# Talk:Cyclone Bola

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Bola/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Lead and Storm history, it would be best to add the year the Hurricane took effect.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
The article had a "red link", if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. 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): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That's taken care of. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Its my pleasure in giving the article its GA review. Also, thank you to Hurricanehink for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When was Bola named?.Jason Rees (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably once the FMS upgraded it to a TS. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Which was when?.Jason Rees (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
IDK. You're usually the one who knows SPAC storms and their BT :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah two newly found reports from the VMS, answer my question significantly.Jason Rees (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Bola. 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://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281993%29121%3C2690%3AADSOTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
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: 5 June 2024).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)