Talk:Rosanne Cash/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Number signs generally aren't allowed in text; for instance, #1 should be written out as No. 1 or number one. Otherwise, I see no formatting issues.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See below; I had several issues with the citation, but adding them in bullet form breaks the GAList template.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I don't think that the article discusses her 1980s material fully enough. This was the peak of her career, and it could easily be split into album-by-album detail. I was able to go into album-by-album detail on GAs for far less prolific artists, such as Joe Diffie. Also, does she have a middle name? If so, it should be added to the article.
 * 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):
 * Right now five images may seem like overkill, but if the article is lengthened per my suggestion, it'd probably be better off.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article still has a long way to go. As I said, use citation templates, weed out the bad references, and add more information on the segment for her 1980s career. I could probably take a whack at the expansion myself at some point.
 * Issues with sourcing:
 * Source #4 (CountryWorks.com) is a 404.
 * Source #7 (Musician Guide) has been deemed unreliable in past GANs because the site lacks an editorial policy.
 * Source #17 (Legacy Recordings) seems to be just a directory listing. Could a better source be found?
 * I removed one source that was a Wikipedia mirror.
 * Source #21 (WNYC.org) is also a 404.
 * Some sources are formatted as bare links. I would also recommend using citation templates such as Cite web for neatness.
 * Finally, there was an interview in the external links which I removed, since it was almost singlehandedly spammed on several articles.
 * Some sources are formatted as bare links. I would also recommend using citation templates such as Cite web for neatness.
 * Finally, there was an interview in the external links which I removed, since it was almost singlehandedly spammed on several articles.