Talk:Tommy Burns (diver)

Tommy Burns (diver) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 17, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Swimming Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tommy Burns (diver)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 11:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"century, Burns gained.." - he gained Done
"have been drinking prior" I guess you mean alcohol? Done
"By this time, he " maybe "At this time" or "Before this dive" because it seems odd to suggest that destitution was "by the time" he died. Done
"Although Burns had been drinking excessively" okay well that sounds like the comment I made two previously needs consolidation. Done
"1880s-1897" en-dash. Done
Don't like linking in quotes, but "horizontal bar" might need a link. Done
"within just nine days" remove "just". Perhaps put in the distance required to allow the reader to understand the undertaking.

Removed "just", though it's not possible to specify a distance as there too many unknown variables. Most reading will appreciate that Liverpool and London are distantly apart within the geography of the UK.

" 2nd January 1897" 2 January. Done
"the Edinburgh Evening News reported" italics. Done
" shilling" link. Done
"by the Dundee Courier to" italics. Done
"Scotland in 1895" overlinked, and if it stays, comma after Scotland. Done
"on 29th January " 29 January. Done
"newspaper the Evening Tribune as being" italics. Done
"Tommy Burns was" no need for Tommy. Done
"reported " by whom? Done
"24 year old" hyphenate. Done
"water[21] until a yacht rescued them.[4]" put the refs together at the end, rather than this awkward juxtaposition. Done
"saved 32 lives[2] and by October 1896," ditto.

There are 2 separate figures being cited here by 2 independent references, which each support the specific figure they are following.

"-known steeplechase jockey Mr W Gale" well-known but not notable?

Fair enough. The ref notes they were well-known though i'd struggle to support this view.

Done

"the Royal Aquarium into" overlinked. Done
"intoxicated with drink" alcohol? Done
"on Saturday 10th July" don't need day of the week, and just 10 July. Done
"Rhyl Pier provided" overlinked. Done
Burns' -> Burns's

Yet, it isn't incorrect to have just an apostrophe alone in this instance, right? I think either is acceptable with singular proper nouns which end with s.

Consider {{clear}} before the Ref section because the image of the fatal dive is squashing the refs.

I considered it, but I can't say I am at all a fan. The ref squashing is at worst a minor cosmetic concern and only seems apparent on particularly wide resolutions.

That's all I have on a first run through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. I'll work through once I have completed your other article review. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to advise that I plan to start working through this review in the next 1-3 days. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle no rush but are you planning to complete these points soon? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Absolutely! Early September is the busiest working time of the year for me and my free time is severely curtailed (hence the lack of general activity on wikipedia as a whole), however I do endeavour to work through the GA to completion asap. Many thanks for your patience. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, just checking we were still going to progress. Cheers, don't work too hard! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have addressed or responded to all your points now. As with the other review, I did have some queries or comments on some points (a GA review is a collaboration, after all), so feel free to clarify or justify any if necessary. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to add here, it's looking good. Regarding Burns's, see MOS:'s. But MOS compliance isn't a requirement of GAN so I'll leave it to you. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]