Talk:Typhoon Krovanh (2003)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up later today. Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * China, "cautioning the island against" I highly doubt they cautioned the island itself. Instead, perhaps they cautioned the residents of the island?
 * Fixed to your suggestion.
 * China, "140,000 hectares" Conversion, please.
 * Fixed Secret account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere, "Resulting damage in the Philippines was of severe extent, though damage reports remain unclear." It's 11 years later, are things still unclear? If so, something along the lines of "full damage reports were never released" or something similar, to show we're not still waiting for them. Also, the first clause of this sentence needs to be reworked - it's ungrammatical.
 * Fixed I think. Secret account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have any estimates of the monetary amount of damages in the Philippines and Vietnam?
 * Added for Philippines, nothing on Vietnam. Secret account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What makes Ref #3 (Australiansevereweather.com) a reliable source?
 * It's Gary Padgett. He's used in several FA's, and that he's cited by NOAA. See User:Ealdgyth/FAC_cheatsheet. Secret account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Refs #4, 13 "Agence France Pesse" Should this be "Presse"?
 * Fixed Secret account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Refs #4, 5, 6, etc. What are these? Newspapers, online articles, what?
 * They are news agency press releases, source is mentioned as agency.
 * Right, but how would a reader go about verifying these sources? What were you looking at when you found them? A website? A newspaper?
 * A newspaper archive in LexisNexis. Secret account 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few prose and referencing issues, so I'm placing the review on hold to allow time for them to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One question remaining on references. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think it would be best to make it clear that the references questioned above were accessed through LN, but I don't think it's a huge deal for GA. Passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few prose and referencing issues, so I'm placing the review on hold to allow time for them to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One question remaining on references. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think it would be best to make it clear that the references questioned above were accessed through LN, but I don't think it's a huge deal for GA. Passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)