Talk:Precipitation/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be a summary of the article and contain no information that is not included in the body of the article. For example, the information about rain on other planets is included in the lead, but not, as far as I can find, in the body.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Please make sure that web references include publishers, and that book refs include publishers and ISBNs (page numbers would also be nice, although they're not necessary).

Ref authors and titles should not be in all capital letters, even if they were in the original source.

I've added a few fact tags where there are paragraphs or partial paragraphs unreferenced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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:
Pass/Fail:
There are several areas of the article that need to be better referenced. This, along with an issue with MOS, is causing me to place the article on hold before completing a full prose review. Please drop me a note when you have completed the referencing, and I will take a full run through the article looking at the prose. Dana boomer (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issues you pointed out should now be taken care of. Let me know when you review the prose. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the final things I found that need to be taken care of:
I added a fact tag in one place where I would like to see a reference.

In the second paragraph of the Cooling air to its dew point section, you explain the first three mechanisms, but not the last (evaporative cooling). Is there a reason for this?

In the Orographic effects section, is there a reason why Orographic precipitation is italicized?

Same section, second paragraph, "In Hawaii, Mount Waiʻaleʻale (Waiʻaleʻale)" Why the duplication?

In the Forecasting section, is there a reason that QPF is bolded?

Once these are taken care of, the article should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should now be taken care of. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]