Talk:Indoor–outdoor thermometer
(Redirected from Talk:Indoor-outdoor thermometer)
 | Indoor–outdoor thermometer has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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. Review: October 1, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Indoor–outdoor thermometer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 January 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Indoor-outdoor thermometer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
- File:Indoor Outdoor Thermometer.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image page there checks out okay.
- File:Wireless indoor-outdoor thermometer.jpg = another picture at Commons, page there is fine.
Will do a stability review next.
— Cirt (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Stability review[edit]
- Article edit history = inspected article edit history. No outstanding issues going back to inception of page.
- Talk page history = looked through talk page history. No major problems or conflicts going back to start of page.
Rest of review next.
— Cirt (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination[edit]
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 1, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: It is indeed well written and is a good educational introduction to the topic for the reader and editor alike. Good context given and good explanations for the lay person.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. No issues here.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers main aspects. Could go into a bit more depth with perhaps a History sect. Not sure how much is there in secondary sources though. Could be something to look into further down the road for expansion potential.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Presented in a neutrally worded tone throughout.
- 5. Article stability? Passes here, see above.
- 6. Images?: Passes here, see above.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)