Wikipedia'speer 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-worldpeer 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 maketechnically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on thevolunteers list, or contacting a relevantWikiProject.
Torequest a review, see theinstructions 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 plan to take this article to GAN. While I don't normally bother with peer review, I confess that I am overly familiar with this subject matter. As some of the content of this article is a bit abstract or perhaps arcane, I believe that the quality of this article could be much improved with feedback from an uninvolved party. I should be most happy to receive any commentary that one is willing to provide. Thank you in advance for your co-operation.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎04:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is the first article I've ever worked on; I expanded several sections from scratch by looking at how similar articles were developed.
I'd really appreciate any feedback on if the article is heading in the right direction (particularly for the "Production" and "Reception" sections), as well as how it can be improved further, since I'm hoping to eventually get it to GA status.
Just as a heads-up, the article is about a media series from Japan and relies on some Japanese-language sources, which means it may take more work to go through some references.
I've listed this +article for peer review because... I'd like to know where is places on the content assessment scale, and I would like to know how I could improve on thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(chess)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. I modeled it mainly after other television FAs, along with "The One Where Michael Leaves", an article of mine that was recently promoted to featured status. I believe this article is competent enough to go through a PR before FAC rather than a GAN. All comments in any shape or form are appreciated
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at FAC, and I was recommended by@SchroCat: to open a peer review for it. Any comments for improvement would be greatly appreciated.
I'm requesting a peer review of the articleDaniela Lalita before renominating it for GA status. During the GA review, general issues with the prose were criticized, possibly a broadness issue. In addition, when reviewing the sources, the reviewer found that some of the statements in the text were not supported by them. Since then, I've checked sources, added new ones, restructured the article, and worked on the prose. I'd appreciate comments on these issues.Thanks,◉wwwWiki◉11:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A previous FAC nomination received no comments. Perhaps I was too hasty. I would like this to be a TFA for the song's 15th anniversary, but before I do another nomination, I think a peer review would be best.
A few months ago, Inominated this article for featured article status, but, as I soon found out, there were quite a few issues. @Gog the Mild and @David Fuchs rightly and respectfully indicated prose issues and, more crucially, source to text integrity issues. Since then, I have revised the article, checked all citations, and altered the information accordingly… I hope. Gog suggested I guide it through peer review before putting it up for FAC again, and so here we are.DannyRogers800 (talk)16:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DannyRogers800, I'm willing to leave a few comments since I just read through the article. I made some brief copyedits on my own, but wanted to raise a few questions and other thoughts.
Maybe use an Infobox for this page? I think Infobox song would work. You could move the audio to the Infobox and include some other details.
Paragraph two of March to the Sea says:Hardee [the Confederate commander, had] not forced me to use anything but a skirmish line. Is there any better way to word the text in brackets?
The March to the Sea section as a whole seems to be somewhat narrative-y, like someone's telling a story rather than presenting factual information. Things like "Sherman then eyed the coastal city of Savannah. In late September, the plan was finalized and Major General Ulysses S. Grant eventually gave his assent." and "Five months later, Major General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House, and the Confederacy was all but defeated." feel like they're telling a story rather than simply presenting information. You may want to copyedit that section.
""Marching Through Georgia" is chanted" (Lyrical Analysis, paragraph 1) – do you mean "sung"? I haven't heard the song chanted before, though there is a first time for everything.
I don't think "As such, progress nigh undisturbed" (March to the Sea, Paragraph 2) is a complete sentence. The wording is also a bit weird, maybe make it more plain.
"Christian McWhirter evaluates the song's lyrical and thematic framework:" (Lyrical Analysis, paragraph 3): Who is this Christian McWhirter? Why do I trust what he says to say? Maybe say "Christian McWhirter, an author and public historian, evaluates the song's lyrical and thematic framework:"
Maybe try to reword "and became Sherman's theme song of sorts." (Postbellum, paragraph 1)
Avoid using a slash in "Military/Nationalistic uses" perMOS:SLASH ("Military and nationalistic uses" would be fine).
I don't think you need lyrics for examples of the melody being used for other songs.
In external links, you may want to label what site the links go to. I.e.:Commentary on "Marching Through Georgia" by Kelley L. Ross, on archive.org.
Hey @PhoenixCaelestis, thank you for these suggestions... very helpful, overall. Nearly all should be effected, except for 1) the sample lyrics: I think they give an idea of how the tune was adapted and of the types of songs that borrowed from "Marching Through Georgia", but I'll remove them if anyone else raises this concern; and 2) the infobox: this is more controversial, and I generally refrain from using infoboxes as there's usually little info to include in it that isn't mentioned in the first lead paragraph anyway. It's best for readers to follow the main article rather than simply glance at a graphic, but that's just my view. The rest should be settled. Thanks!DannyRogers800 (talk)20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I believe the article has strong potential to reach Featured Article status and it just doesn't sit right to me for it to stay at GA status since May. This is one of my first major article expansions and Good Article nominations since February (and probably my longest article), and I would like feedback on any sourcing or prose issues that I may have overlooked.
Hello! I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it further, or at the very least, raise it from start-class status. I think the article is in a good place at this moment, but it hasn't been properly assessed yet. Additionally, I would appreciate some suggestions on how to improve this article so it meets the standards of other video game articles, despite being on a subject with less available information. Essentially, feedback and an assessment of the article would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your brief input, although it is important to note that the development of the game is not really known. Still, I created a development section as per your request, although instead of writing behind-the-scenes information of how it was made (which is publicly unavailable to my knowledge), I added information mostly pertaining to Eighting/Nintendo and their development history, which should be notable for that section. I was also able to find sales data for the game, so that should improve the already solid reception section. With this added to the article, I think a proper peer review is in order, and I'm always open to potential additions or further improvements. -Z-Gamer Guys (talk)22:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the development section might be better before the plot section, but this is a matter of opinion. Additionally, try to expand the reception section. For me at least, one paragraph might not be enough.Gommeh📖🎮15:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken your advice and separated the reception section into two paragraphs, while also expanding on them. I made sure to incorporate more individual perspectives on the game to fully flesh it out and make it more in-depth. As for moving the development before the plot section, I'm not sure if that is necessary, as it seems to me that most video game articles are structured in this way. However, I have no preference for one being listed before the other if someone desires to change it. -Z-Gamer Guys (talk)22:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks pretty good from a quick skim. My only comments are that I'm not sure about the reliability ofKikizo andNintendo Difference. Also, you don't need any kind of proper review to raise an article's class to C or B. You can change that yourself if you believe it meets the criteria. Also, just a tip because it sounds like you want a detailed review: among the VG project editors, people mostly use peer reviews to prepare for Featured Article candidacy, not Good Article reviews. I don't think you'll get too many detailed comments as you're just shooting for GA and this article looks fine enough as is. The lack of development information available is a concern but that's up to the reviewer to consider. I would just nominate it! :)TarkusABtalk/contrib04:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I'm not too concerned about the reliability of the sources. Jonti Davies, the journalist credited for theKikizo article, was also a writer forRetro Gamer andGamesRadar+, which are noted reliable sources. It also has an inconclusive discussion on the video game sources archive, but the discussion was leaning towards a somewhat reliable consensus. As forNintendo Difference, it lists their staff on their website and has an editorial team, just in French. If these issues come up during the good article review, I'll be sure to note this. Regardless, I listed the article for a GA nomination! :)Z-Gamer Guys (talk)10:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because my goal is to have the article to reach eithergood article orfeatured article status. I have recently completed a major overhaul on the article, working on and off on trying to improve readability, organize information in chronological order, review and improve references, and meetpolicies and guidelines as well as creating all works related to the subject. I appreciate any and all feedback and contributions to achieve this goal. If there any changes or improvement that should be made, please let me know.
I agree that it still is looking start class. I would check out the relevantWikiProjects listed on the talk page of the article for ideas on what to include, as well as to find featured and good articles on comparable subjects to compare the article to.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)00:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering bringing this to good article status. However, I'm not sure what else I need to include in the article. As the subject is an anime character, I imagine much of the relevant sourcing is in Japanese, so I'm not sure where to start in finding information that can be used to beef up the article, particularly the development and reception sections.
The endnotes (e.g. thisCh. 1) lead nowhere. You should replace those with regular citations using either the{{cite comic}} or{{cite book}} template. Finally, the reception section is rather weak and should be expanded. I'd want more critical analysis of her character.Gommeh📖🎮15:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my eye, this article is certainly ready for GA! Indeed, I suspect it's pretty much ready for FA (not that I have as much experience there). What a thorough and well-organized overview of such a large topic. My suggestions are all relatively minor and not, I think, a barrier to GA status:
I notice Harv Warnings of "There is no link pointing to this citation" for España, Claudio (1999) and Feldman, Simón (1990)
The graph of Argentine & Mexican films is wonderfully informative, but it also feels awkwardly large. At least on my screen, it crowds the text a bit. Would it be possible to reduce some of the padding around the chart? I also think the y-axis could be shortened. I also think, for no good reason, it would feel less crowded if the chart were on the right.
I also notice that the header of the graph is truncated -- if a long title won't fit, maybe just "Argentine vs Mexican film production"?
If the arrival of sound is the start of the golden age, should the material on the silent film era be spun out into its own different article? With perhaps just a short "background" paragraph, perWP:SUMMARYSTYLE?
I went through a few sections of the prose. There seem to be a lot of quotations that are a bit on the long end. For example, in this quotation:we [Argentine film historians] always say 'in 1933 the industry was born in Argentina', and the truth is that I would say that until Gardel appeared in films, Argentine cinema practically did not exist on billboards; very little Argentine cinema was being seen. Gardel is what gives Argentine cinema that strength on the billboards -- the last sentence is repeating information that has already been presented in the quote. In this instance I boldly cut it myself but the article might benefit from a concision editing pass specifically focused on the quotations.
Similarly,academic interest from scholars from university backgrounds is rather redundant, three different ways of saying "scholars"; I trimmed that one too, but it reflects a common pattern of minor wordiness.
Purely a compliment, the range of images is wonderful and they all have very informative captions. They really enhance the article!
I raise a few ideas for brevity in part because the current heft of the article feels intimidating at first glance, but it's so well-organized (very informative headers!) that I do think the article "gets away" with much of its length. Well done on some intensive and detailed research!~ L 🌸 (talk)07:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just a quick drive-by from me. i saw this up for gan and took an interest, and i'm incredibly impressed with the scope, but that's also somewhat of a problem. unfortunately this article isWP:TOOBIG, currently on 15.8k words (and that's apparently with only using half the major sources available). ideally this would be cut down by more than a third. to do so i would look at cutting the number of examples. i would also personally change 'critic's lists' into a broader 'critical opinion' subsection and use prose (we don't need to know all the films that were in 18th and 51st place, just a few choice examples the sources focus on).
additionally, a lot of the paragraphs extend beyond the six line recommended limit, making them a little difficult to read on mobile, but getting those down would definitely help in cutting down on word count more broadly. the '1936–1942: rise to international dominance' subsection also has nine paragraphs, subsections should ideally have 2-4, with 6 as a maximum. i would also say a couple of the images are a little close toWP:SANDWICH, and would personally put all refs into {{sfn}} format. these are all merely suggestions, and you don't have to follow any of them.
i hope i haven't been too discouraging, since these are the only major flaws in an article that seems to be fantastically well-researched and comprehensive. i hope you're well, and happy editing!--Plifal (talk)04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone. I withdrew this article's FAC after reviewers noted issues with prose. In the months since, it has gone through a copyedit, and I'd like to renominate for FAC at some point.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating this article for FAC status and I'm looking for feedback on whether the article is comprehensive enough.
Hi all, over the last couple of months I've rewritten and expanded most of the wikipage for the Japan Cup, a horse racing event held in Japan every year. Since the vast majority of this page is now my work, I'd love to hear other people's opinions of the article's current state to make sure I've not overlooked anything; this is the first time I've given an article such a large overhaul, so all advice is welcomed!
Having come this far, I'm very keen to get this to GA status, and if successful see if I can take the page the whole way and get it to Featured Article status; any and all feedback and contributions to achieve either of these goals would be greatly appreciated. I believe this page follows nearly all MOSs I know of, though I'm awareMOS:LEADCITE is an exception to that currently - I'm still mulling over a graceful way to include the remaining references in the main text.
I want to get extra opinions on this article as me and the reviewer of the (attempted) GA nomination don't seem to agree on how well the article explains its concepts. I would like to see what other editors believe should be improved before a future attempt at a GAN. Thanks,RandomInfinity17(talk -contributions)00:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because because I would like to take it to FA. It underwent acomprehensive GA review earlier this month, where several improvements were suggested and implemented. I would like feedback regarding the prose, if any is needed, and most importantly, possible improvements regarding the source formatting.
I've read through the article and have a few thoughts.
Why is everything under one heading labeled "History"? Granted, this is more of my personal choice - I've seen other editors do it differently - but I'd have "Background" and "Design and construction" as headers, then have "Final voyage" as a subheader under the header "Service history", then "Aftermath" under "Final Voyage", and "Wreck" as a header.
Maybe use the photograph from "Design and construction" in the infobox? It gives a better look at the ship and is consistent with what I usually see for ship infoboxes. You could move the current infobox photo to her service history.
The photo in the infobox is clearer, and does not include the partially cropped signature of the photographer. The Pesha photo also illustrates theGayley's unusual features in the section discussing them. I have changed the description accordingly.
Mention the official number in the same paragraph as her owner and homeport.
Is her homeport also her port of registry?
It is. I've used the latter term in the body to avoid confusion.
I would make a separate design header (or subheader under construction), but again that's just personal preference.
You mention three voyages: her maiden, and two where she collided with other ships. Do those particular two collisions hold major significance?
Vessels operating on the Great Lakes tend to have rather monotonous careers, frequently spending their entire lives travelling back and forth between the same ports. Unlike ocean-going vessels, accidents are about the only notable events which can occur during their service lives.
After arriving in Two harbors, on 21 May.. Did you forget to capitalize "Harbors"?
..at 13:30 (EST) that same day. You don't need the timezone in parentheses. "13:30 EST" would work fine.
The final voyage segment reads a bit.. story-like? This might just be a few phrases like "Stewart hurried below decks to rouse his passengers, who were asleep in their staterooms,in imminent danger.
Maybe give a bit more in the caption of the image ofRensselaer.
What's the reason for monetary conversions being listed? I haven't seen that on other ship articles before.
I've seen this used in significant articles (e. g.SS Edmund Fitzgerald), and have used it in FAs I have worked on in the past.
Thank you. Doing the necessary research for articles about merchant ships, particularly older, relatively obscure vessels, can be quite taxing. I'm just glad my work is appreciated.❆AKAZA ❆22:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder, at the GA review I had some reservations about some of the sources and ultimately decided they were good enough for GA. The folks at FAC are going to push harder on theWP:HQRS front, so you should put some effort into finding better sources.RoySmith(talk)04:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it however I don't know if what I have done is good and I need some ideas on improving it
I have listed this article because I have improved the overall article by writing it from scratch. Actually, I wrote it in Catalan and later ported it to English in order to level the completion. I would like to know if the references are sufficient enough, if not, I can provide even more of them. Having access to the real hardware, I can discern what sources are of quality and which aren't. Also, I am not a native English speaker, so my translation, whose writing was done manually, may be quirky and may need a revision. Finally, I would like to see into which quality category could this article be listed, just for curiosity.
If you need more information or data regarding the article or the machine itself feel free to ask. I will try to solve the issue in the best way I can.
Thanks for the work that you've been doing to improve this page! There is a wealth of information there.
I've made a number of edits to the references to fill in missing parameters such as date and publisher. Also, tried to provide more consistent formatting of citations to improve readability.[1] One general comment that I'll make is that the article is very reliant on primary sources, for example IBM manuals and TI data sheets. There are some great secondary sources, for example NY Times articles, BYTE magazine, and the bookMultilingual Book Production. The article could benefit from more of these types of secondary sources. SeeWP:PSTS for guidelines on the use of primary and secondary sources. Some of the sources (for example discussion forums) are considered self-published. SeeWP:RSSELF for guidelines on this category of source.
I'll search for additional secondary references. Feel free to leave a message here, or on my talk page, or on the article talk page if you'd like clarification or to discuss improvements. --mikeutalk21:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
For some reason, the system hasn't notified me about your comment.
Yes, I employ a lot of primary sources because I can't rely on many others. There are lots of accumulated errors during the lifetime of this computer. Since many of the details from the computer weren't released, the gaps of information were filled with myths. I have been clarifying these sections during three years.
If you need anything, especially for verifying the secondary sources, don't hesitate to ask me.
I've listed this article for peer review because...I want an honest opinon. It is gonna help me improve my writing as well as catch mistakes which I did not see.Thanks,Shizasohail (talk)06:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with this article is it's a bit of a hodgepodge accumulation of miscellany, and it needs better sourcing.
This is a summary article—the scope is really broad, and so it only really needs to give a short outline, then link off to more detailed pages for the detail. For instance, let's take the section on abortion. It gives a rather longwinded summary of the Catholic position, then a brief summary of a Hindu position (Hinduism and abortion suggests it may not be quite as simple as the summary inthis article suggests), then concludes by telling me that Mormonism is more forgiving in some specific situations.
This whole section could be condensed considerably: put a{{Main}} template link toReligion and abortion, then put a short-ish summary of the key points derived from there. And you can reuse sourcing from there. The same is true for lots of other parts of the article—on the gender of deities, on homosexuality, on ordination etc. There are more detailed articles, so followWikipedia:Summary style to write a broad summary article.
The abortion section also contained this:
The pastoral message also has to be observed as each member of a church can interpret a message differently. The context of the church has to be considered as well, such as being in an urban or rural environment. The religious messages and how they are exposed in different cultural contexts can determine the effect it has on its listeners. Particularly women, who are more inclined to be religious, are more passionate about the idea of not getting an abortion.
What's this supposed to mean? People interpret religious texts differently in different congregations? Okay, sure. More religious women are more passionately anti-abortion?
Is that what the source is saying?No, it turns out. The source is a political science research article about attitudes to abortion. The passage I think that's closest aligned to the word salad in the article is:the empirical evidence to date suggests that even frequent attenders at congregations in which a pro-choice message is conveyed are more likely to oppose legal abortion than their less observant counterparts. Of course, there is likely to be a disjunction between the message articulated by the pastor and the message received by the congregation. What the source is roughly saying is that attendees at churches (in the United States) with a pro-choice message are still likelier to be less supportive of abortion than those who don't attend church. Or, per the source,frequent church attenders tend to be indiscriminately pro-life, regardless of the position taken by their denomination on the abortion issue.
Also, note—the source doesn't saywomen, it says frequent church attendees (of any gender). We've somehow gonefrom people attending a pro-choice church (in the United States) being more likely to be against abortion than the general populaceto the rather different idea that women (everywhere!) are more likely to be religiousand those religious women are more likely to be passionately anti-abortion. (I've removed that entire paragraph. The source is good, and could be helpfully used for other purposes though.)
Then there is the standard problem with a lot of religion-related articles—primary source references (to scripture) without secondary sources to show the interpretation and relevance of said scripture. And there's a fair bit ofvague generalisation - e.g.mainstream Christian tradition andtraditional Judaism. It's better to be concrete about these things where possible.
Finally, there's a warning banner about the addition of text from a large language model - seetalk page archive. Thatneeds fixing. There's significant chunks of the article that are waffly and obviously AI generated, starting with the lead. I've chopped the AI generated stuff from the lead and replaced it with a rather pedestrian opening paragraph that's less waffly. There's still other bits of AI text in the article which need to be checked and handled appropriately.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created this a couple of months ago and it looks great but now i am at the point of how I can expand this more. It is an important organisation in new zealand for the Rainbow community and people living with HIV so I want to make sure it is an amazing article and in hopes to have a GA one day.
I brought this article to GA status a while ago, and I'm looking to bring it to FAC sooner or later. As I am fairly familiar withvideo game terminology, it would be especially helpful (possibly preferable) for someone unfamiliar with said terminology to look it over for any confusing material. Any recommendations for international reception to the game are also welcome. Thank you!★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk)03:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is good so far but I'm new to Wikipedia and I'd like pointers from more experienced editors on how I can make this page the best it can be.
I've listed this article for peer review because it lists gravitational water, water which drains from soil. It is with the concept of macro pores, and is an important concept in soil science. Reviewing it can give informations better.
I've listed this article for peer review because... prior to GAN and future FA nomination and to assess the bottom of the article to see if it needs removal.
Please suggest your ideas and critiques based on other Mountain articles of GA or higher here is what I was thinking but extend on it or go your own route.
Suggestions for better places for Headings...
Suggestions for better places for Sections...
Should I take a photo to help that section?note: I take photos.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a page I have almost entirely created myself, as can be seen in thextools report. I'm fairly happy with it, and would like to possibly nominate it for a GA at some point in the future. Before doing that however, I believe it needs more critical eyes on it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. I started at FAC earlier this years but withdrew when two editors advised a copy edit first. One editor also advised peer review first.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
This is the most important airfield that you've never heard of. Today, not a trace of it remains (not even a historical marker), but for a brief couple of years it was the epicenter of aviation (and indeed, the first airfield) in the United States. The articlejust passed GA and I'm thinking aboutWP:FAC as the next step.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded (material and sources). It was assessed by the Military portal as a B-Class and recognized the potential for GA. Nevertheless, they suggested to go through a peer-review first to get feedback. Any input to improve this article is greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I worked on this quite a bit and i am loving how it is coming along. I am at the point with what to do next. I want to eventually nominate this for a good article but i dont know what else to add to this.
I'll list the issues I come across whilst reading below.
' The HIV and AIDS was ' should this say 'HIV and AIDS outbreak'? But it really should just be one or the other.
'well others believe Homosexual Law Reform' -> 'while others'
Also homosexual law reform should not be capitalised unless explicitly referring to the act as its not a proper noun.
There is bolding of non-wikilinked/non-notable organisations, this is contrary to themanual of style and should not be done.
Scoop is referenced. Scoop is a self-published source (press releases) and should only be used for non-controversialWP:ABOUTSELF claims.
There is a lack of medical sources presented here. You can search on Google Scholar and access many academic publishers via theWikipedia Library. Also noteWP:MEDRS and the requirement for high quality secondary sources for any biomedical claim.
'In 1987, Antiretroviral drugs which help people living with HIV extend their life and have better quality of life, became firstly available, however it wasn't common until the mid 1990s', too many commas and I think these claims require aWP:MEDRS.
