Talk:Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)
Appearance
Tropical Storm Gilma (2006) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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 for this storm may not be necessary but it wouldn't hurt to have one
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Another well written article Julian. Other than an image (if possible), the article passes. If you can't find a useful one, it wont really do much since the storm was short lived. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. As the article is very short, there isn't much room for another picture, without unnecessary whitespace. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats on another GA then :) Keep up the good work. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm delisting this article from GA status as I feel it doesn't meet notability requirements and has been largely merged with its parent article. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)