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 I want to nominate this to FAC. Since the previous failed FAC mentioned the prose quality, I received help from WP:GOCE. I would appreciate to receive other feedbacks to improve this article.
Although K-pop is not my main era, it's so good to see that my native country idols are planned to be FA, thanks to nice contributors like you. I'm so proud of it!
I just quickly chekced some probs, and I found that:
I think Name section should be expanded more, or be integrated to other sections.
Time is linked twice but in different section. I don't think the wikilink in Artistry section necessary. (But not in Impact section; I believe it's useful in there.)
I didn't mention other duplicated links which is linked twice in different section, except Time. But you can download this script to detect DL and fix them if you think they're unnecessary :).
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been getting prepped for FAC over the last couple weeks and I just wanted to get some extra eyes on it to get it further ready before it gets nominated. -- ZooBlazer05:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to make this article in FA, but once I failed to gather comments and reviews on the other article, I decided to conduct Peer review first. Thanks, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added all the information I can find on it, organized the sources accordingly and expanded greatly. I would like to submit this for GA review but I started this from scratch and would like a look-over before doing so.
I've listed this article for peer review as I have recently made some improvements and would like feedback on the article as a whole. I think it should be close to GA class and hopefully too much more isn't required to get it there.
Overall, the article has good shape, but I recommend:
In Chart and sales performance, I found {{citation needed}}. This must be addressed first before you nominating the article to GA or FA. Also I believe section name is kinda long for me
Per WP:LEADCITE, citiations in lead section are usually not welcome.
The section name, "Anyway, here's Wonderwall meme", is kinda awkward to me. I would just name it as "Usage in other media".
For GA and FA status, |alt= is always required in every picture in the article.
In Awards and accolades, why don't you describe them as prose format rather than list?
I've worked on this article a couple of times now, a biggish overhaul back in 2020, and then again just now with a more modest tidy and using a few more sources. It's a fantastic example of realism, used as propaganda for the home front, by the greatly under appreciated artist Laura Knight. The intention may be to go on to FAC after this, but it depends on the comments here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 @SchroCat The featured picture has a lot more character despite the lower resolution. The black level is a lot better resulting in improved shadows. The high resolution scan is washed out. I would suggest using the older version (at least in the infobox) due to these characteristics. Possibly include the high res scan as an image later in the article. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is whether the current FP represents the painting as it exists today. Being in North America, I can only see what the museum has on its website, which has changed in ten years (I uploaded the current FP using Dezoomify in 2015). If the painting has the same high levels of saturation, great. But if it's actually looking faded right now... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've reviewed the prose and have some general comments below:
"For the song, Drake led the songwriting, delving into the complexities of trust, loyalty, and betrayal in relationships under the pressure of fame." - "delving into the complexities of trust..." feels a bit editorialized to say in wiki-voice Zzz plant (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"It received positive critical reception from music critics, with some labeling it an "acclaimed track"." - did anyone besides Rolling Stone label it like this? I only see that one, so I don't think it should be "some" unless it's summarizing multiple opinions Zzz plant (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"On August 1, 2019, Drake announced Care Package via Instagram." I would recommend introducing briefly what Care Package is before this sentence. This felt a bit out of left field to me because Care Package hadn't been mentioned except in the lede Zzz plant (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the background and release section to me seems more like just a release section. it's pretty thin on background (i.e. songwriting process, mixing). I know sometimes the sources just don't have the level of detail we want as editors, but I do wonder if there's more out there given Drake is such a well-known artist. Zzz plant (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
""Trust Issues" generally received positive reviews from music critics. Writing for Pitchfork, Tom Breihan described it as "slow and depressive", noting how it tweaks Drake's chorus from "I'm on One" into a heavier vibe." the transition between these two sentences feels rather strange, or I guess I should say that the selection of quotes from Breihan doesn't really pertain to the reception. It's more of his thoughts on the song's composition/style, rather than conveying a positive review. Like, someone could think a song is slow and depressive but still give it a poor review. If he did receive it positively, I'd select quotes (or paraphrase) to make that make that fact clearer. Zzz plant (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
overall the reception reads as a tad quote-heavy to me. I would recommend trying to paraphrase or synthesize the critical consensus with thematic organization. this essay offers some tips; I find myself returning to it often when I'm workshopping reception sections. Zzz plant (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I wrote this article a bit ago and it was recently promoted to GA. The prose feels pretty in-depth to me, and I'm considering taking it to FAC, but would like to gather any other suggestions for improvement that I can first.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to nominate the article for GA status, but want to know if I should add to or improve parts of it prior.
In answer to your question: yes I think information should be added to the article because it is quite short. Additional sources for the article can be found at Google Scholar, [www.archive.org archive.org], WP:LIBRARY or databases that your local library system has access to.
If any sources analyse his artistic style, I would add a section that describes that.
I'm not sure why there is a quote in the "Enigma Variations" section. I suggest removing the quote or giving it context.
Ref 25 adn 28 are the same ref, so I suggest merging them.
Ref 23: "Padgett, Robert W. (2016-06-13)." seems to be a wordpress website. Why is this a reliable source? If it isn't reliable it should bee removed.
I've listed this article for peer review to know if the it needs improvement and if it is also ready to be nominated as a Good Article candidate. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑(𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔)04:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D.18th: Comments after a quick skim: I think the "Cast" section can be trimmed to just the main cast members (and maybe supporting) while the "special appearances" section is removed. The "listicles" section can also be removed as unencyclopedic. Once those are resolved this can probably be nominated at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D.18th: Looking at other television good articles like 30 Rock and Awake (TV series) I do not see the same list of guest actors. I think the list can either be removed or the cast section can be put into more prose, with the guest actors and their significance explained in more detail. Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to Featured Article status. It is currently a GA. Anything is welcome! From my GA, I thought I had addressed everything, but let me know if some things are lacking in terms of an FA. For specific sections to look at: I'd appreciate looking at the Football section, I don't know much about football so I only hope it's accurate and comprehensive per the sources and in relation to his professional football stint. I also hope the tone is not too positive, or too biased for him.
sallam alaikum. i do know a bit about football (or soccer, i prefer calling it football), and i think the football section is pretty good, and quite comprehensive for what is a relative blip on this article. the tone's not too bad, the sources are good, too. unfortunately i don't have much else to add here, sorry =( but i hoped this helped =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, thanks for reviewing :) yes football is not the reason he's famous at all lol but considering he joined a team and almost bought a club, I guess it's a pretty big deal, so wanted to make sure it was alright. jolielover♥talk04:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi jolie, a few notes on sourcing at an FAC standard:
What makes the Evening Standard, Spectrum Culture, Euphoria, Talent Recap, Culted, TBHonest, Hypebeast, United By Pop, Access All Areas, Endole, and Vicehigh-quality reliable sources (WP:HQRS and WP:FA?)?
Consistent reference title casing and linking of parameters will need to be sorted (WP:CITESTYLE).
Album titles and other major works should be placed in italics in reference titles, just like with normal text (MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE).
Simmilarly, songs and other minor works should be placed in quotes – single or double, alternating with other quotes (MOS:MINORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
178 is 404-ing, so url-status should be set to dead.
My overall impression is that this is might not be a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature (WP:FA?). While there are a lot of quality newspapers and entertainment publications cited, I see a lot of zines and websites of questionable reliability and quality. I know that entertainment (especially teen entertainment) sourcing can be hard to come by, but is this the best sourcing available for this subject? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va?18:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in taking this article to FAC, after a successful good article nomination. This is my first time at PR, but don't hold back if you notice anything awry with the article. Thanks in advance :) Leafy46 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RedShellMomentum: Thanks for your comments here! I have applied all your suggestions, except for the last one (I learned early on to link it only the first time a website appears, to avoid overlinking). Leafy46 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment that while it is still optional, linking websites in citation templates more than once is permissible per MOS:DUPLINK: "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". TheDoctorWho(talk)19:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured article. It is already a good article and I would appreciate feedback on what's necessary for it to merit FA status.
I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar, where hopefully it will get more reviews. I recommend that you review other articles at WP:FAC to help get an understanding of the FA criteria and to build goodwill amongst editors. I also recommend that you seek a FA mentor who can give comments and advice on achieving your first successful FAC. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I want to try to get this to FAC so I wanna see what else can be done before taking it to there. Any suggestions would be great. GamerPro6401:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are several references that are difficult verify because they are not digitised (e.g. "Captain Novolin". Super Control. and A-Z of Games
Captain Novolin is a 2D side-scroller. Is obviously looking at the screenshot but it would be nice to add an extra ref
It is nice practice to have consistence letter case in the ref titles (either all words capitalized or only the first capitalized). In our case most refs use the former but some use the latter
This article, about the ubiquitous TI-84 Plus calculator series, was recently promoted to GA status; I am looking to make it a Featured article, starting with a peer review. This is especially important as I have written around 90% of the article, and I would like a more neutral perspective on its quality.
One thing that immediately jumps out at me is the proliferation of very short sections, especially under Equipment and Variants. These typically get a bad reception at WP:FAC, probably w/r/t WP:FACR 2b (appropriate structure). You might want to take a look at the articles in WP:FA#Computing to get a feel for how other authors have organized their articles.
On the sourcing end of things, you rely heavily on datamath.org. I suspect you will have a hard time convincing reviewers that this is a WP:HQRS. Based on what I can read under http://www.datamath.org/ (Me, My Family, and My Hobbies), this looks like a one-person project with no real editorial oversight. Possilby WP:UGC. That's going to be a tough sell at WP:FAC.
You also cite a lot of material on the ticalc.org website. I strongly doubt this would pass muster as a WP:HQRS. Users can upload their own files per https://www.ticalc.org/help/faq/30.html so basically WP:UGC.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on its overall structure, sourcing, and clarity, and to identify any issues that should be addressed before a potential Good Article nomination.
The lead should be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Every level 2 heading should be summarised in the lead.
The "Development" and "Reception" sections are quite long. I suggest summarising the text more effectively and using level 3 headings to break up the text
Suggest using [iabot.toolforge.org/index.php] to archive the websites. You might also want to expand out these citations by adding access dates and author last names.
As someone that accepted this article, these are my suggestions:
The text in the lead During development, Miju Games shared two roadmaps in 2022 and 2023 outlining planned features and updates. and The PC version holds a Metacritic score of 81 out of 100. could be removed. Same could be said about citations in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, provided that the information in the lead is repeated elsewhere in the article.
Perhaps the definition of "overwhelmingly positive" and "very positive" should be clarified as not all readers have Steam.
Also, if you haven't already, please feel free to read the good article criteria, and take a look at existing GA video game articles (perhaps those released after 2015) to get an idea of what it should look like. Otherwise, I feel this could be ready for GA! JuniperChill (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@OmegaAOL The opposite - I found enough grammatical errors and missed words to convince me that an LLM did not write it, unless the LLM was told to specifically insert errors of wording. I've fixed them all now, I think. Unconventional format may be due to the writer not being used to our specific manual of style. Komonzia (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended following FA nomination. The introduction and “structure” and “gardens” section of the Description were already fixed. Everything else was recommended to be reviewed for grammar and phrasing.
One thing that jumps out at me is that the article starts with some relatively unimportant facts. I would start out the Description section with more basic information. Think Elevator pitch. Imagine the following conversation: "Hi, what have you been working on?" "I'm writing about the Santos Passos Church" "I've never heard of it, tell me about it". You have my attention for one more minute, what do you tell me? I assume you wouldn't start by telling me the elevation.
You'd probably start with something like "It's an 18th century Catholic church in northern Portugal designed by André Soares" Then I imagine you would give a general description of what the building: it has bell tower and a side chapel. There are three rectangular gardens in front with a stone fountain and four granite statues. These seem like the most important things. Telling the reader that it's at an elevation of 571 meters seems like it would be way down on the list.
Nowadays, five Oratories remain, nowadays should be replaced with {{asof}}
By the early 18th century, the chapel was ruined and a safety hazard the juxtaposition of "ruined" (a verb) and "a safety hazard" (a noun) is strange. Perhaps "... had decayed into ruins and was a safety hazard".
seven Oratories were constructed across the city by the Irmandade; only five remain to this day this repeats what was said earlier in the Oratories section.
Hi @RoySmith: I’ve made the changes you suggested, although I disagree with the elevator-pitch example for the description section, for that section is meant to... describe. That approach would be more applicable to the opening paragraphs of the article, even though I believe they already serve that purpose well enough. Still, I’m open to further suggestions, thank you. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been building up this article for quite some time, and am attempting to (at some point) get this to a GA, so that it can feature on did you know.
@Pr0m37h3u$: Comments after a quick skim: In general, the article is quite short. I suggest looking for more sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar and Google News, or databases that you can access through your local library system. After expanding the article, you can nominate this to GAN.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I humbly request that the "Undisclosed Paid Tag" on this article be reviewed for following reasons:
1. The article was met with persistent vandalism from angry users following a controversy that the subject got himself into. (See edit history)
2. The explanation from the editor (royiswariii) who added the tag was merely speculative.
"Added
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
tag: I noticed this from Lolito Go's Facebook page was linked. This is might be a undisclosed paid."
The presence of a Facebook link alone does not establish paid editing or undisclosed compensation. If there is specific evidence of compensation or a contractual relationship, please point it out so it can be addressed accordingly. Otherwise, the basis for the tag appears speculative.
3. The article is generally neutral in tone and is not promotional.
4. The article is very-well sourced with citations from reputable news outlets.
5. The subject of the article meets the notability requirement in his particular field. (OPM music).
I hope this gets noticed and taken action with.
I've listed this article for peer review because the reviewer of my Good Article Nomination said that this article needs to do a lot of work to be in the range. I would appreciate if anyone would guide me how to make it better and point out the wrong things in this article, which could prevent it from meeting the Good Article criteria. I have fixed the problems they suggested.
Before this can be renominated, there will need to a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum, that verify the information that proceeds it. This means there needs to be more citations in the "Gameplay", "Soundtrack" and "Reception" sections, especially.
Additional sources can be found at WP:VG/S, which list reliable sources that are often used for video game articles like this one.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I want to pursue nomination for this article to be good article and needs feedback for it
Thanks, Agus Damanik (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are "citation needed" tags in the lead. If these are cited in the article, they don't need to be cited in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. If they are not in the article body, they should probably be added to the article body or removed from the lead.
I added a "citation needed" tag to the "Controversy" section. Also, typically Wikipedia doesn't use that section heading anymore due to POV and neutrality concerns (as it implies that there is something controversial). Instead, I would give it a title that explains what the section is about.
Ref 12 and 15 from the New York Times are the same source and can be merged together.
I've listed this article for peer review, so that I can get editor feedback before re-applying for FAC. I will also review other articles looking for PR. Any feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering putting it forward for Good Article status, but it would be nice to have some feedback first.
I added some "citation needed" templates to the article. These will need to be resolved before a GAN.
For the "Fictional portrayals" section, I would only include mentions where the book/movie/piece of media has a Wikipedia article. In other words, if it is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is probably not notable enough to be included in this list.
This article is fascinating, thanks for working on it. I have a couple driveby comments to throw at you:
The wikilinks in the lead for "pamphlet" and "Incitement to violence" are right next to each other, causing an overlink issue.
The photo of David Duggan is oddly placed. Perhaps it could be moved down into the leaflets section?
Duggan seems to be first mentioned in the list, but then his full name and the wikilink isn't given until the following paragraph. I might add the link in the list instead.
Every night, Social Crediters drove to the Fort Saskatchewan Penitentiary, where the men were being held, to show their support. ... Every night for how long? Was it for the entire duration of their imprisonment?
The incident was part of a series of events that decreased Aberhart's political influence in Alberta ... a bit more detail about what those events were and how they relate to this wouldn't hurt.
Your ISBNs are formatted inconsistently. However you prefer to space them out, they should all be done the same way.
I've listed this article for peer review because this historical event on the island of Hispaniola explains the reason behind its division. I understand it is an episode of Caribbean history that is vital to know and emphasize, which is why I want to ensure it meets the highest quality standards.
This article is too long. I would like to reduce it in size by 10 to 20%. I'm looking for suggestions on content that is not needed—and content that definitely needs to be in. Do not worry too much about other things. In the meantime, I will be checking each citation, running archive references (when it is not so busy), and running reFill. Also open to other suggestions, but the size is my main issue. The goal is to get the quality up to Good Article.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some fairly axe-swinging cuts to the early parts of the article -- I think this might be a case where it's easier to show rather than tell. Obviously, feel free to revert, rework, etc, particularly where I've muddled up the facts. A few general observations:
It's usually best to start from the key story and work up from there. When looking at the forces involved, for example, the reader wants to know how many soldiers were involved and roughly what sort of equipment they had -- did one side have artillery and the other not? The previous version got quickly bogged down in what seemed to be small details, such as whether a particular regiment of cavalry had a particular sort of carbine -- in the context of 16,000 soldiers or so on a side, that's probably not information to put in the main summary of the forces.
