Talk:Bobby Timmons/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Best article I found on Bobby Timmons, even in books. Many (hard to find) informations from newspaper articles. No prejudices as common on Timmons, spans lifeapects continously. -- Room 608 10:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note to apologise for not getting back to this sooner. I've had a hard time getting a block of, say, twenty uninterrupted minutes lately, but will do my best in the forthcoming days.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments nice work again.
 * Year ranges per WP:DATERANGE don't need to repeat centuries if they're the same.
 * Changed one heading, although "summer 1961 to 74" sounds odd read out: does the rule apply when a period of one year is specified?
 * I've reverted so it should fix your concern and I'll pipe down! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Would link sideman as it's not obvious to non-experts what this role entails.
 * Linked in lead and first mention in main text.


 * "plus several " not keen on "plus"
 * Changed to "and".


 * Why not link Philadelphia Musical Academy?
 * Must have missed that one. Thanks.


 * "hard bop" is mentioned in the infobox, refs and cats, but not in the prose.
 * Categories/genres... I don't like them; changed to "jazz" in infobox and removed "hard bop" from cats. The ref is a title that includes "soul jazz", which is in the main text.


 * "a time[7])," move that ref out to behind the punctuation.
 * 7 is for what is within the brackets, so should appear within them, too.


 * "his second, final," second and final?
 * I think that the current version is less ambiguous: "second and final" could be two things (second... and third, which was the last); the singular "recording" removes the ambiguity, but not having it to begin with is preferable, I think.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments indented above. Thanks for the review and let me know if more is needed. EddieHugh (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

All good for me, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)