Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because...this article recently got GA status, and I'm thinking of nominating it for FA class in the future. I'd like feedback on whether the article meets higher quality standards in terms of prose, comprehensiveness, sourcing, neutrality, and Manual of Style compliance before I move it to FAC. I would also appreciate comments on the balance between Raaphorst's biography, filmmaking career, style and influences and whether there are gaps in coverage or areas that need to be expanded, trimmed or copyedited. Any thoughts on how to improve the article to FA standards would be much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because...this article has gone through GA and I plan to nominate it for "featured article" in the future. Before I take this to FAC I'd like to get some reviews of the article to see if there are any remaining issues with prose, sourcing, comprehensiveness, neutrality, MOS compliance, and article structure. Comments on whether the article gives appropriate weight to the band's history, artistry and others would also be welcome, especially if there are concerns about recentism or overcoverage.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made lots of changes recently (fixed dead sources, replaced less reliable sources, added details, started a film and TV section, found a few factual errors.) I'd like to know if there's any other issues, if the article can be moved up to A class, and how close is it to being a Good Article?
Great to see this article here. Reminds me of the 2000s, when we had memes like this song! I'll review this article next week. Usually, I'd say that you should contact the user who brought the article to GA status to see if they're interested in helping out but, considering that the user is semi-retired, I don't think that you'd be required to do that now. You have authored 20% of the page, which is okay. What ultimately matters is that you're familiar with the article. If you are, then the stage is yours. A quick recommendation - post a notice for this PR on relevant WikiProjects (Music, Justin Timberlake) to get more feedback. In peer reviews, I usually prefer to get feedback from at least three different users. Cheers, Vacant0(talk•contribs)17:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miminity, always glad to see new editors bringing articles to WP:FAC, so welcome! Popular music is rather outside my usual area, so I'm going to do a full review, but let me make a couple of general suggestions:
Most of the citation templates have an optional "translated title" field. If you could use that, it would help both reviewers and regular readers navigate the reflist easier.
Especially for a first-time FAC nomination, it is recommended to go through WP:GAN first (in addition to Peer Review). It's not required, but the more people you can get to look at your stuff, the better shape it will be in when it reaches FAC.
Oh, yeah, one more suggestion is to get involved with FAC before your nomination by reviewing other people's articles, especially ones that are in the same subject area as yours. First is you'll get some hands-on experience with what other reviewers are looking for. Second, by getting your name out in front of the regular FAC crowd, you'll be more likely to attract reviewers to look at your nomination when the time comes.
Oh, my, I just realized a made a really bad typo here. When I said "I'm going to do a full review", what I had intended to say was "I'm NOT going to do a full review". I hope that didn't leave you hanging waiting for me to come back with the review. RoySmith(talk)22:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it FA status. It will be Musgraves's first article to be featured article status, even she does not have any good article in here (as I know).
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try pushing this for FAC again; I've tried to not only correct all the notes from beforehand, but take lessons from it to do my best to improve this article, copyedit it where it seemed needed, and create something that is truly worth it. I want to get a peer review because I know I can't do it by myself, and I love hearing the feedback I've gotten in the past from others, even the most brutal ones.
I don't remember whether it previously came up, it would be nice to track down a link for ref 93 (spin article).
It was originally published in a Spin magazine but I can't find it linked anywhere. Worst comes to worse, we could always remove that review and either replace it or leave it as it is.
So in my research, it seems like this was published in the November 2002 of Modern Drummer magazine, and this interview was posted and archived by Jim DeRogatis himself on his own site. Maybe we could switch the format to "Cite magazine" then link this? Because I can't find any other link with this.
Optional: for extra effect you can format all references using sfn (see High and Low (1963 film)) and put "Attributed to multiple references:" as notes (see The Host (2006 film))
I like how it is now, if that's okay!
We should cite Martha, Meg's middle name, in the early life section (not sure it is cite currently)
Last I checked, either the Handyside/True books stated it. I can doublecheck when I'm home later.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate this for GAN. Any and all feedback on all aspects of the article is welcome. I primarily edit through the mobile app so please ping me when responding so that I will promptly receive the notifications.
Per MOS:LAYOUT, explanatory notes usually go before the references.
The "Reception" section is quite long and falls into the "X says Y" pattern. WP:RECEPTION has some advice on how to summarise and reword some prose to avoid this.
Delink "video game" its a common enough thing and dropping the link solves a MOS:SOB issue
Done.
"This is the first full game" the word full implies other content was released that did but I don't think there was?
