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.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
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.
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 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]
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.
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.
