Talk:Hurricane Marilyn

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Juliancolton in topic Failed GA
Former good article nomineeHurricane Marilyn was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 22, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Todo edit

More impact, better intro. Jdorje 21:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

added more impact and fixed intro. Storm05 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Failed GA edit

I failed the GA nomination based on the following review.

  • Well-written - Fail: Two typos, and overall prose is poor
  • Factually accurate - Pass, although there are some inconsistencies. Why does the NHC say 8 deaths, but another site say 13? Finding those other deaths would help.
  • Broad - Weak fail: Most of it is merely statistics. The preparations section only includes one sentence about actual preparations. Try not to be so listy in places. The watches/warnings section and much of the impact merely lists some facts about the storm. Was there any actual damage on Martinique or Guadeloupe? You go a bit into some damage in USVI, but for a billion dollar storm it is not comprehensive enough. Have you considered NCDC for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands? Economic impact should be merged with impact, as well. Furthermore, there are no metric units, which is a standard of the Wikiproject for articles greater than B class.
  • Non-POV - Pass, a little hard to fail in a hurricane article.
  • Stable - Pass
  • Images - Pass - have you searched through FEMA's image archive? IIRC there are some good damage images of Marilyn in PR and USVI

Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think all of that has been fixed. Go for another GA run? Juliancolton (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nothing's changed in months. The article's in neglect. Not gonna happen.Mitch32contribs 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, i will try to do more to this, and then maybe in a couple weeks give it a GAC. Juliancolton (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply