Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.
Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for 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.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
Hello everyone. I would like to nominate this article for an FAC sometime in the distant future, and any feedback would be greatly appreciate. I would primarily inspired by the "Missing My Baby" article to work on an album track for the FAC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this articsdfcle for peer review because I work in the company here described but I'd like the article to be as unbiased as possible. Thanks, Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments form Captain Medusa
link Taipei in lead
It is owned by Portico Media Co., Ltd. -> why is there comma
"Lala’ -> add '
Name section needs more detail rather than a quote.
It is owned by Portico Media Co., Ltd. -> rm from the lead or put it on better place such as starting a sentence.
it has Screenshot tab but there isn't a screenshot
add the ref after full stop i.e. . to .
name sec could be merged into the History section
who is Jay Lin.
Its first expansion into the Asian market took place with the launch in the 10 countries that conform -> which??
GOL STUDIOS in capital
Availability section not sourced at all.
One year later, on May 13th, 2018, GagaOOLala was launched in Hong Kong and Macau -> On May 13th, 2018, GagaOOLala was launched in Hong Kong and Macau
In 2019, the streaming service -> provide the whole date
The company made the announcement together with a distribution tie-in with KASHISH Mumbai International Queer Film Festival -> better sentencing
exhibition Out in Taiwan. -> remove the ext link
It is the home for the filmography of international queer directors such as Simon Chung, Zero Chou, Scud, Marco Berger or Joselito Altarejos, and the distributor in Asia of international hit titles like Blue is the Warmest Color, Moonlight, Front Cover or Weekend. -> source
too many pictures, at least remove GOL STUDIOS logo
This article is about the album Open Here by Field Music. I believe it is comprehensive and I ultimately want to nominate it for FA. It has already passed as a GA, and I previously nominated it for FA, but it failed. I did not get much specific feedback during the FAC process except that the prose needed work, but even there I got little specifics except for a few items that I have already fixed. So I am hoping for a through peer preview here in anticipation of a future FA nomination. Thanks! — HunterKahn 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Generally speaking the inbox information should be cited in the body. There are currently three citations in the infobox for genres not mentioned in the musical styles and composition section; those should be incorporated and cited there and have the citations removed from the infobox or removed.
Remove the comma in the second sentence after chamber pop.
Remove the metacritic score mention in the lede. It's reliable but pure scores aren't normally mentioned there. In its place I'd add more detail on what exactly critics praised about the album. ToaNidhiki05 23:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to see it being improved and maybe becoming a featured article. I need help with a few things as I'm not a English native speaker. The Home media and Legacy sections need to be updated and maybe the plot section needs to be shortened. Aside from those things I think the article is pretty good.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created the article from a redirect and greatly expanded it. Would love some additional input on the article on how to improve it. Hoping to get this article up to GA status at some point.
I'm concerned about the usage of primary sources for details such as how the game works in the premise. It appears to be an improper use of sourcing per WP:PRIMARY.
Alongside that, I think these details if they can't be sourced to a secondary, independent reliable source, probably shouldn't be included. For example, this explanation of the differences in the logos: The logo was slightly modified to remove the water effects which were replaced by faint lights while the word "Celebrity" before "Big" with "Brother" underneath. The water effect that was used as a transition and appears around the HouseGuests was removed. This was replaced with a star being used as the transition and items related to the celebrities notoriety appeared around them.
I'm not really sure how the layout of the house (in the "Filming" section) is particularly germane.
As someone who isn't really familiar with Big Brother, I found the format/gameplay section a bit verbose and excessively detailed.
I think for GA quality there would need to be a bit more in terms of reception than what is there to be comprehensive enough; two critics isn't exactly a real sampling.
The prose overall could use a good copyedit to reach GA quality.
is a reality television spin-off series of the American adaptation of Big Brother created by John de Mol—it's unclear from this construction whether John de Mol created Big Brother or Big Brother: Celebrity Edition (or both.)
There's some issues with tense changes throughout that need to get cleaned up, e.g.:
Before the voting began the nominees have the chance to say a final message to their fellow HouseGuests on why they should stay. —should be begins instead of the tense change here,
An American version of Celebrity Big Brother has been speculated since 2002
Don Wollman and Clayton Halsey also reprises their roles—should be reprise
What is the Diary Room? It's just dropped in without introduction.
Along side these episode a companion show, Celebrity Big Brother: After Dark, provides live coverage from inside the House is shown on Pop should be Alongside these episode Pop shows live coverage from inside the House on Celebrity Big Brother: After Dark. or similar.
For a GAN you're going to have to explain how Hidden Remote, Reality Blurred, Programming Insider, TV Series Finale, and CinemaBlend are reliable sources; I'm not familiar with them.
Some of the URLs are archived, but I'd recommend archiving them all so that you can ward off WP:LINKROT and any future verifiability concerns.
Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I am going make this simple. I've listed this article for peer review because…
Ryzen article became too technical for most readers to understand each time a new information released for new Ryzen Processors that`s comes out.
Too much AMD fanboys being too excited and putting their "fans point of view" mixed inside the information in this article. This articles should be more focus on AMD Ryzen the article and not get upset over fan based changes are being removed.
Technical tag and Fan tag should been dated since 2017. Thanks, Regice2020 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: please note that this review has been added by a disruptive editor who even tried to have the article deleted with very similar BS reasons as given above. --Denniss (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The recent revert of a good faith edit from me by Denniss about tags was not properly reviewed. This "Peer Review" is not use to throw rocks at each other. Seeks improvement as stated in bullets and this been going on since 2017. Regice2020 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The goal is to fix page up and stop people from preventing users from doing so.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to renominate it for Featured Article status. Would very much appreciate an overall assessment, particularly on what would make the article itself fit for FA rating.
1. I wanna get reviews by other people for the content of this page. My aim is writing this article to be good enough so it can be a Good article. I wonder which information/things should I add/do more to elevate it to a Good article?
2. If this article is not qualified to be a Good article, then can it be A/B/C article level?
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to become a good article, but I don't know if it is good enough, what I should edit to see how it can become a good article, and if I should try to get a copy edit for it. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 07:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to attempt to get it to GA status from the C-Class status that it is currently at. I have had four successful GA nominations in the past (a small town, two films, and a book), but I do not know how to approach a video game article when it comes to getting it to that status. My interest in the subject comes from it being one of my favorite Nintendo 64 games.
I am not reviewing this, but I can give some quick advice from skimming it.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the Transfer Pak so important that it needs to be the first thing mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead? I'd move it towards the end.
Third paragraph of the gameplay section lacks a source entirely.
"Other Features" should not have its own sub-section.
Same goes for the "Mini-games" section. It should also be written in prose, not in this pseudo-list format it's currently going for. Also, I'm not sure every minigame has to be mentioned. Just a sample of three of them might be enough. Other people might disagree with me on this though.
Development section is sparse. Is there really nothing else that can be found about this game's development?
Reception section is also lacking. It's too short for one. But most notably: it overuses direct quotes. Direct quotes are fine, but not when used as the only method of relaying their opinion. Try to group similar opinions in your own words instead. You can check some other GA/FA game articles to see good examples.
The RPGamer and ELSPA links are dead.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi SL93 - you've got a favorite of mine, too, though I think I slightly prefer the second one because I was always such a fan of Pokémon Gold and Silver. While I don't have time to start a review this second, this is a declaration of my intent to give you some feedback within the next couple of days. Red Phoenixtalk 16:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
All right, here's what I've got for you:
For starters, you have the basic structure: Gameplay, Development, and Reception. That's perfect, as those are the notability-conferring sections.
On references, I don't think you have to worry about reliability with what you have, but you'll need to do some more research to hit the broadness criterion (see notes below). Since you have stated you're not sure how to approach a video game article, I'd recommend you check out WP:VG/S for some ideas of where you can look and what will and won't work.
Agree with Megaman en m above that surely there must be more about the development; this was a big name game for Nintendo. Right now it's more about the features of the game, not necessarily the actual development. For an idea of a good development section on a video game article, check out Out Run, which is a GA.
If you want to keep the "Sequel" section, expand it with some more info and make it at least a full paragraph. Otherwise, merge it into Reception, and make it sort of a "Reception and legacy" section.
Beware of WP:GAMECRUFT in this article. We don't need a list of Pokemon you can win at the end of the game. We don't need a list of every individual minigame in the game and how it's played. Focus on the real-world notability of the game in these section instead: what are the important aspects of the gameplay? Who developed it, and how was it received?
