Talk:Hurricane Lester (1998)

Hurricane Lester (1998) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Hurricane Lester (1998) is part of the 1998 Pacific hurricane season series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 23, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 4, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
February 12, 2010	Featured topic removal candidate	Kept

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Lester (1998)/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 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 lead, 15th and 12th are mentioned, but then the sentence starts with "eighth", that sorta needs to be fixed. In the Storm history section, it would be best to link "mph" and "km/h" once, per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, 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 statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of the issues. WP:MOSNUM says numbers under 10 should be spelled out, hence why 8th is spelled out. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad on that part. I swore I read something about that and forgot about it. Thanks for catching that for me Julian. ;) Anyways, congrats you know have a GA in your midst. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]