Similarly, we often get bogged down with the different commanders and things get difficult to follow -- we probably only need the overall commanders until we get into the narrative of the battle. You can always introduce e.g. a brigade commander or a regimental commander if his role becomes important.
Try to keep things in chronological order as much as possible, and there's no need to continually say that something was "then" a certain distance from somewhere else -- again, think about what's important for the reader to understand this story.
In general, I think it would help to "zoom out" a bit -- think about what the broad strokes of the overall narrative are, then make sure the article foregrounds those key moves before getting into the weeds of the smaller details. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have tarted my work on the Trafalgar campaign, starting with this. I don't have any of the main sources, and have only just updated the sources.
@Protoeus: This is an ambitious article to have as your first GA. Perhaps consider an article with a smaller scope. Here are some comments if still interested:
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lead and other exceptions). The article currently has some uncited text.
At over 14,000 words, the article is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest spinning out text that can go into other articles and summarising what is left more effectively.
"8 Spies Who Leaked Atomic Bomb Intelligence to the Soviets"." is not considered a reliable source and should be replaced or removed.
I am not a fan of block quotes, and I think these can be removed and summarised instead.
This is an important topic, and the amount of research invested in the article is evident and greatly appreciated. That said, the text is currently too long and should be reduced by at least 15%. Certain sections — for example, the discussion of the Pan-European Picnic — could be substantially shortened without any loss of substance.
I would also like to raise some concerns regarding the sourcing. While the article cites a very large number of references, many of these address only specific (and often marginal) aspects of the Cold War rather than treating it as a coherent whole. In order to reflect the subject as it is presented in peer-reviewed scholarship, the article should rely predominantly on sources that are directly specialised in its core topic. Without this focus, it is difficult to ensure that each aspect of the Cold War is presented in proportion to its scholarly significance. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aquilegia, also known as columbines, are a large genus of plants with a number of interesting properties—including being my favorite flowers. I hope to take this article to FAC once this review is complete. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The word cyanophore appears to be misused in the article. Wiktionary agrees with my understanding the word applies to cells/structures rather than organisms. I also don't find it obvious that blue flowers should be correlated to the presence of cyanogenic glycosides; a citation is needed to support that position that in Aquilegia cyanogenic glycosides are restricted to the blue-flowered species. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: see my review below. I mentioned in the Talk page: size is a unique topic which could use more coverage.
The section "Properties and structure" has two introductions: three paragraphs below that title and "Physical parameters". Mass is discussed three different places in that section. I would reorg. The first paragraph is Definitions. The next two are "No hair theorem". Mass being the most basic property should be first; I would rename "Physical parameters" to "Mass" and "Mass" to "Mass ranges" underneath Since the no-hair section used angular momentum, so should the section title.
Some sentences here have too many sources. More than two sources always makes me wonder what is going on. One reliable source and one popular source is enough. For example "It is unlikely that black holes with masses greater than 50-100 billion times that of the Sun could exist now, as black hole growth is limited by the age of the universe." had four sources. None of these sources verify the claim. I deleted two and changed the content to match the sources.
Review I've read the article and verified many claims, fixing a few that were a bit off. From the technical point of view the article is solid to a general physics reader. I've posted a number of Topics on the Talk page suggesting improvements or additions. If we can address (or decide not to address) these I would a recommend Featured Article. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the level of GA-class. As this is the first article I've ever created (which is done by draft), I currently do not have experience on how to improve a C-class article to B-class, let alone meet GA standards. Therefore I'd like some suggestions and guidance for improving the article.
Update. I've added a new section about the properties of the number. Hopefully this improves the quality of the article closer to B-Class. Electorus (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Electorus. Have you ever thought of rewriting them into prose and adding more sources for each? Also, since the article is ridiculously obnoxious, you could truncate the section "Selected 13-digit numbers (1,000,000,000,001–9,999,999,999,999)" off. You could also try what the number 1,000,000,000,000 is by explaining its predecessor and successor and writing its properties, given the reliable sources you have found, as long as you need to follow the WP:NUM/G. You can see some samples of GA about numbers like 1 (number) and 69 (number). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I wrote this article in a way based on related large number articles like 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, so it looks more like a list of numbers in an order of magnitude rather than an article focusing on the number specifically. I'll try to adjust the structure and find more sources according to your advice. This may be harder than both GA articles you suggested though, because both 1 and 69 are more common in real life than this number. Electorus (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article's already gone through a peer review once, but now considering that it's considerably different from the peer-reviewed version months ago, I request another peer review for this.
Several things that I kindly want reviewers to inform me include coherence & cohesion, whether some sections should be grouped together, and potential sourcing problems.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was working with other editors a few months back to bring the article to GA status. Some time has passed and the collab effort has gone stale, but I wanted to restart the work so that we could finish what we started. I want to know if the added "Academic sources" section looks good, if the cited sources are enough for the info in the article, and if there's anything else that would prevent a successful GA nomination the first time.
Very dated sources, 19C and earlier, are not generally reliable sources. They can be used for a historical view, e.g. "John Smith wrote in 1805 that ...", but not as a fact which is not referenced inline, only in the citations.
MA theses are not considered reliable sources.
Some of the details supplied in the citations are very unsatisfactory. For example cite 245 ""Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church – DW – 03/29/2024". dw.com. Retrieved 6 June 2025." dw.com and the retrieval date are minor details and the crucial information is missing. I would cite this as {{cite journal|url=https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-aramaic-christians-seek-support-in-their-church/a-68675395|journal=[[Deutsche Welle]]|title= Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church|first=Christoph|last=Strack|date=3 September 2024}}</ref>
Cite 258 is poor. "nsilk (6 May 2013). "Syriac Orthodox Church Receives as Many as 800,000 New Converts in Central America – SCOOCH". Retrieved 6 June 2025." This should be SCOOCH News, publisher Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, date 6 May 2013. The headline is misleading as the text does not say new converts but that the church has been joined by another church with 600-800,000 members. Your text is even more misleading as it shows 800,000 as the total membership.
There are harv error messages in the source section. For a script which displays the error messages see User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.
I find the referencing cluttered and difficult to read. Linking, archiving and retrieval dates are useful for sources that may disappear, articles and newspaper stories. They are pointless for books and just make the entry wordy and clumsy. I would delete and just show the bibliographical details. I prefer the citations section kept as clean as possible, with bibliographical details moved to the sources and additional information to notes.
@Dudley Miles Thanks for the comments on the referencing. Is there anything else that needs to be changed in any other criteria before the article is brought to GA? I will try and fix up the referencing soon. Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the whole article. This includes general MOS improvements and adjusted citations (both inline and bibliographical). The 19th century citation describes a basic biblical narrative from Acts of Apostles and already has 2 other citations; I've removed it altogether.
In 1998, South Carolina repealed its interracial marriage ban, which had been unenforceable since the 60s following a Supreme Court ruling. The repeal of the defunct language faced 38% opposition.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make the push from good article to featured, and I would like to know if it is up to that standard.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for a potential Good Article nomination and would like feedback on:
NPOV balance – The article documents significant criticism (2023 National Academies findings on lack of outcome data, eight legal cases) alongside official FAA/ALPA positions and a "Support and endorsements" subsection. Does the balance feel appropriate?
Source quality – Sources include National Academies reports, federal court decisions (D.C. Circuit), EEOC press releases, DOT OIG reports, major newspapers (WSJ, Seattle Times, Reuters, Washington Post, NYT), and peer-reviewed journals. Any concerns about reliability?
Structure and prose – Article covers history, economic justification, program structure, criticism, testing protocols, legal cases, international expansion, and legislative reform. Is the organization logical and readable?
Lead section – Does it adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD?
Any gaps – Missing aspects that should be covered?
Provisionally assess as a C-Class and Mid-importance article: has sufficient information, sources, sections, image. At least 250 words of text. This is part of my ongoing project to re-assess all Legal stubs. Will gladly re-assess after a few days to allow for others' input. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Credentials language: Consolidated the repetitive "no credentials" mentions from individual entries into the Key program personnel introduction, now attributed to named reform advocacy sources (Pilots for HIMS Reform, FAA HIMS Program Information Center) per NPOV. The concern is relevant because these non-physician authored documents (Recovery Contract, Last Chance Agreement, Monitor Guidelines) govern career-ending decisions affecting pilots' medical certifications.
Duplicate citations: Resolved.
Article length: Acknowledged. The Legal cases section (~2,500 words, nine cases) is the most logical candidate for a spin-out to HIMS program legal cases or similar. Will address after other GA criteria are met.
Also added Park v. FAA (2024), an NTSB ALJ reversal of FAA certification denial, bringing Legal cases to nine total.
I've listed this article for peer review because the upcoming presidential elections in Iraq is going to be hosted near the end of this month. Since this is the first article that I have created, I would like some feedback on what I could improve on.
These include:
1. What I could do instead in general next time
Did I do something wrong with the references?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Anything else that I may need to focus on?
2. What I should've done instead specifically with the article
Did I leave out some important details?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Did I leave out some important details?
Did my writing tone contradicts WP:NPOV? Any other reasons on why it may be considered as "bad"?
I am looking to shape this article up for WP:FAC review. The article recently passed GA review, but I am looking to see what areas need to be expanded upon or fixed up to bring the article to a state it can be a good FA nomination.
What strikes me first is that there's lots of short sections. WP:FACR requires a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings. Sections with just a single paragraph (or even worse, a single sentence, as in "Cultured meat") generally meet with disapproval at FAC. I'd start by rearranging things to combine some of the shorter sub-sections. This is a short article (just over 2000 words), so breaking it up into lots of L3 and L4 sections is distracting. Ping me when you've got that done and I'll come back and take another look. RoySmith(talk)17:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Thank you for the ping, I had seen your message but it's been an odd week for me -- been getting back in the saddle today! I will work to merge sections and also see what I can do as far as other WP:FACR requirements, and ping you when that's complete. Thanks again, chickenpox4dinner (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has disastrously failed a FAC nomination and the reviewers recommended me to take this to peer review for prose. All comments will be appreciated. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 05:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote this article yesterday based in large part from journal articles and dug-up sources from around the time. Looking for feedback to make sure it's accessible to a layperson, informative about the election (i:e, doesn't gloss over any necessary attributes while focusing too much on small details), and doesn't contain too much jargon or waffle. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a solid B-Class article. I don't do FA or GA reviews because it's contentious and I'm too stressed out in real life. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"He made his first screen appearance in Siete Infantes de Lara (1949)", source? Can't find any in either of the two sources. + The movie was published in 1950.
" He is regarded as the most awarded Filipino actor in history.", please supply a source or a quotation from either of the two sources as I can't find any information regarding this.
"Far East Film Festival named him one of the most prolific actors in Asia." to "The Far East Film Festival named him one of the most prolific actors in Asia."
I'm thinking of promoting this article to featured list status, given there are plenty of sources and information for that to be possible. However, I have not promoted a featured list before, so I'd appreciate some tips on how to improve the current article, particularly with the placement of sources. I'm also pretty sure there is no "good list" category, so hopefully I am reviewing this correctly. :)
My thought process is the following: I'm currently working on getting every franchise to have at least one high-quality reliable source (most notably replacing all of the Game Rant sources). I think the table formatting is fine, but my only suggestion might be to remove the "reference" column in the table and move all of the sources to either the initial/latest game release to verify those claims, or to verify what the series is about. While the reference column is nice, it doesn't directly confirm what is stated in each section of the table, so moving the references could potentially fix that issue. Otherwise, all franchises in the table seem good to me. The only one that I have the slightest bit of doubt for is the Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball series, as the best source I could find is from Operation Sports, a source that I have no basis for reliability. Also, any suggestions to improve the lead section as a summary for ALL of Nintendo's franchises would be greatly appreciated, whether it is adding information or rewording part of it to be more professional.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have contributed significantly to it, and would like to know how else I can improve this article, and what issues persist within. I would like to nominate this for featured list status soon.
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.
_(Art._IWM_LD_2850).jpg){kind=link}
_(Art._IWM_LD_2850),_2026_upload.jpg){kind=link}