Talk:Well he would, wouldn't he?/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: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Well I'd pass this very neat and entertaining article straight away really, wouldn't I, but people do like to see a few comments here and there, don't they...

• "MRDA" - that's the Men's Roller Derby Association, no? – seriously, not too sure about putting the acronym up here, specially without an explicit citation. "Mandy Rice-Davies Applies" is well attested, but why are we emphasising the acronym in the lead? And by the way, when something is ambiguous, as this acronym is, we don't put it in boldface in the lead, as that implies a (major) redirect target.

We did later reference it with Halls 2020, but can repeat it in the lead if wanted. I looked at Sagan standard, a quotation FA and it similarly has (ECREE): that does redirect there, but MRDA has competition, as you've said. Are you strongly in favour of removing it from the lead? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The minimum is to remove the boldface, which is non-standard when there's ambiguity.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The use of "and" in section headings is generally a sign of lack of focus: and it looks untidy even when it isn't. "Use and analysis" could simply be "Analysis" here, with nothing lost (as use has been described in the section above). "Cross-examination and utterance", too, could just be "Utterance", but that does reveal the slightly academic word-choice here. We agree that the phrase contains a rhetorical question, but it's still a "Statement": no doubt other solutions can be found. The other instance, "Investigation and trial of Stephen Ward", can probably do without the "and trial", for the good reason that the section doesn't mention the trial.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that we need boldface in Note 1: it's certainly non-standard there.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The reference "Front page. Evening Standard." is unusual in several ways, in particular sitting oddly without a date (like the other newspaper refs); I don't really see why they should be undated here. Alternatives might be "Evening Standard 1963", or "A Cliveden Swim" (if dates are out) to match your Washington Post ref which uses a headline. The different treatments feel uneven, in a word.

I've swopped it for your suggestion, "A Cliveden swim—by Miss R". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should move the cite to the lead per MOS:LEAD; citing it later is fine. Additionally, the MRDA disambiguation page links here, so removing it might cause confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Washington Post calls it a "quip", which might be worth quoting: it's accurate, and makes a nice change from "the phrase" at least.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Images

• The images, all from Commons, appear to have suitable licenses.

Sources

• The books should have an OCLC when an ISBN is not available (Irving 1964).

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The use of an ASIN for Thorpe 2010 is basically wrong (deprecated), and unnecessary given the OCLC there.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Front page" should have the same date format as all the other newspaper articles.

We haven't got authors for the Scotsman article, the 30 June Observer article or the front page, while all the others do: is that what's causing it to display differently? It's formatted in wikitext the same. Am I missing something? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. But why are we using "Front Page" rather than the article's headline?

Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Spot-checks: everything I tried checked out as it should have. Stanford 2014 is entertaining on the punctuation (a dry subject if ever I heard one).

Summary

• This is a good crisp article, very tidily cited (thinking of FAC, anyone?), and it'll be a GA very shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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.