Talk:Typhoon Gene/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Prose is clear and gets to the point. Spelling was fine throughout the entirety of the article. There were numerous minor grammatical mistakes which I went through and fixed. I added in the yen symbol (¥) to all values expressed in that currency.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Has a nice lead section that is not bloated. The lead summarizes the main aspects of the article.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Has a list of references at the bottom of the page. All references are presented in an appropriate manner.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- All references are from reliable sources (reports).
- C. It contains no original research:
- No original research present in the article.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- No copyright violations or plagiarism were found within the article.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Addresses all main aspects of the topic including the met. history and the impact.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Addresses the main points without excessively explaining each one. All points are presented in a concise, summary style.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The article not have any neutrality issues.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No edit wars or content disputes in the history.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- The article is illustrated appropriately. The article has an image of the typhoon's track along with a picture of the system. Image licenses are displayed on all media. Would have liked to have seen an image in the impact section, but I understand considering this was 1990.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- All images are related to the typhoon and have captions explaining them.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Good job... wish I had more to say, but this was clearly ready for a good article review. Only issues I spotted were minor grammatical errors. I wish you good luck with article writing in the future. FigfiresSend me a message! 03:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
