Talk:1991 Perfect Storm/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Thegreatdr in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Starstriker7 - public(talk) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I'll take on the review for this article in a sec. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Criterion 1

edit

Lead

edit

Meteorological history

edit

Warnings and preparations

edit

Quotations

edit

Impact

edit

Criterion 2

edit

Criterion 3

edit

Criterion 4

edit

The article does not appear to be biased towards any specific point of view.

Criterion 5

edit

There are a few IP edits in recent times, but all appear to have been in good faith and accurate. The article is stable.

Criterion 6

edit

Overall comments

edit

Whoa, those online scanned preliminary report refs were difficult to read. :P

I'm glad I reviewed this article. Hurricanehink, you made it very informative, and I appreciate that. :) I'm putting the article on hold for now until all the issues are addressed, so let me know if you have any questions. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 03:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yea, not to mention the Google news stories got difficult when they started on one page and ended 20 pages later. But, I thank you for your excellent review. I believe I addressed all of your comments. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, my apologies for the mess-ups in interpreting reference information. :P Anyways, you've done a good job addressing all but two at the bottom of this section. Once those are resolved, I'll pass this as a good article. :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how I missed those! Heh, no problem in your interpretation. You were going for the record-longest GA review, I gotcha :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Haha. Believe me, I am nowhere close. :D Anyways, good work on yet another article! I'll pass this in a sec. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 14:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • For future reference, NHC reports normally use an assumed "we" when it comes to the issuance of other products in lieu of NHC advisories, since the NWS is "one team working together." This does not mean they issued anything in relation to the storm other than this storm report, and recon data in real-time. If a system is north of 31N latitude, none of the mentioned warnings originate from NHC. Coastal waters forecasts are issued by NWS WFOs (back then WSFOs) more info here on the CWFs. High Seas forecasts were issued from MPC (which became OPC a decade later) that far north. Back then, Offshore Marine Forecasts for the system would have been originated from the Boston WSFO. This product didn't leave WSFOs and fold into the operational products of MPC or TSB (now NHC's TAFB) until the mid 1990s. I've tried to correct the article for these issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.