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.

I've listed this article for peer review because... I plan to propose as FA and need some suggestion Thanks, Agus Damanik (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to nominate it for FA status. I've successfully nominated GA's and FL's, but haven't had a Featured Article and would appreciate any feedback!

Thanks, Brindille1 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some external opinions on the article with the view of being upgraded in quality class, potentially to GA – I could not submit this for GA myself (if deemed to meet that criteria), having made multiple minor edits to the page (wikilinks, external links, cats, images from commons). Whilst the subject does not meet notability guidelines for motorsport, they do meet notability guidelines for national sports (Liechtenstein). It appears to be well-sourced and well-written, however page history indicates indirect edit wars over content layout.

Thanks, MSportWiki (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, Jw93d59 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly revamped. Highlights include a revised history section with citations, updated membership tables, a membership timeline, list of state champions and inclusion of Wisconsin high school athletic conferences template.

Thanks, Moserjames79 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I just completely overhauled the content, adding a History section with citations, a membership table, a membership timeline, a list of state champions to come from the conference, and the Wisconsin high school athletic conferences template.

Thanks, Moserjames79 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on this page, but still think it has a lot of room for improvment. I think this is an extremely important page, and would like to see it at Good or featured article status one day.

Thanks, GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be a featured list, but it is not there yet. Issues I would like feedback on:

1) the lede needs to be significantly expanded, but since this list is a supporting article to Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District, I'm not really sure what the lede here would be other than copying info from that article.

2) should coordinates be added to the table, maybe alongside addresses? The buildings are all in the same neighborhood, meaning the coordinates don't change much from entry to entry

3) there is no description column at the end of the table but there are several columns that give descriptive info, specifically "type", "style", and "architect". The table is getting pretty wide, so I'm not sure if another column describing the entry is helpful or not

4) any other thoughts you have

Thanks, Gb321 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article for featured article status, but I want more eyeballs on it before submitting it for FA. Specific feedback I'm looking for is:

1. Does the article meet FA criteria?
2. The article is on a contentious subject: is the article sound biased or not? (NPOV)
3. Due to the controversial nature of the subject, there are an unusually large number of footnotes & citations, sometimes 3 or 4 citations per sentence. In the FA world, I believe 2 or 3 citations per sentence are common ... does this article seem to have too many?
4. Any places in the prose where it reads awkwardly?

Conversely, I don't think the article needs any special attention on:

1. Photos
2. Sources

Thanks, Noleander (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this article for peer review because, after 16 years on this project and probably twice (thrice?) as many GA nominations, I would like to submit my first FA nomination. Borsoka really put me through my paces during last month's GA review, and I believe that this has resulted in an exceptionally high quality. I would like to get opinions and suggestions of other interested editors. Is everything clear? Is it fun to read? Does it cover everything you would expect it cover? Do you agree with Borsoka's assessment of the quality of sources? Other comments are also welcome.

Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I've viewed that the article has been written to my best and furthest capabilities. I view that it requires peer review to better its comprehensiveness from the different point of view, input, and feedback of others. Possibly, interested in reaching FA status.

Thank you, Kaliper1 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it to FAC. The article has seen slight changes since being promoted to GA, so I'm interested in getting a prose review and whether there is any missing info that could potentially benefit the readers. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because it looked unloved and I have made significant additions.

I am new to wiki so please do let me know of any substantive errors / non conformity with policies / guidelines so I am aware

Thanks, LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I translated it from the French Wiki into English albeit through Machine Translation as I'm not fluent in French. I would like an outsiders perspective on this please.

Thanks, Reader of Information (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in taking it to GA, but there aren't that many number articles to go off of as models. I basically based this on 69 (number), WP:NUM/G, and 1 in that order. As you will see, because these articles are so abstract, they are kind of a list of properties without depth. I think that's fine because an explanation of the significance of, say, practical numbers does not actually belong in an article about the number unless the number is actually relevant to an applied use of that property. But it's not exactly inspiring reading either.

So, primarily, I want to know three things. 1) Where do you think the article too technical or too brisk? 2) Do you have an idea for a math topic I have not covered? 3) Do you have an idea for an applied-math or a cultural topic to cover?

I will be applying WP:NUM/NOT when considering 3, but we're very much in the "no bad ideas" space when it comes to brainstorming topics. I've been looking into a few numerology sources lately and 54 seems to be an odd enough number that it doesn't get attention from that crowd.

The material on Babylonian mathematics probably does not actually make sense yet because I need to condense and clarify it. The first paragraph of the Trigonometry section, similarly, probably leaps too quickly to the answer. I do welcome feedback on them, but I think I know generally what needs to change about them already.

Thanks, lethargilistic (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this stub for peer review because it is lacking in images, the source I added for procedure duration may need replacing, and the “other words” sections need inspecting. Any suggestions on expanding the article are also welcome.

Thanks, Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for further feedback and perspectives on this article because I'm planning to nominate it for GA status in the future. I'd like an overall review and suggestions for improvement, since it may still have various problems, especially sources predominantly being in Japanese (since suitable English sources for this topic are quite hard to find)

Thanks! Wolf20482 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because im looking to improve it to GA. (i did this for a dare)

it would help expand my scope of articles a bit, as i have never set foot on anything related to tanzania

Thanks, brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm seeking feedback on how it can be improved prior to nominating it as a good article.

Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

Just wanted to improve the article! Broaden some more information and rewrite some of the grammar so it's better. :) Arconning (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because there is room for improvement and I could advice from more experinced editors on how to improve this article.

Thanks, 1keyhole (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate feedback on the sourcing of this discography list article, as well as suggestions on formatting or other ways to bring this page in line with other high-quality discographies on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Engineeringest (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this discography for peer review to gather feedback on potential improvements. I expanded the list a few months ago in preparation for an FL nomination, but the process was delayed. Now that I'm ready to proceed with the nomination, I wanted to submit it for peer review first to ensure a smoother FLC later on.

Thanks, AstrooKai (Talk) 07:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I wanted other editors opinions on how to broaden the scope of the outline/improve it. I have recently been adding legislation passed into law by George Washington into the outline, though I am unsure whether to continue with this direction. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Atakes Ris (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Military history: Urien • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • German Jewish military personnel of World War II • Outline of George Washington • Central Powers • Ben Roberts-Smith • Bertrand Clauzel • Japanese occupation of West Sumatra • Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem