Talk:Tropical Storm Lidia (2005)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting review, will leave comments. -RunningOnBrains 05:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

General comments:

• "The wave was accompanied by at least one other tropical wave" Why is this important? Did this other wave(s) develop into Max?
• Consider using Template:Convert for unit conversions, it's very useful in making sure units are correctly converted.
• "By the afternoon, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Lidia based on the Dvorak technique—a system used to estimate the intensity of a tropical cyclone—which rendered a T2.5, which corresponds to an intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h)." Run-on sentence, breaking it up would be desirable.
• "The tropical wave nearby Lidia was now forecast to merge with Lidia and become a single storm, thus a more northerly motion was expected." This wording is unclear, with inconsistent tense.
• In a few places you mention a time but the date is unclear.
• Spice up the prose if possible! The second paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section is very "Point. Point. Point." if you catch my drift.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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:

 On hold Until concerns are addressed. Otherwise, nice article.-RunningOnBrains 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed points 1, 3, 4, and 5. With point 2, I prefer to convert them myself, I do use google convert to get the correct conversion so there is no risk of having an incorrect number. I also have them rounded to the nearest five, in accordance to how the NHC has their distances. Also, for the last point, I'm actually not sure what you mean. Do you mean it's just fact after fact or something? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Point 2 was optional, just thought it would be convenient. Yes, I was referring to the repetitive statement of facts for point 6, but its not a disqualifying GA quality. I've made a few other trivial changes, feel free to revert any you strongly disagree with. Other than that, good job!

Pass All major concerns addressed.-RunningOnBrains 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

:D thanks 15th GA! I'll read it over again later today (after the halloween parade at school) to see if there is anything I disagree with. I doubt I'll find anything though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)