Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because... this article got GA'd in 2017, but in 2023 and 2024 I did a lot of content changes and additions that have kinda reshaped the whole thing, bar maybe the reception (which I'm planning on redoing) and the composition section. I am planning on having this article re-reviewed in full for Good Article status due to the amount of changes made once I am finished. There are several things in need of discussion:
A lot of the 2023 edits sucked. Around that time I generally approached things in an overly passionate/potentially biased manner, and I've slowly attempted to weed out those issues since then or otherwise. A common problem or area I question a lot due to this is the "aftermath" section, which details the media reception to Kittie, its consequences/effects(??) and some retrospective praise. Whilst there are sources detailing Kittie's frustration I am unsure if I have presented things correctly or got things wrong. If there's a way to improve it or otherwise, do tell. Or if I'm making it a bigger deal than it's supposed to be.
Check for citation issues, typos, prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, and missing information and anything else.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how someone who hasn't played the game can improve it. Being promoted to a B-list article can do for me, but I'd like to see points on bringing it to A or above.
The sections Gameplay, Development, and Reception each contain 2-3 paragraphs, which I can't gauge whether it's comprehensive for a non-player. For the Plot, I reduced it to less than 700 words (691 words), so I wanted to see whether the plot is satisfactory.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
This article is already at Good Article status and I'm interested in promoting it to Featured Article status. Perhaps advice on what to focus on in the "themes and analysis" section would be most helpful; there's a lot in there but it feels unorganized.
Pinging Pagliaccious as they provided invaluable assistance in improving the article to Good Article status with their review; I would deeply appreciate any thoughts you have.
Hi Jaguarnik. I'd be happy to do a thorough peer review of the article, though I'll be busy until halfway through September. After that, I'll begin working on this. Pagliaccious (talk)21:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed a GAN, and I'm hoping to make it a FA. The sources included in the article and in the talk are all the reliable sources I can find, passing broadness.
Hi! I'm gonna be a little harsh about the article, but remember that this is all for its own good and that I'm not attacking you personally. First off, the block quote in the background section is not long enough to be blocked off. I also don't think the recording process section needs to be its own section; you can just rename the section to background and production and remove the header.
Second off, you do not need all those sections for those separate tracks when you only have one or two sentences worth of content. For example of when to actually separate a section like this, Melodrama (Lorde album) has it divided into tracks 1-5 and tracks 6-11; this is also probably because the music and lyrics section is too long for an individual overview of the tracks to be fit. I'm also not a fan of how the track sections formatted; it's all Whoever described "Whatever" as "however".
You can merge the political context section and the first section of tracks into a "music and themes" section, and then organize a track overview into a subsection of that. Also move that "The album features the rock, blues, and assouf genres." to that hypothetical music and themes section. I also think you'd benefit from a copyeditor; not because your writing is grammatically incorrect, but because the overall structure needs improving. Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs improvement. I have tried, but with a lack of sources but Van Doren's own, I need help not just editing this but with everything. I want it to be at least good or featured
@Wcamp9: Peer review is a place where editors can get comments on how to improve the article. It very rarely results in someone new editing the article directly. If looking for more sources, I would suggest looking at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org or databases accessed through your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not been reviewed properly in a number of years, and I would like to eventually promote this to FA status. It is currently a GA and has been since 2013. Its most recent FA nomination in 2021 closed without attention or support, and the 2018 peer review went unnoticed. I've spent the past few months improving this article in every way I can think of, so further input would be appreciated!
I have some scattered thoughts, but as a whole I don't think anything is wrong with the article. I am unfamiliar with anything regarding animation so forgive any potential ignorance.
Production section in general: Some of these paragraphs could be separated into a "style" section, and I think some things could be made clearer if there was a section noting the art/animation direction the show had. For example, "stylistic similarities" between this and The Powerpuff Girls would be easier to explain (e.g. "they had a stylistic similarities, such as [xyz lines, colors, etc.]."
Are there any sources describing how voice acting talent was cast? I know that articles on live-action movies and shows tend to describe the casting, but I am unsure if that is the practice for animation articles.