'Creativity, care and ‘messy’ drug use: A collective history of the early days of peer-led needle exchange in Dunedin, New Zealand' does not meetWP:MEDRS, although its fine for historical information. I would look for a proper MEDRS to support the claim that New Zealand's programme reduced infections/saved lives.
crime.co.nz appears to be a self-published website based on the about page and does not meet the standard forWP:BLP information. I've removed the mentioned of Mwai based on this. In general there is no need to include the names of non-notable people convicted of a crime.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed GA and I was considering a run at FAC. This would be my first non-military history article at FAC (I would normally run it through their rigorous A-class review first) so I want to check it is of sufficient quality first. Please be as rigorous as possible in your review, I am happy to take any and all comments including if you think it is not suitable for FAC -Dumelow (talk)16:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made several notworthy modifications to the article since it was initially created, and feel it could use another review from other editors.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Thanks,Wiki Editor mq (talk)12:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Hi everyone, this is my first wikipedia article and I have been working on improving it by adding reliable sources, page numbers, and expanding sections on its history, decline, and cultural memory. I would really appreciate if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know if the article seems anywhere at all close to meeting B class standards, or if there are areas that still need alot more work. Thanks you, I appreciate your time[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I am hoping to get this article up to at least B-class or GA status. There are a few areas where there is an obvious need for expansion (such as the sectionSequence of main trends and just general sourcework), but I was wondering if anyone has any input regarding content or alterations to structure, or good sources to consult for the article that aren't already listed under the bibliography.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made some changes, in particular, if a reviewer could consider [B-Class criteria] and update the talk page to reflect their thoughts on the article. In future I might try and get this one to A-class or better any suggestions on what its lacking in that regard would be great too.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made substantial additions to the stub article. This is my first significant Wikipedia contribution, and would like to know some pointers to making this a good article. I am also unsure what to add to the intro section to make the article more applicable to a general audience.
I think the article title is confusing. It is not about the noun "Hartree", it is about an algorithm, approach, method, or framework according to the sources.
The introduction or first section should set the context. "An approximate computational method used to understand the motions of molecules". Why is that valuable? Why is it hard? What makes the method special?
Need more secondary sources. Citing Meyer's work primarily makes the article suspect as biased orWP:COI orWP:OR.
Is it related to "multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree–Fock method"? (Zanghellini, J., Kitzler, M., Brabec, T., & Scrinzi, A. (2004). Testing the multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree–Fock method. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 37(4), 763.)
The source Wang, H. (2015). Multilayer multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree theory. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 119(29), 7951-7965 can act as a secondary source.
Replace Zundel and Eigen with words.
Look into the introduction sections of sources for material. To be honest the equations and input data here have relatively little impact. These are things experts will look up from original sources anyway. Qualitative descriptions will reach a wider audience.
Thanks for the tips. I agree there needs to be more meat in the intro section that relates more generally to the issue of solving the S equation for dynamics and generally.
I agree with the citations.
The equations and input I thought were helpful as a reference, as it makes it easier to pin down what MCTDH actually is without diving into various source texts. It is also an issue in literature that there seems to be a weak standard for notation regarding MCTDH (especially for ML-MCTDH), which further complicates citing authors other than Meyer and Wang. But I agree, there needs to more qualitative content throughout.
I also noticed that there was little wiki content in this sphere. The two articles on variational method/principle are very weak despite being very important methods for Density Functional Theory and this genre of dynamics. Time Dependent Hartree could be rolled into this article as the literature seems pretty sparse on it. But for the others, I have no idea what a good strategy is. The articles for DVR and FBR are also weak or lacking.Leo51db (talk)11:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the level of GA-class. As this is the first article I've ever created (which is done by draft), I currently do not have experience on how to improve a C-class article to B-class, let alone meet GA standards. Therefore I'd like some suggestions and guidance for improving the article.
Update. I've added a new section about the properties of the number. Hopefully this improves the quality of the article closer to B-Class.Electorus (talk)09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. After reviewing the article onMegalneusaurus (which is still not finished), I decided this time to do the same with the "Monster of Aramberri", which, in my opinion, covers the entire topic about this wonderful specimen. If the peer review is successful, I will propose immediately this article to the GA. I originally submitted this article to the GA and then to a peer review a few months ago. Unfortunately, I was very busy with other projects, and the peer reviewers were clearly not very interested in paleontology. Now that I am available again and my work is more detailed than before, I hope it can be given a second chance. As usual for this kind of review, I'm asking for users likeFunkMonk and/orJens Lallensack to help me.Slate Weasel is also welcome, but since he hasn't shown any sign of activity since late July 2025, I doubt he'll see this message.
I'm hoping to take this to FA-quality sometime soon, afterGreensburg tornado hopefully passes. I'm less sure about whether this one would pass, though, so I'm putting it up for a PR to clear up any potential issues.
Do the two references in the lede need to be there? Would move perWP:LEADCITE, but up to you.
Would suggest expanding on Obama's visit in the Aftermath section.
The tornado, also known as the Mayflower–Vilonia tornado, and which was part of a larger outbreak of severe weather across the central and southern United States -> Is there a better way to split up these points?
The lede states that eight deaths were recorded at Vilonia, but later says ten deaths were recorded instead?
Have read the Aftermath section, which says eight deaths occured in Vilonia. However, the Damage to Vilonia and later dissipation section says nine people died. Can the death toll be standardised?
indicated the potential for a large-scale tornado outbreak for six days in advance on its 4–8 day outlook -> Might just be me as I am unfamiliar with the terminology in these articles, but it reads like it was predicted that the upcoming tornado outbreak would last for six days, but I assume it means predicted the tornado six days in advance?
Day 3 moderate risk -> Should "day" be capitalised?
Would link High Plains on first mention in the Meteorological synopsis section.
a 40–50 kn low level jet and boundary-layer dewpoints of 57 to 61 °F -> Should there be a comma after jet?
where the Mayflower–Vilonia tornado would soon develop. -> Is there a reason why this is unreferenced?
What is the Turkey Trail? Would also make it more obvious that this,Three people were killed in that area, refers to Paron.
two-story homes being leveled with only piles of debris left on their foundations. -> Well, I would assume a house being levelled would result in debris.
which had been struck by an EF2 tornado that killed four people on April 25, 2011, three years and two days prior. -> Unsure the point of mentioning this, but if you really want to keep it, would shorten it towhich had been struck by an EF2 tornado that killed four people three years prior.
A few parts of the Tornado summary section's prose feel a bit too emotional/sensational, and I would recommend more neutral language.
For example,mangled beyond recognition andcrushed into small balls.
resulting in damage five homes ->resulting in damageto five homes
Remove link to Arkansas.
After reading through the whole article, I don't really see concrete support of this from the lede in the body:It was considered the catalyst for the twelve year long EF5 drought, unless I'm just missing something.
Some of the references should use publisher, instead of being italicised.
Would suggest archiving some of the sources as well, but it's not strictly required.
[10] should include the author as Godwin, Ashley, [13] should be marked dead, [16] isn't working, and [35] should include the author as Pappas, Stephanie.
Found a few newspaper articles on the tornado online. Would they be necessary to add to the article?
These are the main issues I found, nice readEF5. Feel free to push back on anything I suggest that oversteps, as I am still learning on reviewing stuff at an "FA-level". –actuall7 (talk |contrib)09:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An obviously notable topic, but one that has been scarcely discussed in the literature. Apparently there are only two academic sources about it and one news article that mentions it tangentially; I really had to work with very limited material (tirar leite de pedra), which even included going to the National Library to photograph the manuscript, until then unpublished online. I would appreciate some feedback on how to better structure the article and, if possible, expand it without engaging in original research. I wonder whether the available material is sufficient for it to qualify as a good article (I imagine featured status is out of the question...).
What a fascinating little document! Your photographs are absolutely wonderful to have, too. I do think GA status is in reach, and I have a few suggestions on that front:
First, I think the article would really benefit from a "Background" section which explains what Tupi is and why Portuguese people were learning it in the 18thC. This would be a fair bit of "stating the obvious" but I think the context would be really helpful.
I would, personally, re-organize slightly to go from "Background" to "Structure" and then to "History" (which should perhaps be re-named "Provenance"...? "History" on its own initially led me to expect, eg, the history of Portugal in Brazil.) I mostly suggest moving structure up because I think it's helpful to have a clear picture of the "what" before getting further into other details.
Possibly an unanswerable question, but that leather binding is surely not an 18thC one -- it looks like it could be a 20thC library binding. Has anyone ever written about when/by whom it was bound? ie whether it was bound in the 18thC and rebound later, or perhaps it's in such a bad state because it was not originally bound?
When you mention Branco's ownership, it would be nice to give a brief explanation of who he was, especially to contextualize the time period of his ownership.
I also made a small prose edit myself (breaking apart two idea in the lead that we joined with an "although" but didn't seem to have any causal relationship) but overall it's a very polished article. GAs don't have to have an enormous amount of materialin total -- they just need to have a reasonably broad coverage of the material thatexists, so I think once there's a brief "background" section the article would be ready to be a nice, short, focused GA!~ L 🌸 (talk)05:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it for FA status. This would be my first FA nomination, so I'd particularly appreciate feedback on any issues with meeting FA-level MOS compliance.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last few weeks chipping away at it and I've managed to include all the major academic literature about the series of poems. I'd appreciate any writing tips or advice otherwise on how to make it better.
What an informative article! I have some feedback below, focused on the prose, mostly from the perspective of clarifying things for someone coming to it with a bit less background on the topic.
The second sentence of the lead begins withTheir titles come from..., but we haven't been introduced to the titles yet. I suggest moving this bit later, after all four poems have been introduced.
Can you explain why this article includes the Peniarth MS 21 verses, if they are not part of theCanu Cadwallon? Is this the only other writing attributed to Cadwallon, so it sneaks in alongside the rest...? This is both a question I have and something the article itself should make clearer.
Relatedly, this sentence in the lead doesn't make a connection clear:While not edited as part of Canu Cadwallon, there is also a fragmentary verse in Peniarth MS 21 supposedly composed by Cadwallon ap Cadfan which narrates an episode of his exile in Ireland. I'd try something likeA fragmentary verse in another manuscript (Peniarth MS 21) supposedly composed by Cadwallon ap Cadfan [belongs in this article for X reason], but is not typically included in editions of theCanu Cadwallon. It narrates an episode of his exile in Ireland.
The biography of Cadwallon is rather long, and makes no mention of theCanu Cadwallon. It's a wonderfully researched biography, so my inclination would be to merge a fair bit of it to Cadwallon's own article, and use this section of the article to give a briefer account focused mostly on "here are the times and places he existed and the key highlights he's famous for, and here are the claims about how the four poems are connected to him."
Since this is framed as an article about four poems, I feel like the lost poem should get its own very short section too in "The poems", just to reiterate that it's lost and how we know it used to be there, and what people have guessed it is about.
This bit in the lead is very clear but somehow I found it much harder to keep track of the book-historical elements in the article itself:Excepting one copy of 'Englynion Cadwallon' which survives in the fourteenth-century Red Book of Hergest, the three surviving poems exist only in seventeenth-century manuscripts. Nevertheless, scholars of medieval Welsh literature generally regard 'Moliant Cadwallon' as a genuine seventh-century composition. It's possible that just sticking that sentence at the top of the section "The manuscripts" would be enough to help with flow. Or bringing into that section more of the discussion about dating that is currently discussed on a poem-by-poem basis with the interpretations? Or trying to present information with more of a chronological focus, ie, "The poems were supposedly written in the 7thC. They would then have been preserved an re-copied in manuscript form. One 14thC manuscript still survives. Vaughan evidently read all four of them in the 16thC and decided to collect them together. We know that from his index. We don't have the manuscripts he read them in but we do have two pages of the collection he made, and some other pages he copied bits in."
Relatedly, that implies that the other poems arenot regarded as seventh-century compositions, so... can we spell out when we think theywere written?
In the long quote of 'Moliant Cadwallon', are those ellipses present because you've elided parts of the poem, or do they represent fragmentation in the original poem? If this is the whole poem, Koch's 2013 translation is probably copyrighted and we can't include so much of it. If you've chosen smaller snippets of it..... I actually don't know how best to indicate typographically that these areour ellipses, but I do currently read them as breaks in the poem itself, so I feel like clarity there could be improved.
This concern applies to the other poems too.
For the meat of the discussion of the poems, I want to give compliments: the material is wonderfully thorough.
You also have my compliments on the well-chosen images!
