Talk:2018 Pacific hurricane season/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 07:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures[edit]

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • Added the standard one from other articles. NoahTalk 00:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we fix the first sentence? It doesn't actually say what the article is about Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the sentence. NoahTalk 00:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Bud, Olivia, Nineteen-E, Rosa, Walaka, Sergio, Vicente, and Willa) - seems like general prose info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The season officially began on May 15 in the eastern Pacific, and on June 1 in the central Pacific; they both ended on November 30 - this is cited - can we cite in body instead? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

  • Might need to come up with a better style for the subsections in "systems" (maybe by location or month), and use {{TOC limit}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can't be done without consensus as it would affect every season article worldwide. NoahTalk 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the article (like the lead) is missing a senetnce/paragraph about what the article is about. We can't just expect readers to know what we are talking about from the title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing this at the first mention above. NoahTalk 01:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is changed from the source a bit. NoahTalk 01:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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:

Review meta comments[edit]