Wikipedia:Peer review

PR icon.png

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.


Hi-5 (Australian band)

Previous peer review

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed two Featured Article reviews. I have also applied for two Peer Reviews but unfortunately did not receive any feedback. I have been working on improvements over the past three years and am willing to work together with editors to improve the quality of the article. I've listed this article for peer review because, as the sole editor, it is sometimes challenging to move the article forward without outsider opinions.

I have identified some key areas of the article which have been noted as needing improvement. Most of these relate to the quality of the references. If contributors could focus their attention on these areas while reviewing the article, it would be greatly appreciated.

  • Validity of sources: I am seeking advice on finding more high quality sources to complement the article. For Hi-5, a children's band, there is a resounding lack of suitable sources. For years, I have intensively searched the internet to find the best references, so they are all most likely being used here already. Some low-quality sources are used as there are no better options.
  • Overuse of primary sources and quotes from key figures: Continuing on from the previous point, there is a lack of available reviews or professional opinions for sections such as "Educational theory". I am seeking suggestions on finding higher quality opinions of the band's work. I have also tried to remove many of the quotes from key figures, as they do not add much to the article. If you notice some that are definitely not suitable, please direct my attention to them, as I am still in the process of actively improving. I have used a university thesis in the article; I am seeking advice on how to use and quote this work as a professional opinion.

I look forward to hearing from other editors soon.

@Nick-D:. Thankyou for agreeing to be involved.

Thanks, SatDis (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Frank Matcham

Article () · Article talk (
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 8 May 2019, 19:52 UTC
Last edit: 10 May 2019, 10:46 UTC

I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song)

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a major revision. While I originally got the article to good article status in 2011, it was my first good article and consequently my weakest; additionally, a lot of things happened in the last eight years relating to the song, both in new coverage as well as a film adaption last year that led to a new chart run (the song's third unique chart run). I've finally a completed a major overhaul I've been gradually working on and want to get input so that the article can be in as good a shape as possible, both in conforming to current GA standards as well as a future featured article nomination. Since this is such a large article, I figured peer review would be a good place to start. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to the FAC. Constructive comments are welcomed. Thanks in advance. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Veera Narayana

So, i am here to comment on the article of "The Most Powerful Film Ever Made". Privilege indeed!

  • What do you mean to say through he word "scenario"?
Chopra has been credit with 'original story and scenario' in the film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Chopra wrote its story and scenario, while Shiv Kumar Subramaniam wrote the screenplay." -- close repetition of "wrote". Please avoid.
  • "Anna's men kill Karan's friend Prakash (Kher) in front of Karan; the two brothers are then caught on different sides of morality when Karan decides to murder Anna." -- Can you find some other way to write this sentence in a way where the wording is minimal?
  • Kishan in lead, Kishen in plot, Kishan in Cast. Please mantain consistency.
  • Karan also discovers Anna is Prakash's murderer and Kishan works for him. -- Karan also discovers Anna is Prakash's murderer and "that" Kishan works for him.
  • "Kishan also briefs Karan about Anna's rivalry with Musa" -- briefs? That means Kishan must be knowing that Karan is aware of his "employment". Or, is it about Kishan saying it as a matter-of-fact and Karan learning it that way?
  • Karan tells Paro Anna and his brother killed Prakash and he was unaware about it. -- Karan tells Paro "that" Anna and his brother killed Prakash and he was unaware about it. Plus, his henchmen were credited with the murder of Prakash earlier, no?
  • The sentences regarding the casting of Shroff, Kapoor and Patekar lack proper flow. For example, "Kapoor told Chopra that Patekar was not suitable for the role of his elder brother" is a sentence followed by "Anil Kapoor, who was cast in the role of Karan, asked Jackie Shroff to play his elder brother." Those parts need re-writing.
  • "While filming the final scene's fire sequence, a fire the crew lost control of a fire they built using rubber solution and petrol, leading to Patekar suffering from serious burns." -- You mean to say "the film's crew lost control of a fire they built using rubber solution and petrol, leading to Patekar suffering from serious burns"??
  • "The film was filmed and is set in Mumbai." -- film was filmed, eh? legitimately sounds like trouble was troubled.
  • "Tum Se Milke" is one of the most popular romantic numbers in Indian cinema. Great. But, a single source supporting it isn't nice.
  • "While reviewing Vikram Chandra's 2007 novel Sacred Games (who is Anupama Chopra's brother)..." -- Do you even need to mention her when Mr Chandra has an article of his own?

