Talk:Hurricane Joyce (2000)/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 within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The last two sentences of the article say "It remains on the name list, but was not used in the 2006 season due to inactivity. It remains on the list for 2012." Is there any way to avoid the repetition at the beginning of these two sentences?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref 13 (Padgett) needs a publisher.
 * Ref 15 (WMO 2000 Hurricane Season) deadlinks.
 * 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:

A couple of minor issues with references and one with prose, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with these. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Cyclonebiskit fixed the issue with the last two sentences, and I added a publisher for the Padgett reference. The WMO document seems to have disappeared from the web right now. Here is a Google cache of it, but I'm not sure how long it will last. I'm going to see if I can webCite it. If that doesn't work I don't see any options other than removing that information or (unacceptable) leaving it the way it is and hoping the document resurfaces. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't work. Before I remove the information from those references (I couldn't find it anywhere else), I'll wait for a response here to see if anyone has a better idea or a compelling reason leave the article the way it is. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Well, just let me know when this has been resolved.  This is the only thing that needs to be resolved before I promote the article. Dana boomer (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I have been unable to find the WMO source at the Internet Archive nor find its information elsewhere, I feel like I was backed into a corner by circumstances beyond my contral and left with no choice but to remove information from the broken reference. I have done that now and rewritten a paragraph to make the removal "work". Hence, strictly speaking, I have resolved the above concerns. However, since there was info, which is available (for now) in a Google cache, a not unreasonable case could be made that this article may not be comprehensive enough. If you agree with that, I recommend asking for a second opinion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what Julian has done to the article works. Let me know if you have an issue with it. And, I hate to say this, but your ReliefWeb sources (16 and 17) appear to be deadlinking now... :( Let me know your thoughts... Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, they seem to be working now, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)