Talk:Busta Rhymes/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator comment: I feel this article fills the required needs of a good article it was very well written, it was accurate with many references, it was broad on it's coverage talking about many interesting things, it was neutral and professional, not biased, not many edit wars if any, and contains good images. TheDeathKingTheGodfather 22:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Grammar, sentence structure errors, things like that. The article reads very choppy, paragraphs are not written properly.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Fails WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body of the article. You dont have nearly enough information.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Read C

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Read C

   C. No original research:

   Okay, article contains multiple dead links. WP:OR left and right. "J/Arista/BMG (2000-2004)" is completely unsourced. Most of "Aftermath/Interscope (2004-2008)" , "Universal Motown (2008—present)" and "E.L.E. 2 (previously The Chemo)" is unsourced. References 22, 23 11, and 12 are not reliable sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Read B

   B. Focused:

   I would take a look at Lady Gaga for how to write a GA article. This article is basically listing his discography over again. This should be about his life and career achievements, not his chartings.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: