Talk:Rod Stewart/GA1

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

This article came up for review on WP:GAN. That being said, User:Wasted Time R did mention that the article was not ready, and after reviewing it, I'm inclined to agree. I do not feel that the article meets the GA requirements at this time.

To be more helpful, I've put together a list and some comments on what needs to improve in order to bring this article to GA status, which I believe it is capable of being.


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

Though the article was supposedly not ready, quite a bit of it looks to be in great shape. Here are some areas to work on.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * While the prose is quite well-written in some areas, in others it is very choppy. One major example of this is the 2009 onward section, where every paragraph begins with a date and essentially reads like a list of events.  This is not GA-level, and needs to be cleaned up.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Reference section is very nice, although a couple of bare URLs and titles could use some more information for the sourcing. Largest issue here is that there are large sections later on in the prose that are unsourced, and could contain original research.  Sourcing these areas will be important.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Pretty broad, though personally when I look at music articles I like to see a little bit about a musician's style. That's not a GA requirement, though, and I think it meets this requirement as is.
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It looks like a lot of effort has been put into this article, and it's a shame to me that it has not been finished yet. It does have potential, though, and I encourage the authors to consider nominating it again once the remaining sections are rewritten and sourced appropriately.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It looks like a lot of effort has been put into this article, and it's a shame to me that it has not been finished yet. It does have potential, though, and I encourage the authors to consider nominating it again once the remaining sections are rewritten and sourced appropriately.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)