Jump to content

Talk:Weather/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Many references have been added to the article (so it should be well-referenced now), and the lead was completely overhauled to have content which better represents the article below it. Let me know what else is needed, if you see something missing/wrong. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

Prose is decent. Citations need better formatting. Use "cite web" throughout.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Some sections ("Casuses", for instance) have many small paragraphs. They might be better condensed into fewer, larger paragraphs before FAC consideration.
  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:
    I'm not sure how you could violate NPOV on weather, although it is an amusing thought
  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):
    Awesome images. They are one of the best features. I came across this one the other day, don't know if you would want it
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Congrats! Plasticup T/C 18:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]