Talk:Typhoon Warren

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Yellow Evan in topic GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 23:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


Opening statement edit

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Prose edit

  • (Re)Move the citation in the lead (during July 1988.[1]).
    •  Not done, that's the only mention of the local name in the article though.
  • At 00:00 UTC on July 14, the JMA declared the system a tropical storm.[6] On the evening of July 14, the JTWC upgraded Warren to a typhoon.[2] Condense.
  • Footnote [nb3] would be useful to have in the lead and/or infobox, too.
  • one hundred-six [...] one hundred eighty-seven Why not replace these with numerals? You've done the same for other casualty figures in the article.
  • Across the Guangdong Province, Axe "the".

GA progress edit

Images are free/tagged and relevant. Article passes CopyVio detector. References are credible. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Thanks for the review :D YE Pacific Hurricane 01:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.