Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.
Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. 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.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
I and De88 have nominated this article for Peer Review because we want to improve the article to FA status. Having passed GA nomination in 2014 and gone through a PR which apparently did not help, this is the second time the article went through a PR. Lorde is a New Zealand singer known for her incredible lyrics and unconventional musical styles. While we believe the content of the article is fairly adequate, we look forward to hearing further comments on prose and style i.e. grammar and vocabulary. Any input will be very much appreciated,
Thanks, HĐ (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed two consecutive FACs, despite my best efforts (the first time, I withdrew it to rework). Before I take this to FAC for the fourth time, I want to know what is wrong and fix it. Thanks, Kailash29792(talk) 07:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am eyeing an FA candidacy in the future. I’ve put a lot of work into this article, now a very recently promoted GA, but feel it falls just short of meeting the FA criteria. I think presently, barring minor prose issues in the rest of the body, the critical response section is the biggest issue standing in the way of a successful FAC because of sentence rhythm and overall structure. This was a similar issue I had with another article I was successful at getting to FA status (with the help of Mike Christie, and also after seven attempts!). Some feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Going to take this up, hopefully will get the review up soon! Stilistic (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn't it be that it was a longtime project rather than is, considering it is now released?
I’ve gone back and forth with it, but I believe either is appropriate.
"However, Doc threatens him back into a life of crime, threatening to harm Debora and Joseph if he resists." I feel this could be condensed a touch.
Is there anything that can be added with respect to the casting of Kevin Spacey?
He wasn’t active in the film’s press tour barring less than a handful of interviews, in which he speaks about his character’s motivations and praises Wright for his artistic vision. Unfortunately, as a result, I was unable to find any useful information about his casting.
Is "R. Marcos Taylor as gun runner Armie" necessary, given that the actor has no article and the character is not otherwise mentioned in the article?
Gonna add more later. Stilistic (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Take as long as you need. Thank you for taking up the task! DAP💅 16:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate this article for GA status sometime in the future. The peer review is to help me see what to improve, focus on and to see if the article is even ready for a GAN.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help with verification. The main aspect I would like help with has to do with the year 2000. It is, unfortunately, the only year that I haven't been able to find a single reference detailing the nominees. I was able to find one for that year's winner—from GLAAD itself—which at least proves that Strangers in Paradise was one of the nominees (and winner), but that's it. While it isn't necessary, it would also be great to include some more reliable sources regarding the 1990s nominees; as the current references are all press releases.
Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikipedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged into longer ones.
Some things are missing inline citations. Some examples of this:
The brief alliance and subsequent invasion may allude to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa.[original research?]
In his London Letter on 17 April 1944 for Partisan Review, Orwell wrote that it was "now next door to impossible to get anything overtly anti-Russian printed. Anti-Russian books do appear, but mostly from Catholic publishing firms and always from a religious or frankly reactionary angle."
Although not required, I personally would try to reference the plot inline to reliable sources. This step improves verifiability.
The citation styles used are a total mishmash. Pick one style and stick with it.
A considerable amount of the references are to online WP:UGC or WP:SPS, therefore not qualifying as RS.
As an English play, WP:ENGVAR means it should use British English, so "theatre" for a start.
The Summary section should at least be referenced with Acts & scenes.
It doesn't really cover much beyond a summary & the anti-semitic issue, but there is a good deal more to the play than that. Specific papers on one angle are fine, but need to be balanced with more sources covering the work overall.
It was not performed much at all for a long time after Kean, but then quite a bit in the 20th century. You should add from this good source (on the performance history & other things).
I've listed this article for peer review because there are some sections specifically such as the lead, stock characters and controversy section that I am wondering if they come across as fluid and easy to read for others. I also am seeking overall opinions and areas for growth as I continue to conduct research on this subject.
Lead seems short. The grammar of the first 2 sentences is shaky - signular or plural subject etc.
History section very short & seems to contradict lead: "They were originally written in Oscan and imported into Rome in 391 BC." vs "Atellan Farce evidence is scarce, but surviving fragments point to the comedy genre coming about no earlier than 90 BC." If it stays short, merge to lead.
Lots of typos in the quotes in refs
I think I'd make the whole "connection to similar stock characters in Commedia dell'arte" bit its own section, and move to the bottom. It seems pretty speculative.
Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know which ways I can improve the page. I already know that I need a bit more information, so what I'm looking for would be suggestions on what information people would like to see. If I skipped over a certain amount of years, or if there's more information to add during specific years would be helpful. Also, if there's a better way to organize the article, and elements such as that. Grammar/writing would be great, but I'm focusing on content at the moment.
Thanks, AsbennAsbenn (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I never really cared for the genre movement he was involved with as a whole, but hide and X were absolutely kickass musicians. It looks to be in pretty good shape. I'd love to nominate it for a marker position (at least GA), but since I'm fairly new to editing the article I'd like some insight from others first (I have read it over several times, though).
Hi, one minor comment: The X Japan section includes the line Dahlia, which would become the band's last album, was released on November 4, 1996 and once again, it reached the number one spot. Hasn't Yoshiki been mentioning plans for a new album release for the past few years? I know they've been going on tour and releasing singles recently. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I have changed it to say "last album to date". If you think it should still be different, be WP:Bold. editoroops 21:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Comments by JalenFolf
A consensus exists that the article title should be written in plain text, which is how most sources describe musicians, and is also supported by MOS:TM. This should also be reflected in the text where necessary.
Per MOS:LEADCITE, references are not typically included in the lead if they are also cited in the text. The lead is meant to summarize the contents of the article.
Citation errors exist on references 19 and 26.
So far, I can see this article passing criteria 1a, 2, 3, 4, and 6. I am neutral on 1b for the lead citations and 5 for personal reasons. Jalen D. Folf(talk) 20:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Aye, thanks for the birthday present Jalen, I didn't even see this until now. Valuable feedback, I appreciate it. As for the cites in the lead, I believe this material is contentious without them, as it may strike as a POV-oriented quote without them, but thank you for the concern. Question: Does this apply to all mentions of hide in the article, or just the title? If it's just the title it's done. editoroops 16:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed the drafting process for the article. I think that the references are not strong as the the majority of the information came from online blogs because of lack of official resources on the topic. I would also like to improve the sections that are slightly lacking in information, mainly the history section and the modern section, although I would also like to improve the traditional examples category.
I would also like to add more images such as of the Lorne jewels and the Stewart jewels but have been hindered by copyright restrictions.
Dream8047! (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm! It's not that impressive. There are plenty of "official" sources, and I'm sure quite a few online, but you haven't found them. The History section is pretty poor. This is a selection of Bronze Age Scottish jewellery from the MOS, some from about 1,000 years before you suggest it started. These beads from Skara Brae are from "Between 3100 and 2400 BC". If you scratch around on the MOS site (not the easiest to navigate I know) you will find tons of information on all periods. I changed the date you had - misinterpreted from what is anyway not a WP:RS - as no "Celtic-style" metalwork appears in the British Isles before about 300BC. Most of the time Scottish jewellery is not all that different from English, Irish, or indeed European styles, which it would be good to see recognised sometimes. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)