Controversial episodes: was "Barbequor" removed for any particular reason? Additionally, what does "after broadcast" mean? Was it removed right after or did it take a while?
No official reason has been given that I know of. Rumors suggest it was due to a stereotypical depiction of a homosexual male character, but that is unconfirmed. It was pulled from rotation a short while after its initial airing, but I'm not exactly sure when it happened. I rewrote the sentence to better explain this. — Paper LuigiT • C03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy: The two sentences at the end of the section are interesting - they may be worth expanding into a paragraph or section regarding academic study of the show, sort of like how Frozen II has a thing on "analysis". It wouldn't be necessary, though; if it clogs up the article then don't do it.
Clogging the article is how I would describe it. I could expand, but I wouldn't know where to draw the line. Scholarly studies are full of nuance and statistics, and it would be tempting to add too much. I imagine those interested could click through the linked sources to satisfy their curiosity. — Paper LuigiT • C03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotions/Toys: These sections are related (they both involve stuff like licensing and some promotions involve toys in and of themselves) and short enough to contemplate merging into one, unless there is more substantive material that can be found.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to eventually turn it into a featured article. Tulsa King is a fantastic crime and comedy drama starring the one and only Sylvester Stallone. Just this year I have expanded it from basically a stub and turned it into a well fleshed out good article. I nominated it for FA shortly after, but it was quickly closed and suggested that it go through GOCE and PR. The copy edit was just recently performed, so I'm hoping to work out any other issues in this review before I send it back to FAC.
Henry Clay Work was the leading American songwriter of popular music from the 1860s to 1870s. He was one of the Union's preeminent bards in the Civil War whose inspiring songs rallied support for the nation and spurred patriots to quell the rebellion. His impressive catalog includes minstrel songs and seriocomedies such as "Kingdom Coming," "Grafted Into the Army" and the most successful composition of the North, "Marching Through Georgia." Work also played a part in the inception of the postbellum temperance movement cautioning against the intoxication of drink. To top it all off, he penned one of the most recognizable American folk songs, "My Grandfather's Clock." Work died lonely and forgotten, his popularity garnered throughout the Civil War having all but faded away in a matter of years. To this day, almost no one recognizes his name, a grievous disservice to a man who a man who contributed so much to the States' music tradition. I think an uninformed populace deserves a decent source of information on him, hopefully a featured article. I am open to all constructive criticism and advice, especially with regards to language and comprehensibility, not as a moral prerogative, but to do American musical history justice.
This preamble to the PR is too long. Provide a short description of the article, as this will be good practice for the FAC. Please also note that Wikipedia is an international website, and not everyone here is American: statements like "to vindicate Henry Work's valiant service to our nation" is unlikely to encourage non-American reviewers.
The lede is too long. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The block quote is not necessary in the lede.
The article uses too many quotes and block quotes. Instead, articles should summarise what sources have said about the lyrics. Lyrics only need to be in the article if absolutely necessary, and I do not think that is the case from every instance I can see in the article.
Yes @Z1720, it very much helps; in fact, your comments reflect the doubts I had on the article. I will keep all your suggestions in mind and effect them soon. I am eager to collaborate further :) DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All issues brought up should be fixed. However, I am not so confident on the removal of non-neutral language; some must have remained unnoticed, so should any be noticed, don't hesitate to address it. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about SB19's second extended play, Pagtatag!, which they released last year in June. It included the single, "Gento", which is a featured article. I have taken Pagtatag! to FAC recently but was archived due to multiple prose issues and decided to take this to a peer review before nominating it again for FAC. I believe I have addressed the issues raised in the previous FAC nomination and I hope to see more suggestions to improve the article before taking it to another FAC, which I hope will get the article promoted successfully soon. I thank the reviewers in advance for their efforts in this review. – Relayed (t • c) 12:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging Aoba47 and PerfectSoundWhatever for their involvement in the article's previous FAC nomination. Please take a look if I have addressed your comments to your liking. Below are the comments that were not applied in the article, with respective comments.
Unfortunately, the Philippines does not have album charts. The EP also did not enter any international charts, so the chart box is not included in the article.
Same here, local publications do not do album "ratings", nor international publications cover a review of the EP with a rating, so the template is excluded.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in working on an FAC attempt for this. I took this article to GA status in Nov 2022, which involved basically rewriting the entire article, so I can handle any changes/edits from minor to major.
Brief comment: The lacking features subsection in development belongs to Reception, comment on fan expectations here and not development plans. IgelRM (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'll try what I can to bring up all of the article's possible issues. At first glance, there are still some issues with citations. (Also, can you review my FAC if you're able to? =) )
You need to link all the publications/websites that has article
You need to add mission authors from other citations that are missing
Remove ScreenRant and TheGamer sources since they are low quality
Remove ABC news, such a poor quality upon checking it.
Why is The Independent written like "Indy100"?
Citation 21, Engadget isn't italicized
I feel like the reception needs to be expanded. This is just my thought.
The usage of CNET is quite concerning. FAC reviewers hate that source since it's not a good quality source for most people, unfortunately. So omitting causes a lot of work (but it is required).
This is just a partial review. I really think this article needs a lot of work and I'm also aware that this is very hard to do. Best of luck! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Will work on the citations as best as I can, going through all of them does require a lot of effort. Will also try to work on the "Reception" section where possible, reviews at the time of the game's launch address the same few issues (that are already listed), and later reviews of the game (post-2014) are about the DLC packs rather than the base game. Theknine2 (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article when it was the subject of an AfD for a supposed lack of notability, as well as being badly written. As I am Brazilian and would be able to read the Portuguese-language sources, I took it as a fun exercise to try to bring this article about a forgotten former child star up to Wikipedia standards, adding sources, formatting and copy-editing. I now believe it qualifies for C or B-class status, but would like your feedback as to what is appropriate and what could be improved upon (or whether it even meets the criteria for either of these).
hello, cvdx. congratulations on saving this article from getting afd’d. personally, i feel that this article can reach c class, not sure about b tho. i feel that the article definitely improved from its initial state. if you want to, you can jump straight into nominating it for ga status. but if you fell like this article has a long way to go, try to find as many sources as possible (if you are not sure what is reliable or not, this should help a bit, but it is best to use wp:rspbrachy08(chat here lol)05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, LunaEclipse! Thanks for your comments—I've removed Ty Burr's blog and any Valnet-owned sources. I'll try and review DJ Kool Herc by the end of next week. Again, thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pamzeis! This will be my first contribution to a PR; delighted to be reviewing your article! Some things I'm noticing below:
Her mother attempted to distract her with activities... — The meaning is obvious, but would benefit from adding the word "other" before "activities"; there's a subtle implication that acting does not fall under "activities" with this wording.
Done
...adding that her family "keep [her] feet on the ground". — Should be "keep[s]", if I'm not mistaken; in American English the word "family" is treated as a single unit. A bit of a pedantic point, but the article is tagged American English, and my American brain clocked it as a bit strange.
Done
Otherwise, it's very well-written as it stands. Well done!
Thanks!
Images look good as far as Creative Commons licensing goes (the one in the main infobox is of exceptional quality for a YouTube screenshot - I wish I could find good screengrabs like that more often). The audio clip of her voice LGTM too.
