Talk:History of tropical cyclone naming/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the first example of renaming cyclones, you say "In this case it will be given a hyphenated name by RSMC La Réunion for a period of about 24 hours." Is the hyphenated name then removed after that 24 hour period?
 * weird typo Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the second example of renaming cyclones, is there a reason the storms aren't listed chronologically? Could they be, please?
 * I think the "human error" and even the uncertainty examples should be left at the bottom of the list, which would make the chronology part not really doable. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have been more clear. I meant within the second reason, the storms used as examples for that particular reason are not chronological. But, Madeline's edits took care of this. Dana boomer (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Current ref 5 (RA IV Hurricane Committee Twenty-eighth Session report) deadlinks
 * As does 6 (Typhoon Committee Operational Manual Meteorological Component)
 * As does 8 (Press Conference "Naming the Typhoon", CMA in 2006 WMD)
 * As does 10 (Tropical Cyclone Operational Plan for the South-West Indian Ocean)
 * In the History section, the first paragraph and most of the third paragraph need refs.
 * Thanks to Madeline, these are solved. I will add the two remaining refs within a couple of days. Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

A few issues regarding prose and referencing, but nothing major, so I'm putting the article on hold. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I didn't nominate this article, I reduced the number of examples in the second example of renaming, which leaves the remaining two in chronological order (I reduced the number because two examples ought to be enough). I found archives of references 6, 8, and 10; for some reason 5 is blocked by robots.txt. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've struck out all of the comments that have been finished, and so it looks like we're just waiting on the couple remaining references. As soon as those are added, I'll pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How's now? Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Thanks to both of you for your hard work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)