Talk:Eric Easton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 09:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, 54129, let's see what we can make of this one...! Red pen out and ready for a review - should be with it properly later today or early tomorrow... - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting provenance this one—was originally written to help a noob editor avoid committing the cardinal sin of writing about someone they vaguely know, see this Help Desk discussion from March. I even got some of the bloody credit in the end :) ——Serial^# 15:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I deserved more of the credit, but you should have some, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:P ——Serial^# 17:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, SN, there are a fair few outstanding points on the review. There isn't too much rush, but I'd like to close this off sooner rather than later, if you can work your way through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SchroCat, I'm getting—per Blackadder—buggered with a beetroot at FAC at the moment. Thanks for the detailed commentary and suggestions though, and thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for doing the easy bits for me :) ——Serial^# 16:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the joys of FAC. How I don't miss them at all - or the idiotic fumblings of the troll as he made a complete arse of himself in arguing over things he knows nothing about. I see little has changed in that respect since I stopped frequenting the place! - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's praise with faint damn, bugger yourself with a fishfork (also Blackadder). I may do a few more, but the weather outside is delightful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See below.
	Generally: you need to check you ellipses, per WP:ELLIPSIS. OK, think I caught em all. It's also a little quote heavy, particularly where they aren't needed; one para has "an average character of my age, wearing a sports jacket"; "hoping the night wasn't being wasted"; "the first free Turkish bath I'd ever had"; "resembled a schoolteacher"; "total humiliation and embarrassment"; and "his heavy tweed suit and his heavy brogue shoes" – that's six for just the one para, and it's not untypical! Perhaps look at each of the quotes you've used and ask if it is needed – many can be rephrased in WP's own voice. Yes, rephrased quite a few... There are one or two places where you use first names after they have already been introduced (including for people like Jagger, of all people!) Yeah...think thta's done. Lead "Easton saw the band once ... and they soon signed": he saw and they signed? Check "including their first single, Chuck Berry's "Come On"": Makes it look like they were on the original: perhaps "a cover version of..."? Good idea, done. Musical context "British audiences were accustomed to American popular music.": A date or era context would be good. Specified post war. "Not only did the two countries": bit of a monster sentence! Could be broken in two with a semi colon as a minimum Oi Oi :) done, split totally. "1953.[1] and British": Keep the full stop and lose the "and" Uh. "TV": "television" on the first use Done. ~~"Davis notes": Who?~~ Early life Do we know anything about his family, background, schooling, etc? Nothing whatsoever; I scoured local papers, et., but no joy. Career with the RS ~~"Dick Rowe had heard of the Stones": who?~~ "Mick Jagger, in a 1975 interview": stubby para – can be merged with the one above, as both are views about Easton think someone's been playing silly buggers. Done. ~~You have The Beatles and the Beatles (and I can't remember which way the years-long RfCs/discussions/etc ended up)~~ "More basic,"[37] To emphasise": Comma should be a full stop Done. "that spring of 1963 he remained the Stone with": not "spring", per WP:SEASONS, and should be the Stones Not sure what footbally has to do with it?! But I've clarified the time of year if that's what you mean :) Gigs and production work ~~Rice Crispies should be Rice Krispies~~ Increasing fame Ditto on cover version for "Come On" Ditto done. "well-known faces around the country": perhaps just "well-known around the country"? Yes, they were hardly the Krays. "a nationwide tour was about to commence by Bo Diddley and the Everley Brothers": swap to "a nationwide tour by Bo Diddley and the Everley Brothers was about to commence" Good one. "In Summer 1963" SEASONS again Check. Problems in America "wanted to beat the shit out of you")[103][note 26]" Full stop needed Well spotted, done. "music program": as you're not American, it should be "programme" Aren't I? Done. "Autumn 1964" (twice) SEASONS again Right. Discontent Easton for his part reminded Oldham that, as far as he was concerned[124]": is there something missing here? It doesn't make sense as it stands and is missing punctuation at the end. Seems fine, it leads in the quote? "On the other hand, according to": merge into previous paragraph? Ditto re. Silly Buggers! Other work "Easton claimed to have managed the Dave Clark Five": Is this in doubt? "claimed" has connotations of not being true Ha, yeah. It's because that's sourced, via a newspaper interview, to easton himself, and yet—bizarrely!—I can't find a RS that also says so. Try googling `"eric easton" + "dave clark five"`: absolutely bugger all! Reputation "businesslike and practical[173] and "calm, dependable and knew": the "and ... and ... and" jars OK, tightened. That's the lot from me. Over to you.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All OK, although your capitalisations could be tweaked for one or two of the titles (Most have each word in caps, but there are one or two in sentance case)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pending
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

See wot you think SchroCat; sorry about the delay again. Hope all is well! ——Serial^# 16:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good from me, after a quick, final brush up. Well done to both Gråbergs Gråa Sång and SN for your excellent work on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]