Talk:Cyclone Bejisa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms  (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the storm articles task force (marked as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Bejisa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later today. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Lead, "With favorable conditions around," Is this a common phrasing in meteorology?
    • I didn't think it was that weird, but I removed "around" for better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Lead, "communne" Should this be "commune" or is it a non-American English spelling I'm not familiar with?
    • Yea, misspelled, sorry. I added a link too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • MH, "before slightly weakening before impacting" - repetitive "before"s
    Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Reunion, "The rains caused rivers to rise, causing flooding." - repetitive caused/causing
    • I realize this is only a few months later, but has there been any follow-up to the compensation of farmers? The article ends on a bit of a questioning note, stating that farmers were skeptical they were going to be compensated, and it would be a more satisfactory ending to be able to say whether the farmers had been compensated or not.
    • Alright, I got proof that the farmers were indeed compensated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Ref #48 (Bejisa : Une facture de 25 millions) - Why is the title repeated twice?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    One minor referencing issue and a few prose niggles; otherwise, a nice article. I am placing the review on hold to allow the above comments to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, been pretty busy the past few days. I'll check tomorrow about the farmers. Thanks for the review :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    No problem! Everything looks good now. I addressed the one minor issue with the references (a title had accidentally been entered in the url field, so I found what I think is the proper URL, but please double check my work!). Other than that, your changes look great, and so I'm going to go ahead and pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Bejisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)