Talk:Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 25, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please respond below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Lede = "protest poems", have been called ... by whom?
2nd paragraph of lede, a little long, perhaps split apart in twain?
3rd paragraph of lede, severely short, consider expanding it?
Ten (10) instances of word "but", perhaps copyedit these and remove as many as possible?
Five (5) uses of word "also", maybe some of these are unnecessary and can be trimmed?
Seven (7) uses of words "though" or "although", consider removing as many as possible of these?
Lede = was a best seller, according to what? Where was it a best seller?
Please, remove the pull-quote from the Reception sect. This type of style presentation has been highly highly highly criticized in the past on quality improvement projects I myself have worked on.

2. Factually accurate?:

Please split References sect into Notes then Works cited, per WP:LAYOUT.
Please make sure that all sentences with quotes in them have inline cites directly after those individual sentences, not just ends of paragraphs.
Lots of use of quotes throughout, please consider paraphrasing and trimming down total number of quotations in article.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Reception sect is quite skimpy, please consider more research to expand this greatly?
Pulitzer mention should be in Reception sect, not Background sect?

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here.

5. Article stability? No issues here.

6. Images?: No issues here.

NOTE: Please respond below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede: I assume that by "third paragraph" you mean the final one. I expanded it some; remember, the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article's body.
Quote box question: Dude, no disrespect meant, but who's criticized using them? 'Cause really, you're the first person to complain, and I've used them extensively, even in FAs. I'd really like to see some diffs, to satisfy my curiosity. Like I've told you before, I believe in following the suggestions of my reviewers, so I removed it.
I've addressed all the concerns to the best of ability, I believe. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Here is one example by Orangemike (talk · contribs), quoting his edit summary: "pull quotes belong in advertisements, not encyclopedia articles". Okay? — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, like I said, no offense meant. WP, like RL should be, is the perfect place to agree to disagree. Forgot one thing: I understand that the Reception section is small, but I assure you that it's comprehensive. I work at a university, so I have access to a library database, and I included everything I could find. That's the trouble with many older publications like this one. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten criticism about "pull quotes" usage from more than just User:Orangemike. As for reviews, what about Kirkus Reviews? What about Publishers Weekly? — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again, and was able to find a review from Kirkus, which I added to the article, but not from PW. I also added the refs requested in the lede and replaced the tag with them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA, thanks for such responsiveness to my comments, above. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]