You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168
You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168

Wikiafripedia:Peer review

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject
PR icon.png

Wikiafripedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikiafripedians are welcome.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikiafripedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Arts[edit source | edit]

Xanthi Carnival[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…it is about an annual event that is happening right now and it would be extremely helpful for visitors and for the benefit of the local community,but it is still unreviewd by the editors and I'm trying to get some help,maybe there is something wrong ...

Thanks, Gnslps (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


Warpaint (band)[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review, because I replaced class=Start by class=C for an article better than class=C.

Thanks, 84.46.53.249 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


Game of Thrones[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article can be promoted to FA. I think having a peer review to see what needs to be worked on before a FA nomination will be extremely beneficial. Thank you, -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


Wickety Wak[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because myself and other editors have attempted to clean it up only for our edits to be constantly reverted.

Article does not follow proper objective or encyclopedic tone. Any attempts by editors to maintain tone have been reverted by an author having close connection to subject material, including removal of User:Talk entries. Suspect COI. Author has expressed defensive behaviour over edits. Should we ask for third party intervention instead?


Thanks, LoofNeZorf (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


Fleet Street (album)[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it might be worthy of WAP:GA status at some point! I've been the only editor on it so far, though, so I would love a second third pair of eyes on it to help me see how to make it better. — Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shrinkydinks: I'll give this one a go.
  • The lede should provide a more thorough summary of the entire article.
  • A cappella, and especially collegiate a cappella, has its roots in covers of popular music. I think the should be elaborated upon a touch. "Has its roots" how?
  • A word or phrase should only be linked once in a given article. I've fixed this for you.
  • There was some overuse of colons. I've corrected these.
  • The quote from Elie Landau, somewhere between the eccentric intellectualism of The Bobs and the somewhat more boisterous, more simplistic Da Vinci's Notebook, doesn't make sense to those who don't know the bands he's referencing. Some context is needed here.
  • I'm not familiar with what the "blend" is in music production. Is this different than the mix? You might want to add a note here on what this term means.
  • I think you need to rethink the "shift in identity" that happened to the group after the album. It sounds like what you're trying to get across is that they wrote more original songs after the album and downplayed humor in their music. You might just say that without characterizing it as a shift in identity.
  • I have some concerns about original research that I've added inline templates for.
  • The article overall is a bit thin. You may want to consider adding material about the recording and production, release and promotion, and any tours that happened around the release.
  • You might find the manual of style for WikiProject Albums to be useful.
An interesting article on an interesting album. Thanks for the work you put in on this one! Qono (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


Monstercat[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to get this article to GA status and am looking for steps to improve the article before nomination.

Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from Lee V
Hi JalenFolf. Here's a few things I picked up on.
Lede
  • "independent electronic dance music record label" - WAP:SEAOFBLUE, could do with rewording/removing some links.
  • The refs in the lede aren't really neccesary. Should be cited in prose.
  • Is the mascot really the most important part of the article? I'd move it down the lede, if not remove entirely.
  • meme should be linked.
General prose
  • I think an "overview" section wouldn't be misplaced. It jumps straight into the history of the orginasation without saying what it is, what it does, etc.
  • "Beginning" is a weird title, something like "founding" makes more sense.
  • Is it normal to put DOBs for people not in BLPs?
  • Whilst I know British Colombia is in Canada, the article doesn't mention this is Canadian outside of the lede sentence and infobox.
  • (born 1989)[4] and Ari Paunonen (born 1989/90[4]) - refs should go ideally after punctuation.
  • Today, the label signs artists on a single-track basis - seems out of place on a section on origins.
  • The massive quote borders on copyright issues. Even if not, it's quite promotional to copy a press release like this.
    • This happens a lot
  • Article is very "In X month, Y year..."
  • There's some sentence structure issues, with paragraphs often being just one or two sentences.
  • Does the dynamic list for the current artist land a little close to WAP:FANCRUFT? Seems a little in depth for me.
  • Are all the albums notable? There's some that have articles. If they are notable, they should be WAP:REDLINKed.

Also be aware Earwigs CV check comes up with this: [1]


I hope some of the above is helpful to you to take the item towards GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


Ultralight Beam

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: 21 December 2019, 21:41 UTC
Last edit: 24 February 2020, 10:26 UTC


Hurts 2B Human[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to ultimately promote it to the GA status.

Thanks, Gabrielflorin01 (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit source | edit]

  • For this sentence, Pink collaborated with a handful of producers and songwriters in pursuit of a sound that was a departure from her previous albums., I would remove "a handful of" as I do not think it adds much to the sentence. It is rather vague, and the plural word "producers" already indicates that Pink worked with multiple producers and songwriters in the process of creating this album.
 Done Combined the two sentences
 Done
  • Link Pink the first time you mention her in the body of the article. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so items would have to be linked in both. For this instance, I would link Pink in this sentence: Pink released her seventh studio album Beautiful Trauma in October 2017 to mixed reviews.
 Done
  • I am uncertain if some of the information present in the "Background" section is really necessary for this article. For instance, I do not see how the sentences on Pink getting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the ceremony is relevant to this article on this particular album.
 Done
  • The song "Walk Me Home" is first referenced in the "Background" section so it should be linked there instead and unlinked elsewhere in the article.
 Done
  • For this sentence, The album's cover was unveiled on February 28, after a number of teasers on Pink's social media page for several days., do any of the sources clarify the exact number of teasers or days?
I think the first three sources would count as three teasers
I would either specify the number of teasers as three or just say something like "after Pink uploaded teasers on her social media" to replace the vague wording from "a number of" and "several". Aoba47 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done
  • Items should not be linked multiple times in the body of the article. For instance, Chris Stapleton and Slant Magazine linked twice. I would double-check to see if there is anything else.
 Done
  • I am a little confused by this sentence: Nevertheless, she commended songs like "Can We Pretend", "90 Days", and "Happy", calling the former "an ideal showcase" of the singer's personality. I normally see "the former" used when discussing two items so it seems out-of-place when discussing three items. I think it is a bad sign when I am not sure what "the former" is referencing here so I would try to be clearer.
 Done Removed "Happy"

This is definitely not an exhaustive review, but these are things that I noticed when doing a very quick read-through of the article. Hopefully, this will inspire other editors to review this in the future. I am a fan of Pink's music, but for some reason, this album just never connected with me. Hope you are having a great new year so far! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful effort, hope you're having a great year too! Gabrielflorin01 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


Home Alone[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to achieve GA status on the article. This is my first ever peer review, so apologies if I mess up in any way.

Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

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 December 2019, 21:39 UTC
Last edit: 10 March 2020, 01:19 UTC


Fiona Graham[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review as I've spent some time cleaning up the contents, referencing, accuracy and layout of this article.

It had issues with disruptive edits, addition of copyvio material likely from sockpuppet and/or COI editors, and was pretty messily structured and written. This being the first BLP article I've edited, I hope I've improved upon these things. I did have a look at the last rating it receieved against B-class criteria, and the two that weren't met - coverage and accuracy, structure - I think would be met now.

I hope that I've improved it, but I'd welcome any comments on going further.

Many thanks, --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ineffablebookkeeper: Hello, I am going to be doing your peer review for today. Here are some things I have concerns about:
  1. The early life section is pretty short.
  2. The external links section should probably be split off into a further reading section unless that is an intentional choice.
  3. I'm going to send over to you on WAP:Discord some extra sources that I have access to, and you should consider incorporating them into this work.
  4. If the goal is get this article to eventually GA-class, then it's nearly there! :D

Cheers! –MJLTalk 17:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Start of the coverage of anthropology; my version:
Graham has published three volumes of anthropology.
Inside the Japanese Company (2003) and A Japanese Company in Crisis (2005) are about the large insurance company (given the fictional name "C‑Life") that she joined upon graduation, and which she later observed, first as a researcher and later as a documentary film maker.[1] [...]
Current version:
Graham has published three volumes of anthropology; in Inside the Japanese Company (2003) and A Japanese Company in Crisis (2005), the fictionalised account of Graham's time spent working in a large insurance company post-graduation,[1] [...]
I read Elger's review before writing that material. Imaginably I made a mistake. I don't currently have access to the review. Does Elger really say that this book (marketed as academic) provides a "fictionalised account"? I'm also puzzled by the change from precise "upon graduation" to vague "post-graduation", not to mention the disappearance of any mention of FG's return to the company no longer as one of its employees but instead as a researcher and later as a documentary film maker.
And this is all about less than one paragraph. I don't much want to read more of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


Clara Schumann

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: 18 October 2019, 13:13 UTC
Last edit: 10 March 2020, 09:07 UTC


The Offies (The Off West End Theatre Awards)[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like recommendations and suggestions on making it the best it can be.

Thanks, TheGravel (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from PotentPotables[edit source | edit]

I've made a few edits to the article to tidy it up a bit:

  • Removed website external link from main body per WAP:EL
  • Changed main body dates to fit British English in line with rest of article (MOS:ARTCON and MOS:DATETIES)
  • Removed "Other theatre awards in London:" from see also section
  • Uncapitalised "Award Ceremony" and "Critics"
  • Deleted some superfluous words, such as "eventual"
  • Removed 2019 heading, and changed to text (headings shouldn't be referenced)

Suggestions:

  • The "recent results" section seems untidy, so perhaps could be replaced with a neater table for each year?
  • The "Carl Woodward" link could be replaced with a better source, as it seems to essentially be a blog. (Though he might be a notable theatre critic?)
  • Reliable third-party/secondary source references might be useful to further establish the notability of the awards, and help develop the article further. (Majority of current references are from the Offies' own website)

Hope these comments give some help for further development! PotentPotables (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


Mullum Malarum

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: 9 September 2019, 13:30 UTC
Last edit: 10 March 2020, 04:44 UTC


Open Here[edit source | edit]

This article is about the album Open Here by Field Music. I believe it is comprehensive and I ultimately want to nominate it for FA. It has already passed as a GA, and I previously nominated it for FA, but it failed. I did not get much specific feedback during the FAC process except that the prose needed work, but even there I got little specifics except for a few items that I have already fixed. So I am hoping for a through peer preview here in anticipation of a future FA nomination. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05[edit source | edit]

Will update this with more as I have time.

Lede and infobox
Generally speaking the inbox information should be cited in the body. There are currently three citations in the infobox for genres not mentioned in the musical styles and composition section; those should be incorporated and cited there and have the citations removed from the infobox or removed.
Remove the comma in the second sentence after chamber pop.
Remove the metacritic score mention in the lede. It's reliable but pure scores aren't normally mentioned there. In its place I'd add more detail on what exactly critics praised about the album. Toa Nidhiki05 23:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies Toa Nidhiki05 for taking so long to respond to this. Somehow this slipped by in my watchlist and I didn't realize it until now. I've made the infobox changes you suggested, and removed the Metacritic score from the lede. For now I've left the comma in in the second sentence after chamber pop; I deliberately included that to separate the two clauses, and also to avoid the appearance of a run-on sentence ("...of alternative rock and pop rock and includes..."). That being said, if you still disagree, let me know and I'll remove it. Thanks, and I'll be quicker to respond the next time! :D — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I just realized I completely neglected to respond here - must have slipped my notifications! I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikiafripedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Since Toa Nidhiki05 has not been responsive here or to talk page messages, I assume Toa is no longer actively participating in this peer review. As a result, I've put in a request for a copy edit over at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If this means I need to formally withdraw the PR, I can do so. Or, if anyone else wants to take on the PR in addition to the copy edit, that's obviously fine with me as well. — Hunter Kahn 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    • ADDENDUM: The article has now been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. I'd still welcome if anyone wants to do a peer review here in addition to that. — Hunter Kahn 15:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Art Ducko (student magazine)[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's ready to be made into an official wikipedia page.

Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Schucht - a little puzzled. This already is a Wikiafripedia page, although as a redirect to Benjamin Saunders (professor). Not sure what input you're wanting. Are you sure this is the appropriate place for your query? KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for looking at my page. What happened was I was trying to get my sandbox page reviewed and made into an official page, and I got mixed up and thought the peer review page was the place to do it. When I found the right place it was reviewed and not approved due to not having enough sources. So it got removed, leaving nothing but the redirect. Hope this helps clear things up. Eric Schucht (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Apologies for jumping into this discussion, but I am assuming that this peer review should be closed given the above circumstances? Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Aoba47, the article has since been deleted. Eric Schucht (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • No worries. I would recommend closing this peer review then. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


Everyday life[edit source | edit]

Engineering and technology[edit source | edit]

Brooklyn Bridge[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this page for Featured Article status someday. This page is about the oldest fixed bridge across New York City's East River, and as one of the most famous bridges in the world, is listed as a level-4 vital topic. While I think this article is generally comprehensive, thanks to a comprehensive GA review by Kingsif and a copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I would like feedback to determine if there are any major outstanding issues, specifically regarding references and coverage.

Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


Collapse of the World Trade Center[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because we are interested in advancing the article through the Featured Article Candidate process and need external feedback to determine what we need to do to make the article better. We have been at an impasse for some time as to how technical we need to make the article as well as to whether we are staying well focused on the matter and not diverging away from what should be the main effort. Otherwise the article is relatively stable, well referenced and comprehensive.

