Talk:1936 Pacific typhoon season

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1936 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 19:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: OhHaiMark (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 June 2024 (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.	Yep.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yep.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All the citations are filled out.
	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).	Yep.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yep.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I checked the sources and there doesn't seem to be ny plagiarism.
3. :
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yep.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Of course.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	As this is an article that can't really have a POV, I'll pass it.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seeing as it took place almost 90 years ago, it should be stable.
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.	There's only one image in the article. If you could find more to enhance it, that'd be great!Thanks for adding them!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All the images are either maps detailing the tracks or show the damage of the typhoons, so I'll pass it.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article has fulfilled nearly all of the criteria, but there seems to be a lack of images. If you could find some more to showcase the damage of the typhoons, that should be it! All the images have been added.

Thank you for the review, OhHaiMark (talk · contribs). I have made a request to see if someone could create some maps. That would help for better illustration of the subject matter. Unfortunately, it's from a time period that is difficult to put into the track map format, so that might be tricky getting another image. I asked another user, so I'll try and do it. But unfortunately there might not be many other images available. I checked if there were any from any of the other storms. I suspect this flood image from South Korea was caused by the August typhoon, but without any evidence, I can't add it to the article. I'm not sure I can do anything else for this article at this time! Sorry for taking a while to respond, as I was on vacation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@OhHaiMark: - maps have been added! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good now, happy to pass the article. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)