Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've extensively revised and expanded it from the ground up, with careful attention to sourcing, structure, and style. I'd appreciate feedback on its overall quality, especially in terms of comprehensiveness, neutrality, formatting, and whether it's on track for Good Article status.
Stray Kids participated in JYP Entertainment's "Every Dream Matters!" (EDM) campaign to help support terminally ill children's wishes. This one lacks inline citation. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
refs 1 (Dazed), and 15 and 28 (Billboard) are not linked. Several "Korea Music Content Association" references can be linked. 206 ref (Teen Vogue) isn't linked. Check whether some of the publications can be linked to Korean wiki. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recently listed GA and I plan on submitting it for FA status. It currently could use some work in its production section, themes section, and potentially the reception section. My main concern is that the article may be difficult to follow due to its structuring (particularly in Production). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status, but I am unsure about the structure, tone, flow, content, or other aspects. I’d really appreciate any feedback on the article as a whole, Thanks, Lililolol (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm kinda confused about its current status. This was written years ago when the notability guidelines were not that strict and tried researching more about the character so I'm not sure what material should I get rid of. If anybody finds a more useful source for the reception, I would appreciate it.
i've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status. after a thorough review by @LastJabberwocky, i'd like to take this to the next level, especially with the upcoming 2025 remake by spike lee! also tagging Eiga-Kevin2 who kindly signalled they may have time to look over this when they're less busy.
given it would be my first time promoting to featured article, i need a general lookover in all technical and MOS aspects. image size is something i'm aware needs to be addressed, and will get to it soon. generally the sources cited are high quality (with a couple of exceptions) and the cited material is itself correct and close to the source. i also plan to request a copyedit beforehand. please let me know my shortcomings!
I will take a look at this; I had the GAN on my to-do list for quite a while never got around to it. I'll give you a heads-up that this will probably take a fair amount of time as my attention will be divided by several different things both on Wikipedia and off. As a starting point, I note that there are several unlinked names in the cast list for people who do not have an article on English-language Wikipedia but do on Japanese-language Wikipedia, and I would recommend linking these via Template:Interlanguage link. This is not a WP:Featured article requirement, but it is a best practice. TompaDompa (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a new article about the comic book series Grim by Stephanie Phillips. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like outside opinions on ways of improving this article, particularly in the structure, referencing, and tone.
I'm a relatively new Wikipedia contributor so please forgive any obvious mistakes or omissions i might have made. that being said, any one feels thay can contribut should freel free to edit or leave a comment on the articles talk page.
I am requesting a peer review for the article Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. The article has been extensively revised to include a well-developed lead, restructured and fully cited sections (Production, Themes and analysis, Reception, Legacy, Home media), and is aligned with WP:FILM and WP:FAC standards.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- Comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Inline citations and reliability of sources
- Reception balance (Indian and international)
- Any prose, style, or formatting issues
@Thefallguy2025: It has been over a month and there hasn't been a comment here yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest asking for comments at the Wikiprojects attached to this article and reviewing other PRs and FACs. I also suggest asking for feedback from a FA mentor If not, can you close this? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo. I'm just gonna skim the prose. Note that I'm not experienced with FAC so don't take me too seriously.
...but decided to release them as they were after full-band renditions were deemed unsatisfactory. Can't tell if this is a typo or if I'm just reading this wrong. From how I understand it, it could be ...but decided to release them after full-band renditions were deemed unsatisfactory.
I originally had the link like this but wanted to make sure readers knew 'American' applied to 'films' and 'folk music' and not just literature but I see what you mean. Fixed – zmbro(talk) (cont)00:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and folk music when writing the Nebraska songs. ---> ...and folk music when writing Nebraska. For conciseness.
Fixed
"...the tracks tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collar individuals who try..." ---> "...the tracks tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collarworkers who try..."
...praised the album as brave and artistically daring and Springsteen's most personal record up to that point." ---> ...praised the album as brave and artistically daring as it became Springsteen's most personal record up to that point.
Rewording it to say "as it became" would imply a more fact-based analysis when it was described this way by initial reviewers. I added a comma after "daring" – zmbro(talk) (cont)00:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The songs on Nebraska tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collar individuals who try to succeed in life but fail at every turn." ---> "Nebraska tell the stories of ordinary, blue-collar workers who try to succeed in life but fail at every turn." Same as the lead, plus conciseness.
...or letting him go, ultimately going with the latter. ---> ...or letting him go, ultimately choosing the latter.
Done
"Used Cars" uses Springsteen's childhood to describe his own experiences with his father and differences in social classes growing up. Perhaps "Used Cars" describes Springsteen's childhood experiences with his father and differences in social classes growing up.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to potentially get it to Featured article status - or, failing that, merely get it to as good as it possibly can be. Mainly looking for prose suggestions and structural improvements.
I was honestly not expecting a topic like this to be an potential FAC. I think it's a great article, but it may be a deadend to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". TzarN64 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that’s a very very short featured article that I was not expecting. That gives me a lot more confidence that this Wario advertisement could potentially be a featured article one day. TzarN64 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... at this rate,, I might as well make this a featured article. In the two years of trying/failing to write this thing up, I've essentially scoured the earth for sources and I feel it now covers most if not all bases in terms of content: however, I know I have likely overlooked some things or am aware of things I am struggling to address that I desperately need an outside opinion/comment on, especially on gender (having tried and failed to address this for 2 years and i am tired/head done in). the last two years of versions until the recent march 2025 rewrite have all sucked because I was still processing things whilst trying to write, instead of thinking about the quality of my writing. I need outside comment, because I just want to be over and done with this and I think i can actually do it now, for once.
Stuff I'm aware needs doing
reduction of quotes and rewriting in my own phrasing
reducing number of citations where possible (i.e. random online blog interviews: reviews, in composition and reception, are currently all from reliable sources) to most important ones
i need to check up on some more touring citations: i.e. for sevendust february 2000 tour and i think there was some other tour towards the end of the year
Need to change "Choke" sample because it is citing the band's press kit. Will likely replace this with "Brackish".
Stuff I'm stuck on how to address
Gender issues/gendered writing: pervasive issue in reviews/media that the band didn't like, morgan/mercedes say the media reception to album led to stigma later down the line
Neutrality especially on gender; again because it is a contentious issue. especially in legacy/aftermath section(s) per above point. also the third paragraph of music and lyrics overview which deals with misconceptions about lyrics and song titles and the band's contemporary denial of feminist associations to their lyrics (or smth). either way, i don't know if i'm making a big deal out this than it should be.
Idk. I want to actually get this right for once. I want reviewers to call me out in the bluntest and harshest of tones so I can actually get this right. I am tired of failing and want do succeed at this for once, since I basically don't plan on doing another FA (that isn't an fa list; i.e. discography) after this. // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon your peer-review request never having looked at the peer-review list before. I don't possess the skills to provide criticism, and I have yet to figure out how to separate one person's work from another's in the context of a review, but I'd still like to thank you for reminding me of this album!
I saw "Spit (Album)" in the list, giggled to myself and thought "hah, the Kittie album was awesome, I wonder what album the article actually refers to!" and then realised that it actually was about the Kittie album! What're the chances, eh?
I had the fortune of seeing Spit played live at Fryshuset (in Stockholm, Sweden) in early 2002. It was a rather heartfelt concert (all things considered), the band seemingly feeling somewhat "at home" in the Stockholm winter climate. I recall nearing the end of the concert, someone (probably Morgan) mentioning the snow, and someone in the audience screamed back "We fscking hate snow!", leading to the band and crowd to erupt in laughter. I also recall that someone in security made me remove photos I'd taken with my (very new at the time digital) camera, which was a bit if a bummer; otherwise I'd have some cool photos to share!
