Talk:Hurricane Walaka/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Oof-off (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (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]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (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).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [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[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear and concise. It is not bloated with unnecessary words or sentences that lead to it being overly detailed. I could not find any obvious errors in grammar or spelling. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Complies with the manual of style guidelines Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) There are around 30 sources on this article; most of them are NHC advisories (which have to be used in absence of the CPHC TCR, which will likely take years to be released considering the frequency of previous TCR releases), which help to verify the meteorological history portion of the storm. NHC advisories and discussions are also used for the warning information. Reliable newspapers/sites such as The Guardian are used for the impact section of the article. Sources are reliable and good. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Refer to above; sources are reliable (NHC, well-known newspapers/sites that provide reliable information) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) There is no original research Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) There is no copyright violations or plagiarism Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) This article covers the major aspects of Walaka properly. Given the relative lack of impact, the section is quite short compared to articles. This is understandable, however. The meteorological history is one of the longest parts of the article, which also makes sense given the storm's nature. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) This article is focused Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    This article is neutral and covers the topic without bias Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The article does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The images are appropriately used with suitable captions Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass This article has clear and concise prose and a proper amount of images compared to the size of the article. It covers all the aspects of Walaka's life as a tropical cyclone, such as the impact and meteorological history.

Discussion[edit]

  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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Walaka/GA1&oldid=1038143055"