Glenrothes 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 June 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see what more can be done to help push Glenrothes towards FA status. The strength of the article is it has a good layout with appropriately placed pictures (where needed) and enough text to justify the pictures or section, so it is not seen to be too menadering. The weakness of the article that i find, is the reference work and lack of/or no references at the end of some sentences or paragraphs. I know that a lot of work has been put into this article and i hope you would be kind enough to give feedback.
Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. You need to have no bare numbered links in your references, the links should be formatted with titles of the pages. Per the MOS, nothing should be in all capitals, even when it is in the original. You've got article titles in italics, when they should be in quotations. 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)