Talk:1914 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 05:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 05:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
...and here it is!
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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:
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce facts in the introduction that are not present in the body of the article. In the lead it is written that "hurricane season normally runs from late spring until mid-autumn [...]", but this is not in the body of the article and it is something that people, especially not experts, may disagree with. From the article history/talk page, it looks like it was already a contentious issue. Perhaps this could be quickly cited within the body if the assertion is to be made in the lead? The lead itself is a bit stilted... the latter half, at least, is just "fact after fact" without much flow but, given the nature of the article, that may be a bit unavoidable.
That's really it - there were some smaller issues that needed fixing with the prose, but I've tidied those up. To allow you to address this concern, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Paul, thanks for the review. I don't think the normal bounds of hurricane season constitute a fact, but rather an uncontroversial and rather trivial linguistic filler – something to make the subsequent information easier to process. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with the fact that the Atlantic hurricane season runs from summer through part of autumn. The contentiousness comes from the fact that the article long stated the official season ran from June 1 to November 30, which may or may not be true; those are the dates applied to modern hurricane seasons, but there's no indication that definition existed during 1914. Hence the ambiguous "summer through mid-autumn", which is the most active period of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic by all means. Juliancolton (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe that is a bit more of my concern here, that is just "linguistic filler". Perhaps it would be more interesting to note that it was the latest start to a hurricane season in the lead... this is something that IS mentioned and cited in the body, as well as being a bit more akin to the purposes of a lead (as a hook to draw people in, a summary of the article etc. etc.). I know, a lot of discussion for just one small point, but I feel that GA is a process where the one reviewer is going to miss a lot, so he might as well be nitpicky, haha. Canadian Paul 05:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- True enough. Take another look when you get a chance. Juliancolton (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I like I like. It's nice. In fact, it's good - therefore, I guess it's time to pass it as a Good Article! Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I like I like. It's nice. In fact, it's good - therefore, I guess it's time to pass it as a Good Article! Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- True enough. Take another look when you get a chance. Juliancolton (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe that is a bit more of my concern here, that is just "linguistic filler". Perhaps it would be more interesting to note that it was the latest start to a hurricane season in the lead... this is something that IS mentioned and cited in the body, as well as being a bit more akin to the purposes of a lead (as a hook to draw people in, a summary of the article etc. etc.). I know, a lot of discussion for just one small point, but I feel that GA is a process where the one reviewer is going to miss a lot, so he might as well be nitpicky, haha. Canadian Paul 05:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)