Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. 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.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
Hello everyone! I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to put it up for a FAC sometime in the future, but before doing that, I wanted to get as much feedback as possible to make that process smoother. I had originally worked on this article back in 2018 (and received a very helpful GAN), but I have recently rewritten the entire thing after finding more coverage of the show on Newspapers.com. Thank you in advance for any help and have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I recently improved Edward Mitchell Bannister's article up to GA status. I would like to propose it for FA, but another editor suggested a peer review beforehand. In particular, I'd love to hear other editors' opinions/criticism of the existing section on Bannister's art style.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a piece dear to me and I'd like to see it growing to FA quality. Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, and we welcome suggestions to improve it further.
These are some ideas I mentioned a month ago: "... the rather haphazard ref formatting would make little chance to pass FAC unscathed, and that is only one of many things: others I'm thinking of include the Picardy third ending of the third movement (not even mentioned leave alone a source for it); the far from perfect image for the fifth movement; less than perfect overview of performances and recordings history, ..." – I don't have much time for more now, but will return to this as soon as I have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to be FA status before I leave Wikipedia in the summer. I'm dedicating this to Pop Smoke, a rapper who was shot and killed at only 20 years old. ShootForTheStars (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FAC. Given that this year will be MTV's 40th anniversary in August, I'd like to celebrate the instance of the Buggles' "Video Killed the Radio Star" being MTV's first video by promoting another far-lesser-known Buggles work to FA, Adventures in Modern Recording.
It already has been promoted to GA, and while GA generally doesn't have as strict standards as the FAC, the GA reviewer got really extensive in making sure the article was linked well, used British English and cited sources properly. I've done more edits to this article when it comes to removing sources that may be questioned at FAC plus making sure citation formats meet guidelines, as well as more copyediting.
I know this article looks short, but trust me when I say that this article in its current state is comprehensive, and all that is available in sources. I had to dig deep in a ZTT fansite, Internet archive, Google Books, and newspapers.com to find coverage on this album, and that was all I could find. It's not a well-remembered or commercially-successful album, so finding any coverage at all was surprising.
Hey, HxA, happy to take a look at this. I haven't in-depth picked at the prose yet, or decided whether or not I want to versus just doing an image review. On the quick level, it looks good.
However, there's a big issue here that I'm surprised went unmentioned at GA. The image formatting is really something you need to take a look at; it renders the article text far too choppy and is in violation of MOS:IMAGE. "Background" is sandwiched between the image and the infobox, with the former in turn throwing "Concept and sound"'s header out of alignment. The image under "Concept and sound" in turn misaligns the header for "Release and promotion". The article's length isn't problematic by itself, but the number of images involved for that length cause issues for the underlying structure. Perhaps you could use a gallery? Vaticidalprophet 12:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently rewrote the text, added plenty of references and updated the info. I would like some advice about coherence, grammar and syntax before trying the GA process.
Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this article! As a general disclaimer, I am not a subject matter expert or an experienced peer reviewer.
Too much reliance on Ref #1 (larsdatter.com) which is a self-published blog.
Whole books are cited for specific claims; page numbers needed
This could probably use a re-write. The first sentence in particular is very POV and makes a bold, unsourced (but probably true) claim.
Lead includes sentence fragments
Representation in Art
Many words unnecessarily capitalized
Titles of works should be italicized
Multiple unsourced claims. Examples:
Representation of Blind people in Medieval Art often is displayed through the use of including dogs on a leash.
Diego Velázquez [...] portraying her with her eyes closed.
This was common amongst images of the blind in the 18th Century.
Whole section should be based more off of conclusions made in reliable, secondary sources. A list of examples can be helpful, but I don't think this section is best represented by the current list format.
With all these components, the list is very extended, although, in mainspace its size is only around 21500 bytes. Because its extended screen size received criticism over time, see e.g. Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert/Archive 1, I'd like to know whether in the end the current setup could be seen as going toward featured quality, or not, and if not, what way this should be going. Other improvement suggestions are of course also welcome.
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article. Currently, this lead contains novel information and sources not found in the main article body. The information currently there should be integrated into the body. When writing a lead, a helpful guideline to ensure it is a good summary of the article is to make sure each section of the article is somehow covered in the lead.
The body is a bit WP:Proseline in parts. Smaller paragraphs should be combined and written so it reads less as a series of dates.
In general the prose could be varied a bit more, there are for example a lot of sentences starting with "She".
One or two more images wouldn't go amiss, there's a couple of decent options on Commons.
In Honors and Awards it would be worth listing the Eurovision winning song to match the other items in the list which all list the relevant songs.
Hi Editoneer, thanks for the chance to review this article. Here are the things I think need to be worked on:
Reduce use of primary sources. Currently, half of the sources are primary sources, being directly from the manufacturer of the product. Only use primary sources when a fact cannot be sourced anywhere else and only when the fact is uncontroversial, and make it clear you have done so.
More information can be drawn from the Smithsonian and Mental Floss articles, though I would like to see more sources in general.
The sources are quite limited, although it appears to be rather popular, keep that in mind. Thank you. Editoneer (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
More history. How has the Slip 'N' Slide design changed over the years? Does Wham-O make multiple products under the name, and if so can you provide more description of the line of products? When did rival products with the same premise start to appear on the market? Does Wham-O dominate the market on backyard water slides like this, or is it a bit player now as its patents expired and competitors came in?
Here's the problem, we don't know much history about the Slip 'N Slides, so that's why some parts of it is rather vague. But yes, they do have multiple products under the same name and there were also lawsuits but I didn't thought it would fit, I'll see what I can do about this. Thank you. Editoneer (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is in the category "brands that became generic". Does this mean that Wham-O does not own the trademark on the term "Slip 'N Slide" any more? Since a reader may assume that the phrase "Slip n Slide" refers to any toy of similar design, the article needs to be clear when it is talking about the Wham-O product and when it is talking about the toy in general.
It's not the fact that they lost, I believe the past editor thought that people are referring to water sliding sheets as "Slip 'N Slides". Thank you. Editoneer (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Grammar: I have done some grammar fixes but more is needed. Sentences like "CPSC in 1993, provided a recall notice along with Kransco, which owned Wham-O at the time, to warn users of the dangers and did not take it off the market completely as it's only recommended to children." need editing.
If I'm writing like that, is probable because I agree with that style of writing, so what about it? Thank you. Editoneer (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend addressing these issues and then asking for another peer review before submitting for GA-status. I don't think it would currently make GA-status, mainly because there is missing information a reader would like to know. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it can easily become a GA, but there are some issues with it which might hinder it from becoming one. Please review the article and leave any suggestions for how to fix it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for TFA. I brought it to GA in 2020, and "employed" Iry-Hor as a mentor. After offering some improvements, they unfortunately had to pull out due to a need to balance time spent on Wikipedia better. (see here.) I'd appreciate some review and advice, especially on the mathematical front, as I think the article is lacking in that respect.
Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 15:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (this has been done for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
"The focus of the campaign" --> "Its focus." We already know we're discussing the campaign in the previous sentence.
"The series has been compared to a steamy soap opera." There is only one citation citing this sentence, so it needs attribution.
In prose, there are names of works not properly italicized. For example, "Adweek" and "The New York Times"
The article suffers from baffling organization choices
There are details only in the lead and not in the body, such as its presentation as comic books and shirt merchandise, the campaign's catchphrase, starting year, and the fact that it was aimed at hispanics. Generally, the lead is suppose to summarize what is in the body of the article, not introduce new details not in any other section.
If I'm to be honest, the "Cultural significance" and "target demographic" sections are too short on their own and should be merged with the "Production history" section into a general history section of the campaign. Some details that (as of writing this) are only in the leads could be combined with the history section as well.
Sections combined, leads work pending.
"It was primarily targeted at young Hispanics, who the New York City Health Department felt were not receptive to existing outreach efforts." None of the target demographic section discuss how the NY department felt people with AIDS were reacting, and its contradictory to the lead. It states "Early cases were observed in homosexual men, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, and Haitians," and the section ends with saying it was targeted by Hispanics in general, not "young Hispanics" as specified only in the lead.
Why doesn't the storyline come first before the history and target demographic of the campaign, like how it is in film articles?
I'm not seeing why every episode in the "story line" section needs to have its own subsection, given that they each last one short paragraph. I'd think it be easier and more engaging to read if episodes were consolidated into multiple paragraphs.
Though there is varied sentence length in the storylines, there are too many short sentences and they feel like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE set of events instead of a cohesive SparkNotes-like summary of the entire plot. I know these are a set of episodes, but I don't think specifying all of the little plot points that happened in every episode is necessary.
"This new policy left no space for the Julio and Marisol spots" How? I assuming the customers took so much space there wasn't enough for a bigger story ad like those in Julio and Marisol, but this is not obvious and clarification is still needed.
"it was felt that this would be inappropriate for the campaign." Again, how?
I know GAN doesn't consider cite formatting that much apart from not making them bare URLs, but I still wanted to give this advice. You cannot present the names of works and publishers as URLS. For example :"www.adweek.com," "www.nlm.nih.gov," "aep.lib.rochester.edu."
How is ref 10 a reliable source? Looks self-published
I'm hoping this article does become a GA, but this needs some organization and prose work. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro thanks for the review, it's much appreciated. All good points, I'll work through them when I get a chance. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I'm sure if I did things the way the community standards are. I've read and strictly followed the Wikipedia guidelines, if anything seems off, let me know, I'll try to improve the article.
I have recently translated this article and would like to receive some feedback on it to improve the article and my content editing skills. Some copy editing has already been done. I am also considering nominating the article for GA. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 11:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Chidgk1
If you can do so without removing important cites shorten the Chinese bibliography a little
Unlink almost all the redlinks
Looks promising for GA - suggest you submit it for GA as soon as you close this peer review as often there is a long wait for review and you can continue to improve it meantime.
Thanks for your comments on above review. If no one else comments here within next few days suggest you close this and request GAR as it is not too far from GA and you can work on it while waiting.: Chidgk1 (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I will consider closing some time soon then. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it as a featured article soon but would like it to be as prepared as possible before doing so. Since the NFL offseason is here, Young's article should be stable until the 2021 season begins in September, barring anything unforeseen. I personally feel like the article is very close to being a FA, but another pair of eyes would certainly only improve it further. ~ Dissident93(talk) 23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The lede needs to be expanded. A second paragraph, and maybe a third is needed
Check for jargon (sacks). Wikilinking is a minimum, but explaining is often better
Not sure what else can be added to the lead that wouldn't just be added to fluff it up. Other notable NFL players can easily do that since their career lasted a decade while his has just gotten started. Any advice?
In terms of explaining football terms in prose? I don't think explaining what quarterback sacks are in such a manner is an improvement over just linking to their respective articles.
Is there any official MOS/styleguide to how to improve this? Usually I'd leave "Young" for the opening sentence in a paragraph and try to alternate from there.
@Femkemilene: Outside of the lead concerns, (I don't think we need to add things just to make it look more important; it previously summarized 95% of the article in a single paragraph), what else could you suggest? ~ Dissident93(talk) 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea about this topic, but you could work on citation formatting. Do you want to link every instance of a newspapers, or only the first? Do so consistently. I think having urls in the citation is discouraged (not sure), simply use the name of the newspaper or organisation. FN28 redirects me to bing. Is there a more stable link? FemkeMilene (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done this for you already). When you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey SandyGeorgia, thanks for fixing that - I'm a first-time flyer here, I missed that part of the instructions. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
What I can tell you off the bat is that there needs to be a "Development and release" section documenting how the game was made. Also, the lead section should be expanded to summarize all the article's main points. You can consult the Manual of Style, particularly the Layout section, for more details. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking for reliable sources for this new thing:
Following many concerns from parent over the [[Nintendo Entertainment System|NES]], as well as the poor sales of ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. Math]]'', Nintendo hoped third-party licensees would step up and provide educational titles. Following the release of the SNES, parents were concerned due to its lack of backwards compatibility, as well as its $200 MSRP. Nintendo wanted to make game that made kids and adults happy, as well as making price cuts to the SNES.
''Mario Paint'' was directed and designed by Hirofumi Matsuoka.
''Mario Paint'' came bundled with the SNES Mouse, a mouse for the SNES, designed by [[Satoru Okada]].
''Mario Paint'' was unveiled at the 1992 [[Consumer Electronics Show|Summer Consumer Electronics Show]] in [[Chicago]].
On July 14, 1992, ''Mario Paint'' was released in Japan. It was later released in North America on August 1. On December 10, the game reached Europe.
I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to see more improvement on this article. I'd like to see this article has at least B-class quality. I've expanded the article for few times and hope to see some feedback on it, and also help on expanding it even more.
Thanks so much for the help, Nyanardsan (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Chidgk1
Although this is a small city maybe looking at a featured article on another city would give ideas on sections to add.
Maybe a demography section
Or something on entertainment
So you don't like the pic of the welcome monument on other language versions?
Can you give a sense of anything untypical compared to the rest of the country e.g. if the growth rate is high then why is that? If "Commerce, restaurant and hotel" is high why is that?
Thanks, i've added some new sections and more content on it. Also i've listed it for copyedit. Sorry i cant really help your peer review, because i myself is a new contributor and lack experience. But thanks so much for the advice, i appreciate it ^^ Also yes, I didnt like Welcome Monument image from Indonesian language for aesthetic reason, and since better photos are available i changed it Nyanardsan (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article for good article status. I think I should ask the fellow editors for the suggestions and improvements in the article before nominating.
Hmm, reading the article so far, what I suggest first is working on the lead. The first sentence of the lead is a run-on; I suggest you can shorten the first sentence that explains succinctly what was the region, or state. The lead should also cover what is being covered in the body; there isn't much mention of the demographics or history in the lead (could be further elaborated).
"India's belated discovery of this road culminated in the Sino-Indian War of 1962; China has since administered Aksai Chin". How is the discovery "belated"? Also, you can elaborate a bit more on the Sino-Indian War here, that is relevant to the subject in question. This is rather brief.
"Following the 2008 Kashmir unrest, secessionist movements in the region were boosted.". Also suggest elaborating what the unrest was about, and change the latter clause to be more encyclopedia (e.g. there has been a rise of secessionist sentiments, or rise in support of secession.)
On its dissolution, I also suggest an update on its aftermath; it feels rather incomplete. Are Internet services still blocked? Are those arrested formally charged? Also suggest linking to its successor region(s). What were also the people's reactions?
For formatting, I suggest swapping around the pie chart and the historical population's diagram.
I also encourage images to illustrate the former government apparatus of the state.
"In 2005, it was reported that the Indian National Congress-led government in the state intended to amend the term to bring parity with the other states." Any further updates on this?--ZKang123 (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
"The British government had reiterated its advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir in 2013, with certain exceptions.". Further elaborate on the exceptions
What I will encourage is to update any relevant facts regarding the state, and provide further elaboration if necessary. The article is not bad; it could still be improved further with more images.
I also encourage creating a geography section, even a brief one, since it doesn't feel complete without one.
Article seems stable. Images used this far are properly licensed. Add more images if necessary to better illustrate the article.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I am requesting some support and reviews from established editors on moving this article forwards. Over the past year I've worked hard in setting out the comprehensive history of this subject and expanding the page. However, I need some help in organizing the references and setting out the basic style. Once this has been evaluated, I will be looking to nominate it for a GA.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it up to Good Article. The battle was important in the American Civil War, and has long been neglected in Wikipedia. The article is long (92,310 bytes), but I believe the length is justified because of the complexity and importance of the battle.
I intended to have this ready for TFA on its 100th anniversary (next month) but that's looking increasingly unrealistic. The article was recently translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia, which in turn was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Both are FAs, so I thought I'd just clean up the translation and nominate, but it was more complicated than that, with some stats failing verification when converting refs from Avrich 2004 (en Español) to Avrich 1970 (original, English-language edition). I corrected some but not all of these errors in the Portuguese article.
I'm aware of the surface-level stuff—outstanding ref issues, too many external links, and the like—but I welcome input on content, which sections need more breadth/content, if any additional sources are important to include, if there are better images available, etc. Thanks! czar 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are some sources a reviewer might expect to be cited:
Croll, Neil (2004). "The role of M.N. Tukhachevskii in the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion". Revolutionary Russia. 17 (2): 1–48. doi:10.1080/0954654042000289688.
