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 failed at being promoted for FA. One of the key takeaways was that the "Commercial performance" came off as too list-y. Looking at my previous featured articles, I'm not sure how else to improve this section, but maybe someone can take a second look to see where the article can improve on?
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.
Aiming for FA, any constructive comments and suggestions will be highly appreciated. The documentary explores the story of convicted South African murderer and rapist Thabo Bester, who faked his death and escaped from prison in 2022, and his relationship with the celebrity doctor Nandipha Magudumana, who allegedly became involved in the escape. dxneo (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about a song which became viral on TikTok in 2022 which is already a good article and can possibly become a featured one. I am planning to request a copyedit, and I would like comments on the prose and comprehensiveness. If this article looks scarce, that is due to the lack of English-language sources which forced me to try to find Vietnamese ones (which was even much harder considering I do not speak Vietnamese). Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 2019, she released the album Hoang, commemorating the tenth year of her singing career. With the album, she won the title You can clarify ahead in the first mention who she is.
"would go viral internationally" you can write it as "would be internationally popular"
I understand you don't speak Vietnamese, but other editors can add translations to the lyrics and references
Multiple cultural references were made in the music video. You can elaborate the cultural references used.
The video made extensive use of CGI The video extensively used CGI.
This can be a FA with some stretching, though you can make the prose concise and elaborate on the points raised. You can refer to the GA review on some concrete examples on what we can replace in the prose (e.g. using the word "Internet virality") RFNirmala (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because my goal is to have the article reach good article or featured article status. I have recently completed a major overhaul on the article, working extensively on trying to improve readability, organize information in chronological order, review and improve references, and meet policies and guidelines. I am currently the top editor of this article, with my first edit being nearly 4 years ago. It appears that the previous peer review was over a year ago, and the article has gone through extensive updates since then. I appreciate any and all feedback and contributions to achieve this goal.
OP Update: I made several edits to various sections, reviewing sources and removing any references that were simply social media posts or YouTube videos. I also found sources that were suitable in removing Template:Citation needed from multiple sections. — ★ Mjmatousek ★ (talk • contribs) 02:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I reverted the list back to sentence format. I also applied better references to this section, removing the social media sources. Thank you for the recommendation. — ★ Mjmatousek ★ (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when you say "including," does it mean there are more influenced artists? Because listing that many people isn't advisable. I'm not against it tho. dxneo (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m certain there's more out there, but these are the ones I've found with clear statements in news articles as opposed to social media posts and short moments in unpublished video/audio interviews. — ★ Mjmatousek ★ (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help it reclaim its Good Article status. I figure it must have many of the qualities that make it due for the accolade, but me being unfamiliar with many of the conventions that come with that had previously troubled me. I need help making sure that these recent stable revisions are ready to go, or if there's anything that can better suit it before we ship it out.
First glance at the references, I noticed that some are wiki linked and some aren't. Some references use their website domain name, and some use URLs. Some use |publisher=, most use |website=. First source, Mixmag is a magazine, you should use |magazine=. Consistency is key, either use domain name or URLs, you cannot use both. Clean-up is highly recommended. dxneo (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you are done. I'll drop more constructive suggestions, and if you don't agree with some, let me know. Goodluck! dxneo (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded the article substantially and I neeed advice to improve its structure, as well as its grammar and syntax.
Please note that this is the first time I have done a peer review in several years, so apologies if this review is not complete or inadequate. Please note that I am only checking the article text itself and not the sources, so I cannot comment on verification and the like. Still, I hope you find this review helpful:
I do not think that it is proper to call Birch "renowned" in the lede as that is a word to avoid, particularly if there is no source directly stating him as such.
Starting in June 1976, the band embarked on an intense six-months world tour supporting the release of Rising and frictions among the band members emerged. The grammar in this sentence is off and probably needs copyediting.
The reviewers appreciated the heaviness and complexity of the music and some suggested a replacement of the waning Deep Purple, the band Blackmore came from, with Rainbow in the hard rock hierarchy. This is a bit of a run on and may need to be clarified or replaced.
The album featured guest vocals from Blackmore’s girlfriend, Shoshana Feinstein, though their intense relationship ended abruptly in May 1975. In what way was their relationship "intense", and is this claim cited in the source?
the English Cozy Powell This sounds a bit off, may need rephrasing.
after such a long preparation and rehearsal This wording seems too informal for an encyclopedia.
were hired to provide the tapestry of classical instruments to be added to last part of the song This is missing a "the" before "last part".
Rising was not a striking commercial success This seems like a subjective claim, so it needs a reference to confirm it.
The explanation about the difference between the titles Rising and Rainbow Rising is confusing and may need to be clarified: the album was originally titled Rainbow Rising and was renamed later? That could be reworded better.
This is mostly through a quick check in the article, and there is a lot that I probably missed. Admittedly, album articles are outside my expertise, so I'm not sure if the article's structure fits the typical album structure. My suggestion would be to ask for feedback from an expert on these things. I would suggest Launchballer, an editor active on Did you know, who specializes in music articles.
Speaking of Did you know, if you ever bring the article to GA status, I would suggest nominating it for DYK. Looking at the article, I saw multiple interesting facts that would work as potential hooks. I would be glad to help out if you ever decide to bring it to DYK.
Thank you for your peer review. You may be slightly out of practice with this kind of work, but I myself have not written a Wikipedia article since 2021. A month confined to a hospital bed prompted me to try again; however, this time I unashamedly made use of AI assistance to polish my writing after completing the research in the sources.
1-3 - I agree with all your points. I will rewrite all the intro make it more concise and grammatically sound.
4 - The relationship lasted from the summer of 1972 to 1975. In her interview Shoshana Feinstein called it "passionate, fiery and profound." Bloom reported that "she was very important to him, very deep in his heart." I think the adjective "intense" could be appropriate.
5 - Rephrased
6 - Rewritten
7- Corrected
8- I suppose "striking" is not the right adjective. Perhaps "huge" is better. The album did not enter the Top 10 in any country and achieved no more than 500,000 certified sales.
9- Rewritten. I hope it is clearer now.
I followed the current Album article style advice for the structure of the article, though I remain uncertain about the placement of text in two sections: the description of the music genres, which is now in the "Writing" section, and the musicians’ reactions to the album, which I have placed in the "Legacy" section.
I intend to submit the article to the GA procedure in the near future and I am open to any other suggestion to make it better. Thank you again. Lewismaster (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA. I recently withdrew its first FA nomination because of a lack of reviews. The review it did receive noted issues with the reception section, and I would mainly like feedback on that section in particular
Courtesy ping: @Aoba47: (please do not feel obligated to engage with this peer review, I know you have a new FAC (which is excellent by the way!) and I don’t want to pressure you to leave a review, and also thank you for your help at the FAC)
I've listed this article for peer review because... I wish to improve the article to Featured Article status. I feel that it is quite complete, so I'm requesting a sanity check to make sure that there's no unknown unknown that emerges during the FA nom.
Nice topic! The article explains what is needed, but the prose could be improved to make for more compelling reading. Also, to be comprehensive, you need a more thorough survey of the literature.
Lead: MOS:LEADCITE would expect cites only for the direct quotes.
"Deemed "one of cinema's most recognizable shots" by The Daily Telegraph" by everyone in the newspaper, or by a specific writer?
Description and usage: "one of cinema's most recognizable shots" given how short the article is, it is a bit repetitive to see this quote again so soon after the lead.
It would be good to explain what the technique was used for in the other movies. Which of the characters in Full Metal Jacket / The Shining / Silence of the Lambs etc. performs a Kubrick stare and to what effect?
"Anthony Perkins (as Norman Bates) performs something akin to the Kubrick stare in Psycho" when does he do that and for which purpose? Do we know whether Hitchcock was involved in making Perkins do this? Does it just look like a Kubrick stare or does it perform the same function?
If Heath Ledger is so closely associated with the Kubrick stare, why is there no corresponding comment in this section?
Introduce Robbie Collin so we know why we should care what he thinks.
There seem to be a lot of scholarly sources not used in the article. Google Scholar search [1] gives things like [2] and the first place on TWL I checked [3] also seems to have more usable content.
Just sending this comment to acknowledge I've read the suggestions. I've already plucked the low hanging fruit and will get back to you when I've made more substantial progress.
Japanese animated film from 1986, quite influential and popular outside of Japan. 2026 would be the 40th anniversary of release. It has been expanded with several English language magazine sources since online sources were somewhat lacking. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Harizotoh9: One criterion of a peer review in Step 1 of Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines is that there cannot be major cleanup banners. A problem I see with this is that a citation is needed for the sentence, "Production of the film included several artists who would later create other popular works, including Kia Asamiya and Atsuko Nakajima." Please either include a citation or remove the sentence. Remember to notify me so I can review this further.
I've listed this article for PR because I've significantly de-stubbed and think I would like to (eventually) go down the GAN road. I believe everything is pretty well-referenced, but I'm sure the prose could be improved and I'm conflicted about the article's overall structure. Since the subject has been pretty consistently busy on stage/screen for 20+ years, I've had a hard time coming up with easily identifiable career 'eras' to use as sub-section headers.
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.
Looking for suggestions and help before I submit the article for FA consideration. I've already noted a complex and time consuming change I could make to fix a possibly fine rule violation(the Plot sections word count), but an outside perspective on the matter as well as general help would be much appreciated.
I'm still interested. I do not need assistance with the candidacy, but a quick outside perspective from someone else would be helpful, so I would like to keep this open for the time being. SapphireBandit (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: I will be reviewing the article for suitability to submit as an FAC.
Image review:
File:THPS2GBA box.png — Fair use
File:THPS2GBA gameplay.png — Fair use
Based on my image review, the illustrations used seem to be appropriate for a potential FAC.
Is Pocket Tactics a reliable source? According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, there are inconclusive decisions about it. If we can, we should try to find high-quality sources for FACs.
You may want to make sure the web sources are archived by running the WP:IABOT tool.
Numerical citations need to be put in order, for example, the citations after the sentence Other actions include jumping, braking, crouching, and switching stances.
Unless we are directly quoting a source, I see no need to use two consecutive citations from the same source. For example, the below passage in the article is where two consecutive citations for the same source exist (Source 12 in the article).
After completing development of the Game Boy Color version of the video game Spider-Man, developer Vicarious Visions wanted to move on to the Game Boy Advance, avoiding common projects for the platform like Super Nintendo ports and Mode 7racing games. The idea of a Tony Hawk game came up during brainstorming, which was considered both a fun and high risk idea, due in part to it being an important brand to publisher Activision. Development of this version of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 began in August 2000, Vicarious Visions having received an early development kit for the platform.
The phrase "skate punk-like artists" is a direct quote from the source. I would place a citation at the end of the sentence that has that direct quote. The same holds true with the sentence that has "technically impressive" and the sentence that has "surprisingly good", as they are direct quotes. Another user informed me that I should follow this practice when he was reviewing my GANs.
Per MOS:EDITORIAL, "only" is a word to watch out for. I would change The team intended to use the source code Neversoft used, only for it to turn out that it was programmed in C++, while the development kit's documentation said they could only use C. to The team intended to use the source code Neversoft used, but the code was programmed in C++, and the development kit's documentation said they must use C.
Overall, I think the work you did is solid for an FAC. The good article will need some polishing and revision, as I noted above, so it can become a featured article.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I think the article suffers from a lot of WP:UNDUE text especially in the background and possibly elsewhere but am struggling to figure out what needs focusing on and how to do it, so I would like some comment. After UNDUE issues resolves I think article it should probably be GA-able, pending other things.
While I'm sure this article isn't close enough for FA for me to put this in FAC peer review (I'm still unsure of sending this to FAC), I think that I've made an effort to address the issues raised in the previous PR. I want to see if there are still major problems that would warrant a quick FAC fail
Please ping me when you make a comment, so that I can reply as soon as possible.
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.
I've listed this article for peer review to firstly, get feedback on the current state of the article. Since I made it, I'm kinda at in a "well, what now?" moment and not exactly sure how to improve it, other than knowing some sections are perhaps too short, the specificifation section, for example. Additonally, I want to push this article to GA/FA, so, any and all feedback would be lovely.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about trying for FAC in the near future and want to know where it currently stands. I am completely unfamiliar with the FAC process, so it's likely the entire article will need to be looked through. I just got it to GA today. In short, where does the article not meet the FA criteria?
Okay based on the article, it seems pretty fine to me already, although I'm quite confused at how the way it states that Natlan is based jointly on Pre-Columbian American and Sub-Saharan African cultures, especially since the nation's music is the only aspect of the nation inspired by those cultures. So you could change some stuff such as the first sentence in the second paragraph in lead and the infobox. plantCOAL03:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to later nominate this article into a GA, but at a simple view, it only seems the lead needs improvement, so Im requesting a peer review of the entire article except the lead.
I've listed this article for peer review because... prior to GAN and future FA nomination and to assess the bottom of the article to see if it needs removal.
Please suggest your ideas and critiques based on other Mountain articles of GA or higher here is what I was thinking but extend on it or go your own route.
Suggestions for better places for Headings...
Suggestions for better places for Sections...
