Talk:Cyclone Japhet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The citations are incomplete and there is no way to verify their existence as not enough information is provided. Full citations need to be provided in order to verify facts.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
The references are not verifiable. As the citations are incomplete, it unclear where this material comes from to verify that while cited, no original research was done.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One of the images is tagged as USA public domain but links to a UN site. It is unclear that UN images are public domain. The copyright tag on it does not match the source.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Once the above issues are addressed, I will finish the review. :) --LauraHale (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I indicated that they were all from Lexis Nexis. It is a newspaper agency that does not have URL's, but as it's online, there is no page number. All of the info is already provided, such as the date, the publisher, and the title. That's all that's given in the program. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no page numbers? No authors? No location the thing was published? These sources were published exclusively online and appeared no where but Lexis Nexis? "Delta Donates to Flood Victims" is a source I'd question. The title seems promotional. The author is an agency. Can you tell me the editorial policy for inclusion into Lexis Nexus that make this a reliable source and that this is not a promotional PR piece about Delta? It looks like these articles exist outside LexisNexis. More information needs to be added to make these more verifiable. The citations are still not adequate for verification. Once the references are more verifiable, things can continue.

"Lingering floods in Zimbabwe contributed to an increase in malaria cases." This statement does not appear to be supported by the source. "An official at WHO told IRIN the increase in Zimbabwe could be attributed to the after effects of cyclone Japhet which struck parts of the country earlier this year" The source does not say what the text says, because it does not make a definitive link between the two. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Lexis Nexis, no, there are no page numbers, no additional authors than I've provided. I can email you the articles if you want. Regarding the Delta one, it's not PR by any means, it's just a simple donation that I felt worth including. I've never had a problem before with using Lexis Nexis. It shouldn't matter if they are available online or not. It's cite news, not cite web. I honestly don't see what else I can add. Lexis Nexis does not provide additional info like the page number. Most of them are from Africa News, but it appears these articles are too far back for their archives. As for the Zimbabwe and malaria case, the full quote has this at the end - "leaving floods that provided breeding grounds for mosquitoes." I'm not going to post all of the news stories, as that would be a violation of the GFDL and the copyright status of those newspaper articles, but like I said, I can email them to you if you want. I just have never had this problem before. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until the references are verifiable, and they aren't at the moment, then this cannot pass GA because it fundamentally fails the ones on sourcing. One check of a source reveals that it doesn't support the text cited because the article does connect A to B but says there might be a relationship, while the article says there is. I don't want the sources e-mailed to me, because that doesn't make the citations any more complete. As I know at least one of these articles cited is used online, the issue of making the citations more verifiable by providing links to them is easy enough. --LauraHale (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got them all from Lexis-Nexis, again, so I shouldn't have to provide online sources for them, and you haven't said how I can improve on the references that I can actually do. So, beyond me emailing you the articles so you can see that I have cited them all properly, I don't believe your concerns are actionable there. And as for the malaria bit, I don't see the problem. The person said that the malaria was "attributed to the after effects of cyclone Japhet which struck parts of the country earlier this year, leaving floods that provided breeding grounds for mosquitoes." There's nothing wrong with that sentence. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, see WP:SOURCEACCESS, in particular - "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.". I've said where I got the sources from. That should be enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass rationale

I've checked everything against the remaining criteria. I went to Commons IRC channel yesterday and they cleared the image for me as I'd missed part of the disclaimer on the image page. (My bad.) I've found online free sources for a number of the paywall sources, and verified the facts cited by these sources. I still believe that the citations are not full and complete, dislike the idea that the first preference for citing sources is to use ones completely behind a pay wall without seeking alternative free or partial paywall sources that can be linked to which confirm the existence of the source. The sources nominally support the facts cited. There are two or three instances where the cited text has some issues with fact matching the article. These things appear to be the case in other GAs from this project, so I'm going to assume good faith here that the Wikiproject involved here has a MOS that allows this type of incomplete citation style where the citation can't be verified and that such facts (where things may be connected for instance are presented as actually connected) are also allowed. That whacks out the remaining concerns. I'd implore the nominator in the future to use complete citations so future reviewers can more easily verify information and confirm the existence of the sources. A lot of this was made easier because I've written enough about African topics to have some degree of source familiarity. --LauraHale (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]