Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 06:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Not close to being ready yet.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "due to their high damage costs and loss of life", "asymmetrical structure", "Having already acquired a well-defined circulation, the development of a persistent mass of deep convection around 03:00 UTC the following day prompted the NHC to upgrade the wave to Tropical Depression Four" (wrong sentence subject), and various other grammar/usage and diction problems with the prose. Lead section is way too long for an article of this length. Much of it belongs in the season summary section or in individual storm articles.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Reference section has bare references. "these forecasts were proven to be over-amplified as a result of a phenomenon known as the spring predictability barrier" – no, by this argument, every forecast made during the spring predictability barrier would be wrong. "Hundreds, if not over a thousand deaths" – not appropriate before Maria's death toll is confirmed to be sufficient for that. References to advisories generally need to be replaced by references to TCR's for storm intensity information.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Season summary is lacking and some hurricanes' sections, particularly Irma's, give insufficient weight to the impacts of the storm in those sections. The season forecasts could be elaborated on with more specific rationales cited by each agency.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Per previous point, WP:DUE weight is likely not achieved by the current state of the article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article has long history of edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * There are many opportunities to add images in addition to the storm pictures, particularly in the season forecast and summary sections, where (respectively) graphs or damage pictures could be displayed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Needs substantial work.