Talk:Hurricane Max (2005)/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 class, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Any information about the naming? This could probably be included in the Impacts section, with the section being renamed "Impacts and naming".
 * I'm going to drop a note on Juliancolton's page and ask him to come look over the article and see if anything is missing. It makes me a little nervous to pass a good article with only two sources, so I'd like to see what he has to say.
 * 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) 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

The article looks good, but, as I said above, I would like to ask one of the more experienced tropical storm editors to take a look. In the meantime, I would like to see information added on the naming of the storm, so that it conforms with the typical storm article layout. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * First thing I noticed is that the storm history should be expanded. I see only one of the discussions are used, which should be increased to several. Also, there is some information in the lead that isn't in the main article.
 * The formation and dissipation dates in the infobox are screwy. How can a storm form the day after it dissipated? :-)
 * Records should be merged with Impact.
 * Some naming information would be nice.
 * National Hurricane Center is the publisher of the sources, not the authors.
 * Add Category:Category 1 Pacific hurricanes

Thank you Julian, especially for catching the dates and the publisher/author thing, which I should have seen :P As an update to the main editors, I've fixed the dates and the publisher/author mix-up, but I'm going to leave the rest for you to do! Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to fail this article's GAN. There has been no constructive work on this article in the time since my review, and instead there has been edit warring over the placement of a cleanup banner, with the nominating editor being currently blocked.  When this article has been expanded and improved, please re-nominate it at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)