Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.



Previous peer review

The article was promoted in 2007 and since then has significantly updated. After giving a quick read, I have noticed some of the materials unsourced and therefore I believe it would be communities best interest to have a peer review and decide if the article is worth delisting. Thanks, IW. (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Toni Collette

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 18 March 2020, 08:22 UTC
Last edit: 23 March 2020, 11:10 UTC

Raff & Gammon

I've listed this article for peer review because I wonder what other people will think about it. I am worried that there is something wrong with the article and I need someone to help me out. I also doing this to learn more about creating articles and how I can create a better one.

Sincerely, Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Vaneeza Ahmad

I've added this article for peer review due to uncertainty over whether the discography section recently added is appropriate and correctly used, with it listing primarily television programmes and seemingly no work by the subject of the article; for the sake of the article plus my own future reference, I am wondering whether a different type of section would be more accurate and appropriate in this case, and welcome more experienced opinion. Further, I have found no sources describing the subject as a singer, and therefore a recent edit categorising them as "Singer" is suspect; while they may have sung here and there, Ahmad's established career is reportedly that of a model and actress.

Thanks, Moggie2002 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Eric Easton

This is an obscure chap, co-manager of the Rolling Stones with Andrew Loog Oldham but until now without an article. I mean, he was obscure, but not that obscure. Anyway, since this is slightly off my usual FAC tour, I'd like to throw it open to more eyes, particularly regarding chronology, background/context, MOS issues (particularly wrt music) and any good sourcing I've missed. Let's, as they say, spend some time together. Cheers! ——SN54129 19:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A few things:

  • I would like to see page numbers for refs 5, 23, 33, 43, 62, and 90
  • There are quite a few red links in the Career with The Rolling Stones section. Are they article-worthy or should they not be there?
  • This article doesn't have an infobox.
  • The first 2-3 lines of the Musical Context section are unsourced

Overall, this article is well-sourced (excluding earlier mentions). I would say to make sure the article doesn't go into too much detail (The article's prose size is approaching 40kB, not too long but definitely long). Username6892 05:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Boys in the Bar

The article was promoted as Good Article in 2012. I plan to nominate it as Featured Article Candidate in the future. I welcome suggestions before doing so. BTW, I was torn between starting the PR discussion and re-requesting copyediting as I did previously in 2013. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sakura Wars (2019 video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because after over 2 years, WT:VG has gotten all the mainline Sakura Wars games up to GA, with the exception of the 2019 Sakura Wars, which will be released worldwide this April. To nominate the games as a good topic and eventually, a featured topic, we should get this article peer reviewed to make sure there are no problems. ProtoDrake and I have been working on the articles quite a bit these past few months. We're looking for any improvements that can be made before the game's international release and the changes associated with it.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's very little in the way of reception here. Since this game is coming out worldwide in about a month, I'd wait until review sites cover this game extensively before trying to nominate this for a GAN. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Xanthi Carnival

I've listed this article for peer review because…it is about an annual event that is happening right now and it would be extremely helpful for visitors and for the benefit of the local community,but it is still unreviewd by the editors and I'm trying to get some help,maybe there is something wrong ...

Thanks, Gnslps (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Warpaint (band)

I've listed this article for peer review, because I replaced class=Start by class=C for an article better than class=C.

Thanks, (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Game of Thrones

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article can be promoted to FA. I think having a peer review to see what needs to be worked on before a FA nomination will be extremely beneficial. Thank you, -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fleet Street (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it might be worthy of WP:GA status at some point! I've been the only editor on it so far, though, so I would love a second third pair of eyes on it to help me see how to make it better. — Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shrinkydinks: I'll give this one a go.
  • The lede should provide a more thorough summary of the entire article.
  • A cappella, and especially collegiate a cappella, has its roots in covers of popular music. I think the should be elaborated upon a touch. "Has its roots" how?
  • A word or phrase should only be linked once in a given article. I've fixed this for you.
  • There was some overuse of colons. I've corrected these.
  • The quote from Elie Landau, somewhere between the eccentric intellectualism of The Bobs and the somewhat more boisterous, more simplistic Da Vinci's Notebook, doesn't make sense to those who don't know the bands he's referencing. Some context is needed here.
  • I'm not familiar with what the "blend" is in music production. Is this different than the mix? You might want to add a note here on what this term means.
  • I think you need to rethink the "shift in identity" that happened to the group after the album. It sounds like what you're trying to get across is that they wrote more original songs after the album and downplayed humor in their music. You might just say that without characterizing it as a shift in identity.
  • I have some concerns about original research that I've added inline templates for.
  • The article overall is a bit thin. You may want to consider adding material about the recording and production, release and promotion, and any tours that happened around the release.
  • You might find the manual of style for WikiProject Albums to be useful.
An interesting article on an interesting album. Thanks for the work you put in on this one! Qono (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 7 December 2019, 21:39 UTC
Last edit: 7 March 2020, 22:52 UTC

Fiona Graham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 30 November 2019, 13:36 UTC
Last edit: 17 March 2020, 13:54 UTC

The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like recommendations and suggestions on making it the best it can be.

Thanks, TheGravel (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from PotentPotables

I've made a few edits to the article to tidy it up a bit:

  • Removed website external link from main body per WP:EL
  • Changed main body dates to fit British English in line with rest of article (MOS:ARTCON and MOS:DATETIES)
  • Removed "Other theatre awards in London:" from see also section
  • Uncapitalised "Award Ceremony" and "Critics"
  • Deleted some superfluous words, such as "eventual"
  • Removed 2019 heading, and changed to text (headings shouldn't be referenced)


  • The "recent results" section seems untidy, so perhaps could be replaced with a neater table for each year?
  • The "Carl Woodward" link could be replaced with a better source, as it seems to essentially be a blog. (Though he might be a notable theatre critic?)
  • Reliable third-party/secondary source references might be useful to further establish the notability of the awards, and help develop the article further. (Majority of current references are from the Offies' own website)

Hope these comments give some help for further development! PotentPotables (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 9 September 2019, 13:30 UTC
Last edit: 22 February 2020, 12:08 UTC

Art Ducko (student magazine)

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Apologies for jumping into this discussion, but I am assuming that this peer review should be closed given the above circumstances? Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Aoba47, the article has since been deleted. Eric Schucht (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • No worries. I would recommend closing this peer review then. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyday life

Lebanon national football team

Previous peer review

I'm looking to nominate the article for FAC. I feel that I have taken care of the issues pointed out in the previous peer review. Just want to make sure everything is good to go before nominating for FA. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ng On-yee

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback to assist in bringing it up to GA standard.

Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

comments from Lee Vilenski

Hi Benny,

The lede is the big issue with this one. It's quite a well sourced article. I should note, I saw two videos in the references, so you might want to check that they are reliable sources. There are some issues with paragraphing (better to have multiple sentences in a paragraph.) I noticed theres a link to 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games – Six-red snooker, which would be better as saying "she won a medal at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games in the six-red snooker event. I'd also suggest a Copyedit. Otherwise, probably good to go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Engineering and technology

Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga

I've listed this article for peer review because… The gameplay is more descriptive, the plots for all 6 films have been edited to fit the lack of dialogue in the game, and the development section has a bit more content (I have a feeling I should add more to that section of the article).

Also, because Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga is coming out in 2020, I want to see if this could somehow become a featured article on whatever day Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga will be released in stores.

Thanks, OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nokia 3

I've listed this article for peer review because:

  • I have spent some time editing this article (Nokia 3) by adding, removing and moving stuff
  • I would like to know if the article needs any major changes now
  • I also want to know which article class this could be in

Thanks, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 418

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for a 2nd peer review because 400-series highways, a good topic, risks losing good topic status because this article is only C-class. I have asked the Canada Roads WikiProject but I haven't had a response from them yet and the good topic grace period is supposed to end on March 9th (in 2 days) because the highway opened on December 9th. I have made some improvements to it but I'm not sure if the article is B-class or GA quality yet.

Thanks, Username6892 02:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Username6892, I have gone through the article and I believe that the main issue is that you have added info on tolls and exits on the highway, which violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not by making Wikipedia more like a travel guide. Besides that, You just need to make sure there are no obvious blunders in grammar and you should use inline citations as well. Regards, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911, I didn't add either of them but tolling should definitely be looked at. There appears to be no precedent towards tolling for most road-related WikiProjects, including the Canadian one. I would recommend starting a discussion with the people at WP:HWY to set a precedent, but I've opted to keep them for now because both of the other articles on toll highways in Ontario have similar tables and have already passed GAN with said tables. As for the Exit List, it appears to be compliant with WP:RJL. Username6892 18:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this page for Featured Article status someday. This page is about the oldest fixed bridge across New York City's East River, and as one of the most famous bridges in the world, is listed as a level-4 vital topic. While I think this article is generally comprehensive, thanks to a comprehensive GA review by Kingsif and a copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I would like feedback to determine if there are any major outstanding issues, specifically regarding references and coverage.

Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center

I've listed this article for peer review because we are interested in advancing the article through the Featured Article Candidate process and need external feedback to determine what we need to do to make the article better. We have been at an impasse for some time as to how technical we need to make the article as well as to whether we are staying well focused on the matter and not diverging away from what should be the main effort. Otherwise the article is relatively stable, well referenced and comprehensive.

Thank you! --MONGO (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

As a long-time follower of this page, I would like to see this at FAC someday. However, I think this needs some improvements first, and that maybe this should first go through GAN. For instance:

  • The construction and September 11, 2001 sections have several unsourced paragraphs, but these can be easily fixed since Construction of the World Trade Center and September 11 attacks are quality articles - FA and GA respectively. There are other unsourced sentences and paragraphs that need referencing in other sections.
  • The references need to be formatted consistently. For instance, some New York Times references have urls, some don't, and one ref doesn't even have an article title. Same with NIST and other references.
    • Sometimes, the author format is also mixed up. Some refs have "first name last name" authors and some refs have "last name, first name" authors. The latter is recommended nowadays.
    • Some references are shortened footnotes (e.g. ref 11 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxxi; ref 12 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxvii–lxix). Others are repeating entire bibliographical information and should be shortened footnotes (e.g. refs 19, 20, 21 - all cite Starossek, Uwe (2009). Progressive Collapse of Structures. Thomas Telford Publishing but with different page numbers). Even with shortened footnotes, these are not consistent. Compare refs 65-68, which include links to Eagar & Musso 2001, with refs 11-12, which don't include any links.
  • In regards to prose, there are some things about coverage and wording that need to be improved. Just in the lead, for example:
    • The first two paragraphs of the lead could probably be combined since they are about the attacks themselves.
    • The scale of the destruction initially puzzled engineers - "puzzled" could be replaced with a better word.
    • The cleanup of the World Trade Center site involved round-the-clock operations, many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. - this is an inconsistent list style because you have noun, noun, and verb phrase. Better phrasing would be "round-the-clock operations and many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars."
    • As of July 2019, five new buildings had been erected on the site; the last one, Two World Trade Center, is scheduled for completion in 2022. - not cited in the body, and the second clause is not too relevant, since we can just say "and construction of other structures is still ongoing" or something like that.
  • Spelling and abbreviations may need to be standardized.
    • For instance, WP:ENGVAR: I see "stories" and "storeys". I suggest the former since this is an American topic mostly.
    • I also see "WTC #" and "# WTC" (where # is the number) being used to refer to the WTC towers. This should be standardized, even in places where the numbers and "WTC" are spelled out.

These are my initial comments, and I hope to leave more later. If I find any minor issues, I'll fix them myself, but these are things to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

All excellent insights and I will start addressing them. Greatly appreciate the feedback.--MONGO (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I will be able to dedicate a large portion of time in about a week, but wanted you to know this is on my plate.--MONGO (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@MONGO: No problem. I look forward to providing some more detailed feedback. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Still in process of addressing so lets not close this down.--MONGO (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to seek how to move all of the tables being used on this page to a page that already exist for these tables. The talk page has low or no activity at most times. Regice2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • No smartphone users should have to manually scroll through the large amount of table just to look for that specific information.
  • No desktop/laptop users should have to manually scroll long through the large amount of table just to look for that specific information when "find" function is not a option.
  • Not making it easier to clear the technical tag.

Thanks, Regice2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for an FA review. It is currently a GA-status article and has undergone many improvements since its promotion 10 years ago. Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
OK ... my copy edit trimmed the article by almost 2K, which usually means it was necessary, and indeed there was a lot of excess verbiage—peoples' names (and job titles) used in full on multiple references no matter how recent the last reference, more relative pronouns used when not necessary, and a lot of prepositional-phrase constructions where single adjectives or participles would do. You can look at the diffs for details; if there's anything I shouldn't have changed let me know.
That said, it's a pretty complete article that is justifiably a GA. I learned what the intro promised I would learn.
You indicated in your nom that you are looking to get this to FA eventually. I looked at the original FAC for this article from over a decade ago (I know the nominator, actually, or I should say I've met him at a few events); I don't think anything from that one really needs to be addressed, not least because it was quick-failed and indeed you yourself did not think it was ready. I don't know about now, though.
It's good but it's kind of shorter than most FAs, which wouldn't necessarily keep it from getting that gold star. I see two areas where you can expand it some more, both in the history section:
  • In a single sentence, we go from the plans first being brought up in the mid-60s to the decision to start actually building the road in the 1990s when Wynn wanted to build that casino at the marina. I took out the part where the article mentioned that there had been several efforts to build the connector in those 30 years because it wasn't relevant in an article this short.

    But the article doesn't have to be that short, and frankly why the connector plans didn't go through until the third or fourth try, with a particularly big business interest behind it, is relevant in a longer, more researched history.

    In the mid'60s AC was a faded beach resort city that had seen its better days. No one would have imagined casinos there within two decades. And no one saw a need for a connector road to Brigantine.

    Was there an effort to revive the plans in the years after 1978? Why or why not? And why did it not succeed at the time if it could only have helped the city's rebirth?

    A deep dive into this era's history could tell us a lot of interesting stuff. Sometimes, in politics, the real story is what didn't happen and why.

Oops, I gotta go. Be back in a while with more. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The other thing we could read more about, I think, is the decline of the boardwalk casinos. Doubtless the connector has something to do with that, but ... is it all the connector's fault that in 2016 there are half as many boardwalk casinos as there were in 2000? During that time a lot more gambling options became available in the Northeast—Turning Stone, Mohegan Sun etc. Surely that played some role?
Two more things:
  • Since it's such a short road, I think the article might be helped by a video. I suppose a dashcam-type POV single-take vid would do since it is such a short road (I've made a couple of these myself), but I'd love to see a road-article video that looks like it was made by someone who understands how to edit, how to make a film, basically—with intercut scenes showing the view from the sides, traffic passing by the equivalent point on the road, and maybe maps indicating where the vehicle is along the road.
  • Also, the article makes regular reference to these various districts of AC: Marina, Midtown, Broadwalk, Westbeach. Where do these terms come from? We have no Neighborhoods of Atlantic City, New Jersey article, so I can't see if these are common terms; indeed a small city of 40,000 does not usually have a lot of neighborhoods known by name, if any, in my experience. Are these terms used by the city's planning department, perhaps? (They sound like names a planning department would come up with, frankly) It would be helpful to know.
Good luck with the FAC, whenever it happens, and happy editing. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the capacity to become a great article and would like other user's feedback on it. I hope to improve the list of vehicle section and overall syntax of the article.

Thanks, - AH (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520

Hi, AttackHelicopter51. I have a few comments:

  • a couple of the references are duplicated. See Wikipedia:Named reference / I do see some cases where you use named references already.
  • see WP:LAYOUT for section order & remove stray URL from "External links" --> you might convert the content of this section to using a {{cite}} template
  • there are a couple places that could use inline cites: the sentence ending in " 11%." (only the first half is sourced?) and the one beginning with "The first two vehicles of the program..." in the Development section.
  • Is there any prose or distinction that could be given in the "List of Vehicles in the Program" section? Also, any sources?
  • I don't think anything should be bold in the Future platforms section.
  • I'm debating about the lead. It's good I think, but a bit long. Might there be a "description" or "history" section? Of course, "Development" covers some of that.

I think the cites are good otherwise. All from NASA, but that's OK.


Mercer County Community College

I've listed this article for peer review because I have updated it with appropriate images, stronger citations, and more thorough content than it had previously and would like to have it reevaluated for higher rating than simply start.

Thanks, Hollykatharine (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from paul2520

Hi, Hollykatharine! Thanks for your impressive efforts on the article. The pictures definitely enhance the content. A couple areas for improvement (and not necessarily to your edits):

  • The Voice should not be linked eight times in the student newspaper section. In fact, I'm not a huge fan of external links directly in the text (especially since they're already in the External links section). Could you convert them to references? A quick glance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking seems to suggest references are best.
  • The image currently captioned "Trey-Anastasio2009 2" should have a better caption.
  • I wonder if the MCTV 26 and WWFM sections should be subsections in the Clubs section?
  • I made a couple edits to the page myself, including using the {{quote}} instead of the italicized text in the "Mission" section. Do you think it looks better?

Otherwise, I think the page looks great! = paul2520 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Response to paul2520

Hi, Paul2520! Thanks for the good advice. I removed the excess hyperlinks as you suggested. I think you're right that the "Mission" section looks better as you've formatted it. I also updated the caption for the Trey Anastasio photo. I think the MCTV 26 and WWFM aren't clubs so they are okay as is. I appreciate your help. Hollykatharine (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Username6892

A couple of things I found:

  • Given the size of the article, the lead is very long. MOS:LEADLENGTH says that articles of about that size should have leads that are about 2 paragraphs and this one is 4 paragraphs. I think paragraphs 2-4 are unnecessarily long for the lead.
  • "it is known for strength in soccer, baseball and softball" I don't think that claim can be verified with only one season's statistics cited.

Other than that, this article is in good shape. Username6892 04:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Institute of International and European Affairs

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know how to improve it further.

I have recently updated the page to replace non-neutral content. I have replaced original research and added content and citations to the article, particularly in the history section. I have continued to include the criticisms raised in previous versions of the page (that are not original research) but have included additional information to give these more context.

The page has not been reverted in the weeks since I have completed these changes. However, this may simply because it is not read very often.

I would be interested to know what other Wikipedia editors think of the page now and what else should be done improve it. I am still new to the Wikipedia process. This is the first article that I have made many modifications to.

Thanks, Ballystrahan (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

I've listed this article for peer review because the subject has reported concerns about their article. Since WP:BLP is one of the three core content policies of the project, I would appreciate impartial editors reviewing and improving this article.

Thanks, --ZiaLater (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Metro (restaurant chain)

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded the content from stub level to more details regarding the company and it's background with proper references and citation, and would like to request for grammar and style of writing check to improve the article quality.

Thanks, WPSamson (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to good article status. It has already failed GAN once. But I have addressed the issues and would like to disscuss how we can improve the article before renominating it for GA Review. Thanks, DishitaBhowmik 05:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Goel Ratzon

This is my first full article in English Wikipedia, and I'd be happy for reviewing it. Thanks, MagicWord (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Kee Mar College

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd appreciate suggestions for how to improve the article in light of the available sources. Should the structure be changed? Is there any chance of this passing a GAN given the lack of available sources?

Thanks, TJMSmith (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Username6892

I think a couple of things should definitely be addressed:

  • The book cited in ref 4 is very broad, so citing relevant page numbers is a good idea.
  • There are a couple of clarification needed tags. If you feel these have been addressed, you should remove them.

--Username6892 04:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Biblioteca Marciana

I've listed this article for peer review because additional information has been added since it received Good Article status in order to prepare it for a Featured Article request.

The Biblioteca Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments with a long history, an imposing building, and lavish art. I would like the article to present and cover all of the relevant information in a clear and meaningful manner, both for casual and advanced readers, and would appreciate any guidance and/or suggestions to further improve the article and make it a thorough source for information about the library.

Thanks, Venicescapes (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Standby...Lights! Camera! Action!

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what I could do to improve this article to B-class or higher.

Thanks, Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chrisnait I read through the artical and here are some things I would like to point out.
  • The lead could be expanded.
  • The descriptions for the individual episodes could be expanded.
    • Full episodes of this show are not available online, only clips, so the descriptions are just what's said in the TV listings. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The first ref isn't behind punctuation (not required).

RealFakeKimT 08:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Geography and places

New York City

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because New York City is an important city and because the article could use some fresh eyes to look it over.

Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

North Potomac, Maryland

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article. I have not been able to find any examples of a GA for a Census Designated Place, so I am in unfamiliar territory. I am aware of some of the changes being made at Census and the US Geological Survey (major sources), and understand that some changes are scheduled to be finalized March 31. Any suggestions on how to handle those are always welcome. I have found it difficult to get enough reliable sources. For example: anyone who has been in North Potomac will notice that gray squirrels are everywhere, yet I felt like nothing could be said about that because there are no books, government web sites, or newspaper articles that mention this. The other two major items for North Potomac are the Asian population and the good schools—I was able to find a newspaper article or two for those topics.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Air pollution in Turkey

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before nominating it as a good article

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Morpeth, Northumberland

I would like nominate this article for FA, but would appreciate feedback through a peer review on whether it is ready for a featured article nomination. I welcome any and all comments, suggestions etc.

Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz

What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer