Talk:Hurricane Florence (1953)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Good articleHurricane Florence (1953) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starHurricane Florence (1953) is part of the 1953 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 22, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

New article

edit

This article was created by request of the TC portal. I've included all information I've been able to find so far. Sometime this week I plan on creating rainfall graphics for this system. The hurricane archive does not appear to be functioning today, so it could not be used to dredge up additional information. =( Thegreatdr (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rainfall graphics done. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Florence (1953)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

Very nicely done article. Just has a few niggling details that need resolving and I'll be happy to pass it for GA.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  • "left crop damage" - "caused crop damage" would read better. Also, what crops were damaged? Corn? Cotton?
  • "shelter/shelters" is used three times in the same sentence; not sure there's any other way to say it though.
  • an "of" needs to be added to "Heavy rainfall was reported in portions Alabama". Also, "a report one inch shy of the 24 hour precipiation record" - what was the record?
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    No OR, and the references are all A or A+ quality. Suggest wikilinking Grady Norton's name in the refs though. Also, is there a reference that states about the ships not confirming the wind estimates?
    Sure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Article sticks to its topic and covers it well without digressing.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Article is neutral in its presentation, avoiding peacock phrasing and weasel words.
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Article appears to be stable and without edit conflicts.
  5. 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):  
    Three weather-map images, all appropriate, PD, and captioned. However, is there any chance that photographs of the "storm in progress", or of the aftermath, could be added?
    Not for that time, unfortunately. Photographs of the storm in progress, if any, would be in newspapers and thus copyrighted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I'm putting this article on hold so that the above comments can be discussed and addressed. Shouldn't be too hard, and then I'll be happy to pass this as GA. :) The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Sweet, thanks a lot for the review. I'll still be a few points behind you, so I think you may just squeak out a win for the first CUP round! :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    No problem! And it's always fun to compete in creating quality content, since no matter who wins, Wikipedia does. :) The only quibble I have remaining is the Coast Guard's ship name; but that's only a quibble; everything looks good, and this is hereby declared Passed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Florence (1953). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply