Talk:Honey Davenport/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: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Armadillopteryx:

I've begun a GA review of this article, it sounds interesting! Here are my thoughts so far. Feel free to object on my comments if you have a strong opinion.

Hello, Lizzy150! Thank you for taking on this review.

Lead section

• I recommend you rephrase the first sentence to: James Heath-Clark (born August 13, 1985), known professionally as Honey Davenport, is an American drag performer, singer and activist, particularly known for her work in the New York City nightlife scene and as a contestant on RuPaul's Drag Race. Birth names should start first, followed by their professional stage name — eg. see Katy Perry. Secondly, "for her work" is more specific than "fixture" and stating "season 11" is probably unnecessary this early in the article.

I am open to changing the order of the names, but I would like to share a couple thoughts first. Since this is an article about a drag queen, we need to take care to make sure feminine pronouns refer back only to Davenport (drag identity) and that masculine pronouns refer back only to Heath-Clark (out-of-drag identity). If we make this change, the subject of the sentence would become Heath-Clark rather than Davenport, making the later use of "she" in the sentence problematic. I think that in articles about drag queens, it makes sense to pick either the drag name/drag pronouns or out-of-drag name/out-of-drag pronouns for each section so as to not end up with jarring changes of gender from one sentence to the next. In this article, I've used the drag identity and pronouns in every section except Early life and Personal life, where the subject is primarily discussed outside her capacity as a drag queen. Since Davenport is notable almost exclusively under her drag identity, I think it would be inappropriate to change the entire lead (which summarizes her career) to refer instead to her male identity. Many articles on drag queens (for example, Miz Cracker and Aquaria (drag queen)) use the same formulation for the lead as this article. What are your thoughts on this?

I would also like to point out that virtually all articles on RuPaul's Drag Race contestants state which seasons they were on in the lead; do you feel strongly about deleting "season 11"? I don't really mind and will do it if you feel strongly, but it would make this article inconsistent with others like it.

(edit) After thinking about it a little more, I have an idea for a lead sentence that would satisfy your rephrasing suggestion while avoiding the pronoun problem I mentioned (by avoiding pronouns entirely in that sentence). It starts the way you suggested but finishes more closely to how it is now. How about this:

James Heath-Clark (born August 13, 1985), known professionally as Honey Davenport, is an American drag performer, singer and activist best known as a fixture of the New York City nightlife scene and as a contestant on season 11 of RuPaul's Drag Race.

One thing I don't like about this phrasing is that it somewhat unavoidably uses "known" twice in the same sentence ("known professionally"/"best known"), and I haven't figured out a good way to change one of them.

To address the last part of your comment that I missed in my initial reply, I actually think that saying she is a "fixture" (or a synonym like "staple" or "cornerstone") of the NYC nightlife scene is more specific than just saying she has worked on that scene. Both phrasings indicate she works there, but only "fixture" makes it clear that her presence is longstanding and somewhat prominent. I'm open to replacing it with a different word, such as one of the synonyms I mentioned. I happen to like "fixture" best, but I'm sure we can come up with something we both like. (end of edit)

I see, that's fine. I do like your lead sentence suggestion, you could try the word "recognized" or "famous". Or just put a full stop after "activist" to separate the sentence. As I said, you should start with the birth name, and then the stage name. The rest of the lead section can then use "Davenport", and this is acceptable. This is to keep it consistent with all biographies on Wiki.

I like your suggestion to use "recognized". I've changed the sentence to James Heath-Clark (born August 13, 1985), better known by the stage name Honey Davenport, is an American drag performer, singer and activist most recognized as a fixture of the New York City nightlife scene and as a contestant on season 11 of RuPaul's Drag Race. Better?

Yes, this sentence is great.

• "subsequently" > change to "also"

Done.

• "for quitting her longtime job as a show host at The Monster" > change to "for her resignation as long-term show host at The Monster"

I am not sure that "resignation" is quite the right word here. I haven't encountered any sources that describe this event as "resignation" from a position rather than as "quitting" a job. I admit that the difference between these two terms is not always clear-cut. It is a bit hard to say whether a position is "senior enough" for quitting to count as resignation or not.

• "off of her debut EP" > change to "music videos from her debut EP" (add the word "music" to be specific)

Done.

• "put out more" > change to "released more"

"Released" is used a few words earlier (in the previous sentence). I'm trying to think of another synonym but am coming up short. What do you think is best?

"Released" is the most commonly used term. If you're struggling, rephrase the sentence to something like "she has continued her musical career by doing.."

I changed it to "created". How's that?

I don't mind "created", but if you use that, it sounds like she creates the videos herself, which probably isn't right. However, on re-reading that paragraph, you've mentioned "music videos" in the previous sentence already, so I'd be inclined to say something different such as "She has continued her singing career". Agree?

I guess I am not opposed to using "She has continued her musical career". I think it's a disimprovement because it is more vague, but I can tolerate it since it's not wrong. I've made the change (see below).

You could also say singing career too. Either way, you'll have the chance to change this in the future when her musical career expands and there's more to write about.

Yeah, that's fair. I'll leave it for now.

• "on tour" > change to "on a tour"

It's not just one tour, though; the Honey Davenport#Post-Drag Race endeavors section talks about two (one in the summer and one in October).

• "guest on a number of web series" > change to "guest on a web series"

"Series" is plural here. What about changing it to something like "several web series" if you don't like "a number of web series"?

I see, then try stating one or two names of the series, eg. "several web series including XXX and XXX".

I've switched out "a number of" for "several". Most (all?) of these web series will not be recognizable on name alone to most readers, so I think mention of any one would also require a short description for context. Do you feel that doing so in the lead is appropriate? Even the larger events in her career do not take up more than a single sentence in the lead, so dedicating an additional 1–2 sentences to one of the smaller things she's done might assign those things WP:UNDUE weight. What do you think?

Right - I think it's worth mentioning what the web series are about, eg. the genre. So I agree, let's not list the names. The lead section is always going to change as the article expands. Secondly, the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph about quitting her job - could that be moved to after the sentence about the film in pre-production? We should keep the career highlights at the top, followed by any news/media coverage last.

Okay, I've added the genres of the web series. I also made some other modifications to that sentence to make the items in the list more balanced: Since then, she has continued her musical career; embarked on domestic and international tours; and appeared as both a host and a guest on web series about drag, culture and current events.

I am open to moving the sentence about The Monster to later in the paragraph, but one argument to keep it as is is that the lead currently presents the events it describes in chronological order. Moving that sentence would make it the only item that does not follow that order. What do you think?

You can leave it as is if you want.

Okay, thanks :-)

• "presently" > change to "currently"

Done.

Early life

• Why not just begin with: James Heath-Clark was on August 13, 1985, in West Philadelphia.

Because he was born with a different last name (just "Clark"). He hyphenated it when he got married.

• "the projects" > I personally would use "subsidized housing" or "public housing"

I am open to making this change. I think "the projects" is a more commonly used term and may be more familiar to readers. I also think that "the projects" carries more of the connotation of a rough neighborhood that Davenport seems to be referring to when she uses this word in interviews (including the one cited in that sentence) What do you think?

Fine, can be left as it is. If possible, try adding a quote from her, so the reader can get some perspective on what her early life/NYC was like.

Okay, I will go back to the podcast where she talked about this and see what I can find.

Update: I found a quote and have added it to the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, to reduce the number of words, please could you replace "In an interview with Billboard, he said" with "He later recalled" or "Heath-Clark said". Who he gave the interview with is insignificant here.

I agree that where he gave the interview is insignificant. "Later recalled" sounds a bit off to me since we haven't established a clear time frame, but I feel that some sort of context is in order. How about: Of his early years, he said ...?

This is fine, although personally I would write it as "Reflecting on his early years".

• "wanted to earn some extra spending money, and he resolved to do this by organizing a performance" > change to "wanted to increase his income, and he did this by organizing a performance"

The sources didn't make it seem like he was looking to permanently increase his income at that moment; rather it sounded (to me) like he just wanted some extra cash to take on the trip he was preparing for—though the way he earned it did, inadvertently, turn into a career. I am open to modifying the sentence but don't want to stray too far from the intention stated in sources.

I just looked at source 13, and it's identical to what she said. Therefore just quote what she said, "earn some extra spending money" (put it in quote marks). Just stating "earn some spending money" doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me.

"Earn some (extra) spending money" is an extremely common term in American English—so common that, to me, if I were to see quotation marks around it in isolation, I would immediately think the author is insinuating there is a hidden meaning (or worse, is mocking the subject). I've tried to work out another solution by rewording the sentence: In anticipation of a month-long tour of Europe with Peppermint in 2008, Heath-Clark decided to earn some money for his travels by putting on dance shows with a friend; the two called their act The Hunties. How is that?

Great, the only thing I would replace is "some money" with "additional money" or "extra money".

Hmm ... "extra" sounds unnatural/less idiomatic to me if "some" is removed, and "additional" raises the question, "In addition to what?". Does "some extra money" work for you? Or, perhaps even better: just "spending money" (without "some extra", i.e. In anticipation of a month-long tour of Europe with Peppermint in 2008, Heath-Clark decided to earn spending money for his travels by putting on dance shows with a friend; the two called their act The Hunties.)?

I assumed it was additional money from the dance work she was doing. Either way, you can pick what's accurate.

Okay. I think "spending money" is accurate, so I'll go with that.

• "thus began putting on dance shows as The Hunties" > change to "began creating dance shows under the group name, The Hunties" (or something like that - you should mention it's a duo/group). No need for "thus".

I made a change—let me know if you like it!

This is better, but remove "joined forces" as this is too informal — "He and a friend formed a dance group" will suffice.

See above.

This looks fine now.

• "Shortly before the group broke up, he had met RuPaul at a book signing, where the latter misheard the name of The Hunties and made out an autograph to "Honey"." — why not just rephrase that to: Heath-Clark met RuPaul at a book signing, who misheard the name The Hunties and mistakenly made out the autograph to "Honey".

I thought it relevant to clarify the timing, since this sentence comes right after I mention The Hunties breaking up, and I didn't want to confusingly suggest that Davenport was asking for an autograph made out to a defunct group. Do you think it should be changed?

Okay, then add "Shortly before the group disbanded," before the sentence I suggested.

I switched "broke up" to "disbanded" per your suggestion. The rest of the proposed change introduces a grammatical error. The relative pronoun "who" (or in the original version, the relative adverb "where") refers by default to the last noun phrase that precedes the non-restrictive clause—in this case, "book signing". Changing "where" to "who" is incorrect, because "who" cannot be used to refer to a book signing—and indeed, it is not supposed to. I think the sentence is clear, concise and correct as it stands. Maybe I can come up with a way to reword it entirely if you feel strongly that you do not like it.

I just read it again and I think it's fine. It does make sense. Sorry, I should've added that any sentence suggestions I give are not going to be 100% right as they usually just roll off my tongue. Treat them as hints! More comments soon.. thanks, Lizzy (talk 20:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review so far! Looking forward to the rest. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments and replies! I will move on the the following sections soon. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

More comments, with my suggestions as well. I've also added my replies above.

• "acted as a disc jockey" - "appeared as a DJ"?

Hmm ... I'm not crazy about "appeared". How about "worked as a DJ"? Fine, looks okay.

• "Door Goddess (2018) and Best Hostess (2019)" - "Door Goddess and Best Hostess in 2018 and 2019, respectively" might sound better

That would turn the sentence into She was named Door Goddess and Best Hostess in 2018 and 2019, respectively, at the Glam Awards, an annual ceremony that recognizes the most impactful artists on New York City's queer nightlife scene. That sounds very clunky in my opinion; how do you feel?

Then you could separate the sentence: "She was named Door Goddess and Best Hostess in 2018 and 2019, respectively, at the Glam Awards. The annual ceremonies recognize the most impactful artists on New York City's queer nightlife scene". But of course, it's up to you. I think it looks better without the brackets around the years though.

Thanks for being open to discussing this. I do happen to prefer the bracketed version; I think that is the most clear and concise.

• "fell in the three-year period" - "were awarded in a three year period"

Done.

• Should Door Goddess, Best Hostess, Miss Paradise have quote marks around them?

I don't think so. They're personal titles/awards like Miss America and Miss Universe. For example, it's correct to say Nia Franklin is Miss America 2019 but not Nia Franklin is "Miss America 2019". Similarly, Davenport was Miss Paradise 2018. As for Door Goddess and Best Hostess, see awards ceremonies like the Oscars, where someone wins the title of Best Actor, not "Best Actor". Quotes are generally used for titles of short works (e.g. episodes of TV series, articles in a newspaper) but not for titles bestowed on people.

• There's a white gap underneath the image because of that large quote. Try re-arranging the page to remove that.

Done.

I see that you've moved the image to the right, but now the white gap is underneath there! Nevermind, I think the only way to resolve it is to move the image further down.

It's worth noting that this will, of course, appear a little different on every screen it is viewed on. For example, there is no white gap for me in either version. I've moved the image down to the start of the next paragraph. Does that show up better on your end?

Yes, it's better now.

• For the third paragraph, I would start with: The 2020 edition of Miss'd America controversially modified its rules to ban trans women from competing, Davenport, including several of the pageant's former titleholders, spoke out against the policy change.

This isn't a complete sentence; I'm guessing there's an inadvertent missing word or two. Also, the phrase Davenport, including several of the pageant's former titleholders doesn't make sense. What is the suggestion meant to be?

Will continue soon ... Armadillopteryx^talk 12:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion was to try and avoid starting with "When the". Could you possibly start with something else? For example: "During the 2020 edition of Miss'd America, rules were modified ... Davenport spoke out" or "Davenport criticized the 2020 edition of.."

Okay, I understand now. What would be the reason to avoid starting with "When the ... "? The first suggestion takes emphasis off of Davenport and places it on the pageant, which would seem more appropriate in the Miss'd America article than in the biography of an individual contestant. The second suggestion makes it sound like she just wanted to criticize the pageant until context appears later on. Providing the context first, I believe, is the most balanced way to present the story while remaining focused on this article's subject.

I am, of course, open to further discussion and making some kind of change. It would just help me to understand why such a change would be beneficial, since I don't see why "when the" should be avoided in the first place.

Giving context is fine, and you can do that. Personally, the word "When" just sounded a bit off because I've rarely seen it used in a career section. You can of course keep it. However, on re-reading this paragraph, do you think this is better placed in the Activism section now?

Good question. I've been thinking about that on and off myself. I'm really on the fence, because I'm not sure where to draw the line between sharing an opinion and engaging in activism; it's not clear-cut. I guess that since she phrased this as an official stance she was taking on the pageant as a former winner, that probably falls on the activism side of my personal line. Others may disagree, but do you think it's the right call? Along with moving the paragraph to the Activism section, I've reworded the sentence in question—do you like it better now?

Early music

• "All three members of Electrohoney" - what are the names of the other members?

Added (from the same source that's already cited at the end of the sentence).

• "played key roles" - doing what?

I just meant they held major roles in the cast. Does changing this phrase to "major roles" make it clearer?

I see, yes.

• "Its plot follows that band's lead singer, Orion Simprini, on an intergalactic journey wherein he encounters various fantastical characters, including Davenport in her role of The Queen of White Lies." - this line sounds a bit clumsy, perhaps it could be: In the plot, the band's lead singer, Orion Simprini, goes on an intergalactic journey where he encounters various fantastical characters, including Davenport in her role of The Queen of White Lies.

Sure, works for me. I've made the change.

• Also, what does "fantastical" mean?

I've used it here according to definition 7 in the Collins English Dictionary: of, given to, or characterized by fantasy. [1]

• The Electric Highway, The Orion Experience, Trinkets - do we know how successful these shows were? What was the critical reception - positive or negative reviews?

Mm ... I didn't happen upon any in my earlier research. Let me see what I can find.

Update: Upon reexamining some of my sources, I did find a couple reviews. I've added some of that info to the article now.

Armadillopteryx^talk 04:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC) This is great. There's a few tweaks to the sentences, which I'll make it later, to speed things up.

• "Davenport later featured Simprini in her 2015 single "T.R.O.U.B.L.E" - Okay, so now we've jumped to music. Perhaps make the transition a bit clearer by stating: In 2015, Davenport released the song "T.R.O.U.B.L.E", featuring vocals from Simprini.

Hmm ... I'm open to changing this, but I phrased it the way I did because it felt natural to use Simprini as the segue. It feels more jarring and less clear to me to jump topic without an obvious link (Simprini) at the beginning of the sentence. What are your thoughts?

Update: After expanding the previous text with reviews, the segue no longer made sense, and I've rewritten the sentence accordingly. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is better.

• Do we know how well the song performed?

As with the musicals, I haven't come across that information yet, but I will see if I can unearth something.

Update: Still having trouble locating more details for this. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry if you can't.

• Off-Broadway > change to "off-Broadway" (lower-case 'o')

Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway are proper nouns that always need to be capitalized.

• "held the leading role" - "portrayed the leading role"

"Portray" is a synonym of "depict": an actor portrays a character by playing a role—though a role is also something one can be said to hold, have or be cast in, among other terms. Do you prefer one of those?

More coming ... Armadillopteryx^talk 12:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind, but I guess "had a leading role" would also work.

Fine with me. I've changed it to "had".

Monster Bar controversy

• These two paragraphs about the controversy look out of place here. This chapter is supposed to be about "Career". Career-wise, she was working at The Monster and you can talk about her role there. But for the controversy part, have you considered creating a separate section (outside of Career) to house this?

Do you mean like creating a new level-2 header after the Career section exclusively for this? Or maybe a level-3 header at the end of the Personal life section?

Update: Your comment ended up giving me a really nice idea, which was to create a new level-2 header for Activism, where I've collated the portion of Personal life that was about her activism anyway, the Monster Bar subsection, and a quote box with a comment from a new source I found. Do you like this? It didn't make sense to me to give the controversy its own level-2 header, which would put it at the same "importance level" as her overall career and personal life, and I didn't want to give it a level-3 header inside Personal life since then part of that section would use Heath-Clark/he and part would use Davenport/she. Armadillopteryx^talk 08:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the Activism section is a good idea. Yes, this was what I meant - to move it outside of the career section.

Great! I'm really happy that you suggested this. I had previously moved around the text that now begins the Activism section several times—just couldn't find the right home for it in the other sections in the article, but it was not long enough for a section of its own. Now it has a nice place to fit :-D

• On another note, avoid idioms like "at the heart of a controversy" (in the first sentence)

Done (changed to "at the center of a controversy").

RuPaul's Drag Race

• "show's eleventh season" - be consistent with numbers, either use "11" (like in the lead) or "eleven"

Oh, wow, I misremembered MOS:ORDINAL; I thought it called for spelling out ordinals regardless of the style chosen for integers greater than nine. My bad; thanks! It's fixed now.

• "who placed as the runner-up" - "who was runner-up" might sound better

I used "placed as" in observation of the principle of parallelism. It isn't good practice to use an existential verb ("to be") in a parallel construction with a non-existential verb (in this case, "to compete on"). I am open to other rephrasing options if you feel strongly that a change is needed.

• "Davenport was eliminated in the series' first-ever six-way Lip Sync for Your Life, exiting in season 11's third episode as the 13th-place finisher." - this sentence sounds a bit clumsy, perhaps it could be: Davenport was eliminated in the third episode after failing a six-person challenge, called Lip Sync for Your Life. She came in 13th place.

Oops—sorry I missed this comment in my first set of responses. I do think it is important to point out that this was the series' first-ever Lip Sync for Your Life, as every episode ends with said lip sync (distinct from the episode's challenge, which determines who participates in the lip sync), but the lip sync is normally between two (rarely, three) people. That episode was highly unusual, and Davenport is the only person in the eleven-season history of the show to be eliminated under those conditions. Some sources go as far as labeling it "historic". As for the rest of the rephrasing, what about the below option?

Davenport was eliminated in the series' first-ever six-way Lip Sync for Your Life; she finished the season in 13th place, exiting in episode 3. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine, this is better.

• season 2, season 7, season 3 - same as first point above, be consistent with numbers

Done—I have expressed all numbers greater than nine numerically.

Edit: To clarify, MOS:SPELL09 does not apply to the construction "season X" (or "episode X"). See the titles of TV series' season pages, such as RuPaul's Drag Race (season 3), Friends (season 5), Seinfeld (season 6), The Office (American season 8), etc. In other cases, [i]ntegers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Raw and Unfiltered

• "treats the subject" - "involves/covers the theme of.."? or "covers the subject". I think you could use the term "theme", but "treats" is a bit odd

"Treats the subject of" is a common construction; it's synonymous with "is about". A Google search for "treats the subject of" (in quotes) gets more than 1.3 million hits. Why do you say it's odd?

You can keep it as it is if you want. "is about" is a more simple expression which is okay too.

• "feature looks" - "feature different looks and styles"? Or maybe rephrase: In each of her music videos, she adopts a look/outfit/appearance that she would have worn in the episodes following her elimination.

Good point about this phrasing. It has bothered me for awhile. I tried something new: The corresponding music videos showcase the looks she would have worn in the episodes following her elimination. How do you feel about that?