Make sure every statement is sourced, even in Gameplay.
Also agree with the Reception section needing more expansion, and there should be plenty of reviews so you don't need to use all the direct quotes.
Was the first game called Pokemon Stadium 2 in Japan? Seems unlikely; check your Notes section.
After you've done some research and expansion, the lead needs to be restructured to include something about all of the sections and facets. I'm sure you're familiar with it now, but MOS:LEAD is helpful.
Because there's expansion work to do, I won't nitpick the prose, but you're going to need a general copyedit of the whole article. There are little issues everywhere. It's not really ready until we get the expansion, but I will be willing to help when the article is expanded.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has expanded greatly since its creation in 2016 through the work of me and other editors; I would like some feedback on how to improve it further and move it towards GA status if possible.
I'd like a peer review on this so as to fix or clean up any glaring issues with the page, as I intend to hopefully get this to Good Article status once finished. This is the first time I've requested a peer review for a non-list, so apologies if I don't understand something. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Without any critical reception, I think the article will have a hard time reaching GA. I don't think it satisfied GA criteria 3.a. WP:GACR. I would think there should be some coverage on Japanese websites like 4gamer and Dengeki. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because... It's a new article and I want to make sure there are no issues with quality or formatting. Thanks, Rightooth (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it, copyedit and tell you what I think. Shouldn't take too long. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, like I said, that didn't take very long. It's sort of unusual to see such a short article listed here, but there's no minimum size required.
Basically I brought it up to code—all the proper styles, some cleanup of the prose, and most importantly we don't use ISO 8601 date formats in cites. I wondered if it could be expanded, but based on Google I didn't see much more we could use ... perhaps, given that Mr. Mabry is so involved in disrupting human trafficking, he is wise to keep a low online profile and keep so much personal information from prying eyes.
Good luck and happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Dhio270599 Hi Jeromi Mikhael, fellow +62 here. I'll probably give remarks on grammar and writing style:
"as the merger of the Christelijke Studenten Vereniging op Java, which is the organizations for Christian students in Java" --> the Vereniging is a single organization (as I've understood), thus making the erasing of the -s suffix behind "organization" necessary.
Organization names: Cipayung Group; Pancasila Front; World Student Christian Federation; Dutch Army: deserve their own wikilinks
Names like CL van Doorn, OE Engelen, JR Mott, and others deserve their own wikilinks
there should be explicit explanations for abbreviations like GMKI and NCSV on the text. Perhaps, like, "(Indonesian: Gerakan Mahasiswa Kristen Indonesia, abbreviated as GMKI)" and "was inspired by the Dutch Christian Student Association (Dutch: Nederlandse Christen Studenten Vereniging, abbreviated as NCSV)"
"which at that time still studying" --> "which at that time is still studying"
Nations (e.g. Indonesia), nationalities (e.g. Dutch), cities like Bandung, Bogor, Surabaya, and Jogjakarta, and other administrative places, such as Kebon Sirih, deserve their own wikilinks
"to held" --> "to hold" (to-Verb 1)
"highly nationalistic to Indonesia" ---> "highly nationalistic to Indonesia" (reducing redundancy)
"During this time, many people misinterpreted GMKI"
Ideologies, e.g. socialism, deserve their own wikilinks
Major historical events, like the G30S, deserve their own wikilinks
Do you think the first paragraph needs a source, since it is summarizing material that is already cited throughout the article? I'll fix reference "5". Thanks for the review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily needs one considering the nature of the article and that the information at the start is cited later on, but I can see the edit you made and I think for me, I prefer that. Naray14 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. Looking over the lead, I realized that the first paragraph was so short, it would be better to merge it with the next one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because even though I'm editing the article, I think it would be a great idea for this to be peer reviewed. I would like to know what are some more ways to improve this article. Thanks, WikiHelper26 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like a peer review for this article about a video game. I am bringing this article up to Wikipedia's standards, and having come this far, I have questions as to the quality of the article or one of its citations. First of all, you will see that a fair number of the references link to Facebook or Twitter, which are typically unreliable, and for your reference, the Facebook and Twitter references always cite (what I believe to be) the official accounts of Fingersoft. This can be proven by going to About and clicking on the company's URL, and then clicking on the social media icons to return to the same accounts. The main question here is about the Swedish source mobil.se, which I believe is a reliable source owned by South Square Publishing. It actually won a "Redo of the Year" magazine award in Sweden in 2014. However, I have not found much in the way of editorial standards or ethics on either of the websites of mobil.se or its publisher, so I need a second opinion on the source.
