Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been aware of the topic for quite a while but always figured it was undeserving of an article. However, after looking online, I found it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (Even not counting the one article written by the owner of the land...) and I got a photo of it yesterday. So, Ponyhenge it is. I hope you'll agree, but of course I'm requesting a review in part because I'm unsure you will!
Just listing this article for peer review, making sure there are no significant issues before nominating it as a good article. Any and all constructive comments are appreciated. Thank you, Is it Juan? (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...this article recently got GA status, and I'm thinking of nominating it for FA class in the future. I'd like feedback on whether the article meets higher quality standards in terms of prose, comprehensiveness, sourcing, neutrality, and Manual of Style compliance before I move it to FAC. I would also appreciate comments on the balance between Raaphorst's biography, filmmaking career, style and influences and whether there are gaps in coverage or areas that need to be expanded, trimmed or copyedited. Any thoughts on how to improve the article to FA standards would be much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made lots of changes recently (fixed dead sources, replaced less reliable sources, added details, started a film and TV section, found a few factual errors.) I'd like to know if there's any other issues, if the article can be moved up to A class, and how close is it to being a Good Article?
@EmergentAnarchy: Comments after a quick skim: No major concerns with the article. I think this is ready for GAN. Consider merging some of the one-sentence paragraphs with the paragraphs before or after them. Please consider reviewing articles at WP:GAN to help with the backlog. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll leave it for a couple of days in case anyone has any more comments. There's also been something going on involving the early life section, so i'll wait until that's resolved before nominating it. EmergentAnarchy (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miminity, always glad to see new editors bringing articles to WP:FAC, so welcome! Popular music is rather outside my usual area, so I'm going to do a full review, but let me make a couple of general suggestions:
Most of the citation templates have an optional "translated title" field. If you could use that, it would help both reviewers and regular readers navigate the reflist easier.
Especially for a first-time FAC nomination, it is recommended to go through WP:GAN first (in addition to Peer Review). It's not required, but the more people you can get to look at your stuff, the better shape it will be in when it reaches FAC.
Oh, yeah, one more suggestion is to get involved with FAC before your nomination by reviewing other people's articles, especially ones that are in the same subject area as yours. First is you'll get some hands-on experience with what other reviewers are looking for. Second, by getting your name out in front of the regular FAC crowd, you'll be more likely to attract reviewers to look at your nomination when the time comes.
Oh, my, I just realized a made a really bad typo here. When I said "I'm going to do a full review", what I had intended to say was "I'm NOT going to do a full review". I hope that didn't leave you hanging waiting for me to come back with the review. RoySmith(talk)22:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try pushing this for FAC again; I've tried to not only correct all the notes from beforehand, but take lessons from it to do my best to improve this article, copyedit it where it seemed needed, and create something that is truly worth it. I want to get a peer review because I know I can't do it by myself, and I love hearing the feedback I've gotten in the past from others, even the most brutal ones.
I don't remember whether it previously came up, it would be nice to track down a link for ref 93 (spin article).
It was originally published in a Spin magazine but I can't find it linked anywhere. Worst comes to worse, we could always remove that review and either replace it or leave it as it is.
So in my research, it seems like this was published in the November 2002 of Modern Drummer magazine, and this interview was posted and archived by Jim DeRogatis himself on his own site. Maybe we could switch the format to "Cite magazine" then link this? Because I can't find any other link with this.
Optional: for extra effect you can format all references using sfn (see High and Low (1963 film)) and put "Attributed to multiple references:" as notes (see The Host (2006 film))
I like how it is now, if that's okay!
We should cite Martha, Meg's middle name, in the early life section (not sure it is cite currently)
Last I checked, either the Handyside/True books stated it. I can doublecheck when I'm home later.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has FA potential. I'm focusing on the quality of the prose but am open to feedback on all aspects to ensure the article has a good chance at FAC. Thanks, (Guyinblack25talk02:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC))[reply]
I've made substantial improvements and cleaned up the article and would like another set of eyes to go over it for a sanity check. Hoping to get the article to Good or FA status eventually.
Do you have a better source for Pyrex#cite ref-12? Yahoo Finance is not the best source…
I realised that the article came from Bloomberg. See if you can find the original article from themselves, though you can leave the existing Yahoo article there since Bloomberg is notorious for paywalling every article (unless you can find an un-paywalled archive link).
In Pyrex#Composition, with “The composition of both Corning 7740 and Schott 8330 is given as …”, could you make sure that it has a inline citation in it? I (want to) believe this info is found in other sources, but it’s better to play it safe and cite it inline by reusing refs.
In Pyrex#Visual differences, with “Corning designer Herb Dann noted in a 2014 interview”…, could you paraphrase the interview in your own words, unless you are sure the text is available (from the source) under CC-BY-SA or another compatible license?
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to make this a GA. Any feedback is welcome, and I would especially appreciate feedback from non-technical readers to ensure it complies with WP:TECHNICAL and WP:SUMMARY.
Some sections are glaringly shorter than others (literally just one or two sentences). That doesn't mean every section has to be the same length but it should carry a similar weight. You should also pay attention that what the section is trying to tell the readers, so again, different sections may be of different length.
The 'Module' section consists of lists only, and there's no explanation whatsoever about what they mean. A prose work here would make the section better by laying out not only what they mean, but also how they sit and interact within the wider context of the subject.
I saw an Instagram page being used as a source (I clicked on it and the post seems to have been deleted). I'm not quite sure about this but I don't think this is encouraged within Wikipedia. I'm of the strong belief that a source shouldn't just tell the readers 'hey, this is supported by a source ya know' but should also help explain/dig further about the claim it is supporting.
On what could be improved, the biggest thing in my opinion is starting from the 'ecosystem' part. When I hear that word, I think of something vast with various interconnected variables within it. This should be the aspect the article is built around. Think of user experience, the challenges, what other government agencies think about it, the system's limits (and what the solutions might be), etc Other stuff that the article could expand on:
A clear development arc from just an idea, to gathering relevant parties, to budget agreements, to technical development, to pre-implementation testing, to trial period, and finally to actual release to the public.
Why was the system created? Other than the lead section, the article doesn't go further in this.
Sourcing could be better if non-Malaysian sources are included as well.
So far those were on my mind when I read the article. In a nutshell, it needs proper and controlled expansion while at the same time maintaining a good prose and focus on the subject. AdaCiccone (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to advance the article to FA class. I welcome general comments about structure, style, grammatical flow, etc.
@AssociateAffiliate: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. I also see at that you have many great FAC nominations but have not completed a review at FAC. Reviewing articles builds goodwill among other reviewers and reduces the number of articles at FAC, making it more likely that your nominations will be reviewed. I highly recommend that editors review articles, and any questions can be asked at WT:FAC. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. Quite busy renovating a property at the moment, which is why my activity has decreased in the last few weeks! AA (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements in the article, which I have highlighted with citation needed tags. These will need to be resolved before a GAN.
There is a "better source needed" (in "Military") and "needs update" tags (in "Economy") that will need to be resolved before a GAN
At over 12,000 words, this article is quite large. I would consider spinning out some sections (if it hasn't already been spun out) and summarising the information in the article. Some sections to consider spinning out include the "History" section (especially more recent events), "The unified powers of the Supreme People's Assembly", and "Economy". There might also be some redundant phrasing that, if removed, would tighten up the language. WP:REDEX has some helpful tips on how to remove these.
Lead spends a disproportionate time on History as opposed to other sections of the article.
The language of the "modern spelling of Korea" is not specified.
"Within North Korea...which is a common moniker to refer to North Korea in the country" is the same thing twice.
The history section seems to spend quite a bit of time in ancient history which is not directly linked to North Korea. If some of this has particular relevance to North Korean historiography a more explicit hint of this would be helpful. However, the diversion on views of the DMZ and Korean War reads a bit as an aside from History (would fit into the relations with South Korea subsection). The first "However" in the Leadership of Kim Il Sung subsection is not needed, the before and after statements do not contradict. Did North Korea actually try to break out of the Soviet/Chinese spheres of influence, or simply assert more independence? The sentence on the "achievements" of the government is odd, as is the attribution to the CIA. If there are relevant undisputed historical facts, they should be noted plainly. "North Korea promised to halt its development of nuclear weapons" comes out of nowhere, with no prior indication there was nuclear weapon development to halt. The last few paragraphs of the History section probably need reworking, they are a history of North Korea's foreign relations, but do not say much about the history within the country.
The Geography section appears to need reworking in line with the sources. The "We Will Go To Mount Paketu" aside for example is not in the subsequent source, nor are the sentences on coastal plains and lowland population. The Forest Landscape Integrity Index sentence should probably be removed as trivia, it does not explain much to the reader. The overall section is oddly short, a mention of biodiversity is absent, and the section likely could also use a brief note on maritime borders and their disputes. Likely the whole section may need reshaping around some good sources, as the current content seems haphazard.
The politics section is perhaps slightly long, although it seems well put together. It might be a bit jargony in places, although that is understandable. The administrative divisions subsection needs some text, it should explain what the divisions are, what their powers are, and unique aspects like Rason tourism. The Malaysia part of Foreign relations is unsourced, and likely undue. Indonesia is also unsourced, while the other Southeast Asian countries are weakly sourced. The South Korea section is almost all political history, rather than describing current foreign relations.
The Economy section opens with history rather than talking about the current Economy, which it does not really reach until paragraph three. Lots of later paragraphs also interweave history rather than focusing on the current Economy. The reasons for the choice of subsections is not clear. The history section says "Industry was the favored sector in North Korea", so it's odd there is no focus on industry. Meanwhile, the three subsections seem to overlap by all talking about different aspects of infrastructure.
Demographics also starts with a diversion into history, which makes up almost all of the main Demographics section. Some rethinking of the balance and subsection choice might be useful here as well.
Culture also diverts into history rather than focusing on its topic. The subsections seem to share a common thread of government control, so perhaps this should be expanded in the main section. The aside on Media coverage of North Korea is off-topic in this Culture of North Korea section.
The images in this article do not appear to include any alt text, and quite a few have a forced WP:IMGSIZE. A lot of sources seem a bit old, there may be quite a few places information can be updated. Some of the General and cited sources do not appear to actually be used. The External links could probably use some trimming, perhaps being moved to more specific pages.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to be reviewed to find certain weaknesses and submit it to WP:GAN or WP:FAC and i want the River Ivel to have a high rating
I suggest that you look through Wikipedia for great articles about British rivers, and identify the editors who wrote those articles. Ask them if they can contribute here. Maybe they can identify some sources. Noleander (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is best to concentrate all the discussions into one place. Either the article's Talk page, or here in the PR page (this PR page is not a Talk page). Because we've already created this PR page, and started a discussion, may as well use this PR page for all discussion of: "how to find sources and prepare the River Ivel article for Good Article nomination."Noleander (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just completed a full overhaul of this article and looking for feedback on general content, sourcing, structure, prose, etc. Aim to eventually get this up to GA status.
Thanks for the feedback, will certainly consider your suggested alterations to the prose. Regarding demographic information on Foggy Bottom, given that DC's government does not define official boundaries for its neighborhoods, this data would have to be elicited from those associated with the US Census's cartographic boundaries. Based on my research thus far, they unfortunately do not directly correspond with Foggy Bottom's geographic area. I believe if I attempted to somehow construct a demographic profile from that data in a way that is not directly derived from source material, that would constitute original research. I'll continue exploring though and see what's possible. Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
General
Consider merging section 'geography' with 'historic districts' and 'district amenities' as they feel closely related.
Do we have in-depth demographic/population data specifically for Foggy Bottom?
Prose
It emerged sometime in the 19th century, ---> It emerged some time in the 19th century, /// I think this is the correct case for two-word 'some time'?
Located within the Province of Maryland under the Lords Baltimore during the colonial era, present-day Foggy Bottom was originally agricultural and cultivated by both colonists and enslaved labor. Major produce included tobacco, wheat, and livestock. Part of Widow's Mite, which was created in 1664 and one of the area's earliest landholdings, was purchased in 1765 by Jacob Funk, ---> During the colonial era, the area of the present-day Foggy Bottom was administered by Province of Maryland governed by the Lords Baltimore. It was originally an agricultural plot of land cultivated by both colonists and enslaved labor. Major produce included tobacco, wheat, and livestock. Part of Widow's Mite, one of the area's earliest landholdings, was established in 1664 and purchased in 1765 by Jacob Funk,
During the Civil War, the Union Army founded Camp Fry, a base of the Veteran Reserve Corps, in 1863 south of Washington Circle along 23rd Street. ---> During the Civil War, the Union Army founded Camp Fry in 1863, a base of the Veteran Reserve Corps situated south of Washington Circle and stretching along 23rd Street.
migrated to Washington in large numbers as freedman ----> migrated to Washington in large numbers as freedmen
Blocks of simple brick rowhouses were constructed throughout Foggy Bottom to accommodate its increasing population This one feels valid considering all the immigration but it doesn't have an inline citation to verify it
Alleys were at first home mostly to white laborers ---> Alleys, at first, housed mostly white laborers
Some of the gang's distilling and rum-running, the latter of which was often assigned to black associates given the police's relative lack of interest if they were killed by rival gangs, took place in Foggy Bottom's alley communities. ---> Some of the gang's distilling and rum-running operations took place in Foggy Bottom's alley communities, the latter of which were often assigned to black associates given the police's relative lack of interest if they were killed by rival gangs.
Foggy Bottom's inhabited alleys, whose dilapidated state had attracted the attention of reformists since the late 19th century, ---> Foggy Bottom's inhabited alleys, whose dilapidated state had been attracting the attention of reformists since the late 19th century,
as by that point private renovation and development had ameliorated much of Foggy Bottom's blighted conditions ---> as private renovation and development, by that point, had ameliorated much of Foggy Bottom's blighted conditions
I've listed this article for peer review because UFC Freedom 250 needs improvements on combat sports events landing on the White House by US Presidents.
@Governmentshutdown2026: From WP:Peer review: This 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. Since you cannot edit this page due to an arbitration enforcement restriction, can you please indicate the issue here? Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 02:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch: Seeking peer review on how to "improve an article" on the U.S History part of the article in the UFC Freedom 250. I mean this combat sport event is being done on the South Lawn on the White House. I feel like there are a lot of room for improvements on "history" part of the article and MMA is not only content that need improvement. ECP will expire less than 24 hours. Governmentshutdown2026 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this for FAC again. I incorporated the comments from the last FAC: some information was added, other text was kept as is as that is what is reflected in the source or I didn't think it was necessary to expand upon the text in this article. Pinging those who participated in the last FAC @MSincccc, Hog Farm, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, UndercoverClassicist, and Caddyshack01: if there's something I missed or anything to add, I would appreciate it. Also, let me know if you would like to be pinged in the next FAC nomination.
This subject is well out of my depth, but I did a little searching in JSTOR for other sources and found a few papers that don't appear to be cited here:
Blackmun, Barbara Winston. “Icons and Emblems in Ivory: An Altar Tusk from the Palace of Old Benin.” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1997, pp. 149–98. JSTOR, https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.2307/4104381. Accessed 12 June 2026.
Soppelsa, Robert T. “Two Relief Sculptures from the Kingdom of Benin.” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts, vol. 70, no. 1/2, 1996, pp. 44–49. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/41504920. Accessed 12 June 2026. (oddly enough, this one refers to "Oba Ohen of the early fifteenth century")
If you've already seen those and decided there wasn't anything of value, that's fine, but WP:FACR 1c requires "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", so you need to be digging for these and evaluating them. The fact that I was able to find five papers after a fairly cursory search makes me think you may need to be doing more research to ensure you've covered the "thorough and representative" requirement. RoySmith(talk)00:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Ah, thank you so much. When rewriting this article, I tried looking for sources in depth, but I know we’re better thank each other in this research of a thing. I’ll check them and let you know. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Micots, Courtnay. Review of Art, Performance and Ritual in Benin City. Africa: The Journal of the International African Institute, vol. 81, 2011, p. 512-514. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/450298.
Abraka mentions "The Abraka people are historically significant as the first group of Urhobos to migrate from the ancient Benin Kingdom around 1370 AD. Their migration was led by Prince Avweake (also spelled Awaeke), a son of Oba Ohen of Benin" so I'd chase that down to see if it leads anywhere. RoySmith(talk)15:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith That is so interesting! I am reading the sources right now. I actually saw the Sloane, Patricia, et al. “Letters to the Editor.” when I was initially researching, but I didn't think it is a source I could use (I still don't think so, lol), but I am still working. I am really appreciative for these sources you found. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing this article for peer review because I am looking to take it to GA status in the somewhat near future. I'm seeking to work out any major issues prior to that, and also make sure the article has GA potential to begin with. I've been slowly working on it over the past couple months, chopping any grammatical errors and original research, but at the same time would like some advice on how to improve it more. It's a very in depth article, and takes more than one set of eyes to find any issues.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have read the article and think it is well-written and expansive. I want to see what it would take to make it a FA.
I suggest we do not list this for peer review at this stage. I would much rather have a look at it myself and get it in better shape for a peer review and possible upgrading to FA. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article concerns a senior Byzantine cleric whose life is poorly documented, but who became the first Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch able to reside in the city in the 12th-century. I have listed it for peer review because I am considering nominating it for FA status, and would be grateful for suggestions on how to improve its prose and comprehensiveness. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... i recently expanded article Xerothamnella parvifoliaand would appreciated feedback on it structure, sourcing and general review.
I would be grateful for a peer review of this article. I have been fussing over it for months and almost know it by heart, so I need fresh eyes before taking it to FAC. I am looking forward to your comments. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this article for peer review because I have substantially revamped it, and I would like to have input and assistance from others to ensure that it meets the standards that are expected for species articles, as this is my first time working on one.
Prior to editing the article, hardly anything was cited and much of the writing was left over from when it was created in 2006. This needed addressing; for example, there is 20 years of incorrect information across many different websites that resulted from this article mistakenly assigning the name "ankomba joby" to the diademed sifaka, even though it refers to a different species. My initial goal was to find citations for the sentences that were already present. This turned into re-wording many of them to maintain an encyclopedic tone, and finally I began to add more content based on research articles I had found while in the process of finding sources. This has resulted in an article that is quite different from how it was when I found it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to Good Article in the future. As it is a short article about an individual tree, I believe it is a comprehensive as it possibly can be. I have not gone through the GAC process before, so seeking peer review beforehand. Any feedback welcome.
This gave rise to the name 'Strawberries and Cream Tree', which was coined by children of Backwell.
This might read better as "the children of Backwell"?
This phrase is repeated at the end of the second paragraph in Botany
Tree Preservation order: "Due to its rarity, the Strawberries and Cream Tree" can an individual tree be described as rare? A species can be rare. Maybe describe it as unique or something
This is a nice article about a lovely tree. It's short, so I only have a few suggestions.
The lead should summarize the information in the article, and any information in the lead should also be included in the body of the article.
The tree preservation order is from 2019, can you update this section at all? The order may be made permanent in the future. This information should be presented in a way that let's readers know this was true as of 2019.
The dual blossom gave rise to the name 'Strawberries and Cream Tree', coined by children of the village Name the village, since this is the first time that it's referenced outside of the lead. Edward056686 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to list it for FAC. The page currently is not a good article. I believe the article currently has many issues, and I want it to be reviewed to clean out any issues that may prevent it from being a featured article. This is my first (actual) peer review and later, a nomination for featured article. The article is about a major poet and writer of Bengali literature. I also wanted to mention that this review may take a lot of time, since the article is more than 13,000 words.
I recommend that you nominate this for good article status first, as it helps prepare articles for FAC. I also would mention that WP:SS (and WP:AS, and WP:TOOBIG) mention that articles should be about 8,000 words maximum. Some information might be spun out or summarised more effectively. Reducing the article word count might also help the aritcle get reviewed more quickly. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 8,000 words is the maximum, but instead the suggested limit. There are a ton of articles above even 9,000 and 10,000 words that are featured or/and good articles (such as related article Bengal famine of 1943). Ok, I will nominate it for good article first. But can I do it now? The instructions page for peer review says that articles may not be listed for peer review if they are nominated for good or featured status. I am not sure if it applies to the other way around. Babin Mew (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Babin Mew: Yes, there are articles that are longer, but there are also articles with large scopes that are shorter with larger scopes such as Murasaki Shikibu, Chinua Achebe, Maya Angelou and James Joyce. While 8,000 isn't the maximum an article can be, it is the target maximum before editors should consider spinning out: at 14,000 words, this article should most probably have prose spun out or removed. If you would like to nominate this artilce to GAN, you can close this PR first and open the nomination at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be able to get this article for GA status, in honor of the article’s subject. To be honest, the article looks pretty good, but I want to know what I can do to help so I can be eligible to nominate it to GA status.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it for Good Article status and would appreciate feedback on any remaining issues, particularly those related to the current AI cleanup tag.
Thanks, 流山隆一 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:
The orange "AI" banner needs to be resolved before this is nominated. If you have copyedited the article and done a source check to ensure hallucinations are not in the article, then this can be removed.
"The decision was reported internationally, including in Lancet Oncology." A sentence like this is not necessary in an article. It is better to describe what the source reported on in the article.
There are a lot of short, one sentence paragraphs in the article. I recommend that most or all of these be merged into other paragraphs to help with readability.
I think the timeline in "History" can be removed, and events related to the article content can be explained in prose instead.
Some sections are quite long, affecting readability (especially for mobile users). I recommend that a section be about 2-4 paragraphs before a new section heading is used to break up the text, although 5 or 6 paragraphs could also be helpful.
"Impact and consequences" is written as bullet points, but this should be written as prose instead.
Consider adding additional images, perhaps of Japanese people receiving the vaccination, facilities where the vaccine is distributed, an image of the vaccine, or other images that might relate to a section.
@Z1720 Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I am very pleased to receive them.
Regarding the AI tag, I once removed it myself, but it was later re-added. Since then, I have been asking various people in different places whether it can be removed again. However, perhaps because most of the sources are in Japanese, this has not yet been achieved.
As for the timeline, I feel that removing it entirely would make it more difficult for readers to understand the overall context. Therefore, I would like to keep only the most important entries in the timeline and incorporate the remaining information into the main text.
@Z1720 I have now completed all the revisions based on your feedback. The timeline has been removed entirely and the content integrated into the prose. Short single-sentence paragraphs have been merged, and the longer sections have been condensed. Would you be able to take a look and confirm whether the article is ready for GA nomination?~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article I have written from scratch, and would like to reach the level of good article status. Thanks, EucalyptusSaligna (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720
@EucalyptusSaligna: Comments after a quick skim: I don't see any major concerns with the article quality for a GAN. Since the article is quite short, I suggest incorporating the sources listed in "Further reading" as inline citations to help add content. Additional sources can also be found at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org or your local library system's database. Once additional prose is added, I suggest expanding the lead a little bit as it is also a little short. Once these are completed I think this would be ready for a GAN. Hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he is an expert on legal education or diversity jurisdiction, but I think he has the requisite general knowledge to say that Hertz is taught in law school. He wrote the Forbes article on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and according to Legistorm he worked at the House Judiciary Committee, so he is 100% a lawyer. Plus he got his JD after 2010 so he has to have learned Hertz. Eithersummer (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1brianm7
Could you check the first paragraph for understandability? It took me like a minute to read it and understand it (I think?) and the comma and colon are used in ways that don't seem particularly natural to me. The first sentence is 40-words. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Kenyon is a candidate (and one of two likely to succeed based on polling and analysis) in the 2026 Makerfield by-election. The by-election is a major event as it has implications on whom the next UK prime minister/s might be. Therefore, having good coverage of the candidate is in the interest of the public and Wikipedia readers. For now, I'd like to please ask specifically for feedback on how to improve the article to B-class standard. Thank you!
I've submitted this article for peer review because I need suggestions for how to enhance it, as well as assistance on any errors that may have occurred in the piece.
Neutrality and tone: The article deviates from standard WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS guidelines. Please keep an encyclopedic tone. Few phrases feel promotional, devotional, or over-committed. That should be softened.
Scope and structure: Per WP:SS and WP:SIZE, the scope is too wide. It tries to cover ritual practice, caste/community structure, legal status, social life, history, and a list of roles all in one page.
Excessive detail: Certain sections contain excessive tabular detail. Refer to WP:NOT. Too much detail is being given to ritual minutiae.
Overall, I think the article would benefit more from pruning than further expansion. Given the article’s scale and highly uniform prose, I think careful human review would be beneficial, particularly since generative-text-assisted content can be unreliable.
Please leave tags for cleanup and excessive detail.
Thank you very much for the detailed review and for spending time reading through the article so carefully. I really appreciate your comments on tone, structure, and too much detail. I will try to address those issues by pruning and copyediting.
Also I wanted to ask you, what do you think about the scope of the article? From reading some Wikipedia guidance and observing similar topic areas I understood that related aspects like history, social structure, ritual functions, legal status and occupational roles are often expected to be covered in a single comprehensive article, unless the page gets too large to manage. But I might be misreading the guidance.
What's your opinion on whether this topic is best addressed by a summary-style split into distinct daughter articles (e.g., rituals, role classifications, or legal/social aspects), or if the current unified scope can still reach Good Article standards with significant trimming and restructuring?
I would really appreciate your comments on that as I want to get the article more in line with policy before going ahead. Thanks again for the helpful feedback.
I cannot guide you to make a good article (I have none to my name.) I would recommend you to reduce the information load. Your article was quite large, with size fitting a top-importance article (like India.) I, personally as a person unrelated to the topic of the article, feel that if I ever needed information about the topic, I’d prefer a small wikipedia page with the absolutely necessary information. Also, try to improve the citation quality on some parts of the article. YashTheSoni (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
YashTheSoni, Thank you. I will keep those in mind.
Here are some observations from a rapid reading of the article and some advice I wanna share with you.
In lead section, there is no need to cite the sentences that are already cited in the article elsewhere (sections). Lead should follow the summary style. MOS:LEAD. You should summarise the article in this section, not use to add new information
Keep a check on uncited paragraphs and use reliable source for supporting the statement. The statements should be cited no later than the end of paragraph.
As few have raised concerns regarding the size of the article. If possible try to merge sections of the article, and remove the unnecessary details in all the section, you should be stick to Sevayats all over the article. Or you can give a entire article to the section that can be pass WP:GNG, and summary that article in your section.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it a couple of months ago and then I disappeared while it was deleted via PROD. This week I am working on making it B+ if possible. So I thought I would ask for peer review. Any thoughts or suggestions, even casual ones, would be appreciated. No ongoing edit wars or anything.
I am seeking PR on the current state of article condtion and what imrpovements are needed to improve the quality of article. 1keyhole (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What happened with the Goodridge lawsuit? Who won the case?
Source 10 needs replacing as dead.
Are 13 and 14 the same thing? Merge if so. Same with 11 and 12.
Maybe too many primary sources? Looks like 6 of 27 are the school's website.
"Afterwards the student would receive "continuing education packets" that had been developed by Brigham Young University" change to "Were developed"? "developed"?
In 2001, they moved to a campus outside of the town of Hurricane, Utah. In 2012, a new campus was opened at a site about 5 miles (8.0 km) from Hurricane. Link Hurricane the first time rather than on second mention.
I would appreciate feedback on this article about parasocial interaction. I have edited part of the article, specifically within the "Parasocial relationships" section. My contribution focuses on the "Focus on relationships" subsection, where I added a subsection on "parasocial romantic fantasy." I would especially appreciate it if reviewers could take a look at this part of the article. I am particularly looking for comments on whether the structure and organization are clear and logical, whether the writing is clear and appropriately encyclopedic in tone, and whether the sources and citations meet Wikipedia standards. As this article is still under development, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions for improvement. Thank you! Meiqi Jiao (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Meiqi! Great job!! This is so well written and easy to follow. Your subsections on reciprocation, internal and external motivation, and positive and negative impacts make this well organized. I made some minor edits to improve grammar and fluency for clarity. To further improve your section I would recommend broadening the examples beyond K-pop to include other fan communities, and consider adding a visual such as a screenshot of a fan platform like Weverse to help illustrate the concept of reciprocation. Overall you did amazing and this is really well done! Dang.hazel (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Olliefant
I don't see the relevence of the image
Tons of uncited info and unattributed opinions
Link DoDo to a relevent article
"One character, Elmo, is iconic in..." this whole section is very confusing to read and needs to be rewritten
This is a pretty short list article, but I am hoping to nominate it for inclusion as a featured list. Would appreciate advice on the prose, as it currently only provides a brief introduction into the club and highlights a few noteworthy records mentioned later in the article. Also looking for feedback on the table formatting as it is a large table with a lot of numbers.
Hi Milkk7, I'm not a FL expert but it's a pretty good start here.
On the table, looking at the other "By Opponent" FLs they don't include the GF/GA columns you have here - I imagine you could probably lose those if you're concerned about the table width (I'm using a standard screen and it just currently fits on screen). Alternatively you could add style="font-size:90%" to make the text smaller if you want to keep the goal counts.
As an aside, iirc fixed px sizes in images are frowned upon in FL/A reviews. Good to see the alt text though:)
For the prose, the main area of contention I have is the lack of sources. I know you include the general list of resources at the end, but the other "By opponent" sources all use specific references in their lede so I'd expect to see the same here. Ideally, with refs that aren't just primary sources/database links; at the moment you could be challenged to demonstrate notability more, even though the team is well established. The detail I think is fine - in some ways AU FC is suffering from success here, since they've been at the top league since the start, it's very simple to sum up their history. I would change the first sentence of paragraph 2 or remove it since it's basically repeating the sentence at the end of paragraph 1 (eg they've been at the highest level since the start). I would like to see dates for their first opponent/most recent new opponent. Otherwise, I think it's pretty much looking the same as the other "By Opponent" FLs, so you'd hope that would be enough (though, bare in mind most of these seem to have been done a good while ago). RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has Featured List potential, but have never engaged in either the FL or PR process before so would be interested to hear alternative perspectives. This list differs from recent FLs for television accolades (Sherlock, Loki) by splitting up major accolades, but if desired these can easily be incorporated into the main table. Additionally, I reckon the refs in the lead are not necessary as the information is cited in the table. Anyway, I would be very grateful for any and all suggestions, and I will try and add suggestions to other peer reviews.
I was surprised when I went to the article's Talk page and found out it is rated B-class. I don't know if this is impartial, but the article looks like a Start-class to me.
A B-class article on an amusement park would not only history and track layout but also such things as development and announcement context, design rationale and comparison with other coasters, construction, opening reception, rider experience or critical reception, operational history, modifications and incidents if any, significance within the park or within stand-up coaster history and so many more.
A B-class article should also have a much stronger sourcing landscape than what it looks right now. And that landscape should more or less revolve around points laid out in point 2.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to make this article a Featured List Candidate and want to see if there is anything that could be improved such as sources, wording, formatting, among other things.
Superman: Ultimate Flight appears to be missing an in-text citation for its description.
"All Hometown Park attractions were originally added in 1976, removed in 2000, then added again in 2015." needs a citation.
As far as the references go, there appears to be a mix of date formatting. A consistent format should be used (i.e. "Retrieved March 28, 2026" or "Retrieved 2026-03-28"). I would suggest using the written format than the entire numerical one.
References with "-.com" should have proper names instead of website domains (i.e. rcdb.com should be Roller Coaster DataBase or ridewithace.com as American Coaster Enthusiasts). Also missing parameters such as "Marden, Duane" is missing for RCDB refs.
Check to see whether references should either use the website (italic) or publisher moniker. RCDB usually should be the latter rather than the former, same goes for other references.
References should be linked once by their first appearance, I would remove any unnecessary duplicate links thereafter.
Remove all capitalization from reference titles.
Is "www.coasterchild.com" a reliable source, same with "Great America Parks"?
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
