Talk:Tropical Storm Norman (2012)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 01:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll review this article, too (trying to clean out some of the old articles from the category)! Review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"and thunderstorm activity within the next few days." within -> over?

Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" In addition, classes were suspended in 5 states" What kind of classes?

Idk. You get that kinda of wording a lot in MX cane articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" A tornado warning was also issued in the Corpus Christi area." Were any tornadoes cited?

AFAIK no. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes Refs #10 ("Preparados para tormenta Norman") and 15 ("Inundaciones por lluvias en La Paz") (to the same website) reliable?

They come from a reliable website (i.e. Información de EL UNIVERSAL) Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It looks like a Wordpress blog to me... Where is the information that makes you think it's reliable? Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted it above. "Información de EL UNIVERSAL". But, I replaced one of them and removed the other (the one I removed was more or less redundant). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Ref #13 (Giusttav (September 28, 2012)) reliable?

Eh, removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that information was quite pertinent to the article. Were there no other sources that discussed that information? This was much more specific, useful information then the generic "classes were cancelled" above. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed mostly, but in a quick check, no. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A few tweaks needed to prose, and a couple of questions on references. Placing the article on hold until the above are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I did not GAN this, I did the author a favor and attempted to adress them. Thank you for spending your fair share of tie reviewing this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with the latest round of edits, everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. Thanks for the quick replies! Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]