Wikipedia:Peer review

Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions, WP:PRSOURCE, Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, and Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

MainUn­an­swe­redIn­struc­tionsDi­scus­sionToolsAr­chivePro­ject

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.

You can find the list of all current peer reviews in different formats: a list with reviewers' comments included, a list without any reviewers' comments or a list by date.

Arts

Miles Davis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 27 September 2026, 01:49 UTC

Last edit: 29 September 2026, 22:13 UTC

Pusher Love Girl

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC in the future.

Thanks, RedShellMomentum 19:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Quick comment: I have not listened to the samples in full, but don't they fall afoul of WP:NFCC#3? The first is >30 seconds, so it's too long per WP:SAMPLE, and, even though it's a very long song, wouldn't putting two samples also not be line with WP:SAMPLE, 'cuz then it's basically a 61-second sample (well, with a cut, I supposed). Pamzeis (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Ömer the Tourist in Star Trek

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 15 September 2026, 11:42 UTC

Last edit: 20 September 2026, 17:47 UTC

Misneach

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 12 September 2026, 14:24 UTC

Last edit: 27 September 2026, 17:35 UTC

Moka Kamishiraishi

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to gather ideas for its improvement and eventually put it up for GA nomination.

Thanks, PetéWarrior (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

Here are the few things that I've found

• Table formatting:
  • Tables need captions. It can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code. If that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells. Column scopes can be added by adding ! scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes ! scope=col | Year.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding ! scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | ''[[Haruta & Chika (film)|Haruta & Chika]]'' becomes ! scope=row | ''[[Haruta & Chika (film)|Haruta & Chika]]''. To make the title is not bold make sure that table class set like this |class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code for further references.
• References formatting
  • For sources with title written in Japanese, it should be written like this example |script-title=ja:3D彼女 リアルガール
  • Add english translation every title written in Japanese like this example |trans-title=3D Real Girl
  • Translate website name to english (use romanization if the source doesn’t have official english name)

That's all what can I think of for now. You can ping me if you have any question. Preferwiki (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Believe (Staind song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 31 August 2026, 17:59 UTC

Last edit: 30 September 2026, 13:07 UTC

Tomorrow's Pioneers

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 23 August 2026, 14:48 UTC

Last edit: 28 September 2026, 15:26 UTC

Make It Shine

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA one day. Biggest things I would like to work on are the reception and seeing what sources classify as high-quality.

Thanks, Carnival of Lights (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Carnival of Lights you might find WP:REVIEWME useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Jenna Ortega

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 15 August 2026, 06:16 UTC

Last edit: 25 September 2026, 14:03 UTC

Jelly (YouTuber)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am just looking for general feedback on what could be changed, added or removed. I would also like an entire review of the article.

Thanks, ReelCosmix (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Petewarrior

I took a quick look and did some minor copyedits (which you reverted, for some reason). The most glaring flaw is of course the birthday, which needs a reliable source. Other than that, I think minimizing the use of WP:PROSELINE would be a great start. PetéWarrior (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Everyday life

1986 Intercontinental Cup

Previous peer review

I'm not sure why I don't feel good about this article, I would be happy to evaluate its contents and, specifically, its sources in detail. Riverplateño (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

PlayStation Portable

Previous peer review

I've been heavily reworking this article over the past few weeks in an effort to get it to Good Article status. In the process, I've completely rewritten some paragraph, added/removed some topics entirely, added citations, et cetera.

I ask for advice regarding article quality as a whole. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

• Prose (Is the article understandable? Does it read smoothly? Is anything repeated unnecessarily?)
• Overciting/Underciting (Have I forgotten to cite something I should? Are some citations complete overkill?)
• Relevancy (Is some information unnecessary to the article as a whole? Is there something lacking in the article that should be addressed?)
• Anything else you notice that should be addressed.

I'm sorry if this Peer Review request is a little long-winded, this is my first time asking anything of this sort here and so I figured talking too much is better than talking too little.

Any and all criticisms welcome!

Thanks for reading and I hope you've had a good day, VeeJayZee (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Firewatch

Previous peer review

This article last got a PR in advance of a successful GAN candidacy back in 2016. Ten years later I've gone through and done a somewhat substantial overhaul, with the aim of possibly reaching FA status, and would love feedback to that end across all aspects of the article. Thanks in advance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

After one read-through the main issue I see for FAC is the reception section. I think it needs another copyedit pass. The reception material is organized well enough, but the sentence-by-sentence flow is a bit clunky in a couple of paragraphs.

I'll have another read through the article with an eye to FAC some time in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• "Henry interacts with his supervisor Delilah using a walkie-talkie, with the player choosing from dialog options to communicate. His exchanges with Delilah inform the process by which their relationship is developed". Suggest "Henry interacts with his supervisor Delilah using a walkie-talkie, choosing what to say from dialog options, and developing his relationship with her".
• "certain events are set at different times of the day": perhaps "certain events are set to occur at different times of the day" or just "certain events occur at different times of the day". Now I think about it I'm not even sure of the intended meaning -- I think it must be that there are some events that repeat every day at set times? Rather than at varying times, which is how I initially read "different"?
• "the cause of the station fire": is this the fire near the government camp? The word "station" has not been used for it.
• "In creating the painting, Moss emulated National Park Service posters from the New Deal era in both color palette and iconography.". The source does not support this for the color palette.
• "Ng disapproved of the tools for creating trees and therefore hand-modeled the 23 kinds of trees that would be placed within the game 4,600 times." The source has "Ng noted that she didn’t get on well with automated tree making tools, so created the 23 different models in the game by hand.". This is tricky to paraphrase but I think this is a bit too close to the original. (And let's avoid implying there were exactly 4,600 trees when the source is less precise.
• And the next sentence, about a custom shader, is also somewhat similar to the original, but also slightly inaccurate -- the source specifies that it's how the trees look in the distance to the player that drove this choice; the article doesn't say this.
• "Likewise Dahlia could not inform the player...": typo for Delilah?
• In the paragraph starting "Anderson recalled ..." we say both that the game had to be nearly finished to be playtested, but we also say that a benefit of the way playtesting worked was that they had time to fix problems because the game was not nearly finished. Having read the source I understand what Anderson meant, but it doesn't come through very well and sounds like a contradiction as it stands.
• You have both "dialog" and "dialogue".
• You have links from "dialog options" to dialog tree; you might consider repeating the link when the phrase "dialog tree" shows up towards the end of the article.

That's everything. I think this in pretty good shape overall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The Giant Spider Invasion

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has what it takes to be a Featured Article but I want to see if there is anything else that could be done before sending it off for review. GamerPro64 04:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@GamerPro64: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Jetpac Refuelled

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this to FAC. Jaguar successfully nominated this to GAN in 2015, and I think the article is close to being ready for an FA promotion.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments from MidnightMayhem

Hi, I will review this article! This is my first time doing a peer review for FAC but I hope I can provide some constructive criticism. Overall this is in good shape, but it needs some sourcing fixes as well as expansion and clarification in the prose. I've highlighted some spots that I think should be addressed. MidnightMayhem (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Per WP:MOSVG the platform should be mentioned more specifically. Currently the prose mentions Xbox Live Arcade, but not the Xbox 360, which creates a disconnect between the lead and the infobox. I would suggest published by Microsoft Studios for the Xbox 360 or It was released worldwide for the Xbox 360 via the Xbox Live Arcade service.
• Per MOS:DATEUNIFY all dates should use one format. Most everything is in DMY but there are a couple of dates (such as release in the infobox) that are in MDY. This should be unified.
• The image caption doesn't need to restate the game title. Just Cover art or Xbox Live Arcade cover art should suffice.
• Describing Rare Replay as a "compendium compilation" feels repetitive. I think just "compilation" would be okay.

Gameplay

• The player assumes control of Jetman and is presented in a horizontal wrap around which consists of six platforms on which Jetman can manoeuvre onto. This sentence is confusing. What exactly is being presented? The playfield? I think the first clause needs to be merged into another sentence.
• Jetman's weapons are his laser and three nuclear devices which, once used, will eliminate all enemies from the screen. The appearance of "nuclear devices" is not verified in either source 1 or 3 which are cited in that paragraph, and the sentence doesn't clearly explain how this mechanic works. I'm assuming the three devices have limited ammo but this should be clarified.
• Fuel and rocket pickups can be stolen from opponents by shooting them or by using an EMP blast at close range - This is not verified in the Eurogamer source. The source does not mention EMP blasts or stealing powerups.

Development

• Same MOS:DATEUNIFY problem
• Shouldn't the designers Jens Restemeier and Nick Burton be included in the infobox somewhere?
• The team wanted to keep the core mechanics of the Jetpac whilst designing new features. What mechanics did they want to keep?
• Restemeier stated that the development process for an Xbox Live Arcade game differed from a retail title, owing to processing power limitations that had to be constantly synced over Xbox Live. This is also unclear. The sentence reads like the entire game was being cloud streamed over the internet but that's clearly not what's stated in the source.

Reception

• Do the Metacritic and GameRankings scores need to be listed in prose? I think saying Jetpac Refuelled received "mixed or average" reviews, according to review aggregator Metacritic or something like that would be ok. Similarly, the intro sentence says the game "was met with mostly favourable reviews" but the sources seem to indicate a mixed reception.
• Reviewers criticised the repetitive aspects of its gameplay. This is cited to four sources which do indeed call the game repetitive, but I think a reviewer quote to explain what aspects were considered repetitive would be helpful.
• Gerstmann called the soundtrack "peppy" and "upbeat" while calling the sound effects "decent" - using "call" twice in the same sentence is awkward
• praised the multiplayer as "an unexpected treat", praising the gameplay aspect - same thing, using "praised" twice
• I don't think Live Arcade needs to be wikilinked again here

Sources

Most of these are listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS so we're mostly good there. However:

• Source 4 (MundoRare.com) is a dead link. Not sure about the reliability of this source either.
• Source 7 (GameZone.com) appears to be a user-generated post. Are there any better sources to verify the announcement date?

