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'm interested in getting feedback prior to a Featured Article nomination. In particular, any comments on technical aspects from an average reader would be useful to prevent it from being too dry and technical. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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... 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'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 want to take this thing up to FAC one of these days; but it's in a somewhat tricky position. Academic sources *exclusively* take one side of the debate here, and I'm unsure how that jives with the comprehensive coverage of the subject that the FA criteria demand. I'd like it if anyone who has experience taking controversial (esp. controversial cultural issue) articles to FAC can take a look at it, and to see what else I can do to make this article shine! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 12 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.
