Talk:Typhoon Gay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article and should have the full review up within a day. Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The talk page copies of sources and Talk:Typhoon Gay (1989)/newspapers should be deleted when the article's editors are finished using them - keeping large swaths of copyrighted material is a no-no...

   • Wasn't aware of that. Got that page deleted and removed the text on the main talk page that had additional newspaper info. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

   • Great. Yeah, having some copyrighted material is fine for brief periods, but having quite a bit of it (like an entire page!) and leaving it visible for a long time leaves Wikipedia open to accusations of copyright violation. Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

   • The sentence starting "After crossing the Bay of Bengal,..." in the second paragraph of the lead seems a little out of place to me. The first paragraph talks about the path of the storm and wind speeds, while the second paragraph talks about damages - with this organizational structure, it would seem that this sentence would fit better in the first paragraph than the second paragraph.

   • Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

   • At the beginning of the lead you say over 800 fatalities, at the end of the lead you say about 900 fatalities. First, this is repetitive; second, if you're going to be repetitive, be consistent!

   • One is referring to just the Gulf of Thailand while the other is referring to total fatalities. I removed the latter since I like the Gulf of Thailand tidbit more :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

   • In the lead, it says "became the first typhoon on record to make landfall in Thailand," while in the MH section it says "Gay became the first typhoon since 1891 to form in the Gulf of Thailand and cross into the Bay of Bengal." Was there one in 1891 that made landfall, or was this just when records began to be kept?

   • Fixed. Both should say since 1891. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

   • MH section, "small fetch of warmer waters," I'm not familiar with the word "fetch" in this context - could you explain?

   • A small fetch of warm water is a narrow area of water that's warmer than the area around it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

   • Impact and aftermath, "preventing the ship from remaining stabilized despite being within safe operating limits." Within safe operating limits on what? Weight? Crew?

   • It was a general statement. The source didn't really specify on it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

   • Impact and aftermath, "Losses due to the sinking of the Seacrest reached $40 million." What were these losses from? Just the ship itself?

   • Yea, just the ship. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • File:Chumphon typhoon damage 3.jpg does not have proper source information. What gives Ahoerstemeier the right to upload and release photos by H. Pollmeier?

   • Removed the image since I have no clue about the sourcing of it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a couple more comments and then it should be good to go. I apologize for the piecemeal nature of this review - I was a bit busier yesterday evening than I expected. Thank you for your patience and quick responses to my earlier queries. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I really appreciate it :) No worries about the time it took, there's no rush to get this done. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, based on your answers above. I'm now passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)