Talk:Ace in the Hole Band/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 15:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Will review it in the next 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):
 * "often eluded the group due to the city's thirst for a more progressive sound" - this should be reworded. Too metaphorical
 * Lead should be expanded (summarize the "Style" section, for example)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References should be converted to cite web with accessdate, publisher, work, title
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Dabsolver check: ok
 * Checklinks check: the first ref is dead
 * Reflinks check: not ok
 * Fixed dashes
 * On hold not a bad article, but too small lead, methaporical grammar in "Style" and the references prevent to be listed.
 * Many thanks for the review. I am now working to implement the above suggestions.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All the above suggestions have now been implemented in the article.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)