Talk:Tropical Storm Etau (2009)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Note: This Article needs a slight update before its GAN is passed Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- 3 Public domain images (hosted at Commons) ok.
Meteorological history: winds peaked at 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained) and a barometric pressure of 990 hPa (mbar).[12] - the infobox says the winds peaked at 75 km/h + pressure bottomed at 992 hPa
DoneJason Rees (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Preparations: evacuated roughly 47,000 residents from western regions along the coast - do you know where specifically the evacuations took place? Is this a separate evacuation than the In Hyogo state, another 2,000 people were evacuated...
- As far as i am aware they were seperate but i cant check with the primary author to check as he is rather [off at me for some reason]Jason Rees (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since this assertion that it was a further 2,000 people cannot be verified by the provided references, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability --maclean (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ive removed it for now If cyclonebiskit canverify they were seperate he can add them back in.Jason Rees (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Removed what? Nothing has been removed. --maclean (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it has been removed Unless im missing something?.Jason Rees (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Removed what? Nothing has been removed. --maclean (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ive removed it for now If cyclonebiskit canverify they were seperate he can add them back in.Jason Rees (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since this assertion that it was a further 2,000 people cannot be verified by the provided references, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability --maclean (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- As far as i am aware they were seperate but i cant check with the primary author to check as he is rather [off at me for some reason]Jason Rees (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Make spelling of Hyōgo Prefecture consistent.
DoneJason Rees (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know if there has been any update on the 2 missing people?
- Im trying to keep an eye on damages of the PTS and their hasnt been any update on the 2 missing that ive seen.Jason Rees (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)