Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject

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.

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.

Arts[edit]

DJ Kool Herc[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA status. I plan to bring this article to TFA on Kool Herc's 70th birthday. Thanks, 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Robert Schumann

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: 17 May 2024, 13:30 UTC
Last edit: 20 May 2024, 17:52 UTC


Knives Out

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: 14 May 2024, 15:22 UTC
Last edit: 17 May 2024, 21:32 UTC


Strike Force Five[edit]


I am sending this to PR in hopes of getting other people's opinions on the article to improve as well as possibly achieving GA status for the article. Any comments on expansions, discrepancies, etc. appreciated. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse[edit]

Leaving a drive-by comment. You should clairify why critics had positive to mixed opinons on the podcast in the lead. Also, how is Primetimer reliable? 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Primetimer source: the author is a journalist who has written for other sources deemed reliable for Wikipedia. If this source is not okay, I will remove it. Spinixster (trout me!) 04:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primetimer should be ok for WP then. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes (seasons 1–19)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it could be considered for featured list status and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead and the references. I want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Pop Champagne[edit]


I've been working on this article for a few months trying to get it as quality as possible, and I've come to sort of a standstill after scouring all the sources I could find, so I wanted to get outside voices. Ideally I want to try to get this up to GA status if possible, but I don't think it's quite ready for a GA nom yet, so I wanted to get feedback on preparing it for that.

Thanks, HappyWith (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've Failed You[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because...GA attempt. typos, malformed ideas, anythihng that needs pointing out (besides more external sources for music ig) please do.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You always got those reference ideas on the talk page you can use. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the refs are moreso random notes i have found. if i can't or don't need to tie them in, i don't. shrug. Chchcheckit (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Campbell's Soup Cans[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended at the failed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2. When it was demoted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 the review mentioned both "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" as well as MOS concerns. Please point out any remaining problems from either of those two reviews and help me address them. I believe I have addressed the image issues.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Be advised that I intend to pursue WP:GA, WP:DYK and WP:FA for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)[edit]


This is currently at GAN, but I am also listing it here because my ultimate goal is to get this to FAC within the next couple months, and I recently learned that a pre-FAC peer review can take place at the same time as a GAN. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to FAC peer review sidebar. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: This has been open for over two months without comments. Are you still looking for feedback, or can this PR be closed and the article nominated to FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, thank you for checking in. I am still looking for feedback as of now – this will be my first FAC (not counting a misguided drive-by from when I was new), and I'd like to be as prepared as I can be. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: I suggest that you seek a mentor: the mentor can comment here to give feedback. I also suggest that you review WP:FAC nominations so that you can improve your knowledge of the FA criteria and build goodwill and confidence amongst the FA community. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Funnily enough, I did reach out to one of the mentors on his talk page a few hours before your ping, though I haven't heard back from him just yet. Will review FAC nominations during the next week or so. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 20:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Born to Run

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: 10 February 2024, 15:44 UTC
Last edit: 1 May 2024, 07:08 UTC


Everyday life[edit]

Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article I have worked on significantly, and would like to improve it further, preferably to GA in the very long term. The school has historical significance due to it's age (and origination of other schools from it) and the list of student, many of which are significant to german civil society as a whole. I am particularly looking for feedback on structure and sourcing, but content feedback would also be great.

Thanks, FortunateSons (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Engineering and technology[edit]

Nuclear clock[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Created on behalf of User:97.102.205.224 by Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]


Bill Gates[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, having spent over two years refining its prose and references and being a significant contributor, I believe that receiving suggestions to enhance the article to FA-class status would be immensely valuable. Gates played a pioneering role in the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s. Additionally, he oversees the world's largest private charitable foundation. I look forward to collaborating with the community to enhance the article and elevate its overall quality.

Thanks, MSincccc (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty[edit]

Up to Post-Microsoft:

  • His father was named William H. Gates II, but he is now generally known as William H. Gates, Senior to avoid confusion with his son. - Citation needed
  • a national bank president - can we have the name of the bank?
  • a home that was damaged by a rare tornado when Gates was seven years old - how reliable is this source?
  • According to Gates, when he was young, his parents wanted him to pursue a career in law - I don't think the second comma is needed or the "when he was young". Do we need "according to Gates": is there a reason as to why he might not be reliable here?
  • Link bugs?
  • Recommend merging paragraphs 4 and 5 in Early life and education.
  • which Gates has described as - "which Gates described as"?
  • National Merit Scholar - should this be capitalised?
  • didn't - MOS:CONTRACTIONS: "did not".
  • Gates never returned to Harvard to complete his studies needs a ref
  • You've linked Microsoft in the second paragraph of BASIC, but could be linked in the first instead.
  • he wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists -> "he wrote An Open Letter to Hobbyists".
  • The last two paragraphs of BASIC are very short: can they be combined elsewhere?
  • after Gates's mother, Mary Maxwell Gates - you've already given us her name and linked it before.
  • IBM's discussions with Digital Research went poorly, however, and they did not reach a licensing agreement - is the ", however," needed?
  • It was the prestige brought to Microsoft by IBM's adoption of their operating system that would be the origin of Microsoft's transformation from a small business to the leading software company in the world - seems oddly worded
  • on November 20, 1985, in an attempt - I'd drop the comma
  • it's a neat hack - is the link to Hacker culture right?
@Tim O'Doherty Should this be removed -Gates's maternal grandfather was J. W. Maxwell, a national bank president. Also, what should I do about point number 3 mentioned above?
It's your choice whether to keep it or remove it. I'm asking if the source cited to that info is reliable and high-quality enough for an FA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Would you continue reading till the end of the article and provide further suggestions? It would be great if you could do so. In the meantime, I had make some required changes. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur O. Austin[edit]


This is still a bit of a work in progress, but heading towards WP:FAC at some point. If you've ever listened to a radio broadcast, the antenna that transmitted the signal was probably using a special type of transformer invented by Austin. This article is your chance to learn about a neat bit of technology which has touched your life but you never knew existed, and about the person who invented it. Thanks, RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I know the lead is too short; I've already got that on my list of things I need to do. done RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly interested in evaluation of the sources vis-a-vis WP:RS. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: It has been over a month since this has been posted without comment. Are you still interested in feedback, or can this be closed and the article nominated for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a problem, I'd like to keep it open in the hopes somebody responds. RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General[edit]

Hogwarts Legacy

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: 31 October 2023, 12:17 UTC
Last edit: 28 April 2024, 16:05 UTC


Roberto Clemente[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because there is a lot of work to be done. The page needs rewriting and heavy editing. I would like to have some outside perspective on how to do so.

Thanks, Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOCE is a good resource for general editing assistance. On a more content-specific note, I'd add some mention of Roberto Clemente State Park. RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Rain World[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I simply wish to see what could be improved! I also wonder if this could be good enough for an A-class assessment

Cheers to all, TheWikiToby (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to inform you that WP:VG, which this article falls under, does not assess A-class per WP:VG/A. The only next step from GA would be FA. λ NegativeMP1 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Lakes Distillery[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be assessed and rated in relevant WP:PROJECT Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Nestory Irankunda[edit]


I have listed this article for peer review in hopes of making it a featured article in the future. Any comments on how to improve is welcome.

Thanks, JC Kotisow (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SafariScribe[edit]

  • While the lead needs rewriting, the third paragraph, "Irankunda was announced to join Bayern Munich in July 2024 for an undisclosed fee, presumably, breaking the A-League transfer record " is too short and should be merged with the fourth one.
  • This line, "Born in Tanzania, Irankunda has represented Australia at youth level" should go to the second paragraph. Second paragraph is the line after the infobox
  • Also add the Tanzania part where he was born and link them. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe Thanks for your comment. I have reworded the lead according to your views. JC Kotisow (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC PR sidebar[edit]

I added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles on that list. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Death's Game[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I need to know what part of the page needs improvement and if it is ready to nominate as a Good Article candidate. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 03:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some feedback:
  • Possibly could use a bit more detail in the synopsis. Info about setting in particular; is it set in modern South Korea?
Reply: I can't find a reliable source be it in English or Korean about the particular setting of the series but I expanded the synopsis.
  • Per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, translated quotes should include original Korean-language text somewhere
Reply: I put the original Korean-language text on the citation and underlined it. I also add more reviews.
  • Forgot where in the MOS this is, but I'm spotting some punctuation just before closing quotes, and these appear to be translated quotes. Generally punct should be expected to be before closing quotes only if the punct matches what the original quote had; otherwise I think it's safe to default to doing punct after the quote mark.
Reply:  Done
  • Currencies are currently wikilinked multiple times; likely unnecessary per MOS:OVERLINK I think.
Reply:  Done
  • Preference thing, but I think in the episode list table maybe consider doing a line break in between the english title, korean title, and transliterated title. I'd also consider swapping the order of the transliterated and korean title, and omitting the "Korean" and "Transliteration" labels after the first, but I think debatable.
Reply: Per Template:Episode list it can't be done.
Otherwise I think has a solid shot of getting GA! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Thanks for giving some feedbacks. All done. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One note; to my understanding synopses do not need to be sourced per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some grammar errors in the article, but the content and style otherwise seems good to me. I can go through and do a quick revision; otherwise I think this is ready for a GA nom. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done and thanks for revising some contents. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Aishwarya Rai Bachchan[edit]


The article was copy-edited back in February 2024 and passed a GA review in May 2024. My ultimate aim is to take this to FA status and I would welcome some detailed feedback and comments on its prose and sources as well as other aspects. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 17:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Seattle Kraken[edit]


Hello there. I have listed this article for a peer review because I have the goal of getting the article to GA status. I'm just wondering how much work this needs for that to be achievable. Thank you, XR228 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

  • "The Kraken finished their inaugural season in last place of the Pacific Division with a 27–49–6 record and 60 points." Needs a citation.
  • "Individual records" Needs a citation.
  • Suggest splitting the pre-2021 season information from "First seasons (2021–present)" into its own section, as this section will continue to get longer with each new season, and is already quite long.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes. I will say, for the season section changes, I split the "Early seasons" section into "Start of operations and inaugural season," similar to what is there on the Vegas Golden Knights article, as well as a section titled "Continued team development." I am doubting whether this can just stay as "Early seasons."
I am also wondering about the prose size, as other teams' articles don't go too in depth about individual games.
Nevertheless, thanks! XR228 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


English whisky[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it requires reviewing by someone with more experience in topic who may see something I may have missed and improve the article. Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Geography and places[edit]

Fort St. John, British Columbia[edit]


I want this article peer reviewed for good article status (and maybe featured article status).

Thanks, Cos (X + Z) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Mining industry of Botswana[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because this is an article that needs attention (old version was 19 years out of date) and I would also like some advice to promote this to GA or A class. By the way, I’ve substantially contributed to the page (https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wiki.x.io/Mining_industry_of_Botswana) and updated everything. Feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, 48JCL talk 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The article feels disorganised. It goes from diamonds, to a mining company, to other commodities, to political influence. I suggest that this be organised by either type of mining, geography, company, or some other similarity in the titles.
  • Are there any additional sources for the article? Try looking at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or your local library system.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m unable to access the Wikipedia library, but I mainly use JSTOR. 48JCL (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Le Touquet[edit]


Though I do not really have ambitions for FA[a], your feedback will still be very much welcome, and let's treat it with the potential FA nomination in mind if some mentor wants to take it more seriously.

The article is largely, though not uniquely, a translation of the French FA article about a seaside resort in Northern France. Of course, French FA is not transferrable to en.wiki, and I'm not aware of French FA criteria but it wouldn't pass today's en.wiki criteria, but still the article is good and I used it to make a better version of it. I reorganised it so that it reads better, and also I added a couple paragraphs missing from the French version (for example, history during WWII), and did not mention a couple of others (like the list of films in which pictures were shot in Le Touquet, as sourced to IMDb). I basically omitted the "In popular culture" and "Notable people" sections. There are a couple of unsourced sentences in the article I marked, but I am resolving these issues at WP:RX and with the author of the French article, I know it's not right, look at other stuff.

In short, any grammar, syntax errors, maybe some omissions that I may have made, or maybe you believe some passages are clinical signs of graphomania, or just small typos - let me know if something is wrong, I will correct it, or explain why I believe this is right.

Thanks, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ the one time I did some comprehensive research on a topic, Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania, the FA nomination was immediately shut down, I was shouted at for shitty writing, and the FA mentor said he couldn't mentor me. I don't hold a grudge against anyone - we are volunteers after all - but now I can't be bothered promoting FAs

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Before considering FA status, I suggest trying for WP:GA, where you can get additional feedback. Comments after a quick skim:

  • "However, combining both in one place was a new feature in the area." Needs a citation.
  • "thus suggest that Royale-les-Eaux, a fictional town in the James Bond franchise that in some passages of the novels is shown as near Le Touquet, is in fact based on it." Needs a citation.
  • Per WP:GALLERY, galleries are not generally suggested for articles, like the one in "Le Touquet before World War II"
  • "but all agree that Le Touquet became 'the most mined city in France'." Needs a citation.
  • First paragraph of Geography needs a citation at the end of the paragraph.
  • First paragraph of "Elections" needs a citation.
  • "Today (mostly French) rally racers participate in the Rallye of Le Touquet [fr] (in its 64th edition in 2024), which covers most of the department of Pas-de-Calais." Needs a citation.
  • Ref 54 is missing citation information.
  • Ref 192 has an error code.
  • Red 214: per WP:ALLCAPS titles should be in sentence cap, not all caps.
  • "Monaco, Emily" Why is this not used as a source?

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


History[edit]

Regency of Algiers[edit]


In the last six weeks the article has been comprehensively updated to make it ready for GA. Its undergone a complete reference check and update, several sections rewritten, several sections added, images added, infobox updated and lede rewritten. We are now wondering if it ready for GA. We would like some general feedback on its state, any problems with the size of the article, the number and placement of images, problems with prose and other standout problem that come to mind. Its not had an external copyedit yet.

Thanks, scope_creepTalk 17:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim.

  • There are some list items in the "Crafts" section that need citations.
  • WP:ARTICLESIZE says at above 9,000 words, the article should be considered for a trim. This article is at 13,000. You might want to consider what can be removed or summarised.
  • "Allioui, Youcef (2006)." There isn't an inline citation pointing to this source. It should either be used as a citation or taken out of the Bibliography.
  • Why aren't the sources in the "Further reading" section used in the article? Consider using these or removing them from the article.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for posting that. Interesting reading. Do GA or FA articles not have further reading sections? I didn't know that. scope_creepTalk 08:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: GA articles will commonly have Further reading sections which are not a big deal. However, reviewers at FAC will question why potential sources are listed in Further reading and not used in the article, as if a source is valuable enough to be in further reading it should usually be used as an inline citation instead. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I never knew that, but at the same time never taken anything to FAC so I guess its a learning experience. We will address it. scope_creepTalk 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Minnesota State Highway 36[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how best to improve this article to bring it into the upper class. I would appreciate comments on sources, information, missing things, and anything else that needs to be done.

Thanks, NotDragonius (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NotDragonius: I gave the article a light pass to fix MOS and other formatting fixes. I also tagged where there are missing citations for specific claims.
  • Based on the length of the highway, I'd expect the route description to be longer, probably twice or three times as long in the prose. It should have more of a description of the route the highway follows from one end to the other. It would normally be cited to the official MnDOT paper map (for the official routing) and some source of satellite imagery or a topographic map (for the landscape/environment and the specific cross roads if not shown on the MnDOT map). Anything else not from those sources would need a different citation.
  • The history section seems a little skimpy on details. It glosses over several decades of history of the highway, and it needs several more citations for what is there.
  • The junction list table looks fine now, but noting the types of interchanges in the notes is usually considered overkill and unneeded.
  • One of the citations is self-published, so it needs to be replaced before this could be promoted to GA or higher.
I hope this helps to get you started. Imzadi 1979  23:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will do my best to fix these. NotDragonius (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While looking at the self-published source (Steve Riner), I couldn't find any good sources for the information apparently derived from that website (paved 1940, the MN 212 signs). Do you have any advice? NotDragonius (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MnDOT has some log point files on their website that detail some things with individual highway segments. Additionally, there's a full archive of the official state highway maps. Those can be invaluable source material.
Another valuable option is to consult Newspapers.com through WP:TWL. There may be some coverage of changes to the highway in local papers that could be cited. Imzadi 1979  23:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I have found the maps detailing paving and historical routes. Will keep looking for the 212 mile markers. NotDragonius (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we cite a map, like when we cite a book, we should provide our readers with the in-source location for our information. With a book, that's the page numbers. For maps, that means we should include insets and sections. For the 2023–2024 map, I did include the name of the inset, and since that inset has grid sections, the sections. Imzadi 1979  01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind in the future, appreciate your guidance. NotDragonius (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there is anything else the article needs to get to B-Class? NotDragonius (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Brown Mountain lights[edit]


I'd like to know if this article has GA possibilities, and what would need to be done to make it eligible. Thanks, Geogene (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

  • "Viewing locations" needs a citation
  • I suggest merging the last three paragraphs, as single sentence paragraphs are not desirable
  • The long block quote is not needed in "John William Gerard de Brahm". Instead, explain why it is wrong or misquoted.
  • The lede should be expanded to summarise the whole article.
  • "Jerome Clark" is mentioned as a source, but it should also be used as an inline citation.
  • Are there any other sources that can be used? WP:LIBRARY might have something.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Charles the Bold

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: 13 April 2024, 13:13 UTC
Last edit: 17 April 2024, 17:04 UTC


Battle of Pandu[edit]


Hello there, With the aim to identify any more areas that this article needs or may be improved upon before It is nominated for a good article nomination, especially when this is my first time, I have put it up for peer review...

Thanks, Rahim231 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H Amin, Agha (2022)—not likely to be a reliable source
Javaid, Hassan, ed. (2023).—nothing loads, citation should make it clear this is an army website
Lead needs expansion (t · c) buidhe 08:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe Hi there,
1-Agha H amin is a retired Pakistani Major who has written many Scholarly articles and contributed alot in writing the official Pakistani Military history, His books have been used in other wikipedia articles as well therefore i think it would be a reliable source ?
2-The pdf does load for me though (https://www.aimh.gov.pk/kashmir-martyrs-day/). clarified it is an army website
3- Did some expansion is this good enough? Rahim231 (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

I echo the concerns about H Amin, Agha (2022)—the author appears to be an army official with extensive experience, but that does not make him a reliable source on mid-20th century military history. As the source is independently published, H Amin has to satisfy the criteria at WP:RSSELF—if he is to be retained in the article, you must provide evidence that his work on mid-20th century South Asian history has "previously been published by reliable, independent publications"
I see the possibility of close paraphrasing in the article, which would make the article eligible for a quickfail at WP:GAN. See the following comparison with Javaid 2023:
  • Article: "The Pandu massif boasts two notable features: Point 6873 at the western extremity and Pandu peak (9,178 feet), also known as the Pandu feature, on the eastern side. The village of Pandu resides below the peak within a saddle formation. This saddle connects to Chhota Kazinag and Chinal Dori via a ridge. Dense pine forests blanket the massif, with the southern slopes dropping sharply 6,000 feet towards the Jhelum River...The Indian forces suffered around 309 casualties during the battle, while Pakistani losses were approximately 100. The capture of Pandu marked a significant victory for Pakistan, which effectively eliminated the immediate Indian threat to Muzaffarabad. However, clashes continued in other areas."
  • Source: " The Pandu massif has two prominent features: Point 6873 on the western end and Pandu peak (9178 feet) in the east. Pandu illage lies below the peak in a saddle, which is connected by a ridge to Chhota Kazinag and Chinal Dori. The feature is covered with thick pine forests and its southern slopes fall steeply 6000 feet to the River Jhelum...The Indian losses during the battle were estimated to be 309 killed or wounded, while Pakistani casualties were around 100. Pandu was a decisive victory and it ended the Indian threat to Muzaffarabad. Although fighting continued in other sectors...
This is in fact very problematic in the "Battle" section, much of which is closely paraphrased from Khan 1975. I will tag the article accordingly.
  • The tone needs work. For example, the first paragraph of "Geography" reads more like a tourism brochure than an encyclopedic article—the first three sentences are basically unecessary, while the general prose attempts to convey the "breathtaking vista" but fails to convey much relevant to the article.
  • In conclusion, the article needs significant work to fix basic issues, and should not be considered ready for a GA nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Nezak Huns[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take a stab at a FA in a few months. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

The below, fairly disorganised, but with FAC in mind.

  • The infobox contains too much detail/information not included in the article:
    • Infobox indicates that the capital was Ghazna and/or Kapisa, without specifying if this was simultaneous or sequential. The article says "Their capital was at modern-day Bagram." Does that refer to one of Ghazna/Kapisa, and if so why not name that settlement?
    • The "Nezaks" in the box in the infobox map is almost unreadable.
    • What is the source for File:Nezak_Crown.png being an accurate representation of the crown?
    • Was "Nezak Shah" the title of the leader? The prose only has it as an alternative name for the state as a whole.
    • A 448–665 timespan appears twice in the infobox. There should be only one, and the dates should be preceded with a c., as they are not defined with any certainty in the body.
    • Where in the body is "Nomadic empire" defined as the government type.
    • Infobox says currency was a "Hunnic Drachm"; body says "There were four types of drachms and obols in circulation." If the point is unclear, it should not be in the infobox. Similarly with the "Alchon Huns" in the "Preceded by" section, and the "Today part of" countries which are nowhere cited in the article.
  • By contrast, the lead could be longer, to summarize more of the article. It is rather rushed at the minute, which leads to several issues:
    • The first paragraph says "Despite being traditionally identified as the last of the Hunnic states"; the body says "The Nezaks were the last of the four "Hunic" states". What are the reasons for the Hunnic/Hunic discrepancy, and why is the identification definite in the body and hedged in the lead? Be careful with the word "Hunnic", as in English it primarily refers to the European Huns, and I am given to understand that there is no scholarly consensus for a connection between the European and Asian tribes referred to as "Huns". I note that the "Etymology" section does not touch on this point at all.
    • "The dynasty is primarily evidenced by coinage inscribing a characteristic water-buffalo-head crown and an eponymous legend" This sentence is not very clear at all. Is the "eponymous legend" inscribed on the coins, or is it just part of the evidence for the dynasty? What is the "eponymous" part of the legend?
    • "a Huna ally" another word which has not been adequately defined. If "Huna" refers to the Nezaks, you should have an "its inhabitants were known as Hunas" or similar earlier in the lead.
    • The lead does not summarize any or significant information from the following subsections: "Religion", "Link with Nezak Tarkhans", "Pilgrim Travelogues", "Territory", "Etymology", and "Coinage".
  • I note that several sections such as "Territory", "Religion", and "Link with Nezak Tarkhans" are rather short; per MOS:OVERSECTION, short sections consisting of single paragraphs are to be avoided.
  • Some notes are uncited.

It is evident that from an in-depth review of the infobox and lead alone, and a cursory glance at the rest of the article, that significant work is needed. Ping me if you want more comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is discardable (and was not written by me); responding to the rest. @AirshipJungleman29 I will apreciate comments for the remainder of the article, thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 this is not a DYK or GA review; TrangaBellam is under no obligation to respond to my comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 I know that but, still, will appreciate comments for the remainder of the article. As and when you have time to spare. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Muckrach Castle

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: 3 March 2024, 20:25 UTC
Last edit: 2 May 2024, 10:11 UTC


Gaetano Bresci

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: 1 March 2024, 09:51 UTC
Last edit: 14 May 2024, 12:41 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Bonn–Oberkassel dog[edit]


Howdy, y'all. I am usually a history and archaeology editor, but this puppy goes a fair bit more into biology territory than I am normally used to, so I thought I would it open it up for folks to look at; I want to bring this to FAC eventually. :)

Thank you all so much for your time, Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Tiger

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: 15 April 2024, 13:55 UTC
Last edit: 21 May 2024, 15:29 UTC


Narwhal

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: 5 April 2024, 08:34 UTC
Last edit: 20 May 2024, 16:18 UTC


February 1983 North American blizzard[edit]


I've been looking at this article and considering a Featured Article nomination soon. Before this, I'd like for this article to be peer-reviewed. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 23:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of Johnson solids

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: 20 December 2023, 14:15 UTC
Last edit: 21 March 2024, 16:57 UTC


Language and literature[edit]

Ann Cook (cookery book writer)

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: 11 April 2024, 12:11 UTC
Last edit: 12 April 2024, 14:09 UTC


Chetana Nagavajara

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: 11 April 2024, 11:42 UTC
Last edit: 16 May 2024, 19:41 UTC


Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

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: 31 March 2024, 14:04 UTC
Last edit: 21 May 2024, 13:43 UTC


Max Lawton[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like for the page to be reviewed for structure, citations, and selected works as it would normally apply to a writer / translator. I have created pages for other notable people in the past, but never for a writer. I understand with writers there may be limitless amount that could be added from books, articles, short stories, but trying to find the right amount for notability and encyclopedic content.

✨ Thank you in advance!, Lacanic (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly recommend you to read WP:CLASSES for more information on how to improve your article. For review, you found a source you could use from Prospect Magazine so click here and a list of books section I guess so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Idris Bazorkin[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for FA. I'm mostly concerned about the grammar and the possible close paraphrasing. Thanks in advance. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Added to FAC peer review sidebar. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added link to Ingush in first summary sentence, might not be obvious to readers. Lacanic (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123: This has been open for over two months without comments. Are you still looking for comments, or can this be closed and nominated for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Z1720! I was looking forward to see comments, but unfortunately nobody commented anything... I'm really not sure if I should nominate it for FAC as I'm sure it would be wiser to first receive peer review. Would you happen to have any comments regarding the article? WikiEditor123… 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you nominate the article for WP:GA first. This will allow you to get comments on the article in a lower-stakes environment. I always nominate articles for GA first before going to FA. Some comments after a quick skim:
  • I think the lede is too long for the length of the article. I would suggest cutting this down to three paragraphs.
  • I would add a new level 3 heading to divide the "Early life" section because it is quite long.
  • Add some more images. Any images of his work? Maybe the cover of a playbill for the plays? Other images of the person?
  • Legacy is too short. Suggest expanding this with commentary about his work. Any statues or things named after him?
  • Some of the sources listed are not used as inline citations. I suggest that these are used, or removed.
  • This is a personal preference, but since you have so many sources, you can split the sources into two columns. I did this with the "Works cited" section of William Lyon Mackenzie.
  • Per WP:ALLCAPS, the titles of sources should be in sentence case. Some of the titles are all caps in Russian and should be corrected.
  • "Further reading" section should either be used as a source or removed.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Ethics

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: 25 April 2024, 11:37 UTC
Last edit: 17 May 2024, 19:29 UTC


Eclipses in mythology and culture[edit]


I've created this article with a light overview of a few religions; however I'm no expert on religious studies and would like either additions or good sources to use for expansion into Chinese or African religions. Furthermore, the article has an example categorization of mythologies, but I am uncomfortable with it as it comes from astronomers and not from a religious studies background. If a peer reviewer knows of a similar eclipse myth categorization that comes from within the field, that would be much better to use in the article.

Thanks, Dan 05:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dan Leonard, I had a short look through a few sources.
General:
  • Littmann, Mark; Espenak, Fred; Willcox, Ken (2008). "4. Eclipses in Mythology". Totality: Eclipses of the Sun. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-157994-3.
  • Close, Frank (2019). "4. Eclipses in History and Myth". Eclipses: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-090247-6.
  • Petruzzello, Melissa. "The Sun Was Eaten: 6 Ways Cultures Have Explained Eclipses". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
  • Deutsch, James (2024). "What Indigenous Cultures From Around the World Believe About Eclipses". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
Chinese:
African:
American:
Some of the sources are fully free or the relevant passages are accessible as a preview, but not all of them. The sources should be fine for the good article criteria but I'm not sure that all of them pass the feature article criteria of high-quality sources. From a short look Littmann, Espenak, and Willcox 2008 seems to cover a lot. It might have something on categorization as well. You could also try Close 2019. I hope that helps. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


History of Christianity

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: 1 April 2024, 17:29 UTC
Last edit: 22 May 2024, 02:43 UTC


William L. Breckinridge

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 January 2024, 18:08 UTC
Last edit: 6 May 2024, 01:52 UTC


Social sciences and society[edit]

Wolfgang Larrazábal[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would welcome general feedback on areas for improvement, etc.

Thanks, McPhail (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Spamouflage[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article about an important subject in the news, and I would like to ensure that it is accurate and unbiased.

Thanks, Zylostr (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Napier Technical College (New Zealand)[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.

Thanks, —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Far-right politics in Israel[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want other people to look at my article and see how they can improve it

Thanks, Alon Alush (talk)

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • "bringing Israel's 38 years of military rule over the Gaza Strip to a halt." Needs a citation.
  • Ref 10: The Jewish Library is not considered a reliable source according to WP:RS/P. This should be removed.
  • Section names like "Criticism" are not considered WP:NPOV because it suggests negativity. I would suggest reworking this section into something like "Commentary" or something similar.
  • Per WP:LEDECITE, the lede doesn't need citations because the information should be in the rest of the article. I think these can be removed and incorporated into the article, while the lede is a summary of the body's information.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


New Rochelle High School[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because this article underwent a copyedit and sources were added to the article. It is possible this might be a GAN one day. It wouldn't hurt if a peer review was done to evaluate the article in general.

Thanks, The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • Per WP:LEDECITE, citations are not generally necessary in the lede because the information should be in the body of the article. The lede should be a summary of the rest of the article.
  • The history section needs a lot more information, especially about pre-1968 information. When was it founded? When was the campus built?
  • Campus and history should be separated, so history gets its own level 2 headings.
  • "To create a more personalized atmosphere," This is an example of promotional language and shouldn't be in the article. I suggest removing this an anything similar to this. For more information, see WP:NPOV.
  • Most of the Co and extracurricular activities are not notable because they can be found at most schools. Same with Interscholastic sports. I suggest making this into prose instead of a list.
  • Every notable alumni needs a citation.

For a template of how the article can be formatted, see Amador Valley High School, a featured article on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


BP Refinery v Tracey[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to go for my first ever Four Award, which inevitably means getting an article I created to FA status. I have gotten decent at getting my work through DYK and GA, but FA eludes me. I was wondering if I could have people critique my work the same way they would if it were at FA.

Thanks, — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Technikart[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first I created, and it looks like it could use an expert's final cuts.

