From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b ( MoS):
  • Just a couple things that rub me the wrong way: two consecutive paragraphs in the History section begin with the "In [month] [year]," construction, and two consecutive sentences in the Style... section begin with "While...".
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
  • How are Encyclopaedia Metallum and last.fm reliable sources?
  • Reference #5 is a dead link.
  • There are inconsistencies in the accessdate formatting; I'd recommend using 'Month Day, Year' instead of ISO.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • For a short article like this, I wouldn't be a good reviewer if I didn't verify that you've mined every available tidbit of information that's notable. Just tell me a little about how and where you searched. :)
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • A little more depth is required for a good article (when the info is out there), but it'll take some time to work up to that, so I'm going to fail the article for now. When you renominate, send me a message and I'll expedite the process. — Zeagler ( talk) 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply