Talk:2002 Pacific hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It would be great if there were some sort of storm summary table, either an extensive one such as there is at the end of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season article, or a simple one such as there is at the beginning of the "Storm" section of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season article.

The lead should be expanded. For an article this length, the lead would ideally be three large paragraphs.

~~In the "Storm names" section, please give a reason for why there were two different sets of names being used.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~References are needed in several places:~~

~~Season summary section, 2nd paragraph, last two sentences~~

~~Hurricane Elida, first two paragraphs~~

~~Hurricane Fausto, first paragraph~~

~~Current ref #3 needs a title, instead of a bare link.~~
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~I would like to see a larger summary of the season. What were the pre-season forecasts? What was the total damage caused by all the storms? What was the largest storm?~~
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have some concerns about the broadness of this article, as well as some other minor issues with referencing and MOS. I am putting this article on hold until these issues can be resolved. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an ACE table and a timeline. I have added references to the missing places you brought up and added a paragraph to the lead. I checked the NHC/CPC and there were no seasonal forecasts. They began in 2005 and testing starting in 2003. I added that Kenna was the most damaging and costliest to the seasonal summary. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a copyedit of the article, working on grammar as well as removing some unencyclopedic tone. I have made it up to Tropical Storm Iselle (this is more a note for myself than anything). I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on the article this weekend, but I promise to have it done (with any remaining comments for you) by Monday night. If you have any questions, please let me know. I apologize for taking so long to finish this...some RL things have unexpectedly come up :( Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to deal with RL first, WP second. Just be forewarned that on weekdays I won't be on WP until mid-afternoon. Also, I assume that your not strikethroughing out the part about the lead being expanded means that you think it should be still longer? If so, I can handle that later this weekend. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little extra time online this weekend, so I've completed the copy-edit of the article. The only prose issue I found was:

In Hurricane Kenna, second paragraph - Do the first few sentences refer to historical records or season records? Please make this clear.

The lead could be a little longer (I meant to include that in my last post, but apparently forgot). However, it's not a big deal.

Because neither of the above issues are anything except pickiness, I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work on the article, and congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]