| Main | Unanswered | Instructions | Discussion | Tools | Archive | Project |
| Peer review |
|---|
| Editing articles |
| Current reviews |
| Peer review process |
| Other |
| Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
|---|
|
|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can . |
This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
 | The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review. |
Arts
Angel-Eye
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
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)
Shing Nei Tobu Naam Tar Singha
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
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
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)
Dungeons & Dealers
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)
Everyday life
Room & Board
I've listed this article for peer review because...
Newly rewritten from scratch last week. Up for deletion because a sorely needed draft rewrite by a disclosed paid contributor had signs of AI input. History: I started this article 16 years ago, and didn't look at it since. An IP added but never removed a promotional content flag, which attracted three separate passes over six years, and took the article down to shreds. I am a customer, never an employee.
Thanks, SusanLesch (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Meccha Chameleon
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
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)
Engineering and technology
Leaky integrator
I've listed this article for peer review because I am proposing a substantial extending of the existing article. The proposed version is currently at User:DDadyka/Leaky integrator. I would particularly appreciate comments on the mathematical correctness, article structure, and whether the userspace draft would be an improvement over the current article.
Thanks, DDadyka (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
General
Daffodil International University
I am requesting a peer review of the Daffodil International University article.
I have substantially expanded and improved the article, including its history, campus, research, international collaborations, student life, and other sections, with an emphasis on reliable and independent sources.
I would particularly appreciate community feedback on the following:
- whether the article is sufficiently neutral and encyclopedic;
- whether the cited sources adequately support the claims;
- whether independently sourced content has appropriate encyclopedic value;
- whether any sections contain excessive directory-like detail;
- whether the structure and level of detail are appropriate for a university article;
- whether any important information is missing or unnecessarily detailed; and
- what improvements would be needed to bring the article toward B-class or Good Article quality.
Some previously included material, including information about faculties/departments and residential facilities, has recently been removed on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a directory or that the material has insufficient encyclopedic value. I understand that not every verifiable fact necessarily belongs in an article, but I would appreciate independent community feedback on where the appropriate level of detail should be drawn, particularly where the removed information was supported by independent reliable sources.
Please independently review the article and advise what content should be retained, rewritten, or removed..
Thanks, 0ximjub43r (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
York Racecourse
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)
Geography and places
History
Battle of Petrograd
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
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
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)
Flora of Samoa
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)
Commognition
I've listed this article for peer review because the article fills a real gap within the encyclopedia yet because of the current large backlog, it is still not reviwed.
Thanks, RetiredResearchKing123 (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Language and literature
Philosophy and religion
Social sciences and society
Technocracy
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)