Talk:Hurricane Iris (1995)

Hurricane Iris (1995) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic 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 Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Todo

Copyedit, expand, remove useless things (trivia is called trivia for a reason). There's more info in the NHC archives which should be used. Try and add more to the storm history; it was a long lived storm, and there's probably enough between the TCR and the discussions to have at least three paragraphs. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some things need more explanation. The infobox, as well as other places, say the hurricane killed four, though you say the hurricane killed four in Martinique and one in Guadeloupe. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia section is completely unsourced. I suggest you remove it. Those sources you added don't qualify as sources, as they don't say the info happened. No original research. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why Tropical Storm Otto (2004) article have a triva which is unsourced. Storm05 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have tagged the relevant sentence for citation. – Ch acor 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

Not sure why the cleanup tag is there, but I think the article needs to be spell checked for many parts (I think it's spelt "simultaneous"), and a bit more on storm history. That's all I can find. RaNdOm26 15:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup = needs copyediting. Everything. Spelling, grammar, wikification, metrification, etc. – Ch acor 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General copy-editing completed, including metrification and wikilink editing. I have taken the liberty of removing the cleanup tag. -- wacko2 05:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Iris (1995)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'll review this article over the long weekend. InTheAM 15:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written The article is very well-written. I fixed a couple of minor things that you can change back if you want. They were mostly a matter of preference. No copyright violations. Lead is good. Layout is good. The only issues are below:

I would switch the first two sentences since the article is Hurricane Iris and not tropical storms affecting the Lesser Antilles.
The second paragraph in the lead lacks flow. I think it could be fixed up a little.
"Iris was the first storm in three weeks to affect the region. The other two–hurricanes Luis and Marilyn–left significantly more damage."—These two sentences are not very clear. It was clearer in the lead as to what this means.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable Very good sources and good variety. No original research. Good inline citations. However, reference 11 doesn't look right. It might be, but I'm not familiar with the cite journal template and doi. Let me know if it's right.

3. Broad in its coverage Good coverage and not excessive detail.

4. Neutral No POV issues.

5. Stable No edit wars or content dispute.

6. Images Images are relevant and tagged appropriately.

Excellent job. Review is on hold for those three or four minor things to be fixed. Let me know if you need more input and I'll help out. InTheAM 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I addressed the second two thingies in point 1. However, I wasn't sure what you meant about "the first two sentences" bit. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed it. I think that it sounds better. And did you check on Reference 11? I'm not sure if it's right. It might be, but I don't know. Also in the last paragraph the order of the citations needs switched. InTheAM 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I fixed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PASS. Good job. InTheAM 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]