Talk:1989 Pacific hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
It looks as though this article has waited a very long time for a review. I will do so for you. So far it does not qualify for any of the quick fail requirements!

Reviewer: TimonyCrickets (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall the this article is looking very good and is close to a GA status. There are a few issues which you should address that I will outline before. I am giving this article a hold status while these issues are addressed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The spelling issues I am finding are not typos in the sense that something it spelled incorrectly, but that a word is wrong or that grammar is an issue. For example in "Tropical Storm Narda" you have a sentence starting with "Upon become a tropical cyclone, Narda" which I will fix now, but their are many other similar occurances of grammatical issues throughout. Also, I have noticed a number of small sentences that could be conbined together. For example, many of the sections end with something similar to "The system never affected land." Which could be combined with the sentence before.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I agree with your assessment that only some Hurricane Season articles have the Season Summary. I think changing it to Storms works just fine.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I believe a good copy edit is still in order before this article is ready for Good Article status.

I believe I have fix those issues. My spell checker does not pick up any typos, relating to the season summary IMO it is not required. It is in some hurricane season articles not in others. I hope I have addressed theses issues.YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I have fixed the lead and will give the article a copyedit soon. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks better. I would look at adding back in the same citation you had there before, as it is still applicable and adds some good information to that section. Beyond that I am calling that part good. TimonyCrickets (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but there is no need for sources in the lead. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. And I think your source is quite good in the lead, so I added it back in for you. I think it fits well. I also did a bit more copyediting for you. All minor. I'll be approving this now. Great work!TimonyCrickets (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)