Wikipedia:Peer review

Shortcuts
icon

Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.

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

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

Arts

Luna (Feid and ATL Jacob song)

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


Hello, guys. There has been a peer review a long time ago. However, there were no reviews on prose. This is my first time seeking for a Featured Article. Comments on prose would be very useful for this article.

Thanks, Santi (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2026 (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 peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it as a Featured Article, and have it on the main page for his next anniversary (or maybe birthday). It might need a few updates between now and then. It's already a GA but it'll be my first FA. All comments are appreciated.

Thanks, EmergentAnarchy (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)


Sayori (Doki Doki Literature Club!)

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, 05:58 UTC
Last edit: 23 October 2026, 02:38 UTC


Sebastian Stan

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I've done extensive work to get it to Good Article (GA) status first, then over the past few months, have been expanding to the best of my human ability and checking every nook and cranny. I want to submit it for FAC, but would appreciate a peer review(s) first. Thank you!

Thanks, Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 20:47, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @750h+ so they can see the review! Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 20:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

750h

I'll review this. I have a few things scheduled so if I don't get to this within 5-6 days please ping me (I'll try do it within that time). 750h+ 06:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Though I feel bad doing it, at your request @750h+ here's a ping! Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 18:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I may do a full review later, but here are some things I noticed from reading the lead!

  • He has built a prolific screen career spanning blockbusters and independent films since the 2000s, with a global box-office gross exceeding $7 billion. — I'm not a huge fan of built and spanning here, as they might imply hard work and versatility (not saying these are traits that Stan doesn't have, but it does make the tone seem a bit off for me).
    • Made a change that reads more neutral—at least comparably.
  • He also had leading roles in Broadway revivals of Talk Radio (2007) and Picnic (2013), and supporting roles in the films Hot Tub Time Machine (2010) and Black Swan (2010), though he struggled financially during this period. — my first response to this sentence is "why was he struggling?" Is there a way to add a tad more context without compromising the summary-ness of the lead?
    • So I definitely battled with this for longer than I want to admit, but settled on "struggled to support himself".
  • beginning with Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and including his headlining miniseries The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (2021) — feels as though it could read more smoothly—something like: beginning with Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and headlining the miniseries The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (2021)?
    • I understand your suggestion, but to me it reads as if it ended with the miniseries he headlined. He hasn't finished his tenure/his final installment hasn't been announced in the MCU yet.
  • Alongside mainstream film success in The Martian (2015) and I, Tonya (2017) — not sure I, Tonya is exactly what you would call a mainstream film.
    • It was meant to refer to non-MCU films, but nonetheless made a change.
  • he received Emmy and Golden Globe nominations — the links are a tad WP:EGGy given that the prose doesn't specify what category he was nominated in
    • Made a change.
  • Stan has produced some of his films — looking at Sebastian Stan on screen and stage, it seems he has only one executive producer credit and one producer credit, so this might not be lead-worthy.
    • Removed.

Pamzeis (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Pamzeis! Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 18:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)


Cups (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: 11 October 2026, 10:30 UTC
Last edit: 23 October 2026, 12:46 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: 2 October 2026, 22:53 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: 20 October 2026, 15:01 UTC


Jenna Ortega

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 15 August 2026, 06:16 UTC
Last edit: 19 October 2026, 19:58 UTC

Everyday life

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)


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: 23 October 2026, 19:51 UTC


Jetpac Refuelled

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: 4 September 2026, 02:48 UTC
Last edit: 18 October 2026, 19:48 UTC

Engineering and technology

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)


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)


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: 23 October 2026, 12:49 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)


Otvet

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


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

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

I am not an expert but I guess this is not much use in current or foreseeable Russian wars. Or might it be used in the Baltic? Too obvious for hybrid warfare. Is it better than Chinese ones and if so have they transferred the tech to China (like the tech mentioned in https://www.economist.com/briefing/2026/07/23/china-is-gaining-troubling-military-know-how-from-russia) or when might they do so?

If you have time please could you comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Climate change in Turkey/archive1

Chidgk1 (talk) 10:15, 5 October 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: 9 October 2026, 03:40 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)

GuineaPigC77

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

I hope you find these short comments helpful! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 02:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

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

General

FC Dynamo Moscow's 1945 tour of the United Kingdom

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: 25 August 2026, 05:41 UTC
Last edit: 13 October 2026, 05:00 UTC


2026 EFL Championship play-off final

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: 1 September 2026, 14:26 UTC
Last edit: 16 October 2026, 22:28 UTC


Digital Dance Mix Vol. 1 Namie Amuro

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

@MidnightMayhem Please see WP:REVIEWME. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 17 October 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)

Geography and places

Climate change in Turkey

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 29 September 2026, 08:04 UTC
Last edit: 1 October 2026, 07:28 UTC


Indonesia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 11 September 2026, 12:12 UTC
Last edit: 19 October 2026, 10:31 UTC

History

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)


Ozolua

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


Ozolua, known as Okpame or Okpamen before taking the throne, was the fifteenth Oba ('king') of the Kingdom of Benin whose reign spanned the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Benin tradition remembers him by the name Ozolua n'Ibaromi (Ozolua the Conqueror).

Recently passed GAN, I believe FACRIT is met, so I’m happy to address any comments in that direction as that is my next move.

Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2026 (UTC)


Santos Passos Church

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 i have the objetive of this article becoming FA.

Thanks, V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:44, 4 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)

Natural sciences and mathematics

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 peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FAC. I'd be especially grateful if someone could go through the references and check whether they're FA-quality sources, as that is my primary concern with the article right now. I'd appreciate prose reviews as well. This article is not very long; if you review it and have an article of a similar length up at peer review or FAC, feel free to link it here and I'll take a look.

All the best, --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) (FAC) 16:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I've only glanced at this quickly so far. I'll try to come back to do a deeper dive at some point. But for now, a couple of comments:

  • For a scientific article, I'd try to stick to academic sources. I'd avoid popular press (i.e. BBC, Guardian) if you can.
  • Ref 12 is just "Encyclopédie. Vol. 12. p. 263." It really needs a full citation with editor, date, etc.
  • For the non-English sources, add the translated title using trans-title.
  • role of Neptune balls in trapping marine and carrying it to the shore is there a word missing after "marine"?
  • The polymers were identified by spectrometry and included ... Why is this set off as a blockquote?
  • Spanish Institute of Oceanography should be linked to es:Instituto Español de Oceanografía. There's a template that lets you do this, but the exact template name escapes me at the moment. Likewise, it's possible that Génau de Lamarlière is fr:Léon Géneau de Lamarlière but that needs to be verified. You should do a sweep for any similar references to people or places that might have articles in other language wikis. Wikidata is a good resource for this. Don't be afraid to redlink people who appear notable. Some people find redlinks objectionable in FAs, but I think they're perfectly fine.
  • You should give some indication in the lead of how big these things are. The photo is an odd perspective and makes it look like these are much larger than they really are. If there was another photo which included some visual scale, that would be nice to use instead of this one.
  • In recent years, plastic waste, especially microplastics ... What does "recent" mean? It could be anything from the last 2 or 3 years to the last several decades.
  • concludingly positive first results I have no idea what this phrase means.
  • They are also known as aegagropiles, Neptune balls ... the list that follows puts some names in italics, some in roman. Why?
  • The stiffness also comes from the density of Neptune balls. I don't understand this.

(I'll pick up with Distribution the next time)

Thank you for the first comments. :) I used the BBC and The Guardian sources because they're interviews with Sanchez-Vidal, who led the study about sea balls in 2018–2019. I had assumed that this is an appropriate use of these sources, but if it isn't I could remove them. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Those are probably OK then. At the time I made that comment, I hadn't really taken a close look.
  • 13 to 50% of initial Posidonia oceanica may have been lost since 1960 I don't understand what you mean by "initial". Perhaps you're trying to say "As of 2021, populations of Posidonia oceanica were down 13 to 50% from their 1960 levels"?
  • ... lost in the past 50 years Avoid relative measurements like that. For somebody reading this 20 years from now, "the past 50 years" will mean something different than it does today. Better to say "... lost since 1976" (or whatever year the paper implies).
  • some were spherical and had a diameter 7 cm (2.8 in) Earlier you talk about radius. I would pick one and use it uniformly (even if the sources don't).
  • Kitab al-Dschamie al-Kabir, stating that they have supposed medicinal properties in dentistry. I suspect he said they had medicinal properties, not that they supposedly had medicinal properties.
  • The polymers were identified by spectrometry Did you mean "spectroscopy"? Hmmm, looking at the source, I see they use both terms interchangeably. I think "spectroscopy" is the more commonly used term, so I would suggest going with that. Actually, I'd use the more specific Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy and link to that.
  • After the paper was published, Anna Sanchez-Vidal this had me scrambling to figure out what paper you were talking about and who this person was. Eventually I figured out that it was the paper referred to in the previous paragraph. This all needs a bit of reorganizing to make that clear.

Overall, I don't think this is bad, but the writing is choppy in some places, with sentences that don't really flow together. Perhaps this would benefit from a pass through WP:GOCE. That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing... I agree that the prose is not great a lot of the time, although I'll try to fix it best I can before sending it to GOCE. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 16:49, 21 October 2026 (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)

Eoline's comments

  • Only seems to go to 2008 despite there verifiably being tornadoes since then
  • Short description should be set to =none.
  • Not seeing the use case for File:Image of the January 24, 2019 Antalya Wedge Tornado.png (it's also not mentioned in the article)
  • Dots instead of slashes for date; these should be spelled out (ie May 27, 1997 instead of 27.5.1997 or 5/27/1997) per other tables of a similar scope
  • The entire lead should be re-wrote to comply with MOS:THISISALIST
  • Unknown tornadoes no indication of what this means.
  • high-winds > high winds
  • A strong and historical tornado > historic, or historical?
  • Gilbert (1828) > not sure who this is.
  • The 1930 Edirne tornado was a deadly tornado that struck Edirne, Turkey > repetition - it's obviously in Turkey because the list is about tornadoes in Turkey.
  • July 27–28, 1930 > the table says only 28.7.1930.
  • This tornado developed over land at approximately 08:00 UTC, the event improper punctuation
  • This tornado developed over land at approximately 09:00 UTC, this improper punctuation
  • This tornado Developed over land at approximately 09:00 UTC, this tornado improper capitalization and punctuation as well as repetition
  • The "21st century" list is bugged out currently.
  • An Intense F3 improper capitalization and I question if "intense" is needed as a descriptor if that's generally what F3+ and EF3+ tornadoes are classified as.
  • 1-kilometer needs a {{convert}} template
  • 150 meters needs a {{convert}} template
  • 100 meters away needs a {{convert}} template
  • I have concerns about at least some of this being aided by the use of AI, particularly where sources are mentioned - According to contemporary media is not particularly wiki-speak and is something an AI model would say regarding news.
  • The first "18.10.2006" IFU's color box is messed up.
  • For all of the "18.10.2006" tornadoes, they should be given unique descriptors rather than just copy-pasted entries
  • A tornado which is barely documented on ESWD and local media. No image of the tornado surfaced I am not a volunteer at ESWD and so I don't have access to the primary sourcing method throughout this article but I doubt this was said on the entry itself.
  • Only one photo of the damages available at present. probably showing F1 or F2 damages. improper grammar and something I doubt the ESWD entry says
  • Only a few photos of the damages available at present. Probably showing F1 damage same here.
  • ). destroying greenhouses. I improper capitalization and punctuation
  • e; barns completely > barns were completely
  • The "see also" section should go above the reference list.

Eoline 14:01, 13 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)


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: 20 October 2026, 12:43 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)


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)


Low-mass X-ray binary

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


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

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

Suggest you use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite_Unseen and check the 6 sources it suggests may be unreliable. Lead could be expanded a little to make less technical e.g. explain Roche lobe. After that I think you should nominate it for "good article". Chidgk1 (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice! Shocksingularity (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2026 (UTC)


Braitenberg vehicle

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


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

Thanks, GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand how or why it might make "figures-of-eight around a point" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 5 October 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)

Language and literature

Philosophy and religion

Transparency of experience

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

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

Prezbo

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

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


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)

296cherry

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

A few other issues:

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

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

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

Hi there, I really appreciate your review.
I am really not trying to have an argument so please forgive me if my tone is a bit off in this.
I am slightly confused about the original research comment considering the bible passage is a note and the UN peacekeeping does mention France, please see for example source 95 which is the French UN website. The last paragraph does not change the meaning- I am slighty confused about this. In context it says "Despite France's commitment to peacekeeping, the nation ranked 99 on the 2026 Global Peace Index.[101][102] It was ranked as the least peaceful country in Western and Central Europe, due to an increase in domestic violent crime.[19]" This was explaining where it was on the peace index, I would argue that if this was not included it would change the understanding of the article in a negative way. Finally, I would like to ask where the original research is? The sources do mention pacifism in France or the relevance of the paragraph is established using a source mentioning pacifism and then, a source such as this might add additional evidence.
I don't understand how this violates due weight considering that France is a member of the P5, a founding member as well as having press releases on the very subject.
Thanks very much for having a look at this. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Social sciences and society

Technocracy

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


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

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2026 (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)

Lists

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)

WikiProject peer reviews