This
WikiProject LGBT studies project page is
archived and is no longer actively maintained. Visit the main project page to find current content. |
The LGBT WikiProject peer reviews articles on request. This is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement. It is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate - however, the process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality though requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive as there is little for readers to comment on. This process is not an academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Many articles which are supported by the LGBT Wikiproject are also within the scope of other WikiProjects, many of which have peer reviews departments are well. The peer review chosen is entirely at the discretion of the editor concerned.
If you are having trouble getting reviews, please contact any of the editors below and they will be happy to help you if they can.
WikiProject peer reviews
This inactive or historical peer review page has had its instructions updated for posterity's sake. That's because there is now a
Wikipedia Peer Review that peer reviews can be listed at, and the old instructions were out of date and may cause problems (or disappointment as not many people may see your review). If this page ever becomes active again, see
here for a way to keep reviews up to date.
To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Desmond Napoles
Interested in a general review for a new article I put together. Please also provide feedback or make changes if the style does not match Project LGBT studies's guidelines for trans subjects. Thank you! Luminum ( talk) 18:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I just translated this from nl: (partly written by me as well), then extended it using sources cited at es:, so it probably contains some Dutchisms. I'm not an expert in LGBT history. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 23:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a COI and am trying to help address promotional concerns about its contents in a fair way. Assistance on improving tone of article to better comply with bio policies would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Varnent ( talk)( COI) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been contentious since 2007 and is currently the sum of its content wars. It needs a proper editorial and authorial approach. NetNus ( talk) 09:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I created the Gay Women's Alternative article this past week while doing archival research on the roots of lesbian community development in DC. I was surprised that an article had not been created about a very important organization that existed between 1980 and 1993 in DC. I am interested in a general review of the article and would love for other contributors to add their knowledge to it! Most of my resources/citations are coming from the online archive provided by The Rainbow History Project and the GWA print archives only available at the Historical Society of Washington, DC at the Kiplinger Library. I would love for feedback and additional edits if you know more about the organization! Thanks. Kelsey Brannan ( talk)
Lady Gaga is increasingly and undeniably becoming the gay icon - I think it's obvious that she really cares for the LGBT community - and at the heart, is a girl evidently who wants social justice. As a gay guy, Gaga is my icon. A lot of my gay friends, men and women, are fans and consider her iconic. It's not just the gay community she cares for - most "gay icons" only consider the G of LGBT - Gaga, however, recognises that LGBT individuals are part of a community, not just a fan base. I created this article as a proud gay fan and as an avid follower of Gaga. I plan, sometime in the near future, to have this article in the main space at Lady Gaga as gay icon, but for now, I'm trying to get it to as high of a standard as I can before its potential public debut. I would love it if you found it suitable to give it a read and review. Highlight some positives/negatives maybe? Thank you in advance. xo - Stephenjamesx ( talk) 23:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion.
Eisfbnore (
talk ·
contribs) suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at
WP:Featured list candidates — but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ۞ Tbhotch ™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments by Tbhotch
Thank you very much, I will get right on addressing the above comments, and note it here. :) -- Cirt ( talk) 11:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Resolved points from toolbox peer review suggestions. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Notes on toolbox peer review suggestions
|
Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,
I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a student of gender & sexuality history. I was frustrated that it was easy to find specific people who have identified as homosexual/LGBT on Wikipedia, but that only paints one side of the picture. I started developing this list as a beginning resource for people to trace the currents that have defamed, undermined, and demonized gay/homosexual/queer culture from a broad historical perspective. The list seems like it will grow too long to be contained within the page on Homophobia.
Another writer noted that the title of the list can seem anachronistic since the term LGBT didn't exist for most of history, and might also not be accurate since people on the list may not have specifically identified themselves as anti-gay/homosexual/queer even though they enacted or promoted prejudices against gay people/homosexuals/queers. That writer suggested a title something like "Historical figures who have persecuted homosexuals". That seems to work for me, although the extent of what constitutes "persecution" might be open to interpretation. While St. Augustine describing homosexuality as a dreadful sin, for instance, doesn't seem like outright persecution, it certainly was influential in setting up a longstanding system of persecution. Maybe "List of Prominent Figures in the History of Homophobia"? I'd like more input from others, so I'm requesting this peer review to help with a more accurate title. Markwiki ( talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Bruce is highly underrated and unknown for the enormous body of work he produces every year for many of show biz' top names and seeing his name in the Academy Awards credits. I hope to make this article much improved and take a giant leap in class and priority (IMHO priority should have been higher in the first place.) Thank you for your attention. DocOfSoc ( talk) 07:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to editing articles in Wikipedia. Another editor seems to have resisted others' changes and some that I have proposed. I feel a little intimidated. Andy54321 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is about the case currently on appeal in Florida, which could overturn the gay adoption ban there. I'm interested in a general review. I want to help expand Wikipedia's coverage of legal cases related to LGBT rights and this is my first attempt. Thanks. Viciouslies ( talk) 23:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments added by Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I just want to start off by saying it's very apparent that a lot of hard work went into this article, and it really shows. There's just a few things that need to be done to improve it. Some are big, some are small. But really, it's a great first go.
The first sentence should be split into two sentences or shortened to make it clearer. You've also just given away the ending of the case in the lead without any mention of what happened in between. Nothing wrong with giving away the ending, the lead should be a summary of the article, but you need to include the in-between parts as well. You could also take out a lot of the detail here and simply say: "As a result of the case the plaintiff was granted legal guardianship" or something similar.
We don't need to know what state to boys were in when they arrived in foster care. It's pertinent in the court case but it isn't pertinent to the court case itself which is what this article should be focussing on. Better to focus on when they arrived, how long they were there etc. etc.
'Thriving in their new home' isn't something we can categorically state, even if a source stated it. It isn't neutral to the facts of the matter. What is important is that a judge terminated the parental rights of the boys' biological parents, and that Martin contacted the ACLU.
Similarly stating what Martin knew, however true, is veering dangerously close to a third person narrative rather than an encyclopedic article.
What studies did the ACLU cite? This would be very good to know. Similarly, you're painting the plaintiffs in a good light by vaguely mentioning their studies and the defendents' witness in a bad light by making the assertion that his evidence had been discredited. This either needs a source or needs to be removed immediately. A more balanced take on the evidence presented/witnesses would be better. Doesn't mean you have to not mention that the evidence was discredited, or that the plaintiffs evidence was widely accepted, just means you have to have an equally scrupulous mind and lots of sources, when discussing both sets of evidence.
There should probably be a section dedicated to the outcome of the trial rather than just a paragraph in another section.
More about the appeal please!
Looking for ideas to improve the quality of the article. -- Scarpy ( talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done a lot of work on this article recently, and would like to to be evaluated. I plan on pushing it up to GA-class soon, and I would like some feedback on the work i've done. Today I added 3 new sources and substantially cleaned up and expanded the coverage of the article. I have a fourth source on its way via inter-library loan, which I hope I can get a significant amount of information out of. I think that with some work, this could be FA-class before too long. Firestorm Talk 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to GA-class or later, FA-class.
Thanks, Extremepro ( talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Tintor2 ( talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an article cleanup tag on this page and I want to know if the quality of the article is such that it can be removed. This is a controversial article. There is currently a POV dispute. I am not looking for anything related to that dispute. Simply is the article good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. I am seeking at least two reviews before doing anything. Hfarmer ( talk) 06:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at
good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.
I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done extensive work on it with very little external input. Ultimately, I want to know how to get this article to GA, then FA, despite the fact that it is a BLP of a particularly controversial figure. I've no GA/FA particpation so far, so I could use help with process advice, as well as article feedback. Ultimately, I want this article to be suitable to appear on Wikipedia's front page upon Dobson's death.
Thanks, Jclemens ( talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
As for experience in GA and FA, watch WP:GAN and read some successful and unsuccessful GA nominations to see what people are looking for in these reviews (a model biography article would also be a good idea - there are lots of Bio FAs). I would then watch WP:FAC when the time comes for FA. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a stub and then flushed it out in a day, and I think it has potential to go to GA or higher. It has been through a copy edit and proofreading by the League of Copyeditors, now I would like to get feedback and collaboration on what needs to be done to further improve this to FA (aside from getting it from 20k to 50k). MrPrada ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) All in all I think this is a really good article. There are a few things which need to be changed though (most of them are very very minor). I've listed them below in the order that they appear in the article. Hope it helps and good luck!
I think there is some room for improvement to reach FA with this article, but I would like to see what everyone else thinks needs to be done to improve it. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hot women with picket signs! I'd like to submit for GA and I've not written an article about a political activist so I'm looking for feedback that I've covered as many bases as I can. Please let me know if there are glaring omissions. Thanks! -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Great article, Moni, I really enjoyed reading it. Here's a few thoughts:
That's all I can really see for now. -- Beloved Freak 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the translation of the featured German article
de:BDSM. It has been copy edited by
User:Jeffpw.
The missing content from the older :en version was mostly integrated, additional references have been added. Further references might be usefull, please feel free to add. ;-)
Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to Good article and FA-Class on :de, I hope this review will help to move it to an higher level. --
Nemissimo (
talk) 11:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting peer review for this article because 1) It is comprehensive in nature; 2) contains inline citations; 3) contains practically every citation I can find; 3) contains quality images which relate specifically to the content of the article; and 4) I think it'll be a Good Article candidate fairly soon. This is the first step toward that. Thanks! - Tim1965 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I just finished copying and posting this article from my sandbox. I would like an honest review and to find more cites, preferably better reviews than I found for some of his films! I also desperately need proof that he has a partner -- somebody may consider this libel! Can you all please read, copy-edit, and find cites? Thanks in advance. Bearian 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed my article Níð has been found good enough to be tagged by your project since last December, being rated B-Class. However, I've found no information such as a held discussion under which criteria my article had been assessed so, and curiously enough, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology tagged and rated my article in the same class half a year ago, so I'd like to know where it's still lacking (and what qualified it to not score lower than B-Class either). In this regard, I've been pondering these issues:
I have questions about the extent to which NAMBLA played apart in the gay rights movement and also I think there are POV issues with this article. Jmm6f488 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering this article for B class and ultimately would like to nominate it for GA class. Varnent
I guess I'll review this in accordance with WP:WIAGA
This article isn't really close to good article status. It's definitely still start-class, and will probably require a full rewrite with more, better sources.- Wafulz 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added some references of criticism, but that section could be expanded quite a bit. Another criticism I didn't include is that the organization is "too mainstream". I also organized it a bit. -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Also considering this article for B class and ultimately would like to nominate it for GA class. Varnent
This is looking pretty good so far. A couple of things:
Hope some of this helps! -- Beloved freak 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I am shortly to be doing a Jumpaclass for Robbie Ross, and because his life is most often written about through the context of Oscar's life, I'm going to be wading through every Oscar biography I can get my hands on. Which means I may as well get some work done on Oscar's article as well while I have the material in front of me (after I've finished the Jumpaclass). Immediate issues I can see are the short unhelpful lead and a lack of inline citations, but I haven't given the article that close an inspection. Reviews with an eye to an eventual FAC would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 miles, use 30 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30 miles.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
The suggestions above are automatically generated so I don't know how many are generated from quotes rather than your actual article, anyway, I would suggest expanding the lead. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has some good parts, but many of the lists need to be changed into prose and whole sections on Wilde's writings need to be included. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Missing sections:
Content and organization:
Prose:
Images:
Other:
Let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I look forward to reading the improved article. Wilde is an important figure and I'm glad someone has taken on the project of writing this article. Awadewit | talk 11:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This
WikiProject LGBT studies project page is
archived and is no longer actively maintained. Visit the main project page to find current content. |
The LGBT WikiProject peer reviews articles on request. This is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement. It is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate - however, the process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality though requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive as there is little for readers to comment on. This process is not an academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Many articles which are supported by the LGBT Wikiproject are also within the scope of other WikiProjects, many of which have peer reviews departments are well. The peer review chosen is entirely at the discretion of the editor concerned.
If you are having trouble getting reviews, please contact any of the editors below and they will be happy to help you if they can.
WikiProject peer reviews
This inactive or historical peer review page has had its instructions updated for posterity's sake. That's because there is now a
Wikipedia Peer Review that peer reviews can be listed at, and the old instructions were out of date and may cause problems (or disappointment as not many people may see your review). If this page ever becomes active again, see
here for a way to keep reviews up to date.
To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Desmond Napoles
Interested in a general review for a new article I put together. Please also provide feedback or make changes if the style does not match Project LGBT studies's guidelines for trans subjects. Thank you! Luminum ( talk) 18:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I just translated this from nl: (partly written by me as well), then extended it using sources cited at es:, so it probably contains some Dutchisms. I'm not an expert in LGBT history. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 23:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a COI and am trying to help address promotional concerns about its contents in a fair way. Assistance on improving tone of article to better comply with bio policies would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Varnent ( talk)( COI) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been contentious since 2007 and is currently the sum of its content wars. It needs a proper editorial and authorial approach. NetNus ( talk) 09:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I created the Gay Women's Alternative article this past week while doing archival research on the roots of lesbian community development in DC. I was surprised that an article had not been created about a very important organization that existed between 1980 and 1993 in DC. I am interested in a general review of the article and would love for other contributors to add their knowledge to it! Most of my resources/citations are coming from the online archive provided by The Rainbow History Project and the GWA print archives only available at the Historical Society of Washington, DC at the Kiplinger Library. I would love for feedback and additional edits if you know more about the organization! Thanks. Kelsey Brannan ( talk)
Lady Gaga is increasingly and undeniably becoming the gay icon - I think it's obvious that she really cares for the LGBT community - and at the heart, is a girl evidently who wants social justice. As a gay guy, Gaga is my icon. A lot of my gay friends, men and women, are fans and consider her iconic. It's not just the gay community she cares for - most "gay icons" only consider the G of LGBT - Gaga, however, recognises that LGBT individuals are part of a community, not just a fan base. I created this article as a proud gay fan and as an avid follower of Gaga. I plan, sometime in the near future, to have this article in the main space at Lady Gaga as gay icon, but for now, I'm trying to get it to as high of a standard as I can before its potential public debut. I would love it if you found it suitable to give it a read and review. Highlight some positives/negatives maybe? Thank you in advance. xo - Stephenjamesx ( talk) 23:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion.
Eisfbnore (
talk ·
contribs) suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at
WP:Featured list candidates — but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ۞ Tbhotch ™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments by Tbhotch
Thank you very much, I will get right on addressing the above comments, and note it here. :) -- Cirt ( talk) 11:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Resolved points from toolbox peer review suggestions. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Notes on toolbox peer review suggestions
|
Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,
I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a student of gender & sexuality history. I was frustrated that it was easy to find specific people who have identified as homosexual/LGBT on Wikipedia, but that only paints one side of the picture. I started developing this list as a beginning resource for people to trace the currents that have defamed, undermined, and demonized gay/homosexual/queer culture from a broad historical perspective. The list seems like it will grow too long to be contained within the page on Homophobia.
Another writer noted that the title of the list can seem anachronistic since the term LGBT didn't exist for most of history, and might also not be accurate since people on the list may not have specifically identified themselves as anti-gay/homosexual/queer even though they enacted or promoted prejudices against gay people/homosexuals/queers. That writer suggested a title something like "Historical figures who have persecuted homosexuals". That seems to work for me, although the extent of what constitutes "persecution" might be open to interpretation. While St. Augustine describing homosexuality as a dreadful sin, for instance, doesn't seem like outright persecution, it certainly was influential in setting up a longstanding system of persecution. Maybe "List of Prominent Figures in the History of Homophobia"? I'd like more input from others, so I'm requesting this peer review to help with a more accurate title. Markwiki ( talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Bruce is highly underrated and unknown for the enormous body of work he produces every year for many of show biz' top names and seeing his name in the Academy Awards credits. I hope to make this article much improved and take a giant leap in class and priority (IMHO priority should have been higher in the first place.) Thank you for your attention. DocOfSoc ( talk) 07:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to editing articles in Wikipedia. Another editor seems to have resisted others' changes and some that I have proposed. I feel a little intimidated. Andy54321 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is about the case currently on appeal in Florida, which could overturn the gay adoption ban there. I'm interested in a general review. I want to help expand Wikipedia's coverage of legal cases related to LGBT rights and this is my first attempt. Thanks. Viciouslies ( talk) 23:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments added by Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I just want to start off by saying it's very apparent that a lot of hard work went into this article, and it really shows. There's just a few things that need to be done to improve it. Some are big, some are small. But really, it's a great first go.
The first sentence should be split into two sentences or shortened to make it clearer. You've also just given away the ending of the case in the lead without any mention of what happened in between. Nothing wrong with giving away the ending, the lead should be a summary of the article, but you need to include the in-between parts as well. You could also take out a lot of the detail here and simply say: "As a result of the case the plaintiff was granted legal guardianship" or something similar.
We don't need to know what state to boys were in when they arrived in foster care. It's pertinent in the court case but it isn't pertinent to the court case itself which is what this article should be focussing on. Better to focus on when they arrived, how long they were there etc. etc.
'Thriving in their new home' isn't something we can categorically state, even if a source stated it. It isn't neutral to the facts of the matter. What is important is that a judge terminated the parental rights of the boys' biological parents, and that Martin contacted the ACLU.
Similarly stating what Martin knew, however true, is veering dangerously close to a third person narrative rather than an encyclopedic article.
What studies did the ACLU cite? This would be very good to know. Similarly, you're painting the plaintiffs in a good light by vaguely mentioning their studies and the defendents' witness in a bad light by making the assertion that his evidence had been discredited. This either needs a source or needs to be removed immediately. A more balanced take on the evidence presented/witnesses would be better. Doesn't mean you have to not mention that the evidence was discredited, or that the plaintiffs evidence was widely accepted, just means you have to have an equally scrupulous mind and lots of sources, when discussing both sets of evidence.
There should probably be a section dedicated to the outcome of the trial rather than just a paragraph in another section.
More about the appeal please!
Looking for ideas to improve the quality of the article. -- Scarpy ( talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done a lot of work on this article recently, and would like to to be evaluated. I plan on pushing it up to GA-class soon, and I would like some feedback on the work i've done. Today I added 3 new sources and substantially cleaned up and expanded the coverage of the article. I have a fourth source on its way via inter-library loan, which I hope I can get a significant amount of information out of. I think that with some work, this could be FA-class before too long. Firestorm Talk 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to GA-class or later, FA-class.
Thanks, Extremepro ( talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Tintor2 ( talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an article cleanup tag on this page and I want to know if the quality of the article is such that it can be removed. This is a controversial article. There is currently a POV dispute. I am not looking for anything related to that dispute. Simply is the article good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. I am seeking at least two reviews before doing anything. Hfarmer ( talk) 06:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at
good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.
I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done extensive work on it with very little external input. Ultimately, I want to know how to get this article to GA, then FA, despite the fact that it is a BLP of a particularly controversial figure. I've no GA/FA particpation so far, so I could use help with process advice, as well as article feedback. Ultimately, I want this article to be suitable to appear on Wikipedia's front page upon Dobson's death.
