Talk:Hurricane Allen/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Allen was as an early Cape Verde-type hurricane which originated from a tropical wave within the deep tropics. "was as an"? "a tropical wave within the deep tropics"? ✅
 * ' 'The tropical disturbance which would become Allen moved off the coast of Africa on July 30, and was upgraded to a tropical depression on August 1.'' Wehave a lot of tropicals here, can this be rewritten a little? ✅
 * Allen moved westward at an unusually high speed of 15 to 20 knots (28 to 37 km/h), becoming a hurricane on the event on August 2 and... "event"? ✅
 * This whole passage (the first in meteorlogicla history) could be rewritten more elegantly. ✅
 * The eye passed just south of Hispaniola and just north of Jamaica as a Category 4 hurricane.  How about using just "between"? ✅
 * :Allen again weakened to a Category 4 storm through interactions with Mexico,  sounds a little vague to me, Remdember that I am the average reader, don't know much about meteorology (actually I did study it at school - but that was some time ago!) ✅
 * ''Shortly before landfall, dry air aloft in the Gulf caused the massive storm to weaken substantially. " "dry air aloft"  Did you just mean to sya "high"? ✅
 * n Barbados, preliminary damages were estimated to be $1.5 million (1980 USD). About 500 houses were either damaged or destroyed, total damages was moderate.  "total damages was moderate"? ✅
 * Although the damages was minor, "was minor"? ✅
 * In Martinique, damages was somewhat extensive as the storm ? ✅
 * However, the density of smaller-sized Damselfishes increased after Allen offshore Jamaica ?? Please rewrite in plain English. This is all looking like very careless thrown together writing. ✅
 * Also, though there were no reports of significant property damage in Cuba, three deaths were attributed to Allen ?? ✅
 * ' 'Areas of northeastern Mexico saw heavy rains with the passage of Allen, with the locally heaviest amounts exceeding 7 inches (180 mm).'' was was ✅
 * In Texas, the storm surge was reported as high as 12 feet (3.7 m) at Port Mansfield, though it may have been higher because the highest surges occurred in unpopulated and unmonitored sections of the Texas coast. Surely "may have been higher in other places"? ✅
 * Please go through this artcile again, line by line, read it out loud to yourself. It very much looks like something thrown together without much thought and the writing is nowhere near "reasonably good" at the moment. ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I fixed one dead link
 * The article is adequately referenced.
 * Sources appear to be WP:RS
 * Sources appear to back up statements.
 * 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:
 * On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this meets the "reasonably well written" criteria now. Of course, as always, there is room for improvement. If you wish to take this further to WP:FAC, it would be ebst top get a WP:Peer review first. I am happy to list this as a good article. Congratulations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed the issues you presented. Strike out what has been fixed to your satisfaction, so I know what is left to reword.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this meets the "reasonably well written" criteria now. Of course, as always, there is room for improvement. If you wish to take this further to WP:FAC, it would be ebst top get a WP:Peer review first. I am happy to list this as a good article. Congratulations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed the issues you presented. Strike out what has been fixed to your satisfaction, so I know what is left to reword.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed the issues you presented. Strike out what has been fixed to your satisfaction, so I know what is left to reword.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Megi has the highest maximum sustained winds since Allen?
An internet user added this line in recently. How would we go about proving or disproving this/removing it from the article? My guess is that it would require several references, no? Would the NCDC merger of the global databases count as a reliable and original source here? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont bye that no other storms worldwide had winds of 190mph, but the NCDC merger of the databases is otherwise known as IBTRACS isnt it? in which case that would be a reliable reference since they have been approved by the RSMC WMO TCWC's.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)