Thank you for providing alt text for the images :)
MOS:LEADLENGTH feels a bit short given the 3000+ word count – you could likely expound a little bit more on her other ventures and her artistry within reason, I understand you've gone over most of her career highlights in the lead already
Hi, Joeyquism! A belated welcome to PR! Hope you decide to stick around. Apologies for not responding earlier; I have not been the most active on wiki lately. I will try to resolve your comment on the lead (though writing leads are definitely not my strong point), but I may rework some sections of the article before I do so. Thanks for the comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia:Peer review/Review closure policy had been incorrectly closed due to a misinterpretation of the inactive discussion rules. An inactive discussion, is one in which a review has begun and received some feedback and the subsequent discourse has become inactive. It is not a review with no feedback. There is a separate set of rules regarding limits for articles hoping for feedback. WP:PR has a noticeboard for reviews that have had no feedback for a long time (well over a month).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the article is long and detailed, but that probably means there is a lot to improve. I'd rather wait another 7 months than go to FAC. Ping me in another 7 months if it still has not been reviewed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get comments. Also, it has been difficult for some PRs to get feedback, especially ones that are to go to FAC or are as long as this article. I am also aware of the fact that this PR should have closed when it was nominated for GAN a couple months ago, per the instructions, step 4. If you want to keep this open, I suggest that you post a request on the Wikiprojects attached to this article to see if anyone would like to leave feedback. Bringing it to FAC might also generate feedback on how to improve the article, even if it is unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can get em. I'm not that active during my busy season, so I might as well sit on this. I checked out a bunch of books on the subject from the Chicago Public Library and have now renewed them for the 15th and final time (due August 27). Still hoping for feedback while I still have all the sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting feedback prior to a Featured Article nomination. In particular, any comments on technical aspects from an average reader would be useful to prevent it from being too dry and technical. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen for any suggestions for improvement. I would also like the page to be indexed on search engines to encourage contributions by the broader wikipedia community.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think it does a good job of being accessible to non-technical readers; as someone not particularly familiar with physics or chemistry, I felt it was a pretty easy read. A few suggestions for improvement:
The final few sentences of the lead section (about the suitability of thorium-229m) are confusing in isolation; the lead doesn't make it clear why energy or laser excitation are relevant. The following section expands on this, but in general, lead sections should stand on their own.
There seem to be several violations of WP:EDITORIAL throughout the article. I fixed one of these myself, but many of them I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to elegantly rephrase the sentences. Some examples: "it is also intriguing", "it is evident", and "fortunately".
The end of the ionization section mentions "the loss is tolerable", which left me wondering what "tolerable" means in this context and should probably be expanded on.
I'm looking to get a peer review for this page as a high-importance article for WP:WikiProject Geocaching. We're looking to try and improve the article to GA status, and I'd like some suggestions on how we can improve it. I am aware of the lack of sources in some places, so I don't really need that information.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for feedback before nominating the article for WP:FAC. I'm open to getting any feedback on how to improve the article, particularly the prose. Thanks, Vacant0(talk • contribs)10:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much bringing one of the most nostalgic video games to GA (but i don't remember ever making it to the end [if there even is one])! hope we'll see this on the main page soon!
lead
Smash Hit received positive reviews, with reviewers praising its... i'd make this "Smash Hit received positive reviews; critics praised its.."
gameplay
Smash Hit uses 3D graphics and has also been categorised as an action and puzzle game. remove "also"
After its release, Smash Hit had different game modes introduced remove "introduced"
The game does not count the player's score but rather counts the distance covered. ==> "The game does not count the player's score but the distance covered."
development and release
No problems here
reception
described the glass shattering mechanic as add a hyphen between "glass" and "shattering"
Trevor Sheridan of AppleNApps said that the game stands by its name, but he underlined the game's difficulty when moving through narrow spaces; Pocket Gamer also named Smash Hit as one of the hardest mobile video games. i'd split this into two sentences, into AppleNApps' review and Pocket Gamer's
for Independent Games Festival's 2015 Main add "the" before "Independent"
"or slowing down the time" - slowing down the time for what?
"Gustafsson and Johansson began developing the game in 2012, while Holmquist joined the team in January 2013" - since you just had "while" above, suggest changing to "and"
"The game's physics were praised by reviewers" sounds a bit funny to me. checking the applenapps review it talks about how "the physics engine is even better with the way everything reacts to your interaction" and "Ultra realistic physics". would it be overkill to link to Physics engine?
"In the game, the player takes a first-person perspective and has to shoot metal balls to destroy glass obstacles and beat its 11 levels." - suggest something like "In the game, the player takes a first-person perspective, shooting metal balls in order to destroy glass obstacles and beat 11 levels."
overall i found the prose pretty good, but a bit stop-start, which could be resolved by running sentences together eg as one example - "Harry Slater of Pocket Gamer saw the game as entertaining, but said that it contains "moments that'll make you curse".[11] According to Alex Beech of AppSpy, the checkpoint system ultimately undermined the endless mode scoreboard idea.[23]" > "Harry Slater of Pocket Gamer saw the game as entertaining, but said that it contains "moments that'll make you curse"; according to Alex Beech of AppSpy, the checkpoint system ultimately undermined the endless mode scoreboard idea.[11][23]". Also there's quite a lot of direct quotations. Good luck with it! Mujinga (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this page to GA status soon. In addition to the standard stuff for peer reviews I want to know if there are any missing sections that are needed for an article about a geographical region. I also want to know how can I expand the Lede section of this article.
Thanks, Abo Yemen✉09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SouthParkFan65, I'm not an expert on this topic but I can give you some general comments. I would suggest to try to bring the article to GA status before attempting FA, especially for editors who don't have much experience with either process. Articles on big topics, like this one, are more difficult to promote and get more scrutiny. For an easier start, you could also try to get some experience with a smaller article first before trying this one.
There are many unreferenced paragraphs in the body of the article, like the ones starting with "Another possible source is the Spanish word", "Yet another account, endorsed as the", and "French Canadians, Scots, Métis, and other continental natives". According to GA criterion 2b, these passages require inline citations "no later than the end of the paragraph".
built-in 1825 by the district's chief factor, should this be "built in" rather than "built-in"?
The majority of Oregon's population predominantly of white (European) ancestry and are American-born. there is something wrong with this sentence. Should it be "... is predominantly of ... and is American-born"?
There are also small population of should this be "...small populations..."?
While the history of the wine production in Oregon remove "the" before "wine"
which represents growth of 12% add "a" before "growth"
led to establishment of the so-called Silicon Forest add "the" before "establishment"
The State of Oregon also allows transit district should this be "transit districts"?
I've listed this article for peer review because... it was suggested in the GA review that this may be a future FAC. I've never written a featured article before, but I wanted feedback on the article geared towards that to see if it's within reach or not. I'm pretty familiar with GAN but don't know a ton about FAC.
I don't normally do these reviews, so may have the formatting wrong, but I was specifically invited. Although I have made 83 edits to the page, most were grammar/unsourced/Indic script edits. so have I limited my comments to such matters, as I know relatively little about Eluru, so do not know whether the content is fair and balanced. I have changed some spellings (center, neighbor) as WP:ENGVAR there are probably more. I corrected 2 references, to refer to the actual sources, and removed references citing IMDB (not a reliable source as WP:IMDB) and Banglapedia. There are also a number of WP:RAJ sources, which are generally not considered reliable. The notable people section needs clarifying; if you want to use a table, (which seems unnecessary to me), it should be in order of LAST name, be sortable, and not largely repeat the prose section immediately above it. It also includes the hidden text "Omit any entries lacking proper references." which was not being followed, even before I deleted the IMDB references. There are multiple repeated wikilinks WP:OVERLINKING and some misused bold. Good luck - Arjayay (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjayay Hello, Thanks for the inputs, I’ve addressed the over-linking issue and reformatted the notable people section to include only those with Wikipedia articles. I.Mahesh (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a good deal of effort into it and would appreciate commentary on how to make it accessible to a wide audience, which Celtic Studies is historically lacking, making it subject to all sorts of pseudo historical writing in the public field.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status. Over the past few months I redid most of the citations and greatly expanded the article and I want to get a second pair of eyes on it. I'm also trying to track down a pair of citations (discussed in the talk page).
It's been a while since this article's last Good Article Nomination, and it has expanded considerably since then. I don't see any obvious issues at first glance, other than the History.com ref, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on this.
I consider peer review of this article important, since Encyclopedia Britannicastill hasn't covered possibly the worst post-Cold War mass genocide, happening in 1994 with 500K-1M dead (though to be fair, they were busy going broke competing with Microsoft Encarta).⸺(Random)staplers22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for Kronosaurus to be formally diagnosed using a proposed neotype specimen, I have decided to considerably expand the article. The use of the 2009 McHenry's thesis was very useful to me. I set myself the objective of proposing this article for proofreading so that it reaches the GA level, given that it is a fairly emblematic taxon of pliosaurs. If a redescription is published later, I could possibly upgrade it to FA level.
