GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Usman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Will review... NoahTalk 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Lead/Reference Sections Comments

Will strike off points if I have done it to make it easier for me. Points 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9 done as of this message. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Points 5, 6 and 8 done. Left Point 2 because I got told that there shouldn't be any sources in the lead? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true... You need a source in the lead if it isn't mentioned in the body. NoahTalk 15:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 2 instead. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Met comments

Points 2, 5, 6 and 7 done as of this message. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other points now done. Only the first point now left. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: I am sure this is now done. Changed some working you have said through messages and changed some phrases. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preps/Impact Comments

Drive-by comments from Cyclonebiskit

Sorry to jump in here, but I wanted to emphasize that serious work is needed for the impact and aftermath. For how deadly/destructive this storm was, there is relatively little information on the damage that took place in the article. Similarly, aside from criticism of PAGASA, there is no information on actual relief efforts in the wake of the storm. ReliefWeb has an incident page on Usman that provides plenty of valuable information that should be incorporated into the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: I appreciate your comment here, but I just want Typhoon to focus on one section at a time as there are a lot of issues to tackle with the text. NoahTalk 01:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]