Talk:Hurricane Gilma (1994)/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, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Keep an eye on your prose tense. In the first sentence of the "Storm history" section you use present tense: "lies with", but then in the next sentence switch to past tense: "consolidated".  Same thing in the second section where you switch between "Gilma is" and "Gilma was"
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The last sentence of the "Forecasting, impact and records" section could use a ref. Also, is there any reason why the pressure was not provided?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Any information on whether the name was retired or not?
 * 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:

Overall, a well-written article. I am putting it on hold to allow you time to address the few minor points above. If you have any questions, you can ask here on the review page, or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note, the storm history section needs to be expanded substantially with the advisories before it can pass. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr..sure, what he said *grin*. I'm not a hurricane expert, so I didn't realize there was anything more to be added.  What Julian says goes in this case, I suppose :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it would have been fine; I'm just overly strict. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know Gilma wasn't retired, it was used in 00 and 06, but a source in the Kenneth article (05) shows that Gilma was PROPOSED for retirement by Hawaiian officials. http://www.ofcm.gov/ihc07/web-61st-IHC-Booklet.pdf Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added info about retirememt, references to the problematic sentences, and a few advisories are used as references. The article is mainly past tense. The exception (the records paragraph) is in present tense because Gilma continues to hold those records; using past tense there implies that it one held those records but no longer does. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. I've made a few copyediting tweaks, feel free to revert them if you don't like them - mainly picky stuff. Good work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)