Overall, this is clearly an extremely well-researched article. I think it could easily be nominated as a Good Article in the near future. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments above.~ L 🌸 (talk)22:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article because it seems a too scarce, at the very least comparing to the amount of information on the Japanese article. TheInfluence part also lacks a lot of citations. TheSelected Works seems like a bit of a strange way to take care of his bibliography, and might need improvements as well.Translating most details from the Japanese Wikipedia might be of major use.
I'm happy to provide some peer review comments if they would be useful to you, but I wanted to get some clarification first -- it sounds like you have already identified some important areas of improvement for the article. Are you planning to make revisions and want advice on how to address the concerns you've raised, or suggestions for other aspects that could be improved at the same time?~ L 🌸 (talk)21:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is my very first contribution to Wikipedia. I've expanded this article massively. I'd appreciate any feedback on resources, structure, and content. Thanks you!
I've listed this article as I believe the topic is highly important to the political climate in various parts of the world and therefore deserves good or featured article status. I have personally spent a lot of time reading and developing the article and I believe it is time for more editors to chime in on how to improve the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done major additions, restructuring and improvements in the article recently. Now I am planning to go for GA once issues remaining, if any, are solved.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to raise the article from Start-class. I would like to hear about how this article could be improved so it can leave Start-class.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was working with other editors a few months back to bring the article to GA status. Some time has passed and the collab effort has gone stale, but I wanted to restart the work so that we could finish what we started. I want to know if the added "Academic sources" section looks good, if the cited sources are enough for the info in the article, and if there's anything else that would prevent a successful GA nomination the first time.
Very dated sources, 19C and earlier, are not generally reliable sources. They can be used for a historical view, e.g. "John Smith wrote in 1805 that ...", but not as a fact which is not referenced inline, only in the citations.
MA theses are not considered reliable sources.
Some of the details supplied in the citations are very unsatisfactory. For example cite 245 ""Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church – DW – 03/29/2024". dw.com. Retrieved 6 June 2025." dw.com and the retrieval date are minor details and the crucial information is missing. I would cite this as {{cite journal|url=https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-aramaic-christians-seek-support-in-their-church/a-68675395|journal=[[Deutsche Welle]]|title= Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church|first=Christoph|last=Strack|date=3 September 2024}}</ref>
Cite 258 is poor. "nsilk (6 May 2013). "Syriac Orthodox Church Receives as Many as 800,000 New Converts in Central America – SCOOCH". Retrieved 6 June 2025." This should be SCOOCH News, publisher Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, date 6 May 2013. The headline is misleading as the text does not say new converts but that the church has been joined by another church with 600-800,000 members. Your text is even more misleading as it shows 800,000 as the total membership.
There are harv error messages in the source section. For a script which displays the error messages seeUser:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.
I find the referencing cluttered and difficult to read. Linking, archiving and retrieval dates are useful for sources that may disappear, articles and newspaper stories. They are pointless for books and just make the entry wordy and clumsy. I would delete and just show the bibliographical details. I prefer the citations section kept as clean as possible, with bibliographical details moved to the sources and additional information to notes.
@Dudley Miles Thanks for the comments on the referencing. Is there anything else that needs to be changed in any other criteria before the article is brought to GA? I will try and fix up the referencing soon.Surayeproject3 (talk)04:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the whole article. This includes general MOS improvements and adjusted citations (both inline and bibliographical). The 19th century citation describes a basic biblical narrative fromActs of Apostles and already has 2 other citations; I've removed it altogether.
Wrote this article yesterday based in large part from journal articles and dug-up sources from around the time. Looking for feedback to make sure it's accessible to a layperson, informative about the election (i:e, doesn't gloss over any necessary attributes while focusing too much on small details), and doesn't contain too much jargon or waffle. --LivelyRatification (talk)23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article, which has already been assessed as a GA, has been improved significantly by various contributors, includingUser:Raskuly, myself, and several others. My goal is to create content worthy of being a featured article, not just here but on pages across the encyclopedia (I plan on also working onCharlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida),Lemon Bay High School, a new article I am working on for North Port High School, andPensacola Christian College, then expand beyond schools to other institutions, historical stuctures, and other topics entirely. I think we've come a long way with the Port Charlotte High article, the only thing I think that might make it better would be some more well-referenced information on the school's athletics and a historical photo. I would love some constructive criticism in order to get this article (and others) from good to great.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article represents an idea of society before certain medical discoveries such as certain viewed articles.
@2550 69 11hne I think this is fair. I acknowledge the contentious nature of pseudoscience. For the record, I will say I am not treating the topic as factual but just consolidating the sources into a retrospective on an outdated and obscure historical fad. I am open to criticism, perhaps if anyone thinks the article's written in a way that is biased in favor of the practice being described. --Alexander Patmos (talk)17:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2550 69 11hne (and others) I draftified this article for being composed of insufficiently reviewed LLM generated text. See the draft talk page for an example. I think this renders the peer review request invalid at this time. If this article is pushed back to mainspace I will notify you so the peer review can be re-requested. Sorry for the inconvenience!NicheSports (talk)02:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come for one of the most dramatic electoral swings in a modern western democracy, stay for what I hope is a solid and accessible crash-course in Ireland's peculiar political culture and electoral system. I think this is close to meeting the FA criteria but would appreciate a second opinion; I brought an article to FA status under a previous account, but that was nearly two decades ago(!) and in a completely different field. Many thanks!Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk)12:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take a deeper look when this gets nominated to FAC. For now, I'll leave some general comments that I'd expect to be addressed before nominating it to FAC.
The lede is of satisfactory length.
The "Leader since" and "Leader's seat" parameters should be sourced and mentioned in the article.
Explanatory notes should be sourced.
O'MalleyMcGraw2017 is unused. Suggest moving it to Further reading or removing it altogether.
The last two sentences in the Aftermath are unsourced.