Thank you! Innerhinge (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably add more information to the lead section by simplify the history section and you could maybe explain the history section and add a reception section I guess because I usually focused on improved video game articles so. And in addition, I also add WikiProjects. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Lists[edit]

List of general elections in Botswana[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I withdrew my previous FLC. Want to get it to FL status.

Thanks, 48JCL (talkcontribs) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Pedro Pascal on screen and stage[edit]

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because... if this is the second peer review that shows up, allow me to explain. I tried submitting the original request before the prompter on the article's talk page was submitted. I am aware of the potential problems this may cause and vehemently apologise for it. I have no idea why the prompt was not submitted on the article's talk page in the first place.

Thanks, BarntToust (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Pedro Pascal on screen and stage[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because... It is a list with citations, and I hope to see this become a featured list someday.

Thanks, BarntToust (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


List of X-Men members[edit]

Previous peer review


Even though this article is very good and stable, I've listed this article for peer review because of some issues that might need improvement or third party opinion:

  • The article has cited too much primary sources. Most of the sources who are from Marvel's official website. Many characters listed here cite only these sources. As per WP:PSTS, primary sources need to be supported by reliable secondary sources.
  • The word X-Men is repeated too many times even though it is clear from the article's title that this is list of X-Men members.
    • For example in New Mutants graduates, the word X-Men is used 4 times (section heading, sub-heading, information in sub-section and table heading).
  • This article is based on chronological order which is one of the format listed in Manual of Style/Comics. The order is decided by releasing date of comic issue in which the character joined X-Men. The order of some characters who had joined in the same issue can be in alphabetical order.
    • An example: In 1990s section, Cecilia Reyes, Marrow and Maggott joined in the same issue (X-Men, vol. 2 #70) so here we may apply alphabetical order. The result will be Cecilia, Maggott and Marrow.

Thanks, Squirrell2 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this newly registered account, not related to several Wikipedia accounts – User:Sewnbegun, User:Ringardiumleviossa, User:Teedbunny that were banned for sockpupppetry? What a weird edit for someone with 3 edits especially that article is no longer page protected. The person behind those accounts might have returned perhaps through a new account. Hotwiki (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for late reply. @Hotwiki Firstly, I am not related to those accounts; a checkuser can check my IP address and editing patterns. Secondly, it was almost 15 days since protection was removed when I requested peer review (though we can still participate in talk page even if it is protected). Thirdly, this is peer review so comment on content, not on contributors. Squirrell2 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To peer reviewer, I forget to add one more thing. There are references for the names of members. I do not know why they got added into the article but this article is about list of X-Men members, and not about list of names of X-Men members. It must be suffice to provide the link of reference (for changing names) in edit summaries. Squirrell2 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, your editing patterns are surely suspicious with someone with 12 edits. Those blocked editors also denied they were the same person. User:Sewnbegun already sent the same article for peer review, if I remember correctly, right before they were blocked. If I were you, you should probably edit other articles, rather than making the same editing patterns as those editors that were blocked for sockpupppetry. Hotwiki (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alphabetical order was also suggested by Sewnbegun and Teedbunny in the talk page. It is highly suspicious for someone with only 12 edits, would edit the same articles as those 3 blocked editors, merely few days after the article protection has expired. I find it such a stubborn behavior, if this is another account created by the same person who is linked to so many accounts that were already blocked for sockpupppetry, and disrupted List of X-Men members, by making drastic changes to the article and jumping through different ip accounts and at least 3 registered accounts in order to manipulate the article. I'm literally getting a flashback from this newly registed account User:Squirrell2. Hotwiki (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for Checkuser, I don't know how to use it. But I will surely bring this up to sockpupppetry investigation once I get more evidences. Also, I'm bringing my suspicions in this peer review now, because they were several registered accounts/IP users that were manipulating the outcome of that article. It might be happening again now that the article is no longer protected from persistent sockpuppetry.Hotwiki (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


University Challenge 2023–24[edit]


I'm interested in taking this page through the featured list process so that it can be a good model for this sort of competition-based programme. I want feedback on a couple of things:

  • Is this (or can it be) a list and not an article?
  • How should the results tables (which also serve as a list of episodes) be formatted, with accessibility in mind?
  • Is the structure of the prose clear? (Should some of "Background" be in the lead, or should content be reordered?)

I'm fairly confident the page is comprehensive and that everything is either sourced inline or implicitly verifiable to the primary source (the same way we allow episode summaries for fiction without inline citations). — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Cat Empire discography

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: 14 March 2024, 19:37 UTC
Last edit: 24 April 2024, 09:26 UTC


WikiProject peer reviews[edit]