Wikipedia:Peer review/Soho/archive1
=[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Soho/archive1|Soho]]=
:{{Peer review links|Soho| Wikipedia:Peer review/Soho/archive1}}
{{Closed peer review page}}
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it as a featured article.
Thanks, Sushidude21! (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:Unless you're planning to spend the next six months of your life on this, I don't think you've got a hope in hell of passing FA. I'm the [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Soho primary contributor] to the article, improving it to GA some years ago, and there are plenty of sources (such as passing news pieces or Twitter comments) that don't meet FA criteria 1c, the whole area of buildings and cultural references is something of a minefield, and the whole article needs a thorough copyedit from top to bottom. As you didn't contact me about this (as WP:FAC says, "{{xt|Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it.}}"), I think if you nominated this it would be thrown out almost immediately, not least because I would oppose its promotion for the reasons I've already given. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
::This is very strange. I can only concur with Ritchie333 that bringing the article to PR is, to put it mildly, irregular when you haven't contributed to it at all. I recommend closing the PR, as it doesn't seem to me to have any prospect of progressing. Tim riley talk 14:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
:@Sushidude21!: I'm going to go ahead and close this due to the comments above and the fact that this is your second concurrent peer review nomination, Gauss being the first, which contravenes the process guidelines. Let me know on the talk page if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)