I don't think you desperately need opinions/commentary - the article reads just fine in my opinion and - at least for this reader - it evoked lots of good memories. Thank you for the work you've put in, maybe one day I'll be able to correct something! ;) Gammy (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it did lmao
I kinda do need the opinions because of how long I have been trying/failing to fix this (2 years+) to the point I no longer feel able to rely wholly on myself. It's more a content issue mostly, I have the prose (or at least, style) just about nailed down now, and found pretty much all useful sources. I did a very bad job when I first started out and though I have improved I still feel like I should get advice/outside opinion for prose and potential bias reasons (the latter bc its been 2 years... yeah i hate this)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to ask what improvements I can make to this article. I'm aiming for C class, but in a perfect world, possibly GA.
I'm sorry I wasn't been able to get back to you immediately, as I've been drowned in a swamp of schoolwork and my personal life, but I was able to finish all of your comments. Footnotes are also given.
Feel free to make another comment if you think I've missed something.
The lede of the article should not have any info that the article body doesn't, it also should have no references as it should be a summary.
Could an infobox be added.
Any awards other than from Michelin.
"Their brand identity has been characterized by high-end dining experiences and elaborate restaurant designs." is very promotional sounding and should be removed.
The founders should be added to the article body.
All souces should have access dates, source dates, archive links, archive dates, and consistent date formatting.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to Featured Article at some point in the future, and wish to get a gauge for what more I need to add or rewrite before making a nomination. I've done a few FLs before, so I have a few ideas of what I need done, but I wished to get some more input since FA is a whole new beast for me as an editor. Please feel free to tear into any and all parts of the article with this, and all advice is appreciated!
I'll start a source review in 2 weeks' time. Please trout me if I don't.
This is unrelated, but I fear the admittedly funny image of Toby Fox covered in foam has to go. MOS:IMAGEREL issues have arised over its use on his article, and the same issue seems to persist here. An image of someone covered in foam is ambiguous enough to not be properly illustrative. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 14:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse 5 is a wording error; the sentence is discussing abilities the mounts can use that can be unlocked throughout the game. Changed word from "tools" to "abilities" to clarify, let me know if I can make this more clear. For 96, which ref do you mean? In editing mode ref 96 is Game Revolution, which lists the 6/10 score at the bottom, while outside of editing mode it's VG247, which lists the 4/5 score at the bottom as well.
I am hoping that I can improve this article to GA. However, I don't have any experience yet of improving typical video game, especially a long-term game like this that is constantly still being updated. I am not sure where to star or people were would be able to get those reliable sources for the gameplay section since its kinda hard to find (I see only few at google search), and was wondering if I uses a lot of primary soruces for gameplay section, mk9would be fine? Need some guidance. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently helped the article achieve GA status, and I'm hoping to eventually nominate this for FA, perhaps at the end of June or in July. Any suggestions on how to improve the article for a future FAC nom would be appreciated.
My goal with this article is to take it to FAC (this would be my second). I would especially appreciate help rewording any awkward phrasing and assuring that the article is fully on-topic (I'm worried it may be a bit too long, but I may be overthinking). Of course, any type of feedback at all would be excellent.
At some point, I would like to nominate this article for FAC. I have not nominated one before, so this would be my first one. I would like a second set of eyes that would be able to give me feedback on anything that can be improved and if it will have a solid chance at FAC.
helloo mind if I just put one picture on Dan Caine article.? If previously is too many and too detail, is it oke if I just put one.? thank you very much and look forward Bettylamerdelaverda (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a 9th-century archdiocese in Central Europe where Old Church Slavonic liturgy was introduced. I've listed this article for peer review because I need input to improve its prose, comprehensiveness and neutrality. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Would benefit from a map of the region covered by the archbishopric .. even if it is not 100% certain what the borders are, any kind of map that shows approximately where in Europe it was is essential. The red/yellow/green map of Carol. empire is nice, but doesn't tell the reader where this archbish. was
Duration/dates: When did the archbishp begin and end? That should be in the Lead, very near the beginning.
