Talk:Ol' Dirty Bastard/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Neutralhomer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: - NeutralHomerTalk02:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Alot of WP:PEACOCK language, alot of this information could be cut down into several paragraphs, not a year-by-year timeline.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    On this article, there are 14 references for the entire article. This needs to come up ALOT to be even B Grade, not alone GA.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    It is broad in its coverage, but it is too broad in my opinion. Too much information can be a bad thing. Stick with the bullet points.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    The article history looks like a warzone. That needs to be cleaned up.
  6. 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):  
    Only two images (one in the infobox) is not enough for GA status. More images, sourced and captioned, are needed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    At this point, I don't think the article even meets B grade and for a former FA this is sad. Very sad. This article needs references, a shorter version on the history, and images. Please team up with someone who knows their articles and how to write them. Be open to ideas and come back in about 6 months with a fresh new article ready to go. At present, even a couple tweeks isn't going to change this article to GA. - NeutralHomerTalk02:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply