Talk:Hurricane Catarina/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) 18:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There are a lot of external links and publications for an article of this length. Can some of them be removed?  If they are used as references, they can probably be removed.  Also, the first of the "Formal publications", by Pezza, has a deadlinking title.
 * In the infobox you have 2004 and 2008 dollars, in the Impact section you have 2004 and 2007 dollars. Could you make this transition consistent, please?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few areas need references:
 * Meteorological history: all of first paragraph, last bit of second
 * Naming: last bit of third paragraph, all of fourth
 * I don't think that the Phil Smith reference (current ref #7) is really all that reliable, since it is self-published by someone who does not appear to be a hurricane expert. Do you have any other source that you could use to back up this information?
 * 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:

I have a couple of issues, mainly with external links and referencing, and so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address these. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it up. It's very confusing with all these random sources. The Phil Smith ref should be good, I've read through it and all of the info is from reliable sources, mainly e-mails from meteorologists. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. I'm still a little iffy on the Smith source, so if you ever find something better, please switch it out! Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I do find one I will. :D 10th GA! Woo! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)