Talk:Hurricane Ivo (2007)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:In the Storm history and Preparations and impact section, it would be best to add the year the Hurricane took effect.|In the Storm history and Preparations and impact section, it would be best to add the year the Hurricane took effect.|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:In the Storm history section, it would be best if "September 21" were linked once, per here. The article has a "red link", if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.|In the Storm history section, it would be best if "September 21" were linked once, per here. The article has a "red link", if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the year the hurricane existed in the Storm history, but I don't feel it's needed again in the Preps and impact section. I also unlinked September 21 once. Thanks for the review! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I thought maybe it would be important to add it to the P&I section. Thank you to Julian for getting the stuff I left, cause I have gone off and passed the article. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)