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.
I have listed this article for peer review to make sure there are no significant issues before nominating it as a good article. Any and all feedback are appreciated. Thank you, Is it Juan? (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm preparing to submit this article for FAC, and I'd like to have a final peer review conducted before submitting it, to make sure there aren't any significant issues remaining. All feedback is welcome.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate this for GAN. Any and all feedback on all aspects of the article is welcome. I primarily edit through the mobile app so please ping me when responding so that I will promptly receive the notifications.
I would like to submit this list to FLC soon. Before I nominate it, however, I thought this would benefit from a peer review. Any comments are appreciated. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Comments from Mmberney
Very interesting list. Just a few minor observations:
Title - definite article or not? Should "Century" and "Architecture" not be lowercase throughout the article? i.e. "20th-century architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright"
Replace "Frank Lloyd Wright" with "Wright" when not using proper nouns e.g. Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy is fine but "ten Frank Lloyd Wright properties" should be "ten Wright properties"
"World Heritage Site" in the second paragraph is already blue linked in the first paragraph. Similarly, "National Park Service" in the third para is blue linked in the second
Taliesin - typo in the description: "argely"
Taliesin West - "foothills of the Arizona's McDowell Mountains" - 'the' needs deleting
@Mmberney, thanks for the comments. Here are my responses respectively.
For the first point, "The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright" is the proper name of the UNESCO listing that is the subject of this list. "20th-Century architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright" is an entirely different topic.
I have shortened Wright's name where it was not part of an agency's proper name.
Understood regarding the proper name, and I clearly missed the explanatory hatnote at the top. D'oh. Good luck with the nomination process, and if I may be so bold, I currently have a list that could use a peer review if you're interested: Listed pubs in Manchester. Many thanks. Mmberney (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
The "Property Area [Buffer Zone]" column is a bit hard to parse. I recommend doing what is done in the "UNESCO ID / Property area" column on the Australian Convict Sites list
Likewise, the coordinates could be merged into the Location column like on the Australian Convicts Sites list.
"Property Area [Buffer Zone]" should be sentence case.
Coordinates or description columns shouldn't be sortable.
Is it possible to have a small explanation of what the buffer zone means?
@Steelkamp Thanks for the comments. For the buffer zone comments, I might just remove them altogether at a later date, but for now I've added an explanation of what that is.For your other points:
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been wanting to take it to FA level for years, but have failed. Any advice for improvement would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your ambition to take this to FA. I read the article (forgot the first round, sorry), and listened into the video (same). I think the best part of the article is the section describing the video, which raised my curiosity. For many earlier portions, including the lead, I recommend a bit more of explanation for people who don't know the song, neither text nor melody, don't know the actress, don't know cup game ...
lead
instead of "later" for the Lulu+, give a decade, - there are many between the 1930s and when the song came into being.
I think I'd like first what the singer did, then the release.
"imagining those around her performing the track" - how about a bit more, that the customers also do cup-clapping?
Background
How about something about the original song, topic, text, melody, character, especially since the song's article doesn't answer these questions?
How about an initial section about the singer: where in which career was she when she did this?
How about more chronology in the paragraph? It seems cute that a song (Teapot) was in the film of an audition, and she sang in her real audition, but would be cuter if we knew about the film one before the other. - Not sure if I could express what I wanted.
Reception and Commercial read a bit dry but what else can be done about numbers;) - Good luck, I'll watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks to me good enough to be promoted to at least GA and I'd like a peer review before submitting it.
The "Controversies" section needs a revamp. A section heading like "Controversies" is not recommended on Wikipedia as it is not WP:NPOV. The section also overly relies on block quotes, when articles should be summaries of content. I think the debate about the film's completion should be moved to "development" as it is discussing that aspect.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Comments from Plifal
some of my comments will likely be more fac level, but hopefully should be helpful!
lead
"centers on a Manhattan doctor" should probably be something like "a doctor living in Manhattan", a Manhattan doctor sounds like a drink lol
"infiltrates a masked orgy of a secret society." > "infiltrates a secret society that hosts masked orgies."
"international co-production" this information isn't found in the body. the lead should be a reflection of the content of the body so the citation here should also be unnecessary.
"The film's production, at 400 days, holds the Guinness World Record for the longest continuous film shoot." > the body doesn't mention 400 days, instead giving the figure in weeks.
plot
looks good, no notes.
production
link Dream Story in its first appearance in the body.
remove the 'see also' template under adaptation.
suggest placing the adaptation sub-section under the development sub-section (as in, use sub-heading 2 and have 'adaptation' as a sub-sub-heading).
MOS:FILMDIFF encourages real-world context as to why the changes were made, or interesting production differences that necessitated these changes; occasionally it feels as if the film drifts into listing differences (particularly in the unsourced statements). i would keep the bit about the jewishness of the film's character and the "character with no counterpart", the rest can be cut or edited down/around.
"Film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum notes that both passwords echo elements of one member of the couple's behavior, though in opposite ways." > closer to themes or analysis than production.
ideally the information regarding jason-leigh and keitel should be split between casting and filming, as they encompass both.
suggestion, casting: "Both ultimately dropped out of the production, reportedly due to scheduling conflicts.[38] Leigh was replaced by Marie Richardson, and Keitel by Sydney Pollack.[12]
filming: "During filming, Keitel departed the project to appear in Finding Graceland,[39] followed by Leigh, who was shooting eXistenZ with David Cronenberg.[40] Decades later, Keitel said that he had quit after feeling like Kubrick had "disrespected" him; Gary Oldman added that the breaking point was after Kubrick asked Keitel to do dozens of takes for a scene of his character walking through a doorway.[41][42]"
"The Guinness World Records recognized Eyes Wide Shut as the longest constant movie shoot that ran "...for over 15 months, a period that included an unbroken shoot of 46 weeks"" should be rephrased to avoid quotation.
include the year of release following the title of Barry Lyndon (1975).
"The color was enhanced by push processing the film reels (emulsion) which helped bring out the intensity of the color and emphasize highlights." > a general reader won't understand what is meant by "push processing the film reels (emulsion)" and the sentence includes a description of enhanced colour twice. would recommend rephrasing this.
"Kubrick's perfectionism led him to oversee" > suggest "Kubrick's perfectionism caused him to oversee"
Hello! This is a short article, so I have only a few comments, but I would like to share them nonetheless!
The lead states that the song "details each rapper's disdain for music journalists and the criticism of their music", but the background broadens that idea to "media criticism" in general, obliquely mentioning the music angle, which I will give credit for appearing how it is in the source. Perhaps you could change one to more faithfully match the other?
The lead credits a producer as "Daniel 'Keys' Perez", but the "Writing and production" section credits him as "Danny 'Keys' Perez". A small criticism, but it warrants consistency nevertheless.
"After contemplating over which rapper would be featured on the track..." The word "contemplating" doesn't take a preposition: "After contemplating which rapper would be featured on the track..."
"This track would be Tech N9ne and Lamar's second collaboration." Wouldn't this be better rendered as "This track is Tech N9ne and Lamar's second collaboration."?
The critical reception section, to me, seems to layer critic quote on critic quote rather than synthesizing them. Is there any way it could better connect them?
The music video section has a bit of WP:PROSELINE, doesn't it? Perhaps you could integrate the dates more effectively?
The live performances section, which, while I understand is practice to separate in a song article, is just one sentence. Is there any more info that could fill this section out, or, alternatively, could you perhaps merge it into another section? As of right now, it seems...abrupt, for lack of a better word, if that makes sense?
The article stands at 687 prose words right now. If that's all you could squeeze from the fruits of the sources, then I understand the brevity, but it seems a bit short for FAC, no? I don't mean to urge you to give undue weight or explain ideas in unnecessary detail, but could you fill it out even a bit?
I'm not very well-versed in rap sources (or music sources as a whole, really), but is there any justification for using
DJBooth as a source, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as unreliable? Additionally, Respect, Rap Radar, and Hypetrak have, as far as I am aware, not been discussed for their reliability. Is there any justification for using them?
Overall, a well-researched article. Just a bit...small. Good job, either way! Hope these comments can be of help! Thanksya! nub:) 05:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in the featured list status, but I am not sure what to do, so I am here to check if there're points can be improved.
Thanks, Saimmx (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
"Cheonmak School" was not an official name of the school. The Korean wording just means the school started off with tent classrooms. Also, the Seoul Shinmun source is actually talking about the legal entity which owns Hanlim Multi Art School and not really the school itself. A quick google search in Korean says the school itself opened in 2009. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. I will change it later. Saimmx (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Done. You are right on it. I think it is the school firstly established as a tent in 1960, then teaching wousewives, and now the place began training idols because he found that students cannot find a place dancing, right? Saimmx (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Also, it appears that the official English name of the school has been "Hanlim Arts School" since 2020 (, ). You might want to change this as well. ("Hanlim Multi Arts School" may appear more frequently in English search results but this is usually because a lot of Korean newspapers translate their articles using AI.) - 00101984hjw (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I have noticed that you changed the original article. I will move it later. Saimmx (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. I haven't notice your reply because I was busy. I think I will reply your comment later. Saimmx (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
The language parameter the third source used is "zh-tw" - region parameters, such as "zh-tw", "zh-cn", "zh-hk", is, actually, far more frequent in almost all Chinese sources, but looks like some will be confused by our practice and the rendering. I will use "zh" instead Saimmx (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Use "zh-Hant-TW" after reading the site's source code. Saimmx (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Dates: DoneSaimmx (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to see judgement on where the article needs improvement beyond being listed as "start class. I'm hoping someone can take the time to review it and offer constructive feedback.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am a new editor and a student making contributions for my class. I have written this article and would love any feedback to improve it!
Hi!! Great contribution so far!! I have some minor points of feedback for copy.
Under the history section, "The aesthetic exists within the broader “That Girl” trend, which is described as “productive and professionally successful yet she still finds the time to eat well, meditate, read, exercise, and follow a strict skincare regime”. The primary platform for the “Clean Girl” aesthetic is TikTok."
Since "productive and professionally successful yet she still finds the time to eat well" describes the girls that participate in the "That Girl" trend, and not the trend itself. A minor grammatical fix up could be used! perhaps: "... which describes the archetypical "That Girl" as someone who is "productive and professionally successful yet she still finds the time to eat well..."
or omit the "she" and replace with elipses. Or some other variation! but make it so the quote matches up either to describe the trend or the participating members.
In "The associated hair style is typically seen as a slicked-back bun, often with a center part in front, without a single hair out of place." I would opt to remove the last phrase as it kind of gives an opinion-esque tone; kind of veers into narrative/prose style. Would be cleaner to keep it just as "The associated hair style is typically seen as a slicked-back bun, often with a center part in front."
In this list: "Lifestyle behaviors of a “Clean Girl” emphasize taking care of both physical and mental health, including waking up early to maximize morning hours, working out regularly, pilates as the preferred form, and eating a healthy breakfast accompanied by a green drink or matcha." I would add "pilates as the preferred form" within either an em dash pair or parenthesis so it doesn't appear to be part of the list!
Overall I feel like this gave a great overview to something I understand (as someone who has seen videos like these online) while also keeping with an informative and neutral tone. Props to you!!
Hi Gobirds123, your work looks great! See the sandbox page User:Gobirds123/Clean_girl_aesthetic/Hamburger573_Peer_Review for my peer review of your article.Hamburger573 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm a new editor and a student making contributions to Wikipedia for my Online Communities course. I made some updates and changes to this article, and I would love any feedback on how to improve it further!
I am not experienced in these kinds of topics, but since this is unanswered, I will review this. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
First, please see WP:LEADCITE, do not place citations on the lead (the first part and introduction to the article) unless it is not reflected in the other sections.
You might want to remove an image, as I believe there are too much images on the sides
use the {{sfn}} template for citations 11 and 12 and link them to the books
I believe you should add a level-3 subsection (the one with three equal signs) to separate the two books from the citations
You might want to use {{Cite book}} for the two books under.
Now, for the actual problems mentioned in the template on the top.
which is considered too harsh for curly hair I do not think this needs to be added to the lead
with DevaCurl few years ago you might want to resolve the when? template: when did Lorraine part ways with DevaCurl? please provide the year
and many women felt pressured to straighten their hair with flat irons or chemical relaxers according to who? please add this in the article.
There are many unsourced paragaphs, you might want to add sources
The first paragraph of Variations reads like original research, please add attribution (who said this) and sources.
which proponents claim removes buildup from the hair and scalp without the harsh "stripping" or drying effects of traditional shampoo. since this is a claim, you need to add a source and who said this
include the Deva cut,[1] Ouidad cut,[2] and RI CI cut.[3] capitalize every instance of "cut" here
Other authors have written curly hair care guides which focus on specific hair types. you might want to remove this as it is original research; if you want to keep this, you should add all the different book sources at the end of the sentence
The last sentence of Variation reads like a guide and a lot of this is discussed in Porosity; it needs attribution and you might want to cut some parts
This is the review. For a new editor, this article is very good and looks like a typical Wikipedia article, albeit with a few problems. If you need help with some of the points, feel free to ask. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
This is the best section I could think of for this article.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I would like to get this article to GA status. I would just like a peer review to see what could be improved.
This article will very likely be nominated for deletion by paid editors on behalf of the subject. My hope is editorial feedback will produce an article more likely to survive AfD. I'd deeply appreciate your review.
Thank you, Brandon (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
TheNuggeteer
Weird situation, but oh well. Will try my best to review. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Try to remove most citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE
Is there nothing about his early life?
"stealing data from executives, politicians, and military officials worldwide" I don't know if you should put "allegedly" before this; it seems too biased.
"legitimate legal action — civil and criminal — to protect his honour" remove spaces between the dashes and words
"which drew the attention of Indian intelligence agencies" Why did it draw their attention? Please provide the answer in prose if you could find one.
"a series of spear-phishing emails targeted Peter Hargitay" according to who?
"near Zurich airport" capitalize airport
"(Khare's lawyers told Reuters he "does not know" the Hargitays.)" Is it required to be placed in parentheses? I suggest removing it and turning them into actual prose, or maybe you can change it into a note.
"2013 and 2014, and" remove comma.
How did he create Boundary Holding? If you can find the answer, provide it in the prose
"court noting" add comma after
"lawyer Capt" add commas after both words
And this is my review. Honestly, this has a low chance of being deleted in AfD. He is notable, all sources in the article are reliable, and the article is detailed as well. If this was nominated, I would personally oppose the deletion. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
The article presents investigative allegations (e.g., hack-for-hire activities) as established fact. However, these claims are based on journalistic investigations and have not resulted in charges or convictions. Per WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, such material must be clearly attributed and not stated in Wikipedia’s voice. Current wording risks misleading readers and gives undue weight to contested claims. ZaneRowan (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review. I've attempted to incorporate all of your feedback, please let me know if I missed the mark anywhere. As for his life before and after Appin, there just isn't coverage I can find unfortunately. It really would round out the article. Brandon (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
@Brandon: There is a comment above that looks constructive and presents something to fix (by a new editor, pretty weird). Nevertheless, I would oppose if there was an AFD. I would suggest fixing it, though. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because...
This is the first article I've created with a substantial amount of prose, and I want to make sure I'm on the right track as I work to create and improve more articles for skiers. I'd appreciate feedback on the clarity and flow of the writing, level of detail included, level of technical language, what to include in the lede, and organization/structure (which seems to be fairly standard for ski racer articles). Any other comments or suggestions would be welcome as well, as I feel like there is a lot that I don't know that I don't know about creating quality articles.
Thanks, Wburrow (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:LEADCITE: Avoid citations on the lead if they are already referenced in the body.
"who competes in all disciplines" I believe you need to specify what you mean by this.
Is there nothing about when and where she was born?
"The Austrian Ski Association named Egger their "Rookie of the Year" after her initial 2017–18 season." What happened in the season?
"and winning" -> "and her win of"
"earning her first-ever World Cup points" you need to specify why is it hard to get/important
Instead of parentheses, I suggest using {{efn}} and {{notelist}}
"starts that season however, with most of the season" -> "starts that season. However, most of the season was"
"racing on" -> "racing in"
"in the super-G but skied off" what do you mean by "skied off"?
"where Egger topped the field." I believe this is technical language
"going in to the" -> "going into the"
Overall, this article is good, but there are some issues and things you need to implement in future articles. I also suggest you watch your prose as there are some slip-ups and other stuff. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer edit because I recently added some information about the American preparations. Could someone with expertise review it for accuracy?
Also, I added a new image of American troops and would appreciate help with formatting it properly within the article. Thank you!
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded significantly recently but I feel that there's also a lot of promo and that there are better ways to ensure WP:NPOV, especially in regard to the tenure section. I feel like there's also a lot that feels WP:UNDUE and that there are also an overdue amount of quotations from her and about her rhetorical style.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to eventually have it nominated as a featured article. As of now, the article might need more work. If someone could do a detailed check on the article that would help the editors with improving the article.
@Tokeamour: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Since you are working towards your first FAC promotion, I recommend getting a mentor that can comment in this PR. I also recommend reviewing articles at WP:FAC now: this will build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help with understanding the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
metalicat
I've had a read through with the FAC criteria in mind. Whilst I find this subject pretty cool, I'm not a specialist in military history or Cold War infrastructure, so take my comments accordingly. I've focused on the things I think need addressing first — happy to come back for a closer look at prose, structure, and MOS once these are sorted.
Criterion 1a: well-written
The prose needs a copy-edit pass before FAC. The two most prominent issues:
There's a recurring construction where "During" is used with specific years or dates: "During 2008", "During 2003", "During August 3, 2011", "During 2015". In standard English these should be "In 2008", "In 2003", "On August 3, 2011", etc. I count at least five instances.
Several sentences don't parse or are fragments. For example:
During 2003 the Ground-Based Mid-Course Defense (GMD) was contracted for Cheyenne Mountain, at Command Center operations to Peterson Space Force Base — I can't work out what the second half of this sentence is saying.
Providing aid to the Aerospace Defense Center's operation of NORAD's primary combat operations center. — sentence fragment after the previous sentence about the support groups HQ.
On the 40th anniversary of the Complex completion, then-Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, visited the complex on June 24, 2017 — if the complex became operational in February 1967, wouldn't June 2017 be the 50th anniversary?
Criterion 1c: well-researched
There are several {{Citation needed}} tags in the popular culture section (Terminator 3, Stargate Command broom closet, Call of Duty, Horizon Zero Dawn).
The DefenseDaily citation has title=title tbd — this needs the actual article title and the link is broken.
The TheLivingMoon.com source describes itself as a "mirror webpage of former 'Official Site'". I'd expect questions about whether a user-generated mirror meets WP:RS.
Criterion 2a: lead
The lead is quite narrow at present. It covers construction, 9/11, the 2008 relocation, and Peterson SFB, but doesn't mention the Cold War upgrade programmes, the false missile warnings of 1979–80, the physical layout, or the complex's cultural profile. For FAC the lead needs to summarise all major aspects of the article — I think it needs expanding to three or four paragraphs.
---
I'll leave the finer prose, structure, and MOS points for a second pass once the above is addressed. The article has clearly had a lot of work put into it and there's a solid foundation here. Metalicat (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe I have expanded it with all the readily available sources in a neutral way or stated facts, and want an opinion on if the article is currently in a state good enough to push for a good article review.
The RollingStone reference is used twice in the article (refs 5 and 16): these should be merged.
The first paragraph of the "Reception" section suffers from a repetitive "X said Y" format. WP:RECEPTION has some advice on how to avoid that.
Otherwise, I think this is find to bring to WP:GAN. Consider reviewing articles listed there to clear the backlog, build goodwill amongst reviewers, and make it more likely that your article will be noticed. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much for looking @Z1720! I did my best to change the "Reception" section per WP:RECEPTION and wanted your feedback on it? I'm going to submit the article for GA review, thank you so much! Watagwaan (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
You might benefit from using {{sfn}} instead of making "The Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia: Pagans, Christians and Muslims on the Middle Nile" on many different occasions.
Many of the captions are very short and only consist of 1-2 words.
You should split History into multiple sub-sections
Why are there three paragraphs on the Sudanese civil war when it has only occurred for three years currently?
There should be information on the environment, nature, and fauna here.
You need to double check ResearchGate sources, many of ResearchGate journals are predatory.
Alodia, based farther south, with its capital at Soba. this sentence has no meaning and is not sourced. It is better to remove this.
later medieval period, maintaining limited control maintaining is the wrong tense to use.
newly Islamic Egypt, the Kingdom of Makuria negotiated the Baqt I don't think negotiated is the right word to use.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently re-written most of the article. I've given my reason for doing so on the talk page where the older version had a lots of original research, some lower-quality sources applied across the article or no sources at all. Due to complex nature of the genre (i.e: In Japan where it originates, its viewed in a relatively different way than the majority of Western understanding of the genre), I've tried to expand on it on the complexity of genre in general and tried to give a history that did not just become hatnotes of "this game was popular!" or "this was a critically acclaimed series" as those read more of a guide to "great games" than where the genre stood at in particular moments in time. I think the article does that still in some cases, but I'm more curious if there's big portions I'm missing or what would make it better before trying to submit it for a Good Article review.
The phrase "character development" (in the section "Early adventure game influences") is ambiguous, especially after this edit which reduces context. One could understand it in the narrative sense or in the RPG attributes/stats sense. Probably "role-playing elements", "character advancement" or similar would work here.
"Some descriptions of the genre suggest" in the lead I think unnecessarily avoids describing choices as common-but-not-required in wikivoice, which should be uncontroversial (the influential VNDB for example states them as "optional" in their stricter of the two definitions of allowed types). This additionally is inconsistent because the sentences immediately afterwards describe common-but-not-required elements in wikivoice. Some editor might eventually tag it as WP:WEASEL (despite that guideline allowing such phrasing in leads as long as the content is attributed in the body, which it is in this article).
The opening phrase "A visual novel is a video game genre..." awkwardly conflates the wider concept of the genre and instantiations of the genre, I'd go with something like "Visual novels are a video game genre..." or possibly "The visual novel video game genre...", the latter of which however requires more rewriting of other parts for flow/grammar.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
So, since again I didn't file my support/oppose in FA in time, I'll treat this as a FA review. I already checked most of the prose, source usage etc in the FAC so I only have the following:
[5][116][117][118][119][120][121] is a bit long; might want to put them together into one footnote.
In its current form the lead isn't bad, although Femke might have some 2 cents about it.
Nothing about the images, sectioning etc seems questionable.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it Featured Article quality soon. I've done my best with the prose and formatting, but I would appreciate additional eyes on all of it.
Thanks, Edward056686 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I was unsatisfied with its previous state and decided to improve it. In byte size, it's more than doubled. I would like to know where the article stands now and where it's weak, and what can be done to improve it.
I find this a puzzling article. I have never heard of the term before, even though I specialise in articles about Anglo-Saxon history. Checking Google Scholar and Google Books, I can only find two authors who use the term, D'Amato and Esposito, neither of whom are Anglo-Saxon specialists. Abels does write that The Battle of Maldon describes warriors who were members of Byrhtnoth's household as heorthwerod, (pp. 148 and 271 n. 11, not 148 n.11) but I cannot find any reference to hearthweru in any reliable source, and so far as I can see you do not have sources for an article on the subject. I suggest that you merge the article in Anglo-Saxon warfare, which is badly in need of expansion and improvement.
You date Whitelock's EHD as 1968, but it was published 1st ed. 1955 and 2nd 1979. The 2nd ed. should be cited. I cannot trace Harrison as an Anglo-Saxon historian and he does not appear to be a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Harrison can be found on the Osprey Publishing website here. Pollington uses the term hearthwerod here on page 35 of The English Warrior: From the Earliest Times to 1066. Williams also uses the term "hearthtroop" in the preface on page IX. The term is used here, also in reference to Byrhtnoth, in the introduction to Anglo-Norman Warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare, written by Matthew Strickland. Otherwise, I'll fix the year of Whitelock's EHD. Wombatmanboy (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
The word hearthweru is only used once as the first word in the lead, and not at all in the main text. The word is apparently never used by any specialist historian of Anglo-Saxon England. It is an unsourced variant of the Old Englishheorthwerod, which is only cited by historians (and very rarely) for its use in The Battle of Maldon. There may be a justification for an article on the military members of the households of great aristocrats, or perhaps better as a section of an article on Anglo-Saxon warfare, but not with the current title.
The Osprey site provides no evidence that Harrison is a reliable source. You would need at the least a favourable review of his book by an Anglo-Saxon specialist. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, I was sick.
Anyway, I still think that the article is best existing on its own, especially since not all of its content is especially relevant to Anglo-Saxon Warfare. I could also use some of the content to improve that article, still. What other name would you suggest? Wombatmanboy (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it up to Good Article for Warfare. My main worry is that the article is too long. If it is absolutely necessary to make it shorter, I would start with two things. First, the "Averell's raids in 1863 would be changed to "Averell's raids in 1863 and 1864". The Salem raid section would be cut to two paragraphs and the image removed. The "Cook-Averell 1864 raid" would become a subsection. The "Duncan's detachment" subsection would be completely eliminated. The second possible change would be under the "Chambersburg and Moorefield" section. Some of the pursuit detail in the Chambersburg subsection could be removed. Thoughts? Any other suggestions are also welcome.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I have included this article for peer review since I have substantially altered its structure and citations in readiness for a Good Article nomination. Before officially submitting it, I appreciate independent comments.
The piece examines the past of Bangladesh's third-largest city, Khulna. From its geological beginnings to the 2024 Quota Reform Movement, it covers it. Key changes made before this review include combining three overlapping sections on geography, substituting an unverified source with correctly attributed references, changing neutral point of view wording all throughout, including a new subsection on the 1971 wartime violence and the Chuknagar massacre, and cutting the lead to match GA standards.
Whether the section on the 1971 wartime violence is balanced and properly sourced, if any major events in Khulna's history are underrepresented or missing, and whether the prose quality in the geology and river systems parts needs improvement, I especially appreciate feedback on the latter.
I added "citation needed" templates to the article. These should be resolved before a nomination.
The article suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, with lots of one-paragraph sections: These should be expanded or the headings removed.
There are also lots of one-sentence paragraphs. These paragraphs can be merged together for readability.
I added a "duplicate sources" yellow banner at the top of the page.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Z1720 I tried to fix the issues you addressed can you please if I have able to fix them correctly or not. R1F4T (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comments from Airship
As always, these are suggestions.
The sourcing is not that great. We have a very large number of citations to sources that are a century or more old, most prominently Bengal District Gazetteers: Khulna (1908), Final Report on the Khulna Settlement, 1920–1926 (1927), and Jessore-Khulnar Itihas (1922). Per WP:AGEMATTERS, and keeping in mind the general thrust of WP:RAJ, it would be better if these sources were replaced with more modern ones. You must also take care with source-text integrity, a requirement at GA level. In the first paragraph of the body, for example, the sentence "Tradition states that Khullanā dedicated a shrine or temple to the goddess Khullaneswari (a form of the goddess Chandi or Kali) on the banks of the Bhairab River, approximately one mile east of the present town's center." is not verified by Fawcus 1927 p.1 (it might be verified by another page, but that's not good enough).
There is considerable MOS:OVERSECTION in the following sections: "Kingdom of Pratapaditya and Mughal conquest (16th–18th century)", "Colonial era: administrative consolidation and agrarian resistance (1757–1947)", "Modern history: partition, liberation, and industrialization (1947–present)", and "July Uprising and the 2024 Quota Reform Movement".
I am unsure what the purpose of the "Culture, religion, and society" section is. This is an article on the history of Khulna, and this section essentially just duplicates what was said elsewhere with a cultural twist. It would be superior if the information here was integrated with the relevant other sections.
Be careful to avoid promotional writing. Sentences such as "Khulna's history is a testament to human resilience against a volatile environment." are un-encyclopedic in tone.
Did you use a grammar checker to create this article? If so, which one? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I created and want to make sure it meets a high standard.
Thanks!
TheNuggeteer
Please move some items in the lead section to the career, since the career is short anyways and the lead is supposed to summarize the article.
Try to reduce citations on the lead per WP:LEADCITE
He is currently Dedman Family → He is currently a Dedman Family
and Professor of → and a Professor of
"the preeminent English-language translator of Mongolian classics working today." it is phrased like the Mongolian classics are working today.
Source 3 looks like an unreliable Wikipedia clone. It is best to just remove it.
Overall, this article is very nice for a new editor! Everything is cited, and the prose is good! There are some issues with the article though. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is would be more appropriately listed under socsci or history, but I think it leans more towards history. Maybe I will seek a socsci review after the history review.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback as to what is missing from the article currently. I believe on the old "who, what, when, where, why" test, it often fails the who part to some extent as I often say X was done by "the state" rather than department Y within the state. I have also substantially reworded and reworked sections of the article after adding citations, so surely the alignment between the text and at least some of the citations will not be perfect.
This is also liable to be a contentious topic, and I don't intend to come across as blaming any particular group beyond maybe the Bulgarian Communist Party of the time, so I'd like suggestions of content to add that would increase the overall neutrality of the article where simply seeking to use neutral language might not be sufficient.
Edit: Note that this article is intimately connected to the 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria article. I have not had time to expand that article to the same extent as this one, but that one cannot really be understood without this article, though I do think they should be separate pages as that article is for the culmination that became true ethnic cleaning.
Thanks, Pietrus1 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
The first reference doesn't explicitly use the term "Revival Process". Its fine to use such references later in the article. But the very first reference should be an English language reference, accessible online, that says something along the lines of "The Revival Process describes a period in history where..." It builds the reader confidence in WP:V.VR(Please ping on reply) 00:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Replaced, thanks. Would you recommend using a number of sources that use the term exactly in the lead or just a one or two? Pietrus1 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Here's an additional question:
I tried to mix academic and news sources. Should I purge the non-academic sources from the document as most of what they say is repeated in academic sources anyway? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I bothered @Chaotic Enby about this on discord, and am moving their comments here for the future:
Small details from a first quick scroll:
The "Timeline" section being in a table is not very practical (and might go against MOS:EMBED, which is required for GA)
Should I remake the timeline as prose? I kind of wanted to maintain a timeline section of some sort since there are a fair number of specific dates mentioned.
That's what the lead is for! You want it to summarize the article, so having a short prose timeline with the main points is exactly what you're looking for (after describing the event itself in the first paragraph)
Especially in short sections, it's better to put the "Further information" hatnote at the top rather than between the two paragraphs
I would like to additionally ask if I could receive suggestions as to the aftermath and legacy sections. The 1989 exodus linked in the article was split off into a child article and only a summary remains in the Revival Process article, however, much of the aftermath and legacy of the two events is connected.
Should these things be separated? Presented together in the Revival Process article? I want to avoid duplication.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to prepare it for Featured Article candidacy. The article is about the Huhu beetle (Prionoplus reticularis), a species of longhorn beetle endemic to New Zealand. It is one of the countries most notable and distinctive beetles, as well as the largest. Notably, it is also one of the most well researched beetle species in NZ.
Maybe it's unavoidable, but the first paragraph of Taxonomy uses the word "specimen" five times. Perhaps some rephrasing could reduce the repetition?
I got it down to three uses instead of five (about evenly spread out).
I don't know where the MOS talks about this, but in places like was collected by Andrew Sinclair or alongside William Colenso and Joseph Dalton Hooker most FAC reviewers want to see the person briefly introduced, i.e. "botanist AndrewSinclair" or "botanists William Colenso and Joseph Dalton". Some people want you to say "The botanist ...", but that's a matter of personal style per MOS:PSEUDOTITLE.
in his landmark “Manual of the New Zealand Coleoptera” Use italics per MOS:ITALICTITLE
Done.
it ceases to bore in wood and casts its skin I think "sheds instead of "casts"?
I think I meant to say "casts its skin aside", but just "sheds" is even better.
This still edible stage is known in Māori as tataka. This is the first we've heard of it being edible, so "still edible" is a bit odd.
Per WP:MTAU, there's a bunch of technical words that should be linked and/or explained: type specimin, larva, pupa, phylogeny, tribe, basal (link to Basal (phylogenetics)), pronotum, satae, podocarp, kauri, elytra.
Added.
In some places you provide unit conversions ("35–40 mm (1.4–1.6 in) in length") but in other places you don't ("The egg is around 3 mm in length and 1.2 mm wide"). Be consistant.
I went and made it consistent. I prefer to not have the unit conversions since this is an NZ species. Unfortunately the page (and others) tends to get editors who pop up and add conversions (usually only for a couple of random measurements). Is there any way to ward them off from doing this that I don't know of?
However, another study has reported it may 250 –300 eggs. If you're going to use this phrasing, it needs to be in contrast to the previous sentence, i.e. "Most studies report that the beetle deposits ... However, in another study". Or you could leave the first sentence as is, and pick up with "One study has reported ..."
I went with the latter.
Around 94–98% of eggs collected in the wild will hatch. if you're going to give the range, leave out the "Around".
Done.
using its mandibles to pierce the chorion of the egg and then enlarging the opening keep the two verbs the same tense: "to pierce ... and then enlarge".
Added.
before constructing the pupal chamber. The pupal chamber is constructed avoid the repetition: "before constructing the pupal chamber by enlarging the diameter ..."
Added.
2 am before ceasing between 4-5 am.MOS:TIME says to use a non-breaking space.
Added.
That's it for me. Overall, this looks pretty good.
Thanks @RoySmith. I've gone through all your comments. I had a question about the conversions stuff, but otherwise I have nothing else to ask. AxonsArachnida (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to Good Article in the future. As it is a short article about an individual tree, I believe it is a comprehensive as it possibly can be. I have not gone through the GAC process before, so seeking peer review beforehand. Any feedback welcome.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to expand it content-wise and am looking for suggestions to improve it before I submit another GA nomination.
I added citation needed templates to the article where citations are missing.
The "Sample text" section should be removed, as examples are not really included in Wikipedia articles, especially those without explanations.
The lead should be expanded to include all major aspects of the article. Generally, if there is a heading for a section, it should be mentioned in the lead.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Z1720 The "sample text" section is very common in language-related articles, including the (very few) GAs or FAs. I will attempt to implement the rest of the changes, however. 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comments from UnbihexiumFan
The article looks pretty good to me. The only problem I've noticed is in the "morphology" section, which could use some overall cleanup. There is a "nouns" subsection, but no "verbs" subsection, even though it would appear that some stuff is known about verbs, based on the listed suffixes. More explanation on possession in Mochica could be useful as well.
Actually, more information about how the morphology and grammar work could be useful as well. What are the cases? What are their suffixes? What is Mochica's word order?
@UnbihexiumFan this is a very late reply, but I will address these concerns in the coming days. I agree that adding content on morphology and syntax is necessary, and am planning on adding this in the future. 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 05:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
@Darth Stabro: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. I also see that you are working towards your first successful FAC. I suggest getting a mentor who can comment on this PR, and to review articles at WP:FAC now to build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help with understanding the FA criteria. Thanks and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
RoySmith
With the first image on the left side of the page, you'll almost certainly run into MOS:SANDWICH problems opposite the infobox.
In 1840, Catholic missionary Father Lucien Galtier was sent by Bishop Mathias Loras of Dubuque to minister to the French Canadians in Minnesota. If I'm reading the history right, there was no Minnesota in 1840. It would have been part of Wisconsin Territory, no?
using red and white oak logs I know you mean red oak and white oak, but many readers may think this means "oak logs which had been painted either red or white", so rephrase to make this more clear.
The chapel cost around $65 ($2,516 in 2025) in labor to build. the source just says "cost about $65" but doesn't specify that was the labor cost.
It continued to be used for religious purposes, having begun to be used as a Sisters of St. Joseph school in November 1851 Is "it" the first or the second chapel?
That's all I've got. This is a really short article; while there's no lower bound on the length of a FA, I would not be surprised if some reviewers will complain about this, so just be prepared for that. RoySmith(talk) 03:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
@Darth Stabro It's been two weeks since I commented, with no response from you. What would you like to do here? RoySmith(talk) 15:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Sorry, Easter week was a busy time for me. I should have a bit of time next week to get to these, thank you. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs 15:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FA and was advised to do a Peer review first. The article passed a GA review, and then I was advised to remove the citations from the lead. What else do I have to do to make it FA worthy? I've never done an FA review before, and any advice would be appreciated, Thanks! Finnfrog99 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
FAC PR sidebar
@Finnfrog99: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Since you are looking for your first successful FAC, I suggest that you get a mentor who can comment on the article here. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now, so that you can get to know the FA criteria and build goodwill amongst reviewers. Thanks and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Toby
Looks like a cheeky read. Here are my comments below: (prose only review)
It is considered one of the "most iconic" RTÉ News clips. Quotes must have citations (even in the lead)
During the winter of 2009–10 in Ireland (the coldest winter in the country since 1987)...
The event was recorded by Colm McCaughey after he set up his camera on Church Street and unintentionally filmed the fall. After the man slipped, McCaughey ran over to check... -> McCaughey who recorded the fall, ran over to check... That sentence can just be cut like this imo
...the man was offered a cup of tea at a nearby office but refused and rushed home. -> ...the man refused a cup of tea at a nearby office and rushed home.
Following the news broadcast, the video of the man falling quickly became viral online. ->Afterwards, the video quickly became viral online. You also did not link "viral online" like you did in the lead
Following the incident, several Facebook groups were created to try to identify the man, and many people on the site claimed to be the man who fell. -> Several Facebook groups were created to identify the man, and many claimed to be him.
In 2025, "Man who slipped on the ice" was included in The A-Z of Being Irish. What is The A-Z of Being Irish?
I feel you could add the mentions of Facebook groups and the commentary of how the clip represents Irish winter or their national identity.
Coming back to the lead, I've noticed the quote by Extra.ie says it is the most iconic clip of Irish television history, not of RTE News clips.
Please consider checking out my FAC nom! toby(t)(c)(rw) 18:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
re-added the citation
removed winter in the country
I think the information that the event was unintentionally recorded is important to keep, and if I keep that in, I should explain how it was unintentionally recorded
changed
changed and link added
changed
changed to " In 2025, "Man who slipped on the ice" was included in the Irish culture book The A-Z of Being Irish." also added extra source to this
Do you mean add these pieces of information to the lead? Im pretty sure the article already mentions them
Thanks for the feedback! I really appreciate it! Finnfrog99 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Re to McCaughey trim: Fine to say how it was recorded I guess, but you should still remove "unintentionally" as I wouldn't imagine slipping on ice to be intentionally planned.
Re to lead addition: Yeah, I misspoke. The mentions of the Facebook groups and how the fall was an icon of Irish culture should be in the lead. As it is right now, I did not get that sense from the lead. All I knew was that some statue was made and someone said it was iconic.
It was definitely a fun read. Nice job. If you can, try to check out my FAC nom if you have the time! toby(t)(c)(rw) 20:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
I would appreciate feedback on this article about parasocial interaction. I have edited part of the article, specifically within the "Parasocial relationships" section. My contribution focuses on the "Focus on relationships" subsection, where I added a subsection on "parasocial romantic fantasy." I would especially appreciate it if reviewers could take a look at this part of the article. I am particularly looking for comments on whether the structure and organization are clear and logical, whether the writing is clear and appropriately encyclopedic in tone, and whether the sources and citations meet Wikipedia standards. As this article is still under development, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions for improvement. Thank you! Meiqi Jiao (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi there! I made some suggested edits to the page in my sandbox. I'm not making the edits directly because I might have a slight conflict of interest in editing this article because I have taken a class taught by Prof. Powell. However, I believe the edits have made the article more informative, more readable, and better cited. I hope a peer review can lead to productive updates to this article.
Thanks, Tommyren (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
TheNuggeteer
I will review your sandbox draft and not the current article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
First of all, the lead in the draft is too big for a body that size, you need to add other sections too.
Do not place citations on the lead per WP:LEADCITE
"Conceptualizing organizations as existing in networks within organizational fields, this 1983 article discusses three types of institutional isomorphism, or three ways organizations become similar to one another for reasons other than competitive pressures." According to who? This seems a bit too much like WP:Original research, please add a source or citation stating this.
"have highlighted how competition can render organizations similar by allowing particular organizational forms to survive..." this shifts the article from focus on Powell to the work itself, you need to shorten it.
"cited article in American Sociological Review" -> "cited article in the American Sociological Review".
"These works are widely considered seminal to new institutionalism" this seems to biased, add attribution (or who/what said this).
"Powell critiques the notion that social interactions must occur within organizational..." too long for a summary of this work.
"coedited with Richard Steinberg" Do not place an external link in the body of an article per WP:EL
"Powell and his collaborators have developed a longitudinal database that tracks the development of the biotechnology industry worldwide from the 1980s to the present." Add a source for this.
Overall, this draft is better than the actual article, but there are issues you need to address before pasting. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the upcoming presidential elections in Iraq is going to be hosted near the end of this month. Since this is the first article that I have created, I would like some feedback on what I could improve on.
These include:
1. What I could do instead in general next time
Did I do something wrong with the references?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Anything else that I may need to focus on?
2. What I should've done instead specifically with the article
Did I leave out some important details?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Did I leave out some important details?
Did my writing tone contradicts WP:NPOV? Any other reasons on why it may be considered as "bad"?
1) The article is generally well-referenced, however WP:RSP warns against using Anadolu Agency as a reliable source for international politics and also has information on Al Jazeera Arabic, China Daily, and Al Arabiya. Of course, RSP is not a policy, so just take care with the sources and what you are getting from them. Also, the number of citations in the lead section is rather large, see MOS:LEADCITE and maybe think about moving some of those citations, especially because the information should be repeated in more detail elsewhere in the article.
2) Some of the potentially contentious statements (The Iraqi parliament has previously been unable..., The agreement has been criticised for encouraging corruption...) should be attributed to best be in compliance with WP:NPOV. Also, only including Donald Trump's reaction could be giving Trump undue weight as opposed to giving a wider range of international reactions.
3) There could be some minor copyediting (I boldly removed an extra "a").
Overall, though, looks pretty good for a first article! mdm.bla 21:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! I plan to follow by your suggestions if I can. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
At least you gave the background, which gave us an understanding of the constitutional framework. But I might shift that under a section "Electoral system".
I might recommend elaborating on other key affairs in Iraq at the time as the background, and also the results of the previous president and whether he's popular or what policies he has implemented under his term
An "electoral system" section could be created, with a subsection on the delays of the election dates
Pre-election activities to mention the endorsements, and activities of the individual parties
Nomination and campaign sections, if any
Also any commentary on Key issues that would influence the votes
Conduct of the election
Conventionally, the lead shouldn't have citations for it's a summary of the body, and I think at the moment, the article body is quite too thin. So I recommend copying/moving the cited content into the body and reorganize accordingly.
These are some of my comments. Hope it helps.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 11:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll work on it if possible, thank you for the feedback. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review as I hope to nominate it for Featured List status. Feedback on grammar, completeness, clarity, and overall accessibility for readers would be appreciated.
Thanks, Mmberney (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to make this article a Featured List Candidate and want to see if there is anything that could be improved such as sources, wording, formatting, among other things.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get this to featured list, and wanted advice/suggestions on how I could make it better and also if there are any other issues with the list
