Talk:Weather/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Prose is decent. Citations need better formatting. Use "cite web" throughout.

1. 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.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. 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

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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

   

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congrats! Plasticup ^T/C 18:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)