Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Kirkcaldy/archive1

History of Kirkcaldy

 * 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 October 2008.
 * 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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see what status it would be able to achieve to start off with.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian Boulton comments: I will do my best to get round to this in the next day or so. In the meantime, can I suggest that you move one of the images, perhaps the harbour, up to the lead? The article looks strange without a lead image. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are comments on the first few sections:-
 * Lead
 * The lead, apart from needing an image, is under-linked. The following terms should be linked: royal burgh; burgh of barony (not "barons")&mdash;this term is linked later, but should be linked at first mention; Bronze Age; cist; linoleum; flax.
 * Some stray commas: commas are required after "landscape" and after "12th century". Commas should be deleted after "cist burials" and "nail making"
 * The word "nonetheless does not seem necessary
 * The statement that "The town's history begins as a villa" is troublesome on two counts. First, the town's history does not begin as a villa; it might begin with a villa. Secondly, the statement is too terse, without any explanation as to what a villa is, in this context. Possibly "a single dwelling". But a little further explanation is necessary
 * You need to rephrase the sentence beginning "Although Kirkcaldy benefitted greatly...", indicating how the town benefitted from the products which you name.
 * Overall, the lead is a little short. This may not be too much of a problem for GA purposes, but if you have FA as a goal, the lead will definitely need expansion.


 * Early history
 * "later", in parentheses, is uninformative; can you give a date approximation?
 * The whole formulation in the parentheses is awkward: (later a 4mi/6.4 km). "mi" is not used when miles are the principal measurement. Personally, I would rephrase the whole sentence, avoiding brackets altogether except to indicate the metric equivalent.
 * We have the unexplained villa description again. Assuming that a villa is just what it sounds like, why was reference to Kirkcaldy as a villa an indication that it was regarded as a town? The opposite indication seems more likely.
 * The sentence which begins "In granting this right, a year later, the kin though..." reads a bit clumsily. Try dropping te comma after "right" and losing the "though" altogether.
 * In the sentence beginning "Kirkcaldy therefore now had the right to trade..." I suggest dropping "therefore" and bringing forward the "for the first time" clause, so that the sentence begins: "Kirlcaldy now had, for the first time, the right to trade..."
 * The word "whilst" is disapproved by Wikipedia because "in American English...it can seem pretentious or archaic" (see Whilst). Personally I see nothing with te word, but there are plenty who do.
 * "...playing a part to boost Scland's economy" would be more grammatical if amended to "playing a part in boosting Scotland's economy"
 * David II seems rather improbably long-lived. We have him devising charters  in 1128 and 1130, then he is apparently requesting a regality charter in the late 14th century! Were there two David IIs?
 * "feu-ferme status" should be linked thus: feu-ferme status.

I will comment on the rest of the article a little later.Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note: I'm happy to continue the review, but would like first to see some response to my initial points.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)