Talk:Typhoon Chataan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• hey, I'll review this article soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

review

• The article is very thorough and clear, considering the complexity of the subject. I have one suggestion.

• in the lede you mention PAGASA and don't mention it again until the end. A first mention should include Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). Is there a way you could include this?

• Well, the first mentions are in the first sentence. I don't wanna have too much there, but I don't want it to be confusing. Do you have any suggestions? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, but I was very confused by it. Had to do a find and located it in the lede and then click on the link. Perhaps if you don't mention PAGASA again it would be ok. The first mention at least has a link, so no search and find is necessary. The article is fairly complicated to follow and I found myself hunting back a fair number of times, but none only mentioned in the lede and the last sentence. I won't fail on this account as I don't see this as part of the GA criteria. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've made a few changes for the sake of prose that you're free to revert.[1]. Put on hold awaiting response, but that's the only concern I have.
  • Thanks, I saw your changes and loved them. :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't see that sentence at the bottom of the lede. Don't know how I missed that with "Find"! It's fine. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   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:

   Pass!

• Congratulations on a fine article! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)