Wikipedia:Peer review

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.

You can find the list of all current peer reviews in different formats: a list with reviewers' comments included, a list without any reviewers' comments or a list by date.

The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.

I have been editing this article so that it looks polished and not cluttered. It has long ways for FA status but I could possibly try to get to GA Status. I just need a second opinion before getting a GAN.

Thanks, TyronesEditsPages (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! From a first look I frankly think this article is really far from being GA-level, let alone FA. However, I'll give some pointers below:

• MOST IMPORTANTLY: Everything in the article needs to be cited. I cannot emphasize this enough, since it's one of the more important criteria over at both the GA criteria and the FA criteria. Immediately, I see a ton of uncited claims, which should either be cited or removed:
  • "Barbershop music is typified by close harmony—the upper three voices generally remain within one octave of each other."
  • "All-female barbershop quartets were often called beauty shop quartets, a term that has fallen out of favor"
  • "In popular culture, this style exemplifies the stereotypical barbershop quartet."
  • The explanations for the lead, baritone, and bass parts
  • More than half of the 'In popular culture' section
• With respects to the last point, I'd strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content
• I question how much this article stays on topic. For one, why do all the polecats need to be listed in this article about barbershop quartets? I understand including it at, say, Barbershop music, but why here? In addition, there seems to be an inordinate about of information regarding organizations which promote barbershop music, but that's pretty tangential to barbershop quartets.
• On the other hand, there is almost no information in this article about the history of female/mixed gender or international barbershop quartets, despite both being mentioned in the lead. I'd say that this is necessary for the sake of broadness, per WP:GACR#3.
• Finally, the references which are currently in the article could use some work:
  • WP:BRITANNICA should ideally be replaced with secondary sources
  • "current organizations that promote the style typify it as an "old American institution." " is cited to exactly one organization, and is a WP:PRIMARY source at that
  • In fact, there are a *lot* of primary sources here, from BHS to Sweet Adelines to the Worldwide Barbershop Quartet Association. Some of these should be swapped out for secondary sources
  • Barber-schools.org (source #7) is a WP:BLOG
  • I don't see what the link to the Google Play store is trying to reference (source #16)
  • What makes Reading Eagle (source #17) reliable?

All in all, I feel like this article is a pretty long way off from GA. Nonetheless, I hope that these pointers help guide you in the right direction, and I wish you luck if you do indeed attempt to improve this article :) Leafy46 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

2011 mixtape by the Weeknd. I list this article for PR after having passed GA and DYK, aiming to polish the article towards meeting the Featured Article criteria. All help is appreciated :)

Thanks, 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 08:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, prose is really really good to my eyes and do not have meaningful thoughts about it. Reception and composition are picture-perfectly structured! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• MetalSucks article about deftones influence is originally from MetalInjection
• There are several articles that lack author credits including: [1], [2], [3]. Some of the have a long list of credits; template will automatically shorten them
• globe and mail ref lacks an access date
• The itunes ref about twenty eight is duplicated. And i don't think the itunes is necessary as it doesn't mention trilogy or house of balloons? Also, the allmusic ref in the tracklist section doesn't mention the track as a bonus track showing it among other album songs. Do we have a better source for twenty eight?

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 February 2026, 23:23 UTC Last edit: 2 March 2026, 20:26 UTC

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 February 2026, 16:34 UTC Last edit: 27 February 2026, 19:16 UTC

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 February 2026, 13:39 UTC Last edit: 24 February 2026, 12:22 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for featured article status. Since this would be the first FAC I'm handling on my own, I wanted to seek input from experienced editors before moving forward. Any feedback on the prose, sourcing, structure, or areas that may need further development would be greatly appreciated, as I'm aiming to ensure the article meets the FA criteria as fully as possible.

Thanks, Sricsi (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sricsi: I have added this PR to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - will look into that. Sricsi (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 February 2026, 05:30 UTC Last edit: 1 March 2026, 03:18 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this to Featured article status in the near future if possible.

Thanks, Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need alt text Added alt text
• In the ref titles "GO" should be "Go" per MOS:ALLCAPS Fixed
• Ref 6 should link "Bleeding Cool" Fixed
• Ref 20 should be marked as being in French Added
• Ref 29 is appearing as dead despite the original being live I'm not sure how to fix that
• Ref 27 is missing the website What do you mean? the |work is listed as Behind the Voice Actors, and it links to the website
• "In a 2020 official poll" in what medium? Clarified
• "Ash would later send Talonflame to live with Professor Oak" and "It was featured in his final team in a championship tournament, the Kalos Lumiose Conference" these two are in the wrong order Fixed
• Link "non-playable character" on first mention Done

That's what I found Olliefant (she/her) 02:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Olliefant: Responded to your comments - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I meant ref 37, it was a typo Olliefant (she/her) 22:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oh, gotcha - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put citation at the photo's caption at concept and design section? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because dubious claims, weak or unverifiable sourcing, and possible promotional tone. Article may contain inflated information and lacks strong independent citations.

Thanks, Endlessdan (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some few comments... Arconning (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two backticks at the top of the article which should definitely be removed.
• An image included in the infobox will greatly help picture out the main figure of the article. Upon seeing the body of the article, I can see some images that can be used for it.
• "and musician from the Bronx, New York.", remove "the Bronx, New York"
• There are tags that need to be resolved such as [better source needed] and [by whom?]
• Speaking on the [by whom?] tag, it needs to be written out on who stated the exact quote.
• The acting career section could be renamed as "Filmography" as it includes a reality TV show which isn't necessarily acting.
• Mention his sexuality as it is mentioned in the categories but I don't see any explicit statements in the article stating such.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in the featured list status, but I am not sure what to do, so I am here to check if there're points can be improved.

Thanks, Saimmx (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheonmak School" was not an official name of the school. The Korean wording just means the school started off with tent classrooms. Also, the Seoul Shinmun source is actually talking about the legal entity which owns Hanlim Multi Art School and not really the school itself. A quick google search in Korean says the school itself opened in 2009. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I will change it later. Saimmx (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Done. You are right on it. I think it is the school firstly established as a tent in 1960, then teaching wousewives, and now the place began training idols because he found that students cannot find a place dancing, right? Saimmx (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes. Also, it appears that the official English name of the school has been "Hanlim Arts School" since 2020 ([4], [5]). You might want to change this as well. ("Hanlim Multi Arts School" may appear more frequently in English search results but this is usually because a lot of Korean newspapers translate their articles using AI.) - 00101984hjw (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Okay, thanks. I have noticed that you changed the original article. I will move it later. Saimmx (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Done. Category:Hanlim Multi Art School alumni might need more work if we need to move, but anyways. Saimmx (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 February 2026, 03:15 UTC Last edit: 23 February 2026, 00:33 UTC

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: 2 February 2026, 03:56 UTC Last edit: 19 February 2026, 05:54 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because I've added all the information I can find on it, organized the sources accordingly and expanded greatly. I would like to submit this for GA review but I started this from scratch and would like a look-over before doing so.

Thanks! Watagwaan (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after a quick skim:

• Refs 8 and 25, and refs 13 and 33, appear to be the same sources and thus can probably be merged.
• User:Headbomb/unreliable flags KLCC as AI slop. Please doublecheck to see if that source can be used.
• The reception section follows the "X says Y" format a lot. Consult WP:RECEPTION on how to write this section more effectively.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

• Fixed the references/merged.
• That's weird because it's an NPR source. I removed it nonetheless.
• I did some changes to the reception section, could you let me know what you think now?

@Z1720 Thank you so much for your review! Sorry I got to this late. Watagwaan (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: 27 January 2026, 23:54 UTC Last edit: 11 February 2026, 06:30 UTC

Hi all, I wrote this article a bit ago and it was recently promoted to GA. The prose feels pretty in-depth to me, and I'm considering taking it to FAC, but would like to gather any other suggestions for improvement that I can first.

Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes Screen Rant, Forbes (contributor), Cowgirl, Lone Star Live, Atlas of Wonders, The Upcoming, and The Playlist WP:HQRS?
• Inconsistent reference title casing and use of archive links
• We need italics for major works and quotes for minor works in references, just like with body text
• Convert hyphens to dashes when used in this manner

UpTheOctave! • 8va? 14:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to nominate the article for GA status, but want to know if I should add to or improve parts of it prior.

Thanks, A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after a quick skim:

• In answer to your question: yes I think information should be added to the article because it is quite short. Additional sources for the article can be found at Google Scholar, [www.archive.org archive.org], WP:LIBRARY or databases that your local library system has access to.
• If any sources analyse his artistic style, I would add a section that describes that.
• I'm not sure why there is a quote in the "Enigma Variations" section. I suggest removing the quote or giving it context.
• Ref 25 adn 28 are the same ref, so I suggest merging them.
• Ref 23: "Padgett, Robert W. (2016-06-13)." seems to be a wordpress website. Why is this a reliable source? If it isn't reliable it should bee removed.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article, containing much I didn't know. The prose could do with a bit of work to meet Wikipedia's standards.

First WP:OVERLINK: you should not have blue links for everyday terms:

• architect
• architectural work
• artist
• London
• painting
• piano
• secretary
• Spain
• treasurer
• And you should avoid linking more than once to any other page as you do with Edward Elgar (three links) and Malvern (two links)

Individual comments:

• ""Troyte," by his friend, Edward Elgar" – Wikipedia uses logical punctuation, and so the comma after Troyte should come after the closing quotation mark.
• "October 27th, 1883" – In Wikipedia the mandatory format for dates in BrE articles is day month year. No st, nd, rd or th or commas. Thus 27 October 1883.
• "painting abroad in Spain" – I think your readers will realise without being told that for an English person Spain is abroad.
• "In Malvern, 1896, Griffith was employed " – missing a second "in"?
• "He would work there until 1935 … he would remain there until his death" – repetitious use of "he would". A plain past tense would be better in one or both cases.
• "he design the Toposcope" – past tense needed for the verb.
• "a number of local houses" – woolly. How many? If the precise number is unknown some indication of how many would be an improvement – a few, quite a lot, many…?
• "held those position" – plural noun needed.
• "in which he was elected secretary and treasurer in its inaugural meeting" – strange choices of preposition: one might expect "of which" and "at its".
• "February 28th, 1899." – date format.
• "he was elected the club's president after the death of member Hugh Bennett" – hideously clunky false title, and moreover unclear. Was Bennett the incumbent? Better to say so if so: "the death of the incumbent, Hugh Bennett".
• "Griffith died on January 17th, 1942" – date format
• "His funeral was held 4 days later, " – usual to use words for numbers up to at least ten.
• "January 21st" – date format
• " the tempo Presto," – capital letter not wanted
• "in their eighteenth century home " – "eighteenth-century" needs a hyphen
• "published January 1, 2012" – date format.

I hope these points are of help. Tim riley talk 11:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to Featured Article status. It is currently a GA. Anything is welcome! From my GA, I thought I had addressed everything, but let me know if some things are lacking in terms of an FA. For specific sections to look at: I'd appreciate looking at the Football section, I don't know much about football so I only hope it's accurate and comprehensive per the sources and in relation to his professional football stint. I also hope the tone is not too positive, or too biased for him.

Thanks, jolielover♥talk 12:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sallam alaikum. i do know a bit about football (or soccer, i prefer calling it football), and i think the football section is pretty good, and quite comprehensive for what is a relative blip on this article. the tone's not too bad, the sources are good, too. unfortunately i don't have much else to add here, sorry =( but i hoped this helped =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It's fine, thanks for reviewing :) yes football is not the reason he's famous at all lol but considering he joined a team and almost bought a club, I guess it's a pretty big deal, so wanted to make sure it was alright. jolielover♥talk 04:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this article cites BroadwayWorld. What makes this a reliable source, especially how WP:BROADWAYWORLD says "this website should generally not be used for facts about living persons"? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 09:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I've removed this. jolielover♥talk 05:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jolie, a few notes on sourcing at an FAC standard:

• What makes the Evening Standard, Spectrum Culture, Euphoria, Talent Recap, Culted, TBHonest, Hypebeast, United By Pop, Access All Areas, Endole, and Vice high-quality reliable sources (WP:HQRS and WP:FA?)?
• Consistent reference title casing and linking of parameters will need to be sorted (WP:CITESTYLE).
• Album titles and other major works should be placed in italics in reference titles, just like with normal text (MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE).
• Simmilarly, songs and other minor works should be placed in quotes – single or double, alternating with other quotes (MOS:MINORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
• 178 is 404-ing, so url-status should be set to dead.

My overall impression is that this is might not be a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature (WP:FA?). While there are a lot of quality newspapers and entertainment publications cited, I see a lot of zines and websites of questionable reliability and quality. I know that entertainment (especially teen entertainment) sourcing can be hard to come by, but is this the best sourcing available for this subject? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 January 2026, 22:28 UTC Last edit: 2 March 2026, 22:23 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because there are many unsourced (as well as outdated) citations, including grammar, cohesive, tone, etc.

Thanks, Absolutiva 02:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva: This PR has gone a month and a half without comment. I think that there's probably more reason to request a Good article reassessment than a PR. Would you like me to begin a GAR? If so, consider closing this PR. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been nominated a good article over 18 years, since then it's been reassessed. See here at: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Savage Man Savage Beast/1. Absolutiva 00:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured article. It is already a good article and I would appreciate feedback on what's necessary for it to merit FA status.

Thanks, Bronx Langford (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar, where hopefully it will get more reviews. I recommend that you review other articles at WP:FAC to help get an understanding of the FA criteria and to build goodwill amongst editors. I also recommend that you seek a FA mentor who can give comments and advice on achieving your first successful FAC. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bronx Langford: This PR has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in getting feedback? Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] yes, but I haven't sought any mentors out Bronx Langford (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bronx Langford: I would either seek out a mentor or close this PR. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: 23 December 2025, 22:22 UTC Last edit: 2 March 2026, 12:50 UTC

Mince pies are an integral part of Christmas for most people. They have an interesting history which is explained by their name: they originally contained meat and have changed their make-up and style over the last thousand years. This has been through a top-to-bottom rewrite recently and a trip to FAC is envisaged after PR. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've been as picky as I can in the hope of fending off reviewers at FAC who don't understand food articles – and haven't we met some!

Throughout you need to decide if you are writing about "the mince pie" singular or "mince pies" plural.

• "dates back to the 11th century" – but you use words rather than digits for other centuries (and much more pleasing that is, me judice).
• "A mince pie comprises a sweet pastry shell—normally shortcrust" – hmm! I'd call shortcrust savoury and would refer to the related sweet pastry as pâte sucrée, and if you've ever made sweet puff pastry you're a better man than I am. But I don't press the point.
• "this then changed to them becoming associated with Christmas" – we're into gerund – verbal noun – territory here, and "them" should be "their"
• "The mince pie was attacked by the puritans during the interregnum" – blue links needed …
• …"although they were stigmatised for their indulgent and supposed catholic connotations – singular/plural clash, as above.
• "The pie is then baked in a moderate to hot oven until it is browned. They are often served" – ditto
• "They are often served with an accompaniment such as … cheese" – cheese? Are you completely out of your mind? It was a new one on me. There are two things I'd like to mention, both completely unconnected to the above. 1. It was an American source. 2. My sister enjoys a slice of cheese with Christmas pudding. I have always wanted some form of DNA tet to see if we are actually related. - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the UK in the twenty-first century…" – I don't know anyone indigenous who calls our country "the UK". "Britain" is more idiomatic, meseems.
• "this then changed to them becoming associated with Christmas" – another gerund: should be "their"
• "Adrian Bailey identifies the origin of the mince pie as being from Cumberland" – "origin from" or just "origin?
• "This was baked in a thick pastry case called a coffyn or coffin; this was often disposed of without being eaten" – could do with one less "this". Perhaps "which" after a comma rather than the semicolon?
• "The mince pie was attacked by the puritans during the interregnum, although they were stigmatised for their indulgent and supposed catholic connotations" – as above.
• "they were normally produced with a bases of shortcrust pastry and lids of puff pastry" – I think you need to lose the indefinite article.

That's my lot. Hope some of it is useful. – Tim riley talk 18:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All was most useful and all followed through on. - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Good. Have you considered knocking on Chiswick Chap's door? Tim riley talk 13:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] An excellent suggestion. CC, if you have any thoughts or comments on the article, I would welcome hearing them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: 12 January 2026, 12:34 UTC Last edit: 11 February 2026, 02:14 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on its overall structure, sourcing, and clarity, and to identify any issues that should be addressed before a potential Good Article nomination.

Thanks, Monkegamer123 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monkegamer123: Comments after a quick skim:

• The lead should be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Every level 2 heading should be summarised in the lead.
• The "Development" and "Reception" sections are quite long. I suggest summarising the text more effectively and using level 3 headings to break up the text
• Suggest using [iabot.toolforge.org/index.php] to archive the websites. You might also want to expand out these citations by adding access dates and author last names.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone that accepted this article, these are my suggestions:

• The text in the lead During development, Miju Games shared two roadmaps in 2022 and 2023 outlining planned features and updates. and The PC version holds a Metacritic score of 81 out of 100. could be removed. Same could be said about citations in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, provided that the information in the lead is repeated elsewhere in the article.
• Perhaps the definition of "overwhelmingly positive" and "very positive" should be clarified as not all readers have Steam.
• Also, if you haven't already, please feel free to read the good article criteria, and take a look at existing GA video game articles (perhaps those released after 2015) to get an idea of what it should look like. Otherwise, I feel this could be ready for GA! JuniperChill (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve addressed previous comments and revised the lead, sections, and citations. Thanks again for your feedback! If you notice anything else that should be improved to prepare the article for Good Article nomination, I’d appreciate any additional suggestions.

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended following FA nomination. The introduction and “structure” and “gardens” section of the Description were already fixed. Everything else was recommended to be reviewed for grammar and phrasing.

Thanks, V.B.Speranza (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @V.B.Speranza: I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing article listed there. Z1720 (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @V.B.Speranza: This PR has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback or should this be nominated at FAC? Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that jumps out at me is that the article starts with some relatively unimportant facts. I would start out the Description section with more basic information. Think Elevator pitch. Imagine the following conversation: "Hi, what have you been working on?" "I'm writing about the Santos Passos Church" "I've never heard of it, tell me about it". You have my attention for one more minute, what do you tell me? I assume you wouldn't start by telling me the elevation.

You'd probably start with something like "It's an 18th century Catholic church in northern Portugal designed by André Soares" Then I imagine you would give a general description of what the building: it has bell tower and a side chapel. There are three rectangular gardens in front with a stone fountain and four granite statues. These seem like the most important things. Telling the reader that it's at an elevation of 571 meters seems like it would be way down on the list.

• Nowadays, five Oratories remain, nowadays should be replaced with }

• By the early 18th century, the chapel was ruined and a safety hazard the juxtaposition of "ruined" (a verb) and "a safety hazard" (a noun) is strange. Perhaps "... had decayed into ruins and was a safety hazard".

• seven Oratories were constructed across the city by the Irmandade; only five remain to this day this repeats what was said earlier in the Oratories section.

• Hi @RoySmith: I’ve made the changes you suggested, although I disagree with the elevator-pitch example for the description section, for that section is meant to... describe. That approach would be more applicable to the opening paragraphs of the article, even though I believe they already serve that purpose well enough. Still, I’m open to further suggestions, thank you. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "In front of the church are three rectangular gardens..." This whole sentence is sourced to this. However, that source gives nothing related to that content, instead only containing information about the planting of pansies in the garden one year.
• The aforementioned source and this one suggest that the garden in question is actually the municipal square's garden, rather than the church's. The status of this garden should be clearly explained with a proper source.
• When writing something like "St. John", utilize   to prevent the "St." from hanging separate from the name; see MOS:NBSP.
• The materials section is primarily a verbatim copy-and-paste of the Google Translation of the section on materials in this source. The article needs to summarize, paraphrase, or use quotations. It can not simply translate a source and then repeat it verbatim–that's plagiarism.
• Oratory and oratories are not supposed to be capitalized in the contexts that they are used in within the article. Only capitalize Oratory when it is used as part of a proper noun.
• If you have the date of 1594 in the sentence, "It was later replaced" is not necessary.
• I'm not seeing a compelling reason to not translate "Irmandade" to "brotherhood" after the first mention.
• Many of the citations identify that sources are in European Portuguese or Portuguese; all European Portuguese sources should be properly labelled as such. Relatedly, some Portuguese sources are not identified as in Portuguese, European or otherwise.
• "it was blessed the same year." Is this simply a blessing of the church, a liturgical rite, or the church's formal consecration?
• These is a CS1 error appearing for the citation currently number as 18.

More comments may follow. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly. Date added: 7 January 2026, 18:10 UTC Last edit: 31 January 2026, 22:10 UTC

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 February 2026, 20:07 UTC Last edit: 26 February 2026, 22:10 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because... This is the first article I've created with a substantial amount of prose, and I want to make sure I'm on the right track as I work to create and improve more articles for skiers. I'd appreciate feedback on the clarity and flow of the writing, level of detail included, level of technical language, what to include in the lede, and organization/structure (which seems to be fairly standard for ski racer articles). Any other comments or suggestions would be welcome as well, as I feel like there is a lot that I don't know that I don't know about creating quality articles. Thanks, Wburrow (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this has recently been recognised as a Good Article. I now want to get it ready for FAC. Any reviews, advice, comments or constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged.

Thanks, Metalicat (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metalicat, I will have a go at reviewing this article. I am not hugely interested in sport but I am quite interesting in this period of British history.--Llewee (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The early life section seems quite lacking in biographical detail. The 1891 census must list his parents jobs? Is anything known about his schooling, work before becoming a profession boxer, childhood interests or the like?
• The article uses a fair bit of sports journalist type jargon; for instance, "establishing his standing in the lighter divisions before moving up in weight", "the British ring" and "he reversed over twenty rounds". I would suggest removing boxing terms that aren't needed and creating a "terminology" section to explain technical language that is essential.
• The "military service during World War I" section implies that the government was using his celebrity for propaganda purposes. Could this be discussed more explicitly, possible broken into a subsection in this part of the article?
• I think it would be helpful to group the information in the "Later life and post-boxing career" into a number of longer paragraphs and condense it down a bit. There was clearly a lot of media interest/boxing activities in the first decade or so of retirement, another paragraph could cover his personal life in the same period and third a might be sufficient for events after about 1930.
• You use a lot of contemporary press coverage in the article. There is nothing wrong with using these sources but I think the reliance on them here might be slightly too great for FA. It would be helpful if you could find some academic sources. Unfortunately, my brief search on the Wikipedia Library didn't produce any results.

Evening Llewee, thanks for the review, it’s really helpful. I’ve expanded early life using the 1891 and 1911 census, and I’ve started stripping out unnecessary ringside jargon and have added a terminology section. I’ve also added more secondary sources to reduce reliance on contemporary press for interpretation. I haven’t found reliable sources on schooling or childhood, so I’ve avoided speculation, but I’ll keep looking. I’ve strengthened the WWI section with secondary context on sport in the Army and added more on his recruiting and public appearances. If you have time for a quick second look after these updates, I’d really value it. Thanks again. Metalicat (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to GA status. I'm a new editor, so please link your wikilingo.

Thanks, Whimpers1 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on nominating Nile for Featured Article status, and I would like suggestions that will help achieve the goal. Specifically:

• Does the article meet FA criteria?
• Are there areas where the prose can be improved?
• Is there any material missing from the article that should be added?

Any an all input is appreciated. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I wonder about the English name for the Nile is why the river was called nilus in Latin, especially how other rivers during the Roman Empire had more "unique" names rather than just being called "river" (example: Tiber).

I also remember a user on WP:DISCORD pointed out that a biblical name for the Nile, Sihor, is not mentioned in the article. Based on a cursory search, there seems to be some debate on what the term actually refers to. Do you think it's worth mentioning this? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I note that Springer 2010 appears to be a children's book. Is there a better source? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 03:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Icepinner - Thanks for the excellent feedback.

• Why the river was called nilus in Latin? - I do not recall any source discussing that. I'll look into it and see if an explanation is available.
• ... a biblical name for the Nile, Sihor, is not mentioned in the article. The sources say that the Nile is most likely the biblical river Gihon ... and that is mentioned in the religion section. I don't recall any sources mentioning Sihor. The Sihor article says that most scholars agree that Sihor is not the Nile.
• ...Springer 2010 appears to be a children's book. You are correct. That is a holdover from prior editors before I started working on the article. A couple of months ago I noticed it was a kids book, so I added a 2nd source for the same fact: Allen 2000, p. 103. I think I left Springer in because it has lots of cool illustrations; but I'll remove it now - it can only raise questions during an FA review.

Much appreciated!! Noleander (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article in August 2024 and got it promoted to GA status in November 2025. I would like to get this article promoted to FA status sometime in the near future, which is why I am listing it for peer review. Thanks, mdm.bla 03:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdm.Bla: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Also, since you are seeking your first FAC, I suggest getting the help of a FA mentor and to review articles at FAC now to help learn the FA criteria and build goodwill among FAC nominators. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been chipping away at it and got rid of the various citation needed templates, but would like advice on what else to adjust. It's an extensive article, and takes multiple sets of eyes to find any issues. Much love, rock on, thank you for your time!

Thanks, ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ArkadenBoden: I can see a few page needed template. I think starting there would be advisable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently rewritten this article with the aim of getting it to FA status. I think it would be helpful to receive feedback on the article's current condition before nominating it to FAC. I hope it is as enjoyable to read as it was for me to work on.

Thanks, Llewee (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because... this is one of my first big edits on Wikipedia. This article was translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, and it had many mistakes. I was able to fix the article using both 24 hour and 12 hour time and some of the places that didn't exist by looking at the Japanese article. I think there's still issues with the page organization and the references. I did add one reference, and I tried my best to do it correctly, but I may have done that wrong. Thanks, Bulbatian (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clean up the grammar a bit and merge some of the duplicate information. Here are my thoughts briefly: 1. There is still some duplicate information in the article. I cleaned up some of it, but much is still in the article twice. The article organization is also not ideal at the moment and does not "flow" naturally in my opinion. 2. Much information is not cited. The article needs additional inline citations, particularly to support specific numbers/claims. 3. There is probably still a fair bit of awkward grammar in the article and inconsistencies in tense. I don't think what I have done is really a full peer review, but the article needs some work in these areas before the article can be dug into for less low-hanging improvements. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your edits! You're amazing!! I will try to work on fixing the citations sometime this week. Bulbatian (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to the status of a featured article. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vyacheslav84: I recommend resolving the orange banner at the top of the article, then bringing this article to WP:GAN first, where you can receive in a more light-weight environment. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: OK, thank you! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is would be more appropriately listed under socsci or history, but I think it leans more towards history. Maybe I will seek a socsci review after the history review.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback as to what is missing from the article currently. I believe on the old "who, what, when, where, why" test, it often fails the who part to some extent as I often say X was done by "the state" rather than department Y within the state. I have also substantially reworded and reworked sections of the article after adding citations, so surely the alignment between the text and at least some of the citations will not be perfect.

This is also liable to be a contentious topic, and I don't intend to come across as blaming any particular group beyond maybe the Bulgarian Communist Party of the time, so I'd like suggestions of content to add that would increase the overall neutrality of the article where simply seeking to use neutral language might not be sufficient.

Edit: Note that this article is intimately connected to the 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria article. I have not had time to expand that article to the same extent as this one, but that one cannot really be understood without this article, though I do think they should be separate pages as that article is for the culmination that became true ethnic cleaning.

Thanks, Pietrus1 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The first reference doesn't explicitly use the term "Revival Process"[6]. Its fine to use such references later in the article. But the very first reference should be an English language reference, accessible online, that says something along the lines of "The Revival Process describes a period in history where..." It builds the reader confidence in WP:V.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Replaced, thanks. Would you recommend using a number of sources that use the term exactly in the lead or just a one or two? Pietrus1 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an additional question: I tried to mix academic and news sources. Should I purge the non-academic sources from the document as most of what they say is repeated in academic sources anyway? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: 29 January 2026, 23:38 UTC Last edit: 28 February 2026, 19:28 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because this historical event on the island of Hispaniola explains the reason behind its division. I understand it is an episode of Caribbean history that is vital to know and emphasize, which is why I want to ensure it meets the highest quality standards.

Thanks, Risantana (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really great topic, and one that I have passing familiarity with, though I have not used this name for the events. I wanted to clean up the references before any real peer review was done. 1. The reference format throughout this article was atypical, so I have changed many of them. Note that for organizational purposes, as the references were never only created in full once and called in a more short-form (they were called in the same full form repeatedly), I did quite a bit to organize the references. Essentially this was a copyedit and I used automated tools in part. Every reference was in a subpar way, so I deleted and re-added several references. I would really recommend that you check my commit to make sure that I did not delete anything or change the style on the references too much. 2. Also note that I was fairly aggressive with translation of sources information here. If you feel anything was not correctly translated (I only speak English and flawed Chinese), please change it back. I would love to see this article grow in the future. 3. I would really recommend you seek a copyedit of these sources. I am new to this and there are definitely still mistakes. Try the Guild of Copyeditors request page. 4. A few sources appear to be duplicates, but I do not want to change the current references. Will you take a look for duplicates? I noticed the records 132438 and 404390 are both cited twice slightly differently. Specific issues: 5. "Resultados de búsqueda para banda norte espanola" was referenced, this was just a search result, can you find a specific reference to insert where that reference was? 6. There are a few titles of original documents which are not preserved on the various pages they are hosted on. I cannot always read centuries-old cursive in languages I do speak, let alone languages I do not, like Spanish. I would recommend you manually read these titles and replace them. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Looking it over, I would also suggest that some of the "overview" pictures at the end of the page contain some debatable information in multiple pictures. I personally think these pictures are pretty great generally, but they are clearly also translations. I'm not sure how appropriate they are at present for wikipedia, particularly for those who lack the background in the history of Hispaniola to discern this. There is also the issue of claimed/de-jure vs. de-facto territorial control in colonial maps from centuries past that arises again and again. I do not want to suggest deletion of these maps, but at present I do not think they are ideal. Perhaps someone with more experience can add their perspective. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have tarted my work on the Trafalgar campaign, starting with this. I don't have any of the main sources, and have only just updated the sources.

Thanks to everyone replying in advance, Thelifeofan413 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not gone to GA yet, so I will pull out my GA review template and adapt it. Note I do not have any familiarity with naval terms. Someone else can definitely read this more in-depth. 1. Prose:

• Potentially confusing parts:
• South American map. I do not understand the Caribbean as part of South America. I do not know how South American understand it, but I have looked at a particular period in the history of the Greater Antilles quite a bit, so I can say that it is atypical to present the Caribbean as part of South America in at least some circles. I would recommend changing the map to one the purely shows the Caribbean.
• I'm not sure if the use of "stone frigate" in the infobox is right. I'm not familiar with naval terms at all, but this term was new to me and it appears to stem from this battle. Maybe replace the term in the infobox and note that the battle gave rise to the term in the article?
• Acronyms and technical terms:
• "ships of the line" and the other naval terms beneath it did not have wikilinks. I have added them. I have only a passing familiarity with those terms. I don't really know what a gunboat refers to in particular.
• I have no idea what "cutting out" means? Does the wikilink even look correct?
• The "scaling ladders" wikilink is empty which I added. Is there a similar page like a siege ladder page? Would Escalade work?
• Conciseness:
• Nothing strikes me as very non-concise right now, but a GA review will potentially more rigorously assess this.
• Spelling and Grammar:
• Does the letter that begins with IT include both I and T capitalized in the original? Take a look at that. Maybe include [sic] after IT if so.
• Layout:
• The general layout is fine. I have no issues.
• Lead:
• The lead is good right now.
• Problematic Word Choice:
• "...could have easily sunk..." is this true? It seems speculative without a source saying exactly that.
• The lack of scaling ladders is often described as neglect. I would recommend a less loaded term.
• "Vague orders" - maybe reword this or directly support with a source calling them vague.

2. References

• Links Functioning:
• You have taken care of this. Good work.
• Citation Formatting:
• Citation formatting is correct now. I would prefer if the "further reading" and "external links" sections were integrated and ultimately removed, but that is just my preference.
• Quote Issues:
• "the Court is of the opinion that Captain J. W. Maurice" is how this quote begins. If it begins with a lowercase letter, will you add [sic] to the right of it.
• Divergence between reference and text:
• I'm not familiar with a lot of this topic, so I will forgo this. Someone who is more experienced should assess this.
• Citations to reliable sources:
• I'm not familiar with a lot of this topic, so I will forgo this. Someone who is more experienced should assess this.
• Original research:
• I'm not familiar with a lot of this topic, so I will forgo this. Someone who is more experienced should assess this.
• Copyvio and plagiarism:
• Take a pass using Earwig yourself and manually assess. Nothing looks out of place for me.

3. Broad in its coverage

• Major aspects:
• This is one specific topic, so I believe it is broad now.
• I think some military article typically have OOB information, but I am not active in those areas. Take a look at this.
• Focus/scope:
• There is a small amount of digression, but I think that is warranted. There are no "coat hanger" points made.

4. Neutral:

• Participation in Arguments:
• It does not participate there.
• Potentially Contentious Labels:
• None that I see.
• Fringe Views:
• None that I can see.
• Minor Points Given Undue Weight:
• None that I can see.
• Competing Views Integrated Well:
• I think they are.

5. Stable:

• Pass/Fail:
• It is stable currently.

6. Illustrated:

• Images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales:
• This is done correctly.
• Appropriate use with suitable captions:
• This is done correctly.

Pietrus1 (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually make this article reach Featured Article status and I'm asking people's opinions to see if there's any problem to fix.

Thanks, GrenadinesDes (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GrenadinesDes: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Please also consider reviewing articles at WP:FAC. This will help build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help clear the list, making your nomination stand out to potential reviewers. I also suggest seeking a FA mentor who can leave comments here and help give advice on getting your first FA. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: 26 December 2025, 19:45 UTC Last edit: 22 February 2026, 21:15 UTC

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: 24 December 2025, 00:14 UTC Last edit: 3 March 2026, 02:14 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the level of GA-class. As this is the first article I've ever created (which is done by draft), I currently do not have experience on how to improve a C-class article to B-class, let alone meet GA standards. Therefore I'd like some suggestions and guidance for improving the article.

Thanks, Electorus (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've added a new section about the properties of the number. Hopefully this improves the quality of the article closer to B-Class. Electorus (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Electorus. Have you ever thought of rewriting them into prose and adding more sources for each? Also, since the article is ridiculously obnoxious, you could truncate the section "Selected 13-digit numbers (1,000,000,000,001–9,999,999,999,999)" off. You could also try what the number 1,000,000,000,000 is by explaining its predecessor and successor and writing its properties, given the reliable sources you have found, as long as you need to follow the WP:NUM/G. You can see some samples of GA about numbers like 1 (number) and 69 (number). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I see. I wrote this article in a way based on related large number articles like 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, so it looks more like a list of numbers in an order of magnitude rather than an article focusing on the number specifically. I'll try to adjust the structure and find more sources according to your advice. This may be harder than both GA articles you suggested though, because both 1 and 69 are more common in real life than this number. Electorus (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially expanded and sourced. Feedback on structure, sourcing, neutrality, and overall readiness for future assessment processes (e.g. GA) would be appreciated.

Thanks, Tmslv ptrcvc (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmslv ptrcvc: Comments after a quick skim:

• I added some citation needed tags to the article. These should be resolved before a GAN.
• There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs in the article. Most paragraphs should be about 4-6 sentences. Merge some of these paragraphs together.
• Ref 9: "Discogs" is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. This should be removed or replaced.
• Refs 26 & 51, 38 & 52, and 50 & 57 seem to be the same sources and can be merged together.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 2026, 16:35 UTC Last edit: 17 February 2026, 12:17 UTC

Previous peer review

This article's already gone through a peer review once, but now considering that it's considerably different from the peer-reviewed version months ago, I request another peer review for this.

