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.



I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to expand this article to C class.

Thanks, Jalen D. Folf (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Pod (The Breeders album)

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 November 2018, 05:48 UTC
Last edit: 19 November 2018, 03:29 UTC

The Jew of Malta

I've listed this article for peer review because I think there's still some more work to do here, and I'd like feedback as to where it stands at this moment!

Thanks, Tobymsinger (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Atellan Farce

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.

Thanks,AngRenzi (talk) 05:31, 6 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)

Jennifer Aniston

I've listed this article for peer review because I think with a little work it can be a GA and I wanted to know what needs to be improved before I nominate it. I've already worked on it a little bit but I am aware this isn't enough for GA. Any help welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, ArturSik (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film)

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 October 2018, 05:10 UTC
Last edit: 16 November 2018, 16:29 UTC

Black Panther (soundtrack)

I am thinking about nominating this article for GA and just wanted to see if anyone had some helpful thoughts about the general structure and scope. Note that I am approaching this from more of a WP:FILM perspective (particularly how the music was made for the film) than a WP:ALBUM one. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Ref 67 has an error of some kind. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Argento. I am in the process of trying to get that figured out. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Adamstom.97, I hope you don't mind, I came here to leave comments but wound up fiddling instead. I reworked the lead a little to put the Lamar reception with the Lamar release. I also reworked the first bit of the Background section and added a ref for the quote (it didn't have one as far as I could tell). On the topic of that quote though, I'm not sure it's a good fit there - the wording preceding it makes it look like Coogler's words, and they aren't, not directly. I didn't want to remove it without checking to see if you'd rather rework the sentence. ♠PMC(talk) 10:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Premeditated Chaos:, I restored the background section edits. For the reword, I don't think the change helped. Regarding the source, it is the "VultureApril2017" ref tag. The material is sourced by the next closest ref tag, to removed excessive tagging. On the topic of if the quote is necessary or a good fit, I would be happy to discuss this along with Adam, because I can see how it doesn't really work the best as is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Premeditated Chaos: thanks for showing interest! The change you made in the lead was good, and I have now added an extra in-line tag so the ref comes directly after the quote if that helps. I also don't really think the wording you added there changes anything, and I personally do not feel that the quote is being suggested to be Coogler's. I am happy to discuss this further, but I am pretty happy with how the section is reading currently. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled from Marilyn Monroe by Andy Warhol

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 October 2018, 12:10 UTC
Last edit: 24 October 2018, 09:16 UTC

Bara (genre)

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently revised the article for the first time since it was originally written in 2009-2010. I'd like to have this material reviewed in advance of a possible move of the article to the gay manga namespace which, in the near-decade since this article was first written, has become the preferred nomenclature for the genre (rough version can be viewed at User:Morgan695/sandbox/Bara).

Thanks, Morgan695 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Cypriot art

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like get some advice as to whether my expression throughout the article is appropriate by Wikipedia standards, and any other criticisms are welcome.

Thanks, Jqitan (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Bedroom Production

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new article and I would like to check that it is all in line with the Wikipedia guidelines for a new article. I would also like comments in regard to the article structure, there were some paragraphs relating to bedroom production such as about sampling and MIDI which I was not sure how to interweave into the article specifically for the case of bedroom production when most of the available information online mostly talks about these topics in regards to traditional record producing not bedroom production and Wikipedia does not allow original research. It would be good to have some expansion on the history and characteristics sections and more media added.

Thanks, Tom TommyTom10 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Australian Poetry Slam

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm new to Wikipedia and would like some help ensuring the overall article is of good quality. I additionally need specific help removing the user sandbox template Thanks, Sue.daa.nim (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Pheasant

Hi I'm a university student and I had to write a Wikipedia article I was hoping to get some feedback on it like what needs to be changed, added or taken away and anything that will allow me to make this a suitable Wikipedia article. -- CJAEAA (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@ CJAEAA: Hi, a few quick comments:
Peacock words: You should remove the subjective, unsubstantiated words of praise like award winning, internationally recognised from the intro. Take a look at MOS:INTRO and WP:PEACOCK. Same with is well known for his collaboration: just say has collaborated.
Bold name at first mention: I've added markup to the first sentence to put his name in boldface: see MOS:BOLDTITLE.
Early life: It would be helpful to provide some dates here: What year was he born? When did he get his first fashion job? When did the local paper write about him? Also, the line about the local paper should include a citation.
External links: External links generally shouldn't be directly embedded in the body of an article: see WP:ELPOINTS. You should remove the external links in the Collections and Book subsections. If you think they are necessary to support the article, consider using footnoted citations or putting them in the external links section. (The link in that section right now, to '', should be removed).
Overall: I suggest that you continue researching Pheasant, looking for external, reliable sources (Newspaper profiles/architectural reviews, e.g.), and try to avoid a press-release-y or overly promotional tone. For example, in He has worked with many famous clients on prestigious hotels and residential projects., you should remove the vague, overly effusive famous and prestigious, and instead provide more details of his clients and their projects.
Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Educational management

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback of my work from an editor's perspective and change my writing accordingly to meet the high standards of the Wikipedia community. Some areas of concerns include: definitions; descriptions of the scope of educational management; and the educational management of the country Finland.

Thanks, Siennahua (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Kazakh art

Hi! This is an article about Kazakh art, created as my university project and now I've listed this article for peer review. I like this country and really appreciate the opportunity to write an article about the beautiful Kazakh art. I am not a native English speaker, so please feel free to correct any stylistic, grammatical or other mistake I made.

Thanks, Ceiba chodatii (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Huda Beauty

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Luoluoyipai (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

To me this reads like a promotional article. Does the author have an undeclared Conflict of interest? Many of the puffery statements, e.g. "on (sic) of the top beauty influencer of Iraq immigrants in America giving a new standard of Mid Eastern beauty", are completely uncited. Many of the references are to the beauty industry in general, rather than this company. Those that do reference the company often have all the hallmarks of PR-placed pieces. Some of the claims seem odd: 26 million Instagram followers and 2 YouTube subscribers? The sources for these are 1) the company's own site and 2) an "interview" that begins, "So what's your coffee order?" Hard-hitting investigative reporting. The company's size probably means it does warrant an article, but this needs a lot of work. KJP1 (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011

I've listed this article for peer review because I have finished my draft but would really appreciate some assistance with ensuring I am fulfilling the Wikipedia formatting and referencing guidelines. I am new to Wikipedia so any assistance would be much appreciated.

Thanks, OLEWiki99 (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Bass Coast Festival

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure this article meets all the conditions.

Thanks, Krystinuuu (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Escape to the Chateau (TV series)

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Emmy3669 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Please comment on areas the content or structures needs to be improved, or areas that need to be changed as they don't align with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Emmy3669 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hide (musician)

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).

Thanks, editor oops 22:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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. editor oops 21:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bear and the Nightingale

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a draft and I know that there are some areas that are not 100% so I would like some feedback as to how to improve and what other information I can include about the novel. I still need to include a context section that talks about the incorporation of Slavic myths. Any feedback regarding how to improve the article to Wikipedia's recommended structure style would be very much appreciated. I have had a look at the Wikiproject for Novels and have tried to stick to their structure as much as possible.

Thanks, Farrah Mohammed (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Barry Allen (The Flash 2014 series)

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Pavement 1997 (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please review whether my season summaries are concise enough and if I am being too repetitive in my language.

Comments from Kailash

The article is in pathetic shape. It can be expanded with the sources found here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Kamaal Williams

I've listed this article for peer review because… It may require review in regard to the language and structure. I have attempted to organise the article logically and coherently, but there may be established practices that I have failed to reflect in my article.

Thanks, Joe Joe 33445 ( talk) 05:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Jirga (film)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to make sure the article fits within the guidelines for the film manual of style and find out what sections could be added to in order to push the article to feature status. Particularly the reception section seems thin. Some pages include a themes section, perhaps one of these could be added, however I don't know if it is relevant enough. Does the plot section require additional information? Thanks, EoinFeeney1 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Scottish jewellery

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.

Thanks, Dream8047!

Dream8047! (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council mural

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on the grammatical structure of the article written to ensure it is clear, concise and easy to read.

Thanks, Jstr0053 (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kamogawa Sea World

I've listed this article for peer review because… I am a new editor and I am not sure whether I am doing right. When I am writing this article, I found a lot of sentences which highly praise the Kamogawa Sea World. I think they are not neutral so I didn't use them. But in this case the introducing sentences seem to be too simple. Is there any better way to deal with such sentences? Also, I found a lot of images when I looked the main webpage of Kamogawa Sea World itself especially about the activity and facility. I don't know whether I can use them? Where can I find more images besides wikimedia? Finally, do you think some of my sections are helpless? Can you give me some advice about that? Thanks, YIFAN Andrew Wang (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@YIFAN Andrew Wang: I'd be glad to give some pointers, although I'm not an expert nor a peer reviewer, I am from Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks if you're interested in joining such communities to ask for help. Sources that either give positive or negative point of view can be used if the information is factual. Though when writing the article, editors should deal with such in a neutral point of view, that being, to give due weight. If something seems bias, try re-writing it according to all reliable sources view points on the subject matter. A good way to compare writing would to look at policies that give examples for such like Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial or articles that have Good Article or Featured status, such as Cedar Point; looking at our project guidelines to amusement park articles layout as a guidance tool is helpful when creating or expanding articles as well as MOS:Layout for general Wikipedia articles. Where you can, you may expand or merge section together where there's little information. Make sure the article has a flow, and don't list too many things where they can be in the form of a paragraph.
Images on Wikipedia and WikiCommons are not usually my forte, although great resources to ask about would be to confer at commons:Commons:Village pump or Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia's Teahouse, or look at our policies on images and copyrighted material (I find creative-commons to be a useful tool to finding freely licensed content, though make sure to refer to the image policy)
On sections, I wouldn't say they're helpless, though they would need to be reworded as to not sound like a travel guide. For instance, removing the instances of "you" for "guests", and to not be too specific; give a general understanding of what the park has to offer for attractions and an overview of its history, attractions, entertainment, awards, and other information that may adhere to amusement parks. Moreover, I would try to find more secondary sources that are reliable and verifiable and limit the usage of primary sources or sources that have information from basic review channels (i.e. TripAdvisor I would avoid, attempt to find more professional reviews from reliable secondary sources). If needing help to citing sources properly, I would suggest reading WP:CITE as it is very useful to different kinds of sources. I would say you're on the right track for editing though so be bold and keep on editing! And if needed, you're welcome to seek help from our projects talk page as there are editors there that specialize better in amusement parks and roller coaster subjects! 104 Talk to me 22:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I remove the template about insufficient inline citation?

Hello, I noticed that I receive a template said my article has insufficient inline citation.

After asking my teacher, I think it because I added citation after the subheadings rather than the inline sentences. But it seems the article has over citation now. Is it fine now?

Also, since I have added inline citation now, can I remove the template now or not? Although the wikipage Help:Maintenance template removal said I can remove the template when the issue has been adequately addressed, I am not sure whether I did right or I had fixed the issue.

Thank you.YIFAN Andrew Wang (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@YIFAN Andrew Wang: Yes you may remove the template since you have properly fixed the inline citation. 104 Talk to me 18:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.YIFAN Andrew Wang (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dexter's Laboratory

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be very close to FA status. I have personally spent a lot of hours on this article, which, in my favor, resulted in its promotion to GA status in early 2013. I want to eventually make this one a FA. There are no cleanup/maintenance banners on it, and as of this edit, there are no "citation needed" notices either. I previously nominated this article in 2013, but the nomination was declined. I'm looking to find what does or doesn't work in this article to make it fit for a FA candidate.

Thanks, Paper Luigi TC 06:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


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: 4 October 2018, 04:22 UTC
Last edit: 1 November 2018, 21:31 UTC


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: 27 September 2018, 17:56 UTC
Last edit: 21 October 2018, 02:57 UTC

Lana Turner

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: 26 August 2018, 05:10 UTC
Last edit: 18 November 2018, 15:59 UTC

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