Larbert edit
- 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 December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd be grateful for any feedback on this article. It isn't the most rivetting of subjects. I expanded the article about a year ago and would be delighted for any advice Wikipedians might want to give on how to improve it.
Thanks, Globaltraveller (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I liked this article a lot. I thought it needed a copyedit to fix small things mostly related to the Manual of Style or to improve the prose flow here and there. Thus, I did a copyedit as well as this peer review. I think you could try for GA soon, and you might think in terms of what you would need to do to try for FA. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.
- The Manual of Style generally deprecates orphan paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences. The existing article has several, such as the first two paragraphs of the History section and the waste-management paragraph of the "Public amenities" section. You can solve the problem either by expanding the orphans or merging them with other paragraphs.
- I noticed that the article's talk page says that "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain." However, I don't see any mention of that encyclopedia in the article or its citations. Maybe I'm just missing it, but if not, shouldn't it be there? I would not have guessed from reading the article that any of it came from Encyclopedia Britannica.
- Possibilities for expansion occurred to me as I read. I wondered about precipitation amounts and whether it fell only as rain. Likewise, I wondered about temperatures. It might be possible to create a Larbert climate chart such as the one used in the "Climate" section of Edinburgh. In the "Public amenities" section, you might include information about other utilities such as water, phone, electricity, cable television, and Internet service. Mention of public parks, if any, might go here too. The "Demography" section might include statistics about gender, race, and religion if the data is available.
- I didn't know what the term "purpose built" meant in the phrase "a new purpose built 434-pupil primary school". One solution would be to delete "purpose built", but it might mean something specific that I'm unfamiliar with.
- A reference to (Hall and Hunter 2001) appears at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "History" section. This should probably be turned into an in-line citation with title, publisher, etc.
- The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. The existing lead is good but could be improved by adding at least a mention of government, transportation, and perhaps a famous Larbert person.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful to you. If you can find the time, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Alan.ca Comments
- Try not to write article text into a thumbnail of a photograph. Keep article text in the paragraph and your image captions short.
- Try to use citation templates when citing your sources. See WP:CITE for more information.
- As referenced by the previous review, try to follow the guidelines for the lead as described in WP:LEAD.
- Try to avoid stray sentences by working towards cohesive and complete paragraphs.
- Get out and take some photos under good light! The photos in the article are a good start, but the desperately need upgrading in most cases.
I was impressed by the effort put into citing the sources of the material. Content with cited sources is a critical step towards creating a Feature Article. I will rate it a C class article for WP:City. Alan.ca (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)