Talk:Ol' Dirty Bastard/GA1

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

Reviewer: -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Alot of WP:PEACOCK language, alot of this information could be cut down into several paragraphs, not a year-by-year timeline.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * On this article, there are 14 references for the entire article. This needs to come up ALOT to be even B Grade, not alone GA.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It is broad in its coverage, but it is too broad in my opinion. Too much information can be a bad thing.  Stick with the bullet points.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article history looks like a warzone. That needs to be cleaned up.
 * 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):
 * Only two images (one in the infobox) is not enough for GA status. More images, sourced and captioned, are needed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * At this point, I don't think the article even meets B grade and for a former FA this is sad. Very sad.  This article needs references, a shorter version on the history, and images.  Please team up with someone who knows their articles and how to write them.  Be open to ideas and come back in about 6 months with a fresh new article ready to go.  At present, even a couple tweeks isn't going to change this article to GA. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)