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

Believe (Staind song)

This article passed GAN at the start of the weekend, and I'd like to prepare it for FAC. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 17:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Pioneers

I've listed this article for peer review because... I'm really intent on getting this to featured article status, but 1b and 1c seem to be holding me back (even though the show is considered partially lost media)

Thanks, - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@OpalYosutebito: I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Also, since you are working towards your first successful FAC, I recommend asking a mentor to review the article and post comments here. Lastly, I encourage you to review articles at WP:FAC now: this will teach you the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers. Thanks and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I already asked @David Fuchs to review. I'll look into FAC reviewing tomorrow :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Make It Shine

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA one day. Biggest things I would like to work on are the reception and seeing what sources classify as high-quality.

Thanks, Carnival of Lights (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Jenna Ortega

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA-status and want to ensure it's up to scratch before (or if) I nominate it.

Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Traveler (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 August 2026, 16:39 UTC

Last edit: 29 August 2026, 15:18 UTC

I Love My Computer

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article has GA potential. Please give advice on where this article can elaborate more on - more general advice on writing style and organization is also welcome.

Thanks, Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Hi there. Immediately, I noticed two pieces of information which don't seem to be cited anywhere in the article: the direct quote where she calls her computer "the greatest collaborator I'll know in this lifetime", and the last sentence in the 'Artwork and packaging' section. These need to be addressed at a minimum, to ensure the article is verifiable. On a less-crucial (but still important) note, I'd also try and ensure that each of the songs on the tracklist get at least a short mention in the 'Composition' section (WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Style, writing and composition). Leafy46 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Jones's van (Dad's Army)

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be eligible for good article status. However, I am unsure whether anything else needs to be added to the article. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mr Sitcom (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

The article is looking a little scarce. I would search for additional sources in WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, or databases available in your local library system. Sources used in Dad's Army, especially books, might also give additional information about the topic. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I will take a closer look at the sources you've mentioned soon. Mr Sitcom (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a look, but did not find anything substantial. However, I have added additional information to the article using other sources. Mr Sitcom (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

FAC PR sidebar

@Magiciandude: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Magiciandude: It has been over a month since this has been opened without comments. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Absolutely. Erick (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Magiciandude I'll give you the same advice I give others that are not getting reviews. First, look for other similar articles that are listed at WP:FA, especially recent ones, and ask their nominators to review yours. Music is a popular topic, and there's probably some FAs about the same artist. Second, start reviewing articles at WP:FAC. The best way to get people to review your stuff is you make yourself known as somebody who puts in the work to review other people's stuff. And, of course, as Z1720 suggested above, review other people's stuff that's listed at PR. RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake

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 July 2026, 00:19 UTC

Last edit: 17 August 2026, 01:16 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)

Petewarrior

I took a quick look and did some minor copyedits (which you reverted, for some reason). The most glaring flaw is of course the birthday, which needs a reliable source. Other than that, I think minimizing the use of WP:PROSELINE would be a great start. PetéWarrior (talk) 05:29, 21 August 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: 30 August 2026, 04:52 UTC

Engineering and technology

Otvet

I've 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 Military History articles.

Thanks, NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 19:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Knowledge cutoff

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GAN. I had a previous peer review which brought it to B class, but criterion 6 (accessibility) was not formally reviewed by the reviewer. I still promoted it to B class as a copy editor edited the article, but a look at that would be great. Then, please review the article in accordance with the GA criteria. This article has failed GA 3 times in a row before, but I hope that this peer review can finally bring it up to GA. Thank you.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Workstation

I've listed this article for peer review because I improved the article substantially a while ago and am seeing how and whether it can be improved further. I would also like an whole article review.

Thanks, SVcode(Talk) 12:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive by comment, probably won't work on this, but skimming through the article, it does

look quite comprehensive, however, I do see two issues:

1. In the "1980s: rise in popularity" subsection, there are three tags. Perhaps you could work on rephrasing that section.  Done SVcode(Talk) 15:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
2. I would expect to see the "Definition" subsection be at the top of the "Modern market" section, and not at the bottom (which means that subsection is also the last one). Otherwise, you could try integrating that content into the existing body without a new subsection.  Done SVcode(Talk) 15:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 09:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

SS D. M. Clemson (1903)

I'm putting this article up for peer review with the goal of gaining additional insight into potential improvements to it, in preparation for a FA review within the year. I have probably devoted more time to improving this article's quality than to any other piece I've ever worked on, and would love to see it reach the accredited pinnacle of quality. The references were re-formatted per the guidance I received on an earlier PR. Specifically, I would like to receive feedback on the grammar and any possible improvements to it, as well as spot checks of the references.

Thanks. Akaza ^[talk] 17:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm not sure if I'll do a full review, but one thing that jumped out at me is that she used a quadruple-expansion engine. Triples were common, but this is the first I've ever heard of a quad. It's worth mentioning in the lead.

I've dug into this a bit. Unfortunately, having read just the first section (Background), I have to say the writing needs a lot of work. It is written in a choppy style: a series of short declarative sentence which don't connect to each other in a coherent way, i.e. it lacks flow. If you google for "choppy writing" you will find many places that talk about this with suggestions on how to improve it. It might be worth submitting this to WP:GOCE to see what they can do.

To give you a better idea of what I'm talking about, here's a couple of examples from the article which do it better.

... The development of the pneumatic rivet gun and the advancement of gantry cranes enabled shipyard employees to work at an increased speed, with greater efficiency.[12] This, combined with the rapidly decreasing steel prices, contributed to the rapid increase in the size of lake freighters in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[13]

the first part of this paragraph (elided here) is boring to read because of the disconnected sentences. But these two final sentences are much more interesting to read. The "This, combined with ..." construct ties this sentence back to the previous one with a cause-and-effect relationship. Here's another one:

... He was appointed general manager of the newly assembled fleet of vessels belonging to the United States Steel Corporation's subsidiary, the Pittsburgh Steamship Company, in 1901.[18] Shortly thereafter, Wolvin founded the Provident Steamship Company in Duluth, commissioning four large vessels for his new venture ...

Here, you use "Shortly thereafter" to connect the action described in this sentence (the founding of the company) to the action from the previous one (being appointed general manager). This relates the two sentences chronologically, carrying the reader along as the story evolves. Unfortunately, the stodgy, choppy examples are far more common.

On an unrelated topic, I'd take things like "56.95% of the 16,036,043 long tons (16,293,372 t) of the iron ore" and simplify it to "57% of the 16 million long tons. It's not quite as precise, but this article is about the D. M. Clemson, not a deep dive into shipping statistics, so spare the reader the unnecessary detail. Sorry I couldn't be more encouraging, but hopefully this will give you some ideas of how to get this up to FA quality. RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

Hey! Noob editor here, just trying to be helpful. I like this article! Just a few reactions.

• I really like intros that start with a barebones definition then expand. Focus on how it's an NLP task; I think you could take out the reference to computational linguistics, and move essential techniques (content analysis and text mining) to later in the paragraph.
• That survey paper (ALDayel) is a really strong reference. I appreciated the history bit.
• The header Supervised classification could probably be replaced with something nodding to the fact that the section is about traditional ML models. The task at hand could be called a supervised classification task, so this isn't super clear to me reading the subtitle what the following content will be.
• For the Deep Learning section it feels like we're really focused on the history of the task. I think that's fine for ordering, but within paragraphs, since it's a technical article, it might be better to start with the what. When skimming, people like to start a paragraph to see if they want to read the rest, so a what/why/how structure can be better than the why/what/how structure the paragraphs use right now. A little more nitpicky, I think talking about BERT you could frame how the papers specifically take advantage of the model structure structure and fine tuning techniques to do the task; right now a lot of the detail about BERT and fine-tuning feel like definitions I could get, more or less, by clicking the article names. I think the level of detail is fine, it just needs to feel justified.
• "generative models often cannot be archived for replication" is more of a researcher complaint than a fundamental flaw from a user perspective, so it might belong in a separate sentence.
• I do like that the article is framed as an NLP task, but with the nods to real-world use-case drawbacks in the LLM section, I would be interested if you can find sources in on actual real-world use. If so, that would be really interesting info!
• The Espinosa source is a decent experiment, but you kind of make it sound like a survey result. Not sure it really backs up something as strong as "no single model has been found to consistently dominate across tasks." It might be fine.

Hamolton (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback! This is all incredibly actionable and I agree. I will make these changes. Jacob Rampino (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yay glad to be helpful! Hamolton (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

GuineaPigC77

This article looks well researched. Two things I noticed...

• Some of the sources look like preprints, which are considered unreliable Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Preprints
• Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations I think the lead should only summarize what is alread cited later in the article.

