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.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
im considering to promote it to FA to accommodate more songs for the 1989 topic on wikipedia, as part of project 1989. it would really help if you can spotcheck the little blemishes that might be left inside the article before nomination.
Thanks, brachy08(chat here lol)06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have been working on this article for a few days. Adi Meyerson is a jazz double bassist currently operating in New York City. I'm a fairly new editor, but my goal is to get this article up to GA status, as I think its achievable. One thing I know I might have to do but don't know how to is to split off the discography, as it is getting a bit large.
I hope that whoever reviews this can give me some good suggestions and reassess the article, as I don't want to overrate it.
This is what the article looked like just 1 week ago:
Are there any photos of the subject that could be added or requested?
Ensembles of which she was a guest rather than a member should not generally appear in |current_member_of=
Fixed, also changed the discography section to reflect this.
The lead could be streamlined - her beginning to play double bass is mentioned twice, which could be consolidated
Fixed, removed second second mention.
The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing, in particular for punctuation and capitalization in places where it isn't needed - eg "She has Synesthesia" should be "She has synesthesia"
Done
Subdoctoral academic designations are not generally included as honorific suffixes
Done
Is a date for her MM known?
Done
Publications should generally be italicized
Done
The article is on the shorter size for a potential GA. The Discography section suggests many collaborations which aren't discussed in the text, which would be one area for potential expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to feature article status at some point in the future, and I want to ensure that it is as complete as possible. If any additional changes could be made to the "Release" and "Reception" sections, please let me know. Moreover, if any additional sources exist that could be used to enlarge either one, I'll be happy to make the appropriate changes.
The section I'm most interested in improving is the film's "Production". I feel like I've exhausted my resources regarding either print or online sources, so if anyone is familiar with any additional sources that could be used, I'd really appreciate that. Lastly, if someone has access to a DVD of the film and could upload the audio commentary somewhere—a tall order, I know—that would be the most useful addition to the article after the behind-the-scenes documentary.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am trying to get this up for a successful Featured Article nomination. An outside look into its prose and sources to see what needs to be strengthened would be much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because... this article got GA'd in 2017, but in 2023 and 2024 I did a lot of content changes and additions that have kinda reshaped the whole thing, bar maybe the reception (which I'm planning on redoing) and the composition section. I am planning on having this article re-reviewed in full for Good Article status due to the amount of changes made once I am finished. There are several things in need of discussion:
A lot of the 2023 edits sucked. Around that time I generally approached things in an overly passionate/potentially biased manner, and I've slowly attempted to weed out those issues since then or otherwise. A common problem or area I question a lot due to this is the "aftermath" section, which details the media reception to Kittie, its consequences/effects(??) and some retrospective praise. Whilst there are sources detailing Kittie's frustration I am unsure if I have presented things correctly or got things wrong. If there's a way to improve it or otherwise, do tell. Or if I'm making it a bigger deal than it's supposed to be.
Check for citation issues, typos, prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, and missing information and anything else.
A Space for the Unbound is an Indonesian adventure video game developed by Mojiken Studio and published by Toge Productions. It was released on January 19, 2023, for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S. The game is set in the late 1990s and follows Atma and his girlfriend Raya, who live in a suburban area in Indonesia, as they explore their newly attained magical abilities and deal with supernatural powers that threaten their existence.
The sections Gameplay, Development, and Reception each contain 2-3 paragraphs, which I can't gauge whether it's comprehensive for a non-player. For the Plot, I reduced it to less than 700 words (691 words), so I wanted to see whether the plot summary is satisfactory.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how someone who hasn't played the game can improve it. Being promoted to a B-list article can do for me, but I'd like to see points on bringing it to A or above.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs improvement. I have tried, but with a lack of sources but Van Doren's own, I need help not just editing this but with everything. I want it to be at least good or featured
@Wcamp9: Peer review is a place where editors can get comments on how to improve the article. It very rarely results in someone new editing the article directly. If looking for more sources, I would suggest looking at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org or databases accessed through your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wcamp9, it has been over a month since the last comment. According to the comment above by Z1720, this PR is somewhat in error since PR is not a place to go to for article improvements. Therefore, can we close this discussion/request or…? dxneo (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to eventually turn it into a featured article. Tulsa King is a fantastic crime and comedy drama starring the one and only Sylvester Stallone. Just this year I have expanded it from basically a stub and turned it into a well fleshed out good article. I nominated it for FA shortly after, but it was quickly closed and suggested that it go through GOCE and PR. The copy edit was just recently performed, so I'm hoping to work out any other issues in this review before I send it back to FAC.
Henry Clay Work was the leading American songwriter of popular music from the 1860s to 1870s. He was one of the Union's preeminent bards in the Civil War whose inspiring songs rallied support for the nation and spurred patriots to quell the rebellion. His impressive catalog includes minstrel songs and seriocomedies such as "Kingdom Coming," "Grafted Into the Army" and the most successful composition of the North, "Marching Through Georgia." Work also played a part in the inception of the postbellum temperance movement cautioning against the intoxication of drink. To top it all off, he penned one of the most recognizable American folk songs, "My Grandfather's Clock." Work died lonely and forgotten, his popularity garnered throughout the Civil War having all but faded away in a matter of years. To this day, almost no one recognizes his name, a grievous disservice to a man who a man who contributed so much to the States' music tradition. I think an uninformed populace deserves a decent source of information on him, hopefully a featured article. I am open to all constructive criticism and advice, especially with regards to language and comprehensibility, not as a moral prerogative, but to do American musical history justice.
This preamble to the PR is too long. Provide a short description of the article, as this will be good practice for the FAC. Please also note that Wikipedia is an international website, and not everyone here is American: statements like "to vindicate Henry Work's valiant service to our nation" is unlikely to encourage non-American reviewers.
The lede is too long. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The block quote is not necessary in the lede.
The article uses too many quotes and block quotes. Instead, articles should summarise what sources have said about the lyrics. Lyrics only need to be in the article if absolutely necessary, and I do not think that is the case from every instance I can see in the article.
Yes @Z1720, it very much helps; in fact, your comments reflect the doubts I had on the article. I will keep all your suggestions in mind and effect them soon. I am eager to collaborate further :) DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All issues brought up should be fixed. However, I am not so confident on the removal of non-neutral language; some must have remained unnoticed, so should any be noticed, don't hesitate to address it. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article when it was the subject of an AfD for a supposed lack of notability, as well as being badly written. As I am Brazilian and would be able to read the Portuguese-language sources, I took it as a fun exercise to try to bring this article about a forgotten former child star up to Wikipedia standards, adding sources, formatting and copy-editing. I now believe it qualifies for C or B-class status, but would like your feedback as to what is appropriate and what could be improved upon (or whether it even meets the criteria for either of these).
hello, cvdx. congratulations on saving this article from getting afd’d. personally, i feel that this article can reach c class, not sure about b tho. i feel that the article definitely improved from its initial state. if you want to, you can jump straight into nominating it for ga status. but if you fell like this article has a long way to go, try to find as many sources as possible (if you are not sure what is reliable or not, this should help a bit, but it is best to use wp:rspbrachy08(chat here lol)05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a GA reviewer which has two other GA's, the article does not seem to be anywhere close to GA, probably going to result in a quick fail. I'm going to add my own comments to this really tiny article and see if the article is eligible enough for GA. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗02:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to take it to FAC. Would appreciate feedback from @Femke and UndercoverClassist:, who left many comments at the failed FAC (but did not leave a supporting vote). Thanks, 750h+12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping: at the moment, I don't have much to add to what I wrote at the FAC, but I'd be happy to take another look if the article's content were to change substantially. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of has (went from around 5 and a half thousand words since you last reviewed to 6.1K) but I can wait until Femke leaves her comments if that’s fine. 750h+16:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad to see this PR. This is a tough article to get right due to the hype and hatred around Tesla, which means we need a more critical look at sources compared to other car articles. I will review some more, but not sure when as I've got family visiting and might have a long covid crash afterwards. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got a few minutes, so I'll continue where we left off, the environmental impact section.
The sentence about unintuitiveness still doesn't work for me. Now, it's unclear what unintuitive. The point the guy wanted to make is that Tesla's batteries have very high recyclability, not that it's unintuitive.
Dana Thompson is unlikely to be notable (she's a PhD student or postdoc I think). WP:Red links are for notable topics.
should i remove her part?
In terms of organisation of the section:
I would start with the CO2 emissions story, which in my (biased) opinion, is more important than the battery story.
done
I would group all the bits around recycling of batteries into one paragraph as much as possible
this is a gigantic paragraph, i think i will have to leave it as two
It may be nice to talk about how Tesla repurposes old batteries as home batteries (reuse), rather than go the recycle route.
A 2021 scientific study by iScience --> Usually, we don't say a study is by the publisher. The journal only printed it, they didn't write it. Best to say "A 2021 study" instead.
Given that 2015 is 9 years in the past, the word "current" in "due to limited data on current recycling practices" is off. It can be omitted, or replaced with "at the time" after recycling practices. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: thoughts now? Is there any way you think i should expand on "It may be nice to talk about how Tesla repurposes old batteries as home batteries (reuse), rather than go the recycle route", bit confused here. Sorry for the late response 750h+10:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a GA. Please edit any grammar mistakes, inconsistencies, etc. Note that the fans and platform doors part says "it was installed by [X date]" since there weren't any sources that said when they were actually installed.
@Imbluey2 Just a quick look, so not too many comments:
When it opened, the station faced two problems; no direct access to Chinese Garden (despite being next to it) as well as to the station itself from the opposite side where most of its commuters lived. - simplify a bit, perhaps "When it opened, the station lacked direct access to Chinese Garden despite being next to it, as well as to the opposite side of the road where most of its commuters lived."
User Template:Convert to convert the numerical units so that those using Imperical units can understand as well: 1.3km -> 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi) for example. Same for the amount of money using Template:SGDConvert.
Perhaps the most prominent feature of the station, the curved roof is based on traditional Chinese architecture. - Do watch out for WP:PUFFERY, specifically the word "prominent". Also, I would advise against the word "perhaps" since it implies you're guessing that it is (which should not be the case).
Specifically, Scott Danielson of Parson Brinckerhoff said that... - When I first looked at it I didn't know who Scott Danielson was until I read the source. Perhaps change it to -> Designer of the station Scott Danielson of Parson Brinckerhoff said that...
Thank you! I've implemented your feedback but I don't really know if the imperial units used are appropriate Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I have done a fair bit of work to the article and feel it is no longer a Stub article. Prior to this the article had not been updated since 2023.
Any comments or contributions are greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen for any suggestions for improvement. I would also like the page to be indexed on search engines to encourage contributions by the broader wikipedia community.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this page to GA status soon. In addition to the standard stuff for peer reviews I want to know if there are any missing sections that are needed for an article about a geographical region. I also want to know how can I expand the Lede section of this article.
Thanks, Abo Yemen✉09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears what this article needs most is more citations to support existing information, and presumably to add new information. In terms of what content could be developed, there is presumably a lot that could be added for late 20th century and 21st century history, as well as items such as when Pasacao became a municipality. More information could be added about the barangays, and about demographics. There are existing sources in demographics that could be used for more prose. The infobox has an oil depot image, but this is not mentioned in Economy. There is also economic information in the infobox not in the article. Culture looks like it could use a lot of expansion. There is a lack of coverage of politics and administration. Best, CMD (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... it was suggested in the GA review that this may be a future FAC. I've never written a featured article before, but I wanted feedback on the article geared towards that to see if it's within reach or not. I'm pretty familiar with GAN but don't know a ton about FAC.
Extraterrestrial rivers are not discussed. I believe there are active methane rivers on Titan and dried river beds on Mars?
Types of rivers are not discussed (e.g., Braided river) and how rivers can be classified based on morphology.
Geology is missing. What geological features are caused by rivers, what is the impact of rivers on sedimentation and rock formation, etc.
Also, earth history seems to be missing. 400 million years ago, before plants, rivers tended to be wide and straight, right?
A common misconception holds that all or most rivers flow from North to South, but this is not true. – I don't think that is accurate. The source talks about the US but the statement seems to be for the entire world. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-Earth rivers thing is kind of interesting, the old River article used to talk about it. There is a blurb about Mars in the article, but could be expanded. The problem with the rivers on Titan is that they are not made of water, to my knowledge. Therefore by our definition they are not rivers. Which may be a little out of step with colloquial practice but is a notable distinction. ForksForks (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mars mention seems a bit out of place in my opinion. In my opinion, a separate section on extraterrestrial rivers is a good solution. I would also include Titan rivers there, because they are called rivers in the respective sources. I don't think that the definition of the article precludes this mention. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, fellow editors. Despite it being home to one of the worst cases of human rights abuses in South Korean history, the article for Brothers Home had been in a poor state ([1]) since its creation in 2016. I have been working on it for about a month, and major sections of the article are still in progress. While I would love to see the article GA nominated, it is still far from meeting all its criteria.
As the center has only gathered interest in Western media in recent years, many sources are inevitably in Korean. I will notify Wikiproject Korea with the PR, but any commentary, whether it'd be on formatting, references, or style, will be greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially re-wrote, re-structured, and ref-filled the article.
I am seeking an upgrade of the rating to at least "B", with comments and recommendation for further improvement.
I've listed this article for peer review because
I’m not sure if I worded my sources good enough on the page and I wanted to hear you guys thoughts about it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this for featured article and there are sourcing questions on other related articles.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten it and I would like to develop it further and improve the prose and style, as an inexperienced editor I am struggling to do so and would appreciate feedback.
I think it is developing well, given the paucity of solid evidence. An obvious improvement would be a look at sourcing. In-line citation is going well but when you look at it, it is drawing from very few sources. It is also heavy on the use of the Auchinleck Chronicle, which would count as a primary source and therefore, not ideal in wiki's eyes. I think this small number of sources is particularly highlighted because the article has an extensive "Further Reading" section, which does not seem to have been used in creating the article. I'm no subject expert but from I can see, there are some solid works in that list that might be used to diversify the source base. Monstrelet (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SeanPadraig, I will add more comments soon. For now, consider incorporating Monstrelet's advice, and remove the usage of primary sources. From what I've seen, WP prefers sources from after 1950 more, so 1800s sources are obviously no-goes. Academic sources are prioritised and government sources should only be used if the former are rare or unavailable. Thus you should incorporate the sources listed in the Further Reading section, as Monstrelet has said. Also, I would recommend linking, in the infobox, to the pages for the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland and those of the commanders we have pages for (for example, Hugh Douglas, Earl of Ormonde). After that, I would advice using the coordinates we have listed to add a map in the infobox. More to come once you've done these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to know if it could qualify to be a good article. Also if it needs any change in the wording, etc.
I'd remove the combat infobox; this wasn't a both-sided thing, and it wasn't only against Shining Path members.
I would add in the section of background context that eugenics had been proposed but never implemented until Fujimori's regime to the beginning part of the lede.
I feel some reviewers might be confused why three of the journal articles (the two Chaparro‐Buitrago sources and Chávez & Coe 2007) aren't used but are cited. I'd recommend using these or putting them in further reading if not useful.
I think you want to generally avoid hatnoting red links.
There's a complete lack of images here; for the act itself I can imagine that there'd be little in the way of PD/CC images, but you can at least put in a picture of Fujimori, and any later feminist activists etc.
Giulia Tamayo uses the term "health festivals" but this isn't ever discussed earlier in the article (and should probably be given a Spanish translation if thats a translated phrase)
I did a complete re-write of this article and would love peer feedback. I corrected a few factual errors I found. I removed text that was either plagiarized by previous editors, or had been plagiarized by other websites, as it was word-for-word the same as text found elsewhere on the Internet. I also addressed the issues raised in previous cleanup banners. I added structure to the article, and brought in more context to help fill in the story beyond the obviously entertaining "cow flew" information to frame Elm Farm Ollie's adventure within the larger historical scope.
I know there is still room for improvement. I appreciate feedback on all elements of the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a good deal of effort into it and would appreciate commentary on how to make it accessible to a wide audience, which Celtic Studies is historically lacking, making it subject to all sorts of pseudo historical writing in the public field.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status. Over the past few months I redid most of the citations and greatly expanded the article and I want to get a second pair of eyes on it. I'm also trying to track down a pair of citations (discussed in the talk page).
It's been a while since this article's last Good Article Nomination, and it has expanded considerably since then. I don't see any obvious issues at first glance, other than the History.com ref, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on this.
I consider peer review of this article important, since Encyclopedia Britannicastill hasn't covered possibly the worst post-Cold War mass genocide, happening in 1994 with 500K-1M dead (though to be fair, they were busy going broke competing with Microsoft Encarta).⸺(Random)staplers22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some drive by comments, not a deep dive by any means
- In the Preparation for genocide section there are several one or two sentence paragraphs and one massive paragraph. The way this is structured feels unfortunate to me and the information presentation would be improved by altering this
- sexual violence, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- Killing of the Twa, one paragraph level-one heading - should either be expanded to show its significance for that level of heading or folded into another section if it's not
- Rwandan Patriotic Front's military campaign and victory, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
-France and Opération Turquoise, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- "HBO Films released the made-for-television historical drama film titled Sometimes in April in 2005." unsourced
- "Pierre Rutare, the Tutsi father of Belgian-Rwandan singer Stromae, was killed in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide." unsourced
- Commemoration, another level-one one paragraph heading. this feels like it can be significantly expanded
- Maps of Rwanda any particular reason why this is here
citations:
The citation formatting is generally inconsistent. Some news sources are rendered as long cites and some are in bibliography and given shortened cites. Pick one or the other for news/non-paginated sources. formatting should be more consistent also
- many sources need to be properly formatted for consistency
- need page on kirschke citation
- there has to be a better source than the unlinked Akayesu trial document
- citation from Genin, Aaron should be sentence or title case not all caps
- citation from huffpost should be replaced, there has to be a better source for this given the scholarship available on this topic
Thank you for this important article on one of the most tragic events of post-WWII world history. I think the article is really near to GA or even FA.
Please find my comments below:
Consider introducing people when they are first mentioned: Kanyarwanda > the mythical king Kanyarwanda; Ruhanga > the god Ruhanga, Yoweri Museveni > the military strongman Yoweri Museveni etc.
Citation style should be standardised (for instance, citation No [28] differs from the previous ones)
Make sure that all pieces of information are properly introduced (for instance, the reference to a pro-Tutsi party comes out of the blue in section 1.2 in lack of a previous reference to the party system in Rwanda; we are not informed why the Belgians started to support the Hutu; who created the republic?, etc).
Please doublecheck the use of tenses: "the Tutsi origin myth holds that Kanyarwanda had several sons, including Gatutsi and Gahutu, ancestors of the Tutsi and Hutu who are therefore brothers"; These exiles, unlike the Banyarwanda who migrated during the pre-colonial and colonial era, were regarded as refugees, etc.
Please consider using a more neutral language in some cases: "a force of over 4,000 rebels"
Consolidate short sections into one, especially if a single sentence makes up a section.
