Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kirkcaldy/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:50, 27 July 2011 [1].

---

Kirkcaldy

Kirkcaldy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Kirkcaldy/archive1

Nominator(s): Kilnburn (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i want to see how close the article is to meeting feature article status, following a recent peer review. I am confident though it has reached all the criteria for good article status, but i would like some advice at this stage. Kilnburn (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

• In the lead should "a prosperous centre of linoleum" be "of linoleum manufacture"?
• In Medieval history charter is wikilinked on the second occurrence rather than the first
• In Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries is the title Low Countries well enough known to not need a wikilink?
• It might be worth revisiting the punctuation in the sentence "According to the treasurer's accounts in the early 16th century, the import of timber, possibly from the Baltic countries to the harbour was used at both Falkland Palace and Edinburgh Castle as well as a need for shipbuilding."
• Not knowing the local geography very well I am unclear why the Battle of Kilsyth is relevant to Kirkcaldy?
• Should "helping to strength Kirkcaldy's position in Fife" be "helping to strengthen Kirkcaldy's position in Fife"?
• In Modern history, the sentence starting "Between 1922–1923, resulted in the construction of a sea wall" didn't make any sense to me.
• Should Seafield Colliery be wikilinked? also National Coal Board & National Union of Mineworkers to National Union of Mineworkers (Great Britain).
• Should "first Lord Provost as Robert Whyt" be "first Lord Provost was Robert Whyt"
• In Governance should Dysart Burghs be linked to Dysart Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)?
• The second paragraph of Demography is uncited.
• In Landmarks Category A links to a dab page (multiple times) Category B is similar
• The references should have format=PDF where appropriate eg ref 66, 159, 167

I'm not a prose expert and have not gone through the whole document but would suggest you ask for a copy edit as there seem to be multiple grammar issues and I have only put a few in as examples.— Rod ^talk 20:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also just noticed that according to the dablinks tool (top right) there are still four other links to disambigaution pages (even after Category A & B have been resolved) ie Baltic, Dysart, Roman & Scottish.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. As Rodw points out, it is in need of extensive copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow, and further citations are needed in Demography. In addition, editing is needed for WP:MOS compliance (such as overlinking) and citation consistency (for example, whether or not locations are include for book publishers). The article's issues aren't insurmountable, but would be better addressed away from FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - Captions checked
  • I don't think that the article justifies the non-free image File:Kirkcaldy royal coat of arms.jpg, its contribution to the understanding of the article is minimal. It might work in a History of Kirkcaldy article that dealt more extensively with that period, but not here.
  • I also think that the panorama is too large. I'd put it at 200px height, which would necessitate converting it from a panorama template into a thumb template.
  • Everything else checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

i was actually thinking about putting Kirkcaldy for copy editing, before i decided to put the article forward for FAC. i totally agree with the decision for urgent copy editing from more experienced editors. for the meantime, should i fix the most basic of grammar; make that adjustment to the panorama picture as well as remove the picture of Kirkcaldy's royal coat of arms? Kilnburn (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I just copyedited a small section ("Landmarks"), including some grammar and links. A similar exercise is needed across the article. In relation to the historic buildings, it would be nice to see the actual listings from Historic Scotland cited as references. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Your nom statement is over-diffident, and suggests a misconception about the FAC process. This is not the forum for general advice; before bringing an article here you should convince yourself that it meets all the featured article criteria. An unconfident statement like yours almost invites negative criticism. Having said that, I don't think the article is at all bad, though I think the most recent peer review's assessment was a little on the generous side. The nomination was premature, in advance of a copyedit and the meticulous final polishing that should precede every FAC. Apart from four dablinks pointed out, there is a dead link in footnote 1 ("Scottish Gaelic Placenames"). There are prose lapses in the lead, e.g. "The street would eventually reach..." when you mean "The street eventually reached"; "dominated by the Michael Nairn & Co." (inappropriate definite article); and I'd like to know how a "linear" settlement could be formed "around" a harbour. Your best course of action may be a graceful withdrawal, to give time for these and other things to be attended to. I'm prepared to look over the article prior to its renomination in a couple of weeks or so, but not within the timescale of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

i would like to withdraw with immediate effect. the article needs a full copyedit across the article (for the exception of "Landmarks") and more citations in both demographics and landmarks (actual listings from Historic Scotland). i really should have put the article under a copyedit first. when these issues have been sorted, then would be the time for a renomination. it's only fair. Kilnburn (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.