Talk:Hed PE/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Formation and major-label debut (1994–99) section, this sentence ---> "The band built a following based on energetic performances at local venues such as Club 369", might need to be re-written, as it sounds a little strange.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Broke and Blackout (2000–04) section, link "Modern Rock Tracks". Same section, add a colon after "wrote" on reviews of the band/albums. In the Independent releases (2005–present) section, this sentence ---> "Allmusic's Rob Theakston wrote that "Back 2 Base X suffers from the same problems as Amerika: it tries to be conceptual in thought à la Tool and vicious in its political commentary à la Fugazi or System of a Down", does this sentence, about "Tool", talk about the device or the band?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Does Reference 2 cover all this ---> "Hed PE released their second studio album, Broke on August 22, 2000. It incorporated more classic rock and world music influences, and featured guest appearances by System of a Down's Serj Tankian and Kittie's Morgan Lander"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
It would help if an image can be inserted to the article, so it can illustrate the significance of it. But, if an image can't be found, I won't fail the article because of that.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1A: Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
1B: Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

YES. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There are no free images on Flickr. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you to Ibaranoff24 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]