Talk:Hurricane Guillermo (1997)/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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):
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:

Alright, so. My comments:

Well my first impression was that it's fairly short, but after reading the article I think it's probably fairly comprehensive. I guess there's not much you can say about a hurricane.
The section on Impact and Records uses language that is not necessarily appropriate, for example 'crashed', 'chased', 'pumelled'. This is language that I would expect to see in a newspaper article but the tone doesn't seem quite right for an encyclopedia article.
This sentence did confuse me:

"On 5 August, a 19-year old man was swept away about a mile north of the Huntington Beach Pier."; maybe it's just my poor English, but I'm not sure if this means that he was swept away to that far out (a mile north of the pier), or if he started off being a mile north of the pier and was swept away, and if so was he on a beach or something? I think it would be more clear as something like, "a 19 year old man on a beach a mile north of the huntington beach pier was swept away by the sea".

On the whole though it's quite a good article, so I'll put it on hold to let you either make changes or show that my concerns are completely invalid :) Naerii 11:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a little short, but as the storm never made landfall, it's pretty good there is as much information as there is! If it made landfall, it might violate size guidelines. :) Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I removed/changed the words considered newspapery. I rewrote the offending sentence to make it more clear (it was like that way in the source, the PD NCDC). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image captions could do with work... they're pretty vague and non-descriptive. —Giggy 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded two of the picture captions. The one that is a path of the storm I did not expand because that is the way template:storm path displays them. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Thanks for the quick response; I'm now passing this article. Thanks for the good work! Naerii 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not believe it is a GA, the meteorological history section was so short for a cat 5 that lasted nearly a month, by the way, it did a double eyewall replacement. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And satellite images was available by then, which helps a lot for MH section. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]