Engineering and technology

Leaky integrator

I've listed this article for peer review because I am proposing a substantial extending of the existing article. The proposed version is currently at User:DDadyka/Leaky integrator. I would particularly appreciate comments on the mathematical correctness, article structure, and whether the userspace draft would be an improvement over the current article. Thanks, DDadyka (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Otvet

I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially revamped it, and I would like to have input and assistance from others to ensure that it meets the standards that are expected for Military History articles.

Thanks, NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 19:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Knowledge cutoff

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 27 August 2026, 14:02 UTC

Last edit: 19 September 2026, 03:15 UTC

Workstation

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 2 August 2026, 12:14 UTC

Last edit: 11 September 2026, 00:53 UTC

SS D. M. Clemson (1903)

I'm putting this article up for peer review with the goal of gaining additional insight into potential improvements to it, in preparation for a FA review within the year. I have probably devoted more time to improving this article's quality than to any other piece I've ever worked on, and would love to see it reach the accredited pinnacle of quality. The references were re-formatted per the guidance I received on an earlier PR. Specifically, I would like to receive feedback on the grammar and any possible improvements to it, as well as spot checks of the references.

Thanks. Akaza ^[talk] 17:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm not sure if I'll do a full review, but one thing that jumped out at me is that she used a quadruple-expansion engine. Triples were common, but this is the first I've ever heard of a quad. It's worth mentioning in the lead.

I've dug into this a bit. Unfortunately, having read just the first section (Background), I have to say the writing needs a lot of work. It is written in a choppy style: a series of short declarative sentence which don't connect to each other in a coherent way, i.e. it lacks flow. If you google for "choppy writing" you will find many places that talk about this with suggestions on how to improve it. It might be worth submitting this to WP:GOCE to see what they can do.

To give you a better idea of what I'm talking about, here's a couple of examples from the article which do it better.

... The development of the pneumatic rivet gun and the advancement of gantry cranes enabled shipyard employees to work at an increased speed, with greater efficiency.[12] This, combined with the rapidly decreasing steel prices, contributed to the rapid increase in the size of lake freighters in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[13]

the first part of this paragraph (elided here) is boring to read because of the disconnected sentences. But these two final sentences are much more interesting to read. The "This, combined with ..." construct ties this sentence back to the previous one with a cause-and-effect relationship. Here's another one:

... He was appointed general manager of the newly assembled fleet of vessels belonging to the United States Steel Corporation's subsidiary, the Pittsburgh Steamship Company, in 1901.[18] Shortly thereafter, Wolvin founded the Provident Steamship Company in Duluth, commissioning four large vessels for his new venture ...

Here, you use "Shortly thereafter" to connect the action described in this sentence (the founding of the company) to the action from the previous one (being appointed general manager). This relates the two sentences chronologically, carrying the reader along as the story evolves. Unfortunately, the stodgy, choppy examples are far more common.

On an unrelated topic, I'd take things like "56.95% of the 16,036,043 long tons (16,293,372 t) of the iron ore" and simplify it to "57% of the 16 million long tons. It's not quite as precise, but this article is about the D. M. Clemson, not a deep dive into shipping statistics, so spare the reader the unnecessary detail. Sorry I couldn't be more encouraging, but hopefully this will give you some ideas of how to get this up to FA quality. RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Akaza Have you seen the comments I left above? RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith I haven't, no. I've been recovering from surgery recently, and haven't been too active. I'll take a better look tomorrow. Akaza ^[talk] 00:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Quads were quite common on the Great Lakes during the late 19th/early 20th century, with many famous vessels (e. g. the Augustus B. Wolvin, Milwaukee Clipper, and most of the Great Lakes Transit Corporation's package freighters) being equipped with them. I'm not sure it's worth a mention on in the lede.
• I do have some ideas to improve the textual flow of the article. I am slightly puzzled, as this was not noted during the GA review, and wasn't addressed during the previous run at GOCE, where it was given a thorough going over.
• I don't have any qualms about simplifying the statistics in the background section.

Akaza ^[talk] 20:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Stance detection

Hello! I recently created a Stance detection article and wanted a general peer review. It has largely been developed in a sandbox up until now. I am still working on sections regarding applications, as well as multimodal and multilingual models, so I am mostly interested in how the existing content or sourcing can be improved. I know it uses a few pre-prints, but I tried to keep those relatively limited to where they were relevant and with generally established authors. I look forward to any critiques and feedback! Jacob Rampino (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey! Noob editor here, just trying to be helpful. I like this article! Just a few reactions.

• I really like intros that start with a barebones definition then expand. Focus on how it's an NLP task; I think you could take out the reference to computational linguistics, and move essential techniques (content analysis and text mining) to later in the paragraph.
• That survey paper (ALDayel) is a really strong reference. I appreciated the history bit.
• The header Supervised classification could probably be replaced with something nodding to the fact that the section is about traditional ML models. The task at hand could be called a supervised classification task, so this isn't super clear to me reading the subtitle what the following content will be.
• For the Deep Learning section it feels like we're really focused on the history of the task. I think that's fine for ordering, but within paragraphs, since it's a technical article, it might be better to start with the what. When skimming, people like to start a paragraph to see if they want to read the rest, so a what/why/how structure can be better than the why/what/how structure the paragraphs use right now. A little more nitpicky, I think talking about BERT you could frame how the papers specifically take advantage of the model structure structure and fine tuning techniques to do the task; right now a lot of the detail about BERT and fine-tuning feel like definitions I could get, more or less, by clicking the article names. I think the level of detail is fine, it just needs to feel justified.
• "generative models often cannot be archived for replication" is more of a researcher complaint than a fundamental flaw from a user perspective, so it might belong in a separate sentence.
• I do like that the article is framed as an NLP task, but with the nods to real-world use-case drawbacks in the LLM section, I would be interested if you can find sources in on actual real-world use. If so, that would be really interesting info!
• The Espinosa source is a decent experiment, but you kind of make it sound like a survey result. Not sure it really backs up something as strong as "no single model has been found to consistently dominate across tasks." It might be fine.

Hamolton (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback! This is all incredibly actionable and I agree. I will make these changes. Jacob Rampino (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yay glad to be helpful! Hamolton (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

GuineaPigC77

This article looks well researched. Two things I noticed...

• Some of the sources look like preprints, which are considered unreliable Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Preprints
• Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations I think the lead should only summarize what is alread cited later in the article.

I hope you find these short comments helpful! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 02:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will definitely incorporate your comments for the lead. However, preprints are simply treated like SPS, and can be used reliably if the authors are subject-matter experts! Jacob Rampino (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Sodium-cooled fast reactor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 8 June 2026, 05:17 UTC

Last edit: 16 September 2026, 21:20 UTC

General

English whisky

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on how to improve the article to reach B and then GA Class

Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know why the link to select a topic leads to an archive page ChefBear01 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Are there any tasks I can do to assist in getting to the goals above.ChefBear01 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Neils51:,@Bruce1ee: do you have any suggestions?.ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The production stages section needs completing.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the list of distilleries would be improved by being in a table? Neils51 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that editors are trying to keep it in prose.ChefBear01 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Davemck: is there a way to find fill the article with academic/book/journal cites more easily to strengthen the primary cites with the others as secondary supporting cites.ChefBear01 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Tomodachi Life (video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 7 August 2026, 17:14 UTC

Last edit: 15 September 2026, 20:23 UTC

FC Dynamo Moscow's 1945 tour of the United Kingdom

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for WP:FA, and having never done one before, I wanted feedback here before I actually nominated it.

Thanks, ShadowBallX (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully can provide some useful food for thought —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:49, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• It is best not to use all caps in the refs per MOS:ALLCAPS
• Some of the refs cannot be verified because they are offline. I know it isn't always possible to find free links to sources but it would be great to get as much links as we can
• "In February 2022, Eleven Silent Men, a Russian sports drama film depicting the events of the tour, was released in theatres." This one should be cited to several independent sources for both verification and to make sure its inclusion is due
• In the Soviet Union, a book celebrating the tour was published shortly after the squad returned Can you dig up more info on this book and its title. :)?
• The first team to offer Dynamo a match against them was Chelsea, who had been suggested to face Dynamo after the assistant to the All-Union Council on Physical Culture and Sports attended one of the club's league matches ----> The first team to offer a match with Dynamo was Chelsea, who had been suggested to face Dynamo after the assistant to the All-Union Council on Physical Culture and Sports attended one of Chelsea's league matches
• was delayed after difficulties with getting some players released from their factory jobs ---> was delayed due to difficulties with releasing some of the players from their factory jobs

• @LastJabberwocky: Thanks for the feedback, just added all the suggestions you brought up. As for the offline sources, all of them are accessible through the British Newspaper Archive via. The Wikipedia Library if you want to see them for yourself. (I'll see if I can try clipping at least some of them in the coming days) ShadowBallX (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

2026 EFL Championship play-off final

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has a reasonable chance of getting to FA status after heavily expanding on it in August.

