Talk:Tropical Storm Hanna (2002)/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Preliminary GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Fix the typo - thew complex interaction, and check to make sure there aren't any others. Also, the Gulf - should Gulf be capitalized?
    Ignoring the MOS for a second, this looks weird - The 10th tropical cyclone and ninth named storm, by having two styles for the numbers. I recommend choosing the same format for that.
    Florida saw high wind gusts, heavy rainfall, and strong surf that killed three swimmers. About 20,000 in the state lost power. - any way to combine that last sentence, since it's rather short.
    I see a few links that are redirects; you should check to make sure they go to the proper location, and fix the link in the article.
    The first sentence of the MH could use a time frame.
    Wikilink UTC the first time it is used.
    Add non-breaking spaces for UTC, as well as for the dates (since they aren't linked now).
    a Hurricane Hunters aircraft was able to find a well-defined center of circulation, and thus designated it Tropical Depression Nine - This is a nitpick, but this sentence could be read better by clarifying the NHC classified it, not RECON. Also, in the same sentence, I'd like to see the exact mileage for where it formed.
    A disorganized depression, little deep convection persisted directly after being designated - this doesn't read too well.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Quick, glaring error I noticed. A last burst of strengthening brought Hanna to its peak intensity of 55 mph (90 km/h) at 0000 UTC on September 14 - the infobox says peak of 60 mph, not 55
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No aftermath? Also, the MH is a bit sparing on its demise. Anything from HPC? One more thing. The Infobox says $20.3 million in damage, but the article only talks about $19 million in Georgia. Where does the extra $1.3 million come from? That is also glaring, the $.3 million, since the TCR says $20 million total, not $20.3 million.
    Quick note, there's a bit of aftermath in the Impact section, but there's not enough to justify a whole section. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am putting it on hold right now, so those comments can be addressed. Good luck improving it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved all of the concerns except the redirects and part 2. I know I didn't nominate it, but there's no rule against me helping with other GANs. I'll try and finish up shortly, unless the nominator beats me to them. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got the last of it. Thanks Miss Madeline for the help. (And thanks for the review) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good enough now to pass the GA criteria. The article isn't perfect, and could still use some copyediting/tune-ups, but it is good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Hanna_(2002)/GA1&oldid=1069792175"