Talk:Hurricane Douglas (2002)/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments:
- The conversions are wrong! Please use the {{convert}} formula for all conversions, see WP:CONVERT. For instance, 70 miles is 110 km and not 113km as stated.
Overall, there were some minor copy edit issues, which I have fixed for you. I will put this On Hold for up to seven days for the above issue to be resolved. I believe that all other requirements have been met except for this. -- S Masters (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actully the conversions are correct as we are converting form kts to mph and km/h and the convert templates can not handle this.Jason Rees (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just did an overall copyedit to standardize the article, so there are no major issues. However, most of the info on predictions and forecasts is unnecessary, unless the storm drastically defied a particular forecast. Good luck with the GAN. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Final summary: Thanks for all the work done on this. I am confident that it now meets the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it. Well done! - S Masters (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)