Thanks, Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda you might find WP:REVIEWME useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'm copyediting as I go through; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

• In the "Route to the final" section for Hull we never actually say "the semifinal was between Hull and Millwall"; we just say mention Millwall. I took a look at how 2017 EFL Championship play-off final, which is an FA, does it, and I don't think that looks very good -- that format works for a list of knockout games, as in the FA Cup, but it looks odd here. I think the easiest answer would be just to list the two semifinals in the sentence starting "The semi-finals were two-legged ties ...".
• We don't need to give the 2-0 score twice in the paragraph on the Hull-Millwall game.
• I've edited some of the tenses in the "Background" section, but I'm not sure what I've done is ideal. I changed most of the tenses to past perfect, since all of this is in the past relative to the time of the article. I think you could get away with simple past tense, but it would take some care because once you use past perfect I think you have to stick with it. I think the way I've left it is OK; see what you think.
• The first paragraph is a bit of a grab-bag of unrelated facts; it's hard to make this sort of thing flow. Here's a possible rewrite -- you'd have to make sure the sources move to the right sentences if you do this: change Middlesbrough had contested five second-tier play-off campaigns, but had only been promoted once through the play-offs, beating Chelsea in 1988 over two legs. Since then, they had reached the final once, losing 2−0 to Norwich City in 2015; in their last campaign, in 2023, they lost to Coventry City 1−0 in the semi-final. Middlesbrough have never won a game at Wembley Stadium Hull City were restricted from signing players for a fee for two transfer windows after defaulting on payment to other clubs. to Middlesbrough, who have never won a game at Wembley Stadium, had contested five second-tier play-off campaigns, but had only been promoted once through the play-offs, beating Chelsea in 1988 over two legs. Since then, they had reached the final once, losing 2−0 to Norwich City in 2015. Hull City were restricted from signing players for a fee for two transfer windows after defaulting on payment to other clubs.
• "stepped over Alan Browne, resulting in Browne's treatment": not sure what is intended here -- "stepped on"? If he stepped over him he would presumably not have been injured. And I think it might be clearer for readers not familiar with football to say something like "resulting in Browne needing treatment".
• "Middlesbrough dominated after the injury": "injury" usually means the player had to come off. Maybe "after the incident"?
• "firing a shot wide after winning the ball from 30 yards": do you mean "firing a shot wide from 30 yards after winning the ball"? Perhaps "winning the ball and firing a shot wide from 30 yards" would be clearer?
• Why is the parenthesis in the image caption in italics?
• "followed by Giles' overhit cross going just wide and over the top-right corner": most readers won't immediately know Giles plays for Hull, so perhaps "followed by Giles' overhit cross going just wide and over the top-right corner of the Middlesbrough goal".
• Similarly in the next sentence how about "whose shot was blocked by the Hull keeper"?
• "have been repeatedly missed in English and European football broadcasts before switching back to capture the trophy lift": I don't understand the second half of this -- if they did capture the trophy lift, what were they complaining about?

Overall I think this is in good shape. I have not done any spotchecks or source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Latch Wales

I'd love to get this article to good article status, but considering the currently available sources I have found, I am at loss in regards to how to expand it and improve it. A newer editor, so appreciate the help of more experienced editors. Thanks Edlectro28 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Prezbo

As you say it's a good article but it's spare. If the sources aren't there then they aren't there...have you tried Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library or newspapers.com? Prezbo (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes I have tried Wiki Library, I'll maybe have another poke around though. I did feel I had squeezed most of the information I could get out of this article without it being excessive. Shame, but I'm glad that someone else agrees Edlectro28 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I was going to say also maybe look at Ronald McDonald House or Fisher House Foundation for ideas, but those articles are pretty sparse too. Prezbo (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I did use Teenage Cancer Trust as a very basic structural reference, and even though that's quite a well known charity in the UK (I believe, I am Canadian) its not particularly detailed Edlectro28 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Aperture Tag

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 6 September 2026, 13:42 UTC

Last edit: 22 September 2026, 14:27 UTC

Digital Dance Mix Vol. 1 Namie Amuro

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. I am the main author of this article and successfully brought it to GA in February this year. I believe it is nearly ready for FAC. This will be my first FA nomination, so I appreciate any comments and assistance. Thank you! MidnightMayhem (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Daffodil International University

I am requesting a peer review of the Daffodil International University article.

I have substantially expanded and improved the article, including its history, campus, research, international collaborations, student life, and other sections, with an emphasis on reliable and independent sources.

I would particularly appreciate community feedback on the following:

• whether the article is sufficiently neutral and encyclopedic;
• whether the cited sources adequately support the claims;
• whether independently sourced content has appropriate encyclopedic value;
• whether any sections contain excessive directory-like detail;
• whether the structure and level of detail are appropriate for a university article;
• whether any important information is missing or unnecessarily detailed; and
• what improvements would be needed to bring the article toward B-class or Good Article quality.

Some previously included material, including information about faculties/departments and residential facilities, has recently been removed on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a directory or that the material has insufficient encyclopedic value. I understand that not every verifiable fact necessarily belongs in an article, but I would appreciate independent community feedback on where the appropriate level of detail should be drawn, particularly where the removed information was supported by independent reliable sources.

Please independently review the article and advise what content should be retained, rewritten, or removed..

Thanks, 0ximjub43r (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Geography and places

Climate change in Turkey

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 29 September 2026, 08:04 UTC

Last edit: 1 October 2026, 07:28 UTC

Indonesia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 11 September 2026, 12:12 UTC

Last edit: 25 September 2026, 08:43 UTC

Malta

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 8 August 2026, 22:40 UTC

Last edit: 6 September 2026, 18:52 UTC

History

Justina Szilágyi

Previous peer review

I have listed this article for a second peer review because it received a detailed, critical and very helpful review from JimKillock more than two years ago. I hope that I have addressed the problems raised during the previous review, but the article would benefit from further suggestions on how to improve its comprehensiveness, conciseness and style. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Byrhtnoth

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 31 August 2026, 01:27 UTC

Last edit: 15 September 2026, 13:36 UTC

Natural sciences and mathematics

Hurricane Beryl

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on taking this to FAC. GiftedIceCream 15:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about merging the Texas sub article? There’s not too much there that isn’t in the main article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Commognition

I've listed this article for peer review because the article fills a real gap within the encyclopedia yet because of the current large backlog, it is still not reviwed.

Thanks, RetiredResearchKing123 (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Low-mass X-ray binary

Recently created this article and I'm pretty proud of it so far. I was hoping to take it to GA status, and wanted advice on what to improve before nominating it there. In particular, I would like advice on what parts of the article to make less WP:TECHNICAL (GA criterion 1a). I would also like some advice on which scientific terms to explain further and which can suffice with just a wikilink.

Thanks, Shocksingularity (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Rosa (sea otter)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 19 August 2026, 00:45 UTC

Last edit: 24 September 2026, 01:41 UTC

Braitenberg vehicle

I've listed this article for peer review to get input on the images and the final section, as well as any other suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

List of mammals of Missouri

I want to get this article to FL, but I am largely unfamilial with the FL process and need feedback on what tweaks that need to be made before I nominate it.

Thanks, ZKevinTheCat (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Language and literature

History of UK science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1965

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take it to FAC.

Thanks, Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

JJE

I kinda wonder if that giant section under "Tymn, Marshall B.; Ashley, Mike, eds. (1985). Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press" is necessary. The Stand needs disambiguating. Otherwise I don't see much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo. I listed those individual articles because they're all by different authors. I could list them all at the top level but that seems even more unwieldy and would obscure the fact that so many of the citations are to the same source. I had a conversation with UndercoverClassicist about this here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I just added refbegin/refend to shrink the source list a bit, and realized there's no reasonable way for it to split the sublist into two columns, so it looks a bit odd that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to do that, create a subsection for only the sublist, then split that (and the main reference list). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I follow -- do you mean refbegin/sources without sublist (including Tymn/Ashley)/refend, then a subsection of sources called something like "Chapters in Tymn/Ashley", and refbegin/sublist/refend? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@Mike Christie: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Quingnam language

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA status soon and want any issues to getting it there, particularly prose and referencing format, ironed out before my real nomination.

Thanks, 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I've only just glanced at this, but a few things jump out.

• The maps in the infobox are hard to understand. There's no scale for the top one and it's zoomed in so far there's no geographic context. The bottom one has a scale, but it's barely readable, and still no geographic context. The folks as Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop can help you produce something better. Also, you probably want to move these down to be in the "Geographical distribution" section so they're near the text that talks about them per MOS:SECTIONLOC.

• WP:FACR 2b requires "a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings". I think you will find resistance to your use of very short (one or two sentence) sections.

• We don't have a lot of FAs about ancient languages, but I see Tabancale language at WP:FAC right now and Ancient Cappadocian language was promoted just a few weeks ago. I suggest pinging the nominators of those to see if they can give you some good reviews. See also WP:REVIEWME.
  • Oh, duh. Tabancale is one of yours :-)

• The name would thus mean 'to spin, for spinning' Which meaning of "spin" did you have in mind? Spinning (textiles)? Spin (propaganda)? Or maybe something else?

• It is mentioned that a grammar, dictionary and other documents ... Who mentioned this?

• but most of them were collected in Moche by Eduardo Calderón Palomino This is es:Eduardo Calderón Palomino, yes? If so, he deserves a {{Interlanguage link}}. More generally, you should do a comprehensive search in eswiki of all the people and places you mention that are not already linked to enwiki articles. It's likely many of these have Spanish articles that should be linked to.

• This article claims that Quingnam is unrelated to Mochica, but es:Idioma quingnam claims they are related. How to resolve this difference? I also see a few sources in the eswiki article that are not used here. Have you checked to see if there's anything you missed?

@RoySmith: the eswiki article contains a lot of bullshit about Quingnam. They are definitely unrelated if you look at the numerals for both Quingnam and Mochica. I do have the capability to make maps myself so I might be able to whip up something to replace these maps. Sources on eswiki don't seem to fill any lacunæ in the article. I've condensed some sections as I see fit now. Thanks for spotting the eswiki link; I've now found everything I can link. I frankly don't know what Urban was trying to say for the 'spin' gloss, though my guess is the movement. I certainly get the idea of moving the maps down but from what I've seen it seems to be standard practice for language articles to leave a map in the infobox. I may be able to contact other reviewers as well. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I've fixed the "it is mentioned" issue too. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:27, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

Transparency of experience

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to take it to FAC and want feedback on how it can be improved to meet the FA criteria. I'm also interested to improve the accessibility of the article, it is a difficult topic so any feedback on what parts others find the most confusing/least accessible would be really helpful!

Thanks, Shapeyness (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Prezbo

I took a philosophy of mind class in college so I gave this a shot. It's tough, there's some kernel of the idea that I'm not getting. Maybe if I read it three or five times. I can tell that you've worked hard to make it as accessible as possible, I think it's just a very slippery topic, for me. I'm sorry I can't give specific feedback.Prezbo (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look anyway Prezbo, it's useful to know that the basic idea needs clarifying. I'll try to work on the first few sections a bit more. Shapeyness (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Truth

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Shocksingularity

• The explanations of the theories in the second paragraph of the lead could for the most part be a little simpler/written in a more understandable style. Some of the language is a bit technical.
• The images of David Malet Armstrong and Alfred Tarski are not really that helpful to the encyclopedic content of the article, so I'd remove them.

Overall, I think it looks good and could probably pass FA as-is, as long as you take into account any feedback from FA reviewers. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Shocksingularity and thanks for the comments! I rewrote the 2nd lead paragraph. It's a technical subject so it could be still somewhat challenging but I hope it's better now. I moved Armstrong's image to the history section, where he is discussed. I kept Tarski's image in the subsection "Semantic" since Tarski is explicitly mentioned there as the founder of the semantic theory and because the history section already has too many images to fit in Tarski's image as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The second lead paragraph looks a lot better now! Shocksingularity (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Pacifism in France

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it could get to GA with some help, and I would appreciate the help and if I am delusional about the qaulity of article, for someone to tell me.

Thanks, Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

296cherry

Ok, so I didn’t review the article super thoroughly, but from a first glance I’m already seeing a lot of original research. I believe that the immediate priority should be to remove any source that does not explicitly mention pacifism in France. For example, the UN peacekeeping contributing site, the Bible passage, and so on. It is distracting and violates WP:Due weight. Focusing solely on relevant sources would make this article much better, because as it stands I would rate it closer to c-class rather than its current b-class.

A few other issues:

The history section starts very late. I would at the very least cover the Peace and Truce of God and the ”Perfecti” sect of the Cathars.

It is also unclear what is meant by “pacifism”. The article, for the most part, describes it as a political and social movement. But in the last paragraph of the lead and the 21st century section, the article simply talks about the rate of violence in France. The former is the correct option, so I believe references to France’s current rate of violent crime are irrelevant.

I realize this is quite a bit of criticism, but I do appreciate that you brought this for peer review. I will try and help out by editing the article when I can, no promises though. 296cherry (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I really appreciate your review.

I am really not trying to have an argument so please forgive me if my tone is a bit off in this.

I am slightly confused about the original research comment considering the bible passage is a note and the UN peacekeeping does mention France, please see for example source 95 which is the French UN website. The last paragraph does not change the meaning- I am slighty confused about this. In context it says "Despite France's commitment to peacekeeping, the nation ranked 99 on the 2026 Global Peace Index.[101][102] It was ranked as the least peaceful country in Western and Central Europe, due to an increase in domestic violent crime.[19]" This was explaining where it was on the peace index, I would argue that if this was not included it would change the understanding of the article in a negative way. Finally, I would like to ask where the original research is? The sources do mention pacifism in France or the relevance of the paragraph is established using a source mentioning pacifism and then, a source such as this might add additional evidence.

I don't understand how this violates due weight considering that France is a member of the P5, a founding member as well as having press releases on the very subject.

Thanks very much for having a look at this. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Religious art and culture of the Shang dynasty

This is an article split from Religion of the Shang dynasty, expanding that page's Arts and culture section. Most of the sources are taken from the original section, although this article features more in-text attribution. Listed this article for peer review as I aim for higher ratings (definitely GA if I can); anyone willing to give this a look is welcomed.

Thanks, Strongman13072007 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Prezbo

First sentence--you're not required to restate the title of the article in the first sentence like this. When the title is long you can often write a better opening sentence if you don't restate it. Prezbo (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• "Participation in the ancestral cult itself was apparently restricted to close lineage members, royal consorts, sons and affines" -- "affines" is quite a technical term, I would explain what that means or use something else.
• "The Xuanhe bogu tu read the ancient ornament allegorically, explaining the taotie as a warning against gluttony" -- what's the Xuanhe bogu tu?
• In general I appreciate the massive amount of work (probably a lot of your work) that went into this article, but I found it a challenging read as a layperson. It's well-organized but not the most accessible. Maybe a bit more of a thousand foot view of the social world of the Shang dynasty, or the methods scholars have used to study it? Maybe a bit more historiography? On the other hand, it's verging on "too long" at 8,878 words, so you need to be cautious about that. And I'm not sure what you can cut because I can't really get a grasp on the material. I found the section on labor interesting. And the effort of trying to understand such a different culture and scholarly world is an interesting experience. But this wasn't an easy read for me. I hope someone else can give you more actionable advice.

Prezbo (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Social sciences and society

Ben Roberts-Smith

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently nominated the article as a featured article candidate and it was not promoted due to timing out. I want to ensure that as much as possible is addressed prior to nominating it as a featured article candidate again.

Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 06:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Monika (Doki Doki Literature Club!)

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it and nominate it to GA

Thanks, Furbchess (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Z. Patterson

I have some points to address.

• All statements need to have citations no later than at the end of the paragraph. Part of the second paragraph in the Concept and creation section has an uncited statement.
• Any out-of-universe actions need to be in past tense. For example, I see Writer Christopher Patterson describes her as a yandere.
• I do not think placing years in parentheses in the Appearances section is necessary.
• Can you try to find news articles or other reliable sources to replace the X posts?
• Is the character's birth date important? That could come across as WP:FANCRUFT.
• Please be mindful about words to watch, such as "while". See MOS:WTW.
• Citations should be placed in numerical order whenever multiple citations are used for a statement.
• Avoid starting sentences with "However".
• Per WP:VALNET, Game Rant is not a high quality source. I would try to replace or remove Game Rant.
• I checked the article history, and the article appears stable. There are no recent or ongoing edit wars, and it meets WP:GACR6 criterion 5.

Other than what I stated above, I believe the article can have a GAN. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips!Furbchess (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Arbel Yehoud

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how I can improve the article so that it would meet FA status. I've never written an FA before (and Arbel Yehoud is my first GA), so I'd like a more experienced Wikipedian in this area to take a look at it.

Thanks, EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@EaglesFan37: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• @EaglesFan37: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Yes, I am. EaglesFan37 (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• @EaglesFan37: Since you are working towards your first successful FAC, I recommend getting a mentor who can comment in this PR and help with the FAC process. I also recommend reviewing other WP:FAC articles now, as it will help with understanding the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Sorry for the late response. Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to pick a mentor in the next few days. EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Independent of my review below, I encourage you to follow Z's advice about jumping into FAC reviews. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I've only glanced at this briefly, but what immediately jumped out at me was the sourcing. You have a bunch of mainstream US and European news sources, which is good. And you also have a bunch of Israeli/Jewish sources, which isn't itself a problem, but you don't have any sources that I can identify as Palestinian, Arab, or Islamic. Reviewers at WP:FAC will quickly pick up on that and want to know how this can meet WP:FACR 1d ("neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias"). It did not take me long to find coverage of Yehoud in Al Jazeera, El Ahram, Asian News International, Middle East Eye, and Dawn (newspaper). This asymmetry of sourcing in an article on a highly controversial topic will engender quick opposition at FAC. To be honest, I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned @Wisenerd: at the GA review or @Beta Beta Beta, AirshipJungleman29, and Dclemens1971: at DYK. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith, is the sourcing you found from Al Jazeera/El Ahram etc. materially different in view and tone from the ones cited in the article, such that the current selection may be considered asymmetrical? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't dig that deeply. This was kind of an elephant in the room situation, but even if those sources were similar in tone, it's important to hear the story from a wider variety of voices. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29@RoySmith I don't know why I didn't automatically get a notification, but I've subscribed now.

When I wrote the article, I primarily relied on the news tab in google for results, or coverage of interviews/activities of Arbel Yehoud since her release (which is primarily in Israeli/Jewish media).

Taking a look now, the Al Jazeera article I can find about Yehoud , doesn't say anything different than what's currently in the article. Looking at Dawn sources , , , it's mainly just press releases repeating information (maybe one thing new to add).

El Ahram isn't loading on my computer so I can't really evaluate those sources.

I can try to integrate those sources in later today. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Harvey Brownstone

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been in the process of cleaning up this page. The main editor seems to have a conflict of interest, as they use promotional rather than neutral language. A lot of the information is poorly cited, uses non-Wikipedia-approved sources, or is not cited at all. I am also unsure how to cite YouTube videos for a living person's biography correctly. I want to see if my edits are adequate and how to further improve the page. Thanks, Sea2Sky

Lists

Joy Division discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article for LI some day. I would also like an entire review of this article. Thanks, VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Anyone here? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Prezbo

Minor note, in the intro you say "they later recruited Morris's girlfriend Gillian Gilbert as keyboardist and second guitarist," without explaining who Morris is. Personally I could do without the lists of countries where the albums charted, but maybe that's interesting to others. I think it's well-organized but I don't know what separates a good discography list from a great one, sorry. Prezbo (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Minor note, in the intro you say "they later recruited Morris's girlfriend Gillian Gilbert as keyboardist and second guitarist," without explaining who Morris is.
 Done The Morris I was referring is Stephen Morris. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject peer reviews

• WikiProject Military history: Ben Roberts-Smith • Byrhtnoth • Misneach • Otvet • Pacifism in France