Talk:Hurricane Lenny/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Hylian Auree in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 11:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- First off, good job on expanding the article! I'll be reviewing this in the coming days. Auree ★ 11:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
Resolved comments from Auree ★ 23:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Reference 44 contains a dead link. Moreover, I question the reliability of the website Australian Severe Weather as a source, which has been used as such on at least one other occasion in the article (reference 43). I think it's best to remove both of these entirely and possibly find more reliable sources as replacements.
- Ref 44 opens fine for me. I used that source because it contained useful information. Although I realize GP cited ReliefWeb, I could not find where he got the info. However, GP sources have been used for FA's, seeing as he has also been cited by the NOAA, so the source has been determined to be reliable. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- But I wasn't even talking about GP being reliable or not; I was talking about Australian Severe Weather. It looks like a forum/blog-esque site to me. Auree ★ 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ooh, I gotcha. Yea, the AUS Severe Weather just has a reproduction of GP's summary. Several sites have it, and that is the one I typically use. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- But I wasn't even talking about GP being reliable or not; I was talking about Australian Severe Weather. It looks like a forum/blog-esque site to me. Auree ★ 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ref 44 opens fine for me. I used that source because it contained useful information. Although I realize GP cited ReliefWeb, I could not find where he got the info. However, GP sources have been used for FA's, seeing as he has also been cited by the NOAA, so the source has been determined to be reliable. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Reference 44 contains a dead link. Moreover, I question the reliability of the website Australian Severe Weather as a source, which has been used as such on at least one other occasion in the article (reference 43). I think it's best to remove both of these entirely and possibly find more reliable sources as replacements.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- This is probably the best quality the article has to offer. Excellent coverage!
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- One minor quibble though: Should it mention why the WMO retired Lenny? I'm not quite sure readers will understand why it was retired, or even what retirement is without the elaboration. I also think there's a wikilink for tropical cyclone name retirement, though I'm not too sure.
- I didn't want to do too much original research, but adding "due to the damage" stuff I think should be sufficient. As for what retirement is, I think it's clear enough with "will never again be used for an Atlantic hurricane". That's all retirement. I added the link. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- One minor quibble though: Should it mention why the WMO retired Lenny? I'm not quite sure readers will understand why it was retired, or even what retirement is without the elaboration. I also think there's a wikilink for tropical cyclone name retirement, though I'm not too sure.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- I really like the images
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Pass since it meets all of the criteria appreciably, aside from one that reference being a tad ambiguous qua reliability. I won't hold up the review because of it, since it's only one source for a very short sentence and the article would easily pass without it. Good work! Auree ★ 23:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)