Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Peer review/Joint

Current requests

 * European Court of Auditors - J Logan t: 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Opt-outs in the European Union — Nightstallion 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * European integration a (B category) to do list on the talk page would be grately appreciated. --U5K0 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP), Request for Complete review. Rik ISS-fan (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ariane 6 requesting quality reassessment SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

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).

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.

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.''