Talk:Hurricane Felicia (2009)

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Jason Rees in topic GA Review
Good articleHurricane Felicia (2009) 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
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Updating Tonight

edit

Just as a heads up, I will be updating this article tonight as the tropical cyclone report has been released. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Felicia (2009)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jsayre64 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

At a glance, this article appears to have exceptionally consistent citations and plenty of illustrations. I'll actually start the review later this evening or tomorrow. --Jsayre64 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


I have no major concerns about this article so far.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Plenty of sources
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Yes; no excessive citing in the lead and consistent citations in the rest of the article
    C. No original research:  
    It doesn't look like there's any
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    No editing disputes
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Image description pages are fine
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Looks good
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Lead

edit
  • Other than that, the lead looks pretty solid. To make it even better, though, one could add more details such as wind speeds that are found in the "Meteorological history" section. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • The wind speeds I usually put into the lead are the ones most people look for (based off what I've learned over the years). In general, it's peak intensity, landfall winds and closest approach to land winds. Since Felicia did not make landfall or near land as a tropical cyclone, I've only included the peak speed and for this storm, it's almost a simple curve; winds went up to 145mph then back down, no major re-intensification. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Meteorological history

edit
  • In the first paragraph, "Although poorly defined, the system managed to barely maintained its identity as it tracked westward." Explain how it was "poorly defined" and yet was considered a tropical wave. There's also a verb-tense error. Perhaps "… the system weakened but maintained its identity as a tropical wave" or likewise would fix that and provide some clarification. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Preparations

edit
  • In the first paragraph, "Due to the anticipation of weakening prior to it impacting the islands, only minor effects, mainly rainfall, were expected." This sentence structure is very complicated. I suggest, "Because forecasters expected the storm to weaken before it reached the islands, only minor effects—mainly rainfall—were expected." I think that would sound much more clear. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Impact

edit

Sourcing

edit

Assessment comment

edit

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Felicia (2009)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Keep it updated; search for more preps/impact info as it becomes available. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 20:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)