Talk:Typhoon Caitlin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 03:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(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]

Verifiable with no original research:

(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.

Broad in its coverage:

(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).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

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

^[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

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose had some grammatical issues along with some unclear areas and mistakes. I originally put this requirement on hold to allow for fixes. All major issues and the grammatical mistakes have been fixed.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, and words to watch.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Has a list of references at the bottom of the page. Refs are presented in an appropriate manner... according to wikipedia guidelines.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The sources used in the article are reliable. All the sources used are reports from reputable agencies.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research was discovered within the article.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations or plagiarism were detected.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All the major aspects such as the meteorological history and impact are addressed.	Pass
(b) (focused)	This article stays focused on the main points without over explaining them. A sufficient level of detail is present for most aspects.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
There are no issues with neutrality in the article.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
No edit wars to speak of.	Pass

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

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are tagged with their copyright statuses and fair use rationales.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images have captions that appropriately describe them.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This was a decent article when I first read through it. There were some grammatical mistakes present along with unclear/incomplete text in the lead statement. I fixed that up the best I could. Additionally, there was an issue in the MH regarding a statement in the first paragraph. I put the article on hold to allow for corrections. Since that issue has been fixed, I now feel this article is worthy of Good Article status. Good job and keep writing. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Only issue I see in the MH... In the first paragraph of the MH, it is stated "and although the deep convection was initially displaced to the west of the deep convection". Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the impacts, is there a total for damages caused in the Philippines from flooding/landslides or is that not available? Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No because the storm isn't listed in the NDCC database so any possible damage estimate would be from newspapers, which are hit and miss at best. Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ 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.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ 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.

[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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]