Talk:Ol' Dirty Bastard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

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.
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.
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.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article history looks like a warzone. That needs to be cleaned up.
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.
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. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]