong Kong[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because most parts of the article have been exhaustively rewritten and rechecked over the past month and I'm looking to have it re-listed as FA. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Eluru[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because, it have had gone under major constructive edits from 2016. After experienced editors gave me some suggestions, I'll correct/add them and will submit this article to GA nomination. Thanks, IM3847 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC) There are some issues I found while reading this article.
Anyway, good luck with the article. If possible, would you comment on my peer review? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC) History[edit]Murder of Yvonne Fletcher[edit]Yvonne Fletcher was a bright and popular young police officer who was shot in the back by a gunman firing from a first floor window of the Libyan embassy in London. It marked the start of an eleven-day siege, six Britons being held hostage in Tripoli for nine months and a break in diplomatic relations between the UK and Libya that lasted until 1999. The police investigation has never closed, and they have strong suspicions on the identify of the gunmen and the co-conspirators, some of their evidence can not be released in court because of national security. It's a shabby story for Fletcher's family, who have never been able to see Yvonne's killer brought to justice. This article has been over-hauled recently and—unless reviewers advise otherwise—a further review at FAC is an option after PR. All constructive comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC) James K. Polk
Nero Julius Caesar[edit]Looking for ideas to improve this article before taking it to GAN. If possible, promoting it above start class would be appreciated as well. Thanks, SpartaN (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC) German destroyer Z39[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA. I had previously nominated it, but it was pointed out to me that it lacked a lot of context. I have built up the context and backround info a lot since then, and want to see if people think it is ready for FAC, or if it needs a lot more work. Thanks, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Good luck with the article. If possible could you comment in this peer review? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Deportation of the Crimean Tatars[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want to upgrade it to at least a "good article", maybe even a "featured article". The last time, nobody bothered to do a review, so I am submitting it again. And I'm going to keep submitting it, again and again and again, until someone has the courtesy to review it. Please, help me out, I would be very grateful. Thanks, Seiya (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Croxton Play of the Sacrament[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I would like suggestions on how to make this article better. Thanks, Jre1991 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Well there are some issues that I found so I hope you can improve the article based on them:
I hope this helps. If you have free time I wonder if you could check my peer review. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]Language and literature[edit]Sasuke Uchiha
Philosophy and religion[edit]Social sciences and society[edit]Phillips Exeter Academy Library[edit]I've listed this article for peer review to prep it for FA nomination. Thanks, alphalfalfa(talk) 02:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Lists[edit]List of Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers[edit]I've listed this article for peer review for helpful feedback on making it a featured list. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia and have been working on this list for the past month or so, and I would like this page to be my first major contribution on improving a list to featured status. Some of my particular concerns are: - Is it necessary to have any person have a reference? www.tke.org has a page with a lot of the distinguished alumni if it's necessary to fill most of the entries but I have avoided that reference and have stuck to more specific references. - Does my lead need to be longer? I can copy a lot of the Tau Kappa Epsilon page information over, but I avoided it because of duplicate information. - Are the category headers good headers? Let me know what I need to do to fix the article for featured list nomination. Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC) jmnbqb (December 20, 2017)
(not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Kollegah discography[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to get help. My goal is to get this article promoted to a Featured list. Thanks, Lee (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Song of the Year[edit]I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a featured list. Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC) List of countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]This article has been improved drastically since April this year to emulate the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. I rolled out the changes a day ago and I believe that this article is potentially suitable for a featured list nomination. The relevant updates have been listed here. If you review the article, feel free to ask me to edit an article of your choice in return. Thank you. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 03:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC) WikiProject peer-reviews[edit] |
