Talk:Jonita Lattimore/GA2

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

Reviewer: Tim Pierce (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose: Most of the content in this article consists of a semi-chronological list of Lattimore's performances. I have to guess that some of these performances were more significant, well-received, notable than others, but the article doesn't give much sense as to which are which.  I would like to see some summary of critical responses to her work, for example, and perhaps have the article focus on her most prominent performances.  There is very little structure at all to the article, and it includes one  template that I think is still appropriate.
 * MoS: leave out some of the wikilinks to common terms (e.g. piano, trumpet, jazz, rhythm and blues. Most of the wikilinks are good and appropriate, but it makes the article so dense with links that it is especially important not to add unnecessary links.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I have not exhaustively checked references for accuracy, but the article is scrupulously referenced and footnoted. Good job.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article does cover major aspects of Lattimore's career, but lacks focus and (as mentioned above) fails to address some crucial matters of interest like critical reactions.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Very stable, mostly static since May 2010.
 * 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):
 * No images at all, so no inappropriate use is possible. This article really ought to have at least one image of the singer, though.
 * 1) Overall: you've done a great job on references in this article, but the prose and structure need a great deal of work for it to reach GA status. I see that a couple of sentences got reworded and cleaned up after the previous failed GA, but I think it really needs a substantial top-to-bottom rewrite.
 * Pass/Fail: