User:Nehrams2020/GA reviews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have started reviewing good articles in February 2007 (a year after joining Wikipedia), and here are the statistics for the articles I have passed and failed. I may assess the articles quite harsh, as so far, I haven't passed any articles without putting them on hold first. I'm not trying to get the article to fail, but want the article to improve in quality and earn its good article status. If you see an article below that I failed, consider working on it to bring it up to GA status (unless it already reached it after my failing it). If you ever have the time, review an article or two at Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Template:WikiProjectGATasks Wikipedia:Good article candidates/Report

Contents

[edit] Passed (90)

[edit] Failed (23)

[edit] Quick-failed (50)

I will quick-fail an article if it is a list (not covered under the GA criteria), lacks inline citations, is not broad enough, or there are tags on the articles including "citation needed" templates.

[edit] GA Sweeps

All of the articles that I have reviewed for GA Sweeps can be found here.

[edit] Talk page messages

==GA Sweeps Review: On Hold== As part of the [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]], we're doing [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]]. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at [[WP:GAN]]. This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --~~~~

==GA Sweeps Review: Pass== As part of the [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]], we're doing [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the [[WP:WIAGA|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 [[WP:GA|Good article]]. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. 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! --~~~~

[edit] User/WP messages

== GA Sweeps Review: On Hold== As part of the [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]], we're doing [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]] and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed [[]] and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using [http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ this article history tool]). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --~~~~

== GA Sweeps Review: On Hold== As part of the [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]], we're doing [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]] and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed [[History of South Carolina]] and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --~~~~

[edit] GAC backlog elimination May 23-June 13, 2007 (Completed)

If you reviewed five or more articles between May 23 and June 13, 2007 please include your name in a list here, stating which reviews you performed. I will award the Good Article Medal of Merit to those listed here. If you have any questions about the process let me know on my talk page. (Note: The number of required reviewed articles may be raised, based on the number of people who help to contribute)

Done, no more names please. I'll be sending out the medals later today after I review the reviews. Good job to everyone that helped! --Nehrams2020 08:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)