Wikipedia:Peer review/Knighton, Powys/archive1

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am keen to focus on 1 article and to make it as good as I can

Thanks,

MJB (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 418 metres, use 418 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 418 metres.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]