Talk:Typhoon Wipha (2007)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello I will be reviewing your article very soon. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   you only have to fix one red link, but spelling is correct so I passed this category.

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lead of this article is too long. According to my count the character count in the body of the article is below 15,000 which means that the lead should be about 1 or 2 paragraphs per this.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Sources are cited regularly through the article, but three of the links are dead. See my comment below.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Very reliable sources are cited in this article such as meteorological offices and reliable news agencies.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   This article covers all the major aspects required. It provides a history, impacts, preparations and the aftermath of the typhoon.

   B. Focused:

   The article provides detailed, quality information on the history, impacts, preparations and aftermath of the typhoon

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written from a neutral point of view.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   All images' copyright information is in order.

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

   Images are appropriate and have good captioning.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Before this article can be passed you should work on cutting the lead down as it is supposed to provide a concise summary, but currently it is a little long. As soon as you fix this I will gladly look over your article again. Happy editing!

Reviewer: Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 22:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made an effort to shorten and condense the lead. Juliancolton (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you want to cut out an entire portion of the lead, it's probably as short as it should be. Thanks for getting to this JC, I completely forgot about it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have just re-reviewed your article and have found one more issue. Three of your reference links are dead, the dead links are reference 37, 40 and 31. These links need to be repaired or replaced if possible because they are needed to back up what is in those lines. Once they are fixed I believe that the article will qualify as a good article. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 05:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done what I could to replace the links, two of them no longer exist so some info was lost. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer hasn't edited in some time, so it probably needs another reviewer to finish this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That I'll do myself, actually. Reviewing now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any further issues aside from what was mentioned above, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)