Wikipedia:Peer review/Civil parishes in Cornwall/archive1

Civil parishes in Cornwall

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is now complete and want to nominate it for a recognised status. A point I'd like clarified is what form of recognised content path this article should take; either the GA/FA path or the FL path? (This article was moved from List of civil parishes in Cornwall to Civil parishes in Cornwall after an upgrade and assessed as such). All comments welcomed.

Cheers, Zangar (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Nice article.

"there were 501,267 people living in the, now, 218 parishes" is clunky. Plus, you've already mentioned the 218 figure. Recommend simplifying to "living in the parishes"
- Done - I added the word "current" as well, just to distinguish that at the time the 2001 census was taken 4 parishes had not been created. Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"100.0% of the" -> "100% of the" or better: "all of the" or "the whole of the"
- Done Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"on 1 April 2009, to" no comma necessary.
- Done Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"with Penzance having the largest population of 21,168" see WP:PLUSING and rephrase.
- Done Thanks for pointing that out! Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the Isles of Scilly having their own unitary authority": Same.
- Done Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"purely ecclesiastical divisions." -> "purely ecclesiastical" (redundancy)
- Done Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "rate" understood as a tax? Is "rate" the appropriate British term? Excuse my ignorance.
- "rate" is fairly well understood as being a type of property tax in the UK, it's been wikilinked, so hopefully should be clear to the reader. Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider replacing semicolons with full stops in the fourth and last part of the fifth paragraphs of the History section. These only appear to be adding to the length of sentences without introducing useful meaning or juxtaposition.
- Done Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is mostly good, but I think it could use some reworking for clarity and conciseness. Sentences are occasionally overly long and convoluted. Better to get things across as efficiently and clearly as possible.
- Thanks - I've split some of the longer sentences where I felt they could be. So hopefully that fixes that. Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider moving this and making it a list of the parishes rather than an article. It seems to me that it's mainly a list of the parishes, with some prefatory (but good) information re: the legal status and history of parishes.--Batard0 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review! Some good spots and advice. I'll put this up for a Requested move, as I think you're right about the list side. Thanks again! Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]