Talk:1984 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   GA!

To Work On list (specifics)

Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.

• 2a: Reference 4, inaccessable. Any other format?

 Done Understood. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2b: Newspapers: Can we get a better source? (1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9)

 Question: I meant could we find a link to the actual article (or is it on a different site with full text?) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2b: Ref 1, incorrectly referenced.

 Not done Philadelphia Daily News vs. The Miami Herald. That is the problem. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2a: 12 (now 14), Linkable?

 Not done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2a: some sources are the same. Merge them with WP:REFLINKS.

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2b: section 2 unsourced.

 Done Should be ok as is. The more we can include the better. WP:PSTS Exception in this case. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2b: Can we get a little more sourcing on TS Arthor?

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2b: Facts unsourced for Hurricane Klaus & Lili

 Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs. Let me know when the review is done. I'm assuming it's still in progress, since there are no comments by the reviewer. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For reference 1, you need to explain to me what you mean by "incorrectly referenced." I was using it as independent support for the depression's existence. If it's not needed, we could get rid of it. Reference 4 is accessable, but you have to download the free viewer at this web address first. As for the newspaper articles, all I can do (and have done) is back up the tropical depressions with the CLIQR database, which is a version of the extended best track database I've been using at work for use in the tropical cyclone rainfall climatology. Other than newspaper articles, there is no information for the TDs other than the track, because the National Hurricane Center did not write individual storm reports on TDs that far back in time, and, between 1981-1987, did not publish their annual tropical weather systems article either. There just simply isn't any other source for TD information for most of the 1980s.

I understand why you think there are identical sources in the reference section. Click on them. I can assure you they are different pages, though they are of the same parent document. For whatever reason, the National Hurricane Center scanned their tropical cyclone reports in such a way that different pages of the same document are at different web addresses. Therefore, I cannot group those references together with names, like I did with the CLIQR database. As for the ACE statistics, the wikipedia page used as a source uses information from HURDAT to compute it. If this is disallowed, I'll have to remove the section, because there is no way to source it. Just let me know. I have added additional refs for Arthur, Klaus, and Lili, per your request. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your pacientce and sorry for the delay. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your third and fourth items were easy to fix. As for a better site with those newspaper articles, there used to be the hurricane archive, which had links to the whole newspaper page. That site and its refs went away fairly recently. The refs we have are the best we could find, for the time being. If better sites present themselves for those newspaper articles, we'll link to them. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I understand. Good job, your article is now at GA Status. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)