Talk:Nicole Paige Brooks/GA1

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Averageuntitleduser in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another drag queen article? Don't mind if I do! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks! Looking forward to collaborating again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Well-written edit

The prose feels especially clean this time! After a copyedit, here's what I'm left with:

  • She was the second to be eliminated, — with the sentence prior, this could be construed as her being the second eliminated from the whole show
  • required teams to compete to earn the most cash performing burlesque and selling gift certificates — after revisiting this, I feel like a rearrangement: "required teams to perform burlesque and sell gift certificates, while competing to earn the most cash" is a bit clearer.
  • She was referenced during the "reading" challenges — someone unfamiliar might not realize that this is essentially a roast battle.
  • Perhaps link "herstory"?

Verifiable with no original research edit

There are some questionable sources, like ScreenRant, Pride.com, and The Georgia Voice, but I believe their uses are defendable (i.e. uncontroversial claims, attributed opinion, reliable author, locally dedicated paper). Earwig shows a solid score of 31%. The Pride.com quote is hefty, but I like it: it's attributed and gives some nice context/personality. However:

  • For the statement of opinion, please defend Thotyssey's use. They don't seem like a prominent publication.
  • I would replace the Decider.com source with this Hollywood Reporter one (because why not)
    • Gardner, Chris (2020-05-27). "RuPaul's DragCon Pivots to Digital YouTube Event Following Coronavirus Cancellation". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-13. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
    •   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spot-check edit

Broad in its coverage edit

I think you could knock down two birds with one stone by using her website to source the day/month and location of birth in the infobox. The best source I could find for her birthday was this unfortunate tweet. But, of course, all power to you if you don't think it's too important or would prefer secondary sources.

Once again, I am impressed by your work in cobbling this together! A cursory search for sources has shown me nothing substantial. Specifically, I tried to find any scraps about her childhood and came away emptyhanded.

I would prefer to use secondary coverage for birth date and/or birth location. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Understandable. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neutral edit

All descriptions and quotes are attributed, looks good on this front.

Stable edit

No recent content disputes or edit wars, the place of birth was sorted out on the talk page.

Illustrated edit

The two images from Flickr are correctly labeled as Creative Commons. Both of them give the reader a better understanding.

Summary edit

A few fixes and I believe this is ready! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Averageuntitleduser Thanks for reviewing! Please let me know if any concerns remain. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
And thanks for the quick response! I am happy to pass this article. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.