Talk:Hurricane Kilo/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to the nominator and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2023 (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.	Pass, well-written overall. As is my usual practice, made some minor tweaks myself to save us both time.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, not an issue.
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.	Pass, not an issue.
	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).	Gismeteo looks like it's fine, all other sources are reliable. The many sources from National Centers for Environmental Information are not actually identical, but are cited identically apart from the URLs. Could some information from the source be used in the citation to make them distinguishable? Provisional pass. @JayTee32:, if you are able to address the citation issue above, that would be great, but it's not enough to keep the article from GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	"produced up to an estimated 10,000 cloud-to-ground lightning strikes over a 24-hour period" is a borrowed phrase and should be modified to avoid copyvio. Issue addressed, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	With Japan coverage added recently, not finding anything else of note. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail found during prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues found. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	After expansion before GA review (Japan), stable and no outstanding issues on talk page
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Adjusted the copyvio sentence issue under the Hawaii section. JayTee⛈️ 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.