Talk:Hurricane Elida (2008)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the third paragraph of the MH section you say "The eye became better defined in the afternoon as a ragged eye appeared on visible satellite images." Can this be rewritten to take out one of the instances of "eye"? Especially since "eye" was used in each of the previous three sentences too...

Would it be possible to split the MH section into two to three subsections? I don't think that you should split it out into another article (as suggested on the talk page), but it is a big chunk of mostly uninterrupted text. Perhaps the subsections could be "strengthening", "weakening" and "dissipation", or something along those lines...
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Was there nothing reported about this hurricane in any source except those published by the National Hurricane Center? If not, that's fine, but it would be interesting to see what other sources had to say about the hurricane. Perhaps in Mexican/Central American sources?
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:

There are just a few minor issues with coverage, prose and MOS, so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with these issues. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticup tried to split the MH in Hurricane Hernan (2008) but it was reverted because it's against project standards for TC's. I'm looking for other info on Elida now and I'll fix the sentence shortly after I gather that information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Spanish sources and they all basically say the same thing, Elida formed or Elida has become a Category one hurricane. Should I still include that?

The repetitive eye thing, is fixed, I changed the second sentence of the trio so it doesn't have eye in it too. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if it's against project standards then it can stay. It's just a really big chunk of text :( Don't include stuff from other sources if they still say the same thing...I was just hoping that they said something different! Besides that, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it is long, but also tend to write every bit of detail I can, as you can tell, every discussion on Elida issued to the public is there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]