Talk:Cyclone Bejisa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later today. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Lead, "With favorable conditions around," Is this a common phrasing in meteorology?

   • I didn't think it was that weird, but I removed "around" for better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

   • Lead, "communne" Should this be "commune" or is it a non-American English spelling I'm not familiar with?

   • Yea, misspelled, sorry. I added a link too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

   • MH, "before slightly weakening before impacting" - repetitive "before"s

   Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

   • Reunion, "The rains caused rivers to rise, causing flooding." - repetitive caused/causing

   • Changed one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

   • I realize this is only a few months later, but has there been any follow-up to the compensation of farmers? The article ends on a bit of a questioning note, stating that farmers were skeptical they were going to be compensated, and it would be a more satisfactory ending to be able to say whether the farmers had been compensated or not.

   • I'll check. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

   • Alright, I got proof that the farmers were indeed compensated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref #48 (Bejisa : Une facture de 25 millions) - Why is the title repeated twice?

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   One minor referencing issue and a few prose niggles; otherwise, a nice article. I am placing the review on hold to allow the above comments to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

   Sorry, been pretty busy the past few days. I'll check tomorrow about the farmers. Thanks for the review :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

   No problem! Everything looks good now. I addressed the one minor issue with the references (a title had accidentally been entered in the url field, so I found what I think is the proper URL, but please double check my work!). Other than that, your changes look great, and so I'm going to go ahead and pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)