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 am interested in taking this to FAC. It's a shorter article, so I hope it is an easier article to work on.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC (which would be my first one). I have been significantly expanding the article in the past couple of days and I would appreciate any thoughts and advices on any aspect of the article.
My immediate suggestion is to avoid the passive voice at all cost. Some examples:
It was written by Swift and the Swedish producers Max Martin and Shellback → Swift wrote it with the Swedish producers...
Particular praise was directed towards the song's chorus. → Critics particularly praised the chorus
I don't think the record labels are necessary for the lead
The current structure of "Music and lyrics" is quite confusing. I think it's best to separate paragraphs between the original song and the Taylor's Version re-recording
I can't believe that critics described this song as a "ballad" but the sources do verify this, lol, anyway...
MusicOMH's Shane Kimberlin, Nylon's Leila Brillson, and PopMatters's Corey Beasley praised the song's chorus, with the lattermost considering it one of Swift's "sing-song" and "indelible" choruses shouldn't this be in the "Critical reception" section?
The "Critical reception" section is currently quite all over the place. I suggest you read WP:RECEPTION to work through the organisation and structure. My suggestions for now:
1st paragraph: positive reviews, particularly the production
2nd paragraph: mixed/negative reviews of the production
3rd paragraph: mixed/negative reviews of the lyrics
@Skyshifter: I have just finished re-reading the article, and I have to say I'm quite pleased. I'm seeing quite a bit of improvement over the version I reviewed at FAC a couple months ago. I do have a couple new comments:
Robinson suffered from depression and struggled to create a follow-up. – The MOS cautions against using the word suffer because it may imply general incapacitation; might I suggest rewording this as as follows? Robinson struggled to create a follow-up; he underwent a period of writer's block that was intensified by depression.
Virtual Self's first live performance debuted on December 8, 2017 → Robinson first performed as Virtual Self on December 8, 2017
Hello Sky, currently can't do much as I've explained on userpage, but I'll do my absolute best. In the meantime, please consider reviewing this request.
I am aware of this archive and Dylan really outdid himself. I like to take reference from FAs like Red and/or articles undergoing FAC, so bare with me and let me know if you disagree with (some of) my suggestions.
Question: Is Virtual Self also a record label?
For such a long article, I'd say lead can be expanded a little.
I think Sound would be better if it was moved to Composition since it is about the themes and sound of the record.
Virtual Self shows continued starting in August 2018, with the two-month North American "Utopia System" tour. ===> Virtual Self shows continued in August 2018, with the two-month North American Utopia System Tour.
The last paragraph on Promotion and release is a one-line paragraph which is discouraged. I think it would be better if it was merged with the former para. Thoughts?
I'm not really sure about the YouTube source since I can't verify the publisher's reliability, but previous reviewers approved it so I guess it's okay.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it promoted to FA class and also just generally make the article a better read whilst also bettering myself as an editor to see how more experienced individuals would alter the text.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status and it was suggested to me that could be a Featured Article candidate. I've not participated in the FA process before, but would be interested to hear feedback on whether this could be an FA candidate.
A very interesting article. As requested, I will provide comments from an FAC standpoint below:
Non-English-language terms should not be simply italicised, but put inside the relevant {{lang}} template (MOS:FORITA), possibly with an English-language gloss if needed. This is very important to increase accessibility—see MOS:OTHERLANG for the details on why.
Be careful that you clearly outline the timeline in the lead—that a once prominent practice was discouraged during the nineteenth century and later disappeared, but has now revived in the twenty-first century. Otherwise you end up saying that "the last daubati was active between 1908 and 1910" and that a 21st century daubatai has tattoed several women. Both can't be true at the same time.
The prose is alright, but could perhaps use a trip to WP:GOCE. There are a fair few errors, I noticed: "Veiqia can cultural impact outside Fiji", "Another example is Theodor Kleinschmidt who many several drawings of veiqia", "Indeed, veiqia were a soure of pride for women", "whether at pubsecence"
The number of illustrations are really good—would be a really nice FA with this level of illustrative detail.
Sometimes the prose gets a bit lost in itself. Take "As anthropologist Karen Jacobs has observed "the tattooed body is hard to collect"." this is somewhat oddly placed, coming just after the statement that records began to be collected, and the "as" at the beginning indicates a sort of logical statement that doesn't really follow. Incidents such as "Ema Tavola also designed a tattoo for Margaret Aull to mark the death of her grandmother" are a little too trivia-like.
Otherwise, I think the article strikes a really good balance between WP:MTAU and giving lots of detail—what FA criterion 2b) demands.
Thanks very much for the review AirshipJungleman29 - these points are all really helpful. I've started with the lang links - but should I add veiqia as a lang link throughout? Or not because it's the topic of the page? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much AirshipJungleman29, for the next step I took a look at the FAC guidence and it suggested to look for a mentor, would you be willing and have capacity? If not, I really appreciate the help so far! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be willing. I'd have to take a look at the sources first (first-timers at FAC have to pass a rigorous source spot-check) but after I do that I'll provide comments below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
im considering to promote it to FA to accommodate more songs for the 1989 topic on wikipedia, as part of project 1989. it would really help if you can spotcheck the little blemishes that might be left inside the article before nomination.
Thanks, brachy08(chat here lol)06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have been working on this article for a few days. Adi Meyerson is a jazz double bassist currently operating in New York City. I'm a fairly new editor, but my goal is to get this article up to GA status, as I think its achievable. One thing I know I might have to do but don't know how to is to split off the discography, as it is getting a bit large.
I hope that whoever reviews this can give me some good suggestions and reassess the article, as I don't want to overrate it.
This is what the article looked like just 1 week ago:
Are there any photos of the subject that could be added or requested?
Ensembles of which she was a guest rather than a member should not generally appear in |current_member_of=
Fixed, also changed the discography section to reflect this.
The lead could be streamlined - her beginning to play double bass is mentioned twice, which could be consolidated
Fixed, removed second second mention.
The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing, in particular for punctuation and capitalization in places where it isn't needed - eg "She has Synesthesia" should be "She has synesthesia"
Done
Subdoctoral academic designations are not generally included as honorific suffixes
Done
Is a date for her MM known?
Done
Publications should generally be italicized
Done
The article is on the shorter size for a potential GA. The Discography section suggests many collaborations which aren't discussed in the text, which would be one area for potential expansion.
Added paragraph on Dark Matter, a quartet she leads, and Works For Me, a musical collective she was in.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to feature article status at some point in the future, and I want to ensure that it is as complete as possible. If any additional changes could be made to the "Release" and "Reception" sections, please let me know. Moreover, if any additional sources exist that could be used to enlarge either one, I'll be happy to make the appropriate changes.
The section I'm most interested in improving is the film's "Production". I feel like I've exhausted my resources regarding either print or online sources, so if anyone is familiar with any additional sources that could be used, I'd really appreciate that. Lastly, if someone has access to a DVD of the film and could upload the audio commentary somewhere—a tall order, I know—that would be the most useful addition to the article after the behind-the-scenes documentary.
I've listed this article for peer review because... this article got GA'd in 2017, but in 2023 and 2024 I did a lot of content changes and additions that have kinda reshaped the whole thing, bar maybe the reception (which I'm planning on redoing) and the composition section. I am planning on having this article re-reviewed in full for Good Article status due to the amount of changes made once I am finished. There are several things in need of discussion:
A lot of the 2023 edits sucked. Around that time I generally approached things in an overly passionate/potentially biased manner, and I've slowly attempted to weed out those issues since then or otherwise. A common problem or area I question a lot due to this is the "aftermath" section, which details the media reception to Kittie, its consequences/effects(??) and some retrospective praise. Whilst there are sources detailing Kittie's frustration I am unsure if I have presented things correctly or got things wrong. If there's a way to improve it or otherwise, do tell. Or if I'm making it a bigger deal than it's supposed to be.
Check for citation issues, typos, prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, and missing information and anything else.
As an introduction, Bejeweled is the very first game developed and released by PopCap Games. It was heavily influential in the casual games industry, being a major reason for its success and an inspiration for future match-three games. I am preparing this article for a potential future FAC. If all goes well, this article might be able to be featured on the front page for the 25th anniversary of its retail release.
As requested, I'll have a look at the article, keeping in mind a potential FAC nomination.
Few too many section headers for my taste (MOS:OVERSECTION). The "History" section is five paragraphs long; it does not need four subsections. The infrastructure section is one chunky paragraph long, and yet it has three subsections. One subheading in "Network and operations" is literally just a table. I have written FAs almost three times as long with half the section headers.
The WP:LEAD should look to fully summarise the article. In my opinion, the "history" section is undervalued and the "infrastructure" section is not covered at all (even considering its minimal length—perhaps it should be made a subsection of "Network and operations" or "History"?).
Couple of prose tweaks needed: "4-car formation ... are operated"; note MOS:NUM saying numbers less than ten should be spelled out in letters; "was installed in the line".
"Due to the line being single-tracked and being one of the only unelectrified railway lines in Aichi Prefecture prior to the electrification of the line, despite the fact that the line was the closest JR-owned line to Chubu Centrair International Airport, local residents and municipalities requested the modernization of Taketoyo line. In response to demands, JR Central began work in March 2010 to electrify the line. is very clunky, especially the "being one of the only unelectrified railway lines prior to the electrification of the line" bit.
There is also some duplication: the work to elevate Handa station is mentioned twice.
There is an uncited sentence at the end of "History", and in the "Route" subsection".
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it provides a comprehensive overview of the electric vehicle manufacturer EKA Mobility, but I would like feedback on the following areas:
Clarity and depth of the company's history and operations.
Coverage of its partnerships, investments, and future outlook.
Whether the references are sufficient and reliable.
Suggestions for any additional sections or information to enhance the article.
As requested, I will provide feedback on the clarity and coverage of the article, the reliability of the sourcing, and any additional information.
The first thing to note is that the article is structured in a highly-promotional style—ChatGPT favours a similar superfluity of headings, and the article looks AI-generated. I would recommend removing all section headers before "See also", and using just paragraphs instead. This makes the article look much more professional, and will make it much less likely to get draftified or deleted.
Coverage of the areas you have requested is fairly slim on first glance. However, for a company founded in 2019, I think it is quite adequate.
The references also look quite neutral and independent, which is rare for a new Indian company. However there are a couple of issues. You must make sure that all of the links are still extant—use archive.org if any of the destinations fail. I see that the Zauba Corp. link, for example, no longer works.
There is also occasional WP:CITEKILL—unless the information is really important, there is no point placing four citations after the end of a sentence.
I would also trim the infobox—there is no need for Sudhir Mehta to be mentioned twice, while the number of employees a) is uncited and b) will regularly change in the first years of a company's existence, so you can probably remove it.
Hi Imbluey2; as requested, I'll provide comments for a future GA nomination, especially focusing on grammar and cohesion.
What is "the Eunos area"? It should be linked at least, and a general indication of where it is in Singapore would not hurt.
"Other landmarks include the Masjid Darul Aman and the Mangral Vira Buddhist Temple." as in other landmarks in the Eunos area? The topic of this article is the station, and per MOS:INTRO the first paragraph needs to define why the topic is notable. You shouldn't be talking about other landmarks here.
"First announced to be on initial MRT plans in May 1982, it was later announced to be constructed as part of Phase II of the MRT system on October 1983." this is clunky. I would simplify it down to "Plans were first outlined in May 1982, and its construction was announced in October 1983 as part of Phase II of the MRT system".
The next two sentences are similarly convoluted and should be combined into one.
The sentences about the failures of the stairs are very disjointed, mostly because you say each time "it was repaired"—that is assumed, it would be quite odd if whoever ran the station just shrugged and forgot about it. The incidents should simply be listed in prose.
You also don't need to provide the full details about the 2000 incident, just say something like "in 2011, eleven years after a man died after falling onto the tracks and being run over, platform screen doors were introduced, along with XYZ fans."
The last paragraph of the lead could be combined with the first paragraph.
"with the Okumura Corporation undertaking all the responsibilities of Contract 303 and Oh Teck Thye to cease all interests in said contract" everything after "and" is redundant—you're saying the same thing twice.
"41% of the contract has been completed" pay attention to the tense
"It added that works were underway to fix the first set of stairs" were the works completed?
breaks → brakes
"This resulted in the man trapped between two cabins, who was breathing" this is ungrammatical, but mostly means that the cabins were breathing. Not what you meant. I would instead add "Still breathing" at the start of the next sentence.
You repeat "platform screen doors" three times in two and a half sentences. You can replace the latter two uses with "they" or "them".
"as part of $17 million contract" an "a" is missing before the dollar sign.
"Being part of the EWL" "being" isn't correct, you'll want "and" instead.
"which was part SMRT's idea to give the Phase II stations "an ethnic touch". Specifically, designer of the station Scott Danielson of Parson Brickerhoff "the more [he traveled], the more disturbed [he became by] architects failing to reflect their own culture"" you are missing several words here. I don't know what you want to say in the first part, but the second sentence needs a verb.
"malay" should be capitalised, no?
" there are two murals created local artist Erica Wee" again, you miss a "by".
Some information in the infobox, such as bicycle facilities and accessibility, is not mentioned in the body and is therefore uncited.
I've implemented most of your suggestions, though I will do the rest soon. Apologies for the myriad of grammatical errors and incohesive phrases, the article was edited as part of a personal project to improve MRT-related articles to a decent standard as quick as possible. Anyways, thanks for the comment! Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 10:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I have done a fair bit of work to the article and feel it is no longer a Stub article. Prior to this the article had not been updated since 2023.
Any comments or contributions are greatly appreciated.
Hi! I would agree that this is probably not a stub. I'll go ahead an reassess it to a Start-class article. My notes:
The first things that stands out to me are the uncited sections:
Volunteers restored the stations to their appearance at the height of the old line's service.
In 2016, the Edmonton Radial Railway Society donated the former Edmonton Transit Service 2001, a 1912 electric locomotive that once ran on this rail line. This locomotive was in turn donated to the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society in 2017. This is because the Oregon Electric Railway was the original owner of this locomotive.
Proper citations (or footnotes, if they are referenced elsewhere) are necessary for these sections.
Reading the article, it's also a bit unclear to me what the society is. It seems like it's an organization that runs a historic streetcar system, but it's also referred to as being itself a railway. This is a bit confusing, and I think that the wording should probably be adjusted for clarity.
It is one of two operating historical tramways in the province.—The two what?
The heritage line is 7.4-kilometre (4.6 mi) long...—Shouldn't the plural "kilometres" be used?
Volunteers restored the stations to their appearance at the height of the old line's service.—If possible, I think this should be expanded upon. When did this happen? What was the condition of the stations before this?
In 2016, the Edmonton Radial Railway Society donated the former Edmonton Transit Service 2001, a 1912 electric locomotive that once ran on this rail line.—On what rail line? The streetcar line?
The "Collection" table looks very detailed to me and I particularly liked learning about all the different cars. Good work!
I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen for any suggestions for improvement. I would also like the page to be indexed on search engines to encourage contributions by the broader wikipedia community.
The good news is that the page is already indexed on search engines! If you want further comments, focused on general improvement, read below.
It's a short article, but seems fairly broad (and of course the company was only founded in 2017, so there's not much to say). I would still advise expanding the lead, to cover all the entities the company has been involved with, something like "Windracers has worked with the Royal Mail, Royal Navy, British Atlantic Survey, Purdue University, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The "Safety" section doesn't need a separate heading—it can just go under "Aircraft".
I would also advise merging the paragraphs in the "History" section so that it flows better; at the moment the prose is quite disjointed.
The people mentioned in the infobox are not cited or mentioned in the body. Including a sentence on them would be best. Also, the products "see aircraft" parameter isn't needed—it's a short article, people can just scroll down.
The first paragraph of "Aircraft" contains too many "it"s for my liking—try and smoothen the prose a little.
One more point: "The company then expanded into USA" is ungrammatical, and a little bit odd seeing as it wasn't an expansion of selling products, merely a collaboration with a university. Maybe just remove that phrase?
A double check has arrived. This'll be a fairly general review.
In general, a few too many section headers. I would remove all the subsection headers from "Academic Profile" and "Organisations and publications", and the "notable alumni" subsection header too.
Note that only the first word of section headers should be capitalised.
For the "notable people" section, note that faculty members are usually counted as alumni for the purpose of lists. If you cite specific faculty members, they will need citations; at the moment, most are uncited. The same goes for the list of Deans.
I would suggest prosifying most of the section and removing any headers, and instead having three paragraphs: "Notable students include ...", "Notable faculty members include...", "The list of deans are..."
The lead should certainly be expanded. Note that MOS:LEAD advises that it summarise the whole article. At present, very little is summarised.
Sourcing seems generally good, but less primary and more secondary sourcing would always be useful.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to continue developing the page. Any assistance or ideas onto what I could do to develop it (improving/adding sections etc) would really help. I'm not great with citations but I have added as I have edited the page. If anyone would like to take the initiative to also edit the page and add more info, it'd be great. Not requested a peer review before either so hope I've done this correctly.
Some quick tips: The first sentences in Early life are unsourced. Good articles often avoid very short paragraphs. Are you able to find out which part of Bergen he is from?
Quite many sections start with "On [date] [year]," which might come across as somewhat repetitive and prose that could be improved.
Thank you for correcting the spelling mistake. Regarding the first sentence of Early life, I could not find a citation from a reliable source. Should I delete Early life in such a case? Meganenohito (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete the name of the parents, a real danger here is WP:CITOGENESIS i.e. introducing sources that originally copied Wikipedia. There are lots of sources for his being born in Northampton, though, such as this, which also states the borough of grew up in, Fana. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FAC. My first FA, Smash Hit, was recently promoted so I'm positive that this article could be improved too. The article was promoted to GA in early October and since then I've worked a bit, mainly improving the references. I'll thus only need recommendations on improving the prose before nominating it for FAC. Thanks, Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take this article to FAC at some point, but I could use some feedback to improve the writing. I think I've done all the research I can find and milked every source I could possibly find that discusses the subject in detail, so this is naturally the next step to see if I can find every improvement possible to tune up the writing.
Listed for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA (which I didn't think would happen - really thought it would fail and that I'd get feedback but hey-ho) and I'd like to gain a peer review so that I can improve the article. I do think it needs improving but I'm not sure how to action this.
As requested, I'll give general feedback aimed at improving the article, maybe with a featured content nomination in mind.
This is one of those odd articles that could be both a list or an article, and would probably be eligible at both WP:FAC or WP:FLC, it it was formatted appropriately. My personal inclination would be WP:FLC—it feels quite listy to me—but it's your call. If it's a list, it might need a name change.
Regardless, the lead needs expansion. It needs to summarise the entire article—I'd want to see detail on the history, on former lines that are no longer in operation, and on the current state of affairs. WP:LEAD says a three sentence lead for an article of this size is woefully short.
You may also look at MOS:OVERSECTION, especially for the history section. The section could easily be four paragraphs long in total, and it currently has four subheadings. All that does is unnecessarily clutter the prose, and for minimal benefit for the reader, who you can assume knows that earlier events will be found near the start and modern events near the end.
You know what this article really misses? Maps. I don't know if {{location map}} can handle drawing lines, but if you could somehow wangle maps of the former railways or the current ones, that would be really helpful.
OH, and a map of Northamptonshire is an absolute must. People might be reading this from darkest Siberia. They might not even know what Northamptonshire is. I don't actually think there's a link to Northamptonshire in the body. WP:MTAU is not typically applied to articles like this, but I think you should probably bear it in mind more than you have.
On references, there seems to be a lot of dependence on one source, Lost Railways of Northamptonshire, which considering its title is fair enough; you really have to keep an eye out for plagiarism, especially close paraphrasing, if you do this though. I don't believe the GA reviewer asked to spotcheck (which they really should have), but they will at FAC and they probably will at FLC.
On the note of citations, Wake 1935, Hatley 1959, and Gough 1984 don't actually refer to anything. Might want to find those books again. If you want to see the errors yourself, install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.
There is variance between the actual lists of stations on the line in the "Former railways" section, and the prosified lists of stations in the "Current operations" section. Might want to standardise.
The reason for the variance between the prose list of current stations and those listed in the Former railways section is that the ones listed there are former/closed stations, whereas the ones in current operations are open stations.
A map would definitely be nice, and the lines are all on OpenStreetMap, but I can't for the life of me figure out a way to compile it into a map. The reason that there's no general map of the area is that I assumed that anyone who did not know where the county was could just click on the link to the Northamptonshire article which is in the lead. There's not a link in the body because I've been that duplicate links are bad
I'll probably just remove the citations that don't go anywhere, because they're covered by other sources anyway
I'd like to check for close paraphrasing or plag, but I'm not sure how feasable that is
How does MTAU apply to the article? I'm a bit lost regarding that, clarification welcome
I'll look at expanding the lead and removing the history sub-sections, no problem there
I don't think this article could be a list without getting deleted, it's essentially a duplication of the category Category:Disused railway stations in Northamptonshire. Ultimately I think it works better as an article, but I'm unsure how to do this whilst retaining the information about the closed stations
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this page to GA status soon. In addition to the standard stuff for peer reviews I want to know if there are any missing sections that are needed for an article about a geographical region. I also want to know how can I expand the Lede section of this article.
Thanks, Abo Yemen✉09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I will review this article from the point of view of achieving GA status.
One very important thing at GA is the presence of inline citations which verify every part of the prose content. This is not the case currently. Many sentences, and even sometimes paragraphs, in the first four sections do not have any citations.
You have correctly identified that the lead section is too short. It is quite easy to expand the lead—all you need to do is make sure that every section in the article is summarised. At the moment, the "History", "Exploration", "Geography and geology", and "Economy" sections are not summarised. If you included those, making sure to balance them appropriately (so the history summary would take up more space than the economy summary), you could easily have a two or even three paragraph lead section.
The sections an article needs often varies depending on the precise nature of the topic. One method that you can very often do is take a look at high-quality articles on similar topics (in this case, regions), which could give you an idea of what you could include. On regions, see Dorset (an FA), Slavonia (a GA), and South India (a GA). Looking at them, I think a "Culture" section might be a good idea, maybe along with a "Politics" section and a "Demographics" section.
I also don't think that there is any real reason to separate the "History" and "Exploration" sections here: surely the latter can be merged into the former?
The prose is better than I expected; there are just a couple of errors in the "Economy" and "diaspora" sections. A visit to WP:GOCE would probably help iron out any remaining deficiencies.
In general, I think that there is an above-average foundation here, but that the article really needs some good work to polish into tip-top condition. Look at Dorset, Slavonia, or South India for inspiration if you get stuck. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears what this article needs most is more citations to support existing information, and presumably to add new information. In terms of what content could be developed, there is presumably a lot that could be added for late 20th century and 21st century history, as well as items such as when Pasacao became a municipality. More information could be added about the barangays, and about demographics. There are existing sources in demographics that could be used for more prose. The infobox has an oil depot image, but this is not mentioned in Economy. There is also economic information in the infobox not in the article. Culture looks like it could use a lot of expansion. There is a lack of coverage of politics and administration. Best, CMD (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... it was suggested in the GA review that this may be a future FAC. I've never written a featured article before, but I wanted feedback on the article geared towards that to see if it's within reach or not. I'm pretty familiar with GAN but don't know a ton about FAC.
Extraterrestrial rivers are not discussed. I believe there are active methane rivers on Titan and dried river beds on Mars?
Types of rivers are not discussed (e.g., Braided river) and how rivers can be classified based on morphology.
Geology is missing. What geological features are caused by rivers, what is the impact of rivers on sedimentation and rock formation, etc.
Also, earth history seems to be missing. 400 million years ago, before plants, rivers tended to be wide and straight, right?
A common misconception holds that all or most rivers flow from North to South, but this is not true. – I don't think that is accurate. The source talks about the US but the statement seems to be for the entire world. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-Earth rivers thing is kind of interesting, the old River article used to talk about it. There is a blurb about Mars in the article, but could be expanded. The problem with the rivers on Titan is that they are not made of water, to my knowledge. Therefore by our definition they are not rivers. Which may be a little out of step with colloquial practice but is a notable distinction. ForksForks (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mars mention seems a bit out of place in my opinion. In my opinion, a separate section on extraterrestrial rivers is a good solution. I would also include Titan rivers there, because they are called rivers in the respective sources. I don't think that the definition of the article precludes this mention. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article (about a prolonged war in the Near East during the period of the crusades) for peer review because its neutrality and comprehensiveness are still to be checked. Thank you for your time.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe all comments from the FAC decline have been addressed and would love a final check before resubmitting.
As requested, will review this article with the GA criteria and the military MOS in mind.
A map with the sites mentioned, not just Chunj, would be very helpful. You can make it yourself with {{location map}}
The main issue that I see is prose quality. There are many incidents of miscapitalisations, incorrect punctuation or grammar, or other mistakes in the article. The best remedy for this is a visit to WP:GOCE. In the meantime, here is a non-exhaustive selection of issues you could fix, and maybe will help you get on the right track.
"Colonel Nausherwan and his Battalion acquainted their routes and their aims" "acquainted" has to be used with a "with", and normally a pronoun. here you would say "... acquainted themselves with their routes and their aims"}}
"The Plan was made, the capture of Chunj feature general area (Point 9444)" firstly, plan should not be capitalised as it is in the middle of a sentence. Secondly, there should be no comma. Lastly, I don't know what "Chunj feature general area" means.
"3 Madras was new unit on the Indian side which was inducted, it unaware of the movement of the Pakistani troops who had reached their Forming up Place" Again, there shouldn't be capital letters after the start of the sentence unless proper nouns — "forming up place". Then, there are missing verbs and articles. The sentence should read something like "3 Madras was a new, recently-inducted (?) Indian unit, unaware of the movement of the Pakistani troops who had reached their forming-up place."
Sourcing looks alright. I am somewhat concerned by the Major Sloan narrative, but it looks fine enough. However, he is mentioned twice in the body without any indication of who he was or what he did.
Pay attention to the infobox guidelines! The "result" parameter should have no more then "Pakistani victory". There is also no need for the flag icons in the infobox, as everyone had the same flag and per MOS:MILFLAGS any purely decorative flags should be removed.
Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I have edited the article as per review given by you and also submitted a request for copy edit.
I have done some further additions like i added a Military honor section in Aftermath which is about Major sloan and his role in the Battle and the war.
I would like a review for neutrality and MOS covering the entire article in preparation for a potential FAC (which would be my first one), and in general any other advice to prepare this article for FAC. Thanks. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question with what might be a complicated answer - is this article ready to take to FAC? Thanks for any constructive comments! Mujinga (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed (I withdrew it per advice), and someone suggested that I take it to peer review. I'm hoping for this to become a featured article soon, but I think I need some help/guidance/advice before taking it there again.
I'll provide some comments, keeping in mind the featured article goal of this PR.
The layout needs some attention; at the moment, it's all a bit confused, with section headers getting in the way of the prose. A smoother structure would be much more professional, and more likely to meet FA criterion 1a).
The "History" section is seven paragraphs long; there's no need for three separate subheadings.
What should go in the "Design" section vs the "Sculptures" section, and even the first paragraphs of the "History" section, is not entirely clear.
There is even overlap between the "Design" section and the "Surrounding buildings and structures" section.
You also have problems like the destruction of sculptures in the "Destruction" section before they are actually discussed in the "Sculptures" section.
I would generally advise that you remove all the headings in a sandbox or draft, and treat the article as if it were a blank slate. Feel free to separate paragraphs from sections, or sentences from paragraph—the important thing is that the prose flows as smoothly as possible.
The prose itself needs touching up too—it's occasionally rather verbose and clunky. See e.g. "Author Virginia Dajani also gave remarks on the plaza, stating that it was...", which could easily be simplified to "one author remarked that the plaza was..." (it's not clear to me why Ms. Dajani's opinion should be valued—she doesn't appear to have written any more than a walking tour guide). See also "The plaza was brought into design" which is a construction that I have never seen before in English.
There are occasional omissions of details which probably should be included. What was the "heavy backlash" against the original plans? What was the "Bathtub" (WP:NOFORCELINK)? Was the mall located underneath the plaza before the renovations? Was the underground car park underneath the plaza and the mall?
The article suffers from a general lack of clarity—more care needs to be taken to simplify unnecessary constructions or structural divisions, and to explain parts that the author may regard as obvious but others may not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to take this to FAC at some point, but I realize an entire historical era is a pretty sizeable topic compared to my usual fare of coins and biographies. I would like to get people's eyes on this and see if there's anything else that needs to be fixed up before it's ready for candidacy. I would especially appreciate any feedback from editors who can comprehend the Japanese-language academic literature on the subject, as I can't tell if there's recent studies I haven't been incorporating if they haven't been mentioned in the English sources! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I found the article to be confusing and badly structured, not only that, but the article was lacking key information. Therefore for the first 2 weeks of October this year (2024), I reshuffled, added, moved and created a few new paragraphs, culminating in this edit. However, my edits were later changed 10 days later and reverted to it's form prior to October (see discussion: Talk:Madoc), but editors were clear in watching the article and following my review precisely over the weeks and no one complained but in fact helped my progress in amending the article. Therefore, I am requesting the article Madoc be peer reviewed, but if at all possible, could someone please also look my copyedit dated 10/17 to compare and contrast which edit would be better for the overall presentation of the article, as in the copyedited or the original messy article..?
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it into a good article, but I'm unsure how else to do so. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is through peer review.
I'll conduct a mini GA review, although the broadness criterion with these articles is always the most important.
I'll note before I continue that if you were to nominate the article, you would need to either add more information to the page, or ask Hzh if it's okay to nominate (or, in my preference, co-nominate). This is because if you have < 10% authorship / < 5th in authorship, the review will be considered a drive-by (see footnote [a]). It's also just good to do this, because you need to have familiarity with the sources. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prose in the lede can be improved by making sentences less stumpy, particularly in the stretch following "Foot binding eventually..."
In the late 19th century, Christian missionaries and Chinese reformers to make this sentence flow better, add "While" to the beginning and restructure around this
Some redundancy in prose:
upper-class and urban women dropped the practice of foot binding sooner
By 2007, only a small handful
Some helpful wikilinks: consort, golden lotus, Padmavati, Kangxi Emperor, bond-servants
In the story, Pan Yunu this sentence is overly long
Li Yu created as with this one
and the excessive smallness of the feet clarify if this was an ideal seen later here as it is a bit confusing.
men would drink from a special shoe, the heel of which contained a small cup. reword this sentence so as not to mislead upfront
Contrary to missionary writings... this sentence needs a source at the end to meet GA's verifiability requirements.
However the rebellion failed and Christian missionaries this bit reads confusingly, as the activity of Christian missionaries also reads as bound in the "however" modifier
placing emphasis on the fact → emphasizing
Christian women in Xiamen attended a meeting
called into doubt the whole of Chinese civilization as in whether it was civilized, or whether it was stable?
and leading intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement saw same as "However the rebellion" comments
bound only until marriage
The broken toes were held tightly against the sole of the foot... Is this paragraph sourced to the next inline source? If so it needs to be copied here.
Unsure where apostrophes should go in footnote a.
In the Song dynasty the status... this sentence is quite wordy
It has been noted that Confucian doctrine in fact prohibits probably errs into editorialising here
Foot binding is an oppressive practice against women who were victims of a sexist culture. every other perspective was attributed; i.e. "a common argument is that". Attribute.
and a major event in the history of Chinese feminism.citation needed
disappeared in China forever after two generations
as it was then practised only by Han women don't you say earlier that it was also practiced by Hui Muslims?
The tag in the In literature, film, and television section will merit this article a quickfail if it is nominated with it remaining. If there are entries that are not sourced, a secondary source should be found to reach Good Article's verifiability requirements, and prevent WP:INDISCRIMINATE / MOS:MISC.
I don't imagine you are very familiar with the sources given your authorship. You should do a spot check to gain some familiarity. A spot check can look like this in a recent GA review I conducted.
Hello, fellow editors. Despite it being home to one of the worst cases of human rights abuses in South Korean history, the article for Brothers Home had been in a poor state ([1]) since its creation in 2016. I have been working on it for about a month, and major sections of the article are still in progress. While I would love to see the article GA nominated, it is still far from meeting all its criteria.
As the center has only gathered interest in Western media in recent years, many sources are inevitably in Korean. I will notify Wikiproject Korea with the PR, but any commentary, whether it'd be on formatting, references, or style, will be greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially re-wrote, re-structured, and ref-filled the article.
I am seeking an upgrade of the rating to at least "B", with comments and recommendation for further improvement.
Criterion 1 is not met: there is significant uncited material, especially in the "Family" section. All of this needs to be cited using inline citations before B-class can be achieved. There is also a failed verification tag elsewhere in the article.
Criterion 2 seems to be mostly met. However, there are aspects of material that hint at more things to be included. For example, the lead notes that "Fan's philosophical, educational and political contributions continue to be influential to this day, and his writings remain a core component of the Chinese literary canon." This sort of topic is not followed up on in the body, and if the sentence is true, the article remains incomplete.
Criterion 3 is met. The lead could be better structure, with two paragraphs instead of one, but it is fine as is. The rest of the article has adequate structure for B-class.
Criterion 4 is somewhat met. While the prose is mostly well-written, better care needs to be taken with using other languages in prose. See MOS:OTHERLANG and MOS:FORITA for suggestions on how to go about doing that.
Criterion 5 is met. The first three images are all illustrative, while the last, while unclear, is still useful. An infobox is present (although as noted above much of the content it contains is not cited in the body).
At the moment, the article is around C-class standard. To get to B-class, the major stumbling point is criterion 1). Once that is fixed, you can be sure that the article is close to B-class, and might even do well at a GA nomination. Feel free to ping me if you have questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because
I’m not sure if I worded my sources good enough on the page and I wanted to hear you guys thoughts about it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this for featured article and there are sourcing questions on other related articles.
As requested, I'll review this article while keeping a potential featured article candidacy in mind. Before I start, I will note that the GA review was one of the most superficial I have seen; it certainly does not pass current standards, and if it had been noticed at the time, it would have been ruled invalid. I would advise you to seek input at WT:GAN, because the FAC reviewers will not accept that as a good review.
What is the reasoning behind the start and end dates of this article? Why are four sub-articles necessary to chronicle the history of one newspaper?
The article reads extremely like one massive article was just cut randomly into pieces. There is no attempt to situate the reader in context. WWII is mentioned in the first four words of the lead but never once in the body.
There seems to be extensive reliance on a couple of sources: Talese 1981 and Nagourney 2023, with entire paragraphs and even sections cited to just one source. In my mind, this is a classic sign that the article could be trimmed greatly. Most of the latter half of the article is less a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and more a recounting of Nagourney's work.
The overreliance causes problems, especially when the article gets ahead of the source. A quick look at the opening paragraphs of the 1986–1992 section reveals irregularities. The article describes Frankel rejecting two people and eventually selecting Whitney. Nagourney describes Whitney advising Frankel to reject the two people and select himself. If the internal workings of a newspaper are described in such forensic detail relying on just one source, you need to be certain that you are representing it accurately.
There is also plain, simple close paraphrasing. "Within the week, Whitney sent thirteen letters to presidential candidates demanding their biographical, sexual, professional, and personal information." is almost word-for-word from the source.
I would highly advise a reconsideration of the sourcing, balance, and weighting of this article before any FA nomination. Perhaps even holding a procedural WP:GAR and going through WP:GAN again, with a proper review, would be beneficial. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a complete re-write of this article and would love peer feedback. I corrected a few factual errors I found. I removed text that was either plagiarized by previous editors, or had been plagiarized by other websites, as it was word-for-word the same as text found elsewhere on the Internet. I also addressed the issues raised in previous cleanup banners. I added structure to the article, and brought in more context to help fill in the story beyond the obviously entertaining "cow flew" information to frame Elm Farm Ollie's adventure within the larger historical scope.
I know there is still room for improvement. I appreciate feedback on all elements of the article.
A cute little article. I'll provide comments from a basic standpoint below.
I see my previous revision to bring the article in line with MOS:OVERSECTION was reverted; I won't re-revert, but I will note my continued disatisfaction at the idea that an article with no headings is somehow worse than one artificially divided into single-paragraph sections.
Be careful that the body's careful lack of certainty—"Up until the expo, no cow is known to have flown."—is maintained in the lead. At the moment, it is not, and we have the firm statement "the first cow to fly in an airplane" instead.
While we're on the topic of the lead, it should probably be expanded to at least three sentences (one for each paragraph?)
I can see the relevance of the last two links in the "See also" section—the first three are probably too tangential.
In terms of prose, a couple of points:
"She has been enshrined in Wisconsin" normally means that a literal shrine has been erected in Wisconsin; you'll want to say "in Wisconsinian/Wisconsinite/Wisconsiner tradition" (whichever adjective is correct).
"turned up ... over the decades" is a little too informal for an encyclopedia. "contributions to the Elm Farm Ollie corpus", although quite funny, is probably similar.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a good deal of effort into it and would appreciate commentary on how to make it accessible to a wide audience, which Celtic Studies is historically lacking, making it subject to all sorts of pseudo historical writing in the public field.
I have re-rated the article as C-class. I'll provide comments from a general perspective.
One area that you could work on is sourcing. Although general references are fine for lower-quality articles, higher review processes such as that for good articles or featured articles require that all material be cited using inline citations. There is quite a lot of material that isn't directly verified with inline citations. This also includes note-type references like number 13.
Talking about references, another way of making it accessible is by using one of the the standardised citation templates for sourcing. This helps especially people with actual accessibility concerns. You may also want to look at incorporating the suggestions at MOS:DTAB to improve the accessibility of the big table.
However, in terms of making it accessible to a wide audience (WP:MTAU), I think you have done quite well. There are good explanations for most unfamiliar concepts, and the prose is clear and smoothly organised.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status. Over the past few months I redid most of the citations and greatly expanded the article and I want to get a second pair of eyes on it. I'm also trying to track down a pair of citations (discussed in the talk page).
I'll do a review with GA status in mind, as requested above.
The main problem with the article as it currently stands is that the vast majority of "Snow Town" is cited to one 1831 source. This is almost certainly not fully reliable, and means that the article is pretty far away from meeting GA criterion 2. What you really want are reliable secondary sources which describe the events, to which you can add the primary source details if they give a useful amount of colour or detail (while bearing in mind their bias, being closer to the event).
Because of the above problems, I would honestly have trouble rating this article at C-class—the citations need a lot of work.
I will also say that the prose, while not as error-filled, needs work too. Please pay attention to the finer points of the manual of tyle, such as MOS:NUM, which recommends that you spell out numbers under ten with letters instead of digits, or MOS:TIME, which specifies that a {{nbsp}} should be used in association with am/pm.
While the map is useful, I would recommend that you provide a zoomed-in, cropped version, possibly with annotations, so that readers can have a much better idea of the locations of the events.
If you can replace the references to the 1831 source with secondary, modern scholarship, this article has a hell of a lot of a better chance. Perhaps the Jones source in the Further Reading can help? Otherwise, GA status is far, far away. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since this article's last Good Article Nomination, and it has expanded considerably since then. I don't see any obvious issues at first glance, other than the History.com ref, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on this.
I consider peer review of this article important, since Encyclopedia Britannicastill hasn't covered possibly the worst post-Cold War mass genocide, happening in 1994 with 500K-1M dead (though to be fair, they were busy going broke competing with Microsoft Encarta).⸺(Random)staplers22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some drive by comments, not a deep dive by any means
- In the Preparation for genocide section there are several one or two sentence paragraphs and one massive paragraph. The way this is structured feels unfortunate to me and the information presentation would be improved by altering this
- sexual violence, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- Killing of the Twa, one paragraph level-one heading - should either be expanded to show its significance for that level of heading or folded into another section if it's not
- Rwandan Patriotic Front's military campaign and victory, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
-France and Opération Turquoise, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- "HBO Films released the made-for-television historical drama film titled Sometimes in April in 2005." unsourced
- "Pierre Rutare, the Tutsi father of Belgian-Rwandan singer Stromae, was killed in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide." unsourced
- Commemoration, another level-one one paragraph heading. this feels like it can be significantly expanded
- Maps of Rwanda any particular reason why this is here
citations:
The citation formatting is generally inconsistent. Some news sources are rendered as long cites and some are in bibliography and given shortened cites. Pick one or the other for news/non-paginated sources. formatting should be more consistent also
- many sources need to be properly formatted for consistency
- need page on kirschke citation
- there has to be a better source than the unlinked Akayesu trial document
- citation from Genin, Aaron should be sentence or title case not all caps
- citation from huffpost should be replaced, there has to be a better source for this given the scholarship available on this topic
Thank you for this important article on one of the most tragic events of post-WWII world history. I think the article is really near to GA or even FA.
Please find my comments below:
Consider introducing people when they are first mentioned: Kanyarwanda > the mythical king Kanyarwanda; Ruhanga > the god Ruhanga, Yoweri Museveni > the military strongman Yoweri Museveni etc.
Citation style should be standardised (for instance, citation No [28] differs from the previous ones)
Make sure that all pieces of information are properly introduced (for instance, the reference to a pro-Tutsi party comes out of the blue in section 1.2 in lack of a previous reference to the party system in Rwanda; we are not informed why the Belgians started to support the Hutu; who created the republic?, etc).
Please doublecheck the use of tenses: "the Tutsi origin myth holds that Kanyarwanda had several sons, including Gatutsi and Gahutu, ancestors of the Tutsi and Hutu who are therefore brothers"; These exiles, unlike the Banyarwanda who migrated during the pre-colonial and colonial era, were regarded as refugees, etc.
Please consider using a more neutral language in some cases: "a force of over 4,000 rebels"
Consolidate short sections into one, especially if a single sentence makes up a section.
Make sure that duplications are avoided (for instance, the establishment of palamilitary forces Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi is mentioned twice)
As the nominator is improving the article along the lines reviewers suggested, I think there is no need to add further comments. My impression is that the article is well written and thoroughly researched. Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still massive sourcing problems in the article.
At the FAC, you defended the reliability of Ali Khan 1925; I cannot see why. It is deeply clear from the first pages that it is a hagiography designed to portray the man in as positive a light as possible. It endlessly waxes lyrical about his accomplishments and merits; if he had one fault, it is not mentioned in the book. We have one section in the book titled "Sher Shah as an apostle of Indian unity" which starts with the following, completely non-neutral sentence:
"In contemplating the career of this man of exceptional gifts whose horizon was far wider than that of most of the rulers before or after him, the student is profoundly impressed with the idea that he has never come across the account of any other ruler who has occupied a mighty throne with so admirable a combination of heart and intelligence, nor one so uncontaminated by false political doctrine, nor one so honest and joyful in his laborious mission
For other sources, I looked at the Conquest of Marwar (1543–1544) subsection: most of what is cited to Chaudhuri is borderline WP:CLOP: you should be looking to summarise, not paraphrase. What is not near-closely-paraphrased is not supported by the source: for example the assertion that "several of his generals were killed" is not verified by the source.
@AirshipJungleman29 The area for the "Conquest of Marwar" was pretty much untouched by me since I revamped the page, that's an area that's been untouched since 2022. Here's the version before I did major revamps unto the page and you can see the Conquest of Marwar is pretty much identical, and I've pretty much only added sources to it when it was first touched over by me. - [2]. That's an area I will definitely fix though. I'll also look into Khan. Noorullah (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 I've begun removing Ali Khan entirely, and I did this with the first half of the article thus far, replacing him with the much more reliable Satish Chandra. I'll work on getting this through the rest of the article soon. (and fixing that Marwar section). Noorullah (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 I think I'm done with that now. I've removed Ali Khan entirely, replacing him with a myriad of other citations that are much more reliable, while also adding/cutting down on content, and also reworking the Marwar section to clear up any WP:CLOP (that was not as a result of me I believe).
@AirshipJungleman29 I think it's been relatively brought up to standard now (for consideration), a major sourcing overhaul was done with the removal of Ali Khan entirely, being replaced by much more known historians. And sections that weren't up to standard have been improved to meet that. I'm currently focusing on just improving prose in a few areas now, do you know any other areas in the article that could be of concern? I went over some of the stuff said at FAC as well. Noorullah (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Repinging again ^^, (If you're available to check it out), I believe I've fixed the vast majority of these issues, (from sourcing - some prose issues). Do you know what else could be of issue in the article? Noorullah (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I added more information than it was first review on October 31 2024, plus it was originally supposed to be a draft when it was review however someone submitted to a article, Granted I didn't did it right I just added a "this article is a draft" command,
I first made an attempt at GA review on one of the most frustrating prehistoric animals there is, something which unfortunately failed. As obviously, no one had done the same on Kronosaurus, I am asking this time for a review of the article before proceeding with a second GA attempt later. I thank in advance anyone who will do so, best regards. Amirani1746 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA review seemed to focus primarily on issues with sourcing and prose quality. I am not knowledgeable about this topic area, so I cannot comment on the former; I can however comment on the latter. Firstly, the two web sources are not correctly cited; if you remove the years from their inline citations it should be fixed. Please download User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors to see these errors yourself.
On the prose itself, I think a submission at WP:GOCE would be helpful. There are many very small grammatical errors remaining in the article, along with lots of duplication (it is for example mentioned several times that preparations for the new fossils are still to be prepared or described). Take the following, non-exhaustive list:
"When the material kept in Karlsruhe had the preparation finalized"
"The rostrum measure 60 cm (24 in) long and contain three broken teeth."
The "Size" subsection keeps saying "increased/decreased the length of the specimen"—which doesn't make sense in the slightest. The specimen was however long it was—you cannot increase or decrease that. What you can increase or decrease are proposals, but you can also assume that any literate person knows that 10 is smaller than 12, and so you can replace "further reduced the size of this specimen to between" with "proposed a size of...".
"Some researchers also suggests that"
"The neural tubes are visibly oval in shape" as opposed to ... metaphorically oval?
"the articulations of the ribs with the latter which are quite particular" ... quite particular? what does that mean?
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it as a "good articles" or "featured articles" candidate. I'd like an overall review to see if it is adequate to continue the proccess.
Hi there, and thanks for working on an important article like this! I will quickly point out some general issues for now, but, if time allows, will be happy to do more detailed comments once you sorted these out:
There are many paragraphs without inline citations towards the end of the article, and a number of "citation needed" tags. Every statement should be sourced with an inline citation, this is super important (or it will quick-fail at the good article nominees).
