Talk:Cyclone Bejisa/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later today. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    • Lead, "With favorable conditions around," Is this a common phrasing in meteorology?
    • Lead, "communne" Should this be "commune" or is it a non-American English spelling I'm not familiar with?
    • MH, "before slightly weakening before impacting" - repetitive "before"s
    Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Reunion, "The rains caused rivers to rise, causing flooding." - repetitive caused/causing
    • I realize this is only a few months later, but has there been any follow-up to the compensation of farmers? The article ends on a bit of a questioning note, stating that farmers were skeptical they were going to be compensated, and it would be a more satisfactory ending to be able to say whether the farmers had been compensated or not.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • Ref #48 (Bejisa : Une facture de 25 millions) - Why is the title repeated twice?
  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:  
    One minor referencing issue and a few prose niggles; otherwise, a nice article. I am placing the review on hold to allow the above comments to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, been pretty busy the past few days. I'll check tomorrow about the farmers. Thanks for the review :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    No problem! Everything looks good now. I addressed the one minor issue with the references (a title had accidentally been entered in the url field, so I found what I think is the proper URL, but please double check my work!). Other than that, your changes look great, and so I'm going to go ahead and pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply