Talk:Tropical Storm Bret (2005)

GA review
The article is very well done and contains most of the relevant information needed for this article, but it is not quite there yet. The first and most important paragraph the introduction, does not have any references in it, please add some.SenatorsTalk 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the info in the intro is referenced in the body of the article. As the intro is just an overview of the article, it does not need and should not have references. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC review
I've placed the nomination on hold for the following reasons:
 * The article is so well written, as far as prose, that I was inclined to check for possible copyright violations. The first sentences under 'Storm history', "A tropical wave accompanied by a weak surface low pressure area crossed Central America and eastern Mexico from June 24 through June 27. An area of disturbed weather associated with this system moved into the Bay of Campeche ...," is a direct copy (with the exception of date format) from reference 1.
 * I'll be looking into this further in a few hours. Any other possible copyvio issues need to be corrected.
 * Redlinks are fine as long as they are notable within themselves to have their own article. If any of the redlinks in this article are not necessarily notable enough, remove the wikification of them.

Other than the few issues listed above, it looks good to me. To comment on the previous "review", citation is not required in the lead as long as any claims are sourced in the body. Quotes are the only exception, and their use is discouraged in lead sections. Regards, Lara  ♥Love  04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources for this article are either US Government or not English. Given that, even if a source is directly copied there is no copyright violation, as the work is either public domain or translated - you are being overly paranoid in this instance. Of course, a rephrasing of them is generally preferable. For the record, Hurricanehink is a very good writer.
 * As for the redlinks, I found all the localities mentioned trivially on a MS Live; each is at least a village (a few are quite large towns) and so all are perfectly valid candidates for a geo-stub. The exception is El Laurel, which does not appear to be a settlement (perhaps a weather station?). I think the sentence beginning "Across Veracruz, the most affected localities were..." is more of a problem in how it is written rather than the redlinks - I suspect half of those locations need not be mentioned.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)