Talk:Kilmarnock/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 14:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failing this based on the cleanup banner which I note was added after the article was nominated. The notable people and residents section is not the only section which contains unreferenced material. For example, the population figures in the Burgh of Barony, 1592 section and entire paragraphs in the Political overview and Education sections.

Other comments to help you bring this up to GA standard for a future nomination:

The lead is a bit long and a bit erratic. I'm not sure all of that information is relevant for the lead. As an example, Arbroath was recently reassessed as a Good Article so that could be a good starting point for the kind of thing to include. See MOS:LEAD for further guidance as well.
The History section stops in 1996. What has happened since? It also jumps around. I would make this more linear so that someone could follow the history of the town chronologically. There's a big focus on the formation of East Ayrshire Council but nothing about the local government reorganisation in the 1970s. I don't think you need to go too in-depth on either tbf but it would be worth a mention given Kilmarnock was the administrative centre.
a form of municipal government which passed away in 1975. "passed away" is one of the words to watch, just say what actually happened especially when this is not a euphemism for death.
The headings hierarchy is off. Economy, transport and education are not demographic information so shouldn't be subsections of demography. Again, see the Arbroath article for an example of how to organise these sections.

I think you've done a lot of good work and the article has improved but there's still a lot to do. Peer review may be an option to assist you and guide you through improving the article.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.