Talk:Hurricane Ileana (2006)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to be reviewing this page which is currently up for Good Article Nomination, I will have the full review up within a few hours. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Expand the lead and needs an overall copyedit.
- 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):
- Expand the Impact section, it's too short. Check Spanish sources for reports of damages.
- 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):
- An image of its affects would be nice. If one cannot be found, an image relating to the storm during its development/dissipation would also be good.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I am putting this article on hold to allow you to address these points. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since no attempt has been made to improve this article. I am failing it. Please address the issues above before nominating this article agian. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)