Talk:Typhoon Gene/GA1

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

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Prose is clear and gets to the point. Spelling was fine throughout the entirety of the article. There were numerous minor grammatical mistakes which I went through and fixed. I added in the yen symbol (¥) to all values expressed in that currency.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Has a nice lead section that is not bloated. The lead summarizes the main aspects of the article.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Has a list of references at the bottom of the page. All references are presented in an appropriate manner.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * All references are from reliable sources (reports).
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No original research present in the article.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * No copyright violations or plagiarism were found within the article.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Addresses all main aspects of the topic including the met. history and the impact.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Addresses the main points without excessively explaining each one. All points are presented in a concise, summary style.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * The article not have any neutrality issues.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit wars or content disputes in the history.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The article is illustrated appropriately. The article has an image of the typhoon's track along with a picture of the system. Image licenses are displayed on all media. Would have liked to have seen an image in the impact section, but I understand considering this was 1990.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All images are related to the typhoon and have captions explaining them.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Good job... wish I had more to say, but this was clearly ready for a good article review. Only issues I spotted were minor grammatical errors. I wish you good luck with article writing in the future. Figfires Send me a message! 03:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)