Talk:Hurricane Ivo (2007)

Hurricane Ivo (2007) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 5, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 28, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that with an area of deep convection near the center, Hurricane Ivo reached peak intensity of 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) on September 20, 2007?

Current status: Delisted good article

Todo

Try for a better opening sentence. If all else fails, just describe the storm - "Ivo was a minimal hurricane that threatened Mexico", or something. However, it is nice having "Hurricane X was...."
prompted tropical cyclone advisories to be issued - perhaps re-write to indicate it is a tropical storm watch?
There are a few too many UTC's, IMO, and two of them are pretty awkward when read closely.
- was upgraded to Tropical Storm Ivo by 0000 UTC - saying "by 0000 UTC" implies it was before 0000 UTC, but the best track has it reaching TS status at 0000. Another small point, but there is a difference between when it was named, and when it reached TS status. TC's are named operationally, at a time that is fixated forever. TC's reach TS status often at a different time, since operational advisories and best track data points are not at the same time.
- and it was downgraded to a tropical storm at about 1800 UTC - this is another little point, as there is a difference between when a tropical storm was downgraded, and when it actually weakened (since the warning centers always estimate the overall intensity, and they only do so in 6 hour increments). Personally, I prefer to say "it weakened to tropical storm status late on September 21".
The SH could do with some re-writing and clarification, particularly in the paragraph on its strengthening and weakening. Also, why did it take the path it did?
When mentioning Baja California, be sure to specify, since Baja California links to the northern territory of the Baja California peninsula.
Santa Fe - fix link to prevent linking to dab

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Ivo (2007)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Storm history and Preparations and impact section, it would be best to add the year the Hurricane took effect.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Storm history section, it would be best if "September 21" were linked once, per here. The article has a "red link", if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the year the hurricane existed in the Storm history, but I don't feel it's needed again in the Preps and impact section. I also unlinked September 21 once. Thanks for the review! Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I thought maybe it would be important to add it to the P&I section. Thank you to Julian for getting the stuff I left, cause I have gone off and passed the article. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

The article is mostly just preps. Should it be merged? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nothing really outstanding here. Many storm in 2013 PHS did far more and don't have an article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]