Talk:Hurricane Otis (2005)/GA1

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

I will review this article, though others are free to do so as well.
 * Criteria 1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good Article criteria. There are significant grammar and spelling problems through the article.
 * 2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard references.[2] Ideally, a reviewer should have access to the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources. At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs generally are not reliable sources), and that the article contains no plagiarism: any text copied from sources should be set off by quotation marks or "" tags and cited. There is only one reference in this article, and it is used many times.  It needs more references.  When references are used multiple times, they are grouped together using the ref name function.  Ideally, the author, article name, and date accessed should be part of the ref as well.
 * 3. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions. The coverage of the topic is not broad, and I'm not sure it can be considering the fact the center never crossed land.  Either way, more references would help fill out the article, if they exist.
 * 4. Written from a neutral point of view.
 * 5. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars. Less than a month ago, it was suggested this article be merged in with the 2005 Pacific hurricane season.  Thegreatdr (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6. Compliant with image use policy. If images are used, they should have free licenses, or have fair use rationales in covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. It does pass this marker, since both images are fair use.

Overall, this article needs a lead (which is currently way too short), a significant copy edit, convert templates to include SI units, more references and content, a better format, and errors within the text box in the top right corner fixed. It is missing a preparations section, which mentions the series of watches/warnings issued at a bare minimum. The wikilinks included currently do not meet MoS requirements in any way. Consult a dictionary for proper spelling. This type of improvement takes greater than a week for most editors, more on the order of months for articles with multiple active editors. I'm going to place this on hold for a week to see if it is improved enough to reach GA, because it cannot be quick failed per wikipedia's instructions on GA reviews. It would be a significant victory if it reached C/B class by October 25. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Failed the article due to lack of appreciable improvement. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)