Make sure that duplications are avoided (for instance, the establishment of palamilitary forces Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi is mentioned twice)
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Hi. I recently created this article on a book written by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors. It’s about Donald trump’s financial and business life and is bound to reach #1 on the NYT list. Looking for people to improve the summary and maybe add a new section or two covering release and promotion. Also open to feedback on language and prose.
I wrote this article some time ago, and I have been considering nominating it for a while now. However, I've never had the courage or patience to do so, mainly because I've never been involved in this kind of process before.
I'm opening this peer review request specifically to gain a second perspective on what might be improved in the article—if there's anything that needs improvement, which is likely the case, as I'm certainly not an all-knowing being. It's possible that I may have overlooked a detail or two regarding the subject of this article.
I believe much has already been done. For example, the manuscript images, which I believe were previously unpublished, were found after extensive searching on Gallica. To give you an idea, some English academics working on a similar manuscript were still searching for this one on Twitter in 2021. Additionally, the information has been compiled, mostly from the works of Rodrigues and Dalby & Hair, which were previously scattered across the internet. I was also able to contextualize and add a brief history of other vocabularies that preceded this one. At the end, there is a brief analysis of the vocabulary's content.
How strange to run into Pigafetta so far from the Philippines. Have read through this interesting article and came away with a few questions.
How do we know if that there was a first "attempt" at creating a list of words? This feels like the sort thing any trader might have done, especially if the result is a paltry six words!
The medial "u" and "n" issue is mentioned twice, these could be combined. It is probably also worth explaining more clearly, for those not in the know, what the issue is.
When the document was "probably collected", does that mean recorded/written down?
Did Pigafetta and Lamy record the same spelling/pronunciation for those words in common? What are the "original spelling"s, original compared to?
Please provide English translations as well as French ones.
Was the Kra slave trade not a commercial interaction?
It is probably worth including a very brief explanation of Tupi somewhere, including modern dialects. Has anyone compared this document to the modern language?
This article has a long history. Its main author, Fowler&fowler, has invited me to revise it, and, with his approval, I am now putting it up for a second peer review (the first was in 2011) with FAC in mind. I was unsure whether to list this under Religion and philosophy or Arts, as Mandell Creighton was an outstanding Bishop of London until his early death and also a leading and innovative historian. Comments are cordially invited on style, balance, prose, citations and anything else. Tim riley talk14:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by Tim riley to look over this article. The WP:LEAD does not give an adequate overview of the content of the article. It says nothing about his early life, is vague in places and contains general statements that are tangential to Creighton and could be stated (as I tried to do) with more direct relevance to him, like "around the time that history was emerging as an independent academic discipline in England." I made some preliminary edits to the Lead but user:Fowler&fowler reverted them wholesale without discussion. I also made some minor edits to streamline notes in the next section, which were also reverted without comment by the same user. I am unwatching the article and this page, and I wish you good luck, but I think there is a lot of work to do on this article to bring it up to FA quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I don't know who you are, so I have nothing against you. I do understand that the lead should be a balanced summary of the article, which the lead was not. All I had suggested was that you are better off making the suggestions here (i.e in the peer review section) and allowing Tim riley to transmute them into his diction. Otherwise, there is too much back and forth, and the article can begin to sound a bit like what Virginia Woolf had said about Captain Marryat's books, i.e. contain springy prose. But it is not a big deal. I have now reverted the article to your last edit. Please accept my heartfelt apology. Apologies also to @Tim riley:. I will now butt out for the duration of the review. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting, which I did not notice until just now. I am sure that Tim is capable of editing the language of the Lead to effectuate his "diction" and the further suggestions about the section that I had sent him off-line. I'll leave you two to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in all things climbing and this is an important 'head article' on the topic that covers many sub-topics and concepts, almost all of which I have tried to link into this article.
It had fallen into poor shape so I decided to try and improve it (I have been bringing the main sub-topic articles up to standard). The subject matter is reasonably stable, as the only developments in rock climbing are new "hardest" routes that only happen every decade, or the creation of new sub-disciplines, which have not happened for over twenty years. The sport continues to expand globally and is now in the Olympics.
Generally, this seems to be in good shape. If you like to nominate this at WP:FAC, I think that covering different areas around the world is necessary, as well as a "Cultural impact" section (at the moment, there is only a list "In film", that that should be text). It helps to look at existing FAs to see what the expectations are, such as Baseball. Note that the "history" section in that article has a much broader scope, including a section "Around the world". Also notice the "Popularity and cultural impact" section, again with subsections on different parts of the world, and the "In popular culture" subsection (that is just text, not a list of movies). If the article fails at FAC, then it is probably because coverage of these aspects are weak, and a strong bias on Europe/US may not be accepted there.
I understand what you are saying and let me think about how to build this as a section. There is probably less on the 'cultural' impact of rock climbing as it is still a newish sport, however, it is growing quite fast now (e.g. The Guardian, Forbes), and I could cover its global growth.
The listing of particular websites and magazines in-text will probably be questioned at FAC, too. I see that these mentions have practical value, but remember that we are an Encyclopedia, and this level of detail might be better placed in the main article Climbing guidebook, unless they are really pertinent to the topic.
Understand. I had a great academic paper done on climbing media but could not find it when I was writing the article; if I can't find a high-quality coverage of this, I will take these out.
Make sure that everything is covered by the cited sources. For example, this sentence is only partly covered: Important new first ascents are also chronicled in specialist rock climbing media, including climbing magazines such as Alpinist, Climbing, Desnivel (in Spanish), Grimper [fr] (in French), Klettern [de] (in German), Outside, and on major climbing websites — several of which that were former magazines — such as PlanetMountain (Italian-based site), Gripped (Canadian-based site), and UKClimbing (UK-based site).[31] – The source [31] does not seem to mention those websites and some of the magazines, or the fact that they were former magazines and so on. If there is no source that lists the most important websites, that would be another argument not to mention specific ones at all (making an own selection here is already fishy). At FAC, there will be a spotcheck – a sample of sources will be checked for text-source integrity.
Understand. Per above, was missing a very good source I had on this, but can't find it. Your point is well made and will give the article a good run-through for source-checking and make sure that it is tight.
Great comments as always Jens. Let me have a longer look at addressing the first one, which I think is important and will take me a little more time. I will ping you again if that is okay when I have updated it. Thanks again, Aszx5000 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear how close this article is to passing a featured article candidacy. It is largely unchanged since I brought it to GA last December. At the time, I remember doing as comprehensive a review as I possibly could of the available academic sources discussing the topic, but I've never touched the FA process before, so any input is very welcome!
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like an important topic in this field, gets a lot of traffic, and needs some more work to become a solid article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm not sure how else to improve it. I think getting extra feedback from more people will help push the article to B-class or even Good Article status.
Lede seems particularly short; it should be a couple sentences, a brief summary of the article as a whole.
You have a few uncited claims;
Last paragraph of Early life
Last paragraph of Imprisonments (also, this should probably be part of the previous paragraph; one sentence paragraphs are generally to be avoided.
as well as the co-chairman of Chongryon in 1947 at the end of Formation of Chongryon
The sentence ending held the position of chairman of Chongryun until his death in 2001 (this has a CN tag)
There's a few prose correction's I'd make too, to conform with MoS and such.
You call him "Deok-su" throughout the article. For one, I think it might be better to rename the page to Han Deok-su to conform to this; but moreover, it's better to refer to people by their surname (Han in this case) unless they're nobility or you're talking about them in the context of other people with the same surname.
Shouldn't it be Higashiizu? (also, he was in a labor union in a different town than he lived in?)
When beginning a new paragraph, don't say "he"; say Han.
Wikilink Chongryon and give more context for what it is and what it does.
Specify what the Nine Wolseobang is; a bookstore I presume?
Are there any pictures of early Chongryon meetings or such you could use?
I was able to find some academic sources which mention him; these should definitely be incorporated for a B/GA level article. These are just English ones; I don't have access to databases for Japanese/Korean academic articles, but if you do, you should search for articles there! These here should be accessible via WP:LIBRARY
Kim, M. (2015). How Does Diaspora Mobilization Become a Causal Feature of Structural Change? Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 2(3), 266-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797015601915
Hasegawa, Kenji, and Kenji Hasegawa. "Postwar Departures and Reversions in Mid-1950s Japan: Chongryon, Okinawa, and ‘Bloody Sunagawa’." Student Radicalism and the Formation of Postwar Japan (2019): 167-212. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-1777-4
Ryang, Sonia. "The Rise and Fall of Chongryun—From Chōsenjin to Zainichi and beyond." The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 14, no. 15 (2016): 1-16. https://apjjf.org/2016/15/ryang
Thanks for the feedback and even the extra sources! I've fixed some of the typos and citations, and I'll be sure to add the extra references once I get an exam done. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created it and I want to see how it could be improved to be more clear, concise and understandable to a general audience.
Might be worth clarifying exactly what " Progress towards this goal is generally measured from a biodiversity baseline of 2020 levels." means.
I would expect some discussion about who came up with it, when, and why.
The "Distinction from existing policy approaches" subsection is irritatingly technical. Look to make the differences as clear and straightforward as possible—draw clear parallels between NP, NNL and NPI, and mark the differences. A table may be helpful: see WP:TABLE.
Make sure that there is as little "corporate jargon" as possible. Take the third paragraph of the subsection, "Nature positive also emphasises review and transformation to align all the decisions within a business with the goal of achieving nature positive..." I think the point could be conveyed in around 60% of the current wordcount. Clarity and precision should be the buzzwords for you.
"no concise headline goal to address biodiversity loss...no equivalent for biodiversity loss" unnecessary duplication.
"Nature positive was therefore proposed as a "global goal for nature"" so the definition of nature positive was agreed upon before it was formally defined?
I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially edited the page to address concerns raised in the featured list removal discussion. Before nominating this list for FL status once again, I would like to have others review it to ensure I'm not missing something.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to make it a featured list, but I'm not sure what else I need to do besides adding more prose and background, as the list itself is essentially complete.
The recurring themes section doesn't need those two subsection headers imo; both are too short. Just have the section without the headers
The first sentence should just use the WP:COMMONNAME for the country: "Within North Korea, propaganda...". Concision.
I don't think "propagation" can be used like that in the first sentence. Think you could reword it to "propaganda slogans are an important aspect of propaganda in North Korea". Then remove the see also section per WP:NOTSEEALSO.
The second photo is squeezing the table a bit. It's also not a very good photo (far away). I'd recommend you just remove it altogether.
I did just about everything. However, I'm a little confused by the second to last bullet about the references. Does that mean I need to find a wider variety of references, or is it a matter of having to edit the code? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer. It's good practice to:
Add access dates for online materials; link rot is a growing issue nowadays
Wikilink publication names when possible
Standardize use of MOS:DATEFORMAT; there are currently DMY and MDY dates both used in the article. You should pick one of the two and be consistent. Should ideally place {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}} on the article too (just below the short description).
Some of the refs are lacking possible information; notably the last one and the Uriminzokkiri one.
There's a deadlink that should be replaced
There's probably more that can be said too, this was just quick feedback. I recommend you look at WP:FA-level articles to see how they handle references. Something that uses news and online articles. seefooddiet (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. I have another idea for the list. It's very tedious to scroll through the whole thing. Would it help if I were to split it up into topics (Politics, Agriculture, Military, etc)? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added row scopes and Korean a few hours ago. I also elaborated more on the sources from UCSD. I've done nearly everything that @Seefooddiet recommended me to do, though I might need to go back and check for formatting and capitalization errors. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
