Talk:Montgomery Gentry/GA1

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 13:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Will review it in the following 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):
 * Lead is definetely too short; at the moment it is more a discography than a biography lead. Add personal life, their style, their awards, their career. The lead should summarize the whole content.
 * Added some more, although I don't see how the existing lead was any worse than the one in, say, Clay Walker or Joe Diffie.
 * Much better. Prose is also nice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * The location is not known?
 * Added.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The location is not known?
 * Added.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * ISBN/ISSN check: one dead
 * Dabsolver check: ok
 * Checklinks check: two dead links
 * Reflinks check: ok


 * Addressed a couple issues. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will now pass! ;)