Talk:2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A couple of minor tweaks to the sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation, but nothing major. The prose is clearly written and easy to understand.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All major information is backed up be reliable sources. Most information is from the NWS and National Climactic Data Service, but other sources are used as well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the key aspects of this event, including a synopsis of the storms themselves, their impact, and the aftermath.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are no major WP:NPOV issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Most of the recent editing was done by two users; there's no active edit wars going on. Sufficient time has elapsed since the event so that the article can be written without rapidly changing information.

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):

   All images used have appropriate captions and tags. The two images under impact and aftermath do have tags stating that, "The categories of this image should be checked." So this should be addressed at some point. But this is not critical for GA.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, the article meets the GA criteria, and can be listed. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)