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 the article is currently underdeveloped and would benefit from expanded prose that provides greater context about the song’s background, writing, and production.
@SpongeBobMusicFan123: PR is for getting suggestions on how to improve the article. Your statement gives excellent guidance on where to start making improvements. I suggest expanding those sections first, then open a new PR if you want additional feedback on how to improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to take this article to GAN. While I don't normally bother with peer review, I confess that I am overly familiar with this subject matter. As some of the content of this article is a bit abstract or perhaps arcane, I believe that the quality of this article could be much improved with feedback from an uninvolved party. I should be most happy to receive any commentary that one is willing to provide. Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎04:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Comments after a quick skim: I think this article is ready for a GAN. I suggest splitting up some of the larger paragraphs: usually I recommend 4-6 sentences per paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I of course intend to take the article to GAN, but if you have any other commentary, I should be glad to hear it. Any gaps that you'd like filled, anything incomprehensible? I shall take a look at sorting the paragraphs. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎11:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meganenohito: I added some citation needed tags to the article, which should be resolved before a GAN. Some of the sources might be challenged, like YouTube and IMDB. Ensure that they are needed and can't be replaced by other sources. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is the first article I've ever worked on; I expanded several sections from scratch by looking at how similar articles were developed.
I'd really appreciate any feedback on if the article is heading in the right direction (particularly for the "Production" and "Reception" sections), as well as how it can be improved further, since I'm hoping to eventually get it to GA status.
Just as a heads-up, the article is about a media series from Japan and relies on some Japanese-language sources, which means it may take more work to go through some references.
@Crestfalling: Comments after a quick skim: The reception sections for both the manga and the anime are too large. WP:RECEPTION has some awesome advice on how to arrange these sections. Basically, they currently rely upon the "X said Y" format: if sources state the same information, they can be merged together with a statement like "Many sources commented that...". I hope that helps. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you so much for the feedback! I copy-edited the reception sections accordingly to organize by thematic element, merge similar statements, and try to cut down on the length overall. It is still a bit on the long side, but it seems a lot more organized and readable now, and I plan to continue working on it over the next few days. Once again, I appreciate the resource you linked, it was very helpful. Crestfalling (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this +article for peer review because... I'd like to know where is places on the content assessment scale, and I would like to know how I could improve on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(chess)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. I modeled it mainly after other television FAs, along with "The One Where Michael Leaves", an article of mine that was recently promoted to featured status. I believe this article is competent enough to go through a PR before FAC rather than a GAN. All comments in any shape or form are appreciated
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at FAC, and I was recommended by @SchroCat: to open a peer review for it. Any comments for improvement would be greatly appreciated.
I'm requesting a peer review of the article Daniela Lalita before renominating it for GA status. During the GA review, general issues with the prose were criticized, possibly a broadness issue. In addition, when reviewing the sources, the reviewer found that some of the statements in the text were not supported by them. Since then, I've checked sources, added new ones, restructured the article, and worked on the prose. I'd appreciate comments on these issues.
Thanks, ◉wwwWiki◉11:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WwwWiki: Comments after a quick skim: I think this article is ready for a GAN. I would expand the lead a little bit to ensure all major aspects of Lalita's biography are mentioned. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A previous FAC nomination received no comments. Perhaps I was too hasty. I would like this to be a TFA for the song's 15th anniversary, but before I do another nomination, I think a peer review would be best.
@Lazman321: I recommend reviewing several articles at WP:FAC within the next few months: many editors will choose to review nominators with high review-to-article counts. Personally, I know that each FAC usually needs at least 5 reviewers to complete a review before it is successful, so I recommend getting a review count that is at least 5:1. You can see information about previous nominations and reviews at [1]. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago, I nominated this article for featured article status, but, as I soon found out, there were quite a few issues. @Gog the Mild and @David Fuchs rightly and respectfully indicated prose issues and, more crucially, source to text integrity issues. Since then, I have revised the article, checked all citations, and altered the information accordingly… I hope. Gog suggested I guide it through peer review before putting it up for FAC again, and so here we are. DannyRogers800 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DannyRogers800, I'm willing to leave a few comments since I just read through the article. I made some brief copyedits on my own, but wanted to raise a few questions and other thoughts.
Maybe use an Infobox for this page? I think Infobox song would work. You could move the audio to the Infobox and include some other details.
Paragraph two of March to the Sea says: Hardee [the Confederate commander, had] not forced me to use anything but a skirmish line. Is there any better way to word the text in brackets?
The March to the Sea section as a whole seems to be somewhat narrative-y, like someone's telling a story rather than presenting factual information. Things like "Sherman then eyed the coastal city of Savannah. In late September, the plan was finalized and Major General Ulysses S. Grant eventually gave his assent." and "Five months later, Major General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House, and the Confederacy was all but defeated." feel like they're telling a story rather than simply presenting information. You may want to copyedit that section.
""Marching Through Georgia" is chanted" (Lyrical Analysis, paragraph 1) – do you mean "sung"? I haven't heard the song chanted before, though there is a first time for everything.
I don't think "As such, progress nigh undisturbed" (March to the Sea, Paragraph 2) is a complete sentence. The wording is also a bit weird, maybe make it more plain.
"Christian McWhirter evaluates the song's lyrical and thematic framework:" (Lyrical Analysis, paragraph 3): Who is this Christian McWhirter? Why do I trust what he says to say? Maybe say "Christian McWhirter, an author and public historian, evaluates the song's lyrical and thematic framework:"
Maybe try to reword "and became Sherman's theme song of sorts." (Postbellum, paragraph 1)
Avoid using a slash in "Military/Nationalistic uses" per MOS:SLASH ("Military and nationalistic uses" would be fine).
I don't think you need lyrics for examples of the melody being used for other songs.
In external links, you may want to label what site the links go to. I.e.: Commentary on "Marching Through Georgia" by Kelley L. Ross, on archive.org.
Hey @PhoenixCaelestis, thank you for these suggestions... very helpful, overall. Nearly all should be effected, except for 1) the sample lyrics: I think they give an idea of how the tune was adapted and of the types of songs that borrowed from "Marching Through Georgia", but I'll remove them if anyone else raises this concern; and 2) the infobox: this is more controversial, and I generally refrain from using infoboxes as there's usually little info to include in it that isn't mentioned in the first lead paragraph anyway. It's best for readers to follow the main article rather than simply glance at a graphic, but that's just my view. The rest should be settled. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I believe the article has strong potential to reach Featured Article status and it just doesn't sit right to me for it to stay at GA status since May. This is one of my first major article expansions and Good Article nominations since February (and probably my longest article), and I would like feedback on any sourcing or prose issues that I may have overlooked.
I've listed this article for peer review because my goal is to have the article to reach either good article or featured article status. I have recently completed a major overhaul on the article, working on and off on trying to improve readability, organize information in chronological order, review and improve references, and meet policies and guidelines as well as creating all works related to the subject. I appreciate any and all feedback and contributions to achieve this goal. If there any changes or improvement that should be made, please let me know.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering bringing this to good article status. However, I'm not sure what else I need to include in the article. As the subject is an anime character, I imagine much of the relevant sourcing is in Japanese, so I'm not sure where to start in finding information that can be used to beef up the article, particularly the development and reception sections.
The endnotes (e.g. this Ch. 1) lead nowhere. You should replace those with regular citations using either the {{cite comic}} or {{cite book}} template. Finally, the reception section is rather weak and should be expanded. I'd want more critical analysis of her character. Gommeh📖🎮15:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Comments after a quick skim: Much of the article focuses on her appearances, which is in-universe. Consider reducing this section to only the most important information. The chapter reference notes also do not work for me. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my eye, this article is certainly ready for GA! Indeed, I suspect it's pretty much ready for FA (not that I have as much experience there). What a thorough and well-organized overview of such a large topic. My suggestions are all relatively minor and not, I think, a barrier to GA status:
I notice Harv Warnings of "There is no link pointing to this citation" for España, Claudio (1999) and Feldman, Simón (1990)
The graph of Argentine & Mexican films is wonderfully informative, but it also feels awkwardly large. At least on my screen, it crowds the text a bit. Would it be possible to reduce some of the padding around the chart? I also think the y-axis could be shortened. I also think, for no good reason, it would feel less crowded if the chart were on the right.
I also notice that the header of the graph is truncated -- if a long title won't fit, maybe just "Argentine vs Mexican film production"?
If the arrival of sound is the start of the golden age, should the material on the silent film era be spun out into its own different article? With perhaps just a short "background" paragraph, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE?
I went through a few sections of the prose. There seem to be a lot of quotations that are a bit on the long end. For example, in this quotation: we [Argentine film historians] always say 'in 1933 the industry was born in Argentina', and the truth is that I would say that until Gardel appeared in films, Argentine cinema practically did not exist on billboards; very little Argentine cinema was being seen. Gardel is what gives Argentine cinema that strength on the billboards -- the last sentence is repeating information that has already been presented in the quote. In this instance I boldly cut it myself but the article might benefit from a concision editing pass specifically focused on the quotations.
Similarly, academic interest from scholars from university backgrounds is rather redundant, three different ways of saying "scholars"; I trimmed that one too, but it reflects a common pattern of minor wordiness.
Purely a compliment, the range of images is wonderful and they all have very informative captions. They really enhance the article!
I raise a few ideas for brevity in part because the current heft of the article feels intimidating at first glance, but it's so well-organized (very informative headers!) that I do think the article "gets away" with much of its length. Well done on some intensive and detailed research! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just a quick drive-by from me. i saw this up for gan and took an interest, and i'm incredibly impressed with the scope, but that's also somewhat of a problem. unfortunately this article is WP:TOOBIG, currently on 15.8k words (and that's apparently with only using half the major sources available). ideally this would be cut down by more than a third. to do so i would look at cutting the number of examples. i would also personally change 'critic's lists' into a broader 'critical opinion' subsection and use prose (we don't need to know all the films that were in 18th and 51st place, just a few choice examples the sources focus on).
additionally, a lot of the paragraphs extend beyond the six line recommended limit, making them a little difficult to read on mobile, but getting those down would definitely help in cutting down on word count more broadly. the '1936–1942: rise to international dominance' subsection also has nine paragraphs, subsections should ideally have 2-4, with 6 as a maximum. i would also say a couple of the images are a little close to WP:SANDWICH, and would personally put all refs into {{sfn}} format. these are all merely suggestions, and you don't have to follow any of them.
i hope i haven't been too discouraging, since these are the only major flaws in an article that seems to be fantastically well-researched and comprehensive. i hope you're well, and happy editing!--Plifal (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone. I withdrew this article's FAC after reviewers noted issues with prose. In the months since, it has gone through a copyedit, and I'd like to renominate for FAC at some point.
@Pamzeis do you still want to keep this open? If so, might I suggest posting notices at WT:WikiProject Television and/or related projects asking for reviews? You might also want to look through WP:FA#Media to see if there are any recent FAs related to this show and (politely) ask the nominators of those if they would be willing to take a look here. RoySmith(talk)23:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating this article for FAC status and I'm looking for feedback on whether the article is comprehensive enough.
At a first glance, the article seems fairly short for an FA – at 1045 words of readable prose, it would be in the shortest 1% of FAs at time of writing (joint 67th shortest by word count and 61st shortest by readable prose byte count). I haven't looked in-depth at the sources, so this may be really all there is to say – but it's short enough that as an FA reviewer I would be checking sources to see if it really is comprehensive. Some specific queries follow:
The cake was introduced in the Austrian food codex in 1894: "introduced to", surely?
The cake was first published in Die Süddeutsche Kirche of Katharina Prato: I don't read German, so I may be wrong here, but does "als einer der ersten" in the source not mean "one of the first" rather than "the first"? (And is there a reason this is discussed after the 1894 publication in the Austrian food codex?)
In the 1930s, the hotel entered a legal battle with the pastry shop Demel over the cake's ownership: what exactly was the dispute here actually? Different sources say that it was over: 1) ownership of the Sacher trademark (e.g. Krondl 2015), 2) the right to call their version "original" (e.g. Krondl 2011), 3) the right to call their version "genuine" (e.g. Iaia 1988).
took the shop to court in 1938 and won: very nitpicky, but while the cited source says that the Hotel Sacher won the case in 1938, it does not explicitly say that this is the year that Gurtler sued; Krondl 2011 says that it happened "even as the country was collapsing around them and the Nazis were marching into Vienna" which implies 1938, but it would be good to have a source which makes this explicit.
the court eventually siding with Hotel Sacher on the ownership and Demel on the number of layers While this is supported by the source, the BBC article also cited in this paragraph says that this was an out-of-court settlement, not a judgement by the court. On the whole I trust Krondl over the BBC here, but it might be worth checking other sources
In response to the court ruling, Demel had to change the name of its Sachertorte to Ur-Sachertorte: more nitpicking: the source said that in response to the ruling, Demel announced that they would change the name to "ur-Sachertorte"; it doesn't say that they "had to" (presumably they could have changed it to something entirely different which did not use Sacher's name) and I can't find a source which actually says that they did ever call it that (their website today certainly does not). If Krondl 2011 is correct that the dispute was over who had the right to call their version the original, it seems unlikely that they even would have been permitted to use this name!
The cake spread outside of Austria, such as in Massachusetts in the United States: the source mentions a single restaurant in Massachusetts which served Sachertorte in the 1950s, and explicitly notes that at the time sachertorte would have been "hard to find" in the area; it seems misleading to suggest on this basis that the cake spread to MA generally (and it's not clear to me that Massachusetts has any particular connection with Sachertorte which would justify it being the only example of a place mentioned which isn't directly connected to Eduard Sacher).
a Želiezovce café in Slovakia: probably clearer and more natural to write "a café in Želiezovce, Slovakia".
Demel has one layer: it's clear what is meant here, but to be nitpicky it's not Demel that has one layer but their version of the cake.
it is sometimes attributed as Sigmund Freud's favourite cake strikes me as clunky wording
A cinematography festival in Italy was named after the cake, including the book The Sachertorte Algorithm. This doesn't seem to make sense as written - is there a clause missing?
Eduard claims that Metternich liked the cake: MOS:TENSE always trips me up, but as I understand it this should be in the past tense – Eduard Sacher is over a century dead!
In the section on reception, it might be worth noting Felicity Cloake's comment that In the course of my research, I received many complaints that Sachertorte is dry and boring; as Nigel Slater has noted, many people find the “elegant simplicity” of “the world’s most famous, grown-up chocolate cake” a bit of a disappointment, in contrast to the praise currently given in that section
Hi all, over the last couple of months I've rewritten and expanded most of the wikipage for the Japan Cup, a horse racing event held in Japan every year. Since the vast majority of this page is now my work, I'd love to hear other people's opinions of the article's current state to make sure I've not overlooked anything; this is the first time I've given an article such a large overhaul, so all advice is welcomed!
