Talk:Times Square Ball/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 18:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:


 * This is a very strong GA candidate. I have started by making copyedits throughout the article, and some of these are rather bold edits, and a little opinionated too. (I think the ball is more a "part" of the NYE celebration than an "aspect"; I think there are places where parentheses or em-dashes would be better as commas; etc.) If you disagree with any of these changes feel free to revert and discuss. Most of these are not required for GA status, but are simply was I think the flow of the prose can be improved.


 * The phrase "core area" is used as a quote, and so should be sourced. The CNN source (ref 2) does not seem to support it.


 * I think that the heading "The 2nd generation" is problematic. First, it should probably be written out "second", if used. Secondly, I don't see that term used in any of the sources, so it might be close to OR. Finally, the section describes two different balls. I think it should be replaced, but I'm not sure with what. "New incarnations"? "More modern balls"? Or you could rename the previous section "Beginnings, 1903-19" and name this "1920-98" (or "New incarnations, 1920-98"), and name subsequent history sections similarly.


 * Since 2008 is not really the "present day", this should be renamed as well. "2008-present"? Personally I would recommend merging the "Present day" section into the "Into the new millennium" section, but that's up to you.


 * The information in the "Event" section, from "Since the 2005–06 edition..." down to the end of the section, really belongs in one of the later history sections instead.


 * Consider moving "Special guests" and "Broadcasting" into being subsections of "Event", and consider perhaps moving the "Weather at midnight" into being the last section of "History". (None of this is required for GA status, but I think it should be considered, to decide on the best organization for the article.)


 * I believe the sentence beginning "After Lombardo's death..." should be split up. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure which sources are used for different parts of the sentence.

All of the images are fine, and the reference section is good. I'm placing this nomination on hold. Some of the above are merely suggestion, but others are problems that need to be resolved. In both cases, I look forward to your replies. If all problems are resolved within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise it will fail. – Quadell (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did most of the adjustments you asked for. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think "Present day" is misleading, since the section doesn't just refer to the present day, but I'm not sure that's a GA requirement, so I won't hold the nomination up for it. But the phrase "core area" either needs to not be a quote, or it needs an explicit citation that calls the area that. (Currently there are two citations at the end of that sentence.) – Quadell (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Both citations cover the same sentence. The other CNN ref (this one) is where its used. But thenagain, this is technical language that shouldn't be used in an article, so I am going to remove it entirely. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that certainly fixes it. – Quadell (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This article passes all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it the "Good" status. – Quadell (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)