Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainUnansweredInstructionsDiscussionToolsArchiveProject

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

[edit]
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 October 2024, 23:05 UTC
Last edit: 3 October 2024, 20:24 UTC



I've listed this article for peer review because... I am trying to get this up for a successful Featured Article nomination. An outside look into its prose and sources to see what needs to be strengthened would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Paleface Jack (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. dxneo (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because... I would love for this article to become a Featured Article, but I'm unsure if it is meeting the standard yet. Please be nice, but honest when giving comments. Thanks, FishLoveHam (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dxneo

[edit]

Hello FishLoveHam, I am going to review this article's references. Please bare with me. Oh, I'd appreciate it if you took two minutes of your time to check out this peer review and leave your opinion. dxneo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



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 2024, 08:00 UTC
Last edit: 27 September 2024, 02:06 UTC



I've listed this article for peer review because... this article got GA'd in 2017, but in 2023 and 2024 I did a lot of content changes and additions that have kinda reshaped the whole thing, bar maybe the reception (which I'm planning on redoing) and the composition section. I am planning on having this article re-reviewed in full for Good Article status due to the amount of changes made once I am finished. There are several things in need of discussion:

  • A lot of the 2023 edits sucked. Around that time I generally approached things in an overly passionate/potentially biased manner, and I've slowly attempted to weed out those issues since then or otherwise. A common problem or area I question a lot due to this is the "aftermath" section, which details the media reception to Kittie, its consequences/effects(??) and some retrospective praise. Whilst there are sources detailing Kittie's frustration I am unsure if I have presented things correctly or got things wrong. If there's a way to improve it or otherwise, do tell. Or if I'm making it a bigger deal than it's supposed to be.
  • Check for citation issues, typos, prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, and missing information and anything else.

This is highly appreciated. Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on how I can improve this article to GA status.

Thanks, 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 21:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can try avoiding biased, exaggerated words like "infamous" for starters. Maybe the techniques can be better explained somehow, too? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, social media sites such as YouTube are generally unreliable, as they're user-generated websites. Maybe try finding official articles instead? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Opal, sorry for intrusion, but in this case I think sources such as ref 19 (Firstpost) and ref 28 (The Guardian) can be spared as they were released via YouTube by reliable publications. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - OpalYosutebito (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Lead paragraph:

A Space for the Unbound is an Indonesian adventure video game developed by Mojiken Studio and published by Toge Productions. It was released on January 19, 2023, for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S. The game is set in the late 1990s and follows Atma and his girlfriend Raya, who live in a suburban area in Indonesia, as they explore their newly attained magical abilities and deal with supernatural powers that threaten their existence.

The sections Gameplay, Development, and Reception each contain 2-3 paragraphs, which I can't gauge whether it's comprehensive for a non-player. For the Plot, I reduced it to less than 700 words (691 words), so I wanted to see whether the plot summary is satisfactory.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how someone who hasn't played the game can improve it. Being promoted to a B-list article can do for me, but I'd like to see points on bringing it to A or above.


Thanks, RFNirmala (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. dxneo (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 August 2024, 04:27 UTC
Last edit: 22 September 2024, 23:54 UTC



I've listed this article for peer review because it needs improvement. I have tried, but with a lack of sources but Van Doren's own, I need help not just editing this but with everything. I want it to be at least good or featured

Thanks, Wcamp9 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

@Wcamp9: Peer review is a place where editors can get comments on how to improve the article. It very rarely results in someone new editing the article directly. If looking for more sources, I would suggest looking at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org or databases accessed through your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Dxneo

[edit]

Hello Wcamp9, it has been over a month since the last comment. According to the comment above by Z1720, this PR is somewhat in error since PR is not a place to go to for article improvements. Therefore, can we close this discussion/request or…? dxneo (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 2024, 03:41 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2024, 09:03 UTC


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: 30 July 2024, 03:06 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2024, 06:51 UTC



I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to eventually turn it into a featured article. Tulsa King is a fantastic crime and comedy drama starring the one and only Sylvester Stallone. Just this year I have expanded it from basically a stub and turned it into a well fleshed out good article. I nominated it for FA shortly after, but it was quickly closed and suggested that it go through GOCE and PR. The copy edit was just recently performed, so I'm hoping to work out any other issues in this review before I send it back to FAC.

Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Henry Clay Work was the leading American songwriter of popular music from the 1860s to 1870s. He was one of the Union's preeminent bards in the Civil War whose inspiring songs rallied support for the nation and spurred patriots to quell the rebellion. His impressive catalog includes minstrel songs and seriocomedies such as "Kingdom Coming," "Grafted Into the Army" and the most successful composition of the North, "Marching Through Georgia." Work also played a part in the inception of the postbellum temperance movement cautioning against the intoxication of drink. To top it all off, he penned one of the most recognizable American folk songs, "My Grandfather's Clock." Work died lonely and forgotten, his popularity garnered throughout the Civil War having all but faded away in a matter of years. To this day, almost no one recognizes his name, a grievous disservice to a man who a man who contributed so much to the States' music tradition. I think an uninformed populace deserves a decent source of information on him, hopefully a featured article. I am open to all constructive criticism and advice, especially with regards to language and comprehensibility, not as a moral prerogative, but to do American musical history justice.

Sincerest thanks and regards, DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • This preamble to the PR is too long. Provide a short description of the article, as this will be good practice for the FAC. Please also note that Wikipedia is an international website, and not everyone here is American: statements like "to vindicate Henry Work's valiant service to our nation" is unlikely to encourage non-American reviewers.
  • The lede is too long. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The block quote is not necessary in the lede.
  • The article uses too many quotes and block quotes. Instead, articles should summarise what sources have said about the lyrics. Lyrics only need to be in the article if absolutely necessary, and I do not think that is the case from every instance I can see in the article.
  • Ensure that your article stays in wikivoice by avoiding words to watch.
  • Legacy section uses too much of the "X said Y" pattern. WP:RECEPTION has some tips on how to avoid this.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Z1720, it very much helps; in fact, your comments reflect the doubts I had on the article. I will keep all your suggestions in mind and effect them soon. I am eager to collaborate further :) DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All issues brought up should be fixed. However, I am not so confident on the removal of non-neutral language; some must have remained unnoticed, so should any be noticed, don't hesitate to address it. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]



This article is about SB19's second extended play, Pagtatag!, which they released last year in June. It included the single, "Gento", which is a featured article. I have taken Pagtatag! to FAC recently but was archived due to multiple prose issues and decided to take this to a peer review before nominating it again for FAC. I believe I have addressed the issues raised in the previous FAC nomination and I hope to see more suggestions to improve the article before taking it to another FAC, which I hope will get the article promoted successfully soon. I thank the reviewers in advance for their efforts in this review. – Relayed (t • c) 12:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging Aoba47 and PerfectSoundWhatever for their involvement in the article's previous FAC nomination. Please take a look if I have addressed your comments to your liking. Below are the comments that were not applied in the article, with respective comments.

FAC comments responses
  • There should be a chart box per WP:ALBUMSTYLE.
    Unfortunately, the Philippines does not have album charts. The EP also did not enter any international charts, so the chart box is not included in the article.
    Apologies, I misread the article and thought the EP charted, not the single. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a {{music ratings}} box too
    Same here, local publications do not do album "ratings", nor international publications cover a review of the EP with a rating, so the template is excluded.

I have added this to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Relayed, it has been over 2 months since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and for FAC? dxneo (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, dxneo! Thanks for pinging. I apologize for not replying until now, September's been a busy month for me. I'll try to get feedback from someone in particular and once that's sorted out, I'll close this PR. – Relayed (t • c) 09:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 July 2024, 01:50 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2024, 07:07 UTC



I came across this article when it was the subject of an AfD for a supposed lack of notability, as well as being badly written. As I am Brazilian and would be able to read the Portuguese-language sources, I took it as a fun exercise to try to bring this article about a forgotten former child star up to Wikipedia standards, adding sources, formatting and copy-editing. I now believe it qualifies for C or B-class status, but would like your feedback as to what is appropriate and what could be improved upon (or whether it even meets the criteria for either of these).

Thanks for the atention, CVDX (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from brachy08

[edit]
hello, cvdx. congratulations on saving this article from getting afd’d. personally, i feel that this article can reach c class, not sure about b tho. i feel that the article definitely improved from its initial state. if you want to, you can jump straight into nominating it for ga status. but if you fell like this article has a long way to go, try to find as many sources as possible (if you are not sure what is reliable or not, this should help a bit, but it is best to use wp:rsp brachy08 (chat here lol) 05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a GA reviewer which has two other GA's, the article does not seem to be anywhere close to GA, probably going to result in a quick fail. I'm going to add my own comments to this really tiny article and see if the article is eligible enough for GA. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheNuggeteer

[edit]
  • Things you need to resolve:
  • Make the lead longer, add more about his dad, his career, and his life.
  • There is more information about Michael appearing on television to defend his dad, you can add it with the header "Early career".
  • Make the header for him being a part of the band "Turma do Balão Mágico", since that was the name of his band.
  • There's more information about him in the band in source 3, you can add that to make the article longer.
  • In source 3, there's information about after the band broke up, you can add that in a section named "Break-up".
  • You can name the section after Break-up "Aftermath".
  • You can add his discography.


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 June 2024, 09:00 UTC
Last edit: 25 September 2024, 10:25 UTC


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 April 2024, 17:44 UTC
Last edit: 17 September 2024, 03:42 UTC


Everyday life

[edit]

Engineering and technology

[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to take it to FAC. Would appreciate feedback from @Femke and UndercoverClassist:, who left many comments at the failed FAC (but did not leave a supporting vote). Thanks, 750h+ 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, @UndercoverClassicist: 750h+ 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping: at the moment, I don't have much to add to what I wrote at the FAC, but I'd be happy to take another look if the article's content were to change substantially. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of has (went from around 5 and a half thousand words since you last reviewed to 6.1K) but I can wait until Femke leaves her comments if that’s fine. 750h+ 16:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see this PR. This is a tough article to get right due to the hype and hatred around Tesla, which means we need a more critical look at sources compared to other car articles. I will review some more, but not sure when as I've got family visiting and might have a long covid crash afterwards. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got a few minutes, so I'll continue where we left off, the environmental impact section.

  • The sentence about unintuitiveness still doesn't work for me. Now, it's unclear what unintuitive. The point the guy wanted to make is that Tesla's batteries have very high recyclability, not that it's unintuitive.
  • Dana Thompson is unlikely to be notable (she's a PhD student or postdoc I think). WP:Red links are for notable topics.
  • In terms of organisation of the section:
    • I would start with the CO2 emissions story, which in my (biased) opinion, is more important than the battery story.
    • I would group all the bits around recycling of batteries into one paragraph as much as possible
  • It may be nice to talk about how Tesla repurposes old batteries as home batteries (reuse), rather than go the recycle route.
  • A 2021 scientific study by iScience --> Usually, we don't say a study is by the publisher. The journal only printed it, they didn't write it. Best to say "A 2021 study" instead.
  • Given that 2015 is 9 years in the past, the word "current" in "due to limited data on current recycling practices" is off. It can be omitted, or replaced with "at the time" after recycling practices. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a GA. Please edit any grammar mistakes, inconsistencies, etc. Note that the fans and platform doors part says "it was installed by [X date]" since there weren't any sources that said when they were actually installed.

Thanks, Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 11:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S5A-0043

[edit]

@Imbluey2 Just a quick look, so not too many comments:

  • When it opened, the station faced two problems; no direct access to Chinese Garden (despite being next to it) as well as to the station itself from the opposite side where most of its commuters lived. - simplify a bit, perhaps "When it opened, the station lacked direct access to Chinese Garden despite being next to it, as well as to the opposite side of the road where most of its commuters lived."
  • User Template:Convert to convert the numerical units so that those using Imperical units can understand as well: 1.3km -> 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi) for example. Same for the amount of money using Template:SGDConvert.
  • Perhaps the most prominent feature of the station, the curved roof is based on traditional Chinese architecture. - Do watch out for WP:PUFFERY, specifically the word "prominent". Also, I would advise against the word "perhaps" since it implies you're guessing that it is (which should not be the case).
  • Specifically, Scott Danielson of Parson Brinckerhoff said that... - When I first looked at it I didn't know who Scott Danielson was until I read the source. Perhaps change it to -> Designer of the station Scott Danielson of Parson Brinckerhoff said that...

S5A-0043Talk 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've implemented your feedback but I don't really know if the imperial units used are appropriate Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review as I have done a fair bit of work to the article and feel it is no longer a Stub article. Prior to this the article had not been updated since 2023.

Any comments or contributions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you, IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 5 September 2024, 18:52 UTC
Last edit: 1 October 2024, 10:15 UTC



I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen for any suggestions for improvement. I would also like the page to be indexed on search engines to encourage contributions by the broader wikipedia community.

Thanks, Vcwatcher (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General

[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want it double checked.

Thanks, MitchellMatchbox (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Geography and places

[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this page to GA status soon. In addition to the standard stuff for peer reviews I want to know if there are any missing sections that are needed for an article about a geographical region. I also want to know how can I expand the Lede section of this article. Thanks, Abo Yemen 09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I am a local on this town, and wanted to improve this article.

Thanks, Idaljiu (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears what this article needs most is more citations to support existing information, and presumably to add new information. In terms of what content could be developed, there is presumably a lot that could be added for late 20th century and 21st century history, as well as items such as when Pasacao became a municipality. More information could be added about the barangays, and about demographics. There are existing sources in demographics that could be used for more prose. The infobox has an oil depot image, but this is not mentioned in Economy. There is also economic information in the infobox not in the article. Culture looks like it could use a lot of expansion. There is a lack of coverage of politics and administration. Best, CMD (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because... it was suggested in the GA review that this may be a future FAC. I've never written a featured article before, but I wanted feedback on the article geared towards that to see if it's within reach or not. I'm pretty familiar with GAN but don't know a ton about FAC.

Thanks, ForksForks (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


History

[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I’m not sure if I worded my sources good enough on the page and I wanted to hear you guys thoughts about it.

Thanks, Jasonbunny1 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this for featured article and there are sourcing questions on other related articles.

Thanks, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get it to FA if possible. Trying to get it to be comprehensive has been a challenge.

Thanks, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten it and I would like to develop it further and improve the prose and style, as an inexperienced editor I am struggling to do so and would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, SeanPadraig (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is developing well, given the paucity of solid evidence. An obvious improvement would be a look at sourcing. In-line citation is going well but when you look at it, it is drawing from very few sources. It is also heavy on the use of the Auchinleck Chronicle, which would count as a primary source and therefore, not ideal in wiki's eyes. I think this small number of sources is particularly highlighted because the article has an extensive "Further Reading" section, which does not seem to have been used in creating the article. I'm no subject expert but from I can see, there are some solid works in that list that might be used to diversify the source base. Monstrelet (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to know if it could qualify to be a good article. Also if it needs any change in the wording, etc.

Thanks, JD John M. Turner (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's thoughts

[edit]
  • I'd remove the combat infobox; this wasn't a both-sided thing, and it wasn't only against Shining Path members.
  • I would add in the section of background context that eugenics had been proposed but never implemented until Fujimori's regime to the beginning part of the lede.
  • I feel some reviewers might be confused why three of the journal articles (the two Chaparro‐Buitrago sources and Chávez & Coe 2007) aren't used but are cited. I'd recommend using these or putting them in further reading if not useful.
  • I think you want to generally avoid hatnoting red links.
  • There's a complete lack of images here; for the act itself I can imagine that there'd be little in the way of PD/CC images, but you can at least put in a picture of Fujimori, and any later feminist activists etc.
  • Giulia Tamayo uses the term "health festivals" but this isn't ever discussed earlier in the article (and should probably be given a Spanish translation if thats a translated phrase)

That's all from an initial read-through. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima, I have followed your recommendations to improve the article, could you please let me know if there is anything else that could be improved? Thanks in advance. JD John M. Turner (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because, although it is complete and does not have major problems, it still requires to be reviewed and edited by native English speakers in order to reach good article standards.

Thank you very much in advance for your help. Mémoiredumaquis (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

I recommend splitting the article into a Lead section of three or four succinct paragraphs, summarising the main text, followed by a Life and Works section as the substantive article. The prose, let me say, is superb for someone whose native language isn't English. My problem with the article as it stands is that it lacks biographical information about his early years. Parents? Schooling and university/seminary? Church appointments before becoming a bishop? A more minor point is that Mende, in the text and the info-box, links to a disambiguation page rather than the particular Mende you have in mind.

This article was something of an eye-opener for me. I knew the Catholic church was often less assertive than it should have been in opposing Nazi atrocities, but I had no idea some of its bishops were positively in favour of them. Fine work on your part. Tim riley talk 13:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am horrified to read that the author, Mémoiredumaquis, died shortly after posting this PR. I shall see if there is anything I can do to address the above points with a view to nominating the article for GA in the main author's memory. Tim riley talk 13:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - That is indeed sad news. I think a decent article would be a most appropriate tribute, and it is clear that User:Mémoiredumaquis felt that the Fr:WP article was a whitewash. I'd be happy to help. As you say, the prose is excellent, but it does lack some of the basics one would expect in a bio article. This has some fleshing out of his clerical career, and I'm sure more could be found. I'll take a look. KJP1 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Having read the French article, I do think there is some basic biographical material that could be used, with attribution of course. KJP1 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that User:Mémoiredumaquis wrote that the French version is a biased attempt to whitewash Auvity's bio, and that is why he wrote the English version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I did a complete re-write of this article and would love peer feedback. I corrected a few factual errors I found. I removed text that was either plagiarized by previous editors, or had been plagiarized by other websites, as it was word-for-word the same as text found elsewhere on the Internet. I also addressed the issues raised in previous cleanup banners. I added structure to the article, and brought in more context to help fill in the story beyond the obviously entertaining "cow flew" information to frame Elm Farm Ollie's adventure within the larger historical scope.

I know there is still room for improvement. I appreciate feedback on all elements of the article.

Thanks, Sevey13 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a good deal of effort into it and would appreciate commentary on how to make it accessible to a wide audience, which Celtic Studies is historically lacking, making it subject to all sorts of pseudo historical writing in the public field.

Thanks, Tipcake (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article up to GA status. Over the past few months I redid most of the citations and greatly expanded the article and I want to get a second pair of eyes on it. I'm also trying to track down a pair of citations (discussed in the talk page).

Thanks, RI.goblin (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



It's been a while since this article's last Good Article Nomination, and it has expanded considerably since then. I don't see any obvious issues at first glance, other than the History.com ref, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on this.

I consider peer review of this article important, since Encyclopedia Britannica still hasn't covered possibly the worst post-Cold War mass genocide, happening in 1994 with 500K-1M dead (though to be fair, they were busy going broke competing with Microsoft Encarta).⸺(Random)staplers 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some drive by comments, not a deep dive by any means
- In the Preparation for genocide section there are several one or two sentence paragraphs and one massive paragraph. The way this is structured feels unfortunate to me and the information presentation would be improved by altering this
- sexual violence, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- Killing of the Twa, one paragraph level-one heading - should either be expanded to show its significance for that level of heading or folded into another section if it's not
- Rwandan Patriotic Front's military campaign and victory, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
-France and Opération Turquoise, again why the one sentence paragraph, not cohesive
- "HBO Films released the made-for-television historical drama film titled Sometimes in April in 2005." unsourced
- "Pierre Rutare, the Tutsi father of Belgian-Rwandan singer Stromae, was killed in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide." unsourced
- Commemoration, another level-one one paragraph heading. this feels like it can be significantly expanded
- Maps of Rwanda any particular reason why this is here
citations:
The citation formatting is generally inconsistent. Some news sources are rendered as long cites and some are in bibliography and given shortened cites. Pick one or the other for news/non-paginated sources. formatting should be more consistent also
- many sources need to be properly formatted for consistency
- need page on kirschke citation
- there has to be a better source than the unlinked Akayesu trial document
- citation from Genin, Aaron should be sentence or title case not all caps
- citation from huffpost should be replaced, there has to be a better source for this given the scholarship available on this topic
- replace history.com source, unreliable
- the order of genocide is repeated as full cite, move to bibliography and do shortened footnotes for consistency PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]

Thank you for this important article on one of the most tragic events of post-WWII world history. I think the article is really near to GA or even FA. Please find my comments below:

  • Consider introducing people when they are first mentioned: Kanyarwanda > the mythical king Kanyarwanda; Ruhanga > the god Ruhanga, Yoweri Museveni > the military strongman Yoweri Museveni etc.
  • Citation style should be standardised (for instance, citation No [28] differs from the previous ones)
  • Make sure that all pieces of information are properly introduced (for instance, the reference to a pro-Tutsi party comes out of the blue in section 1.2 in lack of a previous reference to the party system in Rwanda; we are not informed why the Belgians started to support the Hutu; who created the republic?, etc).
  • Please doublecheck the use of tenses: "the Tutsi origin myth holds that Kanyarwanda had several sons, including Gatutsi and Gahutu, ancestors of the Tutsi and Hutu who are therefore brothers"; These exiles, unlike the Banyarwanda who migrated during the pre-colonial and colonial era, were regarded as refugees, etc.
  • Please consider using a more neutral language in some cases: "a force of over 4,000 rebels"
  • Consolidate short sections into one, especially if a single sentence makes up a section.
  • Make sure that duplications are avoided (for instance, the establishment of palamilitary forces Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi is mentioned twice)

More to come... Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because...

1. I want to improve the article and hopefully move it towards featured article status sometime in the future.

2. Looking to improve my own editing by doing so, as most of this page was written by me.

Thanks, Noorullah (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 2024, 02:42 UTC
Last edit: 7 September 2024, 21:00 UTC


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 August 2024, 12:45 UTC
Last edit: 12 September 2024, 19:18 UTC


Natural sciences and mathematics

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review
This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
Date added: 26 August 2024, 01:00 UTC
Last edit: 7 October 2024, 03:13 UTC


Language and literature

[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because...

Hi. I recently created this article on a book written by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors. It’s about Donald trump’s financial and business life and is bound to reach #1 on the NYT list. Looking for people to improve the summary and maybe add a new section or two covering release and promotion. Also open to feedback on language and prose.

Thanks, Lisha2037 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 2024, 11:50 UTC
Last edit: 3 October 2024, 10:05 UTC



I want to take this thing up to FAC one of these days; but it's in a somewhat tricky position. Academic sources *exclusively* take one side of the debate here, and I'm unsure how that jives with the comprehensive coverage of the subject that the FA criteria demand. I'd like it if anyone who has experience taking controversial (esp. controversial cultural issue) articles to FAC can take a look at it, and to see what else I can do to make this article shine! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of deep searching and came up upon a few more sources. Were there any reasons they weren't included (e.g. didn't provide anything new, quality concerns etc.)?
Although, I'm not quite sure the existing sources or these sources could necessarily pass the "high-quality" bar of FACR. I haven't been able to take a closer look, but it seems a majority of the references appear to be primary sources which would really limit what you could take away from them. ~ F4U (talkthey/it) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources? In the article, the sources are journal articles plus an academically published book and a dissertation; the sources you linked here are dissertations and another journal article. These are secondary sources: The book and the journal article are secondary sources.. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples given there are secondary sources, but that's in part because they were written 150 years and 198 years after the proclamation, which gives them the historical distance to be a secondary source. Peer-reviewed academic books, journals, dissertations, etc. are reliable sources, but they are not necessarily secondary sources.
Morimoto (2020) is a transcript of a panel discussion (the equivalent of an interview) and would be defined as primary sourcing by policy. The content Fazekas (2022) provides about the nature of fan communities is ethnographical in nature, which is likely primary, but could depend on the specific claims being cited. Urbańczyk (2022) seems to be mostly secondary, although, of course, the specific Bourdieu-based observations are not. Abirime (2022) is partly secondary, but the claims are based on observational data are not.
That's not to say the articles are necessarily being used incorrectly—we don't ban primary sources from being used in articles and research papers can be both primary and secondary, depending on the claim being sourced.[1] I just think the number of primary sources warrants a second look over the specific claims being cited to them, that's all. ~ F4U (talkthey/it) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, what specific rule are you following when deciding to use Sfn or or in-line citations? I assumed at first it would be articles cited only once, or something like that, to save space, but that doesn't seem to be the case. ~ F4U (talkthey/it) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Hello,

I wrote this article some time ago, and I have been considering nominating it for a while now. However, I've never had the courage or patience to do so, mainly because I've never been involved in this kind of process before.

I'm opening this peer review request specifically to gain a second perspective on what might be improved in the article—if there's anything that needs improvement, which is likely the case, as I'm certainly not an all-knowing being. It's possible that I may have overlooked a detail or two regarding the subject of this article.

I believe much has already been done. For example, the manuscript images, which I believe were previously unpublished, were found after extensive searching on Gallica. To give you an idea, some English academics working on a similar manuscript were still searching for this one on Twitter in 2021. Additionally, the information has been compiled, mostly from the works of Rodrigues and Dalby & Hair, which were previously scattered across the internet. I was also able to contextualize and add a brief history of other vocabularies that preceded this one. At the end, there is a brief analysis of the vocabulary's content.

I wait for any constructive feedback.

Respectfully,

RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How strange to run into Pigafetta so far from the Philippines. Have read through this interesting article and came away with a few questions.
  • How do we know if that there was a first "attempt" at creating a list of words? This feels like the sort thing any trader might have done, especially if the result is a paltry six words!
  • The medial "u" and "n" issue is mentioned twice, these could be combined. It is probably also worth explaining more clearly, for those not in the know, what the issue is.
  • When the document was "probably collected", does that mean recorded/written down?
  • Did Pigafetta and Lamy record the same spelling/pronunciation for those words in common? What are the "original spelling"s, original compared to?
  • Please provide English translations as well as French ones.
  • Was the Kra slave trade not a commercial interaction?
  • It is probably worth including a very brief explanation of Tupi somewhere, including modern dialects. Has anyone compared this document to the modern language?

Very very nice work with the Wikisource. CMD (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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: 30 May 2024, 19:24 UTC
Last edit: 26 September 2024, 21:05 UTC


Philosophy and religion

[edit]
Previous peer review


This article has a long history. Its main author, Fowler&fowler, has invited me to revise it, and, with his approval, I am now putting it up for a second peer review (the first was in 2011) with FAC in mind. I was unsure whether to list this under Religion and philosophy or Arts, as Mandell Creighton was an outstanding Bishop of London until his early death and also a leading and innovative historian. Comments are cordially invited on style, balance, prose, citations and anything else. Tim riley talk 14:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers comments

[edit]

I was asked by Tim riley to look over this article. The WP:LEAD does not give an adequate overview of the content of the article. It says nothing about his early life, is vague in places and contains general statements that are tangential to Creighton and could be stated (as I tried to do) with more direct relevance to him, like "around the time that history was emerging as an independent academic discipline in England." I made some preliminary edits to the Lead but user:Fowler&fowler reverted them wholesale without discussion. I also made some minor edits to streamline notes in the next section, which were also reverted without comment by the same user. I am unwatching the article and this page, and I wish you good luck, but I think there is a lot of work to do on this article to bring it up to FA quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: I don't know who you are, so I have nothing against you. I do understand that the lead should be a balanced summary of the article, which the lead was not. All I had suggested was that you are better off making the suggestions here (i.e in the peer review section) and allowing Tim riley to transmute them into his diction. Otherwise, there is too much back and forth, and the article can begin to sound a bit like what Virginia Woolf had said about Captain Marryat's books, i.e. contain springy prose. But it is not a big deal. I have now reverted the article to your last edit. Please accept my heartfelt apology. Apologies also to @Tim riley:. I will now butt out for the duration of the review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting, which I did not notice until just now. I am sure that Tim is capable of editing the language of the Lead to effectuate his "diction" and the further suggestions about the section that I had sent him off-line. I'll leave you two to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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: 10 August 2024, 03:59 UTC
Last edit: 5 October 2024, 20:06 UTC


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 August 2024, 09:01 UTC
Last edit: 14 August 2024, 11:22 UTC


Social sciences and society

[edit]


I would like to hear how close this article is to passing a featured article candidacy. It is largely unchanged since I brought it to GA last December. At the time, I remember doing as comprehensive a review as I possibly could of the available academic sources discussing the topic, but I've never touched the FA process before, so any input is very welcome!

Thanks, -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like an important topic in this field, gets a lot of traffic, and needs some more work to become a solid article.

Thanks, – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I'm not sure how else to improve it. I think getting extra feedback from more people will help push the article to B-class or even Good Article status.

Thanks, OpalYosutebito (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Lede seems particularly short; it should be a couple sentences, a brief summary of the article as a whole.
  • You have a few uncited claims;
    • Last paragraph of Early life
    • Last paragraph of Imprisonments (also, this should probably be part of the previous paragraph; one sentence paragraphs are generally to be avoided.
    • as well as the co-chairman of Chongryon in 1947 at the end of Formation of Chongryon
    • The sentence ending held the position of chairman of Chongryun until his death in 2001 (this has a CN tag)
  • There's a few prose correction's I'd make too, to conform with MoS and such.
    • You call him "Deok-su" throughout the article. For one, I think it might be better to rename the page to Han Deok-su to conform to this; but moreover, it's better to refer to people by their surname (Han in this case) unless they're nobility or you're talking about them in the context of other people with the same surname.
    • I don't think you need Mr. and Ms.
    • Wikilink Tokyo at first use.
    • Use Template:Interlanguage link instead of linking to Korean pages directly.
    • Shouldn't it be Higashiizu? (also, he was in a labor union in a different town than he lived in?)
    • When beginning a new paragraph, don't say "he"; say Han.
    • Wikilink Chongryon and give more context for what it is and what it does.
    • Specify what the Nine Wolseobang is; a bookstore I presume?
  • Are there any pictures of early Chongryon meetings or such you could use?
  • I was able to find some academic sources which mention him; these should definitely be incorporated for a B/GA level article. These are just English ones; I don't have access to databases for Japanese/Korean academic articles, but if you do, you should search for articles there! These here should be accessible via WP:LIBRARY
    • Kim, M. (2015). How Does Diaspora Mobilization Become a Causal Feature of Structural Change? Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 2(3), 266-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797015601915
    • Hasegawa, Kenji, and Kenji Hasegawa. "Postwar Departures and Reversions in Mid-1950s Japan: Chongryon, Okinawa, and ‘Bloody Sunagawa’." Student Radicalism and the Formation of Postwar Japan (2019): 167-212. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-1777-4
    • Ryang, Sonia. "The Rise and Fall of Chongryun—From Chōsenjin to Zainichi and beyond." The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 14, no. 15 (2016): 1-16. https://apjjf.org/2016/15/ryang
Thanks from Opal
[edit]

Thanks for the feedback and even the extra sources! I've fixed some of the typos and citations, and I'll be sure to add the extra references once I get an exam done. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created it and I want to see how it could be improved to be more clear, concise and understandable to a general audience.

Thank you! Manxshearwater (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Article title says it all, sport in Vatican City. Comments are greatly appreciated and trying to work my way up for this to become an FAC! Arconning (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)\[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I saw this (and had some problems with the sourcing) at Template:Did you know nominations/Sport in Vatican City.

  • I guess my first recommendation is to be fanatical about finding high-quality sources (because your reviewers at FAC will be). Some of the sources you use are not WP:INDEPENDENT; Holy See Press Office, Vatican News, Aleteia. That doesn't make them impossible to use, but the more you can avoid them, the better off you'll be.
  • Double-check that the licensing on all your images is OK. For example, I looked at File:Vatican World Taekwondo Demonstration Team.png. It says "Unknown author"; that might not go over well. More importantly, it's a video which was hosted on YouTube, but is no longer available. There's an archive.org link, but when I try to view it, I just get the same "This video isn't available anymore" screen, so it's basically unverifiable.
  • I took at closer look at the statements cited to Townend 1958. You say The first sporting facility built in what is now Vatican City was the first-century chariot-racing track of the Circus of Nero I don't see where the source says this, nor where it says "The circus itself was constructed on Vatican hill". I'm also unsure how this source should be interpreted vis-a-vis WP:HQRS. It appears to be a book review, and much of it is expressing opinions about how the reviewed book (The Shrine of St. Peter) is incorrect in places where it, in turn, points out errors in a "official Vatican report". This seems like a bit of a long chain.
  • I'm not sure if Vanysacker 2015 ranks as a WP:HQRS. It's a Catholic theologian writing about the Catholic Church, in a journal which is (according to The Catholic Historical Review) "the official organ of the American Catholic Historical Association". I can't find anything in WP:RSN about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if reviewers at WP:FAC questioned its independence, especially when it's used to back up subjective statements like "The Vatican held positive opinions towards sports as a way of expressing Catholic spirituality and principles".
  • Vatican plans to form National Olympic Committee and march at Paris 2024 Opening Ceremony That's history now, so this should be rephrased accordingly.
  • The Vatican supplied two athletes to symbolically compete avoid the split infinitive.
  • I'm dubious about https://www.insidethegames.biz/ ranking as a RS.
  • children who have autism and Down syndrome it seems odd that you capitalize Down syndrome but not autism. I would think either both or neither, but if you've got something which back that up as accepted style for each, that's fine.
    • @RoySmith: I've addressed some of your concerns, sorry for the long wait! Some of these haven't been addressed yet though I'll get to them soon, do you have any more? For the last comment I think this would suffice [4].



I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.

Thanks, —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Lists

[edit]


In approximately 4–5 months, I plan to make a good or featured topic about the Seattle Kraken, a topic that this list will be a part of. Since this list is very short, it cannot pass an FL nom (don't ask how I found out), so I'm doing a peer review instead. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.

Thanks, XR228 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Howdy,

  • In the intro I would introduce Dave Hakstol earlier, The team began play during the league's 2021–22 season and add on "with Dave Hakstol as their first coach." Somewhere it should be stated that they were an expansion team. * In the sentence finished eighth in their division with due to only having 60 points I would suggest something along the lines of "finished eighth in their division with only 60 points, not good enough to make the playoffs."
  • In the sentence which was good for fourth in the Pacific Division and the first wild card spot in the Western Conference. I would add "good for fourth in the Pacific Division and the first playoff wild card spot in the Western Conference". Explains the importance of the wild card.
  • An image of the Kraken logo, or a player with the Kraken logo visible would be a nice addition.
  • NHL Season should read "NHL season"

Otherwise article is suitably cited and linked. Good job.Llammakey (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Llammakey: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe you need to mention that the team was an expansion team somewhere, to explain why it only began playing in 2021-22 season and that it is not a relocation. Something along the lines of "The NHL awarded Seattle an expansion team in ..." Llammakey (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llammakey: Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made one small change, otherwise I consider the peer review closed if that is alright with you. I'm not sure if you'd like other people's opinions too. Llammakey (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llammakey: I'd like another reviewer to review the article, just in case we both missed something. XR228 (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping @ChrisTheDude because he's good at doing FL reviews. XR228 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to make it a featured list, but I'm not sure what else I need to do besides adding more prose and background, as the list itself is essentially complete.

Thanks, OpalYosutebito (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback:
  • The anti-capitalism subsection has no reference.
  • The recurring themes section doesn't need those two subsection headers imo; both are too short. Just have the section without the headers
  • The first sentence should just use the WP:COMMONNAME for the country: "Within North Korea, propaganda...". Concision.
  • I don't think "propagation" can be used like that in the first sentence. Think you could reword it to "propaganda slogans are an important aspect of propaganda in North Korea". Then remove the see also section per WP:NOTSEEALSO.
  • The second photo is squeezing the table a bit. It's also not a very good photo (far away). I'd recommend you just remove it altogether.
  • 수령결사옹위 row doesn't have a reference.
  • References need to be better formatted.
  • You don't need "Note:" in the note.
seefooddiet (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did just about everything. However, I'm a little confused by the second to last bullet about the references. Does that mean I need to find a wider variety of references, or is it a matter of having to edit the code? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer. It's good practice to:
  • Add access dates for online materials; link rot is a growing issue nowadays
  • Wikilink publication names when possible
  • Standardize use of MOS:DATEFORMAT; there are currently DMY and MDY dates both used in the article. You should pick one of the two and be consistent. Should ideally place {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}} on the article too (just below the short description).
  • Some of the refs are lacking possible information; notably the last one and the Uriminzokkiri one.
  • There's a deadlink that should be replaced
There's probably more that can be said too, this was just quick feedback. I recommend you look at WP:FA-level articles to see how they handle references. Something that uses news and online articles. seefooddiet (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added access dates for the sources, and I removed the deadlink. I'll continue editing the sources once I get enough schoolwork done - OpalYosutebito (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other unrelated note, make sure all the capitalization abides by MOS:PEOPLETITLES. seefooddiet (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. I have another idea for the list. It's very tedious to scroll through the whole thing. Would it help if I were to split it up into topics (Politics, Agriculture, Military, etc)? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QoH

[edit]

Please add row headers to this table; see WP:DTT. The Korean text in the table should also use {{lang-ko}}. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Heartstalk) 23:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding row scopes and {{Korean}} to the Chosongul section right now - OpalYosutebito (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added row scopes and Korean a few hours ago. I also elaborated more on the sources from UCSD. I've done nearly everything that @Seefooddiet recommended me to do, though I might need to go back and check for formatting and capitalization errors. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject peer reviews

[edit]
  1. ^ Be aware that [research articles and review articles] can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources. (WP:NOR)