Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hurricane Felix (1995)/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Felix (1995)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted in 2006.

  • Lead is too short.
  • Meteorological history is not comprehensive, and relies solely on one source.
  • Several dubious facts, such as "Had the hurricane continued on its path, it would have made landfall on the night of August 16."
  • MoS breaches throughout.
  • References are not formatted properly.

–Juliancolton | Talk 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Agree with above comments by Juliancolton (talk · contribs), the lede indeed does not satisfy WP:LEAD, and though the article appears to have adequate citation coverage, the cites are not formatted properly, and there does appear to be heavy dependence on a small number of sources, especially in subsection ''Meteorological history. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The lead definitely doesn't summarize the article adequately as it omits the Dare County evacuation of 200,000+ people.
  • The second sentence of the lead doesn't make sense as written. And there are other instances of unclear prose.
  • The paragraph on rebuilding in the Aftermath section doesn't really say the debate was about rebuilding beaches, and any beach, not just barrier islands. A main aspect of the article is factually inaccurate, poorly written, or both.

That said, the hypothetical land fall time seems to be extrapolated using simple arithmetic, and so is indisputable, and I don't think it's original research. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, as author of the article, I'm a bit too lazy to fix it up, so I don't mind it losing its GA status. Most of the content was written over three years ago, meaning unless an article was written perfect back then, simple band-aids will not work to keep its GA status. I do appreciate the new comments, and eventually I'll try to get around to them, but there's a bit much to do in its current form. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hurricane_Felix_(1995)/1&oldid=1089276081"