Talk:Hurricane Bertha (2008)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this was a GAN, so I'll do a quick review.

Be sure every reference is properly formatted. There are several that are just a plain URL.
The meteorological history is far too short for a storm that lasted 17 days. There should be more use of discussions.
Is all of the content from "While moving towards the west-northwest" to the end of the paragraph backed up by that ref?
Refs 16 through 18 don't support the content.
Ref 20 is bad. You shouldn't cite the entirety of HURDAT to prove one record. Either find a better source to back that up that says it explicitly, or remove it.
Ref 21 does not support that content. It lists several Bermuda rainfall totals, but Bertha's total is not the tenth highest, nor can you claim it's the tenth highest ever based on that source (which could be missing some).

That's just a quick review of some of the problems in the article. I'm sorry, but I'm going to fail it, since I believe the problems are too substantial to only put it on hold. Feel free to let me know when/if you do address all of this. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hink. I honestly wasn't expecting it to pass, I was just submitting to see what all it needed. I'll fix all your concerns up. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with quick fail, in this case, it should have gone to PR first. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]