Talk:Michael Kidd/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I see this one has been waiting since February, so thanks for your patience! I've started my notes and expect to post a review within the next couple of days. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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:

   There are some cases of close paraphrasing that need to be addressed, and a few unclear points; details in notes below. Fixed

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead is the offender here, details in notes below. Fixed

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   FA reviewers tend to demand more citation density, but current level of citation is good enough for GA.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

   After discussion with the nominator, I updated the image used for the infobox based on fair use concerns. Other images are plausibly tagged as free use.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are some issues, but they should be fixable without much difficulty. Putting on hold to allow concerns to be reviewed and addressed. All fixed, ready for promotion.

Specific notes on items to address:

• Lead:

• Readable prose size is only about 17k, so MOS:LEAD recommends a 2-3 paragraph lead, not 5 paragraphs. Addressing the next bullet might take care of this.
• The lead should summarize content that is found elsewhere in the article. However, in this case the lead contains several quotes that are only in the lead. These should be moved to the body and replaced in the lead with a summary of what they convey. If a specific quote seems too apt not to use, it should also appear in the body (perhaps more fully quoted there and excerpted in the lead).

• "Early life and dance career":

• There is a sentence that reads in part, "Kidd was hailed one of the great hopes of America's postwar ballet" The cited source (a New York Times obituary) reads, "Though he had been hailed as one of the great hopes of postwar American ballet". The rephrased version is a little too close to the original. You can either make the wording more clearly different, or quote the source explicitly.
• Final paragraph discusses him performing in "Fancy Free (1946)". Two issues: First, Fancy Free premiered in 1944. Do you mean his participation in the show was in 1946? If so, that should be stated more clearly. Second, the previous paragraph ended with Kidd leaving the ABT company in 1947, so it seems out of place to jump backwards in time to mention a show he did with them. Probably better to incorporate this chronologically.

• "Broadway and Hollywood"

• Another close paraphrasing from the NYT obit: The article reads, "It brought Kidd the first of his Tony Awards". The NYT obit: "It brought Mr. Kidd the first of his five Tony Awards."
• "one recent commentator suggests that Kelly's judgment was not wrong" -- 'Recent' is a problematic word to use because the text can get stale. Is 2009 recent, and for how much longer? Better to just say "one commentator", or give a name.
• "His other Broadway shows during the 1950s included Li'l Abner in 1956, which he directed as well as choreographed for which he won another Tony Award." Somewhat unclear here what he won the Tony for, since he both directed and choreographed. (I know the answer from later in the article, but it isn't clear here.) Possibly better handled as two sentences.
• The quote about "shoveling more and more bodies on screen with no apparent purpose" is clearly a critical opinion and should be more specifically attributed as such in-body (not just a refnote). Something like: "The film was not a success as a musical, with Kelly and Kidd making little use of the widescreen format of the film. Critic Tom Santopietro described their approach as 'shoveling more and more bodies on screen with no apparent purpose'."

• "Legacy"

• This isn't really a section about legacy. Some other title, such as "Style" or "Choreographic style" or "Technique" or "Aesthetic", would be more appropriate.

Additional thoughts and suggestions (not required for GA criteria):

• I directly made some copyedits for things that I presume don't need detailed discussion (MOS:DASH and MOS:LQ issues, etc.). Feel free to ask if you have questions about any of these changes.
• There are three instances of sentences starting with 'But', plus one that starts with 'And'. In formal English writing, starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions is usually discouraged. (A hardcore pedant might count this as incorrect grammar under 1a, but I'm not.)
• In the "Broadway and Hollywood" section, the only citation for the first paragraph is the NYT obit, but it does not contain many of the details mentioned. It doesn't describe the theme of Finian's Rainbow, and it doesn't name any of the failed shows or who wrote/directed/starred in them. GA doesn't require inline citation for this type of material (it doesn't seem controversial, no one has challenged it, and it contains no direct quotes). However, if you try to move this on to FA, expect the reviewers there to demand more detailed sourcing.
• The date format used most of the time is month-day-year, but in a few of the references it is day-month-year. Since Kidd was American, consistent m-d-y would be preferred.
• A few of the references have accessdate parameters with no URLs. If there are URLs to be added, they should be added. Otherwise the accessdate field isn't needed; it is only used for online sources.
• Per WP:RL, names of individuals should not be redlinked (e.g., Blanche Evan, Janet Reed). Redlinks to other subjects are fine.
• In the lead, there are two instances in a very short span where the article for Musical theatre is used in a piped wikilink. First it is linked to the word 'stage', then later in the same sentence it is linked to 'Broadway'. It doesn't need to be linked twice so closely, and WP:EGG discourages piping links to unexpected words. In this case, I would expect 'Broadway' to link to Broadway theatre, or maybe (less relevant but still plausible) Broadway (Manhattan).
• For multi-column references, a width parameter (e.g., {{reflist|45em}}) is preferred over a fixed number of columns.
• Alt text for the images would be helpful for some readers.
• It was a little odd seeing the award info in the credits list, instead of as a separate awards list. I don't think there's technically anything wrong with doing it that way, but when I first read the article I was expecting to see a list under the Awards section and was surprised it was "missing".

On hold for up to a week so the items above can be addressed. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll address these. Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hey, thanks for your help with this. By the way, I had URLs for all the ones that came off the net, but a number were from a database that I had available to me a few months ago. (No long, alas.) Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. The articles you accessed from the database are all available from stable print sources, so accessdates won't be needed. I cleaned those up along with a few other bits, and we're ready to go. Congrats on another GA. --RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)