Talk:Divine (performer)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: EditorE (talk · contribs) 02:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Okay. I guess I'll do this one: Discography[reply]

  • Since the discography is part of the article and is not its own list, I don't reasons for a summary to be put in the section.
  • Both the Albums' and "CD reissues list need to be put in templates. May I also mention the German peak for My First Album missing here?
  • In the Singles table, the "US Dance" Peaks should come first, not "UK", since Divine was American.
  • Change "DEU" to "GER". Also, it should come after "AUT"".
  • NED --> NLD
  • Source for ARIA Charts?
  • Please also source the uncharted singles.

Sources

  • Fix the error in ref 112.
    • I can't seem to see any problems in reference 112 ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WAAA????!!! Is it just me or is there actual red "accessdate requries |url=" text I see in the ref? Please try to get rid of it? 和DITOREtails 00:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see what you mean. I'm afraid that I have no idea how to get rid of that; is it essential for a GA review ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix the citation style for ref 151. Accessdate for the ref?
  • Page for ref 156.
    • That particular reference refers to the entire book, rather than any specific pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Discogs reliable?
  • Better source needed for chartstats.
  • In the Bilbiography, why are you presenting Divine as author of the source? That makes no sense.
    • I had initially done so because Divine was actually interviewed in the text; I have replaced it with the name of the interviewer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, but I want to get the review started. 和DITOREtails 02:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question. Why was this nominated as a film GA even though this really should be listed as a media and drama GA, as this is a bio? 和DITOREtails 00:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments EdirorE! I listed it under "Film" because Divine was primarily known as a film actor, although looking further at the issue, I realise that you are right! It should be under Media and Bio. My mistake. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article's talk page so the nomination will appear under "Media and drama", which is where actors belong; it's primarily important when the article becomes a GA, so it can be listed in the correct section. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BlueMoonset! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know its going a bit slow, but I've just been wanting to do other stuff. I'm sure I'll get back to this, since this is the first time I've a GA review on a long article. BTW, can we do a better job with the citation style of the People mag ref? Maybe a link exists for it too? 和DITOREtails 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but a month is stretching things when it comes to finishing a review. Agreeing to do a review carries with it certain responsibilities, such as giving it a reasonable priority level in overall Wikipedia activity. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've managed to find a much fuller, better reference for the People obituary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOrry it's been so long. I've been busy, so I haven't been able to get back to this. I'll go for a second opinion. 和DITOREtails 20:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion from Quadell[edit]

I am willing to assist in reviewing this article. At first blush, it looks like a very strong candidate. I will give a more detailed review in the next day or two. – Quadell (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended.

  • I proof-read the article and made several minor text changes, altering punctuation and splitting long sentences. If you disagree with any of these changes, feel free to revert and discuss them.
  • 1b According to WP:OVERLINK, we should not link "the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations" or "everyday words understood by most readers in context". We don't need to link Maryland, California, Yugoslavia, Christianity, Christmas, Santa Claus, New York City, Los Angeles, London, celebrity, or elephant. You also link marijuana twice in the prose, as well as some names: Mink Stole, Andrew Logan, Mary Vivian Pearce, Sylvester, Tab Hunter, and Ricki Lake. Finally, it isn't appropriate to link to legal guardian with the term "godfather"; they are not the same thing.
    • Part of the issue here is regarding what constitutes "major geographic features and locations". The US states (and in particular Maryland) aren't necessarily well known to everyone around the world, or even in the Anglophone world. Sure, every US citizen probably knows what they are and where they are (or at least I would hope so), but I really don't think that the same is true of every citizen of Hong Kong or South Africa, for instance. So if it's okay, I'd rather leave them linked. Similarly, Yugoslavia no longer exists as a country, so I suspect that many readers around the world (and certainly those reading this in the future) might have no idea what it actually is. So again, I would argue in favour of retaining the link. Contrastingly, I am more than happy to de-link celebrity and elephant, and de-linking and repeated words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you're right, the issue is not black and white. Your linking decisions make sense; thanks for giving careful thought to the issue. – Quadell (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a The infobox spells "character actor" wrong.
    • Someone else has added that in recently. Seeing as how the infobox already describes him as an "actor", I really don't think this necessary, and have removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b The section should not be called "Youth: 1945–1965", since the entire first third concerns events before 1945. What would you think of "Family and childhood"? If so, you should probably take the years out of the other section headings. (I don't think they're particularly useful anyway.)
    • Hmm. I'm a big fan of dates in headings; I think they are very useful for readers who come to Wikipedia wanting to find out what a certain individual was doing when (which is something I often do). That being the case, I personally would really like to retain the dates. However, if you really think we should change it, then I'll go along with that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a GA requirement to take years out of headers. But I'd feel more comfortable if the years were clearly accurate. Would a header like "Youth: before 1965" suit you? (Or maybe "Family and childhood: pre-1965"?) – Quadell (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I'm being perfectly honest, I think that "before 1965" and "pre-1975" sound a bit too messy. This particular section is titled "1945–1965" because it covers those early years of Divine's life. Yes, the first paragraph does provide a brief biography of his parents, which takes us a little back in time, but that is only there to provide a tiny bit of background information, and I don't think that this needs to be reflected in the title dates. That's my feelings anyway, but I can always be over-ruled by consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough, I suppose. I still think it would be better to change it, but on balance it's not the sort of unambiguous inaccuracy that would be an impediment to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a This sentence needs to be rewritten: "Sometimes helping out at his parents' day care business, for instance dressing up as Santa Claus to entertain the children at Christmas time,[18] Milstead eventually gave up his job and for a while was financially supported by his parents, who catered to his expensive taste in clothes and cars."
  • 1a This sentence needs to be reworded: "Escaping police by traveling to San Francisco, California, the city had a large gay subculture..." (The city did not escape police.)
  • 2b Direct quotes need direct citations, at it's clearest to put each citation immediately after the quote (or at the end of the sentence, but only if it's clear which source the quote comes from). This is a problem for "a beatnik bar", "the trashiest motion pictures in cinema history", "elderly dames, young faggots...", "bottom-of-the-barrel prices", "an exercise in poor taste", "the filthiest person alive", "I followed that dog around...", "I run around doing it all the time...", "very significant success" in "micro-independent terms", "downtown gay people, more of the hipper set", "working-class kids from New Jersey...", "the Godzilla of drag queens", "crime is art", "a bit leery", "was blessed with many talents and abilities...", "liked to eat... and eat...", Waters' descriptions "spooky" and "channeling", and all the small quotes by Bernard Jay in the Publications section.
    • I've started work on this, and will let you know when I finish. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's been a week, and there have been no edits. I don't mind holding this open if it's being worked on, but if not, I may have to close the nomination. – Quadell (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really sorry, I've been working long hours every day this week, and have had barely any time for Wikipedia! I'll endeavour to complete this tonight. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And it's done! Once again, sorry for the wait, it's just been one of those weeks. Midnightblueowl (talk)
            • Oh, no problem! I'm just delighted to see it completed. – Quadell (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a This sentence needs rewording: "Purchasing a house in Santa Monica, which he furnished to his expensive tastes,[66] during the early 1970s, Divine and Waters attended the balls in Washington, D.C. that were frequented by LGBT African-Americans." (For one thing, it isn't clear who purchased the house and who had expensive tastes.) I'd suggest splitting it.
  • 1a When you say "the two remained very close until Divine's death", it's not clear which two you mean.
  • 1a When you say "an extra-large coffin/casket", a slash isn't a good punctuation mark to use in an encyclopedic article. Was it a coffin or a casket? The coffin article says "A coffin is generally understood to denote a funerary box having six sides, while a casket generally denotes a four-sided (almost always rectangular) box."
    • Oh, that's another change that someone has made without me noticing it. I agree wholeheartedly with your view. I'm just going to revert it to "coffin". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a The article says "to leave makeup and food, and graffiti on his grave". Would it be correct to say "to leave makeup, food, and graffiti on his grave"? Or "to leave makeup and food on his grave, or to vandalize it with graffiti"?


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    All issues have been resolved.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    All issues have been resolved.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    The references section is terrific.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    All issues have been resolved.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Fantastic. Covers all aspects.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Admirably neutral.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The two free images are used correctly. The non-free ones are used appropriately.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    An excellent article, this passes all our GA criteria with flying colors. – Quadell (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for jumping in and finishing that review Quadell! It really is much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! This article is very well-written, and it's about a fascinating subject. I'm very glad to see it promoted. – Quadell (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_(performer)/GA1&oldid=1136665647"