Wikipedia:Peer review

Enlightenment (Doctor Who)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a somewhat major rewrite of the article since its GA promotion in 2013. I would like to know if there are any errors or blemishes that need correcting. (Also maybe some advice on if it is safe to assume that the "wetsuits" and "spacesuits" are the same; different sources use different names and the serial only indirectly shows them to be the same.)

Thanks, Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 15:59, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

L'Officiel

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on and attempting to improve the article for a couple years now. Some sections probably need to be trimmed down or moved around. Notes on clarity of prose would be appreciated, alongside suggestions to help it reach GA status.

Thanks, Jayediting (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

After (band)

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

I've listed this article for peer review. I've added a lot of content to this page as part of a course assignment; this article was previously marked as Stub-class, so I'd like to ask for some review of my edits to ensure quality since I've written most of the content on the page and added multiple sources.

Thanks, Hibiscusraven (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Loona

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

I've listed this article for peer review because while the article is imperfect at the moment, Loona has been documented enough in high-quality sources that its article could be improved to GA without an insane amount of effort. I'm currently adding information about Woomanna (Internet drama series that 8/12 members were cast in) but I do also think there are issues beyond content depth (I noticed some awkward sentences and marginally reliable sources).

Thanks, Goobab (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Kembe X

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it was previously used as a redirect to his album, Talk Balk. I deleted the redirect and created an article for the artist.

Thanks, Splashmoney15 (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach

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 2026, 03:38 UTC

Last edit: 11 November 2026, 15:50 UTC

Supernatural (American TV series)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to prepare it for an FAC submission, and I want to make sure it meets all the criteria. All comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance, TheSquirrel1432 ^talk 18:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Film

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

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because this article already has many citations and I think that this can easily become a GA or FA with a little bit more polishing. The article is very long at 120,000 bytes so it might need trimming too. I know that this just needs a little push…

Thanks, dualcerbtalk 14:13, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Angel-Eye

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

I would appreciate an independent review of the recent historical and biographical additions to this article.

Over the past 25 years, René Shuman and Angel-Eye have worked together extensively, yet relatively little information about this period was previously included in their Wikipedia biographies. Several significant milestones, including ten television specials, international musical collaborations, and other notable events, were largely missing.

The recent additions aim to provide a more complete and historically accurate account of their careers, supported by relevant references.

I would particularly appreciate feedback on neutrality, encyclopedic relevance, reliability of sources, article structure, and compliance with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines.

I am personally connected to the subject matter and therefore particularly value an independent and objective assessment. My goal is to contribute to an accurate, well-sourced, and encyclopedically appropriate biography without promotional content.

Any suggestions or improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Musichistory26 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

René Shuman

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

I would appreciate an independent review of the recent historical and biographical additions to this article.

Over the past 25 years, René Shuman and Angel-Eye have worked together extensively, yet relatively little information about this period was previously included in their Wikipedia biographies. Several significant milestones, including ten television specials, international musical collaborations, and other notable events, were largely missing.

The recent additions aim to provide a more complete and historically accurate account of their careers, supported by relevant references.

I would particularly appreciate feedback on neutrality, encyclopedic relevance, reliability of sources, article structure, and compliance with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines.

I am personally connected to the subject matter and therefore particularly value an independent and objective assessment. My goal is to contribute to an accurate, well-sourced, and encyclopedically appropriate biography without promotional content.

Any suggestions or improvements would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and assistance! Musichistory26 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC) Thanks, Musichistory26 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• Apologies for the intrusion, but I just wanted to let you know that per the peer review guidelines, nominations are limited to one open request per editor. You currently have two open requests, with this one and another on Angel-Eye. You should close one, so that you only have one open request. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Luna (Feid and ATL Jacob song)

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

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

Date added: 22 October 2026, 04:24 UTC

Last edit: 13 November 2026, 02:55 UTC

Shing Nei Tobu Naam Tar Singha

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on getting it to GA status, as I think it has enough references to work. It is about 1,000 words long. It may have a few text issues, but I think they are not significant. I currently have no intentions of nominating it for FA. Any suggestions on improvements to it is highly appreciated.

Thanks, Babin Mew (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton

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

I'm considering taking this article to FAC, but given that dual biographies are not oft-trodden territory and that this would be the first FAC where the two knew each other, I figured I'd garner input from any interested parties on how to go about this. Currently, the page is sitting at just under 6.3k words, though I suspect that expansion will be an unlikely outcome of this. Thanks in advance for any input. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Liam Payne

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: 17 October 2026, 18:01 UTC

Last edit: 2 November 2026, 21:58 UTC

Sebastian Stan

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

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

Date added: 12 October 2026, 20:47 UTC

Last edit: 26 October 2026, 16:10 UTC

Dungeons & Dealers

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status. I want to ensure the writing is professional and understandable, any help is appreciated! :)

Thanks, Crystal Drawers 🎖️ ^{(wanna talk?)} 19:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Miles Davis

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

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

Date added: 27 September 2026, 01:49 UTC

Last edit: 27 October 2026, 16:58 UTC

Pusher Love Girl

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: 17 September 2026, 19:50 UTC

Last edit: 22 October 2026, 18:11 UTC

Ömer the Tourist in Star Trek

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

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

Date added: 15 September 2026, 11:42 UTC

Last edit: 4 November 2026, 13:26 UTC

Meccha Chameleon

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

I've listed this article for peer review because this got recently passed for GA, and I want this page to be nominated for FA later. Input on how to improve this page is highly appreciated.

Thanks, Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:33, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm going to delete some of the infobox and the 28 September event myself. More places where information is superfluous, trivial or otherwise unfit will reveal themselves as I go. I will report back EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

1986 Intercontinental Cup

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

Previous peer review

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

PlayStation Portable

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

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

Any and all criticisms welcome!

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

@VeeJayZee I'm very glad you helped improve this former GA article. Some issues i would like to bring up:

• the lead section has citations. this should be removed per WP:LEADCITE (please make sure claims made in the lead are cited anywhere else in the body, though)
• The PSP's development posed several challenges for Sony and third-party developers, with battery life being a primary concern. To address this, Sony implemented power management strategies, including restricting the CPU to two-thirds of its full speed for the first few years. The Universal Media Disc (UMD) drive was another significant hurdle, as it drained the battery and had slow read speeds. Developers had to optimize their game data layout to minimize disc access and reduce power consumption. These limitations sometimes led to performance constraints and long loading times, with some titles like WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006 experiencing load times of up to two minutes for certain scenes.[24] Methods to alleviate loading times included a cache for UMD data on models after the 1000, and later games giving the option to partially install data onto the Memory Stick to reduce load times. This section is huge and only contains one source. Try adding more sources (or reusing some) to help verify the information there.
• In the PSP-1000 section in Hardware, there needs more citations to verify the claims there.
• There is duplicated references

I don't know if you made an entire account just for this as i see your account is pretty new, good job on the rewrites as its pretty solid so far. All in all this article needs much more citations. Thats my main problem here. Hope this helps. Monathephantom (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, before nominating, be sure you are the main author of this article or it will get quickfailed per the GA citeria. Monathephantom (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Firewatch

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: 24 September 2026, 16:02 UTC

Last edit: 8 November 2026, 07:32 UTC

Open finance

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking a peer review to help refine the article, specifically focusing on:

• Technical Clarity: Ensuring that discussions regarding APIs, data standards, and security protocols are accurate yet understandable for non-engineers.
• Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Verifying that the tone remains strictly objective and encyclopaedic, avoiding any promotional bias toward specific fintech firms or platforms.
• Structure & Readability: Identifying any gaps in layout, prose, or formatting before considering a future Good Article nomination.

Thanks, Fintechfraser (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Architecture Studio (Lego)

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

This article just recently passed a GA review. I'd like to know what would need to be done for this to be a Featured Article. Note Brickset is a reliable source for information on Lego sets, and is maintained by subject matter experts.

Thanks, NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I just found this, Martha Stewart and Stefan Sagmeister both published brief reviews for The New York Times Magazine. Should probably be incorporated into the article NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Inviting @Epicgenius if they're interested since they work a lot on architecture articles. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Icepinner

@NewAccount7295: I'm not sure if this can be FA-able. We do have some pretty short FAs, like Miss Meyers, but I think the article's short length may attract more concern from FAC reviewers over comprehensiveness (1b of WP:FA?). But here are some comments from an FAC point of view:

• Any academic sources on this topic? FAC reviewers expect the highest-quality sources to be used, which often means using academic sources. Google Scholar gives me this, so consider if any of the results in there are useful. It is OK for articles to not cite academic sources if there aren't any that would be useful in the first place, but it is nonetheless good practice to look for academic sources.
• The article needs more context on the subject. Why did LEGO decide to release a product line teaching kids how to build stuff based on architecture principles? Have critics complained that the LEGO Architecture line (or LEGO in general) was limiting kids' creativity through building instructions for normal LEGO sets? What is the LEGO Architecture line?
• Has LEGO stated why all the bricks in the set were coloured white?
• "until it was discontinued in December 2017" any reason from LEGO? Was it not popular?
• I see the article cites a couple of reviews from an architecture magazine – that's nice, but are the authors actual architects, or are they architecture writers? If they're the latter, then what have actual architects said about this set?

Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Icepinner:

Explanations for #4 and #5:

The Fast Company article is referenced for that, although the sentence could be reworded. Michael McNally, brand relations director at the Lego Group, stated the set's use of white gave it a "sketchbook" feel that could "more accurately represent" different styles of architecture.

Lego routinely discontinues sets to make way for new ones. There isn't really much of a reason to give. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

This peer review discussion is closed.

Ever Oasis

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

This is an article about an obscure 2017 3DS game. This game has been one of my favorites - and i have been working on it for months to potentially get it to GA, which first had a botched review and its most recent nomination failed, so i'm nominating this for a peer review.

I really hope to get it to good article status and potentially featured status. Next year, 2027, is this games 10th anniversary, and it would be incredible if this article was TFA for the 10th anniversary.

Thank you to whoever is reading this! Monathephantom (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

No big issues with this. the sources look good. The images will need alt text (WP:ALT). I'm not sure about haivng multiple fair use gameplay screenshots, but I don't know too much about copyright. I wouldn't include things like "nintendo life" as authors in citation templates EmergentAnarchy (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Closing due to lack of engagement. Monathephantom (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

2023 Jetline roller coaster accident

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

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

Date added: 6 October 2026, 12:01 UTC

Last edit: 30 October 2026, 18:29 UTC

Leaky integrator

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

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

Workstation

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

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

Date added: 2 August 2026, 12:14 UTC

Last edit: 4 November 2026, 23:32 UTC

Stance detection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daffodil International University

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

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

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

I would particularly appreciate community feedback on the following:

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

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

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

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

Wynncraft

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to WP:GA status. I want to focus on what topic/information should be covered/is missing.

Thanks, |)are2|_eap (Talk) 17:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Happy Go Lucky (1943 film)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've written most of it, but because it is a relatively obscure 1940s film, my edits have not been subject to much review. Please give me feedback on problems this article may have such as citations, writing style and structure, so I can improve my editing skills and this article. Thanks, Bluebirdsinmybelfry (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

York Racecourse

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I, having written most of it, would like to hear of any improvements that could be made to improve its GA credentials. Thanks, HallCastleKing (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Minor comment - in the Location section would be better to recast the wording so the you do not get "The Knavesmire" twice in quick succession. Keith D (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Atlanta Thrashers relocation to Winnipeg

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I’m seeking advice on what can be added to this article to promote it to Good Article status, and alongside that some kind copyeditors.

Thanks, Sunshinezguy (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Climate change in Turkey

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

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

Date added: 29 September 2026, 08:04 UTC

Last edit: 29 October 2026, 12:48 UTC

2026 United States Senate election in Kansas

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i seek peer advice what fine tuning and historical improvements can be done this article because Democrats has not won the U.S. Senate race in Kansas since 1932. Now they did and its a big flip.

Thanks, Dumocrat (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

7th millennium BC

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

I want to try taking this article to FAC; however, there really isn't an antecedent at the FAC level (no millennia, centuries, decades, or years!), so I thought I would solicit some feedback from the community beforehand. Thanks, Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

World War II

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

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to identify areas for body about WW2 with a possible current GA and future FA candidate. This is my first Peer Review on English Wikipedia.

I would particularly appreciate the veteran editors on:

• Does this article meet the FA criteria?

Thanks, Hzy0402 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

• The article already is a GA, and you have no history of contributions to it so this seems totally out of process and pointless. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be more productive for a small group of editors with good topic knowledge to undertake a check of the current citations as some of them do not look to be the best available. I have been meaning to do this for some time and it is still on my "to do" list. If any other editors are willing to help me out on this, that would be much appreciated. Until this is done, I don't think there is much value in a peer review. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for discussion. Hzy0402 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of the Islamic State (2026)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to someday get my article promoted to WP:FL. I am just looking for any suggestions I can get!

Thanks, Militant.Insurgency (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Memri isn't considered reliable (WP:MEMRI). It's used quite a bit. The Daily Express (source 137) isn't good either. Don't include things like "bureau report" and "news agencies" as authors - it creates a generic name error. There's also at least 1 bare url (source 373). EmergentAnarchy (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Petrograd

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some significant cleanup on it and have improved the sourcing, and I would like some pointers on how it could be improved beyond where it is now. I know that Military History in general has a lot of detail involved.

Thanks, Packrat3860 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Justina Szilágyi

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

Previous peer review

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

2011 St. Louis tornado

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 2026, 15:37 UTC

Last edit: 12 November 2026, 15:16 UTC

El Salvador Aerospace Institute

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a long time since the page have been created and it still hasn't been reviewed

Thanks, 20mphwind (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Sea balls

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: 16 October 2026, 16:41 UTC

Last edit: 31 October 2026, 17:57 UTC

List of tornadoes in Turkey

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

I've listed this article for peer review because... I think it might have a few issues regarding the WP:FLCR Criteria and I wanted to know what people think about this article. Thanks, ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 17:39, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Cephalopholis colonus

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've completely rewritten this short article and am now wondering if it is up to Good Article standards, or what could be done to bring it up to those standards.

This article now includes nearly all reliable information about the species in literature. I only omitted anything that was too technical, superfluous, or didn't think was reliable. I included a gallery to show the variation in colouration in the species, unfortunately there is very little written about it in literature.

Thanks, Bloopityboop (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• The lead should be expanded to cover the contents of the body, rather than just being one sentence.
• The images should have alt text (WP:ALT). This is required for good articles.
• The utilization section says "In recent decades however". I'd specify some actual time period. It's cited to a paper from 2003, so i guess that's the 80s or 90s?
• I'd link to gill rakers in the description section.
• The measurements should use conversion templates (Template:Convert)
• Maybe describe conservation info from the IUCN citation in the body EmergentAnarchy (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review! I have just addressed everything you mentioned. Bloopityboop (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Flora of Samoa

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

I've listed this article for peer review because... I want this article to be a Featured article

Thanks, Emmanbotan (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Went through and did a bit of a copyedit.

Not necessarily something that would prevent this article from getting to FA, but a lot of the text relies on source 6. While reliable, do you think any of those paragraphs could be supported by an additional source as well? It can be good to have multiple sources supporting things. NewAccount7295 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Neanderthal

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: 3 October 2026, 07:31 UTC

Last edit: 27 October 2026, 16:00 UTC

Hurricane Beryl

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

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

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

Article was merged. GiftedIceCream 20:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The article was merged, but the content wasn't well-integrated. It's 2,500 words, or about one-third of the word count for the article. Recovery and aftermath belong in aftermath, not impact, and there was probably some overlap from the Texas sub-article content and the original aftermath section. One other thing I notice from the former Texas sub-article. There are a few times when there are quotes that seem questionable, or are unattributed:

• Texas Governor Greg Abbott decried the frequency of power grid failures in Texas due to severe weather while on an "economic development" trip in Asia'
• "countless"
• Multiple senior nursing homes were unable to receive power for oxygen machines, including Ella Springs senior living facility despite being listed as a "critical load customer" with 85 residents.
• CenterPoint regulatory policy vice president Brad Tutunjian defended the gradual pace of CenterPoint's revival of the power grid by stating that restoring power for over one million customers was "a monumental number". - CenterPoint mentioned twice
• Acting Governor Dan Patrick called the power outages the longest that Houston ever faced while stating that CenterPoint was responsible for its power grid failures, saying that the company "will have to answer for themselves" on if they were prepared or not. - did the company answer for themselves?
• The Harris County Republican Party disparaged CenterPoint for being "underprepared" despite being Harris County's primary electricity provider. - some redundancy here (having Harris County twice)

Also, this part is unsourced - "Efforts continue to strengthen infrastructure resilience in the wake of Beryl’s destruction." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Seems like the merger, Klbrain simply copy and pasted the sub-article. GiftedIceCream 17:21, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Commognition

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

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

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

List of mammals of Missouri

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

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

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

I've only done one featured list (List of hornbills) so i don't know if i can be that much help. Seems kind of strange to include human, but it's accurate so I'd see what the reviewers say. The images need alt text (WP:ALT) which might take a while to add given the number of images on the page. "and the armadillos, opossums, primates each have one species in the state" should have an "and" between opossums and primates EmergentAnarchy (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

In Mortal Combat with... Sub-Mariner!

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

I've listed this article for peer review because... This is my first time making an article of this type (I've overhauled Marvel character articles, but never of stories). I just want to make sure that there aren't any issues with this article so later on when I do this eventually with other stories I won't be overlooking anything. Thanks, ModlordD (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Redwall

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it would be nice if I could get this to GA, maybe even FA. All advice is welcome as I don't have much article-writing experience on Wikipedia.

The article and talk page have been inactive more or less for 10 years, and it'd be nice to bring the article up to date and up to standard as well :)

Thanks, ~ lily ^{my tree} ~ 16:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The thing that sticks out first is that there just needs to be a lot more stuff. The article isn't very comprehensive. What sources are there aren't fully utilized, and there are a lot missing. Also a lot of uncited stuff. Before making further changes I'd just read a lot about Redwall and add from secondary sources.

Good sources on this kind of thing can be found on google scholar, proquest, maybe newspapers.com, google books, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Also recommend WP:TWL and WP:RSSE. Some more specific suggestions: Half of the major sections are unsourced. A plot section should probably be included. Several sections can be combined together (avoids in-universe cruft). I don't think that a character list containing species is very useful. Readers are probably looking for individual animals. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 21:33, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I've read a few of these. There is like 1 character who is mentioned in most of the books. The rest are book or a few-book specific. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Good to know, although I still don't think a section linking 39 animals is a very useful part of the article. Of course, this is just my opinion, and others are free to disagree. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 23:11, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the current way is ideal but I think there should be some section that addresses how the different species are portrayed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Maybe not every species needs to be mentioned? But most importantly, a source is needed for whatever is mentioned. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 23:28, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, they're frequently grouped anyway (villainous vermin characters like ferrets, foxes, stoats, rats), and so on, and this is more of an analytical character so needs a source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

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

Previous peer review

About a year ago, there was substantial editing to this article. In some ways, the article is not the same article that was originally passed as a WP:GA, 14 years ago. I am specifically concerned about Good Article criteria 3b: [the article] stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I especially think the section on his teachings may violate WP:SUMMARY somewhat. I do not necessarily want to delist it or go through the WP:GAR process. But I think some cleanup may be warranted.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Trevdna (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Pacifism in France

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

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

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

Leaf peeping

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating it for FAC. I am especially looking for feedback on the prose and help with finding more sources about this topic, both English and non-English sources.

Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Blåhaj

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I'm sure there's a lot that can be fixed, but I think having the issues listed out in front of me is helpful. Also doing this so I can get a Blahaj from msk!

Thanks, Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 01:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

First off I noticed the sources. In the cultural phenomenon section, you have a few places where 4 refs are used on the same sentence. The same section includes three Twitter refs, and at least two of them are unnecessary. (The source I'm not so sure about is the Maya King tweet with a screenshot of an email confirming that the "out of stock" indication was due to a supply chain disruption.)

Additionally, I'm not sure about the YouTube ref for IKEA Spain's "Manual of Empathy" for Blåhaj, but it's not as alarming of an issue as the Twitter refs. ~ lily ^{my tree} ~ 04:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Removed some instances of sources from the sentences that use 4 sources, and removed the "Blåhaj empathy manual" because I can't find anything that suggests the manual is notable enough for inclusion. I also removed the claims about IKEA Canada giving away special edition Blahajar that are in the color of the trans flag, because I also couldn't find any high-quality sources backing it up. Hopefully this is better? Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:30, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Technocracy

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

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

Date added: 12 October 2026, 11:45 UTC

Last edit: 11 November 2026, 10:05 UTC

Tom Calma

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some advice on how well I have covered the contributions made by Tom Calma to Indigenous education, human rights, public health, and reconciliation. Any comments on the structure of the article, writing style, neutrality, and sources used, among others, would be very appreciated.

Thanks, Pangalau (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I was the GA reviewer for this so I don't have much to say. The images could use alt text, which wasn't in the criteria when i passed it but it is now. EmergentAnarchy (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Done! Pangalau (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

List of United States commemorative coins (1920s)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it for FL in the future and would like feedback regarding the style and layout of the list/table, as there are many related lists that I will rewrite in the future using this one as a reference. I would also appreciate advice on the lead and any other parts of the article.

Thanks, Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 14:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)