Wookieepedia:Peer review

The purpose of the peer review page is to subject articles to more thorough review than they would otherwise receive. It can also be used to gather feedback, general comments about accuracy and style and suggestions for improvement. For example, if a user thinks an article is approaching feature quality, but is not completely sure, they can submit the article for peer review.

Other users will post comments, objections and suggestions about the articles, similarly to the featured article nomination page.

To submit an article, simply create a subsection (like ==Article title== ) and post the initial comment. New articles go on top.

Zsinj
I'm pretty pleased with it, and I believe I'm the strictest critic of my own work, but it never hurts to get more opinions. Grammar, repetitive wording, and word choice all need to be reviewed along with POV and accuracy. And the redlinks need to be filled (and I guess I have to specify that we need non-copyvio versions, since 5 of the redlinks were filled with CUSWE plagiarism). As soon as the Ship template is fully deployed, I'll get back on them. But as far as editing the article goes, I'm pretty much done with it. About the only thing I'd change back is if any factual errors creep in during the reviewing process. Or if anyone tries to change any instance of the term "Star Dreadnought," which I didn't use nearly as much as I wanted to. Once my to-do list shrinks a little, I'll have a go at another neglected article. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC) In any case, there they are, mostly technical complaints from someone completely unfamiliar with the events described, but feeling like it was a good and unobscure read. - Sikon [ Talk ] 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Excess of redlinks (mentioned on WP:FA);
 * Misspellings: "mustache" should be "moustache", "appluaded" should be "applauded", "[the entire] Queli sector" should be "Queli Sector", "Stormtroopers" should be "stormtroopers";
 * His birth and parents aren't referenced, I assume they're unknown?
 * "While many warlords took the easier route of dressing regular troops in Stormtrooper armor to maintain the respect of their subjects" - this sentence is quite dodgy, methinks;
 * Sometimes it assumes that the reader is already familiar with even the most minor characters mentioned. Needs short phrases describing in two words who Tuzin Gast and Voort saBinring are;
 * The heading "Enter the Hawk-bats" is appropriate for promotional material, but not an encyclopedia article (and overall the headings are overly poetic, compare that with Palpatine where the headings are factual), the quoted heading "Blood must be shed" is ungood because it's immediately followed by a quote;
 * "And then Antilles began his effort to lead Zsinj on as Zsinj had been doing to Solo" This one doesn't quite stack as well...
 * "Zsinj commed Han Solo" - commed? In an encyclopedia?

That's the kind of criticism I wanted to hear. To address a few of your points: The other things will require some further thought before I can try to fix them. Also, I know the article could use more pictures. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I missed "applauded" but Dictionary.com says either spelling for mustache is fine.
 * I couldn't find anything about Zsinj's childhood. The New Essential Guide to Characters skipped over it and Cracken's Threat Dossier went on about how such information was lacking.
 * The headings were one of my big concerns, and if anybody can think of better ones that would be great. I had a lot of trouble thinking of any headings at all.

Gorm the Dissolver
I like this idea. To try it out, I figure I'll be completely shameless and promote my spiffy Gorm article, now with shiny new CG Fact Files image! Consider this a test run for when I nominate Booster Terrik in the near future. CooperTFN 06:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, miscellaneous complaints (most are easily fixable) from someone completely unfamiliar with the subject:
 * No birth year in the intro (should be "Gorm (50 BBY&mdash;), unless this practice has been discontinued).
 * Why is "Composition" in the "Biography" section?
 * Minor: "ultimate" is misspelled "utimate".
 * Examples of POV: "fantastic" creations and "ruthless" cyborgs (except Gorm himself, I didn't find evidence of their ruthlessness).
 * Qui-Gon and Adi are linked, but the names of their Padawans aren't even mentioned (or are they unknown?).
 * Aside from this, I quite like the style and language. - Sikon [ Talk ] 11:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The date thingy has simply been moved to the infobox. I fixed the "utimate" spelling error. --Imp 15:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I explained to Imp earlier, composition is where it is because the narrative is supposed to go "this is where he came from, this is what he has, and this is what he did with it" (in other words, the order in which people would require the information so that the article as a whole makes sense). Just my perspective, though. I had the birthdate there at first, but like Imp said, it apparently belongs in the infobox now. The Padawans are known, but it seemed like naming all four Jedi was kind of overburdening the sentence. I'd rather have it read well than spell out every last person who was involved - which a lot of people tend to do here, detrimentally, I think. Lastly, the primary definition of "fantastic" is "strange", and the "ruthlessness" of the cyborgs is what convinced the Jedi to intervene. CooperTFN 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)