Several things that I kindly want reviewers to inform me include coherence & cohesion, whether some sections should be grouped together, and potential sourcing problems.

Thanks, Strongman13072007 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've had to wait so long for anyone to bother reviewing this. I'll offer my two cents, though ancient Chinese religion is well beyond my ken.

• Lead is generally well-written and seems to adequately summarize the topic.
• Please link posthumous naming and shamanism on first mention in the lead.
• Link Shang astronomers to Chinese astronomy
• Regarding sourcing, I get the general sense that those present are rather authoritative. However, I also notice that only three (by my count) Chinese-language sources are used. While this is not necessarily an issue (my understanding of ancient Chinese historiography is that much of it was published in the West until fairly recently), I would just note that other FAC reviewers might raise an eyebrow. I'm also embarrassed to admit that it was through doing this PR that I discovered the Harvc template for citing chapters/essays that are part of larger works. I have some fixing to do on articles I've written...
• some scholars characterise it more specifically as a state religion I don't know if I'd leave this statement–which seems to be the perspective adopted throughout the article–unattributed beyond a vague wave to "scholars". Based on the contents of this article, I'd tend to agree with said scholars, but I would prefer a cleaner statement. If it is the consensus view of modern scholarship, we can state it in wikivoice without attribution to "scholars". If it is the consensus view of a particular school of scholarship, we can attribute it to that school.
• canonised scriptures can be linked to Religious text. There are people who are wholly unfamiliar with any kind of religious terminology, so a concession to them is worthwhile when we can do so cheaply.
• It is instead understood through oracle bone inscriptions I'm fairly certain that the meaning of this sentence is that the modern scholarly understanding of Shang religion is understood through surviving oracle bones. However, on first reading, I initially read that statement as suggesting that believers in Shang religion utilized oracle bone inscriptions for their understanding of their religion. Maybe rephrase this to nix the pronoun? Maybe ignore me (probably the prudent decision)?
• bureaucratic or at least proto-bureaucratic An elaboration on what "bureaucratic" means in this context might be useful. Is it implying something specific about the hierarchical relationships between deities? Is it suggesting that the religion consisted of a formal clerical institution? Did Di have to contact the parish council before adding a sunroom?
• pantheon Link Pantheon (religion)
• ancestor worship Link Ancestor veneration in China
• For the caption of the characters that spell out Di, do each of the characters spell out Di's name or do they only spell out Di's name when together?
• If you're aiming for FAC, you'll probably need to add alts to all the images in the article.
• In the Divination section, the sentence beginning The oldest divinatory has four citations following it and a further explanatory note. That's a lot. Is it possible to remove even a single one of those citations, or is this claim especially complex/contested? If the latter, consider utilizing attributed statements.

More comments will probably be forthcoming. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review to try and expand this article. All of the information I’ve found is already in the article and I’m trying to find ways to extend it. I’m also wondering what the article would be rated as, because even though it’s pretty short, I feel like it goes into a decent amount of detail about the case.

Thanks, ActuallyElite (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you want the article to be rated for sub-GA, try Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests. The people there do that quite a lot. I will say that the way you have done things look very clean compared to a number of shorter articles, so this will probably rate highly relative to its length. I don't know enough to extend it, but as a general recommendation, read the sources yourself and pull what the sources say with some anesthetization of their content and avoiding their exact word-choice. Pietrus1 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Pietrus1 Thank you, I’ve added a bit since your response, but also do you think that I could get it to GAN? ActuallyElite (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you can maintain the styling, it will require some substantial lengthening, but it should be GANable at a relatively short length given it is a niche topic. Reassess once it hits 15k-20k or so. Pietrus1 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ok thank you, I’ll try to lengthen it more soon. ActuallyElite (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 January 2026, 16:21 UTC Last edit: 1 March 2026, 03:44 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review because the upcoming presidential elections in Iraq is going to be hosted near the end of this month. Since this is the first article that I have created, I would like some feedback on what I could improve on.

These include:

1. What I could do instead in general next time

1. Did I do something wrong with the references?
2. Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
3. Anything else that I may need to focus on?

2. What I should've done instead specifically with the article

1. Did I leave out some important details?
2. Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
3. Did I leave out some important details?
4. Did my writing tone contradicts WP:NPOV? Any other reasons on why it may be considered as "bad"?
5. Anything else that I may need to focus on?

Thanks, GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuesanLoyalist, a few things: 1) The article is generally well-referenced, however WP:RSP warns against using Anadolu Agency as a reliable source for international politics and also has information on Al Jazeera Arabic, China Daily, and Al Arabiya. Of course, RSP is not a policy, so just take care with the sources and what you are getting from them. Also, the number of citations in the lead section is rather large, see MOS:LEADCITE and maybe think about moving some of those citations, especially because the information should be repeated in more detail elsewhere in the article. 2) Some of the potentially contentious statements (The Iraqi parliament has previously been unable..., The agreement has been criticised for encouraging corruption...) should be attributed to best be in compliance with WP:NPOV. Also, only including Donald Trump's reaction could be giving Trump undue weight as opposed to giving a wider range of international reactions. 3) There could be some minor copyediting (I boldly removed an extra "a"). Overall, though, looks pretty good for a first article! mdm.bla 21:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! I plan to follow by your suggestions if I can. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 January 2026, 05:58 UTC Last edit: 13 February 2026, 19:03 UTC

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had a chance to look through the article in detail. But I think we all know that first impressions are important. The first impression I had was that the image was not what one would call "professional" or high quality. Changing that would be a good 1st step. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello Yesterday, all my dreams... and thanks for your feedback. Cognition is a very abstract and general term so it is difficult to visualize it in a representative manner. The presentation of different cognitive activities, as the current image attempts, is one approach. Do you have an idea about how the image could be modified to improve it? As an alternative, we could also simply remove the image: lead images are not required and no image may better than a bad image. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi there. Yes, it is a very abstract issue, as you said. And I wish I knew what it is! In the late 1970's a young yours truly attended a meeting with several professors discussing the issue. They reached no agreement. I have since thought about it in the consciousness context, but still in the woods. Any way, regarding the image please take a look at [7]. I like this one [8] but please choose any high quality one you like. Cheers Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure that there are good alternatives, so I went ahead and removed the image. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review as part of Wiki Education assignment for Psychology 220A (Fall 2025).

Thank you! 220AZiIqTLIQer (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote this article yesterday based in large part from journal articles and dug-up sources from around the time. Looking for feedback to make sure it's accessible to a layperson, informative about the election (i:e, doesn't gloss over any necessary attributes while focusing too much on small details), and doesn't contain too much jargon or waffle. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a solid B-Class article. I don't do FA or GA reviews because it's contentious and I'm too stressed out in real life. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The county maps are unsourced
• Under "Background", [Sioux City, Iowa|Sioux City] -> [Sioux City] per MOS:NOTBROKEN
• The image needs alttext
• Mention Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house, also mention his home state as he wasn't from Iowa
• Link "Missouri" and "New Jersey"
• "New-Jersey" -> "New Jersey"
• Under "Aftermath", "opposition in the House of Representatives" -> "opposition in the House"
• Link "Democrats"
• The LA Times sources should say "Subscription needed"
• A few of the sources have MOS:DASH violations

That's what I found Olliefant (she/her) 19:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I will respond to most of these comments later, but I will say, is the issue with the county maps that no direct citation is provided in the "Results by county" description? The results by county are linked to at the file page, and cited in the Results and reaction section (at the table header for each result). I did not include a table for results by county as I figured this would likely clutter up the page, though I could include it if necessary. LivelyRatification (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Olliefant: I have acted on most of these comments, with a few exceptions. I'm not sure what change you wanted for the county maps as said above, I have tried to fix the MOS:DASH violations but I may have missed some, and I'm not sure how to add Gingrich's home state as none of the sources I have relating to this directly state it. Would it be good to just find a basic, unrelated source about Gingrich that says this? --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The lack of citation in THIS article is a problem. An unrelated source for the home state would be fine Olliefant (she/her) 03:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Olliefant: As I said, the county results are cited further down in the article (though not explicitly stated in the article, they are referenced at each of the result tables), but I have added a citation to the infobox as well. I am happy to make this more visible if necessary but not entirely sure how/what I'd need to do. Gingrich's home state has also been added with a citation to another LA Times article. LivelyRatification (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: 21 July 2025, 02:43 UTC Last edit: 2 January 2026, 20:30 UTC

I'm thinking of promoting this article to featured list status, given there are plenty of sources and information for that to be possible. However, I have not promoted a featured list before, so I'd appreciate some tips on how to improve the current article, particularly with the placement of sources. I'm also pretty sure there is no "good list" category, so hopefully I am reviewing this correctly. :)

My thought process is the following: I'm currently working on getting every franchise to have at least one high-quality reliable source (most notably replacing all of the Game Rant sources). I think the table formatting is fine, but my only suggestion might be to remove the "reference" column in the table and move all of the sources to either the initial/latest game release to verify those claims, or to verify what the series is about. While the reference column is nice, it doesn't directly confirm what is stated in each section of the table, so moving the references could potentially fix that issue. Otherwise, all franchises in the table seem good to me. The only one that I have the slightest bit of doubt for is the Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball series, as the best source I could find is from Operation Sports, a source that I have no basis for reliability. Also, any suggestions to improve the lead section as a summary for ALL of Nintendo's franchises would be greatly appreciated, whether it is adding information or rewording part of it to be more professional.

Feel free to help me out on this potentially large-scale project! - Z-Gamer Guys (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"For lists of more specific Nintendo games, see the lists of games on Nintendo consoles." should be a hatnote Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I wasn't too sure what to do with that sentence given there was already a "see also" section. This has been added. Z-Gamer Guys (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would recommend notes on series where the name differs between regions (Another Code, Brain Age). Also, the Daigasso entry could benefit from mentioning the name "Jam with the Band"; I believe it's a point of interest that the first game almost released in the US under this title and to later mention that the sequel did. I wonder if it should be titled Jam with the Band by virtue of that being the official English name.
2. I'm not sure about inclusion criteria. As far as inclusions go, I think it is a little inconsistent. Some series I believe should be considered include: Pokémon Snap, Pokémon Rumble, Pokémon Ranger, Pokémon Trozei, Pokémon Stadium, Pokémon Pinball, Crosswords, Magical Vacation, Nintendo Labo, Polarium, the "Robot" series (the official designation for Gyromite and Stack-Up), and Sin & Punishment. Of course, all depending on what sourcing says about there being a "series"..
3. Is there any official sourcing that establishes Excitebike as the series rather than "Excite"?
4. Is Hotel Dusk used as a placeholder alternative, or is this a "for lack of a better term" series?
5. I'm honestly a little stumped on what to call the Wars series, if it should just be called the Wars series. For instance, this official source calls it the "Advance Wars series", and the name stuck beyond the Game Boy Advance. I feel like we should talk about changing it to Advance Wars, as a name does not necessarily have to be all-encompassing (for instance, we call it The Legend of Zelda series despite a mainline entry being titled "Zelda II").
6. On that same note, Battalion Wars might be worth having as a separate entry (assuming there's RSes about this as a series); while connected to the Advance Wars series, it didn't start as one and has multiple entries.
7. Yoshi series should mention Yoshi's Island, as it's arguably the main Yoshi series. If possible, provide reliable sourcing to verify that games like Yoshi's Story, Crafted World, and Woolly World take after it.
8. Inconsistent use of Japanese names (Panel de Pon); on that note, I believe it'd be worth mentioning that the series has crossed over with other series.

Random notes, not an exhaustive examination - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have contributed significantly to it, and would like to know how else I can improve this article, and what issues persist within. I would like to nominate this for featured list status soon.

Thanks, Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I close this?

@Phlogiston Enthusiast: See Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review for instructions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Military history: Battle of Diamond Rock • September 11 attacks