I suggest taking an article to WP:GA first before nominating it for FA, as a reviewer will give some helpful advice on how to improve the article. After reviewing this article, I do not see any major concerns and suggest that this be nominated at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and sorry for the delay Z1720. I do not intend to first propose the article to the GA because at the moment no neotype has been formally designated. However, the aim of an FA article is to treat the subject in its entirety. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GAN soon. I have worked extensively on plant species articles, but this is my first on a broader topic in the field. I would appreciate input on broadness, readability, and general manual of style. I do intend to eventually go for FAC with it, so anything beyond GA criteria is also more than welcome. Happy to peer review an article of yours in exchange! Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead could be expanded. Ensure all major aspects of the article (anything that has a heading) is included in the lede.
I've expanded the lead and split in into two paragraphs
"Thanos, Costas; Fournaraki, Christini; Georghiou, Kyriacos; et al. (2013)" is listed in the bibliography but is not used as an inline citation.
Thanks for the catch, that was an article within a larger book that is used which I forgot to remove as its own reference.
Ensure that all available sources have been consulted. Additional sources can be found at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY or your local library system.
While there are additional sources that could be used, most of these consist mostly of exhaustive accounts of individual micro-reserves that are not appropriate for an overview article. I've picked the sources in the article for their breadth of coverage which gives a good summary of the topic.
Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is the only non-Bond novel that Ian Fleming wrote. He did so shortly after suffering a heart attack and while he was supposed to be convalescing. Although he planned to release a story a year, he never saw this first one published, dying two months before it hit the shops. This has been through a bit of a rewrite recently and a trip to FAC is envisioned. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"While recuperating, one of Fleming's friends—probably Sir George Duff-Sutherland-Dunbar, according to Fleming's biographer Andrew Lycett—gave him a copy ..." – It was Fleming, not the friend, who was recuperating. You want something on the lines of "While Fleming was recuperating, one of his friends—probably Sir George Duff-Sutherland-Dunbar, according to Fleming's biographer Andrew Lycett—gave him a copy ..."
"the strain of writing new Bond novel was too much for him, so he asked for a pen" – missing an indefinite article and you know my views on strong-arming "so" to serve as a conjunction in formal English.
"completed preliminary drawings for the project, the The Daily Mail refused" – duplicate definite article.
"He produced some trial sketches, but Fleming rejected these" – perhaps a simple "them" rather than "these"?
"The New York Times's list of best selling children's books" – needs a hyphen, and if we're avoiding theoretical ambiguity I'd make this "best-selling books for children".
Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang was serialised in The Daily Express - It should be "the Daily Express", as in other instances throughout the article.
By March 1961 the author Ian Fleming had published nine books at the rate of one a year: eight novels and a collection of short stories. - Can it be stated that they are all about James Bond?
but may also have been inspired by early aeronautical engineer Letitia Chitty - Why "also"?
An obscene song from the First World War song
10s. in the text but then 10s in the note. Which one is correct?
Since its initial publication the book has been re-issued in hardback and paperback editions and has never been out of print - Maybe "and, as of 2024, has never been out of print"?
considered that the first two volumes of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang, "would make - No need for the comma.
The unnamed reviewer for The Birmingham Post through
Both Oscar Turnill, writing for The Sunday Times and Townsend - A comma is missing after "The Sunday Times".
The author Richard Usborne, reviewing for The Daily Telegraph also reviewed - A comma is missing after "The Daily Telegraph'". It would also be better to avoid the repetition of reviewing and reviewed.
I want to take this thing up to FAC one of these days; but it's in a somewhat tricky position. Academic sources *exclusively* take one side of the debate here, and I'm unsure how that jives with the comprehensive coverage of the subject that the FA criteria demand. I'd like it if anyone who has experience taking controversial (esp. controversial cultural issue) articles to FAC can take a look at it, and to see what else I can do to make this article shine! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit of deep searching and came up upon a few more sources. Were there any reasons they weren't included (e.g. didn't provide anything new, quality concerns etc.)?
Although, I'm not quite sure the existing sources or these sources could necessarily pass the "high-quality" bar of FACR. I haven't been able to take a closer look, but it seems a majority of the references appear to be primary sources which would really limit what you could take away from them. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources? In the article, the sources are journal articles plus an academically published book and a dissertation; the sources you linked here are dissertations and another journal article. These are secondary sources: The book and the journal article are secondary sources.. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples given there are secondary sources, but that's in part because they were written 150 years and 198 years after the proclamation, which gives them the historical distance to be a secondary source. Peer-reviewed academic books, journals, dissertations, etc. are reliable sources, but they are not necessarily secondary sources.
Morimoto (2020) is a transcript of a panel discussion (the equivalent of an interview) and would be defined as primary sourcing by policy. The content Fazekas (2022) provides about the nature of fan communities is ethnographical in nature, which is likely primary, but could depend on the specific claims being cited. Urbańczyk (2022) seems to be mostly secondary, although, of course, the specific Bourdieu-based observations are not. Abirime (2022) is partly secondary, but the claims are based on observational data are not.
That's not to say the articles are necessarily being used incorrectly—we don't ban primary sources from being used in articles and research papers can be both primary and secondary, depending on the claim being sourced.[1] I just think the number of primary sources warrants a second look over the specific claims being cited to them, that's all. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, what specific rule are you following when deciding to use Sfn or or in-line citations? I assumed at first it would be articles cited only once, or something like that, to save space, but that doesn't seem to be the case. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article some time ago, and I have been considering nominating it for a while now. However, I've never had the courage or patience to do so, mainly because I've never been involved in this kind of process before.
I'm opening this peer review request specifically to gain a second perspective on what might be improved in the article—if there's anything that needs improvement, which is likely the case, as I'm certainly not an all-knowing being. It's possible that I may have overlooked a detail or two regarding the subject of this article.
I believe much has already been done. For example, the manuscript images, which I believe were previously unpublished, were found after extensive searching on Gallica. To give you an idea, some English academics working on a similar manuscript were still searching for this one on Twitter in 2021. Additionally, the information has been compiled, mostly from the works of Rodrigues and Dalby & Hair, which were previously scattered across the internet. I was also able to contextualize and add a brief history of other vocabularies that preceded this one. At the end, there is a brief analysis of the vocabulary's content.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it as much as possible. I recently created this article, and I'd like outside feedback. Comments about formatting, content, or general editing are welcome. Hoping to bring this up to good article status at some point in the future.
My first from-scratch list article of this scale. Would like to continue to update it as new data becomes available, and maybe get it to featured list (FLC) quality. I'm sure there are some formatting tips I'm missing, so ideas for improvement there or anywhere else very welcome.
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been GA-level for years and has degraded over time. It was recently delisted despite being nearly completely rewritten, cited, and checked. A peer review can help identify any remaining problems before the article is again submitted for GAN. Thanks! Sirberus (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created it and I want to see how it could be improved to be more clear, concise and understandable to a general audience.
I guess my first recommendation is to be fanatical about finding high-quality sources (because your reviewers at FAC will be). Some of the sources you use are not WP:INDEPENDENT; Holy See Press Office, Vatican News, Aleteia. That doesn't make them impossible to use, but the more you can avoid them, the better off you'll be.
Double-check that the licensing on all your images is OK. For example, I looked at File:Vatican World Taekwondo Demonstration Team.png. It says "Unknown author"; that might not go over well. More importantly, it's a video which was hosted on YouTube, but is no longer available. There's an archive.org link, but when I try to view it, I just get the same "This video isn't available anymore" screen, so it's basically unverifiable.
I took at closer look at the statements cited to Townend 1958. You say The first sporting facility built in what is now Vatican City was the first-century chariot-racing track of the Circus of Nero I don't see where the source says this, nor where it says "The circus itself was constructed on Vatican hill". I'm also unsure how this source should be interpreted vis-a-vis WP:HQRS. It appears to be a book review, and much of it is expressing opinions about how the reviewed book (The Shrine of St. Peter) is incorrect in places where it, in turn, points out errors in a "official Vatican report". This seems like a bit of a long chain.
