GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) 10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to review this as I can do. I am new to reviewing GA, so any assistance could be helpful. MarioJump83! 10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First assessment (the final one will be not in the table form)
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. This article has been done by someone from WP:GOCE, as such this article passes this criteria.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The article is very clearly within the MOS guidelines. Regarding embedded lists, the information presented are better suited to a list.
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. Certainly passed.
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). The large majority of this article are from academic sources.
2c. it contains no original research. Nearly all, if not all of this article are sourced to the reliable sources, and for all purposes this article passed.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Thanks Chidgk1 for help.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The coverage are definitely outstanding, I don't think that there is much out of scope.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Some parts of the article might be too complicated, I am not very sure.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The POV from this article is neutral from what I have seen.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Based on the edit history of this article, this is definitely stable for many reasons.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Two of these images are relevant to the topic.
7. Overall assessment. This article is close to passing all GA criteria, but I have some slight concerns with two of these criteria, which is possible complications. and plagiarism/direct copies from the sources to the article.
That's my assessment. This is based on my quick review of the article - please note that I will probably miss some of them. I don't give any suggestions regarding the GA, it will be done by LightandDark2000. MarioJump83! 03:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed some. MarioJump83! 22:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion by Femkemilene

Third Opinion by LightandDark2000

I will also review this article. In addition, I will try to grab one of the other senior editors with more of a background in meteorology (such as Hurricane Noah) to ensure that this article is accurate and comprehensive in coverage. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try review this article next weekend, when I have more time. Anyway, I'm glad to see that one of the other reviewers feels that this article is quite comprehensive. I always look for comprehensive coverage and solid writing, even in GA candidates. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Concept
Triggers
Growth and demise
Effects
Precipitation
ENSO
Tropical cyclones
Similar phenomena in other oceans
South Pacific Meridional Mode
PMM variations
PMM and anthropogenic climate change
Name and use
Images

These are all of the issues that I have identified. While the article is quite comprehensive and well-written, there are a handful of issues that need to be resolved before it can be promoted to GA status, including an severe hyperlink issue. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to red link policy, red links should be present only if new articles will be created for those subjects. If new articles will be created for those topics in the near future, then I guess I can tolerate them. Otherwise, I think that this article is ready. I also got an informal review from Hurricane Noah off-wiki, and he believes that the article does not have any major issues. I'll let MarioJump83 make the call to promote this article, since he was the original reviewer. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not "in the near future" for lack of time but I am certain that the redlinked topics meet WP:N. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chidgk1

MarioJump83 Can you tick off above that there is no plagiarism or copyvio? I did not find any on a quick look with the Earwig tool. If not can you explain any concern or question? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. MarioJump83! 22:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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:

There is no much other than this article passes the 3b criteria since the first assessment, so I don't have any comments other than this passes for GA. MarioJump83! 03:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]