Talk:Hurricane Babe/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have a content issue which needs to be resolved. Babe's formation section talks about the interaction of a surface low and a tropical wave leading to its subtropical character, which is incorrect. It is stated correctly within the season article that it had a subtropical character after Babe interacted with an upper level low. That needs to be fixed within the article, with the wikilink to low pressure area removed since it speaks of surface lows, not upper level lows.
- I'm not sure what you mean exactly Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Read the subtropical cyclone article and get back to me. Interaction between tropical waves and surface lows does not lead to a subtropical cyclone development. Subtropical cyclones are embedded within upper level lows. If we can't get past this issue, the article either needs to be failed, or the comments concerning what led to its subtropical character need to be removed. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed the issue. All that was really needed to conform to the referencing and the comments above were to replace "low pressure area" with "upper level cyclonic vortex" for the system near Florida.
Done Thegreatdr (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed the issue. All that was really needed to conform to the referencing and the comments above were to replace "low pressure area" with "upper level cyclonic vortex" for the system near Florida.
While the article is well referenced, reference 12 isn't pointing to the correct location, which also needs to be fixed.
- It is, I can't get more specific than that as it is referencing the overall tornado count. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- But the reference has NO information. Click the link. That's the issue. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- As long as the referenced used is easy to navigate, which it is as there are instructions on how to use the archive right on the page, it's usable. I honestly cannot get more specific than that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then how are the other references showing the specific information without additional navigation, while that one is not? They're all through NCDC. It seems odd to have such a dichotomy within the refs. If you can't get more specific through NCDC, find a reference where you don't need to additionally navigate. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- As long as the referenced used is easy to navigate, which it is as there are instructions on how to use the archive right on the page, it's usable. I honestly cannot get more specific than that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
To keep in the spirit of the other hurricane articles, we should have a line towards the end stating Babe was not retired, and that its name wasn't used again due to a change made to the naming list, with the appropriate references. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Added those lines Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Not wanting to start a precedent in the project, I'm going to fail the article due to the referencing issue. Once it's fixed, let me know when you resubmit it for GAN, and I'll pass it. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)