Talk:Ace in the Hole Band/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 15:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Will review it in the next days

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "often eluded the group due to the city's thirst for a more progressive sound" - this should be reworded. Too metaphorical

   Lead should be expanded (summarize the "Style" section, for example)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References should be converted to {{cite web}} with accessdate, publisher, work, title

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.:

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:

• Dabsolver check: ok
• Checklinks check: the first ref is dead
• Reflinks check: not ok
• Fixed dashes
• On hold not a bad article, but too small lead, methaporical grammar in "Style" and the references prevent to be listed.

Many thanks for the review. I am now working to implement the above suggestions.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All the above suggestions have now been implemented in the article.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)