Talk:Weather/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Weather/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the 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. Congrats!  Plasticup  T / C  18:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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:
 * I'm not sure how you could violate NPOV on weather, although it is an amusing thought
 * 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):
 * 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 [[Image:Cirrus pattern panorama.jpg|thumb]]
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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 [[Image:Cirrus pattern panorama.jpg|thumb]]
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: