Talk:Hurricane Otis (2005)

Untitled

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.

---

Todo

I'm deeply sorry, so sorry, but I need to be blunt here: the page is a mess. There's ONE...ONE source in the whole article, it lacks an intro, the preparations and impact should be in the opposite order, or better yet, merge the two into an "Impact, records, and naming" section, the storm history should be renamed to a meteorological history section, and, in general, a TON more info is needed. Finally, the page smacks of a lack of wikilinks, especially for all those things in Impact. Could you add some links to make it more efficient and approachable for a non-specialist? In general, it could work, but it needs a lot for it to be efficient. Right now, I'm just fair warning you, because as it stands, it can get merged without a second thought. Alternatively, don't be afraid to ask for additional help from other users. Maybe someone can help you out! (wink) Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Otis (2005)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review this article, though others are free to do so as well.

• Criteria 1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good Article criteria. There are significant grammar and spelling problems through the article.
• 2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard references.[2] Ideally, a reviewer should have access to the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources. At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs generally are not reliable sources), and that the article contains no plagiarism: any text copied from sources should be set off by quotation marks or
  tags and cited. There is only one reference in this article, and it is used many times. It needs more references. When references are used multiple times, they are grouped together using the ref name function. Ideally, the author, article name, and date accessed should be part of the ref as well.
• 3. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions. The coverage of the topic is not broad, and I'm not sure it can be considering the fact the center never crossed land. Either way, more references would help fill out the article, if they exist.
• 4. Written from a neutral point of view.
• 5. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars. Less than a month ago, it was suggested this article be merged in with the 2005 Pacific hurricane season. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• 6. Compliant with image use policy. If images are used, they should have free licenses, or have fair use rationales in covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. It does pass this marker, since both images are fair use.

Overall, this article needs a lead (which is currently way too short), a significant copy edit, convert templates to include SI units, more references and content, a better format, and errors within the text box in the top right corner fixed. It is missing a preparations section, which mentions the series of watches/warnings issued at a bare minimum. The wikilinks included currently do not meet MoS requirements in any way. Consult a dictionary for proper spelling. This type of improvement takes greater than a week for most editors, more on the order of months for articles with multiple active editors. I'm going to place this on hold for a week to see if it is improved enough to reach GA, because it cannot be quick failed per wikipedia's instructions on GA reviews. It would be a significant victory if it reached C/B class by October 25. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed the article due to lack of appreciable improvement. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Talked upon on IRC. This should be merged. The article is bad, and no effort has been made to improve it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Otis (2005)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• Not sure on the convention on this, but note the year in the lead??
• Wikilink tropical storm

• Done indirectly, by linking tropical cyclone to "hurricane" ("tropical storm" would be linked to the same page).

• Expand the lead to at least two paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.

• Not needed. The article is relatively brief, so it can be summarized adequately in the one paragraph that is there right now. If there's any specific facts or details you'd like to see added, let me know, but otherwise I don't see the need to add text for the sake of adding text. Juliancolton (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

History

• "By late on September 28..." should be "By late September 28...."

Preparations and mpx

• I think you can omit the two specific ships which reported high winds.

• This is a valid observation, so I'd prefer to leave it in. Juliancolton (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Other

• Links to several redirect/disambugation pages:
  • Agua Blanca
  • Comondu (redirect page)
  • Miraflores

Concluding Thoughts

• Good writing. Certainly viable for promotion. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I've left a few comments above, but otherwise I've addressed most of your concerns. Juliancolton (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Great! Moving to promote now! Lord Roem (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Otis (2005)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

No lead section, blatant violations of WP:WPTC/S, no organization, severe grammar and conventions issues, excessive reliance on a single source, low accessibility, improperly illustrated... need I say more? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Rewritten now, so the above should be long-addressed. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)