Talk:Typhoon Joe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Good Day, I will be your reviewer for this article. I will gladly do the review. I hope we can get through the process easy and stress free. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Opening Comments

Typhoon Joe was a major storm that impacted Asia. Major storms need to be thorough and well written in the encyclopedia. The article is in good shape and has the correct information about the Typhoon. The sentence structure is a bit weird, but I will touch on that in the "Issues area"

The way I do my reviews is have my opening comments/issues stated and then have you talk. I do my reviews like a trial. Your and this article are the priority in this review. After that opening discussion we go to the cleanup phase(if issues are stated). Hopefully the issues will be resolved and after that we get to the Review chart. Once the chart is complete, I will give you your result and any closing comments. I hope we can work together to get through this. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Normally I do this at the bottom, but now seems like a good time to thank you for the review.

Issues

• I have noticed that many sentences are awkward. You are using the correct words, but the starts are correct. Done

Example: "An area of disturbed weather formed near the Caroline Islands on July 14. Shower activity gradually became better organized, and two days later, the system was believed to have obtained tropical depression status."

Try to improve the start of sentences such as instead of "An Area of disturbed weather formed near the Caroline Islands on July 14" do "On July 14, an area of disturbed weather formed near the Caroline Islands. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

On that particular instance, your suggestion doesn't work since the previous sentence ends with "on July 1980." But I simplified down the Mh part of the lead/MH a bit, although to be honest, I haven't written anything on wiki (thank 3 hurricanes) in a few weeks, so I'm not sure how much better it is. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Good Job Improving the sentence structure, it is much better to read AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2017

• In the Preparations and Impact Section, the Hong Kong section did great but the Vietnam section could use slight expansion. At the end of the Hong Kong section, the article indicates that Hong Kong was damaged slightly while in the Vietnam section you end the article with just explaining damage to an area. Try to make the Vietnam section more like the Hong Kong section if you can. It would help give more information of the damage. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Done
• There are no links (url=) on the subscription required references. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Vietnam is the death trap for info on typhoons, especially post-Vietnam War and pre-1985. As for the lack of urls, they're behind a paywall with no specific url, so I don't include them. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Since that is the Case, Can you try your best to replace those references? AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Done

• If you really want me to, I could hunt them down via newspapers.com, but that itself would be a subscription-based source. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• It is not that urgent since it is tagged. All your references are in check. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

End of Issues. I will now complete the chart.

Review Chart

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.	The article is clear and correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All compiles
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All information has references and is in correct format, including notes.
	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).	All sources are reliable and provide correct information.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is referenced with facts to back it up
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing identified by the Copyvio Detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses main aspects perfectly
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on task while giving informative details
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A very neutral article with facts taken from credible sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring has been found.
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.	All images have no issues noted.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images show the path of the storm and the Satellite photo of the storm. They are very relevant and have accurate captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations, you passed.

Closing Comments

It has been a pleasure working with you. Your dedication to improving wikipedia is fantastic and impressive. I hope to cross paths with you again soon AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)