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.
The history of American music seems to be confined within the parameters of the Jazz age or the birth of rock and roll onward, while the more distant pioneers of our nation's aural tradition remain reserved for the history books. How often do we hear of Stephen Foster, the "father of American music," compared to Elvis Presley? The two hundred fifty years of the States' progress have been graced and guided by a rich folk heritage which our forefathers so cherished and sought to preserve. Nevertheless, we now find it crumbled, quashed, by the incessant overproduction of modern music, reflecting not the sincere beauty of the American peoples but the dexterity of a computer or the gluttony of record labels.
The obscurity of one of our nation's most momentous songwriters, described by musicology expert Irwin Silber as "the ultimate composer of quintessentially realistic popular song during the sixties and seventies," sadly proves our ignorance of the folk music tradition that held us together as a people throughout times of strife and sectionalism. Henry Clay Work was one of the Union's bards in the Civil War, whose inspiringly patriotic songs rallied support for the Right and spurred on our noble patriots to extinguish the Southern rebellion. "Marching Through Georgia," the most successful composition of the North, was his own, and other impactful minstrel songs/seriocomedies such as "Kingdom Coming" and "Grafted Into the Army" form part of his extensive catalog. Work's societal contributions did not end there, as he also played a part in the inception of the postbellum temperance movement cautioning against the sinful intoxication of drink. To top it all of, he penned one of our finest folk songs, "My Grandfather's Clock," the most profitable since Foster's "Old Folks at Home." One must not assume that the riches Work amassed made him a happy man; his personal life was overcast by grief and tragedy—his wife went insane, three of his children died in their youth and his family sought to distance itself from him. Work died lonely and forgotten, his popularity garnered throughout the Civil War having all but faded away. To this day, almost no one recognizes Work's name.
I humbly plead you, fellow Wikipedians, to vindicate Henry Work's valiant service to our nation by, at the very least, granting an uninformed populace a decent source of information on him (I am aiming for a featured article). I am open to all constructive criticism and advice, especially with regards to language and comprehensibility, not as a moral prerogative, but to do our musical history justice.
This preamble to the PR is too long. Provide a short description of the article, as this will be good practice for the FAC. Please also note that Wikipedia is an international website, and not everyone here is American: statements like "to vindicate Henry Work's valiant service to our nation" is unlikely to encourage non-American reviewers.
The lede is too long. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The block quote is not necessary in the lede.
The article uses too many quotes and block quotes. Instead, articles should summarise what sources have said about the lyrics. Lyrics only need to be in the article if absolutely necessary, and I do not think that is the case from every instance I can see in the article.
Yes @Z1720, it very much helps; in fact, your comments reflect the doubts I had on the article. I will take all your suggestions to heart and effect them soon. I am eager to collaborate further :) DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about SB19's second extended play, Pagtatag!, which they released last year in June. It included the single, "Gento", which is a featured article. I have taken Pagtatag! to FAC recently but was archived due to multiple prose issues and decided to take this to a peer review before nominating it again for FAC. I believe I have addressed the issues raised in the previous FAC nomination and I hope to see more suggestions to improve the article before taking it to another FAC, which I hope will get the article promoted successfully soon. I thank the reviewers in advance for their efforts in this review. – Relayed (t • c) 12:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging Aoba47 and PerfectSoundWhatever for their involvement in the article's previous FAC nomination. Please take a look if I have addressed your comments to your liking. Below are the comments that were not applied in the article, with respective comments.
Unfortunately, the Philippines does not have album charts. The EP also did not enter any international charts, so the chart box is not included in the article.
Same here, local publications do not do album "ratings", nor international publications cover a review of the EP with a rating, so the template is excluded.
I've listed this article for peer review because, first and foremost, I have been heavily contributing to the article (at first anonymously, as 2601:47:100:ac40:...) and hoping to get it to B-class. I think it is right now, but as @PresN: noted at WT:VG#Dr Disrespect, despite some cleanup and copyediting, which is always helpful there are "choppy paragraphs, choppy sentences, a flow so close to WP:Proseline that it's almost uncanny, and most of all almost no information about the person that isn't just a list of controversies". @Sergecross73: added that they currently have "no interest in writing about these ridiculous, over-the-top gaming personalities. Doubly so with someone with the allegations against him he's got going on at the moment". At the article's talk itself, I suggested that there should be a screenshot of a livestream, which was opposed by @Axem Titanium: because both images have Beahm "wearing the same wig and sunglasses he always wears and "He looks like the same middle-aged white dude in both photos to me. I have a hard time imagining readers not believing that they're the same person". There is also a slight contention over a few citations between me and @Rock & roll is not dead:, particularly over Kick (service).
That was what you pointed out to me. Like I said then, I was hoping that participants of the Wikiproject maybe interested. And despite now almost being nothing to add since the streamer's removal from the YT partner program and almost no word from him, there is still interest in the article's improvement. Also, if you're still wondering about his controversies, no, I've not found a good place for them. 2601AC47 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I just don't understand what my comment indicating I wasn't interested in contributing to the article at the Wikiproject discussion does to benefit this peer review. I've made zero contributions to the article. Sergecross73msg me18:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not asking you to do so. Just quoting.
