Talk:Hurricane Boris (2008)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is severely lacking in quality, at times even incomprehensible. The lead, It became to, is particularly flawed. Read WP:LEAD for more detail in that regard. The Meteorological History section makes no sense to anyone without detailed knowledge of the subject. I'm not saying it needs to be in Simple English, just try to limit the use of technical meteorological words. The times and speeds need to be MoS checked - try contacting a copyeditor at your WikiProject.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Haven't had a detailed look at the history just yet, but looks fairly stable at this stage.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I was tempted to fail the GA without a hold period, just to give you guys a bit more time to run through the article and make improvements. Yet, getting the article up to scratch in a week isn't impossible, so I'm putting the article on hold for now. \ / (⁂) 11:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I was tempted to fail the GA without a hold period, just to give you guys a bit more time to run through the article and make improvements. Yet, getting the article up to scratch in a week isn't impossible, so I'm putting the article on hold for now. \ / (⁂) 11:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to fail the GA without a hold period, just to give you guys a bit more time to run through the article and make improvements. Yet, getting the article up to scratch in a week isn't impossible, so I'm putting the article on hold for now. \ / (⁂) 11:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would fail the article. If "getting the article up to scratch" does indeed take less than a week, then it wouldn't be stable. I personally feel the article is missing too much. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate quoting policy, but the stable requirement says that good faith copy edits or fixes for reviewers remarks do not make the article unstable. I agree, this article is missing a lot, but I like to think that getting this article improved is not impossible. Keep in mind, if we are halfway through the week and progress has not been made (I understand some editors work on weekends, and will take that into account), then I won't hesitate in closing this one. \ / (⁂) 19:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky article of YE. It's hard for me to fix it without having to rewrite the article. Against my usual motives, I am leaning towards failing this article due to inadequate information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Failing article, too many issues. \ / (⁂) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)