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

Starting review. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Initial comments

This article is wide-ranging in scope, is well-illustrated and appears to be well-reference. It apears to stand a good chance of making GA, but I need to do the full reveiw before making that decision. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, wide-ranging article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

An impressive article. I'm awarding GA-status as it stands. However, as a "geography" article, I would have expected to see the usual table on weather, i.e. temperatures and rainfall, but the scope is sufficently broad for me to pass the article as it stands. You may wish to consider WP:FAC - it probably needs more work to get through that. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Many thanks - and you are quite right about the weather. I'll get onto that. Ben Mac Dui 08:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply