Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastbourne/archive1

Eastbourne

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a few months ago the article obtained a Good Article status, and I am sure with a final push it can become a Featured Article. There have been no major changes since the GA, and we just like to know what needs to be done to achieve the FA status.

Thanks, MortimerCat (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Paulbrock comments:

OVERALL

• lots of info here, which appears well-referenced, I've picked out quite a few points, but the article is generally in a very good shape!
• maybe too much information if anything, and it relies on local knowledge, there's quite a bit of "it's now behind the church", or "next to the school grounds", which isn't much help to the casual observer.
• bit of a tendency to over-introduce related subjects e.g. "directed by Bend It Like Beckham director, Gurinder Chadha". Given that it's all wikilinked, I'd say it was much easier to read "directed by Gurinder Chadha". Same for Bang Bang, It's Reeves and Mortimer and The Mobiles.

LEAD

• infobox image is fairly low quality, could do with a nicer,clearer image.
• "It has since suffered from the general trend away from taking holidays within the United Kingdom." - could this be expanded or sourced? How (much) has it suffered?
• "second largest settlement in East Sussex after Brighton & Hove and before Hastings." - I'd be tempted to strike off Hastings from this.
• "Geographically, Eastbourne is situated..." - Geographically is unneccesary.
• what sunshine record? mentionted later on but needs to be more specific...
• 'boasts' is used a couple of times, maybe formalise this a little more?

HISTORY

• overall,looks fairly comprehensive and well-sourced to me.
• Maybe separate out "the Roman x was discovered in x" stuff, not sure really but they are more like evidence of Roman occupation. Maybe even just lose the dates and specific locations - not sure about this, so feel free to ignore!
• Redoubt fortress is 'introduced' in both the 1st and 3rd paras- also referred to inconsistently thru article - "Redoubt fortress" "Eastbourne Redoubt" "Eastbourne Redoubt Fortress"!
• Some sentences here tend to be quite long and rambly - e.g. "By the mid–19th century most of the area had fallen into the hands of two landowners: John Davies Gilbert (the Davies-Gilbert family still own much of the land in Eastbourne and East Dean) and William Cavendish, Earl of Burlington"
• "The town received more air attacks than any other in the south-eastern region" - London?

AREAS AND SUBURBS

• Quite difficult to read in parts,large paras, and it seems to be all about Holywell, rather than any other areas.

BEACHY HEAD

• Is there a source for 'unofficial statistics', or is that an oxymoron? :-) "3rd most common spot" where, nationally?

TRANSPORT

• Listing specific taxi firms is probably too much detail!

CULTURE

• Could do with a few more photos early on, maybe some of the notable residents or parks?
• Blue plaques stuff is interesting, but again possibly too much detail? Certainly address of each and every one. Two/three separate tables seems clumsy.
• Expand/explain VC wrt Nelson Victor Carter.
• The serial killer seems a little out-of-place as a 'notable resident'. Is it worth mentioning under History?
• Music - several bands had top 10 hits - why single out The Mobiles?

Hope that helps...! Paulbrock (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very useful. MortimerCat (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.ukfossils.co.uk/
  • http://www.muchmusic.com/music/
  • http://www.tonynorman.com/news.htm
  • Current refe 72 "Many Years Many Girls" says the publisher is the author, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 26 "National Rail Enquiries" is lacking publisher information.
• Current ref 42 is lacking last access date (Soverieng Radio)
• Current ref 43 "Chris Brooks (about me link)" is lacking publisher information
• Current ref 44 (Towner Art Gallery) is lacking publisher and last access date. Also what makes this a reliable source for the information being sourced?
• Current refe 45 "Images of England ..." is lacking lubisher and last access date.
• Current ref 46 "Easbourne borough council - theatres" is lacking publisher and last access date
• Current ref 47 "About the under ground theatre" is lacking publisher and last access date
• Current ref 74 "British Council" is lacking publisher information

I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)