This is covered further in the Writing section, but in the Valhalla expansion for Ragnarök, Kratos revisits some areas from the old Greek games and also battles enemies from then (Helios's decapitated head also appears in place of Mimir's to mock him).
"daemon" needs to be disambiguated
Done.
Can you add some images?
In progress. Done.
"in-game rewards" such as?
Done.
When mentioning his criticism can you state when David Jaffe left the god of war franchise?
Done.
The notes need citations, they aren't covered under plotcite since they are about different games
@JDC808: Didn't find much issue with the majority of the article, but some sections are overly bloated, especially the lead and some parts of the synopsis. This is also my first peer review so please bear with me.
it is a prequel to the entire series as its setting takes place in the Greek era before God of War: Ascension (2013)... → It is a prequel to the entire series, set before God of War: Ascension (2013)...)
The reception part of the lead is way too detailed and technical for readers. Trim it down to 2-4 sentences. I would say something akin to this:
Sons of Sparta received mixed reviews from critics. Praise was directed towards the narrative and 2D environments, while criticism focused on the lackluster Metroidvania gameplay design, combat system and character designs. Some reviewers were disappointed that the main game did not have cooperative play, and originally having to complete the main game first to access the multiplayer mode; the developers addressed this with an update enabling the multiplayer to be unlocked sooner." But if you feel yours is fine or this needs modifications, no problem.
@The Corvette ZR1: Thanks for the comments. Firstly I apologize for just now responding to this. I had some IRL stuff that kept me from really looking at your comments and addressing them. I will begin working on this soon. --JDC808♫03:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has FA potential. I'm focusing on the quality of the prose but am open to feedback on all aspects to ensure the article has a good chance at FAC. Thanks, (Guyinblack25talk02:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC))[reply]
I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to see judgement on where the article needs improvement beyond being listed as "start class. I'm hoping someone can take the time to review it and offer constructive feedback.
The coverage is uneven. This is a glaring one especially between the Los Angeles Kings years and the later parts of Nicholls’s career. So to me this does not yet feel like a balanced biography of Nicholls’s full playing career. I'd suggest developing more about his career post LA Kings (New York Rangers, Edmonton Oilers and later career).
The LA Kings section feels like it's a sequence of stats achievements and milestones without stopping properly to tell readers what do those mean in the larger context of Nicholl's career. Some stops don't feel enough (at least to me) like "It was also the fourth-longest scoring streak in NHL history at the time" or "He became the first player besides Marcel Dionne to lead the team in scoring in over a decade", which still carries the list-like feel and tone.
Still related to the second point, this issue doesn't just appear at the LA Kings section but other sections as well, but the LA Kings is the most visible because it is the largest one.
The lead could be expanded more but that should be the last thing you work on because the body needs to be finished first.
That's all I could think of right now. So I'd suggest treating all sections equally, in prose and weight, and rewriting some sections so they don't just feel list-like, but also explains within the larger context about what those achievements and milestones mean. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on improving this article as part of a plan to make the North East Line in Singapore a Good Article topic, as most of the articles are either Good or Featured Articles, except for Boon Keng station (which, as of writing, is nominated again for GA) and Sengkang Depot. I would like tips on how to improve the article, while trying to expand it to it's fullest potential.
Expansions, alterations, or upgrades to the depot following its opening (if applicable)
The "Details" section should talk about how big the depot is, how many trains it can store, facilities within the depot, etc
I wonder if there's any commentary on the architecture of depot, though it seems unlikely (but you may never know, Bishan Depot had a bit of info on station architecture iirc)
The most visible thing from my eyes is the History section. It could be better if you reorganise it into a proper prose instead of just several short sentences. Also, the lead section doesn't seem to quite capture the whole article. But that should be the last thing you work on, because the most ideal way to build the best lead is to make sure the entire body is finished first.
Also, some sections are glaringly shorter than the others. I'm not saying that every section has to be of similar length but at least it has to have a similar weight. AdaCiccone (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best section I could think of for this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I would like to get this article to GA status. I would just like a peer review to see what could be improved.
Since you're trying to raise the level to GA quality, I'll try reviewing it from some of the GA criteria.
Well-written: the prose is okay but feels like a guide sometimes (e.g., create and assign a name..., can then search the trackable...). The article could be better if it is polished with a more encyclopedic tone.
Verifiability: there are sources yes, but a lot of them seems to come from geocaching.com and ones that are very closely related to the subject. For GA, the article could be better if there's more diversity in the sources, and ones that not only speaks about/touches on the basics of Travel Bug but also its history, development over time, significance and the broader context.