More, if any, later. Veera Narayana 13:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Veera Narayana All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

  • You may want to mention the budget in the body of the article. The infobox already does.
  • Naseeruddin Shah and Nana Patekar were considered for the role of Kishan - Since they have been introduced a few sentences before, you may just mention them by surname here.
  • Where is the source that Vinod Chopra Films themselves distributed Parinda?
  • Parinda was shot in 66 days - you mean 66 working days right? I know you do, just somehow avoid the impression that it meant 66 consecutive days.
  • In the track list table, link the people on first instance only (avoid WP:OVERLINK).
  • The Central Board of Film Certification gave the film an 'A' (restricted to adults) certificate, due to its depiction of violence - the source doesn't mention violence as the reason (though I'm pretty sure that's the reason). Don't mention a film's rating unless there is extra commentary about it per WP:FILMRATINGS.
  • Nikhil Advani should be Nikkhil Advani. Sometimes these superstitious Bollywood freaks think adding a single letter (or removing) can bring them luck.
  • The film was included in CNN-IBN's 2013 list of the "100 greatest Indian films of all time" - somehow find a way to fit CNN-IBN's current name CNN-News18.
  • Replace "publisher" with "website" wherever necessary (exceptions are offline sources). Kailash29792 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Kailash29792 All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ashes and Diamonds (film)

I've listed this article because I'd like to find out whether this article deserves improvement from the Start-class assessment. The article itself is a slightly changed version of FA-class version at Polish Wikipedia (authors) which I've contributed to. Any feedback about the topic would be helpful.

Thanks, Ironupiwada (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Margaret

I started making this list a couple of days ago with the intention of nominating it for FL. The list of songs is complete and I expanded the lead today. I think it's ready but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything so I would greatly appreciate any help.

Thanks, ArturSik (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Saving Light

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to properly prepare the article for a Featured Article Nomination. I was suggested to do so on the articles third FAN, as it was suggested that it had a bunch of problems and should be withdrawn, which I have done. The article previously underwent a peer review a while ago, but since then it had become a good article, underwent a copy-edit and two FANs, (first one failed because only one person actually commented on it and second one failed because of the questionable critical reception bit which has since been fully reworked, not by me) so there shouldn't be too* much work to be done. But yea, I am asking for a FAN-level peer review as I don't want to make a fool out of myself and fail a 4th time. Here are the links to the first peer review, good article nomination, first FAN, second FAN, and third FAN. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 08:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa

I've listed this article for peer review because I am wanting to propose it as a Featured Article candidate. Any comments would be helpful, especially if there are any suggestions on layout and tone of the article!

Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

An interesting article, which I much enjoyed reading. A few minor points on the prose:

  • "Venezuelan film was kicked off" – rather slangy way of putting it.
  • "Unfortunately, the screening did perhaps not go very well" – I'd lose the editorial "unfortunately".
  • "similar to Lumiere films" – the Lumières had their grave accent at previous mention; a pity to lose it here.
  • "Trujillo probably didn't" – should be "did not" – see MOS:CONTRACT
  • "it was reasonably accepted that Trujillo" – ambiguous: by "reasonably" do you mean "fairly generally" or "with good cause"?
  • "The historian López says that the film "may be the earliest views shot in Latin America", suggesting this was not only the first Venezuelan but first Latin American film" – doesn't the second part of this sentence tell us exactly the same as the first part?
  • "One writer, Michelle Leigh Farrell" – not sure of the purpose of the "One writer" here. If you mean she is the only one to discuss the matter you need to make it plainer. And if not, do the two words add anything of any meaning?
  • "Though, Chanan does also use a case study" – unwanted comma, I think.
  • "claiming the Edison films" – I'd be chary about "claiming". It has strong overtones suggesting you don’t believe what the writer is saying. "Suggesting" or some similarly neutral word would be safer.
  • "the 'Arrival of the train to the station' by..." – three points here. First, you want italics rather than single quotes, I think. Secondly if you're giving it its title untranslated in the "Screening" section there seems no cause to translate it here. Thirdly do trains arrive to somewhere rather than at?
  • "Notes" – I greatly like the way you have laid out the two Spanish quotations and their English translations. Very clear and helpful.

I hope these few points are of use. Tim riley talk 11:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lajos Markos


I've submitted the article for peer review because it's my first time editing on Wikipedia and I'd like some feedback on how I've done so far. I'm interested in comments on style, formatting, cohesion, and particularly the Comment I made during the edit regarding Markos' move to Houston because I'm not sure how to deal with contradictory information in an article.

Thanks, A.T.

Comments from Tim riley

I'm not sure why someone has added the banner at the top of the page. The prose, what there is of it, doesn't strike me as particularly sub-standard, though the penultimate paragraph is a touch incoherent: a jumble of unrelated statements. What chiefly needs attention, in my view, is the sourcing. There are six paragraphs, only one of which contains a citation to a source. All the important facts in the article should be verifiable in a reliable source. Tim riley talk 09:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Exo

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it as a Feature List Candidate soon, and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead (a copy edit request has already been made) and the references. This is my first peer review, but I have made significant additions to this article and have every intention to continue on with it. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, AU 12:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series)

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created the article from a redirect and greatly expanded it. Would love some additional input on the article on how to improve it. Hoping to get this article up to GA status at some point.

Thanks, Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Cambodian rock (1960s–1970s)

I wrote this article and I hope it can qualify for "Good" or even "Featured" status, but I am uneasy about nominating my own work for promotion. The community is welcome to provide comments in that direction. I have a few "citation needed" tags for things I'm pretty sure are true but can't quite verify, and hoped that an expert would come to the rescue (no luck yet). See also the article's talk page for some more details on things that are tough to verify. Thanks for any comments you can offer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the title: it seems the rock scene came to an abrupt end in 1975, so isn't using "1960s–1970s" somewhat misleading? ("1960s–70s" is used several times in the article; two-digit ending years have limitations, see [1] was "Cambodian rock (1960–1975)" considered? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There are about three people in all of Wikipedia who know anything about this topic. I started a discussion with that group in which I proposed writing this article but admitted that I could not think of a good title. (Here is that discussion: [2]) Nobody else could really think of one either, and there are also rules to follow at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Consider the current article title to be a "lesser of all evils" choice and I am open to any suggestions. Also, "1970s" vs. "70s" in the article text is an oversight on my part and easily fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Kal Ho Naa Ho

Article () · Article talk (
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 7 April 2019, 12:35 UTC
Last edit: 3 May 2019, 07:51 UTC

Pierre Boulez

Article () · Article talk (
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 31 March 2019, 16:49 UTC
Last edit: 28 April 2019, 20:28 UTC

Melodrama (Lorde album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I truly believe its widespread acclaim and "cult-following" notability make it a unique subject to be a Featured Article (FA) contender. While it currently meets Good Article (GA) guidelines, I hope other editors can strengthen its prose and structure.

Thanks, De88 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • You did a great job compiling a vast amount of information on this album that has received vast media coverage. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." In other words, a photo of Paul Simon (for example) is relevant for articles about him, but here he is merely mentioned obliquely. Nobody may care enough to bring this up, but don't be surprised if it happens. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Round the Horne

This is a joint effort by SchroCat and Tim riley. Round the Horne was a BBC radio comedy of the 1960s, a formative influence on one of us as a teenager (the other wasn't alive in the 1960s and so has no excuse whatever). We have been revising the article with the aim of bringing it up to FA standard. We have tried to give the show comprehensive coverage though we hope we have avoided being too solemn about it. We regret the lack of pictures, but we are restricted by Wikipedia's rules on copyight images, and have tried to break the text up with, we hope, enlivening quote boxes. All comments and suggestions on this and indeed on anything else will be gratefully received. We hope you find the article wangles your nurdles. – SchroCat and Tim riley talk 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - technical hitch (me, probably). Having to shut this page and open a new PR. Apologies! Tim riley talk 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Cut the Crap

Article () · Article talk (
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 23 February 2019, 11:51 UTC
Last edit: 28 April 2019, 07:22 UTC

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this directly to FAC instead of GAN beforehand. I'm aware that for FA the article's prose needs to be brilliant, so I hope fellow reviewers can be really critical and constructive :). Thanks in advance, (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (during which time contemporary critics had), I believe you could drop "time" as it is not necessary.
  • This sentence (Songwriting for the album commenced in mid-2013, during which time contemporary critics had noted her fourth studio album Red for its mild departure from Swift's signature country sound and incorporation of straightforward pop production, a result of her collaborations with Swedish producers Max Martin and Shellback.) is rather long and takes up a sizable portion of the paragraph. I would consider separating this into two smaller sentences.
  • Something about this sentence (Martin served as executive producer alongside Swift in overseeing the coalition of the album.) seems overly word to me. I think that by definition any executive producer is responsible for "overseeing the coalition of the album". I would just cut down the sentence to something like (Martin and Swift were the executive producers). I have a similar issue with this sentence (the former also served as executive producer alongside Swift in overseeing the coalition of the record).
  • For this part (while the musical direction garnered polarized response), would it be fair to say "the more pop musical direction)? I think it would be helpful to clarify this somewhat as it is somewhat vague in its current form.
  • I rewrote the first two paragraphs of the lead
  • For this part (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift released her fourth studio album Red in October 2012), I do not believe you need the descriptive phrase "American singer-songwriter).
  • Removed
  • For this part (to courage to indulge in the big city), I would just say "city". Something about describing New York City as "the big city" seems slightly too informal to me.
  • Removed
  • I have a question for this sentence (To bolster album sales, Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds and Diet Coke.). Almost all of the tie-ins are linked except for Diet Coke. Is there a reason for this?
  • Whoops it was just my incompetence; added the link
  • There is a deprecated parameter in References 55, 147, and 229. It is something about the subscription part, but I am not entirely certain what it means.
  • Apparently there was something wrong with {{Cite web}}; I'll try to find some alternations to this
  • I would try to contact the opposition voter from the first FAC as they will probably be more helpful than me in pointing out areas where the article can be improved.

Great work with the article. This is what jumps out for me when reading it. I hope this helps somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments :) Hoping this PR will attract more attention — (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Article () · Article talk (
This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
Date added: 14 January 2019, 07:04 UTC
Last edit: 7 May 2019, 06:37 UTC

Art Ducko (student magazine)

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Артыкулы для рэцэнзаваньня
Nederlands: Wikipedia:Review
Seeltersk: Wikipedia:Review