Talk:Cyclone Ivy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 05:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 05:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and here it is!

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Under Meteorological history, first paragraph: "On February 22, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) initiated advisories on Tropical Cyclone 13P, after the thunderstorms increased." - I'm guessing that Tropical Cyclone 13P is what Tropical Disturbance 5F became, but that's not clear from the text. If it's a completely different storm, though, that should be made clear as well.
The final sentence of the article really sticks out because it is its own one-sentence paragraph... I can't really think of a way to improve it myself, so I can't hold it against a GA Pass, but if there were some reason to either expand that idea or connect it to a larger paragraph somewhere else, it would really help the prose flow end nicely.

And that's really about it, it was a nice read. I am going to put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that changes can be made. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 16:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks a lot for the review. I addressed the 13P/5F issue, which I totally didn't think of when I wrote it. As for the final sentence, yea, I usually dislike those, but I feel something as important as retirement should get its own paragraph, even if it is so short. I beefed it up a little bit with explaining its in-season context so it's not so lonely. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work as always! An good read and, definitely, a good article! Congratulations once again and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 05:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]