Great, this works.

• "off of the EP" - "from the EP"

I prefer "off of the EP" because I mean it as shorthand for the first single/video combination "to come off of (or be released off of) the EP". Do you feel strongly about the change?

I think it's "off of" which sounds awkward. Just wondering if you need the word "of" in there.

I'm happy to nix "of" but leave "off"—"off the EP" and "off the album" are also super common expressions.

• "McJagger is Davenport's drag daughter" - what, in the music video?

No, he's just her drag daughter. Like earlier in the article, I mention she's Deja Davenport's drag daughter, Monét X Change is also her (Honey Davenport's) drag daughter, etc. McJagger is just another one of her drag daughters.

Update: To make the wording clearer, I rewrote the previous sentence to say, The fifth track on Raw and Unfiltered, "Cocoa Butter", was co-produced by Davenport, Vegas, Will Sheridan, Davenport's drag daughter Kareem McJagger, and Nedra Belle (of The Voice season 13).

What do you think of this? Armadillopteryx^talk 05:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, this is okay.

• "has featured her in a song and two music videos" - what are their names? Is it important?

Their names are "Body (Remix)" and "Give You Life". I don't think it's particularly important in this article, since it's primarily Vegas's work. I do not have strong feelings about this, though, and I am happy to add the names if you think the article is better off with them than without them.

Upate: See below; I've reworded this part in the process of integrating the shorter sentence about Vegas that you mentioned. Armadillopteryx^talk 05:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• "The two co-wrote "The Hive". - why not integrate this sentence with the earlier sentence, eg. The first single and music video from the EP, titled "The Hive", was co-written by Jayse Vegas, and released during the second week of the season.

IMO adding was co-written by Jayse Vegas to that sentence introduces an unnecessary use of the passive voice and makes the wording a little clunky. In this case I would prefer to either leave it as it is or reword entirely, depending on your input.

Update: After thinking about it some more, I've come to agree that some integration is in order. I did some rewording and came up with the following: The first single and video combination off of the EP, titled "The Hive", came out during the second week of the season. Davenport co-wrote "The Hive" with Jayse Vegas, a frequent collaborator who has featured her in his own songs and music videos.

How is that? Armadillopteryx^talk 05:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is better too. Post-Drag Race endeavors

• "on that continent" - did you mean "in that country"?

No, I meant "on that continent". As Australia is the name of both the country and the continent, both words are accurate. I'm happy to use either one. Do you prefer "country"?

I would use "country" because most people associate Australia as a country first.

Okay. One reason I chose "continent" is that Davenport was specifically there to raise awareness for people of color in that region. Australia (the continent) also includes places like Papua New Guinea, whose primarily indigenous populations were historically oppressed by policies put in place by Australia (the country). I somehow doubt very much that Davenport was excluding them from her activism for people of color over there—though I do not have sourcing that delineates explicitly who she was there for, either. "Continent" feels like a safer term because it's correct either way.

• "DNA magazine quoted her saying" - "in an interview with DNA magazine"?

Done.

More comments soon, thanks Lizzy (talk 23:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for such a thorough and thoughtful review so far! Armadillopteryx^talk 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for being so prompt. Before I respond to the above, here are my last points:

• Personal life section - try integrating short sentences (eg. suffers from anxiety) with the rest of the paragraph(s)

I integrated the anxiety sentence with the one before it. I could not find a satisfactory way to combine the two sentences about his current life in NYC with his husband with the paragraph about his more general family/personal history. I added a little bit of information to the paragraph about the causes he is passionate about in order to make it longer.

• Your references look okay. For reference number 5 and 82 - are there any sources you can use? Instagram and Twitter wouldn't be my first choice. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 20:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish I had better sources for 5 and 82 as well, and social media is generally never my first choice for sourcing. Unfortunately, in this case, I could not find any other WP:RS to establish Heath-Clark's birthday (just checked again). Since WP:SOCIALMEDIA says, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, I figured it was okay to use Davenport's Instagram post only to source her birthday. As far as I can tell, the only alternative would be to remove that info from the article, and I find that option inferior. If a better source comes to my attention, I will happily replace it. Regarding the Logo TV Tweet about Black Girl Beauty: I can't actually find much press about this series at all, though its episodes are up on VH1's official YouTube channel. This was the only written source I saw that connected Davenport to the series, though if you know what she looks like, you can obviously identify her in the video. Do you think it's better to use only the video as a source? Another reason I kept the Tweet was because it specifically mentioned the premiere date. Armadillopteryx^talk 05:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It's always best practice to find written source. A video source can used be a last resort if there's no alternative. I will re-read everything later and put any new comments below from now on. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 15:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well for replying so quickly! Looking forward to the rest. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've replied to your comments above (in italics). Here are my final comments and suggestions:

Thanks! I replied to your italics above in boldface. I'll answer the rest below shortly. Armadillopteryx^talk 10:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Notable among these" - "The most notable among these"?

It appears to have gotten more coverage than the others, though no source outright calls it "the most notable". I think that without attribution, calling it "the most [any adjective]" is probably WP:PEACOCK language.

• "about $20,000" - "approximately $20,000"?

I think about sounds more natural. Do you feel strongly?

I don't mind either way; 'approximately' just sounds more encyclopaedic.

• "From March to May 2019" - "For three months starting in March 2019"?

Maybe even simpler—"in spring 2019"? I've put that in for now, but let me know if you don't like it.

Yes this sounds fine.

• "Around the same time, she appeared" - do we really need this bit? Could probably just start with "She also appeared.."

I think it sounds disruptive to remove the words that establish chronology, but I can change this if you feel strongly.

• "she often bases her looks, performances and music on political themes" - "her looks, performances and music are influenced by political themes?"

Why introduce unnecessary use of the passive voice?

IMHO it sounded better to me in passive voice but it's fine as it is.

• "racist practices at The Monster" - was it genuinely racist or did people just "strongly regard it as racist"? There is a difference and we should be careful not to label someone as "racist" unless we're certain.

I agree with you that there is a difference between those two things. All of the sources cited in this section call the actions themselves "racist", and every sentence has an inline citation at the end.

• "roughly two-minute speech" - "approximate two-minute speech"?

Different cuts of the video run anywhere from a minute and 50 seconds to two minutes and 12 seconds; honestly, we could probably just call it a "two-minute speech" without losing any accuracy; the exact number of seconds isn't relevant so much as the general idea (i.e. did this go on for two hours or 10 seconds). What do you think?

Yes, 'two-minute speech' is simpler and will suffice.

• "Following this", "Shortly thereafter", "Later on" - these are fillers so try to reduce them if you can.

These words establish chronology; I do not interpret them as fillers in these uses. If you feel strongly, I can do some rewording.

• "chalking up their content" - not sure what that means, might need rewording.

Chalk up is common terminology in US English; I am not sure if that's another one that is less used elsewhere. Here is Merriam-Webster's definition.

I see, that's fine. I'm more used to 'attributed to' which is a synonym.

• The "Singles" table - is there any way you can reduce the size of the last column?

The ref column? It's coded and displays the same way as the ref column in all the other tables. It automatically minimizes the column width to the length of the longest entry, which is two refs in all tables. Does it look different to you?

In Google Chrome, the column is quite wide compared to the others. I then checked in Mozilla Firefox and it's normal. It must be the browser rendering the table differently (so you may or may not be able to fix it). Thanks, Lizzy (talk 21:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, too! Armadillopteryx^talk 10:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I've replied to your comments above. As for the Activism section, I think the quote about Miss'd America is much better placed there, rather than in the career section. Even though it's her opinion, 'speaking out' about an issue of that nature does count as activism. A number of good biographies (eg. Leonardo DiCaprio does this nicely - all his opinions/quotes about climate change are in a dedicated section). In the future, you can always mention Davenport's activism in the lead section. Do you have any further questions? I think I'm almost complete! Thanks, Lizzy (talk 13:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, great. I'm also happy having moved the Miss'd America quote to the Activism section. I can't think of any further questions at the moment. Thank you so much for this thorough review and for the many great ideas that have improved the article! Armadillopteryx^talk 01:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Always a pleasure! Thank you for improving it too. Passing this as a GA now:—

• Well written - Mostly well-written in prose, appropriate sections and no spelling errors.
• Verifiable - Sufficient in-line citations and references presented in accordance to guidelines. No copyright violations found.
• Broad / Neutral - Yes, stays focused on person.
• Stable - Yes
• Illustrated - Yes, images and audio files. Lizzy (talk 12:29, 1 December 2019 (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.