Talk:The Stanley Clarke Band/GA1

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

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Every sentence in the lead starts with "The". Please re-write the lead to eliminate this repetition. Please also re-write one of the captions so it does not look like a copy of the other. Under the section on "The band", as a reader, I fail to truly understand the band. Who are they? How many members are there? The credits list has a large amount of people, but nothing is mentioned in this section. I feel that this section needs to be expanded to include a better picture of the band.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is properly referenced with reliable sources and has no original research.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article covers all major aspects and is focused.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article conforms to WP:NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article is stable.
 * 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):
 * Pictures are properly tagged but I would like one of the captions to be reworded so it doesn't resemble the other caption that closely.
 * 1) Overall: A few minor issues have to be fixed before we can move this article forward. I will allow up to 7 days for these issues to be resolved. – SMasters (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the issues, although you did not address my concerns for the lead. I have fixed my original concern and have expanded it slightly as I felt it was a bit too short for a lead. Now, I am satisfied that the article meets all the requirements for a GA, and am happy to pass it. Well done. – SMasters (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: