Wikipedia:Peer review

"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. For the guideline on the use of press releases, see Wikipedia:Third-party sources § Press releases.

For the Wikipedia guideline about pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes.

For the review of new pages, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

Main Unanswered Instructions Discussion Tools Archive Peer review Editing articles Start a new article Develop the article How to write a great article Manual of style Current reviews Full Unanswered List Log by Wikiproject Archive Peer review process Instructions Discussion Tools Other Conclusion policy Volunteers list Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking. Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing, it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects. To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on. A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here. Arts Mahira Khan I've listed this bio for peer review because I want to get it to GA status. Thanks, Saqib (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Not in This Lifetime... Tour I've listed this article for peer review because it is a well written article that has faced major expansion recently, and I look to help it improve even more. Thanks, RF23 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Definitely Maybe I've listed this article for peer review because Oasis' first album seems in nice condition and this was a great album. But because it was such a big hit for a debut album, I want to know if anything needs adjusted or if it needs more research before it becomes a GA. This album is older than me, and I've never had a successful 90's album nomination before, so I wanted to know. And by the way, I'm sure there are dead links in the article, I have not looked at that yet. Thanks, dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Deep Purple (album) I've listed this article for peer review because I need advice for grammar, syntax and completeness, before attempting a GA promotion. Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Comment: In my opinion, this article doesn't read like it was written from a neutral point of view, especially the musical style and release and promotion sections. I see a lot of stating opinions as facts and judgmental language. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Amnesia (Chumbawamba song) I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's about ready for a GA nomination but I want feedback before I actually nominate it. There's not really one particular area I think is problematic; any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Anotheronewiki (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC) List of awards and nominations received by Holby City I've listed this article for peer review because after recent contributions made to the article, I would like to nominate it for Featured List. However, before doing this I wanted to receive a peer review. I'm also hoping this has been included in the correct category as there wasn't really one that covered media (television, film etc) except this. Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC) EastEnders Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because it was previously a good article in 2006 but has since then it has fell into disrepair. I am not sure where to start, hoping for some advise assuming it's salvageable. Additionally I have created a sandbox so you may comment on specific sections. User:Kelvin 101/EastEnders (Main article draft) Thanks, Kelvin 101 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Just some general issues, I will add more as I find them. Tsange ☯ Talk 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Images need ALT text Multiple dead links see [1] History section should come before Setting section Not really sure the Realism section adds anything to the article. Character section is too long More of the article consists of Lots of choppy sentences that are short and don't flow well into each other Comments by Smurrayinchester Smurrayinchester 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC) A couple of sections are out of date - the budgets only run to 2010, for instance, and the number of episodes per year is as of 2006. The "Internet" section should probably go - very out of date, and it's no longer especially interesting that people search for TV shows. The "Criticism" section should be split up - maybe something like "Allegations of national and racial stereotypes", "Morality and violence", "Controversial storylines" - and be trimmed a bit. (As the most viewed show in the UK, there will always be some complaints. Priority should be given to the biggest ones. The "Realism" section seems mistitled - "Issues" might be more accurate. I'd expand the "In popular culture" section to "In British culture", since it currently contains nothing but a link to EastEnders in popular culture. Academics have written reams about what EastEnders means to British culture (see 1, 2, 3). Thanks for both of your comments I shall try and rectify all problems as soon as possible. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Monnow Bridge Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 4 March 2017, 23:28 UTC Last edit: 3 April 2017, 20:42 UTC Hi-5 (Australian band) Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because the article successfully was listed as a Good Article in 2016, and after a year, I believe it has improved even more. To prepare the article to eventually become a Feature Article, I would like to hear some further feedback. This article sat in Peer Review for 6 months with no comments, so any feedback would be welcome here! Thankyou in advance. SatDis (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Over the Garden Wall (miniseries) I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is suitable or near-suitable for featured article status. It is already at GA status, and I think the only part of it that would be troublesome is the length of the miniseries' episode descriptions, but those are fixable. Cheers, Matthew - (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC) The article overall is well done and does a good job of covering the development and scope of the series. I made a few minor text edits directly in the article. Not having seen the series, my comments below are predominantly based on trying to follow the plot for something I haven't seen - I hope they help! I have a page submitted for peer review right now and would appreciate any feedback you might have about it. Good luck with the FA review! --Dnllnd (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) The second sentence in the first paragraph of the Plot sentence is rather long. Readability would be improved by splitting it up, possibly after noting Beatrice is a bluebird. "On the other hand, Greg, the younger brother, is all about play and being carefree, much to Wirt's chagrin and the danger to himself and others." This sentence could be rephrased to improve clarity "On the other hand..." doesn't serve any clear purpose - you could get rid of it without losing the essential contrast between the brothers. the part about danger to others doesn't fit with 'much to Writ's chagrin'. Did try rewording it myself in case I'm not accurately assuming intent. Last sentence, first paragraph of Final chapters section: Are the train tracks on a hill? Does pushing him off the tracks cause them to fall down a hill into a lake? As someone hasn't seen the series this part is confusing to me. "As the scene ends, Greg's frog begins to glow, due to having eaten a magic bell in.." Why does Greg have a frog in the hospital? Is there a way to mention it earlier in the synopsis? Pilot synopsis: ".. but they manage to escape while John Crops finds a lover." Again, having not seen any of these this is an odd conclusion to the section. Why do the have to escape? Do they get trapped by the dangerous animals? E3 synopsis: How does Wirt joining the class prove a point to Beatrice? Doesn't joining the class confirm he's a push over given that he's been told to do it by someone he doesn't know? Also, in the last sentence, whose finance is discovered? Miss Langtree's? E4 synopsis: Whose daughter's soul? The Woodsman's or The Beast's? E5 synopsis: Which two embrace each other? Planet of the Apes Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 1 February 2017, 22:33 UTC Last edit: 27 March 2017, 14:41 UTC Dulcitius I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like feedback about the article's development and direction. Thanks, Joshuachasegold (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Comments by RL0919 I support the tagged suggestion of splitting the article. An article about a play and an article about a real person are two very different things, and it is very awkward to have them joined together. The list of scenes should be rewritten to a more conventional plot summary. The section titled "Dulcitius and feminism" doesn't seem to have much to do with feminism. Perhaps it should be re-titled, or is there more material available to expand the discussion? I did some MOS-based copy edits to the punctuation and capitlization. This is an interesting item and a lot of my article work is on older plays (usually not quite this old!), so I would be happy to help you work on the article beyond peer review if you would like. I agree with previous suggestions that the extent of the biographical info about Hrosvitha's life is unnecessary given the existence of another page about the topic. Beyond that, the page would benefit from a section for a synopsis of the play. While it's useful to have the scenes outlined there isn't any clear summarization of what the play is about or why it is, as noted in the lead, comedic in nature - this explanation is also absent from the Dulcitius as comedy sub-heading. At the same time, it's interesting to know that the play was written in the style of Terence, but if a reader doesn't know anything about that playwright they would have to click into the page for that work to understand the reference. A review of the lead and a consideration of how they align with WP:LEAD guidelines would also help. There is information presented - specifically that Agape, Chionia, and Irena are sisters - that isn't clearly outlined in the remainder of the page. I hope this helps with page revisions moving forward! I have a page submitted for peer review right now, as well, and would appreciate any feedback. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Sept haï-kaïs Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 26 May 2016, 03:29 UTC Last edit: 23 February 2017, 10:49 UTC Everyday life Meteos Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 8 April 2017, 02:32 UTC Last edit: 10 April 2017, 13:52 UTC Shuchi Agrawal I've listed this article for peer review because I am quite confused with the generalized comment on deleting this article citing unreliable sources, and to get help on reliable sources for this article. Thanks, Domasai (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Engineering and technology Second Avenue Subway I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there are any improvements to this page that I could make before nominating this for featured status. Although a little long, I believe that the article is comprehensive enough that it sufficiently educates every reader on the topic. It has been improved to GA status already after several years of improvement. Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC) The infobox mentions a "near top" image, but I only see the Q and T emblems ("far top"), and the map ("main panel"). Looks like the middle image was deleted. --Golbez (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Nuclear weapon I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get a barnstar submit this article for a GA review and make it into GA. Eventually I would like for this article to become FA again! I would welcome any advice and feedback. Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Well, there are a lot easier ways to get a barnstar and to get an article to GA. I'll submit a full review soon. In the meantime, the first step would be to get it up to B class. That means that it has to pass criterion B1, which means that everything has to have an inline reference. There are already some "citation required" tags, but there are whole unreferenced sections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Bulldozer (microarchitecture) I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get a feel for what I need to do to raise it to b-class, and there to GA. Thanks, -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Spitzer Space Telescope I've listed this article for peer review because the is involved in the discovery of TRAPPIST-1, which has been on news and received a crazy amount of visits in February. I believe that this article is quite important and I need your feedback to promote this article to Good or even featured. I need feedback on improving the article based on GA criterion. Thanks, FriyMan talk 07:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Comments by Smurrayinchester "Unlike most telescopes that are named after famous deceased astronomers by a board of scientists, the new name for SIRTF was obtained from a contest open to the general public." - it's not clear to me what this means. Spitzer was deceased at the time of launch - I assume the difference is that it was named by the public. I'd reword this a bit. I think there's too much info about Spitzer in the lead. I'd move it to later in the article. I've given it a copyedit, but it still has some clunky sentences. "Additionally, the atmosphere is opaque at most infrared wavelengths. This necessitates lengthy exposure times and greatly decreases the ability to detect faint objects. It could be compared to trying to observe the stars at noon." is a good comparison, but it could be made smoother. The Instruments section probably needs links - eg, to indium antimonide and spectrometer. The Results section is quite "bitty". Minor discoveries could be lumped together, and the subsections should be consistent (there's nothing until "GLIMPSE and MIPSGAL surveys", which are program names, then there's "2010s", which is a decade, then "Spitzer Beyond", another program name, and then "Planet hunter", a generic description). Images need alt text. Smurrayinchester 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Comments by Kees08 Try to get as much information for citations as possible, including an access date when you verified the information was there. Each paragraph should have at least a citation in it. It will not get past GA without it. Loginext I've listed this article for peer review because my intention of creating an unbiased article about a company using just media links are flagged as promotional. However I am unable to find anything promotional in the language. Please guide if there is something I am missing. Thanks, Faiz Dan Shaikh (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Faiz Dan Shaikh since the article was deleted you should probably close this request since there is nothing to peer review.  MPJ-DK  23:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Progress in artificial intelligence This article was created in March 2008 and is based around a 4 point categorisation of progress (more recently 5), which could be considered as a piece of original research, and is expanded from a section in the AI article (which still shows the original). Requests for citations on the AI page were posted in 2011 and eventually filled in 2012 by reference to a 2011 refereed paper from a management journal. Comparing the wording it is obvious to me that this was lifted straight out of Wikipedia. In discussions with the original author (see Category names, Super-human?) he has argued for 4 other citations post 2011, although two of them are direct quotations from Wikipedia, as a reason for maintaining the original names. What do we do about it? I think it very unlikely there will be any earlier citation for this categorisation but it might soon become part of the lore of AI. Is it ever valid to use a citation which is based on material in Wikipedia? (My original reason for contributing to the article was a disagreement with the way that the term super-human was used, but this is a secondary issue.) Thanks, Chris55 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Comments by EthanMacdonald I do admire the intention to create a page documenting progress in artificial intelligence. However, it is an ambitious goal. No unified framework for reasoning about progress in AI has emerged yet. While the original author has listed one or two references, one or two references (which are relatively obscure considering the scope of the topic and the weight they are given in the article) is hardly grounds to declare scientific consensus. I believe it is important to ensure this lack of consensus is conveyed within the article, so that readers walk away with a balanced and neutral understanding of the subject (which they can use to form their own opinions). As such, I think it would be better for the article to critically discuss various approaches to reasoning about AI progress without settling on any one method or framework. In my opinion, this article isn't really there yet. For example, it doesn't question the assumption that AI should be evaluated against humans. Why should I accept that premise when non-human benchmarks like MNIST, CIFAR, or ImageNet are abundantly common in top machine learning conferences (e.g., NIPS, ICML)? I'm not convinced. Personally, I think the classification scheme should be removed. At most, it should be a subsection describing one particular way of reasoning about AI (proposed by one or two people), out of a wide array of possible options. Perhasps rather than categorizing notable achievements under the current headings, it would be ideal to describe various approaches to measuring or reasoning about AI progress (in all it's many varieties), and then illustrate those approaches with notable achievements, methods, and benchmarks instead: Turing Tests & Comparisons to Human Intelligence Formal Methods Validation Error Reconstruction Error Game Theoretic Approaches Regret Sample Complexity Computational Efficiency Human Interpretability Data/Task Benchmarks Interdisciplinary Studies Industry Adoption & Applications AI Ethics, Law, & Pubic Policy Another approach might be to split the article up into categories based on AI tasks and/or various applications of AI in society. In that case, something like: Tasks: Computer Vision Natural Language Processing Games Robotics Etc. Applications: Recommendation Engines Medicine Personal Assistants Law Military & Policing Biology Physics Engineering Transportation Etc. EthanMacdonald (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC) General Voxman Music Building I've listed this article for peer review because. Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC) @TheWarOfArt you haven't provided a reason. The article does however seem well written and well sourced, so I'm not sure what I can add. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Comments from User:KJP1 General I think buildings/structures articles are much improved by a photograph. In the absence of a photograph, or indeed with one, a building article really needs a description of the building itself. This article doesn't have one. Looking at images of the building online, it is certainly striking, and a description should be relatively easy to craft. This should include reference to architectural style, etc. Something on the building's reception would be useful. Do architectural critics / its users (teachers/students/performers) like it or loathe it? Lede The lede is very short and will need expansion if your intention is GA. Is an "academic building" a specific type? I know what you mean, but I'm not sure the "academic" isn't academic. History "located on the bank of the Iowa River" - does the Iowa River only have one bank? The left or the right? "a new location for the new music building" - two "new"s in one sentence. An "alternative location"...? "formally announced" - had it previously been announced "informally"? Suggest "announced" is sufficient. "officially opened" - did it have a soft opening first? Suggest "opened" is sufficient. Performing spaces "700-seat concert Hall, a 200-seat recital Hall and a 75-seat organ Hall" - in each case, I don't think the capitalisation of "Hall" is necessary. Citations Link 6 appears to be dead. Hope the above comments are of some use. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Nicholas C. Rowley I've listed this article for peer review because… This is one of my first articles and am looking for any peer feedback. Thanks, BME917 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Comments from User:KJP1 A few thoughts on what I think are the article's major issues: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - It isn't a Neutral article, reading much more as a publicity piece than a balanced appraisal of the subject's importance and career. A quick google search, [2] suggests a more balanced view of the subject's career could be written. Citations - Many are not independent sources. Nearly half, including the first three, come from websites directly linked to the subject of the article. This includes the very first, which asserts the subject's notability. You really can't use the subject's own website as the source for the claim that he is "one of the most successful attorneys in United States history." Photograph - I see you are the author of the photograph of the subject. This may suggest a personal connection, although it may not. If there is a personal connection between yourself and the subject, you should be clear about this to avoid any suggestion of a COI. Use of subject's first name - to refer to the subject as "Nick" throughout the article comes across as informal and unencyclopedic, and again suggests a closeness between the subject and the author of the article. Incorrect formatting - Four of the citations, 1, 9,10 and 15 are incorrectly formatted. Citation 16 - This leads to a defunct website. Broad Coverage - The bulk of the article comprises, in effect, two lists - his accolades and his notable cases. Where was he born, where educated, where does he live, does he have family, etc. etc.? Prose - "awarded his family with a verdict of $40,000,000.00." I'm not a lawyer, but does a jury award with a verdict? And is $40M a verdict? Isn't the verdict the decision, i.e. the liability or otherwise of the company being sued, and the degree of liability; and the $40M the award? Hope these comments are helpful. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Canobie Lake Park Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 23 January 2017, 00:48 UTC Last edit: 9 April 2017, 17:28 UTC Underwater diving I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA, and would like comments particularly on completeness of scope, clarity of writing and comprehensibility of explanation. I have already done the automatic checks from the toolbox. I would be happy with a review from an expert in the field, or someone who has no previous knowledge of the subject at all, or anything in between, all could be helpful. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Toronto FC Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 15 February 2017, 22:42 UTC Last edit: 11 March 2017, 14:52 UTC CMLL World Welterweight Championship I've listed this article for peer review because I have gotten it to GA status over time and continued to work on it in the hopes of getting this to Featured Article status at some point. Since I have worked so much on this I tend to get a little blind to certain article issues so I would appreciate other eyes on this before I consider making it a FAC. Thanks in advance for any and all input,  MPJ-DK  23:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Rachel Scott I've listed this article for peer review because I'm skeptical as to whether the article surpasses the given criteria for good article. And for the most part, need to know if the sources used in the article are reliable and not COI; most of them was retrieved from the subject's journals and materials written by her parents. Thanks, Bluesphere 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC) 1998 NFC Championship Game Trying to get this article featured. I think I've finally reached a point that it can happen, but obviously, I'd like some feedback first. Helltopay-27 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Turkish Land Forces I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy. Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) The listing of corps, divisions, and brigades is almost completely unsourced. That will need to be much better.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC) For a successful GA nomination, you will need to modify commentary such as this (adding attribution): "The information below is unconfirmed and may be out of date; it seems likely now that the Training and Doctrine Command controls all the artillery and infantry training brigades." I suggest adding a short paragraph or two to the Equipment and Insignia sections, which summarise the main articles the bare urls should be formatted with author, title, publisher and access dates the "page needed", "dead link" and "unreliable source" tags will need to be dealt with every paragraph should end in a citation suggest moving "Note a" out of the body of the article to the Notes section just above the References (currently empty) Turkish Naval Forces I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy. Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Turkish Air Force I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy. Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Turkish Armed Forces I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy. Thanks, kazekagetr 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Fallout 4: Far Harbor Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to try FA again sometime soon. Please be as honest as you can with all the comments. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Comments by The1337gamer In Development and release: What's the purpose of the Todd Howard quote? I don't think quotes should really be used unless it is a controversial subject that could be misinterpreted or it would very difficult paraphrase or express in an editor's own words. The quote itself is pretty bad as he's not conveying his point very clearly and it's not obvious what he's actually talking about immediately. @The1337gamer: IMO the quote adds to the article as it's talking about what went through the dev's heads when they had the idea for the expansion. I think it can stay for now, unless others also believe it should go. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) In Development and release: What's the purpose of the external video link? It's not really adding value to the article itself. It's just directing readers away from the article to marketing material. Removed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) In Development and release: "FPS" is used but it is not clear what it is an abbreviation for. Add FPS in brackets after the first mention of "frames per second". Done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) In Reception: Christopher Livingston (PCGamer) – PCGamer → PC Gamer Done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Peter Dinklage I've listed this article for peer review because i'm trying to get this to FA. Also Peter Dinklage is awesome. Thanks, AffeL (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Geography and places Vancouver Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a second opinion before nominating this article for GA status. Thanks, Daylen (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Elcor, Minnesota I've listed this article for peer review because…I have edited this article as much as possible. It is well-sourced, but occasionally I've added an additional source if it provides relevance to the article (which can be tough if you're writing about a ghost town). I know there is some "fluff" which could be re-worded or perhaps eliminated, but I think its beyond a "C" article at this point. Thanks, DrGregMN (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Turkey Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible FA candidacy. Thanks, kazekagetr 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Northern England I'd like to get this article up to Featured Article status. Length-wise, it's more or less at the limit (65k of prose, roughly comparable to our articles on New England or Northern Ireland), so I'd prefer not to add anything, but any other comments would be very welcome. Cheers, Smurrayinchester 15:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC) History Territorial evolution of the United States Previous peer review I've gone through and cleaned up a bunch of entries, found a few errors, and generally cleaned it up. I think it's ready to go for featured list, but I wanted to throw it through PR one more time, the last one was 8 months ago. There's one more thing I want to do (better handling of Indian Territory in the Civil War) but that has to wait for me to get a book, which I hope to do soon. Thanks, Golbez (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Vasco Gonçalves I am requesting a peer review for this article because the subject of this article is an important individual in Portuguese history, specifically in Portugal's transition to democracy. I have hit a wall on how to expand this article, and I am looking for some advice (and maybe some help) on how to improve this article. Also, if its possible it would be very helpful to see what level this article is on the quality scale. Thanks, Jp16103 23:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Comments by KJP1 KJP1 I think this article requires quite a lot of work and is probably rated appropriately as Start Class at present. I agree as to his importance. As such there must be some appropriate, written, sources (books) which could form the basis of a more complete article. Specific issues below: Layout It doesn't follow the format of a Wikipedia article. I'd expect to see something like: Lead / Early Life / Military career / Political career / Appraisal / Death. Focus Not nearly enough detail on the major aspects of his career. The 23 years, 1950-73, are a complete blank. Pretty much a complete blank for the 30 years from 1975 to 2004. Citations There aren't nearly enough. The whole of the 4th paragraph has a single citation. And see below. There are quite a lot of citation errors, in particular, Sources 2 and 6. Source 4 claims to be from The New York Times but actually links to The Daily Telegraph obituary. Also, it's exactly the same as Source 1, which is the Telegraph obit. re-cycled. Similarly, Sources 2 and 6 are the same and should be linked. The sources are not sufficiently broad. Given that 1 and 4, and 2 and 6, are actually the same two sources, you've got the DT obit., the Independent obit., a short, Portuguese article and a YouTube video. That's not enough. Copyvio The 4th para. has too close a similarity to the text in Source 3. The Copyvio tool shows a very clear match for much of it. It needs re-wording. Prose - quite a lot of issues. Examples below: "Vasco dos Santos Gonçalves was born on May 3 1921, in Sintra, Portugal. His father, Vítor Candido Gonçalves, was a professional footballer turned foreign exchange dealer. He graduated from the Portuguese military academy..." - Who graduated, him or his father? "Gonçalves married, in 1950, Aida Rocha Alfonso,.." - did he marry someone else in 1951? Suggest "In 1950, G married ARA..." "Gonçalves short tenure as Prime Minister of Portugal.." - either Gonçalves' or Gonçalves's, here and elsewhere. "Vasco dos Santos Gonçalves passed away on June 11th, 2005" - can we replace "passed away" with "died"? Image Is there no better photo than this profiled crowd shot? I hope the above comments aren't discouraging. You've found an interesting subject, and have the basis for a decent article. But there is quite a lot that needs doing. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your input, actually I did not find your comments discouraging at all. In fact, I am even more motivated to work on this project. Once again, thank you! Jp16103 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Farrukhsiyar I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA. Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Muammar Gaddafi I've listed this article for peer review because it has been GA-rated for some time now and I am planning on taking it to FAC later in the year. It would be great if some other editors could give the prose a read-through and let me know their thoughts. It may be that others pick up on prose problems that I have missed. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Drusus Julius Caesar I'm working on articles relating to heirs or potential heirs to the Roman Empire, and am hoping to get this promoted to GA. Any input welcome. Psychotic Spartan 123 09:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC) British Army Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it into a Featured Article, but I am not sure if it meets all of the criteria. I need feedback on how I can improve this article. Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan talk 09:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Hi FriyMan, the article is in reasonable shape at the minute, but I'm afraid the GA review didn't go into the sort of depth necessary for an article like this. I'm afraid as things stand, an FAC would have no hope of success. What's here is mostly good, though it lacks depth in some places and it gives undue weight to recent history (this is a common problem on Wikipedia—anything that happened since the advent of 24-hour news channels and constantly updated websites gets blown massively out of proportion). My main concern is that it seems to built around websites and news sources, some of them of doubtful reliability, when an article like this needs to be based on books. There are plenty of good, solid histories of the British Army and of of British military history. Some of them are cited here, but not as much as they need to be, and just by glancing at my bookshelf and glancing at the bibliography here, I can see obvious gaps—for example (and these are just examples), no works by Lord Carver or William Jackson (both former army officers and distinguished military historians) are cited. The other dealbreaker is that the references are a mess. You've got a mix of shortened footnotes (some using {{sfn}}, some not) and full citations in the references section, and a mix of books and web sources in the bibliography. Before you do anything else, I would suggest you gather all the books and multi-page sources into the bibliography and use Harvard-style shortened citations (with or without the template but be consistent) to cite individual pages and page ranges; then gather all your web/single-page sources into the main references section; then gather all your unused sources into another place (a further reading section, the talk page, or this review are all good places) until you can figure out whether you want to cite them or not. Then make sure they're all formatted consistently and contain all the necessary information. Once you've done that, it'll be much easier to figure out what you've got and where the gaps are, and you have a system you can easily follow for any citations added in future ([an example]). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC) World War I I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA candidacy. Thanks, kazekagetr 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Comments The article uses a mix of British and American English - should be consistent Dead links Cleanup tags should be addressed Suggest scaling up maps and graph Several of the short cites have harv errors File:1908-10-07_-_Moritz_Schiller's_Delicatessen.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? File:1914-06-29_-_Aftermath_of_attacks_against_Serbs_in_Sarajevo.png: when/where was this first published? Same with File:FirstSerbianArmedPlane1915.jpg File:Hochseeflotte_2.jpg: tag does not match given information. Suggest checking other images for incomplete or incorrect description and copyright tagging Several paragraphs are lacking citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Arab Agricultural Revolution I've listed this article for peer review because to my surprise this quiet, well-cited article has met with out-of-hand rejection at GAN. Having considered what is needed I've found nothing I wish to alter, but would welcome the independent thoughts of other editors. Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Comments from User:Anotheronewiki This is my first peer review, so bear with me. Also, I'm not an expert, so I might have missed some problems, or some of what I point out may not be problematic. Here goes. Lead The first sentence in the lead section seems a little unwieldy. It might be a good idea to split it into two or three sentences, or to rearrange it so that the meaning of "Arab Agricultural Revolution" comes before the info on who coined the term. Done. It's best to have the lead section act as an overview of the article as a whole. Try rewording some of the lead so it's broad enough that you need no (or fewer) citations (as long as the info is restated in the body of the article, with citations there). Moved the list of alternative names out of lead, with their citations. I don't think it's necessary to name specific scholars who disagreed with the idea in the lead. Perhaps you could simply note that some scholars disagreed in the lead, so people can go down and read the "Reception" section if that's what they're interested in. Done. Watson's paper The first paragraph is really good. I see no blatant issues with it. Thanks. Three of the four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Watson." I think it would be OK to refer to him as "he" a couple of times, since he's the only individual mentioned in the section. Done. For conciseness, I think you could reword the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the 2nd paragraph to read "according to Watson, had not previously grown these plants; he listed eighteen such crops." Done. Reception The first sentence doesn't sound quite right. Maybe "Watson's work was met with some early scepticism, for example from the historian Jeremy Johns in 1984" could be reworded as "Watson's work was initially met with some scepticism from historians including Jeremy Johns in 1984" or something like that. When you say the skepticism was early, it sounds like the skepticism came before the paper was published. Done. The following sentence, in the 3rd paragraph in the reception section, feels a little too complicated: "In the case of cotton, which the Romans grew mainly in Egypt, cultivation remained minor in the classical Islamic period, the major fibre being flax, as in Roman times." There are so many dependent clauses that it takes a couple of reads to understand the sentence. I'd recommend either splitting it into 2 sentences or rewording it to combine clauses. Tweaked. The rest of the reception section looks pretty good. I can't see anything wrong with it. Thanks. Overall Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-researched article. I learned quite a bit from it, and I think that with a few minor changes, it'll have no trouble passing GA Assessment. Good luck! -Anotheronewiki (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Very many thanks for taking the time. I'll see what I can do to incorporate your suggestions and will post details here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC) List of sunken battleships I've listed this article for peer review because I was instructed to do so, upon my original completion of the article, by the evaluators of it at Wikiproject Military history. I want to know what more I must do to get this article to Featured List status. Thanks, Vami_IV✠ 22:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Comments: G'day, nice work. I only have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC) I think this should be referenced: "The ship's bell was recovered, restored, and is now displayed in the Merseyside Maritime Museum in Liverpool" "908 Killed, 20 Captured" --> "908 killed, 20 captured" (same for all other instances of "Killed" and "Captured") for King Edward VII what ref provides "under 115 metres (377 ft) of water"? " Off Lisbon, Portugal" --> "off Lisbon, Portugal" (and other similar instances when preceded by co-ordinates) this should be referenced: "HMS Centurion's badge is on display at Shugborough Hall." suggest cropping the caption off "File:Japanese battleship Settsu in old postcard.jpg" suggest replacing "File:USS Nevada (replica).jpg" with a photo of the actual vessel if one exists the External links section should be below the Notes per WP:LAYOUT the bare urls in the External links section should be formatted with a title there is a short citation for "Rohwer, p. 118", but no corresponding long citation in the References section same as above for Lengerer, p. 59, Preston, p. 176, and Schultz, pp. 228–248 ref 104 "Grant" needs a page number if possible "ARMOUR-PLATING-FROM-THE-TIRPITZ": the capitalisation should be reduced per MOS:ALLCAPS ref 1 uses a different style to most of the other citations (there are a few inconsistencies throughout) good luck with taking the article further Implemented, thanks! –Vami_IV✠ 01:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)  Done  Done  Done (researched and cited)  Done  Done  Done (Replaced image)  Done  Done  Done  Done  Done  Done  Done  Done (Removed) Thanks, I will probably need it Ezra Weston II Seeking a peer review for this article. I am considering submitting it for GA and would appreciate any suggestions for improvement, corrections, etc. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Congress of the Confederate States I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially added narrative from reliable sources Thomas, Coulter and Martis, adding inline citations, images and footnoting previous contributions. Following a peer review, I'd like to nominate the article for a Good Article. Thanks, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Herbert von Dirksen I've listed this article for peer review because… As the last diplomat posted in the UK before WWII it seems that this person has got very little written about them here on Wikipedia. However, there are an abundance of sources on the article’s subject so this could be turned into a fantastic article. Shamefully, I simply do not have the time to do any more than I have done so far with it so would like to get some history wigs working on it. Cheers. Thanks, →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 11:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Isabelle Eberhardt Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FAC soon. If you have a PR, GAN or FAC I would be happy to review it in return for your comments here. Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Comments from Jaguar There is an inconsistent use of "Isabelle" and "Eberhardt" in the Early life and family background section "The two initially lived with the Davids" - who was the other David other than Louis David? "Her morale was lifted when Ehnni was transferred to a spahi regiment near Marseille" - this has already been linked "In 1954, author and explorer Cecily Mackworth published "The Destiny of Isabelle Eberhardt"" - shouldn't this be in italics? "a fictionalized account of her" - fictionalised (if you want the spelling to be stay consistent) I honestly can't find any issues to raise with this article. I've read it thoroughly and also remember reviewing the GAN! I also spotchecked the four accessible refs and couldn't find any issues there. I'm really not sure how much I can be of help other than recommending you take it to FAC, because I think it stands a good chance. JAGUAR  17:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your comments Jaguar; I addressed everything. I completely forgot you reviewed the GAN! I've nominated this article for a copyedit, once that is done and my current FAC nomination is closed I'm intending to submit this one to FAC. I'll probably ping you for your comments there since you're already familiar with the article. Cheers. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Comments by Janweh64 I will start this soon. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Social contract Social Contract theory is an influential political and moral theory advcoated by enlightenment thinkers. The article is rated C-class. It has some nice information, but it is not ready to go for GA or even FA status yet. I would like some input by other editors on how to improve the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham I've listed this article for peer review because: It was a pretty basic start-class article originally, but I have substantially expanded (x4, I think) and thoroughly sourced it, as well as providing more sections and images, bibliog, etc. For the purpose of GA or beyond, hopefully. Many thanks, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Comments Not sure I see the value in having full bibliographic details in both References and Bibliography - usually we either see short cites in the former and full in the latter, or full cites in the former and no latter section. Beyond that, you've got two distinct citation styles going on plus a few link-only refs - suggest making consistent Rather than fixed image sizes, suggest using scaling - see WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Comments Why is the article here and at A-class review? I think it should be one or the other, not both. I also think this needs quite a bit of work....just mho, but there it is.... A lot of the issues would have been addressed at a GA review as well.....auntieruth (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC) @Auntieruth55: Out of curiosity, since I am unfamiliar with the GA process, what issues are there in this article that the GA process would address? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC) usually a lot of basic issues are covered at ga review. Photo licensing. Basic grammar and punctuation. Etc. Peer review is the next thing I'd do in place of ga. It is just that by skipping that step And putting it at both peer review and a class we duplicate our efforts. Just saying. You can do what you wish. I just think one or the other is appropriate. auntieruth (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC) @Auntieruth55:Oh, this isn't my nom. I'm a reviewer. :-) I was just curious. I'm very surprised that a GA reviewer would look at photo licensing. [I have sworn never to do another GA review again, because everyone complained that I was too picky. They took it to the talk page of GAC, in fact.] And yes, I agree this nom is double-dipping in PR and A-class review.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Belarusian Black Cats I already proposed this article for deletion because of the lack of trustable sources. It uses obviously nationalist propaganda material as a source while serious historians write very little about this mysterious unit. Biddiscombe writes that the Black Cats consisted only of thirty persons and therefore it definitely cannot be called a guerrilla. Overall, the article conveys nationalist legends of a fictional anti-Soviet guerrila which actually did not exist. I would be very grateful if someone would make improvements in order to present this unit in a differentiated and realistic manner. --Der Rationalist (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Same as my comment at AfD, I suggest that the article be redirected to Michał Vituška#Black_Cats, where the topic is already sufficiently covered. Perhaps a better avenue for this would be the article's Talk page? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Rwandan Civil War I've been working on this article on and off for a few years now, and finally I think it's ready to begin the formal article promotion processes. The end goal I'm hoping to reach is an FAC, although if people here think that the article is still far short of that, then I'd be happy to go for a GA nomination as well. Basically, any and all feedback welcome. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Comments Suggest scaling up the lead map, either within the infobox or outside it if need be OK. I'd really like to find a new infobox image, as the map of Rwandan road network is really not particularly revelevant to this subject. Unfortunately there seems to be an almost complete lack of free images pertaining to the civil war (as opposed to the genocide). I'll keep searching, and if I can't find anything then I'll scale up the current one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Actually suggest scaling up the other maps as well OK, I'll look into these.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Associated Press belongs in |agency=, BBC News in |publisher= or |work= depending on desired format. Check for other non-authors in |author= The current format is how I've always cited when I write articles - where there is no discernible human author, I use the organisation as the author. This was not a problem in FAs Rwanda and Paul Kagame.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Check for ENGVAR consistency - it's mostly British but then you've got things like "reorganization". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC) OK, I've changed all to -ise form. Actually, -ize is legitimate British English, (for example in the Oxford dictionary) but it wasn't being used consistently, so best to settle on -ise.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Bruce by-election, April 1865 Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 3 February 2017, 20:33 UTC Last edit: 16 March 2017, 05:33 UTC Abebe Bikila I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant improvements to the article recently and would like a second opinion. My main concerns are any POV problems that may arise because I was the only recent significant contributor. I would also like a close look taken at the lead which is entirely my addition. Please also reassess the articles rating under the relevant WikiProjects. Thanks, — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Comments from Freikorp Will complete a review of this one soon. Freikorp (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Lead "member of the Imperial Guard" - this sentence doesn't give much indication of what the Imperial Guard is. A few words of clarification explaining what it is would be helpful; at the very least I think you should describe it as the Ethiopian Imperial Guard.  Done "Abebe was a trailblazer" - what is a trailblazer in this context? Can you wikilink that word to an appropriate article? Not being familiar with marathon sports I haven't heard of this term; even though it might not be, in the way that you've used it it strikes me as slang. "before the accident that would leave him incapacitated." - I don't think this is necessary as the accident is mentioned in the very next sentence. I suggest you delete this and just specify the year of the first injury in order to distinguish it from the second one. Y Partly done "There are many schools, venues and events named after him" - I think this could be worded better. How about: "Many schools, venues and events are named after him,"  Done Early Life Imperial Guard is wikilinked in the lead but not at its first appearance in the body.  Done 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome The section about lead changes and even the amount of photos in this section strikes me as over-detailed. 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo "To this day" - have a read of WP:REALTIME  Done 1965–68 "due to an earlier fracture to his left fibula." - when and how did this happen? It's confusing to read. Done Accident and death "He witnessed his countryman Mamo Wolde fail to match Abebe's twin marathon victories." - This wording seems a bit harsh on Wolde.  Done Mention of Abede's death seems to come out of nowhere. Can you tie in some information about his health before he died? For example was his death completely unexpected? Legacy "kicked off" reads like slang  Done Obviously the three sentences requesting citations need to be cited. In popular culture I think you should introduce 'Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian (2009)' before you comment on it. I.e 'Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian' was directed by [x] and released in 2009. According to Tim Lewis, it is a more journalistic and less forgiving biography...'  Done I think you should mention Robin Williams full name, and perhaps where he said that comment, in the quote box.  Done Hope this review helps. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC) The changes you've made look good. Ping me if you want further comment on anything. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Russian military deception I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article to be thorough and well-sourced on a significant and coherent topic, but it appears to arouse passions among some readers. Since it was reviewed in 2015 I have revised it for tone and selected a more neutral title than the one popular in the West. Encouragingly, the text has barely changed since May 2016. I would be interested to know what other editors now think of it, with a view to taking it to GAN when ready. Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Comments from AustralianRupert G'day, Chiswick Chap, nice work with this article. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations (I mainly looked at the citations):AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Glantz 2006" appears in the citations, but there doesn't appear to be a corresponding entry in the Sources section Fixed. "Glantz, p. 3" --> which year? Fixed. "stated that "Surprise has a stunning effect on the...": you can probably silently decapitalise "Surprise" here Done. same as above here: "claimed early in November that "The Russians no..." (for "The") Done. "Khitrost' means a commander's...": is the extra apostrophe needed here? Removed. same as above for: "vnezapnost', so the two are naturally..." Removed. there are a few short citations that don't link properly to long citations (for example, "Alʹbat︠s︡ & Fitzpatrick 1994"). This script can help highlight these for you: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js (if you install it in your monobook, such as I have here: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js) Thanks, and fixed. there is some mixture of US and British English variation. For example: "armor" and "armour" Fixed. there are some overlinked terms: David Glantz and Ivan Konev Removed. Citations 72 to 80 should have accessdates added to them Done. "The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote that...": it should possibly be attributed in text that this is being cited by Glantz? Done. Also, the above quote seems to end in a quote mark, but not begin with one Removed. Good luck with taking the article further Many thanks, I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Comments from S Khemadhammo Great article! I didn't know that the Russians studied Sun Tsu as well. Although I have little knowledge about the subject, I think I can give a few humble comments on the subject, from an outsider's perspective: "surprise was achieved despite very large concentrations of force, both in attack and in defence." This sentence took me a moment to understand. Though the meaning is clear, its structure feels a little unusual. Perhaps using more verbs and less nouns will solve it. Can't think of a clearer and more compact phrasing: maybe one will come to me. "Civilians within 25 kilometres of the front were evacuated..." No spacing between reference and sentence. Done. some numbers such as 20 can be written as words instead per WP:MOS. Have tried to use words for small numbers and digits for large ones. The concluding sentence "Regular Russian troops were...implausible." has too many references and some should be deleted or merged per WP:CITEKILL. Done. If at all possible, considering the nature of the subject, one could consider adding more from a Russian perspective, therefore increasing neutrality, though the nature of the subject makes this rather difficult. Indeed. However, the Moscow Times is in there. I hope this helps.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Many thanks, just entering GAN but will try to action your suggestions now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Okay, good luck with it! Meanwhile, may I ask you to take a look at an article i just submitted for peer review? It's here. Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks to you. I'll see if I can say anything on your article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 19 December 2016, 08:43 UTC Last edit: 25 February 2017, 01:51 UTC Vlad the Impaler I've listed this article for peer review because Vlad the Impaler's personality and rule has always been subject to scholarly debates, often coloured by emotions. Consequently, I think the neutrality of the article about his life should be peer reviewed before its GAN. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC) This sfn reference is malformed. The year parameter is occupied by a page number (the template expects years to be four digits so is treating the page number as a name). I expect that the correct year value is 1991 but because I cannot know if the page number is supposed to be 217 or 218 or both 217, 218, I have not repaired it. Also, Harmening in §Secondary sources is not used so may not belong in this list. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Trappist the monk, thank you for your copyediting and also for your above remarks. I fixed the problems. Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC) The article's title bugs me to no end and in the past I've suggested it be changed. It is very Anglo-centric and a term used by his enemies. The article should be re-named to a neutral name used by himself at the time of his life. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your remarks. Sorry, I do not understand why do you think that the translation of his Romanian name ("Vlad Țepeș") is Anglo-centric? According to my experiences, Vlad the Impaler is his common name in books published in English. Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Vlad the Impaler" seems like an Anglo-centric and POV term. Just call him by his actual name. Note that name in the article of course. "Vlad Țepeș" is fine. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Like, if in the year 3000, Wikipedia had an article called "Obama the baby eater". And it was okay because that's generally how he was known in the language of the Wikipedia. It's a bit silly. The article should just use a neutral name that he was called at the time, rather than something promoted much later that is slanted. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I do not understand why the Romanian translation of the Ottoman expression for "Vlad the Impaler" is better than the English translation of the same name. Does Obama habitually eat babies? Does reliable sources commonly refer to him as "Obama the Baby Eater"? Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) What Borsoka is trying to say is that "Vlad Tepes" is actually a Romanian translation of the nickname the Turks give him. "Tepes" can be traslated in english as "the Impaler", so I think the bias towards its use in this article's title is unsubstantial: of course, maybe I'm wrong. Talking of Obama, I think we're really going off the topic. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Canadian Indian residential school system I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone extensive revision over the past several months to improve overall content and presentation of information. The topic is of significance importance and I believe it is a candidate for good article, or possibly, feature article status. Any and all input as a means of achieving either rating would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Dnllnd (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC) This appears to be a well-researched, comprehensive and attractive article on a very important subject. I think it needs a little more clarity on the importance of the subject, particularly for readers outside Canada. I'd like the intro to talk more about the rift between natives and non-natives and to capture what the controversy is. This isn't something everyone always agreed was bad or that everyone knew about (I was about 12 when the last school closed and never heard a word); much of the work lately has been to raise awareness and reconciliation Comments on writing (generally good!): I'd avoid : and ;s- "cultural genocide: 'killing the Indian in the child.'" would read better as "cultural genocide, by 'killing the Indian in the child.'" Should be written in Canadian English- ("centred" rather than "centered" under History header) Headers lower case: "Religious Involvement" should be lower i Inconsistent use of "%" and "percent" Vatican section- "The audience was funded"- say what? History between 1945 and 1969 appears to be lacking- no developments? Not even proliferation in schools? References appear to be thorough, a combo of secondary and some primary (the Commission report) where appropriate "Details of the mistreatment of students were published numerous times throughout the 20th century. Following the government's closure of most of the schools in the 1960s, the work of Indigenous activists and historians led to greater awareness by the public of the damage the schools had caused, as well as to official government and church apologies, and a legal settlement." - Citations? (high priority) "At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease." - Citation? (low priority) " It continues to operate today as the Blue Quills First Nations College, a tribal college." - Citation? (low priority) "In March 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The Foundation was provided with $350 million to fund community-based healing projects addressing the legacy of physical and sexual abuse. In its 2005 budget, the Canadian government committed an additional $40 million to support the work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation." - Citations? (high priority) Lasting effect section- "collective soul wound." - whose phrase? "The ADR process was created by the Canadian government without consultation with Indigenous communities or former residential school students. The ADR system also made it the responsibility of the former students to prove that the abuse occurred and was intentional. Many former students found the system difficult to navigate, re-traumatizing, and discriminatory." - why would dispute resolution be re-traumatizing or discriminatory? I realize I'm asking for a lot of detail for a summary, but would a subarticle be appropriate? Media portrayals section- a header with no text I'm a bit out of step with what constitutes a FA or GA in history and legal articles today. Ten years ago this would be featured. Today, with a little polishing, I think this would be worthy. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) @Ribbet32: Thanks again for the feedback. I think I've addressed the bulk of what you flagged, but will continue chipping away at things over the next while. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Balfour Declaration Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 24 April 2016, 13:07 UTC Last edit: 2 April 2017, 22:52 UTC Natural sciences and mathematics Rotating locomotion in living systems I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for a possible attempt at FA. Please note any areas that are likely to be a problem there. Thanks! Thanks, —swpbT 14:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Dire wolf Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 9 March 2017, 10:50 UTC Last edit: 7 April 2017, 10:31 UTC Homogenization (climate) I've listed this article for peer review because I mostly wrote this page and it got a grade-C. I work on the topic and the homogenization of climate data is important in the US climate "debate". Thus I would love to make it better, but would need outside input to know what is apparently missing or unclear or badly formulated. Thanks, VVenema (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Mammal Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 3 January 2017, 23:07 UTC Last edit: 19 March 2017, 21:38 UTC Cloud Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute. Date added: 3 October 2016, 21:37 UTC Last edit: 30 March 2017, 01:02 UTC Language and literature Sasak language I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first time I write a substantial article about a language. I'd like to bring it to GA status, but I need guidance on what is required to get there. Thanks, HaEr48 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Yu Kanda I've listed this article for peer review because I have plans to nominate it to FA in the future. I know it requires a copy-edit so I requested one some days ago. Still, I'm not sure what it lacks to become a FA like Allen Walker so I would like suggestions, critcism, etc. Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Also pinging @DragonZero: and @ProtoDrake:.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Forgot @Jaguar: Comments from 1989 Looks fine, should be better after someone copyedits it. Ref 12 is not archived. MCMLXXXIX 14:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Archived.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Comments from Aoba47 Complete the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" table for the infobox image. Same goes for the screenshot in the "Appearances" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Link D-Gray-man in its first instance in the body of the article. Same goes for Allen Walker. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Could you further specify this sentence "Additionally, she found Kanda difficult to illustrate due to his beauty."? How does the character's beauty make him difficult to illustrate? Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Kanda is bishonen (an androgynous male character who is even mistaken for a woman in one chapter for the manga). However, Hoshino never refers to him as a bishonen but "sex appeal". How do you think I should rephrase it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I think it is fine as it currently stands. I was more so asking a clarification question to see if you could possibly expand on this information. I understand if you cannot; thank you for clarifying this. Is the screenshot really necessary? I am not sure what it adds to the article (especially since it is a non-free image). Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) I'll remove it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I do not find the image of the cosplayer to be entirely necessary for the article as it does not add much to the article and it clips through the subsections awkwardly. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) I'll remove it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Avoid shouting in the reference titles. For instance, in reference 24, anime review should not be in all caps. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) I'll remove it. Basically have no clue of what free image should I add. Maybe Willingham since he is mentioned by critics?Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) A free image of Willingham could be help. It is really up to you though on what you think would work best with this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks. I will try to address your comments once I get my cpu fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC) No worries; I will look through the article again in the next couple of days to make more in-depth remarks. My above comments are just some minor things that I noticed while briefly reading through it. Hope it helps, and I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Tried doing all the problems you found Aoba47. Still lost at what I should add for the "beauty" as I commented above though.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Thank you for addressing my comments. I believe that this article is strong and I look forward to seeing it put up for FAC sometime in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Aoba47, added an image of Willingham and removed the box from reception. Do you think it's better?Tintor2 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Randall Flagg Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for years and my goal is to see it achieve featured status someday. Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I don't have knowledge of this series but I could see some issues I'll point out. Try using my FA Allen Walker as a guide consider it became FA in late 2016. How about starting as The lead uses quotes and references which is a bit disapproved by guidelines. Try generalizating some of those parts. Try balancing the lead with each paragraph covering something from the main article. Remember to reference as much as possible (the The Dark Tower series section is lacking too much). How come there is no a reception section? Does the comic project's guidelines say nothing about how the media received the character? I'm a little confused. Some parts from characterization could be used in the creation section. That's all I could find. By the way, I would appreciate if you could comment on my own peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/D.Gray-man/archive1. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC) There was a reception/critical reaction section but they were eventually moved to the characterization section by other editors during another peer review. Thanks for the comments, I'll take a look at yours.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Philosophy and religion Four harmonious animals This article is an ancient motif in fairy tales and religious folklore. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive some feedback on its writing, as well as reassess its quality class. Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Astronomica (Manilius) Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it promoted to FA. The Astronomica is an epic Latin poem that was written in the early first century AD by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius. In many ways, it can be viewed as a reply and a rebuttal to Lucretius' De rerum natura, in that it espouses a Stoic understand of the cosmos. While almost all of the poem is intact, it has sadly been neglected for much of its existence (probably due to its esoteric subject matter). In the past year, I have written almost the entire article. It has been peer-reviewed once before, but that was 7 months ago, and I have edited the page quite a few times since then. I believe another look-over would really, really help to improve the article. Thanks, --Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Social sciences and society David M. Friedman I've significantly expanded this page since Friedman became notable back in December. I want to make sure that the article is specific enough and not getting bogged down into details, particularly the "Nomination" section. I'm hoping to bring it to GA, and any feedback about how to structure the article and what to focus on would be appreciated. Thanks, Werónika (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC) New York City Fire Department I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to be of a good quality, but definitely not ready for GA. I'm hoping to bring it to GA after improvements are made. I'd wish to see {{citation needed}} tags where necessary and comments on which topics I should elaborate on and which I should summarize. Really any feedback would be great, including where I could find sources. Thanks, UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States) I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively edited since its beginning (2009) as such I would appreciate knowing what needs to be done to better it. Thanks, StephenTS42 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC) suggest removing the ROK icon from the infobox as it seems confusing for a US Army unit this sentence should be referenced: "At the end of the war (1945), the 38th Anti-Aircraft Brigade was inactivated in Germany" this should be referenced: the paragraph ending "...were collocated at Osan Air Base" this quote should either be rewritten in your own words, or attributed in text: "On 15 July [1981] the 1st Bn, 2nd ADA..." there are too many images in the Inactivation section. I suggest removing the files and rewriting the information in your own words the "Force Planning and Budgetary Implications..." entry is not an internal link and shouldn't be listed in the See also section (potentially it might be in a Further reading section, though, or could be worked into the text as a reference) the bare urls (refs 9 and 14) should be formatted to include title, publisher and access dates anyway, good luck with taking the article further Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal I've listed this article for peer review because: I created this article in 2013 about a breaking scandal involving the former mayor of Toronto which attracted a lot of media coverage at the time, well beyond normal coverage for Toronto mayors. I chose the timeline format as what I thought was the best way to present the topic. Several other editors joined me in keeping it up to date. Since then, the mayor left politics and has passed away, and there are no longer any active investigations. This was an important topic, and I would be interested to see, after the elapse of time, whether it is presented in a neutral and informative manner. I am also interested to know whether the choice of a timeline format was best. The only disagreement I had with other editors was over the extent of direct quotes from newspapers whether than summarizing what they said. I would be interested in any input on that. Thanks, TFD (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Debra Ruh I've listed this article for peer review because it was originally sent to AfD for being too promotional in nature, but received a significant rewrite and expansion with sources from CaroleHenson (see original version here) and was voted as keep just now. On the talk page though Cullen328 commented that "the article needs a major trimming", and in response, I have decided to seek a formal review process - which has the additional side-benefit of evaluating the reworked article for potential GA status. Thanks, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC) I see the the request was archived, and then returned. It would be lovely to get at least some high level feedback about the current state of the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) References 29 and 30 are dead, both are links to the whitehouse.gov site. The cited material is possibly still available at the archived site at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Update It looks like none of the submitted material was saved — I am not able to find it through searches or going through the menus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) The following is the result of an automated review - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Debra_Ruh Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?] Update  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?] Update I'll see if maybe I could find something about disability, adaptive technology, or other related topics that might apply here. If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] Update I wasn't able to find one for Ruh and added a photo request on the talk page. I'll send out an email request for an image to one of Ruh's organizations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Update It was within a comment, but I went ahead and spelled it out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. I hope it's useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Dodger67 Yes, that was useful guidance, thanks for taking time to compile the list! The peer request was opened because a user thought "the article needs a major trimming". Do you have an opinion about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC) CaroleHenson the section about the TecAccess company could possibly be trimmed, if there are sufficient good sources to sustain a separate article about it. I'll try to throw something on a page at Draft:TecAccess, just to see if it could be viable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Dodger67, thanks. Yes, it looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to start a separate article. I'll start drafting the content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC) CaroleHenson see Draft:TecAccess, where I made a start. I also added a list of possible sources that we can use to expand the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Dodger67, Oh, wow, thanks. I will work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Parliament of Australia I've listed this article for peer review because I have made substantial edits and expansions to this page over the last few months and I would like some feedback on how the article is going and how it can be even better! Thanks, Superegz (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Qamar Javed Bajwa I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this one up-to GA status. Thanks, Saqib (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC) I've done a, light, copy edit. My particular concerns would be around the, very positive, tone of the article. It doesn't appear to be a fully-balanced appraisal - I know nothing of the man, but I doubt he reached the position he has without attracting some negative commentary along the way. In particular, the "Public image" section reads more like a press release than a considered appraisal. Also, there's a bit of "over-citing". In the first sentence of the last paragraph on his Military Career, you've 9 references. It's a short, factual sentence, and I really doubt it needs so many. Best of luck with the GA. KJP1 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Lists Death Grips discography I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this discography for featured list status soon and would like to know what I could do to make the article better. Thanks, Littlecarmen (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC) List of songs recorded by Rise Against I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try to take this list to FLC. This song list differs a bit from other song lists in how the lead is presented, but I think the lead does its job at informing the reader who Rise Against is, what their songs sound like, and finally providing a complete list. I guess what I'm looking for is opinions on whether or not the lead works as is, or if it should be altered to reach standards set by other Featured song lists. I'd also like feedback on the decision to not include songs that weren't recorded, but were simply live performances included in an album. As always, I'm a believer in quid pro quo, so if you do a peer review for this list, I'll be happy to repay the favor. Thanks! Famous Hobo (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Comments Do the liner notes for all of those albums really list Rise Against as songwriters instead of listing individual members? I don't have them so I can't check but the article for "Audience of One" for example lists Tim McIlrath, Joe Principe, Brandon Barnes and Zach Blair as writers. Yes they do. I was able to find the album booklet for Appeal to Reason online, and on the second to last page in the booklet, it states "all songs written and performed by Rise Against". The same goes for their other albums and singles. However, it also states that lead vocalist Tim McIlrath was the sole lyricist. I figured that since it already stated that the band collectively wrote the music for each song, just list the band as the writer. It's sufficient to only link writers and releases the first time they appear in the table. refs #3 10, 35 and 36 are missing publishers. You only need to link websites/magazines/publishers once within your references. Done ref #23: It's Amazon.co.uk and it needs an article link. Done ref #24: Kotaku should be in italics. Done ref #26: iTunes Store needs to be linked. Done, I think. The references got shifted around after making a major edit. It's advisable to add sort templates to the years column. For example, Nightmare Revisited was released before Appeal to Reason but if you sort the table by year, Appeal to Reason comes first because it comes first in the alphabet. Done You should also add sortname templates to the writers column. If you sort the table by writers, they should be sorted by their last name. Why did you decide not to include live performances? I think songs that were covered and released should be included. I wasn't quite sure whether live performances counted as recorded songs. They were never recorded in a studio. For what its worth, I may be taking the title of this list too literally. Song titles starting with "the" should be sorted by the second word in the title. You can use a sort template for that as well. Done Most featured lists of songs that I have seen indicate whether a song has been released as a single or promotional single. Why didn't you do that? Done. I'm not sure why I didn't include singles and promotional singles, must have just slipped my mind. That's it for now. Overall, I think you've done a great job with this list so far! Littlecarmen (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC) @Littlecarmen: Thanks for the comments! I've responded to most of them, and will take care of the rest later. Famous Hobo (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC) List of awards and nominations received by Daddy Yankee I've listed this article for peer review because I want other Wikipedians to express their views about my article in order to nominate it for a Featured list criteria. Thanks, Brankestein (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Comments The lead is very long and too detailed in my opinion. You don't even mention awards until the last paragraph. I think the entire second paragraph can be removed and the rest should be shortened. The lead should discuss his career and awards he has won, not his life story. Talk about his albums and films and weave some awards he has won into that. This list also shouldn't focus on record sales but awards instead. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers section cites no sources. Same with Broadcast Music, Inc. Latin Music Awards. You mention that International Casandra is a special award twice but don't say what it means. Grammy Awards section: "Daddy Yankee received no awards from one nominations." One "s" too many. Premios 40 Principales América section doesn't cite any sources. Same with MTV Video Music Awards and MTV Video Music Awards Japan. You don't need to mention that Twentieth Anniversary Award is a special awards twice. Premios People en Español section cites no sources. Same with Premios Oye! and Premios Tu Mundo section. "Presencia Latina is Harvard's Latino and Latin American Cultural Show, established and officially recognized by Harvard University in October 2002." This is a bit redundant. Also, you don't need to note special awards. Society of European Stage Authors and Composers Latina Awards section cites no sources. The other accolades section doesn't cite any sources. Record sales and peak positions belong in his discography, not his list of awards and nominations. You only need to link articles the first time you mention them in the body of the article. It should be "Daddy Yankee has received X award(s) from Y nomination(s)" or "Daddy Yankee has received X nomination(s)." I've never seen that overview over how many awards he won each year anywhere else and I don't think it's necessary. ref #1 doesn't mention author, publication, date, access date etc. You need to link publication and publisher if they have wiki articles. Also, for example, billboard.com should be Billboard. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC) List of United States tornado emergencies I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before nominating it for featured list status. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC) My notes: Way, way too many "cities" listed, especially in 2011, such that many are redlinks, despite us having articles for pretty much every place in the country. Also, some of the "cities" are simply part of counties. I would remove the city column altogether and just use county. "N/A" means something is not applicable; "Unconfirmed" tornadoes have no rating, but that column is still applicable to them. Needs something other than "N/A", maybe just "Unk." What makes "N/A" different from "EF?" Right now, this isn't a list of emergencies. This is a list of dates, with some emergencies linked to them. Why cannot sort by "Event link"? Why can sort by "Ref"? That's never going to be useful. If a tornado impacted multiple states, rowspan it, so that you don't awkwardly deal with counties from multiple states in a single cell. So, row 1: alabama counties, alabama, rowspanned tornado. row 2: tennessee counties, tennessee. Rowspan the "event link" cells when possible. April 28, 2014, needs work. Black text, misplaced refs, and somehow an "N/A" for a ref and a city; did this tornado exist or didn't it? Ref 265 is unhappy. So it needs quite a bit of work. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC) WikiProject peer-reviews WikiProject Military history: Balfour Declaration • Dulcitius • Vlad the Impaler • Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle • Russian military deception • Qamar Javed Bajwa • Rwandan Civil War • Belarusian Black Cats • Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham • Congress of the Confederate States • 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States) • List of sunken battleships • World War I • British Army • Drusus Julius Caesar • Muammar Gaddafi • Vasco Gonçalves • Turkish Land Forces • Turkish Naval Forces • Turkish Air Force • Turkish Armed Forces • Nuclear weapon