Talk:Tropical Storm Chris (1988)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tropical Storm Chris (1988) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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.
July 9, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms / Atlantic  (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
 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 the storm articles task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane articles task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Be Wary of Longshore Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, etc., Book![edit]

It had a whole host of errors relating to the Atlantic Basin, even claiming that the name Larry had been used by the year 2000 (it had not), and transporting a tropical cyclone back in time two months in 1893. If you want to check out several of its reviews (including an old one by myself), click here. Thegreatdr 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... that one was rough! I wonder how our articles would fare in a WikiReader...? Titoxd(?!?) 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well consequely, some of our artiles have that Longshore Encyclopedia as a source. Storm05 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Chris (1988)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

review

I've made a few minor editors that you're free to change:[1] Otherwise, everything checks out. Good work!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!

Pass! Congratulations. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)