Pirani, Simon (2008). The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920–24: Soviet Workers and the New Communist Elite. Routledge. ISBN978-1-134-07550-8.
Czar, I understand you want comment on breadth/content, ignoring the “surface-level stuff” for now, but there is too much “surface-level” stuff for me to be able to get through— that’s just not how I review. If you get more of the basics cleaned up, please ping me and I will read through. When there is a whole ton of Further reading that hasn’t been worked in, harvref errors everywhere ... I’m not sure what I’m reading or where to start. I hope you intend to address the MOS:SANDWICH. Sorry, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have found little on quality standards centered specifically on WP lists. I am looking for suggestions for improvement, as well as any policies or consensuses I have overlooked. I am relisting this due to non-response to last posting.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a trouble finding the remaining preparations and aftermath in Japan information. Which one I could use to find one? Newspapers.com or Digital Typhoon?
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has just gone through a major overhaul, as I am consider nominating it to good article status. I'd like to receive some advice from more experienced math editors.
This is the wrong way to proceed. The right way for such a major hoverhaul is, before editing the article, to open a discussion on the talk page of the article with a notification to WT:WPM. In the opening post, you must summarize the changes you intend to do, explain why you think that this improves the article, and provide a link to your draft (I see that you have prepared your version in your sandbox). Then you must wait for a WP:consensus before changing the article. For this reason, I have restored the previous version of Calculus.
Also it is worthless to continue the discussion here, as this is an article of mathematics, and the members of the WikiProject Mathematics do not use to read this page. D.Lazard (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to take it to FAC. Any and all feedback would be immensely helpful.
The article deals with Willa Cather, a 20th century woman author whose work about the plains brought it to wider view. A Pultizer Prize winner for her World War One novel One of Ours, she grew up in Virginia, then Nebraska, and spent her final years in New York and New Hampshire (also Quebec) with her domestic partner, Edith Lewis.
Looks very good. Well sourced, good use of images, good use of footnotes.
Some minor points: I would do some centering on the tombstone inscription, it's a little off-center due to the picture just before it. Also, typically with any BLP, an infobox is customary. It's just helpful information for the reader. I think this would be highly useful here.
Beyond these couple minor issues, I see no other problems. I know other editors will, but for me, I don't. Good work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:42 on April 10, 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll see what I can do about the inscription. And I think you're right about the infobox... I removed it a while ago because I thought it was misleading ( there's no way to summarize someone so complex in such little space, right? :) ), but it does aid readers so should probably be added again. Urve (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You don't have to pack it with a ton of information. Just the basic of basics. Look at Robert Frost for example. Simple, to the point. You can add the footnote about her birthyear. Use Frost's as a guide. But otherwise, you don't have a the entire article as a summary within the infobox. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:22 on April 11, 2021 (UTC)
I made a couple of minor improvements to the infobox. Feel free to revert them as you see fit. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:13 on April 11, 2021 (UTC)
Looks good! One major issue for me was not being able to add Edith Lewis to the infobox... I should have read the documentation a bit more. Thank you. Urve (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
No worries. :) I'm still having an issue with the tombstone inscription. But I trust that you'll take care of it. I see no other issues. Again, very well done. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:09 on April 11, 2021 (UTC)
Wow, I really cannot think of anything to add. This article is well sourced and detailed. Bridges2Information (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on WP:MOS issues and references after a failed GAN (I've tried to implement the feedback as much as possible, but need some advice).
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FAC. I suspect the prose needs improvement to reach FA-standard, which is not quite my strong suit. Would appreciate any help & feedback! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Jewellery store robber turned motivational speaker. The article was pretty much WP:PROMO, so I completely re-wrote it. Would like to see further input on the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That's fair as my prose is pretty weak. I am better at finding sources than writing articles. You'd think a guy with 1 million subs on youtube would have more people volunteering to work on his page? Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to hear some feedback regarding how I can fix any issues or add information that the reader may want to know (if it's available with given sources) with this biographical article.
Also, please note that books on the subject are scarce, with some mentioning him briefly and then diving into the cult's background. Also, I kind of call into question a book by journalist Don Lattin that seems to be more speculation around the events of Ricky Rodriguez rather than simply reporting on fact.