The other question that I have is about the Gameplay section. Thanks to the availability of the sources, I was able to write and verify other sections about the game, but unfortunately, little is talked about the gameplay. The prose in the other sections is concise and engaging (save for perhaps the Sequel section, but there is no reason to give it undue weight anyway for an article about the original), but I personally feel that this section could use either expansion with reliable sources or a rewrite. The prose here seems to hastily describe one feature after the other, resulting in an awkward flow. Note that the gameplay itself is simple, but it is not minimalistic as the section. Then again, the latter question is my own analysis of the section, but I would really like opinions on how to rewrite it if change needs to be made. I am already considering nominating this otherwise well-written article for GA, but if it turns out that the article is that excellent, I will probably consider making it an FA candidate instead. Gamingforfun365 09:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I started this with only a few details and I have been expanding it since. There are still a lot of news articles available online about the said local elections which could further improve content in this article but I want your feedback on its current content. Feel free to drop also your suggestions.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article ever since it was a little stub back in September 2018 and almost 600 edits and 40,000 bytes later, I want to advance the article to Good Article status. I just now want a few other editors' opinions over the content and layout of the article. Any advice would greatly be appreciated!
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in improving the quality of Victorian baseball articles and I'd like to get this article closer to being a good article. I'd really like comments and suggestions which would help close the gap to good article status.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have doubled the size of this page in the last week and am looking for input on its direction. I would like to see quality rating of the article improve hence my recent edits and peer review request. My major edits have been with sections: - Governance (added) - Georgraphy (added) - Landmarks (expanded) - Transport (added) - Culture and Community (expanded) - Sport (added)
Minor edits also to notable people. I have about double the number of references cited.
Hi. Had a look through your article, just a few comments.
Three of the references needs some maintenance - 3, 7 and 16.
Are there any notable public transport links such as buses or nearby train? Is there a major road accessible close by? (I'm probably thinking too big considering it's a village!).
Is there a reference you can find showing Dudley Savage was born there?
I see there are two pictures (drinking fountain and war memorial) that are not referenced in the body of the article. Could you perhaps add a 'Landmarks' section and have a brief description/history of those? Perhaps the war memorial is a listed structure with Historic England that could be cited?
That's just a few things I thought of, but I like the article in general, a good size and plenty of references considering it's a small village.
This is a Good Article that I think has the potential to meet the Featured article criteria; I am seeking peer review in preparation for that process. Especially helpful would be comments nit-picking the citations, prose and style, and identifying content that strays off topic. I can share sources on request. Thanks, Kim Post (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FA and I think this process will be useful before I do that. The article is about an important event in world history. Thanks, No Great Shaker (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I wish to state directly that the purpose of this review is for FA candidacy. I managed to get it into GA, but it was unable to pass into FA status. I was the main contributor to the article back in July of 2018, adding citations, expansion of sentences, etc. that you may view to see it for yourself, and sparked a prolonged improvement of the article by other fellow editors after its failed nomination. The main reasons of its failure were the lack of quotes on the understanding of the figure, lack of organization in the information, and just being incoherent in general. I believe that after an entire year of continuous editing by the same critics who opposed its FA candidacy, it might be ready for a renomination. However, the FAC admins wished for me to make a peer review before doing such a thing again, so I now look for advice on what this article might be missing at this time. Your ideas are greatly appreciated, and I will implement any that is stated. 20DKB03 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded greatly from the original stub to, I believe, the max extent possible given the information we have on Varro. All sections currently on the article are ones I've added and thus all need review. As this is my first mid-length article and the first I've submitted for review, all comments and contributions would be helpful to find out where this article stands now and whether it can be improved further. Many thanks, LarciusFlavus (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi LarciusFlavus. I have looked over Varro, and your three other Romans, and it looks like very good work. I have done some work on Roman consuls and generals myself. There is a lack of consensus on how they should be presented, so the following comments are mostly how I approach these things; others may do things slightly differently.
There are some statements uncited.
I use either the politician or officeholder infoboxes, they allow more information. A partially completed template is here.
Personally I would be wary of over using the primary sources. Ie see Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, where Plutarch, Suetonius, Cicero and Appian are each used once, but most of the article is referenced to secondary sources. (If you feel that the modern sources are all various interpretations of a single, or a limited number of, primary source(s) you might want to think about covering this in a separate section, as in Battle of Cape Ecnomus.)
A quick scan of a couple of sources I have to hand - Bagnall's The Punic Wars and Goldsworthy'sThe Fall of Carthage - suggest that there is quite a bit of further information on Varro in modern sources. I would be surprised if modern works dealing specifically with Cannae didn't have yet more.
Personally, as this is the English Wikipedia, I avoid foreign language expressions without a translation. I suspect that "Varro was a member of the plebeian gens Terentia" or "progressing through the stages of the cursus honorum, holding the quaestorship and both the plebeian and curule aedileships" are going to mean very little to the average reader. (For an example of how I have handled this sort of thing, see Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes#Early career.)
Cheers Gog the Mild, this is all really useful. I'll get to making those improvements both here and across my other edits. You've given me a lot of help here. LarciusFlavus (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Llywrch
I'm not as up on this period of Roman history as @P Aculeius:, but I have some thoughts.
Don't worry too much about the primary/secondary source issue. The reason we worry about primary/secondary sources is that too much use of primary sources leads us to interpret the facts & into original research, which we don't want to do. If you are stating facts (e.g., the Romans had 40,000 troops), & the secondary source is clearly citing the primary source, just go ahead & cite the primary source. (And sometimes we are faced with an instance where there just isn't any secondary source to use, & we must simply set forth the facts & hope it is enough.)
In the first paragraph of the section "Early years", you mention "Servius". We have an article on him, so why not link to it? It will help show he is a reliable source.
As for Cannae... Definitely mine the bibliography of Battle of Cannae for sources. For one thing, Gregory Daly in his Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War raises the theory Varro was made the scapegoat for the loss at Cannae. (Fun fact: there is evidence that Scipio, afterwards hero of Rome, was in the trapped pocket of Romans at Cannae & escaped, yet managed to avoid the punishment extracted on the other survivors of that Battle.) Two other books I found useful were Goldworthy's, but especially Robert O'Connell, The Ghosts of Cannae. O'Connell is a former instructor at the USN Academy, & he brings the eye of a soldier to the tale of Hannibal's campaign in Italy.
NB, studies have been done on when the consuls took office under the Roman Republic. Also, there is a date for the battle, which should be mentioned. See Battle of Cannae#Date. And I believe using these dates enrich the article by providing some more or less firm dates in Varro's life.
You should try to flesh out the detail about Varro's activities after Cannae. IIRC, he played a very important role in rallying Roman morale after that defeat, although Polybius & Livy eclipse his efforts by giving the credit to Scipio.
Hope you find these suggestions useful. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
y subscript e is used in the "Settlement" section repeatedly but is not explained. Personally, I would include a clause about Stratford's religious beliefs in the lede but that's a fairly minor point. Otherwise the article looks good. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
With what we have already, this article is fine. I couldn't spot any problems with the existing content. One thing I did encounter was the first sentence in the lead: "...native of the Tar Heel State of North Carolina." I am no American. I clicked on the link to Tar Heel State, which was just a redirect to North Carolina. I then had to read a bit to realize it was simply a nickname for North Carolina (if I am not mistaken). This got me a bit confused, so I think you should find a way to rephrase it so non-Tar Heelians will understand it. As for the article itself, I believe there is much more to tell about someone who wrote more than 600 articles and books, especially in America. The article says he wrote some books. What about them? What subjects did Powell deal with? What new fields of North Carolinian history did he research? What impact did his books have on the historiography of this state? Are there any debates on the history of North Carolina that Powell holds a specific view on? And talking about views, do we know something about his views, political or social? Did he have some interesting collaborations with other scholars, or made some big projects worth mentioning? Are there any interesting facts about Powel that have led you to expand this article? Some stuff the average reader would be interested to know? I hope I am not going too far here, and that most of these questions can be answered with the sources accessible to you. I made a simple search on the internet and found this page which shows clearly that there is a lot more to tell about this man.--Bolter21(talk to me) 17:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a good overview of his life, but I agree with Bolter21 that you're missing some of the substance of his work. For that you'll need new sources; the two ones you mainly have are not going to provide a full overview. For example, reading NCPedia I get the sense that his significance lies in the establishment of standard reference works: a gazetteer, a biographical dictionary, an encyclopedia. You are more likely to find such relevant information in scholarly book reviews or other comments by academics, rather than obituaries. Specific points:
Don't overload the lead sentence—it's not a resume. "historian, writer, academic, teacher" are similar roles that are captured by simply saying "historian." But if he was notable as a historian and a professional baseball player, you'd clearly want to say both of those things.
Avoid the obvious: It's not necessary to say the Philippines and Japan are "overseas".
Don't repeat yourself: You write "...before returning to North Carolina to take a job in Raleigh, North Carolina at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History." Doesn't it communicate exactly the same if I say "...before taking a job at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History in Raleigh"? The reader will infer that he moved to Raleigh to do his job, and that Raleigh must be in North Carolina; you would probably say so if this was unexpectedly not true.
Avoid fluff: "He made a major effort to expand the collection of historic documents about North Carolina and the people of North Carolina." That was his job as curator. What did he do specifically that is of note? Likewise, "He inspired others to contribute to the books that he edited" just describes the job of an editor.
The list of works loses some of the historical context, e.g. the latest Gazetteer is simply given as "2010" when it's more important that he started it in 1966.
So the path forward for this article is to expand on the facts, while actually reducing the existing prose to be more to the point. Kim Post (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. In fact, much of the original content was deleted during the discussion. Although the article has not been deleted, there are still some remaining concerns. Can this article be improved at all to match Wikipedia standards?
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to reach Featured Article status and be TFA for its 120th anniversary next year, as this is one of the most well-known historical hurricanes. The article recently failed an FAC nomination, primarily on the basis of lack of spotchecks, so that would be most helpful for this review. Apparently there may be other issues with the article as well. If possible, I would like the entire article to be examined.
After a fairly long hiatus away from the Bond books, we're back with a biggie. Not necessarily the best of the series, but certainly one where the writer's imagination was allowed to run a bit wild. Goldfinger is the seventh in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. A visit to FAC is the post-PR aim. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:
What are the stories about? What genre are they in?
Basic publication information is unclear. Both articles give publication dates for both the original Spanish and the translated English edition, but only one publisher and ISBN in the infobox. It should be clear what information pertains to what edition, and publisher and publication date should also appear in the body of the article.
Is there anything to be said about how the collections were put together? What links them? Is there anything to be said about the order of their arrangement?
A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read.
I spent the period from November to April typing the content of the magazine Cosmoglotta from 1927 to 1951, the main journal in which the planned language Occidental (Interlingue) was published. On the way I added to the Interlingue article whenever I came across information or an event that seemed notable and neutral enough to include in the article. Now I've started the process of cleanup and am considering what direction, if any, I should take the article. Or maybe it is large and complete enough already and just needs more cleanup.
The short introduction to the language is that it was created from 1894 to 1922 by a former Volapükist and then Esperantist from Estonia who eventually decided it was ready to publish that year because the League of Nations had announced it was looking into the subject of an international language. It quickly became popular, eventually become the second most used international language after Esperanto (as far as I can tell, and by second most that's a very, very far second place - no other language has come close to Esperanto's size) but then was hit with a perfect storm of negative events after WWII and many of its adherents joined Interlingua after it was released in 1951. Then it nearly died by the 1980s, and came back to life with the internet.
The typing of Cosmoglotta is now done but the content is still fresh in my mind so this seems like a good time for a peer review.
Conlanging is a topic which has fancied my interest recently. I might give this a look over some time over the weekend. Jerry (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I will get to this right now. A couple remarks from a quick read.
-Link #2 is dead, and #69 has an error.
-Lede succinctly describes the history of the community, though it may need more info on the inner workings of the grammar. The article is genuinely engaging though.
-Images all up to fair use policy standards.
-(The second lede image showing Edgar de Wahl is somewhat distracting, and something I don't usually see articles having. Also the History and Activity section is a bit image heavy but I don't think either of these are against Image use policy.)
"As a result, opinions of the IALA and its activities in the Occidental community began to improve and reports on its activities in Cosmoglotta became increasingly positive. After 1945 when the IALA announced it planned to create its own language and showed four possible versions under consideration, Occidentalists were by and large pleased that the IALA had decided to create a language so similar in appearance to Occidental, seeing it as a credible association that gave weight to their argument that an auxiliary language should proceed from study of natural languages instead of attempting to fit them into an artificial system. Ric Berger was particularly positive about the IALA's new language, calling it in 1948 "almost the same language", though not without reservations, doubting whether a project with such a similar outward appearance would be able to "suddenly cause prejudices [against planned languages] to fall and create unity among the partisans of international languages" and fearing that it might simply "disperse the partisans of the natural language with nothing to show for it" after Occidental had created "unity in the naturalistic school" for so long. "
This paragraph has a lot of run-on sentences which makes it harder to comprehend easily. The IALA section in general has this problem, though this is the most obvious paragraph.
"(a description perhaps better suited for former Occidental-Union president Alphonse Matejka who would not pass away until 1999, as Donald Gasper was a new learner of the language)."
-Needs a source.
-For double quotations, use a single quote like '
>Alphonse Matejka wrote in Cosmoglotta that de Wahl "always claimed a minimum of autonomy for his language and bitterly fought against all propositions that intended to augment the naturality of the language only by blindly imitating the Romance languages, or as de Wahl said crudely in one of his letters to me, 'by aping French or English'" per MOS:QWQ
That's it for now but I'll have more in the morning if possible. Jerry (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mithridates: Sorry for the delay, if you're still up for the review I can continue it. Just finish up some of the stuff I've mentioned so far in the PR. I'd also add that since I've last commented here, the site for link 6 has gone down. Jerry (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: Hi Jerry, thanks for the reminder. I'll start going through that now. Mithridates (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mithridates: Still have a couple of other problems with the article. Please go through that. Jerry (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FA. I worked on it mostly last year and managed to pass GA, now I'd like to improve it even further. I would particulary like feedback about which topics can be added or discussed further in the article to make it more comprehensive. He was a prolific author and scholars and a lot have been written about him. But most books/articles about him are very technical and written for specialists and might not be appropriate for Wikipedia which is aimed at the general audience. I'd like feedback especially from people familiar with the subject about appropriate areas of expansion, as well as recommendations for sources that explain those topics without requiring me to write pages of background to put them context. As for prose/MOS/copyedit, I'm sure there are many things to improve, but I'd like to deal with those later and I'd really appreciate if we could focus on improving thoroughness and comprehensiveness.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback for a potential run at FAC. In particular I'm looking for help at the last two paragraphs of the lead and the "Status as Wikipedia co-founder" section, in addition to any other issues you might find.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs to be more neutral and detailed. I appreciate others editing the article, but I also feel some of the edits are contentious, with my references to poor opinion polling and the Panorama investigation deleted. This article is already deemed controversial and would benefit from overview from those not fervently in support of (or against) Corbyn.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know which section may be improved on and which other topics could be added to this article to make it more informative. As well as raise the article's rating scale.
I've listed this article for peer review because this page is overly long and lots of talk page discussion has failed to find a way to shrink the length without compromising the content (or to find a way to split the article).
I've listed this article for peer review because as I think that I have already addressed the suggestions and ideas to improve the article in the Older peer review and I wish to nominate the article for Featured List Nomination.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had quite a substantial update with new references. The page (including the talk page) has had a tidy up, and it would be an ambition for it to be considered a "featured list".
I'm looking for comments on the list itself and anything else that needs adding, was wondering if a graph showing the history of expansions would be useful.
Never mind, it's possible that this discography, like hundreds or thousands of others (including those which I have worked on), violates WP:ACCESSIBLE. I'm going to try and request for more information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@3family6: Thanks for your criticism. Unfortunately I won’t be able to edit the article to comply with ACCESSIBLE until September begins. Philroc(c) 02:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. Ping me once you manage it. I'll also try and finish the discogs article given above so that it is in full compliance, and you can use that as an example.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer
Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harriastalk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit). Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.