Talk:Club Cumming/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsif, thanks for taking this on ! Armadillopteryx^talk 00:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments:

Talk page and history stable
Appropriate commons licensed images
Good amount of images, quotation boxes also used. Good, but any more and it may seem overloaded.
Infobox satis
Variety of reliable sources
No evidence of copyvio
Refs used appropriately, doesn't seem to be any OR
Lead a good length for article
Perhaps split lead into two paragraphs before The bar was ordered to..., but not necessary

I prefer it as is, but I don't feel too strongly if you'd rather I change it.

The critics statement doesn't seem controversial enough to warrant inline citations in the lead; as long as the relevant section aptly demonstrates the good reception, these can be removed per MOS:LEADCITE

Done; citations removed.

necessary licensing - for alcohol or music or something else? Lead doesn't have to give all details, but shouldn't be unnecessarily vague.

Done; reworded.

Could you create more consistency with punctuation placement - in or out of quotation marks. Last I checked, even with AmEng articles the tendency is to use logical punctuation and keep it outside quotation marks. This is mostly adhered to, but in some places (mostly in Reception, but once or twice before) there are periods within the quote.

I follow MOS:LQ, which says: Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. Accordingly, I've put the punctuation inside when it was in the source material and outside when it wasn't.

included in the mix sounds, to me, too colloquial. It could be replaced with another phrasing.

Done; reworded.

After "Amber Martin", I don't think the "there" is necessary - where else would it be talking about? If the sentence feels incomplete, "at the club" would work as a replacement (and IMO reads better anyway).

Done; reworded per your suggestion.

an annual ceremony à la the Oscars - love the French, but how about just "like", or "akin to" if you want to be upmarket ;)

I chose "à la" because it's closest to my intended meaning (like, "in the style of"—same format, same time interval, etc.). It's more specific than "like" or "akin to", but I can change it to one of those if you feel strongly.

that had recently occurred - for posterity's sake, could this become "that had then-recently occurred"

I guess, but isn't that redundant/clunkier? The verb tense communicates the timing.

I fixed one apostrophe and period.

Thank you! I always seem to miss a pesky curly apostrophe or two. I've put the period back inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ (it was a part of the source text).

Overall

on hold Well written, tight to the subject with good detail. A few minor things to address. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review, Kingsif! I've addressed your points above. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armadillopteryx: Thanks for the responses - all looks good, but if keeping the French à la, can it be italicized in keeping with foreign-language text in English articles? Otherwise, good to pass this. Kingsif (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Yes—I've italicized it now. Thanks again! Armadillopteryx^talk 06:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.