Having come this far, I'm very keen to get this to GA status, and if successful see if I can take the page the whole way and get it to Featured Article status; any and all feedback and contributions to achieve either of these goals would be greatly appreciated. I believe this page follows nearly all MOSs I know of, though I'm aware MOS:LEADCITE is an exception to that currently - I'm still mulling over a graceful way to include the remaining references in the main text.
@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: I added citation needed tags to the article, which should be resolved before a GAN. The "Records" section is also mostly uncited, which should be rectified. Each sub-section of the "History" section is quite long: I suggest using more level 3 headings and trimming the text to make it more readable. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking a look Z1720. While I'll take a look at trimming/adding more level 3 headings later, I've added citations to the areas you highlighted in the main text and the records section (or removed the sentence entirely). RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get extra opinions on this article as me and the reviewer of the (attempted) GA nomination don't seem to agree on how well the article explains its concepts. I would like to see what other editors believe should be improved before a future attempt at a GAN. Thanks, RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to understand is why this topic is notable? It is quite common for passenger cars in transit systems to be converted to utility use once they're past their useful life. The only thing I can see about this car that's different from any other utility car is that a bunch of trainspotters started a facebook page about it and two (as far as I can tell) non-notable musicians wrote a non-notable song about it. I'm not being sarcastic here, I truly want to know what makes this notable. Most of the sources are in Czech which I can't read. That's not a fundamental problem, but as a practical matter it does make it difficult for me to peruse the sources. Perhaps you could point me at specific sources I should look at using the automated translation tools available to me to satisfy the question of notability? RoySmith(talk)00:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it however I don't know if what I have done is good and I need some ideas on improving it
I have listed this article because I have improved the overall article by writing it from scratch. Actually, I wrote it in Catalan and later ported it to English in order to level the completion. I would like to know if the references are sufficient enough, if not, I can provide even more of them. Having access to the real hardware, I can discern what sources are of quality and which aren't. Also, I am not a native English speaker, so my translation, whose writing was done manually, may be quirky and may need a revision. Finally, I would like to see into which quality category could this article be listed, just for curiosity.
If you need more information or data regarding the article or the machine itself feel free to ask. I will try to solve the issue in the best way I can.
Thanks for the work that you've been doing to improve this page! There is a wealth of information there.
I've made a number of edits to the references to fill in missing parameters such as date and publisher. Also, tried to provide more consistent formatting of citations to improve readability.[2] One general comment that I'll make is that the article is very reliant on primary sources, for example IBM manuals and TI data sheets. There are some great secondary sources, for example NY Times articles, BYTE magazine, and the book Multilingual Book Production. The article could benefit from more of these types of secondary sources. See WP:PSTS for guidelines on the use of primary and secondary sources. Some of the sources (for example discussion forums) are considered self-published. See WP:RSSELF for guidelines on this category of source.
I'll search for additional secondary references. Feel free to leave a message here, or on my talk page, or on the article talk page if you'd like clarification or to discuss improvements. --mikeutalk21:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
For some reason, the system hasn't notified me about your comment.
Yes, I employ a lot of primary sources because I can't rely on many others. There are lots of accumulated errors during the lifetime of this computer. Since many of the details from the computer weren't released, the gaps of information were filled with myths. I have been clarifying these sections during three years.
If you need anything, especially for verifying the secondary sources, don't hesitate to ask me.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I want an honest opinon. It is gonna help me improve my writing as well as catch mistakes which I did not see.
Thanks, Shizasohail (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with this article is it's a bit of a hodgepodge accumulation of miscellany, and it needs better sourcing.
This is a summary article—the scope is really broad, and so it only really needs to give a short outline, then link off to more detailed pages for the detail. For instance, let's take the section on abortion. It gives a rather longwinded summary of the Catholic position, then a brief summary of a Hindu position (Hinduism and abortion suggests it may not be quite as simple as the summary in this article suggests), then concludes by telling me that Mormonism is more forgiving in some specific situations.
This whole section could be condensed considerably: put a {{Main}} template link to Religion and abortion, then put a short-ish summary of the key points derived from there. And you can reuse sourcing from there. The same is true for lots of other parts of the article—on the gender of deities, on homosexuality, on ordination etc. There are more detailed articles, so follow Wikipedia:Summary style to write a broad summary article.
The abortion section also contained this:
The pastoral message also has to be observed as each member of a church can interpret a message differently. The context of the church has to be considered as well, such as being in an urban or rural environment. The religious messages and how they are exposed in different cultural contexts can determine the effect it has on its listeners. Particularly women, who are more inclined to be religious, are more passionate about the idea of not getting an abortion.
What's this supposed to mean? People interpret religious texts differently in different congregations? Okay, sure. More religious women are more passionately anti-abortion?
Is that what the source is saying? No, it turns out. The source is a political science research article about attitudes to abortion. The passage I think that's closest aligned to the word salad in the article is: the empirical evidence to date suggests that even frequent attenders at congregations in which a pro-choice message is conveyed are more likely to oppose legal abortion than their less observant counterparts. Of course, there is likely to be a disjunction between the message articulated by the pastor and the message received by the congregation. What the source is roughly saying is that attendees at churches (in the United States) with a pro-choice message are still likelier to be less supportive of abortion than those who don't attend church. Or, per the source, frequent church attenders tend to be indiscriminately pro-life, regardless of the position taken by their denomination on the abortion issue.
Also, note—the source doesn't say women, it says frequent church attendees (of any gender). We've somehow gone from people attending a pro-choice church (in the United States) being more likely to be against abortion than the general populace to the rather different idea that women (everywhere!) are more likely to be religious and those religious women are more likely to be passionately anti-abortion. (I've removed that entire paragraph. The source is good, and could be helpfully used for other purposes though.)
Then there is the standard problem with a lot of religion-related articles—primary source references (to scripture) without secondary sources to show the interpretation and relevance of said scripture. And there's a fair bit of vague generalisation - e.g. mainstream Christian tradition and traditional Judaism. It's better to be concrete about these things where possible.
Finally, there's a warning banner about the addition of text from a large language model - see talk page archive. That needs fixing. There's significant chunks of the article that are waffly and obviously AI generated, starting with the lead. I've chopped the AI generated stuff from the lead and replaced it with a rather pedestrian opening paragraph that's less waffly. There's still other bits of AI text in the article which need to be checked and handled appropriately.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created this a couple of months ago and it looks great but now i am at the point of how I can expand this more. It is an important organisation in new zealand for the Rainbow community and people living with HIV so I want to make sure it is an amazing article and in hopes to have a GA one day.
I brought this article to GA status a while ago, and I'm looking to bring it to FAC sooner or later. As I am fairly familiar with video game terminology, it would be especially helpful (possibly preferable) for someone unfamiliar with said terminology to look it over for any confusing material. Any recommendations for international reception to the game are also welcome. Thank you! ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After some weird moments in my life, submitting this article to another hopeful FAC... Ready to reply to your comments, ping me if you do! Arconning (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fun article to read. My overall impression is that the prose is more difficult in places than it has to be, starting with the second paragraph. A few examples:
I would start the paragraph with: In 2019, Vatican Olympics had been established by an agreement between the Vatican and the Italian Olympic Committee, to enable possible participation at international sporting tournaments such as the Summer Olympics and Mediterranean Games.
although the federation was later invited by the Organizing Committee of the Games to send a delegation to the Games. There, Carnicelli competed in the women's half marathon and unofficially placed ninth in the event. --> She placed 9th at the 2022 MG, right? Not the small nation games? Or both? It would only name her results from the MGs. The current text implies you're talking about the Games of Small Nations.
Vatican City and the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) had an agreement to set up an official athletics team with the intention of making the nation to be able to be represented in international sporting tournaments such as the Summer Olympics and Mediterranean Games. --> with the intention of making the nation to be able to be represented -> to allow the nation to be (possibly) represented.
The 2022 Mediterranean Games were held from 25 June to 5 July 2022 in Oran, Algeria, but were originally scheduled to take place from 25 June to 5 July 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. --> switch the dates and place in the first half in the sentence. I first thought that the 'but' contrasted the location and got confused towards the end
This edition of the Games marked the Vatican City's first appearance at any edition of the Mediterranean Games and the first time the nation competed at a multi-sport event, albeit as a guest team --> 'any edition of' is unnecessary, omit
A guest delegation representing Vatican City through Vatican Athletics was invited by the Organizing Committee of the 2022 Mediterranean Games, with the decision further being supported by president of the International Committee of Mediterranean Games Davide Tizzano -> Be careful of WP:PLUSING. With + verb is relatively vague text. I would simply say: .. Mediterranean Games, a decision supported by the president ...
If the nation were an official competing nation, she would have placed ninth overall --> Had the nation been an official participant, she would have placed ninth overall (more elegant grammar + avoid doubling the word nation).
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at its first FAC run. I've worked thorough the issues here: User:MisawaSakura/Sandbox2. Before trying another FAC run, I'm listing it here at PR to get more eyes on the article. Any input appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is good so far but I'm new to Wikipedia and I'd like pointers from more experienced editors on how I can make this page the best it can be.
@Feedmepaperr: I added citation needed tags to areas of the article that need them. I also think the lead can be expanded to include all major sections of the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately due to being an unincorporated community and a company town, Diablo has never had a census taken. There's no reputable estimates for population either, as far as I can find at least. As for the access-date thing, I'll get on that. Feedmepaperr (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... prior to GAN and future FA nomination and to assess the bottom of the article to see if it needs removal.
Please suggest your ideas and critiques based on other Mountain articles of GA or higher here is what I was thinking but extend on it or go your own route.
Suggestions for better places for Headings...
Suggestions for better places for Sections...
Should I take a photo to help that section? note: I take photos.
I don't think the images need px, they can probably be removed for all of them.
I have added citation needed templates to the article, and an orange "more sources needed" banner above "In popular culture": these should be resolved before a GAN.
There are a lot of cite errors in the references. These should all be resolved before a GAN.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a page I have almost entirely created myself, as can be seen in the xtools report. I'm fairly happy with it, and would like to possibly nominate it for a GA at some point in the future. Before doing that however, I believe it needs more critical eyes on it.
I've listed this article for peer review because of good article nomination. I would like to hear whether I have covered all the topics and, since I am not a native speaker, if the wording could perhaps be improved. I would also like to know if my citations and shortend footnotes are sufficient.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. I started at FAC earlier this years but withdrew when two editors advised a copy edit first. One editor also advised peer review first.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
This is the most important airfield that you've never heard of. Today, not a trace of it remains (not even a historical marker), but for a brief couple of years it was the epicenter of aviation (and indeed, the first airfield) in the United States. The article just passed GA and I'm thinking about WP:FAC as the next step.
Overall I think it looks good (it didn't pass GA for no reason after all): the illustrations are good, and the information appears to be well referenced (mind you I did not go in and look at each referennce). Improvement wise, the first thing standing out to me is a glaring redlink in the lede. There's differing opinions on redlinks (some say it encourages article creation), but I'm personally not a fan of them, especially in something that is a candidate for FA. The obvious solution to that is to create articles for the redlinked topics, even if only a stub or start. Another thing that stands out is omission of the airfield's apparently most significant claim to fame (or notability in Wikipedian terms) from the lede. Hope this helps. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded (material and sources). It was assessed by the Military portal as a B-Class and recognized the potential for GA. Nevertheless, they suggested to go through a peer-review first to get feedback. Any input to improve this article is greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed GA and I was considering a run at FAC. This would be my first non-military history article at FAC (I would normally run it through their rigorous A-class review first) so I want to check it is of sufficient quality first. Please be as rigorous as possible in your review, I am happy to take any and all comments including if you think it is not suitable for FAC - Dumelow (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made several notworthy modifications to the article since it was initially created, and feel it could use another review from other editors.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Thanks, Wiki Editor mq (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi everyone, this is my first wikipedia article and I have been working on improving it by adding reliable sources, page numbers, and expanding sections on its history, decline, and cultural memory. I would really appreciate if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know if the article seems anywhere at all close to meeting B class standards, or if there are areas that still need alot more work. Thanks you, I appreciate your time[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I am hoping to get this article up to at least B-class or GA status. There are a few areas where there is an obvious need for expansion (such as the section Sequence of main trends and just general sourcework), but I was wondering if anyone has any input regarding content or alterations to structure, or good sources to consult for the article that aren't already listed under the bibliography.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made some changes, in particular, if a reviewer could consider [B-Class criteria] and update the talk page to reflect their thoughts on the article. In future I might try and get this one to A-class or better any suggestions on what its lacking in that regard would be great too.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made substantial additions to the stub article. This is my first significant Wikipedia contribution, and would like to know some pointers to making this a good article. I am also unsure what to add to the intro section to make the article more applicable to a general audience.
I think the article title is confusing. It is not about the noun "Hartree", it is about an algorithm, approach, method, or framework according to the sources.
The introduction or first section should set the context. "An approximate computational method used to understand the motions of molecules". Why is that valuable? Why is it hard? What makes the method special?
Need more secondary sources. Citing Meyer's work primarily makes the article suspect as biased or WP:COI or WP:OR.
Is it related to "multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree–Fock method"? (Zanghellini, J., Kitzler, M., Brabec, T., & Scrinzi, A. (2004). Testing the multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree–Fock method. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 37(4), 763.)
The source Wang, H. (2015). Multilayer multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree theory. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 119(29), 7951-7965 can act as a secondary source.
Replace Zundel and Eigen with words.
Look into the introduction sections of sources for material. To be honest the equations and input data here have relatively little impact. These are things experts will look up from original sources anyway. Qualitative descriptions will reach a wider audience.
Thanks for the tips. I agree there needs to be more meat in the intro section that relates more generally to the issue of solving the S equation for dynamics and generally.
I agree with the citations.
The equations and input I thought were helpful as a reference, as it makes it easier to pin down what MCTDH actually is without diving into various source texts. It is also an issue in literature that there seems to be a weak standard for notation regarding MCTDH (especially for ML-MCTDH), which further complicates citing authors other than Meyer and Wang. But I agree, there needs to more qualitative content throughout.
I also noticed that there was little wiki content in this sphere. The two articles on variational method/principle are very weak despite being very important methods for Density Functional Theory and this genre of dynamics. Time Dependent Hartree could be rolled into this article as the literature seems pretty sparse on it. But for the others, I have no idea what a good strategy is. The articles for DVR and FBR are also weak or lacking. Leo51db (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the level of GA-class. As this is the first article I've ever created (which is done by draft), I currently do not have experience on how to improve a C-class article to B-class, let alone meet GA standards. Therefore I'd like some suggestions and guidance for improving the article.
Update. I've added a new section about the properties of the number. Hopefully this improves the quality of the article closer to B-Class. Electorus (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. After reviewing the article on Megalneusaurus (which is still not finished), I decided this time to do the same with the "Monster of Aramberri", which, in my opinion, covers the entire topic about this wonderful specimen. If the peer review is successful, I will propose immediately this article to the GA. I originally submitted this article to the GA and then to a peer review a few months ago. Unfortunately, I was very busy with other projects, and the peer reviewers were clearly not very interested in paleontology. Now that I am available again and my work is more detailed than before, I hope it can be given a second chance. As usual for this kind of review, I'm asking for users like FunkMonk and/or Jens Lallensack to help me. Slate Weasel is also welcome, but since he hasn't shown any sign of activity since late July 2025, I doubt he'll see this message.
@Amirani1746: After a quick skim, I think this article might be ready for a GAN, as any additional issues can be addressed there. I would suggest splitting some of the larger paragraphs for readability. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it for FA status. This would be my first FA nomination, so I'd particularly appreciate feedback on any issues with meeting FA-level MOS compliance.
Hello, this is my very first contribution to Wikipedia. I've expanded this article massively. I'd appreciate any feedback on resources, structure, and content. Thanks you!
I've listed this article as I believe the topic is highly important to the political climate in various parts of the world and therefore deserves good or featured article status. I have personally spent a lot of time reading and developing the article and I believe it is time for more editors to chime in on how to improve the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done major additions, restructuring and improvements in the article recently. Now I am planning to go for GA once issues remaining, if any, are solved.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to raise the article from Start-class. I would like to hear about how this article could be improved so it can leave Start-class.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was working with other editors a few months back to bring the article to GA status. Some time has passed and the collab effort has gone stale, but I wanted to restart the work so that we could finish what we started. I want to know if the added "Academic sources" section looks good, if the cited sources are enough for the info in the article, and if there's anything else that would prevent a successful GA nomination the first time.
Very dated sources, 19C and earlier, are not generally reliable sources. They can be used for a historical view, e.g. "John Smith wrote in 1805 that ...", but not as a fact which is not referenced inline, only in the citations.
MA theses are not considered reliable sources.
Some of the details supplied in the citations are very unsatisfactory. For example cite 245 ""Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church – DW – 03/29/2024". dw.com. Retrieved 6 June 2025." dw.com and the retrieval date are minor details and the crucial information is missing. I would cite this as {{cite journal|url=https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-aramaic-christians-seek-support-in-their-church/a-68675395|journal=[[Deutsche Welle]]|title= Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church|first=Christoph|last=Strack|date=3 September 2024}}</ref>
Cite 258 is poor. "nsilk (6 May 2013). "Syriac Orthodox Church Receives as Many as 800,000 New Converts in Central America – SCOOCH". Retrieved 6 June 2025." This should be SCOOCH News, publisher Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, date 6 May 2013. The headline is misleading as the text does not say new converts but that the church has been joined by another church with 600-800,000 members. Your text is even more misleading as it shows 800,000 as the total membership.
There are harv error messages in the source section. For a script which displays the error messages see User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.
I find the referencing cluttered and difficult to read. Linking, archiving and retrieval dates are useful for sources that may disappear, articles and newspaper stories. They are pointless for books and just make the entry wordy and clumsy. I would delete and just show the bibliographical details. I prefer the citations section kept as clean as possible, with bibliographical details moved to the sources and additional information to notes.
@Dudley Miles Thanks for the comments on the referencing. Is there anything else that needs to be changed in any other criteria before the article is brought to GA? I will try and fix up the referencing soon. Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the whole article. This includes general MOS improvements and adjusted citations (both inline and bibliographical). The 19th century citation describes a basic biblical narrative from Acts of Apostles and already has 2 other citations; I've removed it altogether.
Wrote this article yesterday based in large part from journal articles and dug-up sources from around the time. Looking for feedback to make sure it's accessible to a layperson, informative about the election (i:e, doesn't gloss over any necessary attributes while focusing too much on small details), and doesn't contain too much jargon or waffle. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article, which has already been assessed as a GA, has been improved significantly by various contributors, including User:Raskuly, myself, and several others. My goal is to create content worthy of being a featured article, not just here but on pages across the encyclopedia (I plan on also working on Charlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida), Lemon Bay High School, a new article I am working on for North Port High School, and Pensacola Christian College, then expand beyond schools to other institutions, historical stuctures, and other topics entirely. I think we've come a long way with the Port Charlotte High article, the only thing I think that might make it better would be some more well-referenced information on the school's athletics and a historical photo. I would love some constructive criticism in order to get this article (and others) from good to great.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article represents an idea of society before certain medical discoveries such as certain viewed articles.
