Talk:Niddrie, Edinburgh
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Niddrie, Edinburgh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Niddrie, Edinburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510081913/http://www.sns.gov.uk/Simd/Simd.aspx to http://www.sns.gov.uk/Simd/Simd.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
General state of this article
[edit]Hi,
There are clearly many aspects of this article that could do with being improved. As a small step I have tried to help as follows:
- There was a lot of text in the summary section that wasn't actually summarising anything from the main body of the article
- I have thus created new sections that seem appropriate and pasted the relevant text into there
I hope this reads in the intended constructive tone. Anyone who can build on this to make the article even better, thank you very much.