Talk:James Brown/GA1

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

Starting review.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Initial comments. There's some good stuff here, though I did notice a number of statements that looked in need of citing - "the group was in danger of being dropped by King Records." "Several former members of Little Richard's backup band joined Brown's group as a consequence of Richard's exit from the pop music scene." ""The Famous Flames" was a vocal group, not a backing band contrary to popular belief." "At the time it was mentioned "Brown has also branched out into real estate and music publishing in recent months"." etc. Also, the lead section could do with a more detailed summary of Brown's history.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I am gloing to try to neutralize that caption now. Would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I am gloing to try to neutralize that caption now. Would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I am gloing to try to neutralize that caption now. Would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am gloing to try to neutralize that caption now. Would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am gloing to try to neutralize that caption now. Would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Having given this a closer look (and I haven't got that close yet) it looks as though there is a considerable amount of work to be done. I am a little concerned that the nomination was not done by any of the major contributors, and that of the major contributors, only two have edited this year, and the last edit was over a month ago. My experience suggests that there is at least a months work here - perhaps more. But it is not impossible with dedication and effort to get it done within a week, so I will put this on hold for 7 days. I don't wish this to be a long drawn out GA Review - so if insufficient work has been by August 24 I will close as Fail. The article can always be resubmitted later. I have notified the five major contributors in addition to the nominator that a review is taking place.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that there has been little progress. It would be welcoming to see improvements to this article.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been no progress on the issues raised. The article does not meet GA criteria for reasons given above, so this is a fail.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)