@2550 69 11hne I think this is fair. I acknowledge the contentious nature of pseudoscience. For the record, I will say I am not treating the topic as factual but just consolidating the sources into a retrospective on an outdated and obscure historical fad. I am open to criticism, perhaps if anyone thinks the article's written in a way that is biased in favor of the practice being described. -- Alexander Patmos (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2550 69 11hne (and others) I draftified this article for being composed of insufficiently reviewed LLM generated text. See the draft talk page for an example. I think this renders the peer review request invalid at this time. If this article is pushed back to mainspace I will notify you so the peer review can be re-requested. Sorry for the inconvenience! NicheSports (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come for one of the most dramatic electoral swings in a modern western democracy, stay for what I hope is a solid and accessible crash-course in Ireland's peculiar political culture and electoral system. I think this is close to meeting the FA criteria but would appreciate a second opinion; I brought an article to FA status under a previous account, but that was nearly two decades ago(!) and in a completely different field. Many thanks! Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take a deeper look when this gets nominated to FAC. For now, I'll leave some general comments that I'd expect to be addressed before nominating it to FAC.
The lede is of satisfactory length.
The "Leader since" and "Leader's seat" parameters should be sourced and mentioned in the article.
Explanatory notes should be sourced.
O'MalleyMcGraw2017 is unused. Suggest moving it to Further reading or removing it altogether.
The last two sentences in the Aftermath are unsourced.
Overall, the article is in a great shape and will be ready for FAC once these minor issues get fixed. I haven't read the prose but if there any issues with it, it could be quickly fixed at FAC. Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these! The O'Malley/McGraw shout is good, thanks – I will be going through it at the library tomorrow. I think the breadth of sourcing isn't quite 100% yet, so that's probably the main issue left to be resolved. I used "Election" as the heading because that's what's done in 1957 Canadian federal election, one of the relatively small number of national election FAs. But I'm not wedded to it. Thanks again! Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to work on taking this article to a good article status, but I am not particularly experienced with this process. Please inform me on any and all potential issues.
@Katzrockso: Comments after a quick skim: I added one citation needed tag, and I noticed a "better sources needed" tag. Once these are resolved, I think this can go to GAN, where an editor will take a closer look. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Z1720! I added the better sources tag when I was reading through because I wanted to work on relying more on some textbooks, and I know of some that could work there I would just have to dig through them. Katzrockso (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there are any mistakes/excess detail on the article or any info i missed abt the school. I want to make this a Good article someday so I need feedback from an uninvolved editor to see if I can improve
The article heavily relies on primary sourcing, mostly information put out by the school itself. The article probably needs more secondary sourcing for neutrality. Partly done(Note: Sources are being separated into secondary and primary sources in the reference list to determine the percentage of the article is based on primary sources; secondary sources are still being sought after)
The Governance section based on Elizabeth College's is well-written though the table could use a little work, adding a title for the table using "|+" would be better + it's sources to be cited on the title itself. Partly done(Note: Title added for table, sources remain in Notes section for better readability, please see Principals and their citations)
"A man living near the Primary campus claims a bus from the school crashed into his fence on September 2024. The school claims the bus incident was investigated and dealt with internally.", I don't entirely see how this is relevant to the school's history. Technically it happened but I don't think it's substantial enough to be worth a mention, it's more of a trivial fact. Done
Considering the College was founded quite recently in terms of a College, the History section looks alright though could probably use some more expanding. Done
References used in the article could use some work, proper formatting with enough information in the citation. Partly doneNote: In Progress
"Life Festival", this could probably be merged rather than be made into it's own section. Not doneNote: More research into Life Festival needs to be conducted prior to going forward with this suggestion, for example it has its own website [4], this source may also help: [5]
"According to Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority data:", this could probably be removed and instead be integrated into the first paragraph. Done
Hi there! I made some suggested edits to the page in my sandbox. I'm not making the edits directly because I might have a slight conflict of interest in editing this article because I have taken a class taught by Prof. Powell. However, I believe the edits have made the article more informative, more readable, and better cited.
Thanks, Tommyren (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a paid contribution (and a translation from the French article that I also wrote). Even if I tried to respect WP:NPOV as much as possible, the text may not be perfectly neutral.
Hey Jul.H, are you still interested in comments here, or can this be closed? If you are, you might want to reach out to some of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page for assistance. Let me know either way! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TechnoSquirrel69, yes I'm still interested in a review. I'll reach out to some project members as you suggested, but I don't see many other options if it doesn't work. I'll let you know. Tank you! Jul.H (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to get some feedback on what else I could possibly add that would be useful to a general reader. I have a *lot* of information that I could put into this article, but it's very scattered and I'd like to spend my time efficiently.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a featured list. I've been editing here for a while, but nothing of this scope. I would like to know if anything is missing and what other changes would be necessary to nominate it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I grabbed most of the sources and material from both FAs and GAs, and used example of other featured lists to create the lead and tables. This is my first listicle I'm submitting to do so, and I would love a peer review. Thank you!
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.
