Talk:Typhoon Neoguri (2008)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Neoguri (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing's generally excellent. Just a couple questions, though. Unless I'm missing something, this makes no sense: After attaining tropical storm status, significant intensification was limited due to a slight increase in wind shear as well as impeded outflow.[11] The slowing of the weakening trend was temporary, and by early on April 16 the organization had rapidly improved.[12] Also, in the sentence, The ship they were on had sank, and the crew clung to debris and made makeshift rafts to survive in the waters, "...had sank..."? I don't think that's correct grammar, but I'm not positive.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some more impact would be nice, but I know that could be hard to come by.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent work! Just a couple questions, which could just be my being stupid. It passes. Cheers! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep vigilant against any possible GARs

A separate preparations section?

A preparations section tells us how an area prepared against a cyclone. This is existent in most tropical cyclone articles, and yet this article without that particular section makes it to GA status... I think a well-developed preparations section can potentially make this aricle to a featured one. -Pika ten10 (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for the annual summaries and individual TCRs

It was pointed out on the TC project page that this article was passed before the TCR was issued by any of the warning centers. Once they're out (which should be quite soon, if not already) the article will need to be updated with the HKO/JTWC/JMA information, or it could be reassessed. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Typhoon Neoguri (2008). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20080414-130337/62-persons-flee-flooding-in-Cebu-City-village
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mb.com.ph/PROV20080416122008.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)