Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Tunbridge Wells/archive1

Royal Tunbridge Wells

 * 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 August 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 August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I recently nominated it for Good Article status and was advised by the GA reviewer (when it failed to meet the GA criteria) that it might benefit from a Peer Review. I have made all the improvements and amendments requested as part of the GA review, so I would now like to know what areas need further work before it can be nominated as a Good Article.

Thanks, Sjc196 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Royal Tunbridge Wells sounds interesting. I have a few suggestions for improvement:


 * The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. Ideally, it would at least mention the central ideas of each section in the article. The existing lead does not mention education, sports, public services, transport, or some of the other sections. The lead could easily be expanded and should be. Please see WP:LEAD.
 * I have rewritten it somewhat, trying to take into account the WP:LEAD and the Chew Stoke, Wormshill and Sheerness articles.Sjc196 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the paragraphs in the lead and elsewhere are "orphans" consisting of only one or two sentences. It would be good to expand these short paragraphs or to combine them with other paragraphs.
 * I think this has been resolved. Sjc196 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style frowns on the use of fancy quotation marks to set off block quotations. Please see WP:QUOTE for other options.
 * This has been resolved. Sjc196 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, quotations shorter than four lines would not be set off in block quotes. Thus, "I am used to Tunbridge Wells, where we are all hopelessly behind the times", would appear in quotation marks in the text and not be set off. Because this single sentence is an orphan paragraph, it would also need to be merged with one of the other paragraphs in the "Cultural references" section.
 * I removed the quote entirely; the article doesn't lose anything for its loss.Sjc196 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The three tables in the "Demography" section are visually unappealing. They might look better if you stacked them along the right. If that doesn't work, you might change one or two of the simple ones to plain text to create a better layout.
 * This has been resolved. Sjc196 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see many small errors such as missing no-break codes, reference numbers incorrectly placed before punctuation rather than after, and metric-imperial conversion errors that a copyeditor would probably notice and fix.
 * I think this is all fixed now. Sjc196 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Landmarks" section is too short to be a section. I'd suggest changing the "Community facilities" section head to "Parks and landmarks" and merging the sections.
 * Done. Sjc196 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's often helpful to use successful articles as models. See Chew Stoke, Wormshill, and Sheerness, featured articles that deal with subject matter similar to this one.

If you found these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has already been put through GAN and has succeeded, so the goal of this peer review is now obsolete. I am closing this peer review. --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)