Talk:Tropical Storm Emilia (2006)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review
 | Tropical Storm Emilia (2006) 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. | ||||||||||||
 | Tropical Storm Emilia (2006) is part of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season series, a featured 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Assessment
editNeeds major copyedit for B-class, lots of spelling and usage errors (hand should be had, for instance). --Coredesat 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Get rid of the storm history from the lede. Get rid of the downgrade of wind speeds - not notable for the lede. Fix capitalisation issues with non-proper nouns (the watches and warnings). Fix citations, don't dump all at the end of a chunk of text. Your references do not match - no. 15, for example ("High pressures and moisture affected parts of Nevada, Utah and Arizona on July 27, as Emilia traveled up the Baja coast.[15]"), does NOT mention anything about "high pressures and moisture". Did you make it up, like how you made up the winds? – Chacor 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Forget B-class, this should probably be merged. It has too much extraneous stuff in it to add length (including storm history in lede), and there is some useless information in the storm history. A lot of the information is totally made up, as well (citation #15 doesn't mention high pressure, for instance). --Coredesat 06:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Emilia (2006)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- "Tropical Depression Six-E, about southwest of Acapulco." I think something is missing here...
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I have one issue with an omission in the prose, so I am placing the article on hold until this concern can be dealt with. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed for Hurricanehink. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Julian! Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)