Talk:Hurricane Matthew/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 07:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Not anywhere near ready yet. --Jasper Deng (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * With phrases like "approaching to within 25 miles (40 km) of Nassau on October 6", "Matthew inflicted severe impacts across several islands", "The storm's unusual south track", "The Jamaica Urban Transit Company scheduled to suspend services beginning at 6:00 p.m. local time.", "more severe than Hurricane Gilbert which devastated the nation in 1988", "By October 4, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory had ordered that evacuation be mandatory.", "On St. Vincent heavy rains caused landslides and flooding across the island.", "With totals from regional authorities placing the number at 1,600.", and others, the grammar and styling of this article still needs work. Also concerning is the layout. "Retirement" doesn't need its own second-level header and the "online response" section looks out of place. There needs to be more on Florida impacts. The lead is too long, and in particular, all of the lead but the first paragraph is too verbose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * This source's citation is incomplete, lacking author name and publication date. Other problems include a citation needed tag for "On early October 8, Matthew hit the coast of Georgia and South Carolina, bringing heavy rain and extremely strong winds. The hurricane left 478,000 across Georgia and South Carolina without power. However, a number of people in Tybee decided not to leave, so emergency teams were sent out to look for them until it was safe to do so." and unsourced statements in the preparations and impacts sections.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Like I said, does not have enough on Florida impacts. The aftermath and response section does not appear to include all the countries in the impacts section, and in general needs some expansion.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The Drudge incident may have been given undue weight.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I don't recall a consensus being reached for the dispute over the infobox picture.
 * 1) 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):
 * Gallery under US impacts is not compliant with WP:GALLERY: there is no specific focus, it does not adequately cover states other than South Carolina, and it adds little to the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I was deliberately quite strict here so you could learn the expectations of a GA. Writing a GA is not a race. Please ensure you familiarize yourself with the GA criteria.