Talk:Typhoon Nida (2004)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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.:

   Article appears to be stable.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• Some captions have periods at the end and other do not. Make sure it's consistent.
  • Should be resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• There are two different date formats used in the references section. Again, stick to one format and make it consistent for all.
  • Should be resolved. A few of the occasions were quite recent. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Some references in the prose have a space before them. Remove such spacing.
  • Should be resolved. Removed the last 2 cases of this. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• "A total of $1.3 million dollars (2004 USD) in damage occurred, and Nida left 31 fatalities." - Is the 2004 necessary? Just make it US$1.3...
  • Yes, 2004 USD is necessary. This is inserted into the text of tropical cyclone articles because there are various ways to inflate currency, and this way, you don't have to deal with updating damage in these articles annually. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• In the "Meteorological history" section, the pictures are placed in such as way that there is just one line of copy under the first photo (on the left). Fix this layout so that there is no orphaned copy under the picture.
  • See if that is better. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• President Chen should not be linked to Taiwan. It should link to Chen Shui-bian.
  • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• There is one sentence with four references. If the references refer to different parts of the sentence, move the references to what is being cited. If they are all quoting the same thing, then select the best one and remove the rest.
  • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Overall, there are a few minor issues that need to be rectified. I will allow up to seven days for these issues to be addressed, before making any further decision.

• The issues should be resolved now. If they are not, strike out the resolved issues so I know what still needs work. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the (2004 USD) part. If the value was from a different year, this may be necessary, but the year is already in the title of the article, so this part is completely unnecessary. Other articles such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake do not do this. Please follow my suggestion. Otherwise, everything else looks good. -- S Masters (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine. It's gone. It's covered by the text box in the top right corner anyway. I was just trying to follow project standards. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I could not find these standards. The article for Hurricane Katrina, a former FA, does not follow your format. -- S Masters (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Acctully for damage figures it is needed as there are several different currencie within the WPAC. Also Hurricane Katrina does follow the same format look in the first paragraph of Impact. Other cyclones do however the 2010 Hati Earthquake doesnt have any damage figures reported when i checked so obviously doesnt follow this format.Jason Rees (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Final comments: As all the issues raised in the assessment have been resolved, I am satisfied that this article meets the requirements for a Good Article, and I am pleased to pass it as such. -- S Masters (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)