Talk:Typhoon Chataan/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * hey, I'll review this article soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * review


 * The article is very thorough and clear, considering the complexity of the subject. I have one suggestion.
 * in the lede you mention PAGASA and don't mention it again until the end. A first mention should include Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). Is there a way you could include this?
 * Well, the first mentions are in the first sentence. I don't wanna have too much there, but I don't want it to be confusing. Do you have any suggestions? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but I was very confused by it. Had to do a find and located it in the lede and then click on the link. Perhaps if you don't mention PAGASA again it would be ok. The first mention at least has a link, so no search and find is necessary. The article is fairly complicated to follow and I found myself hunting back a fair number of times, but none only mentioned in the lede and the last sentence. I won't fail on this account as I don't see this as part of the GA criteria. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes for the sake of prose  that you're free to revert.. Put on hold awaiting response, but that's the only concern I have.
 * Thanks, I saw your changes and loved them. :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that sentence at the bottom of the lede. Don't know how I missed that with "Find"! It's fine. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * Congratulations on a fine article! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * Congratulations on a fine article! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * Congratulations on a fine article! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on a fine article! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)