GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Saskoiler ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. --
Saskoiler (
talk)
20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose in this article is written to a very high standard. Bravo. Although a technical topic, it is easily understand by a novice such as myself.
I have a few minor suggestions. See below: "Prose" (Update: All issues have been addressed.) |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead - The lead paragraph does a good job of aggregating the key facts to draw the reader in. The vocabulary here is precise, but not overflowing with technical jargon. That's very good. I have a suggestion for reorganizing it slightly. See below: "Lead" (Update: The lead reads well now.)
Layout - The article is carefully organized, making good use of infobox, appropriate sections, and navigation boxes. I have a couple of questions. See below: "Layout" (Update: All issues have been addressed.) Words to watch - No problems found. Fiction - n/a List incorporation - n/a |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a "References" section containing 37 citations, all of which are neatly formatted. |
![]() |
2b. 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). | Reliable sources have been chosen: meteorological agencies; mainstream media reports; etc. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I checked every source that I was able to get to (most of 37 listed), and for the most part, the article claims are verified by source documents.
I have a couple of questions. See below: "Verifiability" (Update: my questions/suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed.) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There is no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main aspects of this topic (meteorological history, preparations, impact) are addressed in reasonable detail. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is focussed on its topic. There are no off-topic diversions. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is presented using neutral language. There is no evidence of editorial bias. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article's content is stable, and there is no evidence of edit warring. Indeed, the only recent edits of any kind were made by the nominator leading to this GA review. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | There are two images in this article. Both are in the public domain. All good. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Both images are highly relevant to the topic. Captions are suitable.
I have a couple questions. See below: "Images" |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Overall, this is a fine article and a good example of a comprehensive short article. It is well-researched with a multitude of good sources enriching it with vibrant details. It is clear and educational. Below, a number of items have been identified to further improve this article and meet the GA criteria. I'm going to put this hold on review to give the nominator (or someone else) time to address them. Update: All review comments have been diligently addressed (or explained). In my opinion, the GA criteria have been met, and I am passing this review. |
The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.
Images
Verifiability
Lead
Layout
Prose
Saskoiler (
talk)
20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Finally done! Sorry again I took so long. Very crazy week in real life, dealing with two musicals, three schools, lessons at four different locations, and finding time to eat and socialize. Hope you don't mind. Now I'm back to play for another musical. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Saskoiler ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. --
Saskoiler (
talk)
20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose in this article is written to a very high standard. Bravo. Although a technical topic, it is easily understand by a novice such as myself.
I have a few minor suggestions. See below: "Prose" (Update: All issues have been addressed.) |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead - The lead paragraph does a good job of aggregating the key facts to draw the reader in. The vocabulary here is precise, but not overflowing with technical jargon. That's very good. I have a suggestion for reorganizing it slightly. See below: "Lead" (Update: The lead reads well now.)
Layout - The article is carefully organized, making good use of infobox, appropriate sections, and navigation boxes. I have a couple of questions. See below: "Layout" (Update: All issues have been addressed.) Words to watch - No problems found. Fiction - n/a List incorporation - n/a |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a "References" section containing 37 citations, all of which are neatly formatted. |
![]() |
2b. 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). | Reliable sources have been chosen: meteorological agencies; mainstream media reports; etc. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I checked every source that I was able to get to (most of 37 listed), and for the most part, the article claims are verified by source documents.
I have a couple of questions. See below: "Verifiability" (Update: my questions/suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed.) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There is no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main aspects of this topic (meteorological history, preparations, impact) are addressed in reasonable detail. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is focussed on its topic. There are no off-topic diversions. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is presented using neutral language. There is no evidence of editorial bias. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article's content is stable, and there is no evidence of edit warring. Indeed, the only recent edits of any kind were made by the nominator leading to this GA review. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | There are two images in this article. Both are in the public domain. All good. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Both images are highly relevant to the topic. Captions are suitable.
I have a couple questions. See below: "Images" |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Overall, this is a fine article and a good example of a comprehensive short article. It is well-researched with a multitude of good sources enriching it with vibrant details. It is clear and educational. Below, a number of items have been identified to further improve this article and meet the GA criteria. I'm going to put this hold on review to give the nominator (or someone else) time to address them. Update: All review comments have been diligently addressed (or explained). In my opinion, the GA criteria have been met, and I am passing this review. |
The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.
Images
Verifiability
Lead
Layout
Prose
Saskoiler (
talk)
20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Finally done! Sorry again I took so long. Very crazy week in real life, dealing with two musicals, three schools, lessons at four different locations, and finding time to eat and socialize. Hope you don't mind. Now I'm back to play for another musical. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)