Talk:Eastbourne/Archive 6

GA check
I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.

In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors.

My aim and intention is to keep the article listed - I would rather the article was improved and kept listed than the article is delisted. Where a delisting seems likely due to the amount or nature of work needed being greater than I am able to do alone, and the main contributors are unavailable or unable for whatever reason to do the work, then appropriate WikiProjects will be notified at least seven days before a delisting would take place.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * On the whole this remains a decent article. Concerns arising from scanning through: the WP:Lead does not provide an adequate summary of the main points of the article. There are 213 words in the lead compared to 6756 in the article, and much information is not mentioned or summarised - for example, of the three landmarks, only one is mentioned in the lead, and that only as part of location information.
 * Images are clear, useful, and attractively dispersed through the article, though Tourism has two images of the beach squeezing the text contrary to WP:MOSIM and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE.
 * The weather box is currently under discussion as regards how appropriate it is for settlement articles, and how far it impacts on WP:NOTSTAT and WP:EMBED.
 * The subsections in Landmarks are short. MOS:BODY has this advice: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." The subsections can be upmerged into the main section or can be formatted using ; instead of === to create softer headings, and ease flow when reading.
 * Creating a section for Literary references with one dubious claim seems undue.
 * Per MOS:BODY, it might be worth considering merging some of the shorter paragraphs into larger ones. For example, the several short paragraphs in the Economy section all deal with the same topic - economy, and so could be upmerged into one or two paragraphs.
 * These concerns are fairly minor, and not enough to justify a GAR. The main issue is the lead not effectively summarising the main points, so readers would need to dig into the article to find the essential information. I'll have a go at the lead to see what I can do.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting to do a bit of copy-editing, and I'm becoming aware of a number of unsourced statements, and note that the article has been tagged with sourcing concerns since December 2011. I still think that the article is basically sound, but may do a full GAR to establish what needs to be done to ensure this still meets GA criteria.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am no longer doing the GA checks. Archiving this.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)