Talk:Hurricane Tanya/GA1

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2010 (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):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article conforms to WP:NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article appears to be stable.
 * 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):
 * Images comply to fair use requirements, with suitable captioning.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Images comply to fair use requirements, with suitable captioning.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria) - I did a quick test with "It was the nineteenth and final named storm and twelfth hurricane of the 1995 season." and neither 19th nor 12th showed up in any sections. Ensure that every point in the lead is covered in the sections.
 * The article should be written for people who may not be familiar with the subject. Therefore, wikilinks should be re-looked at, so that readers who do not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject, can click on a link for an explanation. Examples: "hurricane", "National Hurricane Center"
 * Discussions are normally not WP:RS. In addition, they do not appear to be retrievable. Can you explain why they can/should be acceptable? In addition, some parts are unreferenced.
 * The so called discussions are written by the forecasters of the NHC every six hours and give all the technical details of the cyclone that aren't put into their public or forecast advisories. Also i think every part is referenced but the way hes done it is put the reference in random places towards the end of the paragraph which i personally dont like as i prefer them at the end of sentences.Jason Rees (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Numbers greater than nine should written numerically. Please refer to MOS:NUM.
 * The dates in the references are inconsistent, there are both "XXXX-XX-XX" and "X Month XXXX" formats.

Summary: There are some minor issues that can be easily rectified. My main concern has to do with the references, especially when almost all of them come from one primary source. I will provide up to seven days for all these issues to be addressed, before making any further decision.

Final comments: Thank you for all your hard work in making this a better article. I am now satisfied that this article meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)