Conflict not made clear: The article mentions a conflict: Since they refused to obey, Wiching captured ... and .... did not put an end to his conflicts with the German clerics. It sounds like the conflict is important; but the conflict is not made clear to the reader. Is the conflict about the language used in church services (latin vs local language)? Or is it a simple power struggle between ambitious clergy?
Collapse contradicted by appointment of archbishop? ... asking him to restore church hierarchy in Moravia. The Pope agreed and sent his three legates to Moravia who consecrated an archbishop and three suffragan bishops. This section is about the "collapse" of the archbishopric ... but the end of the section says a new archbishop was consecrated. That seems contradictory. Doesn't "collapse" mean that thea archbishop position was eliminated, and the region merged with a neighboring archbishopric?
Best to restate important facts: Methodius quickly convinced the pope of the orthodoxy of his views in early ... There are a lot of people and events in this article: casual readers will have a hard time tracking them all. In this sentence (green above) the article should remind the reader what "his views" are, by restating them with a few words, inside this sentence.
Overall: the article has good prose, spelling, grammar and MOS (style).
The biggest improvement that can be made is helping readers see the big picture. The article is a rather dense list of facts (names & dates) ... and many readers may become confused. Each section and paragraph should have some more "top level" words reminding the reader what is happening in the overall narrative. Words like "... continuing his efforts to satisfy the pope's request ..." or "... attempting to enlarge his personal power at the expense of .." or " .... contrary to what the neighboring Germany archbishop wanted ..." etec. [note that I'm making those facts/words up ... they are simply to illustrate the kind of wording needed].
As a history article, it should tell a story, so try to string it together more by linking events & thoughts together throughout time. Noleander (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing this article for peer review due to an admitted COI, as described on the Talk page. I'd like an objective opinion whether I should improve this article towards a high rating. Much thanks -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I can't follow the rules strongly recommended for COI editing -- it's impractical for me to limit myself to suggesting changes on the talk page -- however on the other I am concerned I may be giving undue attention to one unit or action in this operation because my father was a combatant. At this point, I really can't leave articles related to the 10th Mountain in WWII untouched because I'm probably the only Wikipedian with access to much of the source material. (If Wikipedia existed 40 years ago, when there were many more WWII veterans alive, COI would prevent untold contributors from directly contributing to many WWII-related articles.) Nonetheless, I'm invoking WP:IAR to create & edit these related articles. To which no one should object as long as I follow the usual rules of citing sources & NPOV, but I'd like the help of someone to avoid undue emphasis on details &/or unconscious bias. -- llywrch (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review in the hopes that I can get this up to FA quality by May 21. On that date, I expect to see an uptick in coverage on the tornado (yes, I had this at FAC less than a year it happened - I'm lucky it was so well documented!). I've addressed much of the original scrutiny from the FAC, and want to get this as high of a quality as I can by the time people come back here for its first anniversary.
I removed the coordinates as inappropriate for a linear event. Other tornado articles tend not to have them, and I hope that those that do were short runs or point to a town that was destroyed or something. Abductive (reasoning)15:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are few things I can directly point to with coordinates without synthesis; there's really only the tornado's touchdown and lifting points, Greenfield itself, and various points of damage. It's not too important to the article itself so the coordinates are probably best left out. Departure– (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I’m looking to make this a featured list, and if not that then I just want to see how it can be improved.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate this for FA eventually and would like to know what changes, beyond some expansion, are needed.
"fulvous" is a wonderful word, but prolly stick to dull orange for the lede
Done.
maybe sister taxon > closest relative?, But keep wiki link
Done.
pretty much all subsequent instances of Macrobdella decora should be M. decora
Macrobdella decora is North America east > M. decora is found in North America
Fixed.
why doesn't the map show the Mexican population?
It does. It's a red dot at the far bottom.
"the question remains unanswered" so it may or may not be panmitic? Just pure conjecture from the scientists? If there is some evidence say There is some evidence that..., or if there isn't say It is hypothesised or Scientists assume... or similar
" The species" > It is not conisdered...
Done.
"anticoagulant" > blood thinner
Done.
" species, and a comparsion" new sentence beginning: A comparison
Done
as "comparatively rare". > comparatively rare." move punc
Done
"Macro simply means big," || in what language?
Ugh. The source doesn't say but it's obviously derived from wikt:μακρός. I'll see if I can dig something up that actually says that.
"A common name for the species is the North American medicinal..." > It is commonly known as the...
Is the "body" the whole length of the leech or not?
"A jawed leech, Macrobdella decora..." > not a fan of this construction, just skip the A jawed leech, it is implicit
"and found that it could not tolerate hypertonicity," || does this refer to overly salty or non-salty solutions?
"The most widely distributed Macrobdella species, M. decora, is found i" > Being the most widely distributed Macrobdella species, M. decora is found in...
Interactions with humans could be a new section> "Uses" or maybe "History"
Conservation doesn't need a sub-sub section, just slap it in the distribution section.
I would like maybe a couple more images if that were possible?
This isn't a rule, but I think convention is to order Description above Taxonomy.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on improving it and want to bring this to GA someday. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks! Relativity ⚡️19:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CMD
Some redundancy in the lead about the lack of description. Saying "undescribed" with a link, probably fine. However, the "although this has yet to be published" is out of place. Firstly, a bit redundant if that is all it is trying to convey. Secondly, surely almost everything is yet to be published, rather than just that fact? "a scientific name has yet to be given" is a similar redundancy. Perhaps a lead rewrite should consolidate the implications for a lack of description into one paragraph.
"The name "Bosavi woolly rat" is still provisional", no source for this, or an explanation for how a non-scientific name can be "provisional".
History seems to mix together information about the crater with the chronological history. It is probably worth separating those topics. There is some location information in the Description section too.
"As of 2025, the Bosavi woolly rat does not have an official scientific name, but it is thought to be in the genus Mallomys, within the family Muridae". These are not exactly linked points, not having an official name is not quite the same as not considered a species, which is what would be the relevant information for genus inclusion.
"It is to be named by Dr. Kristofer Helgen" raises further questions. What does that mean? Is there a timeframe? We are a decade and a half from the initial discovery, so the "it is to be named" could have been an intention 15 years ago or last year.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for FAC and need feedback on how it could be improved to meet the criteria. As this is a very abstract article, I'm also looking for places that people find the most difficult to understand so I can try to improve how accessible it is.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a while since the last review. Me and @Warriorglance would like to send it to GAN and could use the feedback. Any specific advice would be very useful!
On reference 47, there is a Harv error that says: link from CITEREFDonabedMako doesn't point to any citation.
There are more of these harv errors. CITEREFAkgündüz2012, CITEREFArmbruster2002, CITEREFAtto2014, CITEREFAydin2000, CITEREFBardakciFreyberg-InanGieselLeisse2017, CITEREFBarsoum2008, etc. I would suggest installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js
The article mixes using SFNs and full references please only use one.
The lede should have no references as they should be in the article.
@LunaEclipse: Hey there! Good to see you're looking to improve this. I'll give some more detailed notes soon, but for now a couple things immediately stick out:
The "History" section gives an absurd amount of over-contextualisation. Half of it is recounting history before the polity was even established; much of this is also based on sources that were written years or even decades before the polity was established, so its relevance to the DAANES is entirely unclear. I'd recommend a drastic trimming of this and rewriting it based on books that are actually about the DAANES, which will give us a clearer picture of what early history is clearly relevant to the subject.
I agree; I do think we could remove a lot of info from that section, but I think some (limited) background on the Assad regime's Arabification and persecution of the Kurds and their culture in conjunction with the PKK and its insurgency might give the reader understanding on why this area exists. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article is based on news reports, rather than scholarly journal articles or books (despite an abundance of such sources on the subject). Some amount of reliance on news reports is inevitable due to the ongoing nature of this subject, but they should only be used when there is no better alternative. We should not still be citing news reports from a decade ago, there is absolutely a better alternative to be found for these.
The lead section is far too small for such a lengthy article and does not adequately summarise the scope of the article, instead providing a grab-bag of snapshots about the subject. It needs rewriting and expanding.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have improved on it significantly early in 2025. User:Bearian reassessed it from Start-class to B-class. I have thought about having a WP:GAN, but I would like a second opinion to see what I need to do to get it to GA status other than have the WP:GOCE copyedit it.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as part of preparing it for FAC with the goal of a Main Page appearance on the 40th anniversary of the crime early next year, I have substantially revised the article with material from a 2019 book about the case, and I cannot say it is similar to the version that was reviewed previously nor the GA version.
One problem I see here is this article cites legal cases quite a lot, and as Lazarus is still alive, we cannot do that per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If it is for information unrelated to living people that is fine, but we are using it for information about her as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The information in question is not so much about her as a person, it is about her legal cases.
I have supplemented the one cite for her not having reported the gun missing to the department, the one instance I could find where your argument about BLP being implicated seems valid, which had cited the appellate case, with a cite to McGough's book.
Other than that, the article does not use the appellate record to support any assertions about Lazarus that are independent of her being tried for and convicted of murder and otherwise unsupported by evidence (i.e., her Internet searches on Ruetten's name in the past were the result of a forensic examination of her computer, and uncontested by her); in fact most of it relates to procedural issues in the case which are broad legal issues that exist independently of BLP. I would further note that appellate cases really aren't primary sources by our definition (or even by the language of BLPPRIMARY), since very rarely do they make new findings of fact; they are concerned primarily with the legal ramifications of facts legally established or introduced as evidence at trial, with those findings having real-world consequences. This is more in accordance with secondary sources by our definition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPRIMARY says "do not use trial transcripts and other court records" about BLPs - the appellate record is of course a court record. Her legal cases are of course covered by that. I have always thought this rule was overly strict, but that is it as written. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it meant for us to not use any court documents, it would have said so explicitly. By saying "trial transcripts and other court records" it means to disfavor testimonial court records such as affidavits and depositions. It was written at a time (one I remember) when people were using that sort of document, regardless of whether it was actually submitted as evidence, or whether a case had even been filed, on the idea that since it was sworn under oath/penalty of perjury, that made it good for negative BLP assertions about a third party.
AFAIK there are plenty of BLPs, some of them FAs even, where we've used higher-level court decisions as sources without complaint.
As this is the second time in a couple of months that I've had this argument with someone, clearly I will have to initiate a discussion on WT:BLP to the effect of clarifying and updating that language. There have been a couple of discussions that have indicated increasing openness to using appellate decisions as BLP sources, particularly on procedural matters that do not touch on BLP.
I have mostly seen it be you cannot use any any legal document, that was my understanding. I would support a change, I have always viewed this as unnecessarily strict, so please ping me if you do.
It occurred to me that what might be the best option (as I do not think we should ask people as part of preparing articles for FA nominations to initiate discussions of policy amendments) would be to move most of the discussion of the appeal and the issues it considers to a separate article, People v. Lazarus, since it has been cited as a precedent in some other cases since then. The legal issues would be the point of the spinoff article, and it would certainly help shorten the article some more.
@TarnishedPath: I took a quick look through the article. Here are my thoughts below:
I added a citation needed tag. This should be resolved before the nomination.
The "Career" section has many one-sentence paragraphs. These should be merged together so it doesn't seem like a list.
Most of the sections are too long: I suggest 2-4 paragraphs per heading. Either use level 3 headings or trim the text and merge the paragraphs to make it more succinct.
What makes "Democracy's Watchdogs" a reliable source?
@Z1720, I've edited to directly address dot points 1, 2 and 4 above. I've also combined paragraphs in other sections which I hope address dot point 3 above. Regarding his person life, an LLM reckons that he's married to Rachel Baxendale who works for Murdoch press entities, however I've not been able to locate anything reliable confirming that. Please let me know if what I've done so far as adequately addressed your points and if there is anything further you would suggest. TarnishedPathtalk12:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it get to GA then FA status.
Some of the areas I think need discussion/work are:
Citation needed and any other tags to be dealt with.
Make sure all the cited material in the lead is covered in the body and then take any citations out of the lead. (Unless there are any statements in the lead that need citations per MOS:LEADCITE.)
Images. The 1968 images were uploaded as "own work" by an editor who on their user page says "I was born ... in the mid-60s." Sadly, I don't think that image is freely usable.
The 1970s and 1980s sections might need bit of expansion. I find Williams & Gadsby to be a good reference for what to include. Are there any particular matches/tournaments/incidents that are clearly missing? (Some seem to merit more than the current brief mention, e.g. 1983 UK Championship.)
The Playing style/Other media appearances/Personal life/Illness and death/Legacy sections may need some re-organisation.
I'm pretty sure there should be more to add about Legacy. I'll have a look around sources.
Performance and rankings timeline. WP:SNOOKER has sometimes talked about changing the format of these. A few different versions have got through GA/FAC reviews. What about the version here?
There may well be more to do that isn't covered in the points above. Pinging Armbrust who took this to Peer Review back in 2010, and Andygray110, Rodney Baggins, LowSelfEstidle and HurricaneHiggins who are also among the top authors by percentage. Also Lee Vilenski, AlH42 and Canary757 who have active snooker GA nominations. Apologies if the ping is unwelcome.
If cuegloss is provided for points, maybe it's also needed for frame?
Add cuegloss for breaks at the first mention.
In the second paragraph of the 1970s section, there are quite a few snooker-related terms. Could some of those be linked? I don't know how many, though.
In April 1976 - That link is weird. Given that the World Championship hasn't been mentioned for a while now, maybe you could say something like Higgins reached the final of the World Championship again and add the link there.
Higgins led 10–9 against but faded over the stretch - Something is missing there.
and then compiled a break of 69 against White in the penultimate frame. Higgins had been 0–59 points behind in that frame, but managed to compile - Can one of the compile(d)s be exchanged for something like produce(d) maybe?
Cuegloss could be used for clearance.
Later that year the four, with Status Quo released a cover of "The Wanderer" - A comma is missing.
His final professional triumph was in the 1989 Irish Masters when he defeated Stephen Hendry. This was the last professional tournament he won - Isn't the second sentence a bit redundant? Or am I missing a point?
when he registered for pre-season qualifying matches in Stoke - The Stoke link leads to a disambiguation page.
There are two "returns to form" in two consecutive paragraphs.
and Cliff Thorburn, he faced Thorburn in his match - I think a full stop would be better there.
Personal life
Higgins had a long and enduring friendship with Oliver Reed - with actor Oliver Reed maybe?
He was found dead in bed in his flat on 24 July 2010 - Maybe you could say how old he was when he died after that sentence.
Legacy
Add cuegloss for 16-red clearance.
References
Both the dates of his birth and death are already sourced in the article, so there's no need to have those references in the lede.
The fact that he was referred to as "Hurricane Higgins" is not mentioned in the article and it should. Thus, the reference could also be removed from the lede.
Could Alex Higgins, the Bombastic 'People's Champion' of Pro Snooker, Dies at 61 be moved to the 1970s, where the nickname the "The People's Champion" is already mentioned?
he is often credited as a key figure in snooker's success as a mainstream televised sport in the 1980s - Something about this should be said in Legacy.
First of all, this a redirect so it cannot be improved. However, if you are meaning to ask for a peer review on the target page, I can do that.
All images should have alt text.
YouTube is not a reliable source.
All sources should be archived.
All sources should have access dates and source dates.
The paragraph about Tsundue's poem seems unnecessary, and possibly copyright infringement as it just says his poem.
"This overall sentiment conveyed in the quote illustrates the internal conflict of being a refugee, grappling with the desire for a consolidated identity amidst the challenges of statelessness and the relentless pursuit of freedom for Tibet." is WP:OR.
There is a CN tag.
"Most of those staying are children to attend Tibetan Children's Villages school." makes no grammatical sense.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
