Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:44, 3 September 2011

Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 29, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Template:Hurricane

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Marcusmax(speak) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the coming hours, and will share my findings and judgment. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
In the first paragraph of Meteorological history a sentence needs to be clarified, "The next day shower activity increased with a tropical _______ and was declared a depression by the afternoon on October 20." Please Fill in the blank. In the same paragraph a sentence states, "Upon do so, the depression had became better organized and then gained a decent outflow." Please fix this, it is impossible to understand. The next paragraph is very confusing and does not flow correctly. For instance what does, "However, this did not happen." mean. What, did not happen? In the last paragraph of Meteorological history does not flow as it should, too many sentences start with "Sebastien", and many sentences can be combined. I have gone ahead and fixed the Preparations and Impact section which was significantly better. I also worked on the lead, but what needs the work is definitely Meteorological history.

B. MoS compliance:
There were some issues, but I fixed them. For the future make sure to check your past tense usage.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I say given the relatively short lived nature of this system the content is adequate, but if this ever goes to WP:FAC I suggest the impact section be expanded.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
See my comments below.

Kommentare

Overall it is a nice article and adequately covers the subject, but the sentence clarity, and structure issues must be addressed before I can pass it. As you make changes please list them below this comment and I will check them off the list. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have adressed the issues above, and gave it a minor copyedit. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 01:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good job making the corrections, im going to pass this article. It's always nice when you can pass a GAN in one day. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

These names were all used only once, so far. There's no telling how long it will be until these names get used again. Until then, the year identifiers are not necessary GeicoHen (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one of these names is reused, someone will have to go back and change all the old references to it. And, if most hurricane/typhoon/etc article names have the year number, they all may as well have the year number for clarity and consistency. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Use the shortest unambiguous name. Kauffner (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 * These names were all used only once, so far. There's no telling how long it will be until these names get used again. Until then, the year identifiers are not necessary [[User:GeicoHen|GeicoHen]] ([[User talk:GeicoHen|talk]]) 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If one of these names '''is''' reused, someone will have to go back and change all the old references to it. And, if most hurricane/typhoon/etc article names have the year number, they all may as well have the year number for clarity and consistency. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 05:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
+'''Support''' Use the shortest unambiguous name. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 09:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)