Talk:Three Days Grace/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Chase wc 91  20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Addressed MoS issues (see below) myself due to the fact that they're minor and there's not many.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Just a few issues in the infobox:
 * MoS
 * The alias field is not for acronyms of the band's name. Unless they have recorded under the names 3DG or TDG, please remove these.
 * The genre field is supposed to be as general as possible. Substitute "Alternative metal, post-grunge, hard rock" for "Heavy metal, rock (or alternative rock which to me seems like its own genre aside from rock, if that applies to this band's music)."

Since there's very few and minor issues, I will simply address them myself. This article passes its GAN, and can be listed as a good article.
 * Wow, that was fast. Thanks for the quick review and for passing the article. Tim  meh  23:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)