Talk:Hurricane Paul (2006)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] To do
Needs a copyedit, and a complete track map for B-Class. Titoxd(?!?) 02:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- But other than that, I think Hink made a good standard article. — Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Upgraded to B Class. Storm05 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it still needs the copyedit. – Chacor 06:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh come on, it looks like a standard B class article already; I barely see anything else to fix except for maybe one or two typos. — Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 07:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, what is keeping this from being a B class? It has a track map, and I don't see any spelling errors - at least not enough to keep it from being B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, no spelling errors, has a track map, comprehensive, it's a B-class article. Hello32020 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, what is keeping this from being a B class? It has a track map, and I don't see any spelling errors - at least not enough to keep it from being B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh come on, it looks like a standard B class article already; I barely see anything else to fix except for maybe one or two typos. — Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 07:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it still needs the copyedit. – Chacor 06:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Upgraded to B Class. Storm05 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA pass
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
Another great one. -Phoenix 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after it passed in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources (there are also a few dead links as well). If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)