Wikipedia:Peer review/Glenrothes/archive2

Glenrothes

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached a stage where if other modifications are made to the article it will begin to ruin what appears to be a strong and quality article.

Thanks, Mcwesty (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am reallly not sure I understand the comment above - this is a good start, but it is not a Good Article and nowhere near WP:FA yet. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement (and hopefully not ruin). If you want more comments, please ask here.

References are a major problem. Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation without a space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, for example the Transport section has 5 subsections, 4 of which are unreferenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Many of the refs are just bare links - internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
There are many short paragraphs (one or two sentences) and also many short sections (one paragraph) which should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
Article needs a copyedit and to use specifics where possible, for example in the lead The population of Glenrothes[,] based on ~~recent~~ [2006?] projections, is 38,927 people. [1] or better yet Based on 2006 projections, the population is 38,927.[1] (does it really need to say Glenrothes or people - aren't they understood here? Ask for copyedit help at WP:PRV
Headers should not repeat the name of the article unless quoting something, so "Glenrothes Today" could just be "Today" or perhaps give a date, while "Glenrothes Development Corporation" is OK as a header - see WP:HEAD

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I had a feeling the references where going to be an outstanding problem. I'll try and make the neccessary changes when I can find the time.

What I meant in my commment is that people are continuing to make edits to the article, and if that continues as it has been the article could very easily be ruined from "over editing".

Thanks, Mcwesty (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]