Talk:World weather in 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] GA review
- 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 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):
- Overall:
- I think the prose is nowhere near GA quality, I feel it's rough and choppy. There are many one-sentence paragraphs, the lead's too short, and there are to many sections I don't think this is the best title. It is also too US-centric, which probably results in poor written quality. I've given it wtf for stability, because I feel this is a poor title. Please work to make it more detailed and less US-centric and the other stuff should fall in place. Maxim(talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comprehensiveness
I don't believe this is comprehensive. Right now, it largely deals with tropical cyclones. However, this article isn't on tropical cyclones in 2005; it's about the worldwide weather, which includes temperature, snowfall, tornadoes, rainfall events, etc. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, for that reason, I'm failing its GA nomination. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)