Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Bud (2018)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Oof-off (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear and concise. I changed some of the wording, but other than that, the spelling and grammar was of good quality. One reference was misspelled, but the error was easily fixed. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Complies with the manual of style guidelines Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) There are 27 sources on this article. One of them, the Tropical Cyclone Report (TCR) for Hurricane Bud, provides more general information about the storm and is from a trusted source (NHC). Many of the rest are also from the NHC, and are more specific about the evolution of the storm. The sources used for impact and preparations are also reliable (such as trusted newspapers). Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Citations lead to reliable sources. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) There is no original research Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) There is no copyright violations or plagiarism Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) This article covers all of the aspects of Bud's lifetime as a tropical cyclone. For the information that is available on the storm, its meteorological history is discussed in good depth as well as the impact and preparations. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) This article is focused Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    This article is neutral and covers the topic without bias Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The article does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The images are appropriately used with suitable captions Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass This article is well-written, has an appropriate amount of images, and covers the lifetime of Hurricane Bud in appropriate depth for the amount of information that there is to work with.

Discussion

[edit]

References

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Bud_(2018)/GA1&oldid=1038141847"