This page contains an automatically-generated list of reviews that are unanswered. This list is compiled automatically by detecting reviews that have not been edited at all after their initial creation.
Because of this, this list won't identify reviews which have been subsequently edited. Though such reviews are still displayed in full on the peer review main page, peer reviews that haven't been reviewed and aren't listed here can be added here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
i've listed this article for peer review because i am interested in improving the article to FA status. also, if it gets FA status, the 1989 (album) topic is able to accommodate one more good article to keep its featured topic status, so i should be able to create another article (to add to the topic) (fyi the article is i wish you would, and i found lots of sources). furthermore, it would help me get a featured article under my belt, which i have none (and i tried with outram park mrt station but failed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... GA attempt. Not now because there will probably be more sources to come in the future, but still. CHECK: prose, malformed sentences, things that don't make sense, any other forms of criticism welcome.
I've listed this article for peer review because it could be considered for featured list status and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead and the references. I want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn✉19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it requires reviewing by someone with more experience in topic who may see something I may have missed and improve the article.
Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am unsure of whether the article covers the topic or not. The history section is now a summary of a long article (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). Suggestions as to what else the article should cover and ideas for improvement sought.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
1. I feel the article is at a good start. I think its missing some events that I didn't find for one reason or another.
I want to add a section about the the mass expulsion of Jewish/ marginalized groups from the medical field in Germany. However, I feel I couldn't do it justice.
2. Also, I cannot read German and rely on AI translations so there might be errors possibly. And makes reading books on the topic much slower / and excludes goldmines of information.
3. I don't know if the formatting is correct for Wikipedia standards.
Overall I'd like to see more historical details and format correction.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it as much as possible. I recently created this article, and I'd like outside feedback. Comments about formatting, content, or general editing are welcome. Hoping to bring this up to good article status at some point in the future.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for almost a month and planning to take it onto a FAC. Just wanted to run it by the Peer Review for reviews and suggestions as it's my first FAC nom.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate as a FAC soon! The article has a lot of information and I just need some comments on how to improve the prose (mostly), and other things that could be added towards the advancement of the article.
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.
World War I. I assume many of you are familiar with this conflict from a history class. There are many ways to analyze the war as it happened. However, here is a perspective of World War I that you may not be familiar with: a family feud! Namely, George V, Nicholas II, and Haakon VII were not only kings of countries on “Team Entente”, but the three rulers were also (first) cousins! Who was their shared grandfather? The father-in-law of Europe, Christian IX, King of Denmark!
Were you captivated by that hook? If so, I invite you to join me in the goal of making this list on Christian IX’s offspring a featured list! Everyone is welcome to contribute (especially considering this is my first peer review)! Also, I would like for the reviewer(s) to focus on two areas: content and references. Namely:
Content - This list’s scope is narrower than the range of material of many Wikipedia articles on royalty. The focus here is primarily and specifically on Christian IX’s descendants. As you can see, I have attempted to add relevant background information. However, what else can I mention to create a comprehensive reading experience?
References - I strongly believe that readers by themselves should be able to verify every detail provided in the list. Consequently, I have also attempted to not only cite every fact mentioned but also scrutinize the used sources for their reliability. That being said, are there any sources I have used that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia?
I'm interested in taking this page through the featured list process so that it can be a good model for this sort of competition-based programme. I want feedback on a couple of things:
Is this (or can it be) a list and not an article?
How should the results tables (which also serve as a list of episodes) be formatted, with accessibility in mind?
Is the structure of the prose clear? (Should some of "Background" be in the lead, or should content be reordered?)
