Talk:Cyclone Honorinina

Cyclone Honorinina has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 11, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Cyclone Honorinina appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 March 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Cyclone Honorinina killed 99 people?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Honorinina.

Wikipedia

Weather: Tropical / Southern Hemisphere Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Southern Hemisphere work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tropical cyclone scales#South-Western Indian Ocean|tropical cyclone status]] The anchor (#South-Western Indian Ocean) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Honorinina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 02:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article looks to comply with MOS policies for grammar, layout, and structure. One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2015 (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 use of a decently sized list of reliable sources, and does not seem to bear any original research. One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2015 (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 presents a thorough encyclopedic coverage of its topic, without incorporation of trivial details. One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2015 (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.

The article does not demonstrate any bias concerning its topic. One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article, a recent addition to Wikipedia's content, has not presently suffered any disruptive editing. One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article's two images serve a relevant usage, and are appropriately licensed. Neither defies fair use policies; both are public domain. One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2015 (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

After reading through this article and checking it against the above criteria, I believe it qualifies for GA status. Congratulations! One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]