Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Nora (2003)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7(Talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'll take on this review. --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 (clear/concise prose, the good grammers/spelling; lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, list stuff)

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Meterological History

[edit]

Preparations and impact

[edit]

Criterion 2 (all info cited, inline cites linking to ref section; reliable sources cite challengeable info; NOR)

[edit]
  • I couldn't find any reference to the name Tropical Depression Fourteen-E in reference 1. Use reference 4 to cite the fact that the storm was named as such.
  • I couldn't find the 115 mph (185 km/h) statistic anywhere in reference 7.
  • Although the eye closed, reference 8 discusses a(n) (secondary?) eye that was still visible in the northwest. This probably warrants a mention.
  • To say that thunderstorms were stripped from the center seems kinda original-researchy, based on my slightly sketchy understanding of the source...wouldn't it simpler to say that the storm had reached a region of stable and dry air and had begun to wind down?
  • Reference 15 talks about how, on midnight of day 7, the storm was downgraded to a tropical depression. Not doing this won't keep me from passing the article, but you could mention the midnight tidbit if you'd like.
    • The article does mention that it was downgraded to a tropical depression right after a sentence says "and by October 7 all of the deep convection had dissipated due to the additional influence of dry air." I don't think it's really needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on reference 18, is it worth mentioning that Nora was the only tropical depression of the five storms mentioned?

Criterion 3 (covers all main aspects, stays focused w/o unnecessary detail)

[edit]

Looks good in comparison with its countless GA peers.

Criterion 4 (no undue weight)

[edit]

All good here.

Criterion 5 (stable)

[edit]

It is stable indeed.

[edit]

All clear.

Overall comments

[edit]

Just some ref and prose issues, really. The ref issues I raised might be of my own folly (not being able to totally focus right now), so I apologize in advance if that is the case. Anyways, congratulations on your work on this article, Hurricanehink. I'm definitely honored to help out such a distinguished editor. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great review, thanks a lot! I responded to all of your concerns, so let me know if there is anything further you'd want me to do. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are all set here. I'll pass the article momentarily. Congratulations with this one! --Starstriker7(Talk) 07:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]