Talk:Typhoon Gene/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is clear and gets to the point. Spelling was fine throughout the entirety of the article. There were numerous minor grammatical mistakes which I went through and fixed. I added in the yen symbol (¥) to all values expressed in that currency.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Has a nice lead section that is not bloated. The lead summarizes the main aspects of the article.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Has a list of references at the bottom of the page. All references are presented in an appropriate manner.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All references are from reliable sources (reports).

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research present in the article.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations or plagiarism were found within the article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Addresses all main aspects of the topic including the met. history and the impact.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Addresses the main points without excessively explaining each one. All points are presented in a concise, summary style.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article not have any neutrality issues.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars or content disputes in the history.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The article is illustrated appropriately. The article has an image of the typhoon's track along with a picture of the system. Image licenses are displayed on all media. Would have liked to have seen an image in the impact section, but I understand considering this was 1990.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are related to the typhoon and have captions explaining them.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good job... wish I had more to say, but this was clearly ready for a good article review. Only issues I spotted were minor grammatical errors. I wish you good luck with article writing in the future. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)