Talk:Effects of Hurricane Floyd in New York/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hamtechperson 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I will review in my free time. Hamtechperson 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Look forward to receiving any suggestions. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Against Criteria
[edit]1. Pass
- A) Prose is fine. Hamtechperson 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Well compliant with MoS guidelines Hamtechperson 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Failed 2B
- A) Includes a references section. Pass Hamtechperson 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Please source the statistics in the intro. all statistics must be sourced. Thus FAIL Hamtechperson 03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, lead material doesn't have to be sourced as per WP:LEAD[1]; all meaningful information is already sourced in the main article. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:GA?, all statistics must be sourced.[2] Also, statistics can be challenged, and WP:LEAD says that material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. It also does not state that the may not be citations in the lead.[1]Hamtechperson 14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and indeed all statistics are sourced. Lead sourcing is optional. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll call for a second opinion. Hamtechperson 21:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- SECOND OPINION: In my opinion, Julian is correct. As long as the statistics are cited in the body, there's no need to repeat them in the lead per WP:LEAD. I'd recommend
passing this article for GA, but I'll leave the final decision to you. –Grondemar 21:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- SECOND OPINION: In my opinion, Julian is correct. As long as the statistics are cited in the body, there's no need to repeat them in the lead per WP:LEAD. I'd recommend
- I'll call for a second opinion. Hamtechperson 21:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and indeed all statistics are sourced. Lead sourcing is optional. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:GA?, all statistics must be sourced.[2] Also, statistics can be challenged, and WP:LEAD says that material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. It also does not state that the may not be citations in the lead.[1]Hamtechperson 14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, lead material doesn't have to be sourced as per WP:LEAD[1]; all meaningful information is already sourced in the main article. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Passed (with some WP:GA? related doubts) Hamtechperson 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- C) WP:NOR Compliant.[3] Pass
3. Pass
- A) Way to stay focused on the main points. Pass Hamtechperson 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) No unnecessary detail. Pass. Hamtechperson 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
4. This article is more neutral than a pH 7 substance. Pass. Hamtechperson 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Pass. Quite stable in fact. Hamtechperson 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Pass
- A) licensing is fine. Hamtechperson 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- B) Images are quite well kaptioned. Hamtechperson 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Policy Cited
[edit]Comments by Other Users
[edit]Third Opinion
I'd also advise passing this. Information in the lead does not need references, as long it is cited later on in the article. See these featured articles with uncited statistics in their leads:
There are many others. I'd say if featured articles can get away with it, good articles definitely can. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 01:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)