I hope you find these short comments helpful! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 02:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will definitely incorporate your comments for the lead. However, preprints are simply treated like SPS, and can be used reliably if the authors are subject-matter experts! Jacob Rampino (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Sodium-cooled fast reactor

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: 8 June 2026, 05:17 UTC

Last edit: 29 August 2026, 17:24 UTC

General

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)

Someone close this review, please. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 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)

English whisky

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on how to improve the article to reach B and then GA Class

Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know why the link to select a topic leads to an archive page ChefBear01 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Are there any tasks I can do to assist in getting to the goals above.ChefBear01 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Neils51:,@Bruce1ee: do you have any suggestions?.ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The production stages section needs completing.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the list of distilleries would be improved by being in a table? Neils51 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that editors are trying to keep it in prose.ChefBear01 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Tomodachi Life

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

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

Date added: 7 August 2026, 17:14 UTC

Last edit: 27 August 2026, 19:53 UTC

Yūka Kageyama

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know whether it has a good chance of passing GA.

Thanks, PetéWarrior (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

FC Dynamo Moscow's 1945 tour of the United Kingdom

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for WP:FA, and having never done one before, I wanted feedback here before I actually nominated it.

Thanks, ShadowBallX (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 EFL Championship play-off final

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has a reasonable chance of getting to FA status after heavily expanding on it in August.

Thanks, Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Geography and places

Malta

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I’m planning to bring it up to GA (and later, maybe FA). Any feedback is fine, be it prose quibbles, citation problems, image requests, whatever. I’d like some help with the citations (no idea how to format pdfs), and if something failed verification, I’ll replace it. Thanks! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging people who gave advice on this article on a different venue: @Moxy, @Chipmunkdavis _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 15:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

CMD recommended a shortening of the history section, all parts there are 2-4 paragraphs and grouped as well as I can in sections. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:32, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

@Wikipedian12512: Comments after a quick skim:

• I added some citation needed tags. These would need to be resolved before a GAN.
• For a GA, the formatting and information is probably fine. For a FAC, there are some sections that need more information like "Sport", "Music", "Architecture", and "Banking and finance". This will be difficult because the article is already at over 9,000 words so, as these are expanded, consider where you could summarise more effectively elsewhere in the article. For example, the "Art" section is quite long, and maybe could be spun out into "Art of Malta" or something similar.
• I also think some of the sections in "Culture" can be merged together to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION, like "Art and architecture" and "Literature and media".
• There are lots of short, one or two-sentence paragraphs in the article. For a GAN these are OK but consider merging these together before an FAC.
• Not sure if "Vassallo History", "Geocities.com" and "weather2travel.com" are reliable sources.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I’ll work on those when I’m back from vacation. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 07:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: I’m having some trouble finding the unreliable sources. Can you replace them with citation needed tags? _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Wikipedian12512: In this version of the article, the unreliable sources are refs 126, 200, 228, 271, and 296. "Rudolf & Berg 2010" (ref 92) and "Bonnici, Hilbert & Krug 2012." (ref 249) are used as inline citations but need more information (like what book its from). "Cramer, John Anthony", "Bowen-Jones, Howard; et al. (1962)", "Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911).", "Francesco Balbi di Correggio ", "Carolyn Bain (2004).", "Williams, Paul (2009). Malta – Island Under Siege.", "United Nations Development Programme (2006)." and "Hardman, William (1909)." are listed as sources but are not used as inline citations: they should either be moved to "Further reading", removed, or used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I’ll work on those. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, done with those. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 23:36, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Done with the comments. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:39, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yemen

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to WP:GAN, and then WP:FAC. I will be working on addressing uncited content and updating outdated information. Beyond that, should there be any issues with the candidacy?

Thanks, HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• The immediately obvious issue is how highly unbalanced the article is. The article as a whole is already over 11,000 words. However, over 6,300 words are in the History section, meaning one of the seven main sections takes up over half the article. This unbalance is reflected in the lead, where History overwhelms everything else. Relatedly, there may be MOS:OVERSECTION. History has 17 subsections, which is extreme, however other areas are also very divided. There isn't even a main Culture section, only subsections. There is probably a need to look at each section, and assess from reliable sources what areas of that topic would be due weight being pulled out as independent subsections. CMD (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ill work on trimming the history section 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

• @Aunva6: It has been almost two months since this PR has been opened. Are you still interested in comments? Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am, but given the time it's been open ti seems unlikely that any will be offered. i would expect that anyone who had feedback would ahve offered it by now. maybe ill just FAC it. i hate to take an article to FAC that im fairly sure isn't ready, but if that's the only way to get comments, so be it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest looking through WP:FA for articles about similar subjects (especially if the FAC was fairly recent) and asking their authors if they would be willing to look at your article. Sometimes it pays to be a little aggressive when hunting for reviews. I also gave it a plug at WT:FAC for you. RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  thanks. it's always helpful to have other eyes on the article, especially when it just passed GAR. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from user:Wikipedian12512

(Someone told me that to get PR comments, you have to give some, so here I am.) _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:07, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Does the “curling water” bit mean that it’s a curving river? Might be good for clarification.
• ”friendly Sioux” seems odd. I suggest rewording.
• Dakota for waterfall -> waterfall in the Dakota language
• "The overwhelming evidence points to Brown's Falls (and creek) being named for Jacob Brown, major general and commander in chief of the army from 1814 to 1828 rather than for Joseph R. Brown, teenage musician at Fort Snelling and later army sergeant (1820–1828), fur trader, politician, editor, and inventor. However, I have not yet found a document that officially or specifically mentions Jacob Brown as the namesake." - I suggest rewording to have this be in the quote thing at the end of the paragraph.

_{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:13, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Could you clarify what “daguerreotype” means?
• The “clearly” seems unnecessary.

_{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Beginning in… -> In
• Citation needed for first paragraph in fashionable tour section
• ”Quoting from…” sounds weird. I suggest rephrasing.
• ”vicariously”- perhaps exchange for a simpler word?

(I’m not done with the section yet) _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:35, 1 September 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

Byrhtnoth

I've listed this article for peer review because... I have just pasted an overhauled version of the article, which I have been working on in my sandbox for a little over three weeks, somewhat intermittently. Two new images were also added to Wikimedia Commons for the article. The purpose of this expansion was that I felt that Byrhtnoth's fame meant his life deserved more elaboration, and the purpose of this review is to get the article to FA status. Thanks, Wombatmanboy (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I will take a look at this. A couple of minor points on the bibliography:

• The Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies is the first volume of a journal and you should use the cite journal template.
• Whitelock, English Historical Documents. You should specify 1st edition. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod is Stephen Pollington an RS? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, marginal at best, I'd say. But he is only being used to support one of a range of views, in a footnote. Maybe that's ok. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Eric John also makes the argument for a more professional and aristocratic fyrd in his Orbis Britanniae, should I cite him instead? Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

He is a much better source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Russell Maroon Shoatz

At this point I'm tinkering around the edges of this article and I'm curious what others think. I'm aware that I could add page numbers where I'm citing his memoir (I was working from a pdf, the physical book is in the mail). I could also do a more exhaustive search of newspaper articles on newspapers.com and corroborate some more information that way. But at this point I think I've done enough work that it would be helpful to get an outside perspective before going further. Thanks for your consideration.Prezbo (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

1998 Northern Territory referendum

I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly reworked it and it's my first time making big structural edits to an article like this.

Thanks, Packrat3860 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Byzantium in the Crusading movement

I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate further input on its comprehensiveness as well as its sourcing. Thank you in advance for your time. Borsoka (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

History of education in Wales (1870–1939)

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

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

Date added: 11 August 2026, 17:52 UTC

Last edit: 26 August 2026, 15:54 UTC

Gopal Mukund Huddar

This article is about an Indian anti-colonial activist and anti-fascist soldier; though quite a fascinating figure, he's largely been forgotten by the mainstream and the available reliable sources I could find have not allowed me to piece together his full story. Nevertheless, it is currently a good article. I am requesting editor input here for suggestions on improvements, as I seek to eventually nominate it for featured article status.

Thanks, — EarthDude (Talk) 11:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• @EarthDude: It has been over a month since this has been opened. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm still open to feedback on this. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Natural sciences and mathematics

Low-mass X-ray binary

Recently created this article and I'm pretty proud of it so far. I was hoping to take it to GA status, and wanted advice on what to improve before nominating it there. In particular, I would like advice on what parts of the article to make less WP:TECHNICAL (GA criterion 1a). I would also like some advice on which scientific terms to explain further and which can suffice with just a wikilink.

Thanks, Shocksingularity (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Rosa (sea otter)

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 August 2026, 00:45 UTC

Last edit: 1 September 2026, 20:48 UTC

Braitenberg vehicle

I've listed this article for peer review to get input on the images and the final section, as well as any other suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

List of mammals of Missouri

I want to get this article to FL, but I am largely unfamilial with the FL process and need feedback on what tweaks that need to be made before I nominate it.

Thanks, ZKevinTheCat (talk) 12:34, 6 August 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: 28 August 2026, 04:57 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: 5 August 2026, 23:17 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)

GuineaPigC77

Hello. I don't know this topic, but the article is very well written and clear. Here are some comments...

• Pronunciation tool for the name(s)?
• Lead paragraph 2: I think there needs to be a comma after "Every day"
• Lead paragraph 2: "slow life history" is odd to me; does this mean "long life"? Slow metabolism?
• Order of sections: I think the subsection Changes in taxonomy is long and delays figuring out who these lemurs are. I wonder if this subsection could go down, but keep the opening paragraph of Taxonomy up. This way the reader gets the taxonomy overview, then learns anatomy and physiology, and then changes to taxonomy could be addressed later. If experts want to see this right away, then disregard this comment!
• I'm not familiar with "pelage" is this a technical term? Perhaps this can be explained or glossed briefly.
• There isn't much about the nervous system. Is more known here?

I hope you find these short comments helpful. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 02:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Language and literature

Warriors (novel series)

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

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

Date added: 1 September 2026, 18:04 UTC

Last edit: 1 September 2026, 18:04 UTC

F

I've listed this article for peer review because...I want to improve it and nominate it to GA

Thanks, Furbchess (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Shocksingularity

• Its name in English is ef, and the plural is efs. This confuses me. I've never heard of a letter having a "name" besides just the letter. I'd go into that more or explain it elsewhere.
• The origin of ⟨F⟩ is the Semitic letter waw, which represented the sound /w/. and ḥ(dj)) Use the IPAc template for pronunciations.
• Is there any way you can get the hieroglyph to be on the same line as the rest of the text?
• The Etruscan digraph may have been inspired by the rare use of ⟨ϜΗ⟩ in archaic Greek inscriptions for a dialectal sound like [ʍ], e.g. in the reflexive pronoun ϜΗΕ, which corresponds to Classical ἕ hé (see Ancient Greek phonology § Semivowels). This is very difficult to understand as an uniformed reader.
• F : Fluorine, a chemical element uses the symbol F Minor error but it's ...that uses the symbol F
• Other section (at the very end): Explain what the diagram and each of the symbols mean.
• Other uses section is good.

Shocksingularity (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the tips! Furbchess (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

Truth

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Shocksingularity

• The explanations of the theories in the second paragraph of the lead could for the most part be a little simpler/written in a more understandable style. Some of the language is a bit technical.
• The images of David Malet Armstrong and Alfred Tarski are not really that helpful to the encyclopedic content of the article, so I'd remove them.

Overall, I think it looks good and could probably pass FA as-is, as long as you take into account any feedback from FA reviewers. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Shocksingularity and thanks for the comments! I rewrote the 2nd lead paragraph. It's a technical subject so it could be still somewhat challenging but I hope it's better now. I moved Armstrong's image to the history section, where he is discussed. I kept Tarski's image in the subsection "Semantic" since Tarski is explicitly mentioned there as the founder of the semantic theory and because the history section already has too many images to fit in Tarski's image as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The second lead paragraph looks a lot better now! Shocksingularity (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Pacifism in France

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it could get to GA with some help, and I would appreciate the help and if I am delusional about the qaulity of article, for someone to tell me.

Thanks, Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Religious art and culture of the Shang dynasty

This is an article split from Religion of the Shang dynasty, expanding that page's Arts and culture section. Most of the sources are taken from the original section, although this article features more in-text attribution. Listed this article for peer review as I aim for higher ratings (definitely GA if I can); anyone willing to give this a look is welcomed.

Thanks, Strongman13072007 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Social sciences and society

Fatima Jinnah

The article has just been promoted to GA status, and before I start working on it towards featured status, I would like to get a peer review so I can focus on the areas that require improvement. As this is my first attempt at promoting an article to featured status, I do not want to spend time working on areas that may not require any improvement, out of concern that, instead of improving the article, I might inadvertently make it worse. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Thanks, Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@SheriffIsInTown: I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Since you are still working towards your first successful FA, I suggest getting a FA mentor who can comment on this article and help you through the process. I also suggest reviewing articles at WP:FAC now to help teach the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Llewee

I will try to make some suggestions for how the article can move towards FAC status. I don't think there is much point picking at specific details giving it is still some way from being the finished product so I will try to keep my comments quite general.--Llewee (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• The FA criteria says that an FA article "places the subject in context". That doesn't mean including vast amount of irrelevant details but, in the case of a biography, we should try to give some insight into how they would have seen the world and some of the forces that shaped the environment they operated in. I think more of that needs to be provided throughout the article. For instance, in the early life section you could include a discussion of her family's national/religious affiliation and some detail about the political context in the region where she was growing up.
• Her beliefs should be given more coverage. Why did she want Pakistan to become a separate state from India?
• I think there could a probably be more discussion of her personality and how the Pakistani people viewed her. Did the fact she was a women have a particular effect on her image?
• The final three sections (before see also) could probably integrated into a more detailed legacy section discussing the histography around her and perceptions of her after her death.
• The FA criteria says that an FA article "presents views fairly and without bias". I think the article is currently perhaps a bit too laudatory. There should be some discussion of the views of her political opponents, including those who were opposed to the partitioning of India.

Forgot to @ you, SheriffIsInTown :) --Llewee (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Llewee Thank you for your detailed review. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Arbel Yehoud

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how I can improve the article so that it would meet FA status. I've never written an FA before (and Arbel Yehoud is my first GA), so I'd like a more experienced Wikipedian in this area to take a look at it.

Thanks, EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@EaglesFan37: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• @EaglesFan37: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Yes, I am. EaglesFan37 (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• @EaglesFan37: Since you are working towards your first successful FAC, I recommend getting a mentor who can comment in this PR and help with the FAC process. I also recommend reviewing other WP:FAC articles now, as it will help with understanding the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Abdul El-Sayed

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 July 2026, 22:21 UTC

Last edit: 27 July 2026, 21:41 UTC

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

Lists

Joy Division discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article for LI some day. I would also like an entire review of this article. Thanks, VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comments by Llewee

• The lead seems very short. The featured list criteria says the article should have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." I would suggest looking at this guidance and rewriting the lead once the other changes suggested have been made.
• I think the background section needs expanding. Obviously don't go of on too much of a tangent but some additional detail on the political context in Bulgaria at the time and why the regime was so hostile to Turkish culture would be helpful. You also definitely need more discussion of the organisations that were carrying out these attacks. For an example of the kind of structure that might work well, see Timeline_of_Brexit#Background.
• "the government's desire to implement something like the Revival Process was felt popularly." - This is odd phrasing. I think you mean that the government's attitude to Turkish culture was widely understood but it could also be interpreted as "was popular among Bulgarian people". Both might well have been true but you should make clear what you mean here.
• "The defendants were initially sentences to death, but were pardoned following the fall of Communism in Bulgaria." - Fully pardoned or had their sentences reduced?
• "who reportedly intended to use the children as human shields to facilitate their defection to Turkey" - reported by whom? Also, maybe add a link to Human shield.
• You use the word "terrorist" quite a bit in the article which is a contentious term (see, MOS:TERRORIST). The people conducting these attacks were committing acts of violence, sometimes against civilians, but they would have probably argued that they were resisting ethnic oppression by an authoritarian government. Could a more neutral term be used?
• "Policy changes" - I think this could be broadened out into a wider "Legacy" section. Did the attacks lead to relaxation or intensification of the restrictions on the Turkish culture? Did they contribute to the fall of the regime?
• "Misrepresentation" - I think this section should be moved to the start of the attacks or to the background section to provide context.
• "Few of the 600 "terrorist" attacks which the Bulgarian government alleged had been committed in the country from 1984–1987 can be definitively explained," - Most of those alleged attacks must not be included here. By what criteria are the ones included chosen?

Hello Pietrus1, I hope my comments are helpful. I think the article might still be a little way off being ready for FLC. Llewee (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Very helpful, but just FLC, not an FAC. I was under the impression that this article, as a list, would go in the list category. This is not the main article on this subject. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I meant FLC, autocorrect is being a pain. Llewee (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• The lead seems very short.
  • TBD.
• Expanding the background section.
  • TBD.
• The government's desire to implement something like the Revival Process was felt popularly.
  • TBD.
• Fully pardoned or had their sentences reduced?
  • TBD.
• reported by whom?
  • TBD.
• MOS:TERRORIST
  • Changed.
• Policy changes
  • TBD.
• Misrepresentation
  • TBD.
• 600 number
  • TBD.

Pietrus1 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 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: Byrhtnoth • Byzantium in the Crusading movement • Gopal Mukund Huddar • Otvet • Pacifism in France