Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive feedback from other editors about an article. An article may be nominated by any editor, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other editors can comment on the review. Peer review may be used to establish an article's suitability as a good article nomination or featured article candidate. Peer review is a useful place to centralise reviews from many editors (for example, from those associated with a WikiProject). New Wikipedians are welcome.
Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. 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.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am wondering what questions about the TV series you feel are unanswered after reading this article and what improvements you think it could benefit from!
Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that, with some copyediting, it can reach GA. I first created this article in the Portuguese Wikipedia and it is currently a GA nominee there, with no opposition so far. I translated the entire article to English, however, since my English is not too good and I am not 100% familiar with the English Wikipedia standards, there might be some errors that I didn't notice.
Comment by Ojorojo I updated the infobox (easier than listing here, see Template:Infobox song#Parameters for current uses). I noticed some problems with the prose and the use of quote boxes – the Guild of Copy Editors may be helpful.[1] Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I opened a request there. GhostP.talk 15:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA and I just want a once over by a third party to iron out any kinks ahead of time.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend it to become an FAC. I've worked on a similar article recently and with help it became an FA—and I want to see if the process this time round can go more smoothly now that I've been through it once before.
I fixed some MOS-y things, saw a cn tag, and left an edit summary reminder to check ref order. I will read more as I have time, and after others have looked at prose. This is confusing:
Vincent exhibited 9 works at the Royal Academy,[52] 41 at the British Institution (yearly from 1815 to 1831, except 1816 and 1828),[53]
I suppose he exhibited yearly, not that he exhibited 41 yearly. Maybe that can be split out somewhere.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it has potential to become an FA (based on Grand Theft Auto V & 1080° Snowboarding) and would like some input on how to improve it to that standard.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to FA status. I have already had 1 unsuccessful attempt at it but I think it has lots of potential. Thanks, LOVI33 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it recently and would like to submit for GA in the future. I would like to get some feedback and what needs to be improved in order to get there.
Thanks, Alan Islas (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I wish for this article to be peer reviewed because I would like to one day nominate it for good article status. I would also appreciate any general comments on improvements that could be made. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sean Stephens. Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia.
As you might know, GAs are reviewed against six criteria (WP:GACR). I think this article is well on its way. The areas I see being a problem is "lead". The article has great sources, an appropriate image and what text is there is well written. However the lead is very short, so it doesn't summarise the body, and this would need to be improved.
The second thing is (in my opinion), that the text within the article is quite short. My impression is that some additional information could be included to flesh it out a bit. If the album is notable enough to get an encyclopedia entry here, my feeling is that some of the very short sections such as "Release and promotion", "Recording and composition" and "Background" could be expanded.
Luckily, there are lots of good articles to model yours on. Have a look at WP:GA and find some good articles about music albums and you'll have a better idea where to aim.
Good luck! Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey Tom (LT)! This is all very very useful feedback, I'm very grateful you took the time to write such a detailed response. I will definitely take your suggestions/advice on board; I tend to agree that certain sections of this article are quite short, I will try to expand them where possible. Sean Stephens (talk)
I wish for this this article to be peer reviewed because I would like to ensure it follows all relevant policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BLP. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Interesting article. When did he become known as JK-47? I read the Manual of Style and it seems yo say the lead section shouldn’t have references, but these should be incorporated into the body of the article. Is this possible? Overall though, great to have an interesting article about an up-and-coming young indigenous artist! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article from scratch thanks to interviews describing the making of the album and with critical reception.
I'm still learning how to contribute effectively on Wikipedia, and I wonder what kind of article status this can get.
I'm looking forward to your reviews.
Thanks, Cryoclaste (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In general I don't have much to add. Only a couple of comments:
In accordance to Wikipedia:Lead the lead should summarise the entire article. The lead here seems a little short, and could be expanded.
It is unclear where the quote in the 'Background' section comes from. Could you please add a citation to make this clearer?
Hope this helps. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you CSJJ104 for your feedback,
I've clarified where the quote in the 'Background' section came from, as the whole paragraph relies on the same source.
I've also expanded the lead a bit, re-contextualising this release in the band's whole career.
I'll try improving the article every once in a while now.
Thank you, Cryoclaste (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to put this article through the FAC process sometime in the future (although I do not have any specific time in mind), and I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to better improve it prior to a nomination. I have successfully worked on two song FACs in the past, but this is still really out of my comfort zone. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Homeostasis07
Hey, sorry about the delay. Been a weird weekend, and only got a few hours to myself now to review. Here are my thoughts about the article:
Lead
I think the first paragraph could be rewritten to something like:
"Candy" is a song by American rapper Foxy Brown featuring Kelis, released by Def Jam on August 21, 2001 as the third and final single from her third studio album Broken Silence (2001). A dance-pop and R&B track, it was produced by the Neptunes duo Chad Hugo and Pharrell Williams, who co-wrote the song alongside Brown and Juan Manuel Cordova. Brown raps on the verses while Kelis, a frequent collaborator with the Neptunes, performs the hook. The song was recorded in Virginia Beach and mixed in New York City.
Thank you for this suggestion! I am always the worst at writing the lead, probably because I save it for the end and rush through that part somewhat. Your version is head and shoulders above mine, and it motivates me to try and be better with this particular part of Wikipedia writing. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, could you be a bit more specific on how this song was promoted in the music video for "Tables Will Turn"? It's not really clear in how it's currently worded. Maybe something like:
"The song premiered at the album's listening party, and although no official music video was created for "Candy", the song did appear in the music video for subsequent single "Tables Will Turn"."
^ I've not seen the music video for TWT, so how brief was the "Candy" portion? Just a little snippet or basically the whole thing?
Thank you for bringing it up. I agree that the original wording was too vague. Only a small portion of the song is played at the end of the "Tables Will Turn" music video, roughly 30 seconds or so. Please let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Critical reception
Typo at "In 2008, The News-Press' Mark Marymont for said that although Kelis had "sometimes thin, even whiny vocals", she sounded better on duets like "Candy"."
I am not sure how that happened lol. I have fixed this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I think there's another typo in the last paragraph of this section: "In a review of Macy Gray's 2001 album The Id, The Washington Post's Arion Berger said the track "Harry" had had (?) a "sexual boast as bold" as "Candy" ..."
Apparently, the sexual boasts in these songs were so bold that I had to put in two "had"s lol. I have corrected this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Otherwise, I thought this was a finely written and nicely researched article, with little to complain about even at this stage. I hope this review has been helpful, and I look forward to seeing it nominated at FAC soon. Hope you're keeping well. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and your kind words. I have been fortunate enough to have two song articles successfully pass through the FAC process, but I always feel slightly uncomfortable when it comes to nominating song articles for some reason. Please let me know if you need any help with anything on here. It is always a pleasure to hear from you. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to maintain its GA status. I have expanded it for over a year and the article has already received a copyedit. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Damian Vo (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have continuously worked on it even after I promoted the article to GA status back in May 2020, so it would be great to see if any suggestions could be made due to some certain being added more recently. Specifically, the In popular culture section should be focused on since it is entirely new, while the lead needs to have a look taken at it quite a bit due to having gone through expansion; the same can be said for the Background and development section, as well as Commercial performance one.
Thanks, it should be great to hear any relevant comments for help!
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this to a GA status, and if possible a FA status later. It has gone through three bouts of copyediting, four bouts of content editing, and has been checked by editors from about six wikiprojects. The biggest thing left is citation formatting (but that can wait till I submit this for GAN). One big problem I have is shortening the article (does it really need shortening?). Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments
In Culture section, "In many cultures, men typically find female breasts attractive". This sentence likely underestimates prevalence of such culture. Heterosexual men finding female breasts attractive is likely universal, and not just in "many cultures".
The second sentence, "In these cultures, women use décolletage that exposes cleavage to enhance their physical and sexual attractiveness, and to improve their sense of femininity". Is this practice among women only prevalent among those cultures? Unlikely. Perhaps this would be more true "Sometimes women use..." rather than pointing to "in those cultures".
In a subsequent sentence "According to Kinsey Reports, most men derive erotic pleasure from seeing a woman's cleavage" -- this somewhat proves my first point. Attraction to breasts is not so much culture-specific, rather universal.
" Among respectable women, displaying any part of the female breast may be ..." That sounds not a good language -- "among respectable women". It may suggest as if women with revealing cleavage are not respectable. You should delete that phrase. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the statements on universality. In this interview with Florence Williams, who wrote a book on breasts that got the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in science and technology, she says: "There’s no doubt at all that a lot of men are really, really attracted to breasts! But it could be that that attraction came later or was secondary, and it’s never really been satisfactorily proven that all men in all cultures across all times are obsessed with breasts." And I'm not sure that they Kinsey Report is a good way to think about this, given that (I think?) all the research subjects were American (though it's actually not discussed in our article on it.
It might also be worth checking out the sources here, and also seeing whether any material should link to that page or be moved there on this subject. Jlevi (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jlevi: Agreed. But the article doesn't say or imply universality, rather it says "most cultures" instead of "some cultures". BTW, the cleavage article has more scholarly commentary and sources than the brest fetish article about the cultural differences, including Elizabeth Gould Davis (that too more in-depth). Check that article out. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: That's fair. And really nice article! Clearly you've put good thought on this, and I haven't taken a deep look at these pages--this was something of a drive-by comment. Your points are well-taken, and I realize I'm quibbling over something that already works nicely. Jlevi (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jlevi: Thanks. With almost a thousand edits I guess I did put some work into it, albeit with ample guidance from other editors. It would be wonderful if you could take a deeper look and let me know where I may improve the article further. I am looking for feedback. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You certainly have had to wait a long time for this review @Crosskimo! What an interesting article. I would recommend some changes:
Firstly, copyediting the article. There are several instances of letters that are or aren't capitalised, and some section titles that are unusual (for example the one titled "(1990–2005)". Maybe a request at WP:GOCE could help, but also you could do this yourself.
There are the occasional areas that lack references
Some images are of iffy quality, such as "Omar Lotfy the founder of Al Ahly"
"Egyptian Patriot Saad Zaghloul, the Minister of Education became the first honorary president of Al Ahly" is an instance of WP:WEASELWORDS" I suggest you remove the "Egyptian Patriot" (I'm sure most politicians would claim to be patriots, and that is irrelevant to this article)
Something that I personally am not sure about - perhaps ask at WikiProject Football - is whether some of the things included are just trivia.
In case you don't know, good articles are reviewed against six criteria here (WP:GACR)
Hope that this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in nominating this article in the future as a potential candidate for WP:FA. In doing this listing, I want to know if there is any key details that appears to be missing from the timeline of the roller coaster's history or within any of the sections that may be important, any grammatical issues that the article has in its prose, or items that are stated that a general reader may-or-may-not understand based off the general language of the article. Any input would be welcomed!
Thanks, Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in potentially bringing its class up to A or Good-class. As I'm accustomed to editing this article for months, I'm interested to see if there's anything missing that readers would want to know.
I have substantially rewritten much of this article over the past few weeks and would like to take it to GA, a grading I feel it should at least be at, given it's "longest pleasure pier in the world" status. I'd like to try and iron out any minor issues prior to doing this or consider any feedback on how it could further be enhanced. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA status (and maybe one day, FA status...), primarily because of its high visibility. It was delisted in August of this year due to concerns about length and excessive detail. The readable prose size has decreased significantly thanks to the work of several editors, including myself, but my recent nomination for GA was deleted without explanation—I'm guessing because of length. Thus, I thought I might open a request for peer review.
I think one important area of improvement is the History section. It's just too detailed, but I feel like there will be significant resistance to removing/moving content from it.
Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review to receive feedback on areas of the article that may require more attention in order to bring it to Featured Article standards. Sections that may require more scrutiny than others include History and Economy. The latter section could probably be shortened and a new article started to accommodate the depth of the current information.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I worked hard on it, it is my first article, and I would like to improve it in any way possible but am not sure how. Not sure what else to say.
Thanks, mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I created this article about a month ago and have improved it some since then. I'm now pretty confident that it covers the breadth of the available scholarship on the subject in a way that fits Wikipedia's best practices, but I would really appreciate a few more people taking a look at the article to let me know any issues I'm not seeing because I've perhaps become to close to the product: POV, clarity, typos, anything that sounds questionable, etc. I believe he's an interesting marginal figure in US history and worthy of a decent Wikipedia article, so I appreciate your assistance. If you're interested in medical/political/military/literary/legal crossover history of the early American republic and/or the Baltimore/DC area, this article is for you!
I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and prose should be checked before its FAC. The article is about a talented medieval ruler who was close to establish a Mediterranean empire in the 1270s, but his tyrannical methods cost him the island of Sicily after the Sicilian Vespers.
Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Although I am quite active with Featured lists, I really have little concrete understanding of what distinguishes a GA from an FA. I personally think that the "impeachment" and "assassination" sections are of the highest quality. If I ensured that the rest of the article was up to that standard, would I be good to go? Please tell me if anything else is lacking. I may not be able to act on everything now, but I hope to begin another big improving push once I can get my hands on a few more books. Thanks, ~ HAL333 22:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unused to creating this type of article, and I am unsure what sort of structure or headings it should have. Any other suggestions for improvements appreciated.
Thanks, CSJJ104 (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I've done a quick copyedit of the article, making some small adjustments for readability and trying to make the lead a bit clearer. Also, reference no. 10 (Goodare 2015) doesn't have a page number - you may have forgotten to add it in. As for the structure, I renamed the last section to consequences, but if you feel original header was better feel free to restore it. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 19:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jr8825: Thanks for looking :) The heading Significance is better than Legacy, and does seem to match what I was meaning. The p=? in the Goodare reference was added by another editor and I have removed it. The book is a Google book which has no page numbers, would you know another way to indicate the location? CSJJ104 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@CSJJ104: - I just had a look at the source, and as I'm able to access it via my university I added the page numbers for you. In this case I'm not sure there would've been a way to find the page number via Google Books. Have a check at WP:GBOOKS as sometimes it's possible. Jr8825 • Talk 22:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to FA eventually - it has recently undergone a copyedit and has already passed GA. Sennacherib is by far (only rivalled by Ashurbanipal) the most famous Assyrian king, remembered as an aggressive "enemy of God" thanks to the Bible. The real Sennacherib was superstitious, had daddy issues, preferred building stuff over conquering nations and was plagued by constant insurrections instigated by his arch-enemy, an ex-king of Babylon.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I have improved it good.
Thanks, Schweiz41 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Schweiz41 I agree (that you have improved it)! Thanks for your edits to that article. It's really interesting article and also a beautiful artefact in its own right. I find the article is well written for the most part, well structured and flows well. I think you covered the ambiguity about its origins particularly well. Some suggestions for improvement would be:
To improve some of the phrasing (some examples below, also I have made one or two small changes)
Trim some of the citations, particularly in the 'description' section. You don't need to provide so many citations for something that's generally agreed on, unless there is a dispute. For example: it is made of gilded bronze[2] and measures 30 centimetres in height[22][9] or 28 centimetres by 30 centimetres[8] for the pectoral.[18] This is done appropriately sometimes though (eg. Its dating remains relatively uncertain: archaeologists date it from the end of the 2nd century BC, others from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC[6][7][8)
The lead section should be expanded to include more about the description of the cuirass
"There is a problem of chronological order " to me is unclear.
I'm interested as to why "The cuirass, of "exotic provenance" if we take into account the place of discovery" is used. Weren't Ancient Rome and Carthrage in a trading relationship? If that's the case, it doesn't strike me as that exotic to have found it in Tunisia
Regarding the description - any speculation why those motifs were included, in terms of the meaning of those symbols and why Minerva as compared with other gods or goddesses were included?
The work may have belonged to a Libyphenician of the army of Carthage suggest link Libyphrenecian and army of Cathrage to relevant articles.
Within the 'interpretation' section, it would be useful for the reader to have an idea of who the mentioned parties are, for example "According to Ben Younès". Suggest link these people if they have articles, and add some sort of descriptor, such as "According to Historian Ben Younes" so that I have some context.
Hope these thoughts help. Overall the article is of excellent standard however and I commend you for your great work. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has went through extensive expansion and editing over the last 10 days or so. There are lot more to be done; there are obvious omissions. Still I am interested particularly in the following:
How far accessible the article is to an uninitiated audience, with little or no knowledge about Bangladesh or South-East Asian politics and history.
Pointing out parts of the article that need clarification/elaboration.
Suggestions on improving flow of ideas and events.
@Farhan nasim thanks for your edits to this interesting and important article
I do think that it does a good job of orientating the reader to the political and social environment. I think the phrasing is very easy to read, and that the images are quite useful. I also think the article flows in a logical format. Actually, I think it's very close to good article status.
Some general things I would comment about this article though. You could improve it by:
Making sure the phrasing is neutral, eg. "Under Ayub's despotic rule, suffering and deprivation of East Pakistan only aggravated", "East Pakistan was grossly discriminated both economically and culturally"
Making the phrasing more encyclopedic, for example "Tajuddin's formative years were spent in the last days of British India, in Bengal—East Bengal, to be more precise—hotbed of anti-British activism, battered with famines, communal riots, and other problems." would be appropriate in a book about the times, but needs to be less colloquial if it's part of the encyclopedia. See WP:WEASEL for what I mean.
There are some 'citation needed' templates in the article that indicate the need for references
Overall I think this article does achieve your main goals, but there is some room for improvement. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll look this over in the coming days. I'll also note I'm someone with "little of no knowledge about Bangladesh or South-East Asian politics and history", so will be glad to offer an outsider's perspective on how it reads. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would consider it (relatively) high on the importance scale and knowing myself I've probably made a bunch of mistakes that I could resolve with a fresh pair of eyes
Thanks, Loafiewa (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment. 1. A single Historynet article cand hardly establish the significance of the artitcle's subject. We need more sources. 2. We need monographs written by renowned military historians about WWII (not about individual battles/operations) to determine which events are mentioned as "the" turning point of WWII by specialists. 3. About 50% of the article is unverified, we need more citations to scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article on WikiProject:Tropical cyclone's vital article list and is the flagship article for the future featured topic of the same name. @Master of Time and MarioProtIV:, if you would be willing to take a look at the prose of the article (for sentence structure/grammar as well as accuracy), it would be greatly appreciated. I am trying to prepare the article for FAC. If anyone else would like to chime in, feel free to do so.
I've done the best I can to make this a high-quality article about this recently severe-weather event. However I would like the assistance of more experienced editors in the field to help make this article B or GA quality.
Australopithecus sediba is a possible (but possibly not) human ancestor from South Africa, known from 2 skeletons dating to about 2 million years ago. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to FA as the first featured hominin article, and the 2nd featured great ape article (after Orangutan)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this article to at least a B-Class rating or higher. I need feedback so I can finish the editing and work on it more.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about the following things:
The lead. I'm aware that the lead likely has problems and needs improvement, but I would like some advice on how to improve it, especially when it comes to O'Toole's political positions. I made a summary of some of his positions in the lead, but I'm not entirely sure what should and shouldn't be included.
Content in the "Background" and "Political Career" sections (before "Leadership of the Conservative Party"). I'm not sure whether those sections have all the encyclopedic content that would fit in the article.
My goal with this article is to get it to GA, possibly FA if I can get that far. If you feel this article is a good enough GA candidate (I doubt it is), please tell me! Thanks, Username6892 19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The British and American New Waves overlapped but were different. Judith Merril, "whose annual anthologies were the first heralds of the coming of the [New Wave] cult,"[4]:105 writing in 1967 in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction contrasted the SF New Wave (which she here terms 'The New Thing') in England and the United States.
It quoted someone, but unless I look at the reference I do t know who it is quoting. Also I’m uncertain why the material being quoted is important.
I’m still going over it now. Fascinating article, overall the structure seems sound (so far!), seems well researched and I can see a lot of hard work has gone into it. I’ve made a few small copy edits to clarify some things, but nevertheless I find the prose engaging though haven’t read the whole thing so far. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I had a stab at changing this, but not sure I quite got it right. Can you see if this edit is accurate? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I just fixed the Merrill ref and moved it to Authors and works section. Johncdraper (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: can we get a one line description of “New Wave fabulism”? I am completely unclear what this is... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if we should expand out the following:
The concept of a 'new wave' has been applied to science fiction in other countries, including in Arabic[8] and Chinese[9][10] science fiction.
That would be fascinating... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Working on it. Johncdraper (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article to request peer review since in one of article talk page discussions it was claim that since Women in Islam article is available there is no need of separate article for Rights of women in Islam.
So I wish and request to review the article
1) Is Women is Islam article is giving through and proper coverage to Muslim women and related aspects if not what are the gap areas?
2) Is Women in Islam article covering Muslim women's rights comprehensively enough ? ( I see only two proper sections at the end but not comprehensive what is your opinion?)
3) According to you what is the scope for having separate comprehensive article for Rights of women in Islam?
Thanks, Bookku (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Women in Islam should be considered a high priority article and I can give a review for it from the perspective of Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria, although it will take a few days. In the meanwhile, to answer your questions:
1. This is something that should become clear during the review. This article is already quite comprehensive, but some gaps might become apparent once I survey the literature.
One of the best things for a review would be to find scholarly sources that deal with the whole of the topic of "Women in Islam" (i.e. they give the topic comprehensive coverage as opposed to focus on one part of it). That would help in identifying areas on which the article doesn't focus enough, as well as areas on which it focuses too much. I can see a few such sources at [Women_in_Islam#Further_reading]], do you have any other suggestions? VRtalk 13:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to become a feature list. I believe the list entries (matches) are as detailed as possible with notable information and each entry is referenced. The main area I wanted reviewing was the introduction. Prose has never been my strong point but I've tried to include as much detail as possible without it being too long. I would appreciate any feedback and welcome any suggestions for improvement. Also any comment on whether this list has a chance at becoming a featured list.
Thanks, 6ii9 (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FL soon. Since there are no other lists of diplomatic missions that have been featured to the best of my knowledge, I would like other users to review the page's presentation of the topic, especially in coverage on political issues. I would also like someone to look at the image I made for the page. General or any other feedback is also highly appreciated!
Thanks, MSG17 (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Done