Overall, the article is in a great shape and will be ready for FAC once these minor issues get fixed. I haven't read the prose but if there any issues with it, it could be quickly fixed at FAC.Vacant0(talk •contribs)14:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these! The O'Malley/McGraw shout is good, thanks – I will be going through it at the library tomorrow. I think the breadth of sourcing isn't quite 100% yet, so that's probably the main issue left to be resolved. I used "Election" as the heading because that's what's done in1957 Canadian federal election, one of the relatively small number of national election FAs. But I'm not wedded to it. Thanks again!Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk)07:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to work on taking this article to a good article status, but I am not particularly experienced with this process. Please inform me on any and all potential issues.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there are any mistakes/excess detail on the article or any info i missed abt the school. I want to make this a Good article someday so I need feedback from an uninvolved editor to see if I can improve
The article heavily relies on primary sourcing, mostly information put out by the school itself. The article probably needs more secondary sourcing for neutrality. Partly done(Note: Sources are being separated into secondary and primary sources in the reference list to determine the percentage of the article is based on primary sources; secondary sources are still being sought after)
The Governance section based on Elizabeth College's is well-written though the table could use a little work, adding a title for the table using "|+" would be better + it's sources to be cited on the title itself. Partly done(Note: Title added for table, sources remain in Notes section for better readability, please seePrincipals and their citations)
"A man living near the Primary campus claims a bus from the school crashed into his fence on September 2024. The school claims the bus incident was investigated and dealt with internally.", I don't entirely see how this is relevant to the school's history. Technically it happened but I don't think it's substantial enough to be worth a mention, it's more of a trivial fact. Done
Considering the College was founded quite recently in terms of a College, the History section looks alright though could probably use some more expanding. Done
References used in the article could use some work, proper formatting with enough information in the citation. Partly doneNote: In Progress
"Life Festival", this could probably be merged rather than be made into it's own section.Not doneNote: More research into Life Festival needs to be conducted prior to going forward with this suggestion, for example it has its own website[3], this source may also help:[4]
"According to Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority data:", this could probably be removed and instead be integrated into the first paragraph. Done
Hi there! This is the second time I have requested a peer review on Wikipedia. I am currently working on creating the first Vanier Cup page to become featured on Wikipedia. Hence, I want to get a peer review where I meet all expectations for FAC, so I can then apply for FAC around November 2025, to honour the game aforementioned. Any help towards this journey would be appreciated.
There's a citation needed tag in the game summary section that needs to be resolved. (add a source)
How is the logo CC BY 4.0? It seems fair use due to its complexity + I see that you've uploaded it yourself claiming ownership. This should be resolved.
In the CFL Draft section, the first letter is bolded which seems to be a mistake...
The scoring summary isn't really standard from what I know.. checked other articles such as2005 Sugar Bowl and they don't seem to include it.
The "further information" sections are quite redundant since they don't lead to any article, this should be removed.
"An estimated total of 30,191 people attended the game in person, second-most at the time, while surpassing approximately 600 thousand Canadian viewers watched the game on TSN television from the previous year.[2]", couldn't this be added to the body as well?
File:Lewis Orr (27th Vanier Cup).jpg doesn't really provide any substantial context, remove.
"and many estimated", quite broad. Could an example be provided to who estimated that?
My Reply to above - TBJ
Point #1: What sucks about that "citation needed" tag is that no source, not even newspapers.com, has a source for it other than its archived footage on YouTube.
Point #2: I created the logo based on apin I found on the internet.
Point #3: Fixed, thank you.
Point #4: Wouldn't a scoring summary help enhance the page a little bit though? I have a source that provides the play-by-play statistic.
Point #5: I would like to argue that I plan to the 1992 CIAU season page once I am on Winter Break so please leave that idea aside if that's alright with you.
Point #6: Applied, thank you.
Point #7: I replaced the Lewis Orr fair-use photo with a Rogers Centre picture
@TBJ10RH Whoops ofc! The footage could suffice... the logo based on the pin is still copyrighted even if you recreated it. All of the other comments seem good to meArconning (talk)13:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning Sweet! For the logo, should I place the copyright tag under fair use only for thepage? Also, is it even possible to correctly archive a YouTube video? Those are my only questions.TBJ (talk)17:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I made some suggested edits to the page in mysandbox. I'm not making the edits directly because I might have a slight conflict of interest in editing this article because I have taken a class taught by Prof. Powell. However, I believe the edits have made the article more informative, more readable, and better cited.Thanks,Tommyren (talk)17:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a paid contribution (and a translation from the French article that I also wrote). Even if I tried to respectWP:NPOV as much as possible, the text may not be perfectly neutral.
HeyJul.H, are you still interested in comments here, or can this be closed? If you are, you might want to reach out to some of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page for assistance. Let me know either way!—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)16:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TechnoSquirrel69, yes I'm still interested in a review. I'll reach out to some project members as you suggested, but I don't see many other options if it doesn't work. I'll let you know. Tank you!Jul.H (talk)17:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to get some feedback on what else I could possibly add that would be useful to a general reader. I have a *lot* of information that I could put into this article, but it's very scattered and I'd like to spend my time efficiently.
@Grumpylawnchair: One more ping; if you're still interested in reviews, you may want to ask editors on their talk pages if they'd be willing to provide comments, or reviewing other nominations and inviting the nominators here. You might also be interested in anFAC mentor, since it looks like this would be your first candidate. Let me know!—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)16:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a featured list. I've been editing here for a while, but nothing of this scope. I would like to know if anything is missing and what other changes would be necessary to nominate it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I grabbed most of the sources and material from both FAs and GAs, and used example of other featured lists to create the lead and tables. This is my first listicle I'm submitting to do so, and I would love a peer review. Thank you!
The Frank Sinatra article is a comprehensive and well-sourced biography of the legendary singer, actor, and cultural icon. I believe it meets many of the criteria for a Featured Article in terms of coverage, sourcing, and structure, and I would appreciate feedback from experienced editors on whether it is ready for nomination.Thanks,CrowbarCatalyst (talk)19:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
