Talk:Hurricane Bonnie (1998)/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 I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the Florida and South Carolina preparation section, you say "...National Guard put about 1,512 men on act of duty..." Should this be "active duty"?
 * Same section, you say "...buses were provided to help evacuate people, an ongoing operation." What do you mean by an ongoing operation?  Do you mean that this has happened for other hurricanes since or that this was ongoing throughout the prep for Bonnie?
 * North Carolina and Virginia preparation section, you say "...with plans to reopen mainly when...". What do you mean by "reopen mainly"?
 * Same section, you say "...and ride out the storm far out to sea." Is there some way to avoid one of the "out"s in this sentence?
 * In the South Carolina impact section you say "...and storm surge was 2 to 3 ft (0.61 to 0.91 m) above average." What do you mean by above average?  Was this higher than the normal sea level, or higher than storm surges usually were?  Same wording in the North Carolina section.
 * In the North Carolina impact section, you say "In some areas, the vegetative and structural debris reached 1 m (3.3 ft) deep, and is said to have shielded inland regions from hazardous debris." Does this mean that it was this deep on the ground, and how did this shield inland regions?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most of the references are formatted using "cite xyz" templates. Current ref 27 (Dow and Cutter) doesn't, and it's confusing enough that I'm not even sure what the ref is, except for the fact that I think it's a published source.
 * Please spell out acronyms, such as NCDERN in current ref 30 and AARL in current ref 33. Please check for others, these are just examples.
 * Please add publishers for current refs 49 (Nowell), 55 (Roth), and 57 (FEM).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Is there no information about the naming of the storm? Was the name retired?
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I've gotten through everything except for a complete prose review of the article, but I'm being called away to some RL things. I apologize for not finishing this review all at one time, but I should have my comments on prose up by the end of tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my prediction of when I would finish was a bit off...for which I apologize. I have completed the prose review of the article, and so just the above issues need to be completed before the article attains GA status.  So, I'm putting the article on hold to allow you time to address the issues. Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Done with everything. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)