Talk:Dorian Holley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "The subsequent year, he worked with Michael Jackson for the final time", you don't need to add "Michael", since it's already noted he worked with him. Unless of course Holley worked with any of the Jackson family, or someone with the Jackson last name, then it's fine. In the James Taylor, Dangerous Tour and HIStory Tour section, "...after child sexual abuse allegations were levelled against Jackson and he cancelled the remainder of the tour due to the stress caused by them", "them" you refer to the allegations, right? Same section, in the first paragraph you have "Michael Jackson", so you don't need to keep saying "Michael Jackson", just "Holley worked with Jackson again for the entertainer's last concert series". At the beginning of this article, it's noted that Jackson is a successful singer, so in the Debut album, workshops and This Is It section, you don't need to add that, just say that Holley once again worked with Jackson.
Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Are there no free images of Holley available?
What about any images?
No, unfortunately, I've found no free images of him. Pyrrhus16 00:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just needed to know.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both Crystal Clear and Pyrrhus for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]