Talk:Eazy-Duz-It/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 09:49, 17 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):

   There are numerous prose issues that I am concered with. For example: "Three of the four singles released from the album in the United States (US)." – Grammar issues and no need to include the US parenthesis; "Eazy-Duz-It was recorded at Audio Achievements, in Torrance, California from 1987 to 1988." – No need to have a comma after Achievements; "...while the D.O.C.'s included "syllabically punchy boasts" and Ice Cube wrote "masterfully insightful first-person narratives."– Comma needed after "wrote"; "Jason Birchmeier from Allmusic gave a considerable amount of note to the album's production..." – "considerable amount of note" – very unusual phrasing for me, please rephrase the "note" part; "leftover electro sounds of mid-'80s Los Angeles" – All Wikipedia articles now need to address things like "80s" – was it the 1780s or 1980s? Even though it may be obvious, it needs to be written out in full. These are just some of the issues I have picked out. I suggest a thrid-party editor give this a pair of fresh eyes and provide a good copy edit of this article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is properly sourced and complies to WP:OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article complies to WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are a number of issues to do with the prose to bring it to GA standards. I suggest a good copy edit by a fresh pair of eyes to polish the prose and fix these prose problems. – SMasters (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   I've fixed all the issues that you have listed. I'm right now gonna re-check the article, and probably get someone else to look it over. CrowzRSA 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   I've fixed up some more things, and I think it should be okay now. CrowzRSA 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for making all the fixes, I'm happy that the article now meets all the requirements for a GA, and I'm happy to pass it. – SMasters (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)