Talk:Effect of Hurricane Katrina on the New Orleans Hornets/GA1

GA Review

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

After a read of the article it appears fine after 2 edits which were very minor.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Although I am satisfied that everything is reliably sourced, you should place a reference on the last sentance of the article about the sacremento kings record in the 2008-09 season

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):

I do not believe that it is broad in its coverage, it is a short article in terms of the subject matter that could/ should be covered. I think that the repairs of the staduim should be stated, cost of repairs, how serious was the damage etc. Maybe even mention that it was used during the aftermath of the disaster which i think it was, i know a sports ground was? Also what about once they returned was the team succesful, were the crowds good compared to prior disaster, were they as good as when they were in Oklahoma City

b (focused):

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 02blythed (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If have any questions please contact me p.s. this is my first ever GA review.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. You're right about the "broad coverage" part. I intend to work on this in the coming week, hopefully by the weekend all issues in that regard will be fixed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you make me aware of when you have expanded the article let me know either on this page which is on my watchlist or on my user page. If not done by weekend do not worry, i will not fail you if not done within the week of being notified of review which i think is a rule.02blythed (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I've expanded to where I'm satisfied. Your turn. :) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the improvements you have made to the article. I now believe that this article now fits the GA criteria. Well done. 02blythed (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]