Thanks, Jclemens ( talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
As for experience in GA and FA, watch WP:GAN and read some successful and unsuccessful GA nominations to see what people are looking for in these reviews (a model biography article would also be a good idea - there are lots of Bio FAs). I would then watch WP:FAC when the time comes for FA. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a stub and then flushed it out in a day, and I think it has potential to go to GA or higher. It has been through a copy edit and proofreading by the League of Copyeditors, now I would like to get feedback and collaboration on what needs to be done to further improve this to FA (aside from getting it from 20k to 50k). MrPrada ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) All in all I think this is a really good article. There are a few things which need to be changed though (most of them are very very minor). I've listed them below in the order that they appear in the article. Hope it helps and good luck!
I think there is some room for improvement to reach FA with this article, but I would like to see what everyone else thinks needs to be done to improve it. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hot women with picket signs! I'd like to submit for GA and I've not written an article about a political activist so I'm looking for feedback that I've covered as many bases as I can. Please let me know if there are glaring omissions. Thanks! -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Great article, Moni, I really enjoyed reading it. Here's a few thoughts:
That's all I can really see for now. -- Beloved Freak 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the translation of the featured German article
de:BDSM. It has been copy edited by
User:Jeffpw.
The missing content from the older :en version was mostly integrated, additional references have been added. Further references might be usefull, please feel free to add. ;-)
Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to Good article and FA-Class on :de, I hope this review will help to move it to an higher level. --
Nemissimo (
talk) 11:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting peer review for this article because 1) It is comprehensive in nature; 2) contains inline citations; 3) contains practically every citation I can find; 3) contains quality images which relate specifically to the content of the article; and 4) I think it'll be a Good Article candidate fairly soon. This is the first step toward that. Thanks! - Tim1965 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I just finished copying and posting this article from my sandbox. I would like an honest review and to find more cites, preferably better reviews than I found for some of his films! I also desperately need proof that he has a partner -- somebody may consider this libel! Can you all please read, copy-edit, and find cites? Thanks in advance. Bearian 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed my article Níð has been found good enough to be tagged by your project since last December, being rated B-Class. However, I've found no information such as a held discussion under which criteria my article had been assessed so, and curiously enough, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology tagged and rated my article in the same class half a year ago, so I'd like to know where it's still lacking (and what qualified it to not score lower than B-Class either). In this regard, I've been pondering these issues:
I have questions about the extent to which NAMBLA played apart in the gay rights movement and also I think there are POV issues with this article. Jmm6f488 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering this article for B class and ultimately would like to nominate it for GA class. Varnent
I guess I'll review this in accordance with WP:WIAGA
This article isn't really close to good article status. It's definitely still start-class, and will probably require a full rewrite with more, better sources.- Wafulz 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added some references of criticism, but that section could be expanded quite a bit. Another criticism I didn't include is that the organization is "too mainstream". I also organized it a bit. -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Also considering this article for B class and ultimately would like to nominate it for GA class. Varnent
This is looking pretty good so far. A couple of things:
Hope some of this helps! -- Beloved freak 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I am shortly to be doing a Jumpaclass for Robbie Ross, and because his life is most often written about through the context of Oscar's life, I'm going to be wading through every Oscar biography I can get my hands on. Which means I may as well get some work done on Oscar's article as well while I have the material in front of me (after I've finished the Jumpaclass). Immediate issues I can see are the short unhelpful lead and a lack of inline citations, but I haven't given the article that close an inspection. Reviews with an eye to an eventual FAC would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 miles, use 30 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30 miles.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
The suggestions above are automatically generated so I don't know how many are generated from quotes rather than your actual article, anyway, I would suggest expanding the lead. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has some good parts, but many of the lists need to be changed into prose and whole sections on Wilde's writings need to be included. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Missing sections:
Content and organization:
Prose:
Images:
Other:
Let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I look forward to reading the improved article. Wilde is an important figure and I'm glad someone has taken on the project of writing this article. Awadewit | talk 11:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)