Talk:Hurricane Flora/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the Impact section, in both the text and the table, you have 1963 dollars transfered into 2006 dollars. In the lead infobox, you have 1963 into 2008 dollars. Could you please standardize this?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What makes ref 22 (Tobago Dive Experience) a reliable ref?
 * It would be nice to see a ref for the last sentence of the article, that Flora was retired due to "enormous impact".
 * Please make sure the references are consistently formatted, with either all or none using templates.
 * 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:
 * Overall, a very nice article! There are a few issues with references and MOS that I would like to see fixed, so I am putting it on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the 2006 vs. 2008 dollar problem in the article. Found a reference for Flora's retirement.  While I know offhand names were repeated every four years back then, I have yet to find a reference for that (which would indicate Fern was the replacement.)  Found a better reference for Ref 22, but it's still not ideal.  See if it's good enough; I wish it wasn't a travel guide.  If not, ref 23 covers most of the same information. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything you've done looks great so far. I think the only thing I'm still waiting on is the ref formatting, just to make everything consistent. Dana boomer (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The coding of all the references within the article is now consistent, which should have markedly shortened the article. I have edited the Haiti template to force the refs within the template to fit this article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The coding looks good now, but I'm not sure what happened to the website publishers. They seem to have all gotten deleted as you were switching coding over.  You have to have publisher info (not just author) for websites. For example, a bunch of websites were published by the San Juan Weather Bureau, others by the Miami Weather Bureau.  Also, publishers should come after the title, authors before. Dana boomer (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With some of the refs, the publisher and author are the same. I'll revert, and go from there.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done now. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The coding of all the references within the article is now consistent, which should have markedly shortened the article. I have edited the Haiti template to force the refs within the template to fit this article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The coding looks good now, but I'm not sure what happened to the website publishers. They seem to have all gotten deleted as you were switching coding over.  You have to have publisher info (not just author) for websites. For example, a bunch of websites were published by the San Juan Weather Bureau, others by the Miami Weather Bureau.  Also, publishers should come after the title, authors before. Dana boomer (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With some of the refs, the publisher and author are the same. I'll revert, and go from there.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done now. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks great, so I'm going to pass the article. Nice work! Just FYI, if the publisher and the author are the same, you generally don't need to list the author - just list the publisher. The author field is optional, generally used only if you have a specific person who authored the article/paper/whatever; the publisher field is a necessary that is used to give the company that runs the website (or the person, if the information is self-published). Dana boomer (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)