Talk:Howard Sims/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first perusal. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 08:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments

This is an admirable article, and will, I have no doubt, meet the GA criteria after a little polishing. Some suggestions:

Duplicate links
- "Off-Broadway" and "Gregory Hines" are both linked more than once from the main text.
Dashes
- The MoS (MOS:MDASH) requires either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. The article at present has spaced em-dashes, which should either be unspaced or turned into en-dashes.
Consistency
- "Sandbox" or "sand box"? At present we have both.
Lead
- At present the lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, according to which (i) everything of substance in the main text should be glanced at in the lead and (ii) there should be nothing in the lead that isn't written about in the main text. We are pretty much all right so far as the first is concerned but the Stradivarius and Kisselgof quotations appear only in the lead.
Early life
- "After twice breaking his hand, though, he decided" – not sure what the "though" adds to the sentence.
Harlem
- "as he'd done in California" – no contractions, please: MOS:N'T
- "working whatever jobs he could find" – is there a preposition missing here or is "working a job" normal in AmEng?
- "dancing didn't stop him" – another contraction contrary to the MoS diktat.
- "hoofers" – not sure why this is in bold
- The block quotation beginning "At the Hoofers Club" has no discernible context – it is not clear who said it or why we need a 128-word verbatim quotation from him or her at this point.
Decline and revival of tap
- There is another block quotation with no indication of who said it or why it is reproduced verbatim rather than paraphrased (except for the quoted comment by Sims at the end).
- "The crescendo of interest" – a strange choice of word: one knows "crescendo" as a musical term meaning "getting louder" (as indeed the linked article confirms). Here it seems to be pressed into use to say, "Interest in tap dancing continued to grow".
- "with the legendary Cab Calloway" – WP:PEA
- "by none other than Cab Calloway" – WP:EDITORIAL
- "renowned clogger Ira Bernstein" – more peacockery
The Apollo reopens
- "following an overdue renovation" – overdue according to whom?
- "a span of just 11 months" – I suggest dropping the editorial "just"
Personal life
- "Sims married his wife Solange" – I imagine you haven't mentioned her maiden name because it is not known, but if it can be found in any of your sources it would be a welcome addition here.
- "A memorial service for Sims was held May 28, 2003" – this comes as rather a surprise, as we haven't been told that he was dead at this point. (It's in the lead and the info-box, but it ought also to be in the main narrative.)

These are mostly minor points, and they can be attended to without much difficulty, I'm sure. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to consider them. – Tim riley talk 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my (Tim riley's) talk page:

Thanks so much for your kind and constructive comments on this article. I wanted to discuss a few of the particulars with you as I go through making the suggested improvements. (Anything not brought up below, I have just changed per your comments.)I believe I have addressed all your other points in my most recent edit to the article. I look forward to your next round of feedback. [...] (Oh, and if your talk page wasn't the right place to put this, feel free to move it wherever it does go. This is my first time nominating an article for GA status.) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links: "Off-Broadway" and "Gregory Hines" are both linked more than once from the main text.
- "Off-Broadway" was an error. "Gregory Hines" I thought appropriate as the second instance was a ways down the page and in a different context from the first, but if it would stand in the way of GA classification I'm fine with changing it. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. The MoS specifically states that its rules are to be applied with common sense, which covers the duplicate link to Hines, in my view. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS (MOS:MDASH) requires either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.
- I was trained (long before Wikipedia existed — I used to work as both a professional editor and a graphic designer) that spaced em dashes were correct, and those two options were not. If strict adherence to the MOS in this regard is required, I'll change it to spaced en-dashes, but tbh I would prefer not to. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I 'm afraid I must insist on this point. I don't think the MoS's "common sense" clause can be taken to offer any wiggle-room on this stylistic point. If it's any consolation, see the unspaced em-dashes here and here in books that mention Sims. Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sandbox" or "sand box"? At present we have both.
- "Sand box" was in the stub when I found it; I left it mostly on the presumption that there was some reason for that orthography, and a bit as it disambiguated Sims's box from a children's sandbox. Since one of the instances of "sandbox" is a direct quotation, though, I've gone with that version throughout. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At present the lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, according to which (i) everything of substance in the main text should be glanced at in the lead and (ii) there should be nothing in the lead that isn't written about in the main text. We are pretty much all right so far as the first is concerned but the Stradivarius and Kisselgof quotations appear only in the lead.
- I have placed the Kisselgoff quotation in the body as well (is it correct for it to be in both places?) but I am struggling a bit for a context to insert the Stradivarius quote; it seems it would be a shame to lose that one, though. Can you offer any suggestions? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some editors like to repeat word for word in the main text phrases they have used in the lead; I prefer to vary them a bit, to spare readers a feeling of déjà vu, but there is no guideline for us to follow on this, and it's entirely your choice. It would indeed be a shame to lose the Strad quotation, but it will fit very well into the sentence beginning "His sandbox remained his trademark throughout his career…", either in the middle or at the end. I leave you to consider the point after this review is concluded, which it's about to be. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworked the lead a bit in general, and I think it now serves better as an encapsulation of the highlights of the body of the article, but any further suggestions you have are welcome. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lead is looking excellent now. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"working whatever jobs he could find" – is there a preposition missing here or is "working a job" normal in AmEng?
- "working a job" isn't really seen, but yes, "working a ___ job", e.g. "working a dead-end job", "working multiple jobs", etc., is standard American usage. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine (and noted for future reference). – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The block quotation beginning "At the Hoofers Club" has no discernible context – it is not clear who said it or why we need a 128-word verbatim quotation from him or her at this point.
- I have provided identification and context, which is I think what you were suggesting, rather than that I convert the information to paraphrasing? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That will do very nicely. The reader will know where he or she is now. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is another block quotation with no indication of who said it or why it is reproduced verbatim rather than paraphrased (except for the quoted comment by Sims at the end).
- I had been uncertain of my ability to paraphrase that section without paraphrasing too closely, particularly in regard to the "floor tax" which I don't understand well enough to paraphrase. But I have given it a go. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Point taken about avoiding unduly close paraphrase, but your drafting is fine in that regard, in my view. Judicious use of quotations is very desirable, but I always try (I don't say I always succeed) to ask myself when drafting why a verbatim quote rather than a paraphrase would be advantageous at any particular point. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The crescendo of interest" – a strange choice of word: one knows "crescendo" as a musical term meaning "getting louder" (as indeed the linked article confirms). Here it seems to be pressed into use to say, "Interest in tap dancing continued to grow".
- I suppose I might have gone too far in trying to avoid repetitive wording being dull? I still like it, but if you feel the metaphor is that inappropriate, I'll re-word. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It momentarily distracted me from your narrative, which is why I mentioned it, but nobody could call the imagery wrong. If you want to keep it, it certainly isn't in breach of any of the GA criteria. If you do keep it, I'd be inclined to remove the blue link: it is a fairly everyday word. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"following an overdue renovation" – overdue according to whom?
- I'm almost positive one of the sources did call it that, but I can't find which one, so I've changed it to "extensive" which I believe is unambiguously supported by the two sources cited. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sims married his wife Solange" – I imagine you haven't mentioned her maiden name because it is not known, but if it can be found in any of your sources it would be a welcome addition here.
- Believe me, I tried every Google trick I know looking for Mrs. Sims's maiden name. It does not seem to have been published anywhere, or at least not anywhere that's online. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagined that was so. We've all been similarly frustrated in our researches from time to time. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A memorial service for Sims was held May 28, 2003" – this comes as rather a surprise, as we haven't been told that he was dead at this point. (It's in the lead and the info-box, but it ought also to be in the main narrative.)
- Ha! You can tell I was too close to the article to see this issue by the time I got to the end. Fixed, I think. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've all done that sort of thing too! I'd put the death and the memorial into a single para, I think, to avoid having two stubby one-sentence paras in succession. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Well I think we're there. I leave you to make the one outstanding minor change requested above (the dashes). Meanwhile, stand back and give me room to cut the ceremonial ribbon:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I am pleased to have had the privilege of promoting your first GA nomination. This is a fine article, which I found brought vividly to life someone of whom I had not heard before. I hope we can look forward to more GANs of this quality from you. – Tim riley talk 08:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]