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 made lots of changes recently (fixed dead sources, replaced less reliable sources, added details, started a film and TV section, found a few factual errors.) I'd like to know if there's any other issues, if the article can be moved up to A class, and how close is it to being a Good Article?
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has FA potential. I'm focusing on the quality of the prose but am open to feedback on all aspects to ensure the article has a good chance at FAC. Thanks, (Guyinblack25talk 02:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC))
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to advance the article to FA class. I welcome general comments about structure, style, grammatical flow, etc.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it back into Good Article status, and potentially bring it into Featured Article status later in the future. I figured that, considering the article's size, a peer review might be the best before any Good Article nomination.
Just completed a full overhaul of this article and looking for feedback on general content, sourcing, structure, prose, etc. Aim to eventually get this up to GA status.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have substantially revamped it, and I would like to have input and assistance from others to ensure that it meets the standards that are expected for species articles, as this is my first time working on one.
Prior to editing the article, hardly anything was cited and much of the writing was left over from when it was created in 2006. This needed addressing; for example, there is 20 years of incorrect information across many different websites that resulted from this article mistakenly assigning the name "ankomba joby" to the diademed sifaka, even though it refers to a different species. My initial goal was to find citations for the sentences that were already present. This turned into re-wording many of them to maintain an encyclopedic tone, and finally I began to add more content based on research articles I had found while in the process of finding sources. This has resulted in an article that is quite different from how it was when I found it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it a couple of months ago and then I disappeared while it was deleted via PROD. This week I am working on making it B+ if possible. So I thought I would ask for peer review. Any thoughts or suggestions, even casual ones, would be appreciated. No ongoing edit wars or anything.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has Featured List potential, but have never engaged in either the FL or PR process before so would be interested to hear alternative perspectives. This list differs from recent FLs for television accolades (Sherlock, Loki) by splitting up major accolades, but if desired these can easily be incorporated into the main table. Additionally, I reckon the refs in the lead are not necessary as the information is cited in the table. Anyway, I would be very grateful for any and all suggestions, and I will try and add suggestions to other peer reviews.
