Talk:Pam Tillis/GA1

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

Reviewer: ChrisTofu11961 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I went back and made some grammatical fixes. You have a tendency to overuse commas when you could instead use parentheses or shorten the sentences you write.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * A filmography is most certainly appropriate for this article. But you need to reference each film credit. I would recommend adding references next to each film on the same filmography table.
 * 1) (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 2) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I would include chart information besides just Billboard. What about Canada's RPM chart?
 * In the "musical styles" section it says, "Being the daughter of a country musician, she was regularly compared to her father. Because of this, she told the Associated Press in 2017 that she felt the best advice to give to an aspiring musician was "be yourself". She also said that her father exposed her to other musical influences besides himself, such as Patsy Cline and Loretta Lynn."
 * Is there more than can be said about Tillis's own musical direction as compared to her father? It would be interesting to read more about how she forged her own musical identity.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think if you address the concerns listed above, I definitely think it will pass. ChrisTofu11961 (talk)
 * Thank you for revising! The article is now a certified good article. Good work here! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think if you address the concerns listed above, I definitely think it will pass. ChrisTofu11961 (talk)
 * Thank you for revising! The article is now a certified good article. Good work here! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if you address the concerns listed above, I definitely think it will pass. ChrisTofu11961 (talk)
 * Thank you for revising! The article is now a certified good article. Good work here! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)