Talk:Cyclone Daman/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Because the Impact and Aftermath sections are so short, please consider combining them, and renaming the section "Impact and aftermath".

   Done Jason Rees (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The records section needs a reference.

Done

1. • There are not supposed to be spaces between punctuation and references, and references should go outside punctuation, not inside. I've fixed them in the article, but just wanted to point this out for future knowledge.

Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Is there any other information available that could be added to the Impact and Aftermath sections? What was the damage that added up to .65 million? Crops, houses, infrastructure? Any other interesting tidbits in newspapers?

I Will check the Hurricane Newspaper archive & Fijian Times later.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have a couple of concerns for this article regarding prose, MOS and coverage, but they are minor and should not take much time to fix, so I am putting the article on hold. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks Dana boomer for reviewing the article and i will start working on you comments in a few minutes. Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am going to pass this article to GA. It looks like you've added a little bit of information to the Impact section, which is good, and if you find any more in the future I urge you to add it. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Danna Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)