Talk:Weather/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Many references have been added to the article (so it should be well-referenced now), and the lead was completely overhauled to have content which better represents the article below it. Let me know what else is needed, if you see something missing/wrong. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]Prose is decent. Citations need better formatting. Use "cite web" throughout.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Some sections ("Casuses", for instance) have many small paragraphs. They might be better condensed into fewer, larger paragraphs before FAC consideration.
- 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:
- I'm not sure how you could violate NPOV on weather, although it is an amusing thought
- 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):
- Awesome images. They are one of the best features. I came across this one the other day, don't know if you would want it
- Awesome images. They are one of the best features. I came across this one the other day, don't know if you would want it
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Congrats! Plasticup T/C 18:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)