Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hurricane Ivan/2

Hurricane Ivan

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hurricane_Ivan/2&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: delisted Contributors to the discussion expressed concerns that the article focussed too much on preparations in the US, with not so much from Caribbean countries. The aftermath section was also considered substandard. There are a number of unresolved dead links, I managed to fix a few. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has degraded over the years and no longer meets the quality and content criteria for Good Articles. There is a severe lack of information in regards to the response to the storm (Aftermath) from all countries effected. The preparations section is mostly centered around the United States with only a tidbit on elsewhere. Impact needs to be restructured and refocused to better convey the proper information. Overall, I believe this article is no longer of GA quality; however, rather than immediate demote it, I wanted to see the opinions of others and have a community vote on the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Aftermath is all too small, there can be tons more impact too, from the sub-articles and elsewhere. Hurricanefan25  &#124;  talk  00:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it should get the Isabel treatment. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's good to see some action being taken on this. A lot of articles in the project no longer satisfy the GA criteria, and sadly Ivan is one of them. Auree    ★  02:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This process is supposed to give interested people a chance to address any concerns. A new guideline was recently implimented asking nominators to notify major contributors and Wikiprojects. Has this been done for this article (I'm guessing some of Wikiproject hurricane know)? AIR corn (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Its easy to see that this article no longer meets the criteria for Good Article status. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, the article has improved since its GAR, and we should give it another week or so before demoting IMO. YE   Pacific   Hurricane
 * Keep A lot of work has been done in improving the article and I believe all the nominators stated concerns have been addressed. AIR corn (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Am happy with Auree's suggestion below. AIR corn (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the aim of this is to improve the articles to good status I have asked the early delist supporters to take another look at the article in light of the subsequent improvements. AIR corn (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although I commend the editors that worked on this article in attempt to bring it up to standard, I feel it's not entirely there yet. My concerns in specific are with GA criteria 1 a), 1 b), and 3 a). The article is aesthetically displeasing; its structure is disorganized and disjointed in that it incorporates a lot of loose and stubby paragraphs and subsections (in particular the impact, which has several non-sequential subsections on Caribbean nations). I also feel the lede is inadequate in summarizing the essence of the article, specifically the meteorological history. Furthermore, the wide variety of editors has caused several inconsistencies in terms of prose and style. Finally, some crucial details are still missing, for example the impact in the ABC islands (and probably other Caribbean islands). In this case, a lot of significant information (including a damage total) on the ABC islands can be found here, on page 19. Some more impact for the islands (Dutch source, easily translatable with Google Translate) can be found here, and some aftermath here. I suggest looking into this a bit more especially for the Lesser Antilles. Per the style issues, I will go over the article to give it a copy-edit, but I suggest requesting uninvolved editors from outside the project (e.g. at the Guild of Copy Editors) to look over the article and give it a thorough copy-edit and rid of glaring style inconsistencies. I hope this helps,  Auree    ★  01:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution is to write the article anew over the next week or so. Trying to tweak the current content will lead to more inconsistencies and possibly incorrect or synthesized information. I have created a WikiProject Sandbox so we can start from scratch and produce a fresh, well-structured article with recent sources, void of outdated content.  Auree    ★  18:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the status on this?? -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone uninvolved in this discussion should assess the consensus here and close it. A note could be left at the talk page asking for someone. AIR corn (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)