Talk:Montgomery Gentry/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 13:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Will review it in the following days

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead is definetely too short; at the moment it is more a discography than a biography lead. Add personal life, their style, their awards, their career. The lead should summarize the whole content.

   Added some more, although I don't see how the existing lead was any worse than the one in, say, Clay Walker or Joe Diffie.

   Much better. Prose is also nice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   The location is not known?

   Added.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• ISBN/ISSN check: one dead
• Dabsolver check: ok
• Checklinks check: two dead links
• Reflinks check: ok

• Addressed a couple issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will now pass! ;)