Talk:The Stanley Clarke Band/GA1

GA Review

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

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.

2. 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.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article covers all major aspects and is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article conforms 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):

   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.

7. 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: