Wikipedia:Peer review

Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions, WP:PRSOURCE, Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, and Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

MainUn­an­swe­redIn­struc­tionsDi­scus­sionToolsAr­chivePro­ject

Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

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.

Arts

Mi Reflejo

Previous peer review

13 years ago, I've help this article become GA. Since then, I've added some more content and am ready to get this peer reviewed before I nominate this for FAC.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to GA in the future.

Thanks, RedShellMomentum 00:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Jelly (YouTuber)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am just looking for general feedback on what could be changed, added or removed. I would also like an entire review of the article.

Thanks, ReelCosmix (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Oliver Tree

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on edits that should be made before nominating it for Good article status.

Thanks, NP (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Z. Patterson

First, please be mindful about words to watch, such as "while" and words similar to "but". You can find more information at MOS:WTW. Not every word to watch listed in the Manual of Style subpage indicates risk, but heavy use can be scrutinized both in good article nominations and in featured article candidates.

Second, some of the sources listed in the references are considered generally unreliable, such as those from BroadwayWorld. According to WP:BROADWAYWORLD, the website does not have good editorial oversight and it often republishes press releases. Authorship of articles on this site is often vague. Moreover, Page Six is a gossip column and owned by the New York Post, itself a tabloid newspaper. Please see WP:NEWYORKPOST.

Third, some of the sections in the article, such as Personal life and Burial, are rather short. If you can find additional information in reliable secondary sources to expand those sections, please do so. Otherwise, I suggest combining smaller sections with other relevant sections if you cannot expand those sections. It is not usual to see a short paragraph to have its own section.

Fourth, make sure the categories in the article are based on what the body of the article says. If any category in the article is not supported by the body of the article, then the inclusion of that category is probably original research, and the category must be removed. Original research is not allowed in good articles, because verifiability with no original research is the criterion of good article status in WP:GACR6.

I hope these points help. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Z. Patterson (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Paimon (Genshin Impact)

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 July 2026, 16:02 UTC

Last edit: 21 July 2026, 11:43 UTC

Paris Street; Rainy Day

Hi, I'm presenting this recently-GA promoted article for peer review in preparation for an FAC at some point. Shout out to Ceoil for getting the ball rolling with a thorough review, but my belief is the article's comprehensiveness is not quite complete enough for a featured article. Any and all constructive feedback is welcome.

Thanks in advanced, dap 💅 16:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@DAP389: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to try to get more attention to this review. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there, and welcome back to the FAC process. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Woman to Woman (Keyshia Cole album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article for Featured article status.

Thanks, Indigault (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Hey there! I probably won't leave a full review, but I noticed that the 'Critical reception' section has a LOT of direct quotes, in violation of WP:OVERQUOTE. Especially if you're considering taking this article to FAC, I would heavily recommend going through the advice over at WP:RECEPTION, and paraphrasing the quotes where you can. Minimizing direct quotes both helps to avoid any copyright issues, and makes the section read smoother by emphasizing the overall trends across reviews.

Also double-check the sourcing. FA doesn't just require reliable sources, it needs high-quality reliable sources (see WP:FACR). I notice a good handful of sources I don't immediately recognize, like FreddyO, Singersroom, Def Pen, and Daily Play MPE. This should either be replaced, removed, or have justification for their inclusion. Leafy46 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, but I believe Singersroom should remain in place because the website was previously trustworthy, particularly during the period when the blog's articles were published, and the Daily Play MPE source is the only source that can be found that verifies the precise release date for the album's third single, "I Choose You," as urban radio add dates weren't being accurately and consistently tracked until recently. Indigault (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"the website was previously trustworthy" -- Proof? Looking at the site now, it just looks like a lot of AI slop. And again, even if the site is "trustworthy", for FA it needs to go the extra distance and be high-quality. I've never heard of this site, and it doesn't seem like it's been used in any previous FA articles. Leafy46 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess I'll agree with this. Indigault (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. I also recommend that you seek a FA mentor who can help guide you through the process: they can comment in this PR with suggestions on how to get the article ready for a FAC nom. Lastly, I suggest reviewing articles at WP:FAC now: this helps editors learn the FA criteria and builds goodwill amongst other FAC reviewers, causing your nomination to be reviewed more quickly (and less likely to be archived from inactivity). Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Power Station of Art

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on (a) whether the current selection of sources [most of them are in Mandarin, though I have attached english title translations to each one of them] are apt, and what to do if they are not; and (b) what else should editors add to the article?

Thanks, Wyanhache (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Z. Patterson

First, when I use Headbomb's unreliable source script at User:Headbomb/unreliable.js, I see that sources from Weixin Open Platform and Instagram are unreliable, so we need to replace those. Regarding other sources — such as The Paper, Business Insider, Sixth Tone, and China Daily — they depend on whoever wrote those sources, so I would verify if those three sources are reliable depending on who wrote them.

Second, I suggest trying to find scholarly sources on the topic to support this. Some results come up for me in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Internet Archive Scholar when I search for "Power Station of Art" OR 上海当代艺术博物馆. Results also appear for me in EBSCO, ProQuest, JSTOR, Gale Power Search, Oxford Academic, and ScienceDirect when I search for "Power Station of Art" in each digital library. These libraries are available in the Wikipedia Library; therefore, if you have access, I encourage you to use this resource.

Finally, I see the Chinese article for this topic is longer than the English article. If you know Chinese, I encourage you to look at the sources in that article's reference list and verify if they are reliable. The last source listed in the Chinese article does not appear reliable to me. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Rei Ayanami

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 June 2026, 12:27 UTC

Last edit: 1 July 2026, 11:38 UTC

Can We Hang Out Sometime?

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on its structure, sourcing, and clarity to identify any issues before nominating it for Good Article.

Thanks, Monkegamer123 (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

• The "Critical reception" section seems a little short. A Google search produced some potential additional reviews that could be added. WP:A/S has a list of reliable music sources that can be searched.
• After adding the above sources, I recommend that the lead be expanded, as it seems quite short at the moment.
• Suggest archiving the websites. I recommend IA Bot.

I hope this helps. Once the above are addressed, I think this will be ready for GAN. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from eve

I have fixed the comments from Z1720's skim. eve the eternal (hi) 18:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ancient Dreams in a Modern Land

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)

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

• "All tracks are written solely by Marina Diamandis." This might need a citation (perhaps from the liner notes?)
  • Done.
• I added a duplicate references yellow banner, which may need to be checked.
  • Done.

Otherwise, I think other issues can be resolved in the GAN, and this can be nominated there. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

WWP (EP)

Passed GA, aiming for FA. Constructive comments of any kind will be highly appreciated. dxneo (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@Dxneo: I have added the article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Z. Patterson

I have some suggestions to make about the article.

• Articles such as 1989 (album) and Red (Taylor Swift album) have structures prospective featured article candidates can follow. I suggest you use those as guides for your article.
• Make sure citations are put in numerical order. For example, I see citations for the sentence "To promote the EP, in July 2025, Tyla hosted private listening events in London and Berlin." placed out of numerical order.
• Have you considered incorporating the source suggestion in the talk page?
• Reliability of Rolling Stone depends on the contributor or topic, and I would try to find a better source than Rolling Stone. Per WP:FACR criterion 1c, claims must be "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources".
• Archive.today is a deprecated archival service, and I am not sure if FAC reviewers will object to seeing Archive.today links as archived websites. I suggest replacing them with web.archive.org equivalents. For more information, see WP:WBM.
• Some of the sections seem rather short. Can you find more information to expand these sections?
• Can you try to change some quotes into paraphrases or summaries?
• The song was also serviced to the contemporary hit radio in Italy by Sony Music Italy on 23 May, and in the U.S. by Epic Records on 27 May. Can you find a better or more active way to word this sentence?
• It impacted the rhythmic crossover frequencies on 12 August 2025. I think the article could be more specific about what this sentence refers to.
• The article uses South African English, but I see "centered" in the prose. You will need to change that to "centred".
• The images in the article appear to have appropriate licenses. In the case of the infobox image, it has a solid non-free use rationale. However, I see this as the alt: Three views of a woman in white crop top, denim shorts with star patch, colorful ribbon belt, glittery legs, red heels, and gold accessories. You will need to change "colorful" to "colourful" per MOS:ENGVAR.

