Talk:Hurricane Douglas (2002)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Sorry, but considering the above comments, the article does not meet the good article criteria at this time. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 21:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The first thing I noticed is the lack of a sufficient lead section. It should be expanded by several sentences. Also, the prose is poor throughout the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It never effected land like most tropical systems in the Eastern Pacific. - There needs to be a source that says most tropical storms in the East Pacific don't affect land. Also, is it just tropical storms that don't affect land, or does that include hurricanes?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There needs to be at least one or two sentences explaining the lack of impact&mdash;Tropical Storm Erick (2007) provides a good example of such.
 * 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:
 * Sorry for butting in, but I think I've fixed the probs in the article. I've expanded the lead and noted the impact, though impact's a bit short, and removed the "did not hit land like most storms" part. I'll resubmit after a copyedit by someone else is done.Buggie111 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited the article. I don't know how most Hurricane articles go, but this one seems solid enough. NielsenGW (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)