User:Mb2437/GAR: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Immediate checks

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
2. It contains copyright violations [ Passes Earwig].
3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}})
4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page
5. It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article

Criteria

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. 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);
   3. it contains no original research;
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
   2. 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Reference spot-check: [ 1] [ 2] [ 3] [ 4] [ 5] [ 6] [ 7] [ 8] [ 9] [ 10]

Criteria

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. 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);
   3. it contains no original research;
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
   2. 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Quite a few instances of hyphens used in place of en dashes for ranges, such as 1500-2500 j/kg. MB2437 13:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

In total, The tornado; capitalisation. MB2437 13:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

with owner of a local construction company, Parker’s Builders, reporting that should refer to Paul Parker, not his company, and it should be the owner. MB2437 14:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

There are 7 citations in the lead that should be moved if possible. MB2437 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It resulted in ten fatalities, should be “10” per MOS:NUMNOTES. MB2437 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

up to mid-60s/low-70s, a pool house/storage shed; the slashes should be avoided. MB2437 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The quote box should not be used for the list of fatalities. MB2437 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

For § Warning history, I would un-collapse the table and remove the float value. MB2437 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Alt text should not state the facts surrounding the photograph, simply explain it or refer to the caption. They are not captions, which those who are using a screen-reader can already read. MB2437 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Values in bar should offer a psi conversion. Millibars should be abbreviated as “mbar”. MB2437 13:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of the fourth wall being broken in footnotes. MB2437 14:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Timezone repetition.

One instance of a footnote before punctuation. MB2437 13:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Citation 75 has the author name “Report” and 61 has “JFP Staff”. MB2437 14:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Reference spot-check: 6 12 26 34 45 50 62 65 73 75

12 does not verify the time of 11.47pm from what I can see. MB2437 16:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

65 is a broken link and should be tagged as dead. MB2437 16:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

All the rest pass. MB2437 16:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)