Talk:Claudette Peters/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 08:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   not clear in places, e.g. "about a decade later" when referring to one of her principle achievements. Material pertaining to the same events is split across different paragraphs. Seemingly arbitrary sub-section in the "career" section. Subordinate clause used as a sentence. Song names are not consistent, e.g. "Something's Got A Hold On Me" in the prose but "Something Got to Hold on Me" in the list of songs. The lead section doesn't introduce any of her songs, which is incredible given she is known for being a singer. Other prose issues: "Church", "schools' choir", "the Queen of England", "Soca moarch competition", inconsistent referral to the subject by first name /surname.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article relies on primary sources, including Facebook and last.fm, based on her Myspace page. There are close paraphrasing concerns, e.g. article (lead):"Claudette has multiple Jumpy and Groovy Party Monarch crowns in which she won from the annual Antigua Carnival's Party Monarch Competition to justify her claim to fame." source:"Claudette ... has multiple Jumpy and Groovy Party Monarch crowns to justify her claim to fame". Possible original research, e.g. "the year of her return she captured the groovy section of the show with the song "Still Jamming"[9]" failed verification.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   She seems to have had 10 songs, all non-charting, but only three of them are mentioned in the prose part of the article. A quick read of the sources mention her musical influences, the fact she is a mother, and so on, none of which are mentioned in the article here, but certainly might be in the future. Update: I just found the influences at the end of the article. The layout could be improved, then.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   dubious image with no EXIF data from an uploader with a single edit.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article has a long way to go before it may be considered a good article. Addressing the comments here would be a suitable first step, then peer review could be the next place to take it. Good luck!