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... 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.
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.
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... 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.
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.
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.
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).
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 Britannicastill 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)staplers22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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'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.
This article has been GA-level for years and has degraded over time. It was recently delisted despite being nearly completely rewritten, cited, and checked. A peer review can help identify any remaining problems before the article is again submitted for GAN. Thanks! Sirberus (talk) 23:25, 1 August 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.
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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in bringing this article to FL status. This is also my first every list article so I'm sorry for any rookie mistakes made. I wasn't sure whether to list this under lists or natural science but went with lists. To be upfront some areas that I struggle with are prose, close paraphrasing (however I was VERY careful with this article and doubt this will be an issues here, in the past I have struggled with writing medical content in a way that is not closely paraphrased but also doesn't lose its meaning. I have since improved), writing in an over technical tone, and spelling. I am open to any suggestions. Images have been a bit of a struggle for this article but I will do some more digging. I also posted on the medical wikiproject for some input (see this post for that). Another thing that is really important for me, especially with this article, is making sure that people can understand the terms I use.