The article seems quite unbalanced and goes into detail that is simply to much for this overview article. A good example are the two tables listing crops that benefit from pollination. The first one is ok I think (have it collapsed by default, though). The second one is definitely too much ("that are at least occasionally or potentially pollinated by stingless bees"). We should not write articles by shovelling in any detail that we can possibly find; we instead have to comprehensively cover the important aspects of the topic in a concise way. There should be a balance; it is not good to have sections that are very general and sections that are super detailed; the depth of detail should remain about equal throughout the article.
Sections "Taxonomy" (including etymology and evolution) and "Description" are missing. The former could include a nice cladogram showing the interrelationships.
The structure seems to be non-standard. I am not convinced that the grouping by geographical region (Stingless bees of Australia …) is a good choice. I recommend to have a look at some Featured Articles, such as Mantis, Coccinellidae, or Mayfly, and use these as a template.
There is also a strong bias in the article as stingless bees of Africa do not really seem to be discussed.
Hey Jens Lallensack Thank you so much! Your comments were already helpful and clear. I'll answer some points and proceed to the article's improvement.
Lack of inline citations: I'll try either to find sources or delete the information. This last part of the article was left by me from the previous version.
Regional sections: This was also information left from the previous version. I don't see it adequate either, but I focused more in adding new verified info than in deleting previous content. I'll see these examples and organize it differently
African bias: The article definitely ended up with this bias, but there's not much literature produced about African stingless bees. You can notice that Brazil (where I'm from) is the center not only in biodiversity, but in scientific production and beekeeping techniques. Anyways, I'll search deeper for publications with these especies.
Glad to hear that these where helpful! I personally strongly recommend to follow the structure of existing FAs instead of the current sectioning based on region. Organising by region might make sense within the "Relationships with humans" section (if you can find sources for Africa), but not when discussing their general biology. I fear that the article will have major problems at GAN or FAC with this current structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious disease that affects many people, so I want to get it to the featured article status that it deserves. I've overhauled and updated every section of the article. Please review my work so we can make this a good resource for others.
I feel like the differential diagnosis section could be expanded a bit.
Per WP:MEDDATE "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." I would suggest trying to find alternatives for any sources that were published pre-2014 and limiting the number of sources published pre-2019.
I'd recommend finding some other sources for the diagnosis section as a lot of the text comes from one source and it's usually ideal to have multiple sources confirming the information present. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Hi. I recently created this article on a book written by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors. It’s about Donald trump’s financial and business life and is bound to reach #1 on the NYT list. Looking for people to improve the summary and maybe add a new section or two covering release and promotion. Also open to feedback on language and prose.
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 would like to get more feedback on how to further improve this before I submit for GA. Thanks, DrunkenJoe (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I'll review this article with a potential GA nomination in mind.
As it stands, this article will not pass GA. The most egregious concern is sourcing. For GA, every statement needs to be verified with an inline citation. I have tagged multiple passages where this is not the case. If you are so inclined, you could also simplify the Kamarulnizam references using {{sfn}}s. Much of the infobox is also not verified.
There is also MOS:OVERSECTION. Currently, there are eight section headers before "See Also". I do not see a reason for there to be more than three: "History", composed of "Origins", "Sungai Penchala and expansion", and "Challenges and crackdown"; "Organisation", consisting of "Membership and structure" and "Economic philosophy (Arqamomics)", and "Revival efforts", with the two subheadings currently present removed.
The lead should summarise the article. Instead, there are several details there not contained within the article, for example the "Ikhwan Polygamy Club and Obedient Wives Club", that the members were arrested in Thailand under the Internal Security Act, that they were deported, and much else.
Ashaari Muhammad indicates that he later renounced his views. Such details should be included in the article, which as it stands is very barebones.
I think I got this article as far as I can apart from a few minor things, but I'm not super experienced with writing, nor was I super familiar with this topic before I started researching. I was hoping to get some feedback to bring up the quality of the article.
Thanks, Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks generally good, and ready for a formal review process like GA, which I've kept in mind while reading it. My only comment is that the title chosen is somewhat odd. By the looks of it, there are four names for the "playlist", but no actual playlist is known to have existed and the songs seem to have been more semi-randomly chosen by guards. In addition, most of the article is not about anything that can be called a "playlist", but instead about the mechanisms and reception of the torture. I would thus suggest renaming the article to "Auditory torture at Guantanamo Bay" or something similar.
The title apparently came about from someone copy pasting a bunch of text from a newspaper to start this article, but I wouldn't be opposed to changing it. However, by a very rough count, only about half of the sources focus on Gitmo specifically, while the others generally lump it in with the other detention centers. Maybe it should be renamed to something like "Auditory torture in the War on Terror" (which should be as simple as moving some info from background to use and changing a few words around)?
I would like to hear how close this article is to passing a featured article candidacy. It is largely unchanged since I brought it to GA last December. At the time, I remember doing as comprehensive a review as I possibly could of the available academic sources discussing the topic, but I've never touched the FA process before, so any input is very welcome!
As requested, I'll do a review similar to what I would provide at FAC, in order to help you get a good idea of what reviewers might pick up on. I'm not that familiar with the topic, so it'll likely focus more on prose than sourcing, coverage, or other, less superficial areas.
Very good first paragraph. Fulfils MOS:INTRO as good as any I have seen.
The second sentence of the second paragraph is a bit lengthy and long-winded. This paragraph is also quite focused on the effects on cisnormativity on the healthcare of transgender people; as WP:LEAD favours summarising the whole article, it would be nice if the other effects outlined in "Manifestations" were also summarised in the lead. For example, a sentence summarising "Education" would be nice.
I suppose "trans" is a common enough word to not need one, but perhaps "cis" as the shortened form of "cisgender" could use a gloss before its first use?
Body
I would put Serano's quote later in the first paragraph, and start with the when/where coinage of "cisnormativity". Starts the article body off more focused/encyclopedic and less essay-like.
Although the separation between the first and third lead paragraphs works better, I feel that the sections "Definition" and "Intersectionality..." could be merged, especially as the "Definition" section already considers related concepts.
I must compliment this article's prose, I'm really finding very little to pick at.
Take care with the images though—MOS:IRELEV notes that they "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". With the caption, the poster image is a little tangential—not completely significant in the topic's context. The simple sex-segregated diagram is however an excellent representation.
Short paragraphs generally do not warrant their own subsections per MOS:OVERSECTION. Consider ways to combine short subsections, so that the prose is less cluttered.
Although "Transmedicalism" is a section heading, its meaning is never actually explained, and it is a WP:SEEALSO link. The reader is sort of left wondering.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like an important topic in this field, gets a lot of traffic, and needs some more work to become a solid article.
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.
