Talk:Hurricane Debby (1982)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Debby (1982)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I should have the review up by Tuesday evening. HurricaneFan25 — 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below for comments.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

Review

One

Lede

1. peaking with winds of could be reworded to with winds peaking at or something like that.
2. You should explain what the SSHS is in the lede so the reader can catch up with what you're saying.
3. By September 20, Debby weakened to a tropical storm, shortly before transitioning into an extratropical cyclone while rapidly approaching the British Isles. (Not really related to prose) There's a better link, Extratropical cyclone#Extratropical transition. Also, this could be clarified to something like Debby was rapidly approaching the British Isles on September 20 shortly before it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone.
4. limited to light to moderate rainfall Remove or replace one of the "to"'s with something else.
5. The last two sentences of the final paragraph in the lede read like "Point. Point." if you get the idea of what I'm saying.

Meteorological history

1. completely lost identification I don't understand what this means...?
2. gained some circulation Er, something seems wrong here; shouldn't this be gained a circulation?
3. prompting an upgraded Grammar; either say prompting an upgrade or prompted an upgrade
4. would in time Keep "would" and move "in time" after United States or another spot that might work.
5. reaching max winds Spell out "maximum"
6. 17 September should be September 17 for consistency.
7. Explain what the westerlies are, or at least provide a link. Don't expect everyone to be like us ;-)

Preparations and impact

1. A better wording spread from would be ranged between
2. Rains in Puerto Rico peaked at You already mentioned Puerto Rico in the previous sentence. You could say Rains on the island peaked at
3. Tourists by the thousands took the last-minute flights out of Bermuda on September 16 as Debby drew near. → Thousands of tourists took last-minute flights out of Bermuda on September 16 as Debby drew near.
4. amount is a strange word to describe numerous; how about just plain ol' number?

Three

1. Any specifics on "weather system"?

• I have done everything you ask, except for that comment directly above. I do not understand what you mean when you said "Any specifics on "weather system"?". Also, I am a bit confused about the "Point. Point." thing; did I fix that issue when I re-worded it? --12george1 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  Looks fine, now.