I'm not sure if Vanysacker 2015 ranks as a WP:HQRS. It's a Catholic theologian writing about the Catholic Church, in a journal which is (according to The Catholic Historical Review) "the official organ of the American Catholic Historical Association". I can't find anything in WP:RSN about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if reviewers at WP:FAC questioned its independence, especially when it's used to back up subjective statements like "The Vatican held positive opinions towards sports as a way of expressing Catholic spirituality and principles".
Vatican plans to form National Olympic Committee and march at Paris 2024 Opening Ceremony That's history now, so this should be rephrased accordingly.
The Vatican supplied two athletes to symbolically compete avoid the split infinitive.
children who have autism and Down syndrome it seems odd that you capitalize Down syndrome but not autism. I would think either both or neither, but if you've got something which back that up as accepted style for each, that's fine.
I'm opening a new peer review for this article after the last one failed to get any response. I'm hoping to bring this article to FAC, but it's a big topic and more feedback would be helpful. I'm especially interested in comprehensiveness, but as always, any feedback is appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see a high quality article on this important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:
The 'Formation process' section is dismissive of the role of political ideology in military coups and dictatorships, implying that this is a pretext. I don't think that this is correct, as there are a number of examples of where the military see themselves as having the right to overthrow the government and rule if political parties adopt non-military related policies they don't approve of - Turkey and Pakistan are examples of where the military has historically seen itself as being the guardian of the constitution (as defined by the military high command).
The 'Factors' section is a bit hard to follow
It would be good to discuss somewhere the role of indoctrination and political ideologies within the military in forming and sustaining military dictatorships. For instance, extremely few officers in modern western militaries would ever consider it appropriate to overthrow the government and if they took any steps to do this their comrades would either stop them or the rank and file soldiers would refuse to follow orders. This is due to the way in which officers are trained, as well as the strength of other political institutions.
The role of training in ending military dictatorships could also be noted - some sources argue that sending officers overseas for training where they were indoctrinated about the importance of civilian rule contributed to the downfall of military dictatorships in Europe in particular during the 1970s and 1980s.
I'd suggest expanding a bit on the situation where the military shares power with the civilian government as part of a democratisation process and the tensions this results in - Myanmar is a good example.
Likewise, I'd suggest covering the situation where while the country is led by non-democratic civilian regime the the military is a significant political player in supporting it - Zimbabwe is an example.
The 'use of force' section should note that the extent to which military dictatorships use repressive and violent tactics domestically varies. For instance, the Cold War era military regime in Brazil was much less likely to kill its opponents than those in Argentina and Chile.
The 'South Asia' section is under-developed and should discuss the role the Army sees for itself in Pakistan.
You could possibly more explicitly flesh out the material on the self-defeating nature of military dictatorships for the military in many countries, where political instability, slow economic growth and a lack of international support undermine funding for the military and its prestige over time, especially in relation to the external opponents the military is meant to be countering. Pakistan and Thailand are good examples. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to say that I've seen this, I just want to wait a bit to see if there's other feedback or additional considerations that touch on the same areas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to make it a featured list, but I'm not sure what else I need to do besides adding more prose and background, as the list itself is essentially complete.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in bringing this article to FL status. This is also my first every list article so I'm sorry for any rookie mistakes made. I wasn't sure whether to list this under lists or natural science but went with lists. To be upfront some areas that I struggle with are prose, close paraphrasing (however I was VERY careful with this article and doubt this will be an issues here, in the past I have struggled with writing medical content in a way that is not closely paraphrased but also doesn't lose its meaning. I have since improved), writing in an over technical tone, and spelling. I am open to any suggestions. Images have been a bit of a struggle for this article but I will do some more digging. I also posted on the medical wikiproject for some input (see this post for that). Another thing that is really important for me, especially with this article, is making sure that people can understand the terms I use.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
^Be aware that [research articles and review articles] can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources. (WP:NOR)