Talk:Tropical Storm Jerry (2001)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- There generally should not be references in the lead.
- You use the phrases "Shortly afterward" and "Shortly after" quite a few times in the Storm history section. Could the wording be varied, to prevent this repetition?
- 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:
There are just a couple of minor prose/MOS issues that are preventing this article from being promoted to GA status, so I am putting the review on hold to allow you time to deal with these concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I reworded the SH, so that should be better now. About the footnote in the lead, there's nothing wrong with referencing the section. Information in the lead that's not in the article is discouraged, but a reference is fine. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose... I don't really like it, but personal preference, I guess :) Everything else looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)