Talk:Well he would, wouldn't he?/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments
Well I'd pass this very neat and entertaining article straight away really, wouldn't I, but people do like to see a few comments here and there, don't they...


 * "MRDA" - that's the Men's Roller Derby Association, no? – seriously, not too sure about putting the acronym up here, specially without an explicit citation. "Mandy Rice-Davies Applies" is well attested, but why are we emphasising the acronym in the lead? And by the way, when something is ambiguous, as this acronym is, we don't put it in boldface in the lead, as that implies a (major) redirect target.
 * We did later reference it with Halls 2020, but can repeat it in the lead if wanted. I looked at Sagan standard, a quotation FA and it similarly has (ECREE): that does redirect there, but MRDA has competition, as you've said. Are you strongly in favour of removing it from the lead? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The minimum is to remove the boldface, which is non-standard when there's ambiguity.
 * — ✅ Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The use of "and" in section headings is generally a sign of lack of focus: and it looks untidy even when it isn't. "Use and analysis" could simply be "Analysis" here, with nothing lost (as use has been described in the section above). "Cross-examination and utterance", too, could just be "Utterance", but that does reveal the slightly academic word-choice here. We agree that the phrase contains a rhetorical question, but it's still a "Statement": no doubt other solutions can be found. The other instance, "Investigation and trial of Stephen Ward", can probably do without the "and trial", for the good reason that the section doesn't mention the trial.
 * — ✅ Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that we need boldface in Note 1: it's certainly non-standard there.
 * — ✅ Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The reference "Front page. Evening Standard." is unusual in several ways, in particular sitting oddly without a date (like the other newspaper refs); I don't really see why they should be undated here. Alternatives might be "Evening Standard 1963", or "A Cliveden Swim" (if dates are out) to match your Washington Post ref which uses a headline. The different treatments feel uneven, in a word.
 * I've swopped it for your suggestion, "A Cliveden swimby Miss R". Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should move the cite to the lead per MOS:LEAD; citing it later is fine. Additionally, the MRDA disambiguation page links here, so removing it might cause confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post calls it a "quip", which might be worth quoting: it's accurate, and makes a nice change from "the phrase" at least.
 * — ✅ Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Images

 * The images, all from Commons, appear to have suitable licenses.

Summary

 * This is a good crisp article, very tidily cited (thinking of FAC, anyone?), and it'll be a GA very shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)