Thank you! --MONGO (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius[edit source | edit]

As a long-time follower of this page, I would like to see this at FAC someday. However, I think this needs some improvements first, and that maybe this should first go through GAN. For instance:

  • The construction and September 11, 2001 sections have several unsourced paragraphs, but these can be easily fixed since Construction of the World Trade Center and September 11 attacks are quality articles - FA and GA respectively. There are other unsourced sentences and paragraphs that need referencing in other sections.
  • The references need to be formatted consistently. For instance, some New York Times references have urls, some don't, and one ref doesn't even have an article title. Same with NIST and other references.
    • Sometimes, the author format is also mixed up. Some refs have "first name last name" authors and some refs have "last name, first name" authors. The latter is recommended nowadays.
    • Some references are shortened footnotes (e.g. ref 11 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxxi; ref 12 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxvii–lxix). Others are repeating entire bibliographical information and should be shortened footnotes (e.g. refs 19, 20, 21 - all cite Starossek, Uwe (2009). Progressive Collapse of Structures. Thomas Telford Publishing but with different page numbers). Even with shortened footnotes, these are not consistent. Compare refs 65-68, which include links to Eagar & Musso 2001, with refs 11-12, which don't include any links.
  • In regards to prose, there are some things about coverage and wording that need to be improved. Just in the lead, for example:
    • The first two paragraphs of the lead could probably be combined since they are about the attacks themselves.
    • The scale of the destruction initially puzzled engineers - "puzzled" could be replaced with a better word.
    • The cleanup of the World Trade Center site involved round-the-clock operations, many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. - this is an inconsistent list style because you have noun, noun, and verb phrase. Better phrasing would be "round-the-clock operations and many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars."
    • As of July 2019, five new buildings had been erected on the site; the last one, Two World Trade Center, is scheduled for completion in 2022. - not cited in the body, and the second clause is not too relevant, since we can just say "and construction of other structures is still ongoing" or something like that.
  • Spelling and abbreviations may need to be standardized.
    • For instance, WAP:ENGVAR: I see "stories" and "storeys". I suggest the former since this is an American topic mostly.
    • I also see "WTC #" and "# WTC" (where # is the number) being used to refer to the WTC towers. This should be standardized, even in places where the numbers and "WTC" are spelled out.

These are my initial comments, and I hope to leave more later. If I find any minor issues, I'll fix them myself, but these are things to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

All excellent insights and I will start addressing them. Greatly appreciate the feedback.--MONGO (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


Ryzen[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to seek how to move all of the tables being used on this page to a page that already exist for these tables. The talk page has low or no activity at most times. Regice2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • No smartphone users should have to manually scroll through the large amount of table just to look for that specific information.
  • No desktop/laptop users should have to manually scroll long through the large amount of table just to look for that specific information when "find" function is not a option.
  • Not making it easier to clear the technical tag.



Thanks, Regice2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for an FA review. It is currently a GA-status article and has undergone many improvements since its promotion 10 years ago. Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
OK ... my copy edit trimmed the article by almost 2K, which usually means it was necessary, and indeed there was a lot of excess verbiage—peoples' names (and job titles) used in full on multiple references no matter how recent the last reference, more relative pronouns used when not necessary, and a lot of prepositional-phrase constructions where single adjectives or participles would do. You can look at the diffs for details; if there's anything I shouldn't have changed let me know.
That said, it's a pretty complete article that is justifiably a GA. I learned what the intro promised I would learn.
You indicated in your nom that you are looking to get this to FA eventually. I looked at the original FAC for this article from over a decade ago (I know the nominator, actually, or I should say I've met him at a few events); I don't think anything from that one really needs to be addressed, not least because it was quick-failed and indeed you yourself did not think it was ready. I don't know about now, though.
It's good but it's kind of shorter than most FAs, which wouldn't necessarily keep it from getting that gold star. I see two areas where you can expand it some more, both in the history section:
  • In a single sentence, we go from the plans first being brought up in the mid-60s to the decision to start actually building the road in the 1990s when Wynn wanted to build that casino at the marina. I took out the part where the article mentioned that there had been several efforts to build the connector in those 30 years because it wasn't relevant in an article this short.

    But the article doesn't have to be that short, and frankly why the connector plans didn't go through until the third or fourth try, with a particularly big business interest behind it, is relevant in a longer, more researched history.

    In the mid'60s AC was a faded beach resort city that had seen its better days. No one would have imagined casinos there within two decades. And no one saw a need for a connector road to Brigantine.

    Was there an effort to revive the plans in the years after 1978? Why or why not? And why did it not succeed at the time if it could only have helped the city's rebirth?

    A deep dive into this era's history could tell us a lot of interesting stuff. Sometimes, in politics, the real story is what didn't happen and why.

Oops, I gotta go. Be back in a while with more. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The other thing we could read more about, I think, is the decline of the boardwalk casinos. Doubtless the connector has something to do with that, but ... is it all the connector's fault that in 2016 there are half as many boardwalk casinos as there were in 2000? During that time a lot more gambling options became available in the Northeast—Turning Stone, Mohegan Sun etc. Surely that played some role?
Two more things:
  • Since it's such a short road, I think the article might be helped by a video. I suppose a dashcam-type POV single-take vid would do since it is such a short road (I've made a couple of these myself), but I'd love to see a road-article video that looks like it was made by someone who understands how to edit, how to make a film, basically—with intercut scenes showing the view from the sides, traffic passing by the equivalent point on the road, and maybe maps indicating where the vehicle is along the road.
  • Also, the article makes regular reference to these various districts of AC: Marina, Midtown, Broadwalk, Westbeach. Where do these terms come from? We have no Neighborhoods of Atlantic City, New Jersey article, so I can't see if these are common terms; indeed a small city of 40,000 does not usually have a lot of neighborhoods known by name, if any, in my experience. Are these terms used by the city's planning department, perhaps? (They sound like names a planning department would come up with, frankly) It would be helpful to know.
Good luck with the FAC, whenever it happens, and happy editing. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Prandtl-D[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the capacity to become a great article and would like other user's feedback on it. I hope to improve the list of vehicle section and overall syntax of the article.

Thanks, - AH (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520[edit source | edit]

Hi, AttackHelicopter51. I have a few comments:

  • a couple of the references are duplicated. See Wikiafripedia:Named reference / I do see some cases where you use named references already.
  • see WAP:LAYOUT for section order & remove stray URL from "External links" --> you might convert the content of this section to using a {{cite}} template
  • there are a couple places that could use inline cites: the sentence ending in "...by 11%." (only the first half is sourced?) and the one beginning with "The first two vehicles of the program..." in the Development section.
  • Is there any prose or distinction that could be given in the "List of Vehicles in the Program" section? Also, any sources?
  • I don't think anything should be bold in the Future platforms section.
  • I'm debating about the lead. It's good I think, but a bit long. Might there be a "description" or "history" section? Of course, "Development" covers some of that.

I think the cites are good otherwise. All from NASA, but that's OK.


Emerald Cloud Lab[edit source | edit]

Hey there! This is the first article I've created, and I'm hoping to get some discussion on how I can best structure it. I had a little trouble finding best practices for articles on businesses/startups, so I'd be curious about that. I'd also be interested in some feedback on general flow. Thank you very much for your time!

Thanks, Jusadi (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PotentPotables[edit source | edit]

Hi Jusadi, well done on successfully creating your first article! I've done a basic copyedit (mainly punctuation and spacing) on the article, and have a few comments on how you could improve it (I'm not too science-y, so bear with me):

  • There are general tense issues which need to be sorted out like "they say that they" and " During this time, they say,". Remove all the "they say".
My hope here is to properly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiafripedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution those statements to the founders. It seems reasonable to do so, as the founder of a company may (or may not) overly narrativize or rosily present the past. Is there a better way to make this attribution clear here? Is there a specific Wikiafripedia style guide regarding this? To the best of my knowledge, this is not a "tense issue" in most contexts, but I could certainly see it being a problem from the perspective of encyclopedic style preferences. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The closest thing I can find is WAP:SUBSTANTIATE, but even that doesn't really seem to discuss this matter too much because it's not really bias. Maybe instead of the "During this time, they say, they experienced problems with laboratory hardware and software [...]" lines, you could change it to something like "In order to overcome issues with disparate manufacturers and rudimentary software, they wrote [etc, etc]". This might work make it sound a bit "cleaner", so see how it goes, and Wikiafripedia:Be bold! PotentPotables (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
DoneJusadi (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Forbes source [2] does not seem to be reliable, as it comes from a Forbes contributor and not staff (per WAP:RSPSOURCES). If you can find a reliable source to back the "first such company" claim, then add that in.
Sounds fair. I'll move this out when I (soon) restructure the article. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Jusadi (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the phrase "on Emerald Drive, a suburb of Philadelphia" should be "on Emerald Drive, in the Philadelphia suburbs", per the source. The current phrase reads as if E Drive is the suburb.
Good catch. Done. Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Change all examples of "DJ" into "D.J." per MOS:INITIALS and source.
Done Jusadi (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps split the "History" section into subsections? One section explaining the background of the creators (using the BBerg source) – education, previous career, etc.. – then another detailing the actual history of the company.
  • Add a "products/services" section to detail what the company actually offers (look at Google#Products and services for some inspiration).
  • Perhaps add a "financing" section too detailing their funding, and an "Impact" section like that on Facebook explaining how they have been used in research, etc.

If you can find any more reliable sources, then that's always an advantage, and I'm sure they'll fit in well with the sections above. Good luck, keep editing! PotentPotables (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


General[edit source | edit]

2019 Cebu City local elections[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I started this with only a few details and I have been expanding it since. There are still a lot of news articles available online about the said local elections which could further improve content in this article but I want your feedback on its current content. Feel free to drop also your suggestions.

Thanks, Emperork (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520[edit source | edit]

Hi, Emperork, and thanks for your efforts on this article. Here are my comments, more-or-less in order as I read through and reviewed the article:

  • The wording "which allied his group with Liberal Party" is confusing to me.
  • Is "BARUG Team Rama" a political party?
  • "The names ... were floated..." --> I know this phrase, but "floated" seems trivial (after all, anyone can say anything). Per the reference, it sounds like there was a more official recommendation, can the wording be updated?
  • This sentence needs an inline citation: "The election of Resch and Ong returned the..."
  • Might the lines like "Rodrigo Abellanosa ran for his third and final term." be changed to "Rodrigo Abellanosa was elected for his third and final term." or "Rodrigo Abellanosa ran for his third and final term, and won."?
  • I'll admit, I don't generally read articles like this in detail. Are the "City Council" tables all populated with people actually elected?

My biggest concern is that there are some similar wording to referenced sources, as seen in this Earwig's copyvio report. I'd like to see less text get flagged as similar to sources, and think the wording should be easy to adjust. Some of these cases may simply require direct quotations, but probably not all of them.

Above all, nice work. = paul2520 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review paul2520! Regarding this:
  • I noticed that also just now. I already changed it from "which allied his group with Liberal Party" to "who allied his group with Liberal Party"
  • Yes, BARUG Team Rama is a political party. I didn't linked it since there was no article pertaining to it. But I already created and linked it with Partido Barug. It's previous name was BARUG Team Rama.
  • Changed it from "floated" to "recommended".
  • Re: "The election of Resch and Ong returned the..." pertained to the return of the majority status of BO–PK after it was lost when BARUG Team Rama got a majority number of council members.
  • Followed your recommendation including for the mayor, vice mayor sections.
  • The City Council section is about the list of candidates and includes the results of the said elections. The members of the council are listed in a separate article: Cebu City Council.

I will work on the copyvio report. — Emperork (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


New Zealand wine

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: 9 November 2019, 22:20 UTC
Last edit: 10 March 2020, 03:10 UTC


Mercer County Community College[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have updated it with appropriate images, stronger citations, and more thorough content than it had previously and would like to have it reevaluated for higher rating than simply start.

Thanks, Hollykatharine (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from paul2520

Hi, Hollykatharine! Thanks for your impressive efforts on the article. The pictures definitely enhance the content. A couple areas for improvement (and not necessarily to your edits):

  • The Voice should not be linked eight times in the student newspaper section. In fact, I'm not a huge fan of external links directly in the text (especially since they're already in the External links section). Could you convert them to references? A quick glance at Wikiafripedia:Manual of Style/Linking seems to suggest references are best.
  • The image currently captioned "Trey-Anastasio2009 2" should have a better caption.
  • I wonder if the MCTV 26 and WWFM sections should be subsections in the Clubs section?
  • I made a couple edits to the page myself, including using the {{quote}} instead of the italicized text in the "Mission" section. Do you think it looks better?

Otherwise, I think the page looks great! = paul2520 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Response to paul2520

Hi, Paul2520! Thanks for the good advice. I removed the excess hyperlinks as you suggested. I think you're right that the "Mission" section looks better as you've formatted it. I also updated the caption for the Trey Anastasio photo. I think the MCTV 26 and WWFM aren't clubs so they are okay as is. I appreciate your help. Hollykatharine (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


Institute of International and European Affairs[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know how to improve it further.

I have recently updated the page to replace non-neutral content. I have replaced original research and added content and citations to the article, particularly in the history section. I have continued to include the criticisms raised in previous versions of the page (that are not original research) but have included additional information to give these more context.

The page has not been reverted in the weeks since I have completed these changes. However, this may simply because it is not read very often.

I would be interested to know what other Wikiafripedia editors think of the page now and what else should be done improve it. I am still new to the Wikiafripedia process. This is the first article that I have made many modifications to.

Thanks, Ballystrahan (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


Max Blumenthal[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the subject has reported concerns about their article. Since WAP:BLP is one of the three core content policies of the project, I would appreciate impartial editors reviewing and improving this article.

Thanks, --ZiaLater (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


List of Rugby League World Cup hat-tricks[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I was wondering what the article needs to gain featured list status. Any feedback is welcome.

Thanks, WDM10 (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


Metro (restaurant chain)[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded the content from stub level to more details regarding the company and it's background with proper references and citation, and would like to request for grammar and style of writing check to improve the article quality.

Thanks, WAPSamson (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


Geography and places[edit source | edit]

Morpeth, Northumberland[edit source | edit]

I would like nominate this article for FA, but would appreciate feedback through a peer review on whether it is ready for a featured article nomination. I welcome any and all comments, suggestions etc.

Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 02:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


Turkey[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is delisted and i wanna list it again.

Thanks, kazekagetr 17:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Downtown Ossining Historic District[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could make GA and FA in the future, perhaps after the village concludes its comprehensive plan update. I developed it almost ten years ago, and it's held up well. All I really had to do to prepare it for this was bring the cites up to code and migrate a bunch, plus just a couple of xlinks from the village website.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, This is an interesting article, but I see some opportunities for improvement. The article could be improved by making the History section more consistent. For example, the section summary reads:

The development of downtown Ossining has several distinct stages: the early preindustrial period when it was primarily a crossroads; the late 19th century when most of the district's buildings were built and rebuilt along Main Street including the four churches; the early 20th century when new construction shifted back to Highland Avenue and gave the district its important public buildings, and the era since then that has been devoted to preserving and redeveloping them.[1]:20–30</ref>

The style of the summary is itself somewhat problematic. I like the approach of the complex, single-sentence summary, but its execution could be improved by removing the unnecessary detail and simplifying the structure of the conjuncts. The form of the sentence is "...several distinct stages: A; B; C; and D."
Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps A, B, C, and D, should be simplified to make the long sentence read easier. Yet this summary is also inconsistent with the structure of the section. The summary specifies four eras while the body of the section specifies six. I think I can explain this. It appears that the summary statement is supported by the 1988 NHRP documentation, while the body's text is supported mainly by the 1988 NHRP document and foot note 10, with several other sources supporting the last two subsections. This inconsistency is a problem, though, how to resolve it without corrupting the sources or creating a synthesis, I cannot say. This is a question for editors with more experience than I have, with more specific experience and knowledge about policy related to geoplaces and NRHP.
Another question I have about this section is the native history. Sing Sing Kill appears to be named for the Sint Sinck people. Are there any articles to indicate whether there were any native settlements? Maybe these do not exist. I admit that my own cursory searches have come up empty on google and JSTOR. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I have the feeling that if we knew if there had been any Native settlements in the area of what is now downtown Ossining, the sources (i.e. the NRHP nom) would have mentioned this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The NHRP nomination is over thirty years old. In my hometown's downtown, there have been three archaeological projects that I know about during the last three decades. It was definitely a long-shot question, though. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


Serbia[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for a peer review because I would like to see where does it stand now and what could be improved.

Thanks, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko, I would focus on improving the sourcing of the article. There are many statements not supported by inline citations. It's possible that support for these statements can be found in the references already cited, so this may entail a great amount of reading from a long list of references. There are also cleanup tags to address. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


Hearst Castle

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: 26 November 2019, 09:37 UTC
Last edit: 10 March 2020, 04:27 UTC


History[edit source | edit]

Abraham Lincoln[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

Abraham Lincoln was taken to GA about ten years ago, but fell short of FA. There is new energy to push the article to FA, but much work is needed. The prose size of the article has more than doubled since it reached GA. It will be no small task, but as the 39th most read article of all time, it is very important to take it to FA. Any and all suggestions on how to take it to FA are most appreciated!

Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


5th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article status.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! TwoScars (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 8 different men, although 2 were in command for only a few days. The Medal of Honor was awarded to 6 of the regiment's soldier --> not sure about the numerals here per MOS:NUMERAL, probably should be spelled out unless in a list with other items that would normally take a numeral rather than being spelled out
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Abram H. Krom conducted much of the unit's on-field leadership --> "Abram H. Krom provided much of the unit's on-field leadership"?
Replaced "conducted" with "provided". TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Among the prisons where captured members of the regiment --> do we know how many were captured?
Two problems with the number captured: 1) Some of the men were exchanged and potentially captured again; 2) the regimental history has a section that lists engagements and their casualties, but no totals. I could add them up (I get 96 for 1862 only)—but that's getting close to original research. What do you think? TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
G'day, IMO, I think it should be okay to simply add the numbers so long as there is no interpretation or extrapolation per this and this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I counted 538 enlisted men and 8 officers captured. I have some concerns about some "3"s and "8"s looking alike, so I put "Over 500 enlisted men and 8 officers were captured." in the War's end section instead of using the 538 for the enlisted men. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries, that seems a good solution in the circumstances. Interestingly, I had a similar problem when I was writing a journal article years ago. I had a lot of trouble deciphering some of the handwritten entries in an Australian infantry battalion's World War I war diary. The soldiers of that war seem to have incredible handwriting, but my generation -- brought up on computers -- writes in chicken scratching (myself included); the result of which is the beautifully written war diaries can sometimes be quite hard to read. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • there seems to be a few harvnb errors: Pfanz 1865, Gallagher 2007, Starr 2007, Wright 1996, Tascheck 2009, Wittnberg & Petruzzi
Fixed Pfanz and Gallagher. More to come. TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixed Gallagher, Starr, Wright, and Tascheck. More to come. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixed Wittenberg (Wittenburg=misspell) TwoScars (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest moving Patchan and Wheelan to a Further reading section as it doesn't seem cited
Removed them. As usual for me, I wrote too much and had to cut portions of the article—that may have caused the problem. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Colonel De Forest was under arrest and taken to New York --> "Colonel De Forest had been arrested and taken to New York"?
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • he praised the 5th New York's Captain Krom, who's battalion held --> " he praised the 5th New York's Captain Krom, whose battalion held" or " he praised Captain Krom and his battalion of the 5th New York, which had held..."?
Changed "who's" to "whose". Davies wrote "I would particularly mention for good conduct Captain Krom, who, with his battalion,...."
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • and 3 Confederate generals --> "and three Confederate generals" per MOS:NUMERAL?
Changed "3" to "three". TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "who's" --> "whose"? (who's is a contraction of "who is" not a possessive, I believe)
I agree. Fixed with Krom. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom[edit source | edit]

Janet Parker was the last person to die of smallpox. She worked above research labs in Birmingham, UK, where I was an undergraduate and where smallpox virus was being propagated for research. I have been working on this article for several years. I was a witness to the events as they unfolded and relatively recent contributions by uninvolved editors have proven valuable in obtaining a neutral point of view, which I found tricky. All the photographs and drawings are mine. I am considering submitting the article at WAP:FAC. I look forward to any comments.

Thanks, Graham Beards (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


Hardwicke Rawnsley

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 January 2020, 19:04 UTC
Last edit: 24 February 2020, 06:19 UTC


Great grain robbery[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to help get it to GA, but it isn't quite there yet and help from an experienced editor would be appreciated. Thanks, Flalf (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


Magnus Stenbock[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because four months ago I translated it from the corresponding article on Swedish Wikiafripedia, of which I am the main writer. Since this article is of GA status as of December last year, I want to get this article up to FA status. But I first want to check if the article requires further grammatical improvements, more sources or other changes.

Thanks, Alexander Alejandro (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


Augustus Post[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because over a two year period since the last evaluation, when it earned GA, I have continued to update it with appropriate images, stronger citations, and more detailed content than it had previously. Because of its success on Wikiafripedia the AAA auto club actually decided to make a documentary film on the subject and I was chosen as the chief historical consultant. The film has gone on to win numerous awards and it will be out on PBS stations in May. I believe, at this point, it should qualify for the featured article category.

Thanks, Hollykatharine (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


Sergo Ordzhonikidze

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: 14 January 2020, 17:06 UTC
Last edit: 24 February 2020, 22:31 UTC


Samuel May Williams

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: 9 January 2020, 22:58 UTC
Last edit: 24 February 2020, 10:36 UTC


Battle of Quifangondo[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to GA status. Right now there are 15 GA-class articles listed for WikiProject Angola and 14 of them are articles about animal species endemic throughout southern Africa. A new GA-class article on an Angolan-specific topic like this one (a pivotal battle of the civil war) would be lekker.

Thanks, Katangais (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I think this article is well balanced and resourced and definitely a good candidate for GA status! BoonDock (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


Comment from Brigade Piron

I have been asked to comment by Katangais. I'm have not yet had a chance to read the article properly (I look forward to doing so!) but I have some provisional comments about referencing which are flagged by the ref plugin. I have fixed one myself, but the following remain broken:

  • Domingos 2015
  • Chabal 2002
  • Hamann 2001

I would also suggest segregating the "References" section to leave only texts that are currently cited in the article. The others could be moved to a "Further Reading" section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BP. Thanks for catching those referencing errors! I fixed the three broken refs you mentioned above, and axed the additional three that were in the ref list but didn't end up getting cited. --Katangais (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


Illustrated Daily News[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm thinking of taking it to FAC. I worked on this article about 10 years ago and recently gave it a facelift. Thoughts welcome.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC=Featured Article Candidate. I had to look it up. WAP:FAC. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
What do you want to know? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeking people to look at the article and let me know where you see issues and to what extent the article fits WAP:WIAFA. I have taken a number of articles to FAC and this is a common preliminary. You are very welcome to review it. I expect other people will, they generally do.--22:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


12-3 incident[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about an important political event. I want to bring it up to the quality of the Chinese version of the article. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jp16103 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article so far. Unfortunately I don't have any knowledge of the topic, so my suggestions are only superficial: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  • suggest expanding the lead to fully summarise the article
  • this sentence probably needs a citation: "Protestors, instigated by local communists and pro-Beijing business owners, ransacked Portuguese institutions ..."
  • as does this: "Shortly after the agreements were signed, Chinese military forces around Macau were withdrawn and the Red Guard threat had subsided."
  • suggest translating the non-English language titles of the sources
  • "Halis 2015, pp. 70–71" -- I couldn't find where the full bibliographic details of this work were provided (e.g. title etc)


Battle of Tudela[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to put this page on TFA because I want to have a footprint in Wikiafripedia's history, i don't know if that is a pathetic reason but, if it's ok with you...

Thanks, Great Mercian (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit source | edit]

Oh boy, there are a lot of issues to get the article to FA-class. Do not worry if you get B-class then it'd be a lot of easier than it is now. I'll have a review in the future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit source | edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • referencing/citations: every paragraph needs to be referenced if you wish to take this to FAC -- one at the end of the paragraph is sufficient if everything in the paragraph is covered by that citation, or if not more may be needed throughout the paragraph. Currently, there is a single reference at the end of the section, which does not seem sufficient. If you need to repeat citations, the WAP:NAMEDREF function works well
  • breadth of sourcing: currently the article references only a couple of websites -- for FA (even for B-class) this will need to be expanded to include some other works -- books and journal articles, for instance
  • structure: suggest removing the "Chronology of the battle" second level header and then creating three second level headers: Background, Battle and Aftermath per Wikiafripedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. There could be two third level headers in the Background section for the "Strategic situation" and "Geography"
  • the Other reading section should probably be labelled "Further reading"
  • I wouldn't suggest including annotated assessments of sources as is currently done in the Other reading section as this is very subjective and based on opinion rather than citations
  • replace the bare urls with formatted references (either manual or templated -- for instance {{cite web}})
  • avoid sandwiching text between images, for instance currently the Battle section sandwiches text between the map and recreation image
  • make sure everything that is in the infobox is mentioned, and referenced, in the body
  • French/Polish strength is listed as 31,000 in the infobox, but 30,000 in the lead
  • French/Polish casualties are listed as 650 in the infobox, but 600 in the lead
  • I'm afraid I can't comment on content, but editors like Auntieruth55 may be able to assist here
  • suggest mentioning the casualties in the Aftermath
@Great Mercian: G'day, Great Mercian, I hope you are well. Just checking you've seen these suggestions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Hello my good friend, yes I have and this will be a [REDACTED] nightmare, but I and everyone else will try, try, TRY to get everything done.
No worries, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Great Mercian: G'day, given this has been open since early October and there have been no new comments since mine, I'd suggest closing this now per WAP:PRG. You will still be able to access the review page to action anything you wish to, in your own time. If you need a hand processing the close, please let me know. I'd be happy to make the necessary edits for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Hello my good friend, progress is slow because people don't know about this. I am trying my best.
No worries, all good. I will leave it open and check back in a month or so. You might be able to get some assistance if you post a request over at WT:MILHIST. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Jan Hus[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is listed as a top-importance article in several wikiprojects, yet is only c-class. The sections need to be cleaned up, and if anyone has any reliable sources of information about his early life, please tell me.

Thanks, Aven Az13 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley[edit source | edit]

From a quick once-over I see both English (favourable, authorising) and American (colored, honored) spellings, and the article ought to be in one or the other throughout. That is fairly important, but much more so is the lack of citations. There are seven "citation needed" tags in place and there could and should be a dozen more. The list of references doesn't get past 32 citations for an article of 4,500 or so words. This is far short of GA standard. I can't vouch for any authoritative sources that you might draw on, I'm afraid, but Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia and Jan Hus: Reformation in Bohemia are both available on Google Books, and there's any amount of stuff on him under either Jan Hus or Jan Huss at the Internet Archive. Tim riley talk 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Filelakeshoe[edit source | edit]

Currently the "Hus and the Czech language" section is unreferenced and I am pretty sure some of it is also wrong - it trots out a commonly believed simplification of the history. Hus's orthography reform first introduced the dot diacritic above letters like c, z, r and then this was replaced by the hacek much later by the writers of the Kralice Bible. I am pretty sure I have the references for this (and to verify the rest of the section) at home, they may also be on Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny online - I can have a look later. I also have no idea what it means about the dot diacritic being used for "strong accent". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe[edit source | edit]

Have to echo the comments from previous reviewers, what this article needs most is more references to quality sources. I have access to pdf copies of Spinka's biography and would be happy to send chapters. It's a classic though a bit out of date (1968). buidhe 01:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


Gaius Terentius Varro

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 June 2019, 16:14 UTC
Last edit: 10 March 2020, 06:01 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit source | edit]

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier[edit source | edit]

Here's a man who was a friend of Newton, Huygens, Cassini and Jacob Bernoulli, who saved the future King of England from a kidnapping plot, who became a Fellow of the Royal Society at 24 and made significant contributions to astronomy, mathematics, and watchmaking, but also a religious fanatic convinced at one point that a certain London quack doctor would rise from the dead, a man who recklessly precipitated the terrible Leibniz-Newton priority dispute over the invention of the calculus, who invented an "explanation" of gravity that has intrigued great modern physicists like Poincaré and Feynman, and yet who's usually remembered today, if at all, for the almost entirely unsubstantiated suggestion by some 20th-century writers that he might've had a homosexual affair with the prudish Newton.

I've personally put in a lot of work on this article over a period of nearly three years. I think that the subject is intrinsically an interesting one and that this article is now one of the best sources of information available online on the subject. I believe that the references are now solid and abundant, and I'd like to see this promoted to a Good Article. However, I'm not familiar enough with the current best practices of Wikiafripedia for citations and other matters, and therefore would greatly appreciate any help or advice on how to further polish and improve this article, with that goal in view.

Thanks, Eb.hoop2 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


Global warming

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: 14 February 2020, 20:29 UTC
Last edit: 24 February 2020, 12:40 UTC


African humid period

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 December 2019, 11:14 UTC
Last edit: 10 March 2020, 01:49 UTC


(225088) 2007 OR10

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: 5 November 2019, 01:05 UTC
Last edit: 24 February 2020, 07:42 UTC


Bamboo textile[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's POV doesn't seem to be neutral. It's more a list of criticisms citing outdated/broken links.


Thanks, Opertinicy (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take this one. Let me print it out and take a look at it ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's been a couple of days. I have not only looked over the article, I have done some editing, which went beyond the usual light copy edit to addressing the POV issue identified by the nominator. This has resulted in a shorter (but IMO improved) article.

Primarily I got rid of all the "compare ..." parts of the paragraphs in the "Ecological considerations" subsections where the writer had an axe to grind, and ground it, with cotton production. While that material is not by itself verboten for this article, it should be included only if a reliable source has made those comparisons (per WAP:TONE, "[i]t is not Wikiafripedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them."). Most importantly, Wikiafripedia articles should never have imperatives directed at the reader, unless in quoted matter that is clearly attributed and sourced.

While that section is still weak, and needs further sourcing and expansion, the removal of all those direct attempts to persuade the reader has made me confident enough to remove the POV tag. I also took care of some layout issues, like the sandwiching of text between two images at the beginning of the first section, and (less so) some sentences with two spaces between periods. I also cleaned up some inconsistent spelling (if we start with the Commonwealth "fibre", we need to stick with it) and applied the {{convert}} template where needed.

However, the article still has some issues. For one thing, per WAP:CRITS, the "controversy" section needs to be eliminated. What's in there that's relevant and sourced could be better off put into a section about the production of bamboo fiber.

Most importantly ... while writing this I got the bright idea to run a copyvio check on the article.

I now wish I'd started with that. Because it revealed, as I had sort of suspected all along but not really at the forefront of my mind, that a fair amount of this text came from somewhere else. And then it seems another key graf was taken from an Etsy listing.

This must be corrected, and I will be tagging the article appropriately. Seriously addressing it could go a long way toward cleaning up the remaining POV issues. Never mind ... I read to the bottom of the first source, and they apparently copied from us, with attribution. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Language and literature[edit source | edit]

Mouthful of Birds (story collection)[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive recommendations for ways to improve the page, and for it to be officially reviewed so it can be indexed.

Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Some comments on both this article and Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection), as they are fundamentally similar.

In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:

  • What are the stories about? What genre are they in?
  • Are these collections of previously-published stories (as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is), or are they all originally published in the collection (as For Your Eyes Only), or a mixture of the two (like The Birthday of the World and Other Stories)? In both cases, we hear of two stories whose first English publication was outside of the collection, but it is not clear about publications of the stories pre-dating the Spanish edition of the collection.
  • Basic publication information is unclear. Both articles give publication dates for both the original Spanish and the translated English edition, but only one publisher and ISBN in the infobox. It should be clear what information pertains to what edition, and publisher and publication date should also appear in the body of the article.
  • Is there anything to be said about how the collections were put together? What links them? Is there anything to be said about the order of their arrangement?

A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Philosophy and religion[edit source | edit]

Modern Pagan views on LGBT people[edit source | edit]

I've previously undergone a huge cleanup and reconstruction of this topic, which was recently merged from its original home at Wiccan views on LGBT people. I would like to make this article as good as it can be and would heavily like some input on how others think it would best be accomplished.

Thanks, Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gwen Hope, I see three areas for improvement in the article.

  • Most important is the use of reliable secondary sources. If you have a question about reliable sources, please consult WAP:RS. Footnote 3 cites an article for a journal. If this journal has sound editorial controls or the article cited is subject to peer review, then this would be a good example of a reliable source. Footnotes 2 and 8 refer to the same group blog, WitchVox. Blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources.
  • The second area for improvement is organization. The article is chopped up into many sections, subsections, and sub-subsections, with some of these containing a single sentence. Some of the section names could be simplified, too. The first section could be shortened to "Demographics" and the subsections could be eliminated since there is about ten lines of text for the whole section. Make one paragraph for sexual orientation and the other one for gender.
  • The third area for improvement is neutral tone. For example, the first sentence in the subsection "Gender dualism and stereotypes" the article says "it is unsurprising..." This is the expression of an opinion in Wikiafripedia voice, so these expressions of opinions and attitudes should be avoided.

I hope you found these comments helpful, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


Social sciences and society[edit source | edit]

Simonie Michael[edit source | edit]

Hi! I'd be interested in any general comments or ideas for improving this page. I think it's an important one, since this is a major historical first in Canada, and I'd like it to tell a complete story. But I think I've exhausted all the easily located resources online. I'm considering a few next steps: working on building up related historical context (probably on different pages, and then summarising the content from those pages here), or trying to flesh out Michael's early life with materials from print resources in an actual library (which may or may not exist). Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks! - Astrophobe (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


Psychology of education[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… the formating is very off and the actual page contains many misc. additions that through off the entire article. Thanks, Fonsit (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520

Hi, Fonsit, and thanks for nominating this article. I see you are a newer editor, so my assumption is you'd like some direction for improving the article. Great!

I did some editing. I noticed several places that are missing references. I marked a few with the citation needed template. That might be tricky if you didn't write the original article... but you could try and find them via Google/JSTOR/other scholarly databases, or by reaching out to the original article author (however, they appear to not be active, so you might post at Wikiafripedia:WikiProject Psychology).

I also replaced one duplicate reference call with a named reference. See here for that edit. I think there is at least one more case of this; do you think you could fix that?

I think some redesign of the way the studies are presented is warranted. For example, the first study mentioned is one in Germany, which looks interesting. But does it really merit being the first in this article? I wonder if the section titles might be better worded, like "Education as cause of intelligence" instead of using the word "causal". Likewise, I don't like the second line, "It is correct to say that higher level of education leads to greater level of intelligence and also true the other way around, however, it does not apply for every situation." That's vague, so I've tagged it as such.

This page seems much shorter than I would expect! I'm sure a few books (possibly with the title The Psychology of Education or similar) could be linked in a Bibliography or Further reading section.

What do you think? Is this enough to get you started improving the article? = paul2520 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible merge?

Hi again, Fonsit. I actually just saw there's a separate, and much more developed article Educational psychology. What do you think about proposing a merge, and posting about it at Wikiafripedia talk:WikiProject Psychology? = paul2520 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paul2520, thanks for the contributions. Yes, I was considering proposing a merge to that page as well, but I wanted to have a more seasoned editor's opinions first. Fonsit (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


Aishe Ghosh[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the wikiprojects for it seem inactive and the article has just been created. Thanks, Tayi Arajakate (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment from I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Just add in the {{WikiProject Education}} and {{WikiProject Education in India}} templates to the article talk page, the article's education-related. Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


Tonya Harding[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Lizzy150 recommended I do so. We could really use some fresh eyes :)

Thanks, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


Sharyl Attkisson[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because User Calton has reverted Bilby's edit on grounds that there was no consensus. While, perhaps, technically true, in that the link provided by Bilby, my rough analysis shows 9-3 in favour of including.

To provide a bit of background and context, there are potential WAP:BLP issues with respect to Ms. Attkisson's reporting of vaccines. Bilby provided a link to a BLP noticeboard, which appeared to show a substantial consensus in favour of including Ms. Attkisson's refutation; however, that had not been officially closed. Indeed, it had been included in the article prior to significant recent edits, but it was removed. Per WAP:BLP and WAP:NPOV, it seems prudent to have it back included. I'm not sure why Calton removed it.

I have separately tagged Bradv and Diannaa, independent of this peer review process, due to the potential WAP:BLP issues here in Calton's removal of her refutation. However, should they decline to re-add it, I wanted to start a peer review in tandem.

Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Toa Nidhiki05[edit source | edit]

As another editor here, I highly contest the claims this article has BLP issues. A small group of editors, as well as Ms. Attkisson herself, seem intent on scrubbing this page of criticism, primarily regarding vaccines. Attkisson has attempted for years to modify the article, and this has now extended to extensive criticisms on her website, some of which specifically attack certain Wikiafripedia users, including myself, as shills for the “vaccine industry”. Virtually all debate on this page has come from the extent of vaccines. Attkisson is widely regarded as promoting anti-vaccine viewpoints and this has been discussed numerous times. I find the request for peer review extremely unnecessary, given how extensively this article has been worked on by a variety of editors. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


Self-managed social center[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it but I'm just getting repeatedly bogged down in discussion with another user, as you can see at Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page and Talk:Self-managed_social_center#Developing_this_page_2. The current structure is not satisfying, since it's split between incomplete coverage of functions and a breakdown by country. I'd welcome some feedback on how to improve the page. Much obliged for any comments, Mujinga (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Mujinga, hello and apologies for the long wait! I'll try to get to reviewing this in the next few days. My only comment for now is that the Italy, United States and United Kingdom sections should probably be subsectioned under a separate header (something like Examples). Hope this helps for now. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 15:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, here we go. Hope this helps!
  • "free schools" is in bold for some reason.
  • "United States" should be linked at its first mention ("for example in Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom".)
  • Uses: "infoshop" is linked despite the link appearing in the lede.
  • History: "enclave" should be linked.
  • "Wobbly union halls" - is this a proper noun?
  • "squatted" should be delinked.
  • The second paragraph doesn't seem to fully talk about autonomous social centers - it seems more of an opinionated viewpoint.
  • Italy: The first sentence links to the main article of this section.
  • United Kingdom: Same problem as above.
  • "infoshop" should be delinked.
  • Infoshops: There seems to be more detail into this description than in the article, but it should be the other way around.
  • Same as above for Free schools, although that doesn't seem to have an article.
  • "economics" should be delinked.
Mujinga, that's everything. Let me know if there are any problems. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 01:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Mujinga (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


Lists[edit source | edit]

List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I can't say I've listed this article for peer review because it's not an article, it's a list. I actually have done this request for a peer review of this list for that I was finding out Deidaramonroe's FLC page for it containing appicable suggestions. I made the suggestions (almost all of them, to be honest with you) a reality, as you can see here: [3] Deidaramonroe also created a previous peer review page for this entry.

And oh, by the way, Deidaramonroe hardly ever edited after creating that page, so the first FLC process failed. I'd bet the second one must succeed.

Cheers, and thanks for this, Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 05:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


Arjun Sarja filmography[edit source | edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because as I think that I have already addressed the suggestions and ideas to improve the article in the Older peer review and I wish to nominate the article for Featured List Nomination.

Thanks and Regards, Balasubramanianrajaram (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit source | edit]

All films need to be sourced, and all references formatted correctly (at least the title, website and date in everything). Solve these, and I'll post further comments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro

Hi! In case you're still looking for comments, I'd be happy to help:

  • Lead image needs alt text
  • Lead will need some more refs (2nd para only has 1 and 3rd para has none)
  • As Kailash said, all films need individual refs
  • Ref col should be centered
  • 1st table has plainrowheaders but 2nd and 3rd don't (each should have them)
  • "P S Prakash." should it be P. S. Prakash?
  • How is his role unknown in some?
  • Songs are not italicized per MOS:ITALICTITLE (only in quotes)
  • 3rd table: note col doesn't need to be sortable
  • 2nd and 3rd tables need refs for every individual film like the first
  • Like IMDb, I don't think the Tamil Movies Database is an RS
  • Many refs are missing website, author, and date (only urls and access date)
  • Do all these refs not have an author? (I'm assuming some do)
  • I would archive all these refs (assuming they are all not dead)

Hope this helps :-) – zmbro (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls[edit source | edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kalyan, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
  • Images need alt text
  • Image captions need references
  • Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
  • Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
  • Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
  • Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
  • References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
  • have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
  • The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
  • in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WAP:CRIC#STYLE
  • was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
  • As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
  • first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
  • five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
  • Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
  • Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
  • In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
  • The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
  • I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
  • This still needs some work before going to WAP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WAP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit source | edit]


Template:Errormsg
  1. 1.0 1.1 Tony Elger, "Japanese employment relations after the bubble", British Journal of Industrial Relations 44 (2006): 801–805, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8543.2006.00524_1.x. (Review of Graham's Inside the Japanese Company and A Japanese Company in Crisis and of Ross Mouer and Hirosuke Kawanishi's A Sociology of Work in Japan.)