Talk:Cathy Davey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HJMitchell You rang? 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

general

• A few short sentences that could do with a copyedit

lead

• While there's nothing wrong with refs in the lead, the lead is supposed to summarise the contents of the body so I'd advise you make sure every fact in the lead is indeed in the body
• Infobox could do with a "birth date and age" template

Done. --candle•wicke 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Style

• "as follows" seems redundant

Removed. --candle•wicke 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Background

• Is it worth moving this a little further up for the flow of the article- have all the personal stuff at the top and the career stuf underneath it? I'll leave it up to you, anyway.

• The section is comprised of several very short sentences that could do with some work to make it flow better

• "Her 2004 four-track debut EP..." could do with rephrasing

Rephrased. --candle•wicke 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• "She also supported Graham Coxon and Supergrass that year"- where? A more precise date wouldn't go amiss either, but that's not a huge issue.

• "Davey was discarded by her record company in mid-2008"- discarded seems a bit POV. I notice the source says "dropped"

• The discography might be better in prose rather than a selected list.

I did the discography in the same way as I did previous good articles and the list style seems to be the standard for featured articles too, for example, Pearl Jam, Pixies, Radiohead, R.E.M., The Smashing Pumpkins. --candle•wicke 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Prose- in some places, it's great- very engaging and quite enjoyable to read, but in others, it lets the article down a bit. It could do with a copyedit just to develop the sentences a little and engage the reader so they want to read more!

Impressive. The article is generally well written, engaging and a good, interesting read. Covers all the main part and some considerable time has obviously been spent on it, so I'm happy that it's almost GA material and after the points above are addressed and with a bit of a copyedit to deal with the prose, it should be there. HJMitchell You rang? 07:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it now? --candle•wicke 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Image is properly licensed, checklinks shows nothing concerning so I'm happy to promote it. HJMitchell You rang? 10:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) --candle•wicke 10:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)