In any case, brief history: On March 19, 2018, Valoem created the article as seen here. It was briefly subjected for deletion in late April that year; with 7 keeps, 1 move to draft and no deletes, it was kept incontrovertibly in May. By then, it looked like this. 2 years later, after he was banned from Twitch, it looked like this. It was semiprotected for the first time afterwards (currently it is through August).
Progressing every mid-year onward: 2021; 2022; 2023; and before a reason was released by Cody Conners in 2024. Each time, it was proven to be notable. I first edited it in July 2020; one little edit in September 2023 here; and my first in a line of 50+ edits on June 29. All in good faith and with the intent to improve this to meet the B-class criteria, which I think definitely does unless proven otherwise. 2601AC47 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try to merge the one-sentence paragraphs with other information.
The "Permanent ban from Twitch and fallout" section is quite long: is there a way to shorten this or split it up?
"Dr Disrespect is a fan of the Golden State Warriors of the NBA, seen at games at Oracle Arena and Chase Center." This probably belongs in "Personal life" unless this is related to his career.
Any additional images of the person to add to the article?
I've listed this article for a second peer review (the first one was for GA, which it passed) because I'd like to bring it to FAC within the next few months. This is probably the largest and most ambitious film article I've ever done and am still a bit unsure about how to format some things, so I'd appreciate any feedback. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in working on an FAC attempt for this. I took this article to GA status in Nov 2022, which involved basically rewriting the entire article, so I can handle any changes/edits from minor to major.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FL, and wish to get the suggestions of other editors, since I lack prior experience with featured articles and lists and this is the single most unwieldy article I've ever had to work on so far. I intend to take the other eight generation lists on as well, but I'm starting here given how recent the content is.
For this review, I'm primarily looking for:
-Copy-editing, to catch typos, strange wordings, or things that could be better phrased in the article.
-Additional context. What additional context does the reader need to understand everything in the article? I've done my best to try and cover the basics but I feel there's more I could do/stuff that slipped through the cracks.
-Reception section. The Reception for this generation is surprisingly very weak, and most of the only significant articles are from TheGamer (While they're a great source, I feel their overuse is lackluster.) I'll take literally any source suggestions or ideas I can get because finding even what I was able to pump out took several hours to research and put together. While this shouldn't impact LISTN, I do wish to have something decent here.
-Conception and design. Not quite sure what to do with it, since outside of some miscellaneous designer confirmations that can be covered in the cells individually, this generation has no design information. Most gens don't, but this list suffers from recency in that regard. I was considering listing the other reveals prior to release in there, akin to the line currently there about the starters, but I'm admittedly unsure and would appreciate feedback on this.
-What overall needs to be done to make it FL ready. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the standards, and though I'm aware of a good chunk of it, I wish to have some more experienced editors take a look over this first so I can make sure I've got everything down and correct.
@LunaEclipse I've made sure only to use the aforementioned sources for verification purposes (And not Reception) but either way I plan on looking into replacement sources for some of the ones I know can be easily substituted by higher quality sources (Since I know quite a few of these subjects got covered by stuff like Polygon and the like). The main reason I'm using a good chunk of these is the fact physical characteristics aren't easy to source. It's hard to verify basic claims on their appearances at times. I'll see what I can do since I know some replacements should exist for certain ones but in some cases some of these subjects got very little coverage in comparison to others. Not sure if there's an easy work-around for it but I'll see what I can do.
I will note TheGamer post August 2020 is considered a generally reliable source, regardless of the fact it's Valnet-owned, so using sources from there shouldn't be an issue for FAC.
i've listed this article for peer review because i am interested in improving the article to FA status. also, if it gets FA status, the 1989 (album) topic is able to accommodate one more good article to keep its featured topic status, so i should be able to create another article (to add to the topic) (fyi the article is i wish you would, and i found lots of sources). furthermore, it would help me get a featured article under my belt, which i have none (and i tried with outram park mrt station but failed.
Adding two penn'orth to the above: in the FA article on Round the Horne we followed the usual Wikipedia convention of using the present tense: "...is a radio show" etc. For the ITMA FA we used the past tense – "was a radio show" etc – because little of it survives in recordings and it is seldom heard on air, whereas Round the Horne receives frequent, one might almost say regular, rebroadcasts decades after its first transmission. Much Binding has had a few outings in the years since the first broadcasts, but SchroCat and I think that the past tense, à laITMA, is the right one here. We'd be glad of reviewers' thoughts on this point. Tim riley talk18:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that it should be explicitly stated that this is a radio comedy in the first sentence, à la ITMA.
If we say "was a radio comedy", that would mean repeating the word "radio" three times in the sentence
This would work if taken along with the suggestion just below, but I see what you mean otherwise - S
More generally, I think the first sentence would benefit from discussing Murdoch and Horne instead of the broadcaster, since they were the constant throughout.
Could broadcast from 1944 to 1950 and 1951 to 1954 by BBC Radio and in 1950–51 by Radio Luxembourg be rephrased in relation to the BBC, something like "broadcast from 1944 to 1954 by BBC Radio, with one season broadcast by Radio Luxembourg in 1950–1951"? This reduces repetition and sounds more natural to me.
Singers in the musical interludes in the show included Gwen Catley, Maudie Edwards. Binnie Hale and Doris Hare. To remove repetition, try "Singers in the show's musical interludes included Gwen Catley, Maudie Edwards, Binnie Hale and Doris Hare"?
Background
I think the ITMA in brackets should be italics.
Stand Easy for the Army and, for the Royal Air Force superfluous space after comma.
a BBC radio show for the Air Force, based on those who worked for the RAF Balloon Command comma is unnecessary.
Many thanks. Most of these done, but I need to have a chat with the one-armed bandit, once he is able to type properly again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I literally had that same idea too! Here are some things that I'm pretty sure should be done before a FAC.
Undertale has been studied in multiple scholarly sources. Adding them is necessary for a comprehensive article. It's possible that a "Themes" section can be created.
The Reception section seems lacking, for a game that received so much attention — in fact, I originally planned to rewrite this section. More reviews and aspects of the game can be added here.
"Impact and legacy" can likely be expanded to include Undertale's influence in other games. Some retrospective Undertale articles (i.e. "Undertale was released 5 years ago" etc.) could probably be added here. "Fandom" could likely be expanded too — in fact, I think an Undertale fandom article is feasible.
I came across this article when it was the subject of an AfD for a supposed lack of notability, as well as being badly written. As I am Brazilian and would be able to read the Portuguese-language sources, I took it as a fun exercise to try to bring this article about a forgotten former child star up to Wikipedia standards, adding sources, formatting and copy-editing. I now believe it qualifies for C or B-class status, but would like your feedback as to what is appropriate and what could be improved upon (or whether it even meets the criteria for either of these).
hello, cvdx. congratulations on saving this article from getting afd’d. personally, i feel that this article can reach c class, not sure about b tho. i feel that the article definitely improved from its initial state. if you want to, you can jump straight into nominating it for ga status. but if you fell like this article has a long way to go, try to find as many sources as possible (if you are not sure what is reliable or not, this should help a bit, but it is best to use wp:rspbrachy08(chat here lol)05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently a GA, but I want to upgrade it to FA. I don't want to make the same potential mistake I made here, so I'm nominating it here first. I think that in the rest of the criteria for FA the article has no problem, but the prose part is the most complicated for me. In additon, I want a mentor for this.
I've listed this article for peer review because... GA attempt. Not now because there will probably be more sources to come in the future, but still. CHECK: prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, any other forms of criticism welcome.
I have massively expanded this article over the past day week and I'm looking for advice as to if the article would qualify for C-class, or how it can be improved further.
Hiya, LunaEclipse! Thanks for your comments—I've removed Ty Burr's blog and any Valnet-owned sources. I'll try and review DJ Kool Herc by the end of next week. Again, thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pamzeis! This will be my first contribution to a PR; delighted to be reviewing your article! Some things I'm noticing below:
Her mother attempted to distract her with activities... — The meaning is obvious, but would benefit from adding the word "other" before "activities"; there's a subtle implication that acting does not fall under "activities" with this wording.
Done
...adding that her family "keep [her] feet on the ground". — Should be "keep[s]", if I'm not mistaken; in American English the word "family" is treated as a single unit. A bit of a pedantic point, but the article is tagged American English, and my American brain clocked it as a bit strange.
Done
Otherwise, it's very well-written as it stands. Well done!
Thanks!
Images look good as far as Creative Commons licensing goes (the one in the main infobox is of exceptional quality for a YouTube screenshot - I wish I could find good screengrabs like that more often). The audio clip of her voice LGTM too.
Thank you for providing alt text for the images :)
MOS:LEADLENGTH feels a bit short given the 3000+ word count – you could likely expound a little bit more on her other ventures and her artistry within reason, I understand you've gone over most of her career highlights in the lead already
Hi, Joeyquism! A belated welcome to PR! Hope you decide to stick around. Apologies for not responding earlier; I have not been the most active on wiki lately. I will try to resolve your comment on the lead (though writing leads are definitely not my strong point), but I may rework some sections of the article before I do so. Thanks for the comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this article has achieved GA, I'd like to aim for FA, but I need some disinterested eyes to help me see if there's anything that needs to be improved and if it stands any chance of getting FA anytime soon - since I'm a fan of the band and the main contributor to the article, I don't think I can be as neutral about the article's quality as I'd like to be, and I don't know enough about the FAC process to know if it's anywhere close to FA.
I think this article should list some important awards and nominations the band has received, highlighting their status and recognition in the music industry. Additionally, it should provide the band's official website and social media links to make it easier for the public to learn about them through performance videos. I hope this helps. Kikolipu (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the late reply - I saw this then completely forgot about it :P The official website is provided in the infobox, and due to being a very new band they haven't received any awards that I can find.
I've listed this article for peer review because it could be considered for featured list status and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead and the references. I want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn✉19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia:Peer review/Review closure policy had been incorrectly closed due to a misinterpretation of the inactive discussion rules. An inactive discussion, is one in which a review has begun and received some feedback and the subsequent discourse has become inactive. It is not a review with no feedback. There is a separate set of rules regarding limits for articles hoping for feedback. WP:PR has a noticeboard for reviews that have had no feedback for a long time (well over a month).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the article is long and detailed, but that probably means there is a lot to improve. I'd rather wait another 7 months than go to FAC. Ping me in another 7 months if it still has not been reviewed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get comments. Also, it has been difficult for some PRs to get feedback, especially ones that are to go to FAC or are as long as this article. I am also aware of the fact that this PR should have closed when it was nominated for GAN a couple months ago, per the instructions, step 4. If you want to keep this open, I suggest that you post a request on the Wikiprojects attached to this article to see if anyone would like to leave feedback. Bringing it to FAC might also generate feedback on how to improve the article, even if it is unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for input from someone who is good at organizing/summarizing an overwhelming number of sources. I'm hoping to take this article to GA, maybe even further. The article could mainly use a second opinion on what's missing, and anything that seems unclear to an outside reader. There are a lot of sources that talk about this character. Maybe too many. I don't want to fully omit sources in the interest of brevity, but I know there is a better way to summarize and organize the reception. I'd appreciate an outside opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I can definitely expand the lead and the appearances section. I agree with you about the reception, and could use some more feedback. Can you suggest some ways to cover the same material in a more organized, succinct way? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some few changes and removed Cultured Vultures as unreliable. I think the interview and commentary about its portrayal could be potentially be removed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to work with it. If anyone has more specific ideas for the reception, I'll leave this Peer Review open for another week or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review as I have done a fair bit of work to the article over the last few days and feel it is no longer a Stub article. Prior to this the article had not been updated since 2023.
However, it has been hard to find additional English language sources for the museum. Most are from the museum's opening in 2017, and I haven't been able to find more recent information aside from what is on the company's website and annual reports from the corporation.
Any help finding additional sources would be appreciated, along with a review of the articles class.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what it takes to make this a featured article. Specifically, focus on article tone, lede, and summary style.
Hi, great article! The lede generally looks good. I think that one thing I'd say is that the last sentence could probably be simplified (With the amounts of mechanical grip the car and tires could provide...).
If my understanding is correct, the last sentence is expanding on the sentence before it by explaining in more detail (1) what type of influence this car has had on F1 car design (specifically, the aero) and (2) specifically who adopted these changes. I think that it would help if the dependent clause With the amounts of mechanical grip... was shortened or cut. It disrupts the flow b/w the last and 2nd to last sentences, and doesn't add much to conveying ideas (1) and (2). spintheer (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think it does a good job of being accessible to non-technical readers; as someone not particularly familiar with physics or chemistry, I felt it was a pretty easy read. A few suggestions for improvement:
The final few sentences of the lead section (about the suitability of thorium-229m) are confusing in isolation; the lead doesn't make it clear why energy or laser excitation are relevant. The following section expands on this, but in general, lead sections should stand on their own.
There seem to be several violations of WP:EDITORIAL throughout the article. I fixed one of these myself, but many of them I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to elegantly rephrase the sentences. Some examples: "it is also intriguing", "it is evident", and "fortunately".
The end of the ionization section mentions "the loss is tolerable", which left me wondering what "tolerable" means in this context and should probably be expanded on.
While the lead needs rewriting, the third paragraph, "Irankunda was announced to join Bayern Munich in July 2024 for an undisclosed fee, presumably, breaking the A-League transfer record " is too short and should be merged with the fourth one.
This line, "Born in Tanzania, Irankunda has represented Australia at youth level" should go to the second paragraph. Second paragraph is the line after the infobox
@JC Kotisow: I suggest seeking a mentor who can comment in this PR, and asking for feedback in the Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also suggest reviewing WP:FACs while you wait, as this will help you learn the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst other FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was copy-edited back in February 2024 and passed a GA review in May 2024. My ultimate aim is to take this to FA status and I would welcome some detailed feedback and comments on its prose and sources as well as other aspects. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk17:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the career description of this actress is too lengthy and convoluted, mixing plot details, reviews, and awards. It's not concise enough for the general audience to grasp the core information. Wouldn't it be better to separate career, awards, and critical reception into distinct sections? Also, I don't understand why the description of her appearance is clearer and longer than her accolades. Kikolipu (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment but I tend to disagree. We cannot create a laundry list of everything and then scatter them across different sections. The article needs to have a chronological order and a flow with relevant information put together. For FA examples with similar structures, you can look at Angelina Jolie or Deepika Padukone. Keivan.fTalk04:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it requires reviewing by someone with more experience in topic who may see something I may have missed and improve the article.
Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amiga Format was one of the largest magazines dedicated to the Amiga brand of computers. However, not terribly much third-party information about the magazine exists, and I have made all the changes I could think of in the article, the few places needing citations notwithstanding. That said, I feel like there are gaps to fill in, such as style of reporting, more editor info, notable stories, etc., and I am not sure where to look. Note that the article largely consists of the History and Staff sections, and I have removed a large chunk about the regular features for not having any independent sources about them and lacking notability. I do know I can find more about the magazine in issues of Amiga Addict, of which I will have to ask others on this site to send PDFs to my email account. I will probably need someone much more familiar with this subject, or at least have access to the Amiga Addict articles, to reply. Thanks, FreeMediaKid$14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never read this particular magazine, but I grew up with an Amiga and remember how print magazines like this one shaped much of the home computing culture of the 1980s and 1990s. Nostalgia aside, here are some comments, mostly suggestions for improvement:
Lead: I would prefer to first say where the magazine came from and then how long it was published.
History: "the Amiga and Atari ST operating systems" these were not just operating systems, better to say something like "computers" or "computer families". Amiga and Atari ST were not just rivals, but also shared some hardware, most notably the Motorola 68000 CPU (and there were a few magazines covering something between "both" and "all " 68000 systems).
"in the wake of Future's sale of the video game magazine ACE to EMAP, it was decided to split the magazine" what is the relevance of the sale of ACE?
"Future decided to spin off the magazine after reader demands for magazines with narrowed interests" clarify / improve: they decided to create spin-off magazines in response to reader demand for magazines with narrower interest / after readers demanded magazines ...
Do we know how long Amiga Shopper / Amiga Power existed? Were they merged back into Amiga Format after they ended?
"The last tutorial was cut short in the middle because of the cancellation of the magazine" uncited and sad, but a bit trivial.
"Each issue of Amiga Format was provided with a cover disk containing an assortment of application software, public-domain (i.e. free of charge) games, and new game demos—a practice pioneered by Future Publishing and which it inherited from its predecessor, ST/Amiga Format—popularising the concept amongst its rival magazines" split long sentence and try to organise it more chronologically. As this seems a central claim of fame for this magazine, it should be explained properly.
"This practice drew ire from software publishers, and Amiga Format and its competitors agreed to halt it." er, why? Did they illegally publish these games without a license?
"Blitz BASIC subsequently overtook AMOS as the preferred way to program games" whose preferred way to program games? A few years earlier, C+Assembly was popular especially for anything serious.
"the United Kingdom's first computer magazine to attach two cover CDs to a single issue, the second in this case AGA users" what about the AGA users? I don't understand this.
I would suggest to split the "history" section into "history" and "content".
The "circulation" graphic is nearly unreadable at this size and still hard to read on the image description page. Perhaps you can move the sources to the description page instead of making people zoom in on the file?
Generally, you could consider starting the History section with a little bit of context on the Amiga (and the Atari ST) and their rising popularity in the late 1980s/early 1990s
As you say, "style of reporting" and similar things could be helpful to discuss in terms of content. How serious was the writing? Were the contests a regular feature? How was the split between hardware/application software/games? (You would not need to cover all of these topics to get the article to GA status, but it certainly is worth trying to address these points).
Thank you for working on this computer magazine! These magazines are an important part of computing culture that is in danger of being forgotten. Let me know if you want me to clarify anything (or even if you want more suggestions). —Kusma (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping to take this article to GA, but I'm not sure what still needs to be done to get it there. It certainly doesn't feel like it's ready, and IMO lacks enough prose, but I'm not sure how it can realistically be expanded beyond what it's currently at. TheKip(contribs)20:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I need to know the community's opinion on it before I send it to FAC for a second time. The first FAC was archived due to lack of general support, weak sourcing and prose issues. Since then, additional book sources have been introduced within the article, material has been trimmed and previous sources have been replaced with higher quality ones as and when needed.
A few thoughts after a quick canter through the article:
"has played a significant role in various charitable activities" – this is the first of five "significant"s in the text. There is good advice in Plain Words: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?
"Her paternal family benefited financially from trust funds; her great-grandparents Noël and Olive Middleton, played host to members of the British royal family in the 1920s through to the 1940s" – three points here: (i) the semicolon leads one to suppose that the second part of the sentence is connected in some way to the first, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, (ii) you don't want the comma before "played", as this phrase is used restrictively (unless they were her only great-grandparents, which seems improbable) and (iii) is there any other way than financially to benefit from trust funds?
1) Replaced with a colon.
2) Dropped comma
3) These trust funds primarily offered financial benefits. Additionally, the Middleton family had other social and professional advantages. For instance, members of the family, such as solicitor Henry Dubs Middleton and Gertrude Middleton, attended prestigious institutions like Charterhouse and the University of Oxford. They also held significant social positions, with Noël Middleton hosting members of the British royal family and co-founding the Yorkshire Symphony Orchestra
"The couple was given the country home Anmer Hall... Following their marriage in 2011, the couple used Nottingham Cottage" – you need to decide whether "couple" is a singular or a plural noun. Either is acceptable – I believe singular is more common in AmE and plural in BrE – but you should be consistent one way or the other.
Using the plural form that is more common in British English.
"mentioned in a personal letter released by Kensington Palace the previous day that she is still undergoing treatment for cancer" – past tense is called for here.
Done
"The meeting was well-received" – when a phrase is used as a predicative adjective it should not have a hyphen (although if used attributively, as in "It was a well-received meeting" the hyphen is in order).
Done
"marking their first visit to the region since becoming Duke and Duchess of Cornwall" – this is the first we've heard of their becoming Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. Few readers will know that the title is automatic for the heir apparent to the throne: a line of explanation is wanted here.
Done
"Former royal press secretary Dickie Arbiter" – clunky tabloidese false title here.
Done
I can't pretend I read the entire text as thoroughly as I would normally do when reviewing an article: I found the exhaustive detail sapping my will to live part of the way through the Charity Work section. But I hope these few comments are helpful. Tim riley talk12:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Thanks for your time and suggestions. Please do let me know if you have any further suggestions for me. Looking forward to your response to the above responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am unsure of whether the article covers the topic or not. The history section is now a summary of a long article (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). Suggestions as to what else the article should cover and ideas for improvement sought.
Sticking strictly to comprehensiveness, though I'm happy to do a more fine-grained nit-pick if it would be useful. I sympathise that resources may be hard to come by, but at the moment I think this is very much an Anglo-American take on the subject.
The "Etymology and definition" section has three long definitions that are all, basically, American in origin. It's interesting that, for example, we quote Rogers at great length, but not Jomini, when the former is a far more influential military thinker. At the risk of making a milhist cliché, did Clausewitz have anything to say on the subject? Did the Warsaw Pact have its own definition, alongside that of NATO?
On that Farrow quotation, I suppose I'm not totally clear what role it's filling. If it's there as a historical curiosity, it would seem to be in the wrong place (with the definitions/etymology, rather than with the history of thought on the matter), and perhaps something of an island -- we would want similar comments from much older military thinkers (Vegetius, Xenophon, Sun Tzu...?) on the importance and methods of supplying an army. On the other hand, if it's there as a definition - to help readers understand what Military logistics means -- I'm not sure that it says anything not also said by Lutes or NATO.
The "supply options" section is written partly in the past tense, creating the impression that modern military forces never, for example, employ looting.
Most of my comments from the FAC on History of military logistics about comprehensiveness and inclusive language apply to the History section here -- apart from a very quick reference to the Maurya Empire (which is then rapidly lost in a brief discussion of Roman transport costs), the only mention of something outside Europe is an American operation in China. Napoleon gets a whole paragraph while nothing in Africa or the Americas is mentioned at all.
The "Models" section seems to be pretty much a statement of American/NATO doctrine and categorisation. Most of the sources cited are either adjacent to the US military or explicitly discussing its operations.
A relatively small thing, but I notice that we have eight images, all of which seem to be of modern US forces.
I had a flick around the corresponding articles in other languages (by the power of Google Translate) -- the English article is unquestionably the best of them, but there are details in e.g. Russian, Chinese, Spanish and German which might be of some use -- if only their selection of images. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
1. I feel the article is at a good start. I think its missing some events that I didn't find for one reason or another.
I want to add a section about the the mass expulsion of Jewish/ marginalized groups from the medical field in Germany. However, I feel I couldn't do it justice.
2. Also, I cannot read German and rely on AI translations so there might be errors possibly. And makes reading books on the topic much slower / and excludes goldmines of information.
3. I don't know if the formatting is correct for Wikipedia standards.
Overall I'd like to see more historical details and format correction.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for a pre-FAC source review. The last 2 nominations were archived for sourcing problems so I need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at. I've fixed some issues but I first want to make sure before re-nominating. Pinging @FAC coordinators: @RoySmith, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Generalissima: -- who might be interested.
Wolverine XI, speaking plainly, you shouldn't "need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at". You should know yourself. You should review every single statement and double-check that it corresponds to the cited reference. This should not be anyone else's problem to fix, certainly not peer review, because source reviewing is already a thankless job. The responsibility is yours here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I did, but I don't want to be questioned about sourcing issues by reviewers in the next nomination. In the event that this spot check is successful, there won't be any problems with the 5th nom. Using this website, I generated random numbers, and the results were 3, 4, 12, 21, 24, 31, 43, 45, 55, 59, 67, 76, 77, 80, 85, 95, 96, 103, 110, and 113, for potential reviewers to check. WolverineXI(talk to me)21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GAN soon. I have worked extensively on plant species articles, but this is my first on a broader topic in the field. I would appreciate input on broadness, readability, and general manual of style. I do intend to eventually go for FAC with it, so anything beyond GA criteria is also more than welcome. Happy to peer review an article of yours in exchange! Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in excellent shape and I'd like to go for featured list. I wanted to get the opinions on that for further improvement.
Looks pretty good. I have a few comments and suggestions for minor improvements. I know very little about astronomy, so I might be wrong, so don't listen to me if you think my suggestions are bad.
In the lead, would it make sense to mention that Argo was split in 1750?
Lead image: you could link equirectangular projection. Do I understand correctly that this image is the only thing in the article actually defining what the modern constellations are? What does the epoch mean?
History: this is a bit too short. We are lacking what Ptolemy did, that the Southern celestial hemisphere is not observable from Europe, so these constellations were defined much later than the others. Then you could mention some of the most influential people like Lacaille, and mention what Delporte did and what the IAU did in 1922 and 1928.
Modern constellations: if not in the History section, you should explain here that they are defined (more or less) by the lines in the image. (In particular they are not just a small number of visible stars each).
There is a lot of detail on the abbreviations. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes the lack of history more noticeable.
Does anybody still use the "NASA abbreviations"?
Table: Does "created by Keyser and de Houtman" mean the constellation and name were invented by these people? There are a lot of these; maybe they should be mentioned in the History section.
It is a bit unclear which "meanings" get a link and which do not. Some links go to disambiguation pages, which is not very helpful
Would pictures in the table be useful or not?
Asterisms: was there actually a difference in meaning between "asterism" and "constellation" before people tried to unify the definitions?
It is not clear to me that this (very short) section should be at the end; actually, as part of clarifying the definition, stating what a constellation is versus an asterism might make sense pretty early on.
Thanks a lot for the review and those comments were extremely helpful. I'll definitely incorporate them into the article. Thanks again and happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is off to a great start. I would continue looking for sources for the article and adding information. For ideas of what to include in the article, and how to format the information, I would look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles about volcanoes such as Cerro Blanco (volcano) or Coropuna. I hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it as much as possible. I recently created this article, and I'd like outside feedback. Comments about formatting, content, or general editing are welcome. Hoping to bring this up to good article status at some point in the future.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for FA. I'm mostly concerned about the grammar and the possible close paraphrasing. Thanks in advance. Best regards, WikiEditor123…12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hello @Z1720! I was looking forward to see comments, but unfortunately nobody commented anything... I'm really not sure if I should nominate it for FAC as I'm sure it would be wiser to first receive peer review. Would you happen to have any comments regarding the article? WikiEditor123…20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you nominate the article for WP:GA first. This will allow you to get comments on the article in a lower-stakes environment. I always nominate articles for GA first before going to FA. Some comments after a quick skim:
I think the lede is too long for the length of the article. I would suggest cutting this down to three paragraphs.
I would add a new level 3 heading to divide the "Early life" section because it is quite long.
Add some more images. Any images of his work? Maybe the cover of a playbill for the plays? Other images of the person?
Legacy is too short. Suggest expanding this with commentary about his work. Any statues or things named after him?
Some of the sources listed are not used as inline citations. I suggest that these are used, or removed.
This is a personal preference, but since you have so many sources, you can split the sources into two columns. I did this with the "Works cited" section of William Lyon Mackenzie.
Per WP:ALLCAPS, the titles of sources should be in sentence case. Some of the titles are all caps in Russian and should be corrected.
"Further reading" section should either be used as a source or removed.
Hello @Z1720. You recommended adding more images but I'm not sure if I can if most, if not all, images of Idris Bazorkin are either copyrighted or not under clear copyright. Can I add more non-free images to the article under fair use? WikiEditor123…19:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiEditor1234567123: Yes, non-fair use images can be added to the article so long as the correct licencing is used for the image. Also, take a look in Commons to see if any free-use images have been uploaded there. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opening a new peer review for this article after the last one failed to get any response. I'm hoping to bring this article to FAC, but it's a big topic and more feedback would be helpful. I'm especially interested in comprehensiveness, but as always, any feedback is appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see a high quality article on this important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:
The 'Formation process' section is dismissive of the role of political ideology in military coups and dictatorships, implying that this is a pretext. I don't think that this is correct, as there are a number of examples of where the military see themselves as having the right to overthrow the government and rule if political parties adopt non-military related policies they don't approve of - Turkey and Pakistan are examples of where the military has historically seen itself as being the guardian of the constitution (as defined by the military high command).
The 'Factors' section is a bit hard to follow
It would be good to discuss somewhere the role of indoctrination and political ideologies within the military in forming and sustaining military dictatorships. For instance, extremely few officers in modern western militaries would ever consider it appropriate to overthrow the government and if they took any steps to do this their comrades would either stop them or the rank and file soldiers would refuse to follow orders. This is due to the way in which officers are trained, as well as the strength of other political institutions.
The role of training in ending military dictatorships could also be noted - some sources argue that sending officers overseas for training where they were indoctrinated about the importance of civilian rule contributed to the downfall of military dictatorships in Europe in particular during the 1970s and 1980s.
I'd suggest expanding a bit on the situation where the military shares power with the civilian government as part of a democratisation process and the tensions this results in - Myanmar is a good example.
Likewise, I'd suggest covering the situation where while the country is led by non-democratic civilian regime the the military is a significant political player in supporting it - Zimbabwe is an example.
The 'use of force' section should note that the extent to which military dictatorships use repressive and violent tactics domestically varies. For instance, the Cold War era military regime in Brazil was much less likely to kill its opponents than those in Argentina and Chile.
The 'South Asia' section is under-developed and should discuss the role the Army sees for itself in Pakistan.
You could possibly more explicitly flesh out the material on the self-defeating nature of military dictatorships for the military in many countries, where political instability, slow economic growth and a lack of international support undermine funding for the military and its prestige over time, especially in relation to the external opponents the military is meant to be countering. Pakistan and Thailand are good examples. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to say that I've seen this, I just want to wait a bit to see if there's other feedback or additional considerations that touch on the same areas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured article status, and since it's my first time doing so, I want to get a more experienced editor's opinion on it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for almost a month and planning to take it onto a FAC. Just wanted to run it by the Peer Review for reviews and suggestions as it's my first FAC nom.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate as a FAC soon! The article has a lot of information and I just need some comments on how to improve the prose (mostly), and other things that could be added towards the advancement of the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to turn it into a Featured List in the future. I have a few specific questions:
Is the introduction good enough for anyone not familiar with the topic?
Does the default sorting method make sense, or should I do ascending on date? (I prefered the most recent at the top, as I can imagine more readers would look up the more recent ones)
Should I include the end date, given that the table is already wide (and I can be deduced from the number of days)?
I'm quite familiar with the topic, but still think I can give some pointers. I like the default order, but I'm unaware of any specific MOS elements. Don't include the end date, as this would pose an accessibility issue if the table is too wide. Other nitpicks
The Maas book doesn't have a translated title. Might want to add for consistency. In citation 106, the "De" of de Bruijn is not capitalised. I assume we use Dutch rules for this and capitalise?
I wouldn't capitalise Prime Minister
However, some formateurs were instructed to do preliminary informing work --> I don't know what the word informing means in this context. Can it be omitted? I assume it refers to the work the informateur does, but not sure it translates to English.
For all roles, they are often members of the largest party --> The roles are often filled by members of the largest party (awkward prose).
Evaluatie kabinetsformatie 2017 is too meaty a document to not have a page number.
Until 2017 -> Before 2017
It was customary for a formateur not to accept the assignment immediately, but to consider it until the formateur believes there is certainty that the cabinet can be formed --> it was customary for a formateur to delay accepting the assignment until confident that a cabinet could indeed be formed.
Since 1989, it has been customary for the first informateur to receive an assignment to explore the possibilities for a cabinet within a short period of time. --> Since 1989, the initial informateur is tasked with quickly exploring cabinet possibilities. (or coalition possibilities)
The text doesn't mention why we need so many steps in the process. That is to say, that there is an increasing number of parties that form part of a possible coalition. I think this is important historical context.
Thanks for the feedback. I have adressed all but two of them. I will need time more time and sources to look into the word "informing" and the last point (I have not come across that yet explicitly in sources). Again, thanks for taking the time to review this list! Dajasj (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to your last point, I have searched for an explanation, but none of the sources I have read explicitly state that the number of parties or complexity are a reason for the introduction of the informateur or having so many phases. There is a source that states that fragmentation is a reason for longer formations, but the summary (the book is too niche and too expensive for me) does not mention anything about the number of phases. Dajasj (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking! The longer length of the formation itself may be worth mentioning in the lead for extra context. Two more comments:
You introduce the changing role of the formateur before you introduce the informateur and scout in the last paragraph. I understand what You're doing, but it doesn't quite work for me.
The tense in the last sentence should be "have been appointed". The sentence works better if it starts with " Since then"
Okay I have looked into length of the formation. It is obvious from the list that formations have become longer, but there is no source specifically saying that. I could create a graph in the future, but if I remember correctly, the templates are still down.
Bearing in mind WP:NOTNEWS, could you outline the notability case for this subject? Most of the sources seem either to be connected to his trials or to be closer to sensationalist tabloidism than scholarly sources (the Vice article, namely). Can we demonstrate that this person has enduring notability, beyond the interest that existed in his crimes and trial at the time?
The tone of the article sometimes gets a little too empathetic, or a little too close to journalistic, for an encyclopaedia. A few illustrative examples:
Johnson's early life was marked by familial challenges: better to be factual about what these challenges were.
His most infamous crime: infamous is not a neutral word or really one we can verify. Better to simply state that he committed this crime.
There are a lot of slightly euphemistic references to "troubled youths", "difficulties" etc in his childhood -- as above, we should be dispassionate and factual here.
Johnson became involved in the use of amphetamines, marijuana, and prescription medication at the age of 15: became involved in seems like a mealy-mouthed way of saying that he began misusing them (unless you mean that he dealt them).
Johnson went to multiple youth training centres and even jail for burglary: phrases like this as WP:EDITORIALISING and always best avoided.
Johnson secured employment as a concreter and was able to stay out of trouble until he suffered a workplace injury: likewise, euphemistic and slightly informal. Better to cut to the chase: "In 1997 (or whenever), he was injured at work [and lost his job?]; in January 1998, he carried out [again: euphemism of "was involved in" should be avoided] a series of armed robberies..."
In general, try to make sure that people from around the world can understand it: so "at the age of 11 or 12" is better than "in Year 7". Similarly, it's a good idea to convert AUSD amounts into USD.
Our paragraph on the Conyers murder casts the very strong aspersion that he was guilty, despite the jury's verdict to the contrary. Are we following sources in doing so? If not, the detailed account of what was "alleged", which is presumably untrue (at least as far as the law is concerned), should be cut down or reworded as what happened to Conyers.
What makes Roberta Williams notable enough for a redlink?
I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to go for my first ever Four Award, which inevitably means getting an article I created to FA status. I have gotten decent at getting my work through DYK and GA, but FA eludes me. I was wondering if I could have people critique my work the same way they would if it were at FA.
I'm unsure about the Fox News citation here, especially with the contentiousness (I mean, the man was literally fired for posting an Internet meme with Hitler in it) of the subject at hand. FAC demands the cream of the crop for this type of stuff. Do you have any other sources that can replace it?
I'm going to assume good faith for the CNBC source, as it's from a decently reputable TV channel.
Yeah, it is in practice a placeholder. just a list from the internet, but I personally might do professional & deep research to find these roles in a better context. I wasn't sure if using two list sources together would be improper WP:SYNTHESIS. Now I look at it, deep research into the bowels of the internet may have to be done to improve those cites.
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.
