Talk:Tropical Storm Douglas (2008)/GA1

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

Overall, this is a nice, short article. I did a bit of copyediting, so I have no problems with the prose. A few things came to mind as I read it, though:


 * 1) From the lead: "Upon the upgrade, Douglas reached its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km) 1003 mbar (hPa; 29.63 inHg)." Can something be added between the wind speed and the pressure (perhaps an "and" after 65 km?)
 * 2) "The center of the depression was elongated as it entered an area of strong northeasterly wind shear, also causing the low to become displaced to the north of the convection." What caused the displacement? The elongation or the wind shear?
 * 3) For consistency with other 2008 tropical storm articles, the section name should probably be "Meteorilogical history" rather than "Storm history".

The Impact section is fairly short, which is mainly due to the facts that it didn't become a hurricane and it didn't make landfall. However, more information would be nice:
 * 1) Was any damage reported in Manzanillo?
 * 2) Are any statistics available for the flooding damage (depth of rainfall, financial cost of damanges, etc.)?
 * 3) Was the name retired? This seems to be a part of similar articles, so I'm wondering if the information is available for this article.

I will place the nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have added this page to my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the three things you stated. As for the impact part, there was no damage reported in both english and spanish sources, no statistics available, and if your referring to the lack of retirement part on the Elida article, I've removed that because you reminded me that the meeting for retirement requests hasn't taken place, so I can't state that yet. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The Impact section is still short, but if no information is available, no information is available. After the meeting about retirement requests, a little bit could be added. Based on all of the information available now, though, the article is comprehensive. I believe that it now meets all six GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Great job! GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :D. If any info on impact comes out, I'll try to add it asap. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)