Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Peer review

Main page · Talk · MoS · Members · Portal · Assessment · Outreach · Collaboration · Peer reviews · Templates

WikiProject European Union has a joint peer review programme with WikiProject Europe. Members of both projects can propose and review each others articles.

Current requests

European Court of Auditors - J Logan ^t: 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opt-outs in the European Union —Nightstallion 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geography of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I give it a GA quality rating and a top priority label - U5K0 ^t: 19:30, 29 September 2007 (ECT)
Flag of Europe - J Logan ^t: 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
European integration a (B category) to do list on the talk page would be grately appreciated. --U5K0 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP), Request for Complete review. Rik ISS-fan (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ariane 6 requesting quality reassessment SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Les Espaces d'Abraxas - Expanded the content by an extra 2000 words. Lead still needs some work, also trying to find photos I can use, as photos of the building are not in the Creative Commons due to French law. Greenroof1234 (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review guide

The European Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not 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. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback.

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

Requesting a review

Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts.

While not required it is strongly encouraged that users submitting new peer review requests choose an article from those already listed to peer review. Preference should be given to those articles which have been listed the longest with little or no response (not including automated peer reviews).

To add a nomination simply place {{E-peer}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Then create a section on the talk page entitled "Peer Review" and note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~). Finally, edit current requests at the top of this page, and at the top of that section write: * ARTICLE NAME ~~~~

Responding to a request

Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title.
Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here and on the talk page to keep others informed about the article's progress.

Feel free to remove the request when it has become a featured article candidate, been inactive for a month or if it is an inappropriate or abandoned listing (where the nominator has not replied to comments).

Instructions

Class

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Europe}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA	(for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Europe articles category)	FA
FL	(for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class Europe articles category)	FL
A	(for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class Europe articles category)	A
GA	(for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Europe articles category)	GA
B	(for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Europe articles category)	B
C	(for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Europe articles category)	C
Start	(for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Europe articles category)	Start
Stub	(for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Europe articles category)	Stub
List	(for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class Europe articles category)	List
NA	(for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class Europe pages category)	NA
???	(articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Europe articles category)	???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

FM	(for featured media only; adds them to the FM-Class Europe pages category)	FM
Category	(for categories; adds them to the Category-Class Europe pages category)	Category
Draft	(for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class Europe pages category)	Draft
File	(for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class Europe pages category)	File
Portal	(for portal pages; adds them to the Portal-Class Europe pages category)	Portal
Project	(for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class Europe pages category)	Project
Template	(for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class Europe pages category)	Template

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Disambig	(for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class Europe pages category)		Disambig
Redirect	(for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class Europe pages category)		Redirect

Importance

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Europe}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Europe|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):


Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Europe articles)		Top
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Europe articles)		High
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Europe articles)		Mid
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Europe articles)		Low
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Europe articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Europe articles)		???

Rankings

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Europe}} and {{WikiProject European Union}} project banners on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below. See the banners pages for details of their syntax's.

Quality scale

Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;^[1] and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as `{{cite web}}` is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Psychology (as of January 2024)
C	The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.	Wing (as of June 2018)
Start	An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.	Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.	Ball (as of September 2014)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.	Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of literary movements

article is easy to comprehande

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the prespective of someone from that region.

WikiProject article importance scheme
v
t
e
Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for the study of the European Union, or is particularly notable for their contributions in this area to people other than students of the European Union. They define and determine the subject of the European Union WikiProject.	European Union and the sub-articles linked from the main article
High	Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of the European Union, but not necessarily outside it.	Institutions of the European Union or Western European Union.
Mid	Subject contributes to the total subject of the European Union WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous.	Democratic deficit in the European Union or Iraq – European Union relations
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of the European Union, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic.	Nick Griffin or 1st EU-Brazil summit

^ Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.

[1] Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.

[1]