Talk:Bobby Timmons/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Best article I found on Bobby Timmons, even in books. Many (hard to find) informations from newspaper articles. No prejudices as common on Timmons, spans lifeapects continously. -- Room 608 10:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note to apologise for not getting back to this sooner. I've had a hard time getting a block of, say, twenty uninterrupted minutes lately, but will do my best in the forthcoming days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments nice work again.

Year ranges per WP:DATERANGE don't need to repeat centuries if they're the same.

Changed one heading, although "summer 1961 to 74" sounds odd read out: does the rule apply when a period of one year is specified?

I've reverted so it should fix your concern and I'll pipe down! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would link sideman as it's not obvious to non-experts what this role entails.

Linked in lead and first mention in main text.

"plus several " not keen on "plus"

Changed to "and".

Why not link Philadelphia Musical Academy?

Must have missed that one. Thanks.

"hard bop" is mentioned in the infobox, refs and cats, but not in the prose.

Categories/genres... I don't like them; changed to "jazz" in infobox and removed "hard bop" from cats. The ref is a title that includes "soul jazz", which is in the main text.

"a time[7])," move that ref out to behind the punctuation.

7 is for what is within the brackets, so should appear within them, too.

"his second, final," second and final?

I think that the current version is less ambiguous: "second and final" could be two things (second... and third, which was the last); the singular "recording" removes the ambiguity, but not having it to begin with is preferable, I think.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments indented above. Thanks for the review and let me know if more is needed. EddieHugh (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good for me, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]