Should I take a photo to help that section? note: I take photos.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been suggested to me that it has potential as a future Featured Article Candidate (particularly by HJ Mitchell, who has been encouraging me for some time to take this step!). I would appreciate experienced eyes to check for issues such as comprehensiveness, detail, writing style and so on, which are difficult for me to assess due to being so "close" to the article and its sources – having spent a good few years putting it together.
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.
Hello fellow wikipedians! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured articles. This article is a translation and adaptation of my Ru Wiki article and currently it has been reviewed there and has a status "candidate for a featured article". Both sister projects have different requirements, so I'd like to make it 100% compliant with Eng Wiki requirements for the featured articles.
I've listed this article for peer review because this I've managed to create an article about this local hilltop, I just want to expand it even more with concise content.
The lead section should not contain references it should only reflect whats in the rest of the article. The exception to that is when information in the lead is very controversial but that doesnt apply here.
Eg so information like "referred to as Mount Hantu or Amtig." should be move down and summarised in the lead
I've listed this article for peer review because, although I've put a lot of effort into creating this article, I feel like there's some major improvements that could be made, and I do worry about potential issues I may have inadvertently created in the creation of the article, such as some biases I may have introduced, causing amongst other issues, the page to be kept out of the mainspace.
Hey Haruhi8, are you still interested in receiving comments, or can this be closed? If you are, you may want to reach out to the WikiProjects listed on the talk page for assistance. Let me know either way! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still interested in receiving comments on how this page can be reviewed. Thank you for suggesting to check out the WikiProjects on the talk page, I'll look into it when I get the chance. Haruhi8 (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've just expanded and refurbished this old GA from 2008 so I would like someone to have a look at this article to see if it still meets GA. I would also like some feed back on improving this article since I plan on bringing it to FA at some point in the future.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting this article to Featured Article status in the future. I believe I have addressed the concerns of the GA review and want more eyes on this article for potential issues.
Thanks, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[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'm planning of pushing this for a good article nomination. Looking for suggestions on how the article can be improved more.
This is my first read (a scan sadly). You can take note of MOS:DUPLICATELINK as some wikilinks duplicate in the same section, but I'd say this is good for a GA review.
I tried to fix some duplicate references. Can you help me check if the page cited in Patajo-Legasto (2008) on the Post-War recovery section verify the adjacent statement? RFNirmala (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I have already omitted it, as the source only supports the recovery of Philippine cinema post-war and how local production firms adopted the Hollywood-style studio system. It seems that mass production of films through the monopolized studio system already appears indirectly in the legacy section, where it states that the Philippines was once producing 350 films per year during that period. Loibird90 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Also, the section on the communist era isn't very clear on the fact that Yugoslavia only broke up in the early 90s. You can get the impression that Serbia was independent by 1974 reading the article. Bremps...16:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times reported that Quayle was polling great, it was the funding that was the issue. (And also maybe health.) I'm not sure why I got the opposite conclusion from the same source. It also notes that he very nearly pulled the trigger on running, which the Wikipedia article only sort of conveys. Bremps...02:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I would incorporate that though. It doenst fit under any existing section and he didn't end up running so I don't it's worthy of creating a whole Gubernatorial subheading Olliefant (she/her)07:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The decision against a presidential bid was seen as a surprise to many pundits with various Republicans speculating that the choice was made following health concerns regarding a benign tumor and blood clots that were found in his lungs."
I've listed this article for peer review because during my candidacy in the admin elections last year, an editor said it was not far off Featured Article status. As I've never nominated an FA before, I'd like to know what improvements the article needs to get up to standard.
Off the top of my head, I feel the lead is rather short. The lead shouldn't be as long as Rockwell's article, but I think there's enough material here for a maybe 3 paragraph lead? Or a longer one than now, anyway. I think more information on particularly how he was received in the neo-Nazi movement (the widespread dislike of him and how it basically killed the party and led to numerous schisms) could be emphazied more, as that with his esoteric Hitlerlist stuff is a big part of his legacy. Maybe more on his views and background too, like the groups he was in prior. Really I just think the lead is too short and doesn't give enough context to understand him.
All the sources are reliable though there are 1 or 2 that I think may be a problem at FAC. But I'll check those again in a bit to be sure, they might be fine.
"Koehl was very concerned with finding a way to get more people to join the group, and so as a solution, formed the National Socialist Liberation Front, a group targeting high school and college-aged people to join the movement. This group more or less failed in attracting people to the organization, and his attempts failed to stop the party's splitting."
This is cited to Moore 1983. Every other source I am aware of suggests that the original NSLF was founded by Pierce and Tommasi, so I am curious what this is citing. It seems contradictory. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because earlier this year I translated the Polish article (an FA there) and expanded it per the tag that had been on it for years (actually, it's more like I used the Polish article as raw material ... it wouldn't be acceptable here as a word-for-word translation). Since so much of the Polish article relies on Polish sources that do not seem themselves to have been translated into English yet, this article is the first time, I think, that the details of this grim event have been published in English.
So, I am thinking about a GA nomination down the line with this.
Hi! In my first read the article's all well. I just worked on some WP:Oxford comma and copyediting. Wanted if ask if you use an article before Standgerichten? I was a bit confused in the sentence living for a time as a monk... - is this Hudal or Wachter? RFNirmala (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m still in Kenya (for one more day, per the note at the top of my talk page), but I saw this.
It seems like the standard practice with using German words in English is not to use the article. I’ll take a look at that sentence and change it as needed. Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first edit in Wikipedia and I did rewrite most of the article so I'd be happy if someone could review it, fix some typos and errors and maybe even give some feedback.
Additionally, English is not my first language, so there might be some unusual phrases.
I am also very unsure if I used the LaTeX style math environment correctly because it felt more annoying than in LaTeX.
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.
I'm hoping to take this to FA-quality sometime soon, after Greensburg tornado hopefully passes. I'm less sure about whether this one would pass, though, so I'm putting it up for a PR to clear up any potential issues.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it for FA status. This would be my first FA nomination, so I'd particularly appreciate feedback on any issues with meeting FA-level MOS compliance.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last few weeks chipping away at it and I've managed to include all the major academic literature about the series of poems. I'd appreciate any writing tips or advice otherwise on how to make it better.
I've listed this article because it seems a too scarce, at the very least comparing to the amount of information on the Japanese article. The Influence part also lacks a lot of citations. The Selected Works seems like a bit of a strange way to take care of his bibliography, and might need improvements as well.
Translating most details from the Japanese Wikipedia might be of major use.
I'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.
Hi there! This is the second time I have requested a peer review on Wikipedia. I am currently working on creating the first Vanier Cup page to become featured on Wikipedia. Hence, I want to get a peer review where I meet all expectations for FAC, so I can then apply for FAC around November 2025, to honour the game aforementioned. Any help towards this journey would be appreciated.
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'm requesting a PR because of how much work has gone into this article lately. I want to see how well it is, especially with it being rated as c-class on 05:12, 30 June 2023.
I agree with the people at the talk page that this article talks about the cultural aspects of plurality, so we don't necessarily have to use MEDRS sources. However, one medical claim remains: Multiplicity is seen as inherently disordered when it is not. There is a similar statement elsewhere in the article saying that Being plural, or identifying as multiple people in one body, is often seen as inherently "disordered". However, most systems do not consider plurality to be necessarily "disordered" in and of itself, which is fine, since it's a cultural claim, not a medical one. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to work for its status as a GA in the future.
I need GA requirements to be met, I need help with article size and culling. I also need a peer reviewed source integrity spot check. Any other matters relevant to improving the article is helpful and appreciated.
It can be closed, I have made significant changes, the only issue is the length which I haven't changed as making a separate page for history of Mizo people overlaps with History of Mizoram and Chhinlung. Happy for a GAN Taitesena (talk) 23:06, 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've listed this article for peer review because I plan on possibly nominating this article for FAC in the coming months. Therefore, I'd appreciate all suggestions on improving the article before nominating it for FAC.
I'm hoping to get some feedback on what else I could possibly add that would be useful to a general reader. I have a *lot* of information that I could put into this article, but it's very scattered and I'd like to spend my time efficiently.
@Grumpylawnchair: One more ping; if you're still interested in reviews, you may want to ask editors on their talk pages if they'd be willing to provide comments, or reviewing other nominations and inviting the nominators here. You might also be interested in an FAC mentor, since it looks like this would be your first candidate. Let me know! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I grabbed most of the sources and material from both FAs and GAs, and used example of other featured lists to create the lead and tables. This is my first listicle I'm submitting to do so, and I would love a peer review. Thank you!
The Frank Sinatra article is a comprehensive and well-sourced biography of the legendary singer, actor, and cultural icon. I believe it meets many of the criteria for a Featured Article in terms of coverage, sourcing, and structure, and I would appreciate feedback from experienced editors on whether it is ready for nomination.
Thanks, CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
