Talk:1981 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

This page is for the review of the 1981 Atlantic hurricane season article. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is generally decent, but there are some places with awkward working. One of the major problems here are the MoS breaches. Please make sure all numbers less than 10 are spelled out. The lead needs to be expanded, as well. Also, why is subtropical in italics in the Arlene section?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Here's where the biggest problem is. The entire season summary section needs to be sourced, and at least every paragraph throughout the entire article needs a source. I'm seeing entire strorms' sections with only a single ref.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'd really like to see mroe info. The Katrina section, especially, should be expanded with some more impact information. Also, isn't there any rainfall information for Bret?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There are some POVish words in the article. For example, in "very heavy rainfall...", "very" is POVish.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Good work, but there are too many issues to be passed at the present time. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail it. When the issues are fixed, feel free to take it back to GAN. Good luck, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with parts of your review (and thanks for reviewing it), I take exception with more info being needed for each storm. According to the project page, Season articles should include an overall summary plus a short summary for each storm, with a link to the storm page where appropriate. I guess my question to you is what constitutes "short' in your eyes. If you want me to source the summary, which is already sourced well in the article below, that's an easy fix. I would say very easy, but that would violate POV. hehehee Thegreatdr (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, since storms like Irene and Bret don't have main articles, they should have more info than the sections with articles (damaging storms excluded). Maybe 5–10 sentences, depending on the length. The lead should be two paragraphs, as well. Yeah, the referencing should be ~~very~~ easy. :) Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is fixed. I'll get to the other issues after dinner. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better already. You should also fix this: Dennis made landfall in Florida, moved back offshore before a final landfall in Virginia. Briefly becoming a hurricane. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took out the couple POVish words mentioned. Made the wording change just suggested. Numbers less than 10 which are whole, and not part of a convert template, are now worded out. Added a couple lines to the lead. Since Katrina has its own article, I don't see why that section needs to be expanded since all relevant information is included in the main storm article. The one thing I can't figure out is how to edit that button bar at the bottom. The designations listed on it are wrong, and don't fit the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better. I still think the lead should be two paragraphs, though, as that is essential to a GA. Also, I don't think the button bar matters that much. Good luck, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added another line to the lead, split it into two paragraphs, and fixed button bar. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean split the lead into two paragraphs as I meant expand the lead. You might want to take a look at WP:LEAD#Length. According to that, the lead should be about three&ndas;four paragraphs. (Sorry if I'm being a pain, but I just want to keep the GA standard high.) Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This came up during the tropical cyclone FAC review, but I'm willing to rehash it here. The article length may be 44 kb, but at least 10 kb of it is references according to the first page of the article history. Should we really be providing extra lead text for reference length? Because of the preferred format within the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject for annual articles, we have the same information described four times within this article, with summaries in the lead, season summary, and annual summary table. I don't think they had this repetitive article/information structure in mind MoS-wise when they made up the length of lead rules. I've posted a message in the good article nomination talk room to see if MoS was designed to cover this type of article structure. If I include more text in the lead, it will mirror the season summary section, and the way I read MoS, it is against excessive repetition. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I suppose you're right. It now looks good enough to pass...Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added another line to the lead. After thinking it over, it seems like the season summary recommended within season articles should really serve as their lead. Added a couple lines regarding Bret's rainfall impact per your suggestion. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it looks good. :) This may be FACable with some more referencing and expanding. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch was looking for "help" in getting this to FA. I'll probably leave the rest of the work to him. I've got 40+ other orphaned articles which I've previously contributed to that still need to reach GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]