| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually take this article to FA. Aside from the uncited early life para, I'm reasonably happy with this article, but it needs more eyes before I'd feel comfortable nominating it at FAC. Anything you can suggest would be apprciated.
Thanks, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: It has been almost two months since this was posted, and no one has comments. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest posting a request on the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are attached to this article. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- As always, Peer Review just doesn't work. If there had been a large base of people working on such articles, I would have asked there in the first place. Happy to close. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: It has been almost two months since this was posted, and no one has comments. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest posting a request on the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are attached to this article. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)