Broad coverage: this one is crucial. The article now gives the basics of what Travel Bug is and there are some examples of promotional use, but there's nothing on origins or history, its place within geocaching culture, comparisons with similar trackables or competition (if there's any), and points about how Travel Bugs are used or understood within the community that uses it.
So in a nutshell, the article is a good place to start but it needs broad coverage, better sources and encyclopedic tone. Those three aspects are decent starting points for article improvement. AdaCiccone (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly need help with "how Travel Bugs are used or understood within the community that uses it". I feel like other aspects covers that, but I also don't really know how to interpret it. Also all the other sections I feel need help too. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some sections are glaringly shorter than others (literally just one or two sentences). That doesn't mean every section has to be the same length but it should carry a similar weight. You should also pay attention that what the section is trying to tell the readers, so again, different sections may be of different length.
The 'Module' section consists of lists only, and there's no explanation whatsoever about what they mean. A prose work here would make the section better by laying out not only what they mean, but also how they sit and interact within the wider context of the subject.
I saw an Instagram page being used as a source (I clicked on it and the post seems to have been deleted). I'm not quite sure about this but I don't think this is encouraged within Wikipedia. I'm of the strong belief that a source shouldn't just tell the readers 'hey, this is supported by a source ya know' but should also help explain/dig further about the claim it is supporting.
On what could be improved, the biggest thing in my opinion is starting from the 'ecosystem' part. When I hear that word, I think of something vast with various interconnected variables within it. This should be the aspect the article is built around. Think of user experience, the challenges, what other government agencies think about it, the system's limits (and what the solutions might be), etc Other stuff that the article could expand on:
A clear development arc from just an idea, to gathering relevant parties, to budget agreements, to technical development, to pre-implementation testing, to trial period, and finally to actual release to the public.
Why was the system created? Other than the lead section, the article doesn't go further in this.
Sourcing could be better if non-Malaysian sources are included as well.
So far those were on my mind when I read the article. In a nutshell, it needs proper and controlled expansion while at the same time maintaining a good prose and focus on the subject. AdaCiccone (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer edit because I recently added some information about the American preparations. Could someone with expertise review it for accuracy?
Also, I added a new image of American troops and would appreciate help with formatting it properly within the article. Thank you!
Comments by AdaCiccone
Here's what I think:
Despite the content being expanded, the number of sources stays the same, two. The English-language, Cornell University source seems to have been moved elsewhere and no new source has taken its place. That means the entire section is only supported by just one source.
Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish, and I don't think trying to read the source using a browser translation is a good idea. But when trying to read the newly added contents, the wording seems to be a bit editorialized and strong. That's fine but only when the source supports it, so that's what I would suggest, really make sure the source supports that kind of wording.
Regarding the image, your addition made the already image-dense section more crowded. I'd suggest trimming one of them.
That's all from me. I'm afraid you're gonna have to look for Spanish-speaking editors so that one particular Spanish source can be thoroughly checked. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded significantly recently but I feel that there's also a lot of promo and that there are better ways to ensure WP:NPOV, especially in regard to the tenure section. I feel like there's also a lot that feels WP:UNDUE and that there are also an overdue amount of quotations from her and about her rhetorical style.
NPOV/UNDUE issues seem to be mostly in the Tenure and Rhetorical style. In Tenure, the way it's written now reads like a list of recent events (a clear issue of RECENTISM). I'd suggest rewriting it so this section revolves around major events and milestones of her tenure.
When it comes to UNDUE issues, Rhetorical style stands out. It's built around some widely circulated quotes rather than a wider (and sourced) independent discussion of her rhetoric. The way it's written now looks like a list of her viral lines than a proper writing of a biography section.
Some sub-sections in Political positions are glaringly shorter than others. Some are only a sentence long, while others are more developed like the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which creates uneven weight when the section is read as a whole.
I've brought this article twice to FAC, and it has has come close (four support, one oppose at first nom; three support at second nom) but failed to achieve promotion each time. I still hope to have this eventually reach featured article status. Pinging some of the previous FAC reviewers who were neutral: @Graham Beards, Hog Farm, SchroCat, and Pokelego999: (also pinging @Gonzo fan2007:) – do any of you have suggestions as to what could get this to sufficient quality to earn your support at a future FAC?
For my part, my only real gripe was the sourcing issue. If the sourcing were more diverse, I would be fine, but it being cited almost entirely to one local newspaper doesn't seem to indicate great source diversity covering this subject. If you can find some way to work around that my support is yours, since prose was solid on my last read-through. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that I've pretty extensively searched for coverage of the subject. I don't think anything further outside of newspapers exists. One could technically replace some of the Press-Gazette citations with other local newspapers (so it wouldn't be "one local newspaper"), but I don't think that would be much of an improvement. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
69 inline citations in the article. 43 are from the Green Bay Press-Gazette. The remaining 26 are from Pro Football Reference (2), The New York Times (1), Pro Football Archives (3), and then an accumulation of local midwestern newspapers. There are also two books that have inline citations. Although I understand the concern, it is important to note that the Green Bay Press-Gazette was one of the key sources for early NFL news. As an example, the Press-Gazette gave out national All-Pro designations in the early years. They also had very notable NFL people (George Whitney Calhoun, Andrew B. Turnbull, Cliff Christl, Lee Remmel). This wasn't just a small town newspaper reporting on local activities. I can take a crack at looking in one book and adding that to the article. But otherwise, I think having 26 sources from maybe 10 different reliable publications offsets the other 43 from the Press-Gazette, which are really used to try to fill out the "comprehensive" requirement for articles. The information is there, it is available from reliable sources, and thus it should be included in the other article, otherwise it would fail to be comprehensive. Should we really just ask Beanie to cut out parts of his wrestling career just to have less Press-Gazette citations? «Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I'm being misunderstood here. My issue is not with source type but source diversity. Largely being cited to one paper is my problem, if you can improve the distribution of sources by incorporating other, non Press-Gazette sources, is what I would prefer, since it indicates wide coverage outside of a single specialist. If info is only covered by the Press-Gazette, obviously retain it, but if other, equally reliable sources exist, I don't see why we're relying exclusively on Press-Gazette. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: To what extent do you want to see Press-Gazette citations replaced? The reason I went with them is because in a lot of the cases they were the most high-quality source available and gave the most detailed coverage. Technically I could replace some of the longer Press-Gazette articles with more brief stories like this from smaller papers, but would that be an improvement? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to advance the article to FA class. I welcome general comments about structure, style, grammatical flow, etc.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it back into Good Article status, and potentially bring it into Featured Article status later in the future. I figured that, considering the article's size, a peer review might be the best before any Good Article nomination.
Just completed a full overhaul of this article and looking for feedback on general content, sourcing, structure, prose, etc. Aim to eventually get this up to GA status.
I'm not really sure if this is the right place for this, but I mainly wanted to see if people think this source is useable as a source or not. At first it looked like a government publication because they had it on their website, but then I saw that it appears to list a consulting firm as the author, which makes me highly doubtful of whether it's even useable as a source. If not, then I'll need to remove the tourism statistics entirely.
When it comes to statistical figures like tourism, the most ideal source should be from government sources itself, and maybe combined with a credible third-party, independent source, not from a consulting report. The source isn't unusable but if it has to stay, the wording on the article has to reflect what the source is/represents. The common concern is that casual readers might think 'oh these figures are sourced' and subconciously expect the source to be of government or third-party ones, when in fact it isn't. My suggestion is to find a better source. AdaCiccone (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any official sources for this, so it looks like it'll have to go. Darn. Given the relatively modest numbers I can find for other, more famous sites in official sources, though -- about 475,000 visitors to the Ajanta Caves in 2023/24, and about 300,000 to Gwalior -- I doubt that that source's figures were accurate, so it's almost certainly for the better to have it gone. Thanks for the feedback regardless. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, since again I didn't file my support/oppose in FA in time, I'll treat this as a FA review. I already checked most of the prose, source usage etc in the FAC so I only have the following:
[5][116][117][118][119][120][121] is a bit long; might want to put them together into one footnote.
I've listed this article for peer review because - this is something important I've worked hard on for a long time, most of it is to a pretty high standard and I think it could make a good featured article eventually. Would like to hear what other editors think.
Too much text is spent on what seem to be the crankish views of a conspiracy theorist with a financial interest in pushing it, along with the sensationalist soft news piece produced about his conspiracy. Most articles about disasters like this stick to the facts and what is verifiable, with minimal weight given to conspiracy. ~2026-11661-94 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend taking this article to WP:GAN before WP:FAC, as GAN is a lower-threshold evaluation (so its easier to be successful) and will give more thorough feedback before an FAC run.
I added "citation needed" templates to the article: these would need to be resolved before an FAC run.
I would recommend WP:GOCE take a look at it, as they can help with wording and point out anything that might be missing.
Pedro Abad Santos is the founder of the Socialist Party of the Philippines, and is the brother of Jose Abad Santos. I fixed some of the article's issues in prose and verification, and I prefer that someone else remove the maintenance tags. I aim to make this article B-class, or GA/FA-class.
Some questions to start the peer review discussion:
The biography is thematically arranged (early life and education, then joining the Katipunan; Peasant Uprising section, etc.) Should I keep it this way, or can I move or combine some events?
I tried using efns to clarify inconsistencies among sources. Should I also use them to clarify the use of Filipino translations of the party names? I have to distinguish PKP-1930, the Socialist-Communist merger, and the 1960's Communist Party of the Philippines.
What information should I add/remove, considering that the article focuses on Pedro Abad Santos and not necessarily his parties? I plan to add a paragraph on his views (on Catholicism, ties with the US, Philippine independence) while writing as head of the Socialist Party in the sentence where Luis Taruc describes Abad Santos.
I think the Katipunan and Philippine-American War section has some unnecessary details like him being allowed to walk freely in the camp and family visitations. If GA is really your aim, per GA criterion 3b, the article should stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Try spotting similar issues elsewhere in the article.
The name used when referring to him isn't consistent. Both 'Pedro' and 'Abad Santos' are used in the article, I'd suggest make it uniform.
The article has cleanup banners. Those could be a starting point for further improvement.
The legacy section could be made as some sort of closing summary of the subject. Right now, it's so short.
Now addressing your questions:
Keep the thematic structure but try paying attention to the time and chronology. For example, the 'Preparations for World War II' sections ends with the Pearl Harbor event in 1941 but the next section, 'Peasant Uprising', goes back to the 1930s. I understand that the beginning of the peasant uprising is meant to give readers some background but it could be better if there's clearer chronological laying out of events.
Keep efn tags but don't to rely on them to explain stuff that'd genuinely work better as a prose. The party distinctions are important but they're also key to understanding the subject. Maybe you could clarify it as a prose instead?
I'd add what kind of political figure he was (and how others viewed him at the time) and remove stuff that aren't related to him. For example, the peasant uprising section reads more like an historical event and is less about him. If it has to stay, then that event needs to be explained with him as the central theme.
Hi, I got tied with IRL matters so I couldn't reply ASAP. Thank you for the feedback. I made his naming more consistent and tried to add more info. But again, I'm never sure when I've exhausted all sources I could find, so improving the article could take some time. RFNirmala (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I was unsatisfied with its previous state and decided to improve it. In byte size, it's more than doubled. I would like to know where the article stands now and where it's weak, and what can be done to improve it.
I find this a puzzling article. I have never heard of the term before, even though I specialise in articles about Anglo-Saxon history. Checking Google Scholar and Google Books, I can only find two authors who use the term, D'Amato and Esposito, neither of whom are Anglo-Saxon specialists. Abels does write that The Battle of Maldon describes warriors who were members of Byrhtnoth's household as heorthwerod, (pp. 148 and 271 n. 11, not 148 n.11) but I cannot find any reference to hearthweru in any reliable source, and so far as I can see you do not have sources for an article on the subject. I suggest that you merge the article in Anglo-Saxon warfare, which is badly in need of expansion and improvement.
You date Whitelock's EHD as 1968, but it was published 1st ed. 1955 and 2nd 1979. The 2nd ed. should be cited. I cannot trace Harrison as an Anglo-Saxon historian and he does not appear to be a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison can be found on the Osprey Publishing website here. Pollington uses the term hearthwerod here on page 35 of The English Warrior: From the Earliest Times to 1066. Williams also uses the term "hearthtroop" in the preface on page IX. The term is used here, also in reference to Byrhtnoth, in the introduction to Anglo-Norman Warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare, written by Matthew Strickland. Otherwise, I'll fix the year of Whitelock's EHD. Wombatmanboy (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The word hearthweru is only used once as the first word in the lead, and not at all in the main text. The word is apparently never used by any specialist historian of Anglo-Saxon England. It is an unsourced variant of the Old Englishheorthwerod, which is only cited by historians (and very rarely) for its use in The Battle of Maldon. There may be a justification for an article on the military members of the households of great aristocrats, or perhaps better as a section of an article on Anglo-Saxon warfare, but not with the current title.
The Osprey site provides no evidence that Harrison is a reliable source. You would need at the least a favourable review of his book by an Anglo-Saxon specialist. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, I was sick.
Anyway, I still think that the article is best existing on its own, especially since not all of its content is especially relevant to Anglo-Saxon Warfare. I could also use some of the content to improve that article, still. What other name would you suggest? Wombatmanboy (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it up to Good Article for Warfare. My main worry is that the article is too long. If it is absolutely necessary to make it shorter, I would start with two things. First, the "Averell's raids in 1863 would be changed to "Averell's raids in 1863 and 1864". The Salem raid section would be cut to two paragraphs and the image removed. The "Cook-Averell 1864 raid" would become a subsection. The "Duncan's detachment" subsection would be completely eliminated. The second possible change would be under the "Chambersburg and Moorefield" section. Some of the pursuit detail in the Chambersburg subsection could be removed. Thoughts? Any other suggestions are also welcome.
I read some of your target sections for trimming. My feel is that they're telling more about the operational campaign (and in unusual level of detail) as a whole than focusing on the role of the 14th. Surely I'm not saying operational details isn't needed but they should be explained/revolve around the 14th itself. Since this is an article about a regiment, any reader would expect that every narration about a battle places focus on the regiment's roles and what those roles mean within the broader context of the battle or even the entire war. I'd suggest putting more focus on that, so the trimming isn't about reducing words alone.
Related to the first point, you mentioned about wanting to achieve GA status, this level of detail is good but again I'm afraid they cross into unnecessary details that leave the core subject (the regiment itself) feel lacking. Per GA criterion 3b, the article should "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail."
Outside of your concerns about length, I'm curious about why you organised the article sections and sub-sections this way. Formation and organization > Early action > then everything after this is the name of the campaigns. I think the article could be better if the 14th's operational narration is grouped into several sections/sub-sections, either by year or significant wider campaigns, or both.
Also, I'd like to suggest a proper ending to the article. Right now, the article ends abruptly by listing casualties. Maybe you could write a summary about the regiment as a whole? And again, what that means within the broader context of the Union Army (or another angle you could think of). Think of points like the 14th relations with other units within the Union Army, the regiment's leaders and their future, etc.
The prose in many instances is a bit awkward and/or informal. I made a couple of changes here and there (in the lede for one), but I think a close reading is in order while you're doing trimming. It also feels odd that you don't talk about the regiment's equipment until the Salem Raid section. While they were likely reequipped with the Spencers, surely they'd had Colt Navy revolvers and sabers since their organization.
Some of the sections (like Ninevah) don't seem to mention the 14th Penn Cav at all. You might consider removing them or replacing them with very short notes indicating the regiment wasn't engaged.
@Intothatdarkness: Thank you so much for your insights and edits. I will try to find info about the regiment's original equipment. The regimental history written by W.D. Slease does not mention original equipment. I like your idea about Nineveh. I will probably remove it and add the Mosby section to the Shenandoah Valley section. My only worry about Nineveh is that there is a false claim that Schoonmaker's Brigade was the "hero" of Nineveh. If that were to be true, then the Division commander's report is wrong and the two people that got the Medal of Honor must have somehow switched brigades. TwoScars (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd check on that, but if you're going to have Nineveh in there you should have some specific mention of the 14th's actual role in the engagement. If it's just Schoonmaker, maybe that information is more properly placed in his article (which is pretty sparse if I remember right). An article on the regiment isn't really a place to refute claims if the regiment didn't take part in the fighting. Just my opinion, of course. Stephen Starr's excellent three volume series on the Union cavalry may also have some information. Intothatdarkness18:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this article for peer review because I have substantially revamped it, and I would like to have input and assistance from others to ensure that it meets the standards that are expected for species articles, as this is my first time working on one.
Prior to editing the article, hardly anything was cited and much of the writing was left over from when it was created in 2006. This needed addressing; for example, there is 20 years of incorrect information across many different websites that resulted from this article mistakenly assigning the name "ankomba joby" to the diademed sifaka, even though it refers to a different species. My initial goal was to find citations for the sentences that were already present. This turned into re-wording many of them to maintain an encyclopedic tone, and finally I began to add more content based on research articles I had found while in the process of finding sources. This has resulted in an article that is quite different from how it was when I found it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to Good Article in the future. As it is a short article about an individual tree, I believe it is a comprehensive as it possibly can be. I have not gone through the GAC process before, so seeking peer review beforehand. Any feedback welcome.
This gave rise to the name 'Strawberries and Cream Tree', which was coined by children of Backwell.
This might read better as "the children of Backwell"?
This phrase is repeated at the end of the second paragraph in Botany
Tree Preservation order: "Due to its rarity, the Strawberries and Cream Tree" can an individual tree be described as rare? A species can be rare. Maybe describe it as unique or something
This is a nice article about a lovely tree. It's short, so I only have a few suggestions.
The lead should summarize the information in the article, and any information in the lead should also be included in the body of the article.
The tree preservation order is from 2019, can you update this section at all? The order may be made permanent in the future. This information should be presented in a way that let's readers know this was true as of 2019.
The dual blossom gave rise to the name 'Strawberries and Cream Tree', coined by children of the village Name the village, since this is the first time that it's referenced outside of the lead. Edward056686 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to list it for FAC. The page currently is not a good article. I believe the article currently has many issues, and I want it to be reviewed to clean out any issues that may prevent it from being a featured article. This is my first (actual) peer review and later, a nomination for featured article. The article is about a major poet and writer of Bengali literature. I also wanted to mention that this review may take a lot of time, since the article is more than 13,000 words.
I recommend that you nominate this for good article status first, as it helps prepare articles for FAC. I also would mention that WP:SS (and WP:AS, and WP:TOOBIG) mention that articles should be about 8,000 words maximum. Some information might be spun out or summarised more effectively. Reducing the article word count might also help the aritcle get reviewed more quickly. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 8,000 words is the maximum, but instead the suggested limit. There are a ton of articles above even 9,000 and 10,000 words that are featured or/and good articles (such as related article Bengal famine of 1943). Ok, I will nominate it for good article first. But can I do it now? The instructions page for peer review says that articles may not be listed for peer review if they are nominated for good or featured status. I am not sure if it applies to the other way around. Babin Mew (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for good article status in the future. This is my first time I've considered nominating a novel for GA so any advice on how to do so would be useful, if it is any different from any other kind of article.
The "Reception" section has a lot of "X says Y". WP:RECEPTION has great tips on how to avoid this. One recommendation is to group reviews that say similar things together in one sentence, with multiple inline citations at the end of the sentence. The reception section also doesn't need quotes from every review describing what each individual review said. Instead, readers want to know what the general consensus of reviewers were.
The article does not describe the book's development. Has the author described the process in interviews? Has the publisher given any information about it?
The article does not describe any themes or motifs of the book. Has any academic literature been written about this? WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar and databases from your local library system might help with this.
@Z1720 Thanks for the advice. It might be hard to get some information given how far the book dates back, but I'll see what I can find. ISD (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Kenyon is a candidate (and one of two likely to succeed based on polling and analysis) in the 2026 Makerfield by-election. The by-election is a major event as it has implications on whom the next UK prime minister/s might be. Therefore, having good coverage of the candidate is in the interest of the public and Wikipedia readers. For now, I'd like to please ask specifically for feedback on how to improve the article to B-class standard. Thank you!
I've submitted this article for peer review because I need suggestions for how to enhance it, as well as assistance on any errors that may have occurred in the piece.
Neutrality and tone: The article deviates from standard WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS guidelines. Please keep an encyclopedic tone. Few phrases feel promotional, devotional, or over-committed. That should be softened.
Scope and structure: Per WP:SS and WP:SIZE, the scope is too wide. It tries to cover ritual practice, caste/community structure, legal status, social life, history, and a list of roles all in one page.
Excessive detail: Certain sections contain excessive tabular detail. Refer to WP:NOT. Too much detail is being given to ritual minutiae.
Overall, I think the article would benefit more from pruning than further expansion. Given the article’s scale and highly uniform prose, I think careful human review would be beneficial, particularly since generative-text-assisted content can be unreliable.
Please leave tags for cleanup and excessive detail.
Thank you very much for the detailed review and for spending time reading through the article so carefully. I really appreciate your comments on tone, structure, and too much detail. I will try to address those issues by pruning and copyediting.
Also I wanted to ask you, what do you think about the scope of the article? From reading some Wikipedia guidance and observing similar topic areas I understood that related aspects like history, social structure, ritual functions, legal status and occupational roles are often expected to be covered in a single comprehensive article, unless the page gets too large to manage. But I might be misreading the guidance.
What's your opinion on whether this topic is best addressed by a summary-style split into distinct daughter articles (e.g., rituals, role classifications, or legal/social aspects), or if the current unified scope can still reach Good Article standards with significant trimming and restructuring?
I would really appreciate your comments on that as I want to get the article more in line with policy before going ahead. Thanks again for the helpful feedback.
I cannot guide you to make a good article (I have none to my name.) I would recommend you to reduce the information load. Your article was quite large, with size fitting a top-importance article (like India.) I, personally as a person unrelated to the topic of the article, feel that if I ever needed information about the topic, I’d prefer a small wikipedia page with the absolutely necessary information. Also, try to improve the citation quality on some parts of the article. YashTheSoni (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
YashTheSoni, Thank you. I will keep those in mind.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it a couple of months ago and then I disappeared while it was deleted via PROD. This week I am working on making it B+ if possible. So I thought I would ask for peer review. Any thoughts or suggestions, even casual ones, would be appreciated. No ongoing edit wars or anything.
I am seeking PR on the current state of article condtion and what imrpovements are needed to improve the quality of article. 1keyhole (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What happened with the Goodridge lawsuit? Who won the case?
Source 10 needs replacing as dead.
Are 13 and 14 the same thing? Merge if so. Same with 11 and 12.
Maybe too many primary sources? Looks like 6 of 27 are the school's website.
"Afterwards the student would receive "continuing education packets" that had been developed by Brigham Young University" change to "Were developed"? "developed"?
In 2001, they moved to a campus outside of the town of Hurricane, Utah. In 2012, a new campus was opened at a site about 5 miles (8.0 km) from Hurricane. Link Hurricane the first time rather than on second mention.
Well, the article is clearly no longer a stub in the strictest sense because it has more than a minimal definition and some sources. Having said that, I still think the article feels wholly incomplete. The way it stands now, the article is more about the agency’s connection to Brunel and Epstein than a well-developed article about the model management itself.
Structure and scope is the clear spots that need work. Nearly all of the content sits in 'Background' that does most of the work, and all within just one section. The article could be better if there are other sections such as history, its operations, the controversy and the investigation, the aftermath etc. You could also expand on whether this model management is known outside the Eipsten scandal. AdaCiccone (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate feedback on this article about parasocial interaction. I have edited part of the article, specifically within the "Parasocial relationships" section. My contribution focuses on the "Focus on relationships" subsection, where I added a subsection on "parasocial romantic fantasy." I would especially appreciate it if reviewers could take a look at this part of the article. I am particularly looking for comments on whether the structure and organization are clear and logical, whether the writing is clear and appropriately encyclopedic in tone, and whether the sources and citations meet Wikipedia standards. As this article is still under development, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions for improvement. Thank you! Meiqi Jiao (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Meiqi! Great job!! This is so well written and easy to follow. Your subsections on reciprocation, internal and external motivation, and positive and negative impacts make this well organized. I made some minor edits to improve grammar and fluency for clarity. To further improve your section I would recommend broadening the examples beyond K-pop to include other fan communities, and consider adding a visual such as a screenshot of a fan platform like Weverse to help illustrate the concept of reciprocation. Overall you did amazing and this is really well done! Dang.hazel (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Olliefant
I don't see the relevence of the image
Tons of uncited info and unattributed opinions
Link DoDo to a relevent article
"One character, Elmo, is iconic in..." this whole section is very confusing to read and needs to be rewritten
This is a pretty short list article, but I am hoping to nominate it for inclusion as a featured list. Would appreciate advice on the prose, as it currently only provides a brief introduction into the club and highlights a few noteworthy records mentioned later in the article. Also looking for feedback on the table formatting as it is a large table with a lot of numbers.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has Featured List potential, but have never engaged in either the FL or PR process before so would be interested to hear alternative perspectives. This list differs from recent FLs for television accolades (Sherlock, Loki) by splitting up major accolades, but if desired these can easily be incorporated into the main table. Additionally, I reckon the refs in the lead are not necessary as the information is cited in the table. Anyway, I would be very grateful for any and all suggestions, and I will try and add suggestions to other peer reviews.
I was surprised when I went to the article's Talk page and found out it is rated B-class. I don't know if this is impartial, but the article looks like a Start-class to me.
A B-class article on an amusement park would not only history and track layout but also such things as development and announcement context, design rationale and comparison with other coasters, construction, opening reception, rider experience or critical reception, operational history, modifications and incidents if any, significance within the park or within stand-up coaster history and so many more.
A B-class article should also have a much stronger sourcing landscape than what it looks right now. And that landscape should more or less revolve around points laid out in point 2.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to make this article a Featured List Candidate and want to see if there is anything that could be improved such as sources, wording, formatting, among other things.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get this to featured list, and wanted advice/suggestions on how I could make it better and also if there are any other issues with the list
The lead's fourth paragraph has points about criticism of his performances and retirement. Is this information key to understanding the list’s scope? If not, then I'd suggest removing it. Keep the opening prose focused on international scoring record, the significance of the total, and what the list below has.
I'm not sure if the hat-trick section, being so few with only one entry, should have its own section. Maybe you could mention its significance at the lead instead?
There are some inconsistencies on tournament names, e.g. "UEFA Euro 2008 qualification" and "UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying." I checked both and the former redirects to the latter, which means that's the one you should use consistently across the article. I'd suggest looking for inconsistencies for other stuff too, like date formatting, venue names etc.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
