Talk:Tropical Storm Frances (1998)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Just to check, you are consciously using a fully-referenced lead, yes? Personal preference here, I think.
   • The lead could stand to be expanded a little bit with a couple of sentences on the meteorological history of the storm.
   • In the Texas section, you say "Sections of the Middle Texas coast, closer to the point of landfall, and Golden Triangle of southeast Texas" Is Golden Triangle a city or an area? Perhaps wikilink if possible.
   • In the Texas section, you say "San Luis pass pier" Should pass be capitalized?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The last part of the Lack of retirement section needs a ref

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • There is a hidden comment in the Louisiana section about adding more content. Is this still relevant?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a few minor comments, so I'm putting the article on hold. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was apparently half asleep while working on GAs this morning, as I obviously went ahead and passed the article after telling you I was going to put it on hold. I'd still like the issues above to be rectified, but I'm not going to pull the GA over it. Sorry about that! Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns should be addressed now. Thanks for the review. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks great. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)