Talk:Hurricane Heather/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to Skarmory and all others who worked on the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	After some minor tweaks, the prose is at the GA standard. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Cites #5 and 6 appear to be identical (Tucson Citizen), combine. Pass, no further issues.
	2b. 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).	Does cite #9 (October 6th) have a headline? What exactly is Cite #20 (Don Hogan) and why is it reliable? Pass, see discussion below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues with OR detected.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig not effective with these kinds of sources, hold for manual spot check. Pass, none found by manual spot check of newspaper articles etc.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Cannot find anything else of note. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, seems appropriate for level of damage and historical context, other GAs on similar storms.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are fine and captions are good, though if a higher-quality copyright-free satellite image exists at all, it could be swapped in and that would be an improvement. Pass, improved image found (see below).
	7. Overall assessment.

Cites 5 and 6 bundled; I haven't really bundled citations before, so hopefully this works? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the title of cite 9 to "Rain", which feels a bit weird, but it is the title of the section. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up Cite 20 at WP:RSN, and seemingly got consensus it was an acceptable primary source. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, we can go with consensus on this one. Acceptable for GA but probably would not pass FAC review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's one other image on Commons for Heather, and I don't think it's an improvement, given the white space and awkward angle, plus still rather low quality. Outside of that, I can't find anything, though images are not something I'm particularly familiar with. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a slightly higher-resolution version, cropped it, and swapped it in - let me know if there's any issues with that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.