Talk:Montgomery Gentry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Montgomery Gentry has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 19, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
December 3, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Country Music (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Kentucky (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (marked as Low-importance).
 

Conflicting Information[edit]

The first sentence in the article indicates these guys are both Kentucky natives, then a few paragraphs into the article indicates they were both born in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeOPFL (talkcontribs) 23:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I updated the discography, so please don't change it back. 76.236.153.65 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deer Hunt Charge[edit]

paul Gentry of this duo was charged for shooting a deer,but the charges were later dropped when they reliazed they were mixed up with someone else.

Vandalism.[edit]

I've gone through and reverted some sections that have absolutely no place in the Wiki article. I don't agree with what Mr. Gentry did, but being immature about it doesn't do anything.Doriftu (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Montgomery Gentry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 13:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Will review it in the following 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):
    Lead is definetely too short; at the moment it is more a discography than a biography lead. Add personal life, their style, their awards, their career. The lead should summarize the whole content.
    Added some more, although I don't see how the existing lead was any worse than the one in, say, Clay Walker or Joe Diffie.
    Much better. Prose is also nice.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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):
    The location is not known?
    Added.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Thanks, I will now pass! ;)