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.

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... It has been three years since its last peer review and I have made significant changes in the past two months. This article is already at Good Article status and I'm interested in promoting it to Featured Article status. A focus on its prose and any potential issues with citations (how they are cited etc.).

Thanks, Paleface Jack (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to feature article status at some point in the future, and I want to ensure that it is as complete as possible. If any additional changes could be made to the "Release" and "Reception" sections, please let me know. Moreover, if any additional sources exist that could be used to enlarge either one, I'll be happy to make the appropriate changes.

The section I'm most interested in improving is the film's "Production". I feel like I've exhausted my resources regarding either print or online sources, so if anyone is familiar with any additional sources that could be used, I'd really appreciate that. Lastly, if someone has access to a DVD of the film and could upload the audio commentary somewhere—a tall order, I know—that would be the most useful addition to the article after the behind-the-scenes documentary.

I appreciate any help. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to bring this to WP:FAC in the new year. I'm wondering if there's any problems with the sources or if anything else needs to be added.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to continue developing the page. Any assistance or ideas onto what I could do to develop it (improving/adding sections etc) would really help. I'm not great with citations but I have added as I have edited the page. If anyone would like to take the initiative to also edit the page and add more info, it'd be great. Not requested a peer review before either so hope I've done this correctly.

Thanks, M48SKY (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2024 (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 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 want to get it to Featured Article status and want to know some needed improvements.

Thanks, History6042 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article for FAC Status in the near future. I would be interested to know what people think about the general quality of the article and if there are any parts where more detail could be useful.

Thanks, Llewee (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like people's thoughts on two sections:

• The "Interpreations and criticism" section
• The "List" section

Specifically, I want to know if people think that these constitute WP:OR.

Thanks, Spookyaki (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I implemented changes how it functioned. As a list, it described various definitions of samurai, and editors were expected to use their own judgement to see if the historical figures qualified. This was an invitation to SYNTH and disputes. I discussed it with other editors, and it was decided to rely on if the character is referred to as a samurai in RS. I wonder if the list can be further improved and changes made to further reflect reliable sources over OR.

Thanks, Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2024 (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 would like a review for neutrality and MOS covering the entire article in preparation for a potential FAC (which would be my first one), and in general any other advice to prepare this article for FAC. Thanks. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I found the article to be confusing and badly structured, not only that, but the article was lacking key information. Therefore for the first 2 weeks of October this year (2024), I reshuffled, added, moved and created a few new paragraphs, culminating in this edit. However, my edits were later changed 10 days later and reverted to it's form prior to October (see discussion: Talk:Madoc), but editors were clear in watching the article and following my review precisely over the weeks and no one complained but in fact helped my progress in amending the article. Therefore, I am requesting the article Madoc be peer reviewed, but if at all possible, could someone please also look my copyedit dated 10/17 to compare and contrast which edit would be better for the overall presentation of the article, as in the copyedited or the original messy article..?

Thanks, Cltjames (talk) 14:42, 19 October 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]

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 I wish to submit the article for either a FA or GA nomination, depending on the result of the review. I believe this article has met all Good-article and Featured-article criterias. I would highly appreciate suggestions for any kind of improvement to the article or mistakes I may not have noticed. This is my first peer review request.

Thanks, jolielover♥talk 07:43, 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'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]

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 a featured list nom, so I'm doing a peer review instead. If whoever reviews this can compare it to the FL criteria, that would be great. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Military history: Sher Shah Suri • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • Hiroshima Maidens • German Jewish military personnel of World War II • Outline of George Washington • Central Powers