Talk:Tropical Storm Harold/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: IrishSurfer21 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 05:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably going to review this later or tomorrow. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It may take a bit long since I am going to be busy these next few weeks, but I’ll do my best to keep up with this review.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to help as well to keep up with the review. Jay Tee⛈️ 02:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer Any word on the review? Jay Tee⛈️ 01:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows the MoS guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Proper assortment of references.
	2b. 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).	Some problems with inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some problems of OR on the last sentence of MH.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some minor problems with broadness.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No sign of instability, most edits are for expansion.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Every image is okay and tagged with their particular license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.

Finally reviewing. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Nothing wrong currently! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

Use the {{rp}} template on source 1, the ~~first~~, second, third iteration, and the fourth iteration mentions page 2, so put that.
Convection increased over the northern of the wave After northern, add 'part'.
Remove the first iteration of source 1, since the second iteration is also after the source.
You can include some text in source 9 to Preparations and impact, since the ref is a warning.
Can you add another reliable source with source 17? The source does not follow the sentence clearly, just being a map. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer Completed first three bullets. Couldn't find anything in Ref 9 that wasn't already in Prep/Impacts. Deleted Source 17 after realizing it contradicted the TCR. Jay Tee⛈️ 05:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Will check the rest later. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer How's it looking? Jay Tee⛈️ 06:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]