From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1901 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs) 10:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Taking, will review soon. —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in this article @ Yellow Dingo:! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Review

Overview

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Detailed

1a
Lead
  • "9 were" → "nine were" per MOS:SPELL09Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
January–July
  • "it soon after dissipated" → "it soon dissipated"
De Witte typhoon
  • Link "Okinawa"
  • "On the next day while" → "On the next day, while"
  • "two boats, where they were rescued after two days" - doesn't really make sense. Maybe something like this; "two boats, from which, after two days, they were rescued."
  • "continued to intensity until" → I guess you mean "intensify"
  • "China near" → "China, near"
  • "land, dissipating" → "land, before dissipating"
  • "provided opportunity" → "provided an opportunity"
August–December
  • "northeast, last" → "northeast and was last"

Overall

Nice article with a few minor fixes needed. Putting on hold. Also, is there any reason why the two monthly sections aren't equal in length (the first one is seven months whilst the second one is five months). —  Yellow Dingo  (talk)

Thank you! As for the sections, there were barely any storms in the first seven months of the year, so I opted to have the sections be similar in length, even if the durations weren't. I can change it if you prefer. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Ok nice job, I'm happy to pass this now. Congrats! —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments

Comment: Could you possibly add more detail to the De Witte Typhoon section? It seems pretty short. Jdcomix ( talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I wish! I spent a lot of time researching that storm, since it was so strong, but there wasn't too much info back in 1901, at least not readily available to myself. One day, I'll bet historians will write papers about that storm, since it was apparently one of the strongest recorded so far back in time in that part of the world, but until then, this is all I could find. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, thanks anyway :) Jdcomix ( talk) 16:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1901 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs) 10:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Taking, will review soon. —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in this article @ Yellow Dingo:! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Review

Overview

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Detailed

1a
Lead
  • "9 were" → "nine were" per MOS:SPELL09Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
January–July
  • "it soon after dissipated" → "it soon dissipated"
De Witte typhoon
  • Link "Okinawa"
  • "On the next day while" → "On the next day, while"
  • "two boats, where they were rescued after two days" - doesn't really make sense. Maybe something like this; "two boats, from which, after two days, they were rescued."
  • "continued to intensity until" → I guess you mean "intensify"
  • "China near" → "China, near"
  • "land, dissipating" → "land, before dissipating"
  • "provided opportunity" → "provided an opportunity"
August–December
  • "northeast, last" → "northeast and was last"

Overall

Nice article with a few minor fixes needed. Putting on hold. Also, is there any reason why the two monthly sections aren't equal in length (the first one is seven months whilst the second one is five months). —  Yellow Dingo  (talk)

Thank you! As for the sections, there were barely any storms in the first seven months of the year, so I opted to have the sections be similar in length, even if the durations weren't. I can change it if you prefer. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Ok nice job, I'm happy to pass this now. Congrats! —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments

Comment: Could you possibly add more detail to the De Witte Typhoon section? It seems pretty short. Jdcomix ( talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I wish! I spent a lot of time researching that storm, since it was so strong, but there wasn't too much info back in 1901, at least not readily available to myself. One day, I'll bet historians will write papers about that storm, since it was apparently one of the strongest recorded so far back in time in that part of the world, but until then, this is all I could find. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, thanks anyway :) Jdcomix ( talk) 16:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook