Wikipedia:Peer review/Carnoustie/archive2

Carnoustie
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a few years since it achieved GA status and while I was considering putting it forward for FA, I noticed that it scored quite badly on the Article Feedback Tool ratings at the bottom of the page. This may be down to mischief (for example, disgruntled shop keepers upset that their promotional edits were rejected), or I may be missing some important failings in the article.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks,  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  08:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a well-researched article, containing a lot of useful information for people like me who don't know Carnoustie. I can't of course say if the information is accurate but it certainly is detailed. I don't have time for a full prose review, but here are some points which I think require some attention:
 * The lead is very short, and needs to be expanded to become a summary of the article as a whole.
 * Routine facts should be cited in the body of the article, rather than in the lead.
 * There are numerous uncited statements in the article, with at least one "citation needed" tag in place. For example: "This trend has recently reversed somewhat with the increase in golf tourism"; the entire paragraph beginning "The Dundee and Arbroath Railway..."; "The climate is typical for the East Coast of Scotland, although the weather can be locally influenced by sea mist, locally known as haar"; and others, particularly information in the Demography section.
 * Some of the language is not particularly encyclopedic, for example: "it is in this that we see...", and reference to Van der Velde's "epic collapse" (sportswriter's hyperbole)
 * Article structure: some of the sections are very short and contain very little information. These snippets would probably be better incorporated into other, longer sections.
 * Prose style: there are far too many very short paragraphs, often only a single shortish sentence. This destroys the natural flow of the prose and replaces it with a staccato effect. The problem is particularly acute in the "Religion today", "Golf" and "Football" subsections. Incidentally you might want to consider renaming the "History of religion" and "Religion today" sections, which seem rather portentous in the context of this article.
 * Image, Carnoustie 1900: The source is given as "postcard" with no other information. Did you upload from an original postcard? These normally give the name of the publisher. Was the "circa 1900" on the basis of guesswork or definite information.

I realise that this is not a full review, but I hope that these points will help you improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)