Talk:Mulgrew Miller/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments a really nice piece of work.
- "influence" is over-used in the opening para of the lead.
- Changed. Hopefully there aren't too many "style"s now.
- "While at high school, he..." about time for another "Miller", so "While at high school, Miller..."
- Done.
- "in two years.[4] Two years later" picky, but mildly repetitive.
- Changed to "in two years. They did meet again two years later"
- WP:DATERANGE normally means you can lose the first two digits of the second of the pair of years in a range assuming they're in the same century.
- Two headings changed. Please alter others if there are any.
- "Near the end" Would prefer "Towards the end..."
- Done.
- " Miller had done the same thing" never really like "do" or "done", can this be rephrased?
- Changed to "Miller had performed the same role".
- "cemented his reputation within jazz" do you mean something like "within his contemporaries" rather than "jazz" as a whole?
- The original has "the jazz world", which is similarly vague. The implication is that it was with his contemporaries, but that's not in the source; I'd leave it for the reader of this article and the source to grasp the inference.
- "1987[11][25] as," purely aesthetic, this looks awful...
- Rejigged.
- "a lot of his " -> "many of his"?
- Interesting. I remember grammar books stating that "many" is for questions and negative constructions. It's not always that way. Left as is, as personal preference.
- "decided to concentrate on" why not just "concentrated on"?
- Changed.
- "over 15 albums" shouldn't that be "more than"?
- Changed.
- "a few hundred" not particularly encyclopedic.
- I agree. The problem is that several sources say 'more than 400'; others have 'more than 500', but I've never seen a list of anything close to either number. I suspect that people just repeat the 400 without checking, and I would prefer not to perpetuate that.
- Well you're only using a single reference for that section of the sentence, what does that source say? If multiple sources say over 400 and others say over 500, it would seem safe and reasonable to use 400 as the number... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Changed to "more than 400"; I'll continue to check for updates/more accurate or precise figures, which should appear at some point, as not many unreleased recordings are likely to come out. EddieHugh (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well you're only using a single reference for that section of the sentence, what does that source say? If multiple sources say over 400 and others say over 500, it would seem safe and reasonable to use 400 as the number... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. The problem is that several sources say 'more than 400'; others have 'more than 500', but I've never seen a list of anything close to either number. I suspect that people just repeat the 400 without checking, and I would prefer not to perpetuate that.
Not too much to address so I'll put it on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Summary of changes/comments are indented above. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks for the review. EddieHugh (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)