Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews
This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation. Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
Arts[edit]Everyday life[edit]Engineering and technology[edit]General[edit]Geography and places[edit]History[edit]
Thanks, RI.goblin (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael G. Lind (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I consider peer review of this article important, since Encyclopedia Britannica still hasn't covered possibly the worst post-Cold War mass genocide, happening in 1994 with 500K-1M dead (though to be fair, they were busy going broke competing with Microsoft Encarta).⸺(Random)staplers 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
1. I want to improve the article and hopefully move it towards featured article status sometime in the future. 2. Looking to improve my own editing by doing so, as most of this page was written by me. Thanks, Noorullah (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
1. I feel the article is at a good start. I think its missing some events that I didn't find for one reason or another. I want to add a section about the the mass expulsion of Jewish/ marginalized groups from the medical field in Germany. However, I feel I couldn't do it justice. 2. Also, I cannot read German and rely on AI translations so there might be errors possibly. And makes reading books on the topic much slower / and excludes goldmines of information. 3. I don't know if the formatting is correct for Wikipedia standards. Overall I'd like to see more historical details and format correction. Thanks, Gameking69 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]Language and literature[edit]
Hello, I wrote this article some time ago, and I have been considering nominating it for a while now. However, I've never had the courage or patience to do so, mainly because I've never been involved in this kind of process before. I'm opening this peer review request specifically to gain a second perspective on what might be improved in the article—if there's anything that needs improvement, which is likely the case, as I'm certainly not an all-knowing being. It's possible that I may have overlooked a detail or two regarding the subject of this article. I believe much has already been done. For example, the manuscript images, which I believe were previously unpublished, were found after extensive searching on Gallica. To give you an idea, some English academics working on a similar manuscript were still searching for this one on Twitter in 2021. Additionally, the information has been compiled, mostly from the works of Rodrigues and Dalby & Hair, which were previously scattered across the internet. I was also able to contextualize and add a brief history of other vocabularies that preceded this one. At the end, there is a brief analysis of the vocabulary's content. I wait for any constructive feedback. Respectfully, RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Philosophy and religion[edit]Social sciences and society[edit]
This article has been GA-level for years and has degraded over time. It was recently delisted despite being nearly completely rewritten, cited, and checked. A peer review can help identify any remaining problems before the article is again submitted for GAN. Thanks! Sirberus (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720[edit]After a quick skim, I do not see any major issues with the article. Recommendations below:
Hope this helps. I think this is ready for a WP:GAN. Z1720 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Manxshearwater (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Lists[edit]WikiProject peer-reviews[edit] |