Talk:Winter of 1946–47 in the United Kingdom/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The "Fuel shortage" section starts out a bit confusing. Since none of this is really mentioned outright in the lead, I started reading it and was confused as to what bearing it had on the blizzard. Perhaps start out the section with something like "In the months leading up to the severe weather, concerns about the availability of fuel were increasing, and government efforts were doing little to stem the problem." to show that yes, this does have something to do with the blizzard.
 * I have added a short intro to this section. Do you think it is sufficient.  If not I can spend some more time on it and try to improve it.  Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref 8 needs a publisher.
 * That's an internet article (written by a published author on the subject) so it doesn't have a publisher. Unless you mean that I should list the host website? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Overall a very nice article. There is one prose issue and one referencing issue, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for starting the review. It is much appreciated, I will start to work on the problem areas - Dumelow (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! The intro to the coal shortage paragraph looks great, and I added the publisher info that I wanted :) Everything looks great with the article, so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall a very nice article. There is one prose issue and one referencing issue, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for starting the review. It is much appreciated, I will start to work on the problem areas - Dumelow (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! The intro to the coal shortage paragraph looks great, and I added the publisher info that I wanted :) Everything looks great with the article, so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)