Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Josephine (2008)/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • "By the late night hours, the center of Josephine was almost completely exposed and only a stretched burst of convection near the center as the strong wind shear continued to cause Josephine to weaken." I think there might be something missing in this sentence, about the stretched burst of convection, because it's really not making sense to me.
    • "The weakening trend continued through the afternoon as Josephine continued to be affected by strong southerly shear." Can you find some way to not use "continued" twice in the same sentence?
    • "Finally, on September 9, wind shear and dry air led to the demise of Josephine. However, on September 10, Josephine redeveloped..." If something has had its demise, it is dead. Therefore, it cannot redevelop (unless you're in one of those freaky sci-fi movies with the walking dead *grin*). Please reword.
    • No, actually, if the storm dies, it is very possible for the remnants—be it a cloud swirl or a thunderstorm—to regenerate. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then maybe say something like, "the remnants of Josephine redeveloped..."? Dana boomer (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Current ref 19 deadlinks.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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:

There are just a few small prose issues and one deadlinking ref, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow time to deal with these concerns. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized when I went to transclude the review page that there was already a GA review at GA1. So, apparently a GA review was completed, but not transcluded or the process completed. Therefore, I am going to ask that my comments be resolved, and then I will complete the GA process. If you have an issue with this, please let me know. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's done, as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Thanks for stepping in, Julian. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Julian, sorry I didn't get to this article before. I was busy and forgot about this, I just fixed the few things that weren't changed from before. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Glad I could help! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, nice smiley. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that one's pretty famous. You can use use User:Juliancolton/Faces as a template, as in {{subst:User:Juliancolton/Faces|sad}}. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had I known, I would not have supported it. Meteorological history is all we have and all we're going to get. You can make that as extensive as you want, but it still won't give the kind of balance articles on a more notable storm can give. I have always had a personal preference for notability. I believe it is close to a nessessity in subpage creation. Keep in mind also that all meteorological history on any 2008 storm right now is subject to change. What we have now is just what was determined opperationally. That information can change in post analysis and often does. I only quit pressing this issue because I had no support and creation of articles on meaningless storms became accepted practice. I never have agreed with it, though I have narrowed my definition of "meaningless". -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for reassessment?[edit]

It's a GA? There is stilla couple of error I found, (Josepine, foretast). HurricaneSpin (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article against the TCR[edit]

It appears that the TCR is not used for any of the sources of this article, and that the article passed GA well before the TCR was issued. If there are conflicts between the TCR and this article, it (along with the above comment) could lead to GAR. Regardless, the TCR is a more primary reference and should be used within this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Josephine_(2008)/GA2&oldid=1069792213"