Talk:Jay-Z/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Fail due to meeting #3 and #4 the of quick-fail criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There's a {{copyedit}} banner in the Business Ventures section of the article and a {{fact}} tag in the body of this section, one of the reasons why this article quick-failed GA. This article needs a lot of work on grammar and formatting. Ex#1: In the lead there's a period before and after ref 4. Ex#2: Ref 9 and 10 are separated by a period like this --> [9].[10] Ex#3: He began freestyling, writing rhymes, and followed the music of many artists popular at the time. Using the term "freestyling" is OK because it's wikilinked it so people who aren't familiar with the term can read about what it is. "Writing rhymes" is not OK because it's slang. Read policy here. "Writing lyrics" would be better. Ex#4: I just don't believe in good music and bad music, I've always said that.". and said that he would be interested in collaborating with Oasis in the future. There's a period before and after the quotation mark followed by "and" which is lowercase and almost never used to begin a sentence.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Needs more inline citations. Some paragraphs have two citations. Some paragraphs have only one citation. I saw two paragraphs with no citations. Also ref 5, ref 23, and ref 65 are dead links that don't exist anymore.

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:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is locked from anonymous editing. I don't think I can call it stable if it's locked. Another reason why it quick-failed.

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:

   I suggest nominating this article for peer review. It needs the attention of a good copy editor. Also the list for Arts-related GA nominations is very long so it's better to get a peer review before renominating anyway. Susan Carter Holmes is fine but note that the Shawn Carter (actor) page doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense to have a directory message at the top of the article directing people to an article that's not there. Also [[Prodigy]] links to a disambiguation page rather than an article.

After updating the talk page to reflect the GA nomination outcome I realized that this article already went through a peer review in August. The references/citations issue was brought up then. Before renominating this article for GA status please implement the suggestions already brought up in the peer review.

// Gbern3 (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)