The article could benefit from these changes before being considered for an FAC. I believe that with these suggestions and points others may raise, you can be ready to nominate it for an FAC. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Richard Raaphorst

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: 19 May 2026, 14:39 UTC

Last edit: 15 July 2026, 13:25 UTC

Everyday life

Dead Island Reveal Trailer

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing this for an FAC run. Shoutout to OceanHok who brought this article to GAN and helped with getting the article ready for FAC. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Engineering and technology

Sodium-cooled fast reactor

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.

Thanks, H2so4aq (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Knowledge cutoff

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 31 May 2026, 11:48 UTC

Last edit: 4 July 2026, 12:38 UTC

General

Palestine at the 1996 Summer Olympics

Previous peer review

Doing another peer review for this article as I've added quite a big amount of text and would possibly nominate it as an FAC. Quite contentious as well considering the topic so neutrality might be an issue. Shall respond to comments as soon as I can. Arconning (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, will give a review/thoughts soon. TheBritinator (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Are the red links notable? Just wondering, might want to consider de-linking them if not.
• All sources are archived.
• I would say that it is well-researched, it uses a large variety of sources. Source check seems clean.
• All images are relevant have alt text - for the Palestine flag I would consider changing it to "The flag of Palestine; a horizontal tricolour of black, white, and green; with a red triangle based at the hoist."
• Undoubtedly a controversial subject, even if 30 years ago, but this article is overall neutral and I would say comprehensive - most of the article is dedicated to the background but that's understandable.
• In the manner of stability, you're basically the only one who has edited it so that's good. It may require some basic protection if it gets some attention, however.

@Arconning: I can't say that I have done an in-depth/comprehensive check, but by skimming over and checking against the criteria I can overall say that this article would have a good shot at FAC. I'd encourage you to give it a go. TheBritinator (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@TheBritinator Thank you :) Arconning (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123

Decided to give a brief look. I would give some broad comments. Did some minor edits along the way.

Lead:

• The delegation consisted of fifteen people with one athlete that had competed, long-distance runner Majed Abu Maraheel. This sentence reads a bit oddly. Might rewrite: The delegation consisted of fifteen people, and included Majed Abu Maraheel, who competed as long-distance runner.
• A predecessor to the contemporary Palestine Olympic Committee (POC), another Palestine Olympic Committee was established in 1933 during the British Mandate of Palestine through the Maccabi Sports Association and was recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) the following year. This is also another odd sentence. Likely due to this part: "A predecessor to the contemporary POC"; it seems you are introducing this fact before properly introducing the previous POC
• There's a bit of a gap from 1948 to 1967. Is it due to the annexation that no POC was sent? I might mention this POC was essentially succeeded by Israel's team
• the Israeli government objected to the use of the name "Palestine" as a representation for the team Was an alternative name proposed by Israel?

Background:

• Might also briefly mention Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire before the British attained control of the region
• though Jewish and Palestinian communities had different agendas in politics and sport. Might explain a bit more on the agendas.
• Though, Arab representation in the committee dissolved – I find the use of "Though" at the beginning of sentences a bit odd. Might actually use "However," Similar for other sentences
• Eventually, the committee were invited to compete at the 1936 Summer Olympics held in Nazi Germany Did this committee still include Arab representation?
• Might delink Israel and instead link this part "had declared independence two months before the Games" to Israeli Declaration of Independence
• and the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs Wouldn't simply linking to the Nakba suffice?
• This led to a possible boycott by Arab states They planned to boycott? Why is it a "possible boycott"?
• The POC lost recognition from the IOC in 1967, coinciding with the Six-Day War and the start of the occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel Actually what did the POC do between 1948 and 1967? Was there ever a Palestinian team, or is it because the regions back then were still under Jordanian and Egyptian control?
• I wonder if the 1996 Olympics background section could be expanded a little more

Delegation:

• A year later, the estimate of the athletes to be sent dropped down to six. "Drop down" is a bit unencyclopedic.
• racewalker Yasser Ali-Dib Try to avoid potential sea of blue
• An IOC donation fund allowed the Palestinian delegation to travel to Atlanta. Is it known how much was the fund?
• I wonder did Israel offered suggestions what name Palestine should compete under. Surely not "Palestinian territories"?

Opening ceremony:

• unlikely to medal at the Games "medal" here as a verb?

That's all my comments.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123 Shall respond in a few. :) Arconning (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity

I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the past month editing it, adding in information and citations where it was needed. That being said, I would like clarifications on other edits that could be made before attempting to nominate it to Good Article status. EDIT: I live in Australia, so depending on the time zone, I may not be able to respond immediately.

Thanks, Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim: I suggest expanding the lead a little bit, perhaps with information about the plot (which is currently missing) and adding in the names of who developed the game. Information about Sonic Free Riders is missing from the article body: perhaps a section can be added discussing the game's sequels and how it fits in the overall series. If not, the information should still be added to the article body somewhere appropriate. Once these are completed, this can go to GAN. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Added the suggestions made. Free Riders has its information added to the Reception section, due to there not being enough to warrant a separate Legacy section. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Enix

I've listed this article for peer review because...I was considering taking the article forward into the GAN process, which I've already done for its rival company Square. Compared to Square, I've had issues with sourcing aspects of the company, since it was a publisher with a broader range of activities. The article as it stands is probably close to as good as it will get, but some additional feedback on language choice and potential sources that I could use before taking it forward would be useful and appreciated.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

@ProtoDrake: Comments after a quick skim: I think this is ready for a GAN nomination, where a reviewer will take a closer look. If looking for additional sources, perhaps try "History of Enix" when searching databases, putting the text in all quotes? Its possible that academic business journals might discuss the implications of the Square-Enix merger, which will be helpful to get information about the company before the merger happened. WP:LIBRARY has access to databases on that topic, and other articles like Square Enix have sources that are currently not used in the Enix article. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Geography and places

Minnehaha Park (Minneapolis)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to push it to FA. It just went through and passed a GAR a few months ago, but i'd like feedback on how this can be improved to the next step. i know there may be some recent controversy surrounding the dog park that could be a stability concern, but id like to get an idea of what is needed to bring the rest up to the standard. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@Aunva6: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles that are listed there. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

South-East District (Botswana)

This article is a mess and it's extremely vital to Botswana. I don't even know where to start and I would really like a second opinion, because I had plans for this article until I wikibonked and even had to check the Grokipedia page. (I swear on my life this will never happen again)

Thanks, splains (💬/📝) 02:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

History

Medri Bahri

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for FA and want a check first, given its length and how citation-dense it is. Feedback on anything is welcome: prose, structure, sourcing, or general FA readiness. Thanks, Habeshakira (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@Habeshakira: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Since you are still working on your first successful FAC, I suggest getting a mentor who can help guide you through the process. I also suggest that you review articles now at WP:FAC: this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst other FAC reviewers, causing your article to be reviewed more quickly. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Z. Patterson

I have some points to address.

• The Ottoman period and Bahr Negash Yeshaq subsection is rather long. I wonder if you could split that subsection into more relevant subsections with the same heading.
• The Hab Sellus dynasty subsection is rather long. I wonder if you can cut some smaller details.
• Please do not mix English language varieties. I see "favour" and "mobilised" along with "neighboring" and "Christianization". An article needs to be WP:CONSISTENT in its use of an English language variety.
• Why does the Bahr Negash section not have citations?
• Footnotes should start with capital letters. I see footnotes with a mix of starting with capital letters and starting with lowercase letters.
• I see only three books that have ISBNs. Furthermore, they are not formatted. I strongly recommend finding ISBNs for as many books as you can, as consistently formatted citations are a criterion of WP:FACR. You may use the hyphenator here.
• Featured articles normally have citations in the bibliography (or in this article's case, "Sources") alphabetized. Please see Æthelflæd and Rosetta Stone as examples of how bibliographies are organized.

I think that with these changes, along with other changes other users might suggest, this article will be more likely to pass an FAC. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you I will review your recommendations and make adjustments accordingly. Kristos (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Flag of Rwanda

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 July 2026, 20:51 UTC

Last edit: 19 July 2026, 22:28 UTC

Columbine High School massacre

Previous peer review

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.

Thank you. Gavetheman555 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer

Will review this. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 15:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• "On the site, Harris began a blog, which included details of mischief and vandalism, such as lighting fireworks with Klebold and others.[16] Harris referred to these acts as "rebel missions" and the blog posts as "mission logs".[17] In early 1997, the blog posts showed signs of Harris's anger against society.[18]" How did this happen? How did he become angry at society? There must be something between starting a blog and getting angry at society.
• "Brown was a friend and classmate of his" but the quote and note contradicts it. He does not seem like a friend to him
• "failed a dilute urine test" -> "failed a diluted urine test"
• "Harris reverted his website back to just hosting" -> "Harris reverted his website back to only hosting"
• "hijacking an aircraft at" -> "hijacking an aircraft at the"
• "Harris described his desire for raping and torturing women in his bedroom.[30] Harris" these sentences can be merged
• "In a psychology class, Harris wrote that he dreamed of going on a shooting spree with Klebold.[41] Harris's journals described several experimental bomb detonations." These sentences can also be merged
• "In December 1999, before anyone besides investigators had seen them, Time magazine published an article on these tapes.[47] The victims' family members threatened to sue Jefferson County." how is Jefferson County related to Time magazine? If they are not related, why did the family threaten to sue the county? The latter sentence seems random.
• "and the Hitmen for Hire video seemed a kind of dress rehearsal, showing them walking the halls of the school, and shooting bullies outside with fake guns" this reads like speculation, please add WP:ATTRIBUTION
• "Manes, Manes's girlfriend, and Duran are all in the Rampart Range video." how is this relevant to the other sentences, especially since its contents are not provided?
• "which were twenty pounds (9 kg) or more" numbers/numerals are inconsistent.

Will continue review tomorrow.

• "envisioned a kind of backpack" what kind?
• "twenty-pound (9 kg)" inconsistent
• "twice outside, ten times inside" in the other numbers you use the AP numbering system (1-9 spelled out, 10 and above numerals)
• "Some Internet sleuths" no need for "sleuths" here
• "Harris shot Scott four times with a Hi-Point 995.[1] from" wrong punctuation
• "Harris and Klebold, he fell" change punctuation to semi-colon
• "senior lot at 11:24" inconsistent with other times
• "entered the library. Fifty-two" number is inconsistent

Thanks for your comments TheNuggeteer! No clue If your done this review or not but I went and implemented the changes anyway :) Gavetheman555 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Athanasius I Manasses

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)

FAC PR sidebar

@Borsoka: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar, in the hopes that it will be noticed there by an interested reviewer. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics

52246 Donaldjohanson

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a pretty big article (50k bytes) that I've written. I don't have much energy to reread the entire thing to search for grammar and sourcing issues. I'd like to bring it up to good article status and (and possibly up to featured article status afterward), but I want to make sure I've cleared out any hidden issues before I decide to nominate this for GA.

Thanks, Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Urtica ferox

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 17 July 2026, 05:45 UTC

Last edit: 22 July 2026, 06:18 UTC

Christopher Morcom

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: 30 June 2026, 08:09 UTC

Last edit: 20 July 2026, 00:48 UTC

Chimpanzee

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 June 2026, 02:32 UTC

Last edit: 21 July 2026, 19:13 UTC

Differentially private stochastic gradient descent

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 June 2026, 01:07 UTC

Last edit: 19 July 2026, 16:10 UTC

White-faced spiny tree-rat

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 17 June 2026, 17:17 UTC

Last edit: 17 July 2026, 18:10 UTC

Xerothamnella parvifolia

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.

Thanks, KIVYD (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed some formatting issues. First, you only need to use boldface text on the first usage of a name of the subject. Second, you might want to consider using Template:Convert on units. Third, you should go through the article with Source Editor to decapitalize non-proper wikilinks. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem a bit new; have you given WP:MOS a read through? It might be worth it to run your article against it. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Poecilia velifera

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)

FAC PR sidebar

@Surtsicna: I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar: please consider reviewing other articles listed there. I also recommend continuing to review articles at WP:FAC, as that will help build goodwill amongst the other FAC reviewers, which will cause your article to be reviewed more quickly (and less likely to be archived). Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thomas Edison

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 June 2026, 00:01 UTC

Last edit: 18 July 2026, 15:55 UTC

Diademed sifaka

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.

Thanks, Babacoote (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

Hindu mythology

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd appreciate fresh eyes on the article and feedback on how it can be improved. What needs to be added about Hindu mythology from the perspective of a reader that is not familiar with the topic? Comments on its coverage, organization, sourcing, neutrality, prose, readability, and overall adherence to Wikipedia's content standards would be especially helpful. I'm also interested in hearing whether there are any important topics, scholarly perspectives, or aspects of Hindu mythology that could be covered more effectively, as well as any other suggestions that would strengthen the article.

Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hemmingweigh! This is my first peer review, but I have some comments and questions that came up when reading, that I hope will be helpful (for reference I have little familiarity with Hindu mythology).

1. The article was pretty sparse with links to other Wikipedia articles, I went ahead and added some, though that's something to keep in mind for future edits, things like deities, scriptures, and concepts should be linked. MOS:UL

2. Mythology is defined twice in the article, both times are unnecessary. WP:OFFTOPIC

3. A lot of the subsections for Origins and Development don't say when these periods took place (the Brahmanical period, Upanishads, Classical period).

4. Second Urbanisation - Sramanic movements, was there a first urbanisation?

5. Were there significant events in the development of Hindu mythology from 1600 CE to the late 20th century?

6. Global influence doesn't seem to fit in the Modern period sub-section, maybe it could have its own section.

7. The cosmology section appears lacking, are there differing views of Creation and destruction outside Puranic cosmology and Shri Vidya theology? It might could be worthwhile to briefly explain the several forms of pralaya and the four yugas.

8. The mythical themes and types are mainly about the themes that appear in the Epic Mahabharata and the Epic Ramayana, maybe instead there could be a separate section on noteworthy Hindu texts and have the themes and types section talk about themes that appear in a variety of texts such as karma and atman, and explain what the various texts say about them.

9. There is too much explanation of the trifunctional hypothesis, WP:OFFTOPIC. It is worth noting the interpretation of Hindu mythology under this hypothesis, and could be worthwhile to add interpretations under other comparative mythology frameworks.

10. I looked at some articles for other types of mythology and think that the following sections could also strengthen the article:

• philosophy
• major deities/spirits/heroes
• symbols
• mythological realms (the article mentions that Indra, Agni, and Surya were moved to lower heavens in the Puranas, is there a ranking of heavens and hells in Hindu mythology?)

I hope this is helpful! --Wytenoise (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wytenoise this is all very helpful, thank you! I agree with a lot of what you have here especially that the trifunctional hypothesis is off topic. I wanted to ensure that I was not being too severe in deleting things, since I already deleted a lot off of this article that was completely off topic. Your suggestions for sections to add is a good one. I'll look into it further and see what can be added. Thanks again. Hemmingweigh (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Jorge Salvaire

I've done a lot of work on this article since creating it and I would like to know if this article is ready for a GAN. I have never done anything on this level before so I would appreciate some feedback on whether it stands a chance at a potential review.

Thanks! Lynch44 22:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

@Lynch44: Comments after a quick skim:

• Aleteia is considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia, so it might have to be removed.
• Consider looking for additional sources using WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org or your local library system.

I think this article is pretty much ready for GAN, and can be nominated there when ready. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Premise

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 June 2026, 09:48 UTC

Last edit: 21 July 2026, 21:43 UTC

Learning the walk of Handan

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 May 2026, 15:39 UTC

Last edit: 2 July 2026, 04:56 UTC

Social sciences and society

Harvey Brownstone

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been in the process of cleaning up this page. The main editor seems to have a conflict of interest, as they use promotional rather than neutral language. A lot of the information is poorly cited, uses non-Wikipedia-approved sources, or is not cited at all. I am also unsure how to cite YouTube videos for a living person's biography correctly. I want to see if my edits are adequate and how to further improve the page. Thanks, Sea2Sky

Stance detection

Hello! I recently created a Stance detection article and wanted a general peer review. It has largely been developed in a sandbox up until now. I am still working on sections regarding applications, as well as multimodal and multilingual models, so I am mostly interested in how the existing content or sourcing can be improved. I know it uses a few pre-prints, but I tried to keep those relatively limited to where they were relevant and with generally established authors. I look forward to any critiques and feedback! Jacob Rampino (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

2021 Pennsylvania Amendment 3

In 2021, Pennsylvania voters passed a referendum to amend the state constitution to prohibit racial and ethnic discrimination. The change followed the death of George Floyd.

I wish to bring this article to featured status and would like to see what suggestions there are to improve it.

Thanks, Delcoan (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Z. Patterson

I have four points to address in this peer review.

• Per MOS:WTW, I would remove instances of "while".
• There appear to be quotes in every section of the article except for the Results section and following. Can we try to paraphrase or summarize some of the quotes above the Contents section?
• The sentence "The region coined 'Pennsyltucky' had the sole two counties in opposition: Fulton and Huntingdon" appears. I do not see a mention of "Pennsyltucky" in the sources listed in the table. I suggest changing "The region coined 'Pennsyltucky'" to "The rest of Pennsylvania", given the results that appear in the table.
• Can you try to find more independent, secondary sources that support the article's text or complement the primary sources?

I hope these points help and encourage you to consider them. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• This needs a bit more background to get the reader oriented. For example, you have Senate Bill 1166 was introduced, originally containing only the constitutional amendment question related to emergency powers.. This is the first we've heard of this bill, so I don't know what amendment question you're talking about. I would back up a bit and start by explaining what bill 1166 was.

• There's some further complication in that there appears to be two different things being amended: bill 1166 and the state constitution. It takes a bit of careful reading to understand what introduced an amendment that added Amendment 3 is saying.

• with it being the first statewide ballot measure Does that mean in any state, or specifically in Pennsylvania?

• The death of Floyd led to widespread protests.[10] I would rearrange this whole section to be in chronological order, and since the events are all relatively close together, identify each one by date: "On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed ... this led to widespread protests on date, date, other date. On (date two weeks later), Vincent Hughes introduced ..." I'm guessing Bill 1166 was introduced before Floyd's death?

• Constitutional law professors believed ... per WP:OPINION, you need to cite, and perhaps quote, specific professors who said this. It looks like the particular source you used here (WTAE) doesn't specify which professors, which says to me you need to be looking for better sources (see WP:HQRS). And since I'm looking at the source, I think you've got a problem with WP:CLOP.

• Hmmm, looking at the next paragraph, I think you have WP:CLOP issues with the LNP Lancaster Online source as well. You've done what many people do: taken the original wording in the source and shuffled things around a bit to use slightly different phrasing and word order. You'll want to take a look at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA, especially where it says "Words or ideas do not follow the same pattern and order as the source material".

• Another example of WP:CLOP would be
  Democratic State Senator Vincent Hughes, who introduced the amendment, believed that court cases and judicial decisions would ultimately decide what the practical effect of the amendment would be, but he still saw it as a step in the right direction

  State Sen Vince Hughes said court cases and judicial decisions ultimately will determine the practical effect of the proposal he sponsored, but he see the amendment as a step in the right direction
  .

I'll stop here. The big take-away is that between the CLOP issues I've pointed out and the excessive quoting pointed out by Z. Patterson, you've got a fair bit of work here to rewrite things in your own words. My apologies for being blunt, but these two issues would, I'm pretty sure, draw a lot of quick opposition at WP:FAC. The good news is you found out about it at PR, where it's a lot less painful. RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Peer review in preparation for FAC.

Thanks, Eithersummer (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

theleekycauldron

• is marc robertson a subject-matter expert? [may chime in with more later, just on a cursory scroll] theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  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)

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)

Z. Patterson

I have some questions and points about the article.

• Are the quotes in the lead important? Can you try a paraphrase or summary instead?
• Per WP:FACR criterion 2c, try to make the citations as consistent as possible. If you have optional identifiers in one citation, then the other citations should also have the same identifiers, unless you are unable to provide them. Please see Rei Ayanami as an example of an article with comprehensive citations that try to be as consistent as possible.
• Why is a news article being cited for footnote b? Can you find an academic monograph or peer-reviewed journal article to replace the news article in footnote b? Repositories such as HeinOnline may be able to provide better sources. I encourage you to use the Wikipedia Library.
• Can you try to reduce your reliance on quotations and try to paraphrase and summarize in the body? I am sure featured article candidate reviewers may point this out.
• Can you try to replace Forbes with a peer-reviewed journal article or academic monograph? You can try to look in HeinOnline, as an example.
• Titles of court cases need to be italicized, even in citations.
• You may wish to look at footnote c and determine if you need to put a citation in for that footnote.

Even the most minute details will matter at an FAC, so I encourage you to consider these questions and points about the article. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sevāyata

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.

Thanks, S4yam ✧ talk 18:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The article is substantial and well-researched.

• 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.

The article was a lovely read. YashTheSoni (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi YashTheSoni,

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.

—S4yam ✧ talk 05:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

YashTheSoni, Thank you. I will keep those in mind.

—S4yam ✧ talk 17:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by VortexPhantom

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.

That's all. Hope it will be helpful for you.

Kai Newkirk

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.

Thanks, Tom Haws (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Parasocial interaction

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)

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)

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
• WP:Dupelink problems
• Alot of fairly short paragraphs could be combined
• Citation errors and I counted atleast one external link randomly inserted

Thats what I found, overall I think this needs alot of work and some copyediting, I would recommend taking this to WP:GOCE Olliefant (she/her) 23:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Lists

Sebastian Stan on screen and stage

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it for Featured List consideration, I have put work into this article originally in a sandbox which is why the time the page has been live looks shorter. But I believe it is ready and would like feedback because I am only human. Thank you!

Thanks, Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 16:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

List of cities in India by population

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this to be a featured list. The main problem currently is the references, so help in that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Thelifeofan413 (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of 1980s political violence and sabotage acts in Bulgaria

I would like to take this list to FLC and would like to prepare for it.

Thanks, Pietrus1 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Georgia Scorcher

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an impartial rating on the content assessment scale.

Thanks, Nathanc2127 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments by AdaCiccone

• 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.

So yeah, while the article is clearly not a stub, it isn't B-class either. So a more accurate rating would be Start-class. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

List of Six Flags Great America attractions

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.

Thanks! Feather Better (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Mmberney

Just a few observations:

• The first paragraph needs "roller coaster" to be blue‑linked.
• Assess whether the lead uses fully neutral language - the second and third paragraphs introduce promotional tone
• Use of small text - it should be used sparingly in articles, so it shouldn't be the main styling for tables
• A brief explanation of the differing thrill levels would be helpful to readers
• Photos and the descriptions shouldn't be sortable

Mmberney (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Adog

Doing a late-night run through:

• Reference 2 [RCDB] needs retrieved date.
• 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"?

Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject peer reviews

• WikiProject Military history: