Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/GA1

GA Review

Hi. Unfortunately, this article does not yet meet GA standards for the following reasons:

Layout

Please check with WP:UKCITY to ensure the article follows the appropriate layout (i.e. history often goes first) and conforms with the suggested section headers; there are currently too many unnecessary headers, especially under "Society, Culture and Leisure" (which, by the way, should only have the first word capitalized) and "Parks and green spaces". Crime should be included within demographics and "Perception of the town" should not be included in an encyclopedia entry, and "Tunbridge Wells people" should be listed as a link under "See also"

I have transjiggered the headings to comply with the UKCITY guidelines. Sjc196 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, the lead could be expanded to include the basic info as recommended by UKCITY

I have modified the lead so that it better reflects what is required as per the LEAD guidelines. Sjc196 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LIST, all information presented in the main text should be written as prose (see Park and green spaces)

I have rewritten the article so that it is prose. Sjc196 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. Please go through and provide the actual figures in these areas. For example, in the lead, it is mentioned that the town is a "relatively affluent place", which means absolutely nothing to the reader.

I think I have removed (or quantified) all of the vague terms now. Sjc196 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL and WP:MOS, do not put External Links in the article text itself.

I have removed the External Links that were present in the article text. Sjc196 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Every "hard fact" (i.e. dates, numbers, statistics, etc.) and every piece of information that may be controversial should have a source consistent with WP:CITE. All web references should also have at least the title, publisher and access date. There is a Wikipedia reference generator tool that will automatically format references for you. There are currently sections and paragraphs that do not have citations, which certainly needs to be corrected before the article can be promoted.

I have either found sources for, or removed, all claims that require a citation. I have also converted all references to the correct format. Sjc196 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a great starting article but needs a bit more work before it can make its way to GA. If you would like help revising the article, I would suggest nominating the article for a peer review. I look forward to seeing this article nominated for GA in the future. Best, epicAdam (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]