Talk:Snowflake/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Tripleintegral (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just some initial impressions: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleintegral (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this section as it assumes that everyone knows what a snowflake is. It should reworded to start off with a statement of what it is (eg, A snowflake is a blob of frozen cloud drops). I think it goes into a bit too much detail about the formation/structure which really belongs in a body section. Furthermore, much of this appears to be copied from the Snow article.

This whole article was once in the snow article, but was split off in order to prevent the snow article from becoming too large. I've added a reasonable lead sentence, per your comment above. It seems hard not to talk much about snow formation within the lead, because it helps explain the variety of shapes seen in snowflakes. Thegreatdr (talk)

Well, many details in the lead are repeated in the body sections, so perhaps it would be better to just remove it. Triplestop (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one line from the lead per your suggestion. Removing any more information from the lead would be problematic, as the lead would no longer summarize the article below, which would violate MoS. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

All sources appear to be reliable. Triplestop (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my delay, I have been very very busy lately. I will try to get this wrapped up soon. Triplestop x3 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

lead section addressed

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?: Pass

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

After reviewing the content and the sources, I believe that this article is sufficiently comprehensive to pass GA. Triplestop x3 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.