Talk:Hurricane Erick (2013)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 06:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

With my issues addressed/resolved, I can now state with confidence that this article follows the policies on prose, grammar, intro and body organization, and general composition of text at a quality worthy of GA level! Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article makes frequent citations to a sturdy list of sources which all click as reliable. No original research looks to have been incorporated into the text. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article appears to contain all relevant information which was attainable for the topic. Nothing resembles trivia or fluff. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

I'm not sure if I could readily comprehend the way to show bias towards or against a hurricane, at any rate without obviously sounding unencyclopedic, but nevertheless this article most certainly does not do that. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Looking at the edit history back as far as July last year, no edit warring or editing of similar nature seems to have taken place. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All three images currently used in the article are validly licensed, and as they are from the Wikimedia Commons I don't think fair use issues apply in this case. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

Before I give this article the "GA-OK", I'd just like to be clear in my understanding of the following:

When giving a specific time in hours and minutes (example from the text: 1500 UTC), isn't there supposed to be a colon between the hours and the minutes, or is this optional? I've only ever seen specific times presented like this: 15:00 UTC, to my recollection, so I'd like to be sure.
- Yes, it is optional. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro to the article is the sentence: "A woman died as she attempted to flee her house, while a second man was killed after being swept away by the river." It states that there were two reported deaths caused by the hurricane, which means the woman was one and the man was the other. Is "a second man" really necessary in this case?
- Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, everything's adorned with a green light. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]