Talk:Tropical Storm Alberto (2018)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Only had two issues... they were only minor mistakes and are now fixed (see edit history for details). Other than that, the prose was perfect.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Follows all manual of style guidelines that apply. The article has a lead section of an appropriate length.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	A list of references appears at the bottom of the article as is appropriate.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources appear to be reliable. Sources in the article include the National Hurricane Center (the tropical cyclone report, advisories, discussions, and tropical weather outlooks), the National Climatic Data Center (flooding events), and various credible newspapers.	Pass
(c) (original research)	It does not appear that any original research took place.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations or instances of plagiarism were detected in the article.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects such as the met. history, preparations, Cuba impact, and US impact are present.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article does an excellent job of discussing the topic without going into unnecessary detail.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article appears to be neutral and does not give undue weight to any aspect.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Looks to be pretty stable with no recent edit wars.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images have their copyright statues displayed on their pages.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images have appropriate captions that accurately describe them. I fixed the total rainfall caption. Usually, "over" is used when making a reference to time. I changed it to "in" since it was referring to an area. The new statement reads, "Total rainfall associated with Alberto in the United States".	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Overall, Alberto has a good structure. It is very balanced in the amount of coverage for each section. The only thing I could think of is to talk about the impact it had in Ontario, if any. If had anything worthy of mention there, it should be added. If not, please ignore the suggestion. Anyways, good job with preparing this article and I wish you the best of luck with future articles. Alberto is now a good article. Cheers, Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for offering to review Figfires (talk · contribs). Can you ping me when you're done with the review? Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]