Talk:Clapotis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clapotis article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Clapotis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 2, 2007.
January 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] GA Review

Not reviewing, but I note that this article was nominated twice: once under Mathematics and once under Physics and astronomy. I have deleted the entry under Physics and astronomy. If you wish to replace that one, please move the one out of Mathematics first. Cheers, CP 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for its GA candidancy. The good news is that so far, this article passes the quick fail criteria, so a full review is forthcoming. Thanks, and good luck! FamicomJL (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

While the article is very short in length, it's well written, properly cited, and the works. I have no problems totally passing this article. Great work to all involved! FamicomJL (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)