Talk:Typhoon Ida (1958)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll probably do finish this review by 23:00 UTC, but I might not have the time to do so. There's a bit of info from Longshore, 1998 that I might add to the article. I'm consulting it for this GA review. HurricaneFan25 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And no, TAWX, you don't get to fix these for Hink. HurricaneFan25 21:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A link to 1958 Pacific typhoon season in the lede wouldn't be harmful.

   On September 22 Ida turned to the north A comma is needed here, right after "22". On September 22, Ida turned to the north

   It became extratropical the next day Link extratropical to extratropical cyclone as not everyone knows what they are.

   No pre-tropical cyclonegenesis in the MH?

   However, over a 14 hour period Use a hyphen, not a non-breaking space. However, over a 14-hour period

   Link UTC the first time you use it, not the second time you use it.

   and at about 0500 "at about" sound strange. Reword it to something like and near 0500

   The winds gradually decreased → Ida's winds gradually decreased

   the Kano River flooding destroyed two villages along the Izu Peninsula Reword to the flooding of the Kano River destroyed to villages along the Izu Peninsula for clarity.

   the landslides and flooding occurred in populated areas Remove this; it's pretty obvious given what you said right before that.

   Publishers in the prose should be italicized. (e.g. A report by Time magazine)

   520,000 homes were flooded, which is the most on record The most on record for where? The prefecture? Japan? Internationally?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: