Talk:Maximum sustained wind/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Maximum sustained wind/GA1. 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):
 * 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.:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Generally good, but overuses the passive voice. Changing the tone of the article would make it more interesting and easy to read. Transitions would smoothen the flow of the passage and soften its pedantic tone. More wikilinks would also help.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Free of factual errors, but needs more citations to verify possibly questionable statements. For instance, "use of the satellite-based Dvorak technique is the primary method" is an uncited statement.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: This article is rather short; I would recommend expanding it to include more info. For example, you could include its history, the inventor of the method to measure winds, greater significance, etc. (all cited, of course).
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I've fixed the reference problem. As for #3, are you talking about the term maximum sustained wind, or Dvorak?  If it's Dvorak, there's already an article on that topic and that information doesn't need to be repeated in this article, does it?  I've added a new section to the article, and more to the lead to account for the new information.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)