Talk:1947 Sydney hailstorm/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Good Article Assessment
Here is the revision of the page that I assessed. I have since made 10 subsequent edits, changes viewable here. Below is my assessment.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- (Even if was only started 2 days ago!)
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
- The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail.
- All prose is readable, and doesn't use words that any editor/reader wouldn't understand.
- It is factually accurate and is backed up comprehensively with verifiable and independent, reliable sources. Although a few more online references would complement the article, it's pretty well sourced at the moment.
- Unfortunately the nature of a beast which reared its head over half a century ago is to not be embraced by the online medium :) Daniel 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose so. :) — Rudget Contributions 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the nature of a beast which reared its head over half a century ago is to not be embraced by the online medium :) Daniel 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- All images are used correctly, tagged, captioned appropriately and fair use is applied where applicable.
- Correctly tagged, but the map is still shonky. Very shonky. Daniel 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Only a few grammar mistakes, all corrected by either me or Michael Devore.
- Indeed, thanks to both Michael and yourself for that - I'm terrible with proofreading my own work. Daniel 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Citations were using the correct place—after the punctuation— and used the {{Citeweb}} template.
- It's a testament to the wonders of sandbox editing. :)
- :) Daniel 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on that, I am willing the pass the article. If you have any questions about my edits, don't hesitate to ask me and if you feel this review may be in error, you can seek a reassessment. Regards, — Rudget Contributions 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your edits and your review. Cheers, Daniel 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
