Talk:Wet season/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead should be a summary of the article, with no new information. A significant portion of the first paragraph of the lead, as far as I can tell, is not covered in the body of the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What is Ref 15 (K.W. Choi and J.H.W. Lee)? What makes it reliable?
 * Web references need to have publishers, not just authors. For example (although not inclusive) Refs 7, 8 and 9 are missing publishers.
 * Journal articles (Refs 12 and 20) should be formatted with a journal name (a DOI would be nice too).
 * Books (Refs 13, 17 and 21) should have a publisher and isbn included (a page number would be nice also).
 * Author names shouldn't be in all caps, even if they are that way in the original source.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I am concerned about the coverage of this article. For example, two of your images show the wet season in Australia, but Australia isn't even mentioned in the text. Another thing is that there is no mention of natural disasters, such as floods, that happen due to the wet season. I'm not an expert in this field, but these are just a couple of questions that popped up in a read-through of the article. Really, it seems amazing to me that a broad article on a phenomenon as well known and presumably well-studied as wet seasons around the world can only be 10 kb.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have some concerns about coverage, MOS and references, so I am placing this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue number one should be dealt with. The three unique lines have been added into the body of the article.  Reference 15 is from a conference on hydrology and engineering, so it looks good to me as a source. Publisher info should now be added, and the all caps issue should be resolved.  I'll look into floods during the rainy season...none of my sources talked about them, but they should occur, because some areas develop arroyo land, or use them as highways.  Other than that, the concept of a rainy season is quite simple.  It rains a bit in some months, and not much in others.  From your above comments, should I add a section on which areas get a wet/rainy season, instead of vaguely mentioning it is areas with mediterranean, savannah, and monsoon climate regimes?  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work you've done so far. Yes, a section detailing which areas of the world have wet seasons would be helpful. As for the flooding, I think you can use news articles for at least some of it, such as those here and here. Dana boomer (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article by 90 percent. Let me know how the article is shaping up.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking very good so far. Here are my remaining comments:
 * I've added a fact tag at the end of one paragraph where I would like to see a reference.
 * The books still need ISBNs.
 * Once these are done, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be done now. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good now, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Once these are done, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be done now. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good now, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)