Talk:2002 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and I should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the "Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Ranking" section table, why are Kyle and Hanna not linked?
   • I realize that you have the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale color ratings at the bottom of the page, but would it also be possible to put them near the "Season summary" chart so that it's easier for readers to decipher what all the pretty colors mean?
   • In the first paragraph of the "Seasonal forecasts" section, please use the full version of NOAA first, with NOAA in parentheses, and thereafter use the abbreviation.
   • In the second paragraph of the "Impact" section, you say "The first, Tropical Storm Bertha, made landfall along the Gulf Coast, killing only one person." It may just be me, but the "only" is probably unnecessary, and makes it sounds slightly insignificant that a person was killed. I'm sure this was not your intention, but this was the way that it struck me when I read it.

   • For a landfall system, one death is considered low, hence the word "only". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Please be consistent with your translation of 2002 dollars into another year's dollars. In most of the article, you just say that it's 2002 dollars and leave it at that. However, in the second and third paragraphs of the "Impact" section, you have 2002 dollars translated variously into 2006, 2007 and 2008 dollars. Either pick one and stick with it for all of the dollar amounts, or say 2002 dollars and leave it at that throughout the article.
   • In the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" section, instead of starting out with "Elsewhere", could you start out with "In Canada" or something of the sort, just to be more specific and not leave the reader hanging until they figure out that all of the places you're talking about are in Canada?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • In the "Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Ranking" section, the last two sentences need a reference.
   • The first paragraph of the "Storm names" section needs a ref.
   • Current refs 18, 19, 20, 26, and 30 need publisher information (or at least to be formatted like the rest of the refs with the publisher after the title).

   • 18 still needs one...

   • Current ref 21 needs an access date.

   • Still needs one...

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a very well-written, well-referenced and well-illustrated article. I am putting the article on hold for seven days in order to allow you time to deal with the few minor issues I have raised above. If you have questions, you can ask them here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I fixed everything except for one issues. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the prose tweaks look good. There are still a couple of reference issues that need to be addressed. As soon as those are done, I will pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, missed a couple. Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, passing GA! Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)