Talk:The JaneDear girls (album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was surprised that anyone took this one on, since they're a very obscure act.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

   I trimmed down the personnel section some. The "composer" credits as seen on Allmusic are not needed, since they're just reiterating the songwriters who are already mentioned on the tracklist. Also changed instances of "guitar (electric)" or "guitar (acoustic)" to "electric guitar" and "acoustic guitar", capitalized Dobro as it's a trademark, and added wikilinks to performers where needed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

   A disclaimer that I used to write for Roughstock myself, but the site has been proven reputable in other GA reviews such as

   Taste of Country

   , CMT, Country Standard Time, etc. are known to be reliable as well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Given the obscurity of this album, I feel that its history and recording were covered as about as extensively as possible. Country albums in general aren't known for particularly long, drawn-out, or innovative recording sessions, so this covers it about as well as it can.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very well done, and again, a surprising choice, but a well written piece.