Jump to content

Talk:2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Starting my fifth GA review on this article (courtesy ping WeatherWriter)! Feel free to ask any questions or concerns during this review, and it'll take a few days to review this. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:
    A few spots might need clarification; but otherwise looks good!
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    I believe the lead section could be improved and expanded! I'll note this more in-detail in my comments section.
  2. 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:
    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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No major concerns; though one sentence might need to be re-worded according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool. How about "Van Wert County EMA Director Rick McCoy was able to give the city a 26-minute" to "Rick McCoy, director of the Van Wert County EMA, managed to give the city a 26-minute"?
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No unstability recently!
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Both images are in the public domain!
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No concerns! I'd consider adding alt text to both images, however.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
Thanks for the expansion and improvement! I did a small re-write/copyedit to the lead here. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all! I did make a few copyedits on the article; otherwise those are all my comments. Feel free to ping whenever you start or you're finished. Thanks! (Courtesy ping WeatherWriter!) :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx: I completed the changes you noted here. I will keep an eye on the page in case you discover any other changes that need to be looked at. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happy to pass this review, WeatherWriter! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.