Talk:Hurricane Arlene (1987)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA, and below are my comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
  • "On August 13, the storm brushed Bermuda" is repeated twice in the lead. The lead needs a rewrite to be more concise.
Fixed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Offshore, a blind man was undertaking a challenge to become the first blind man to cross the Atlantic alone; he encountered rough seas and high winds from the storm, causing $8,000 in damages to his ship over a two-day span." Is this notable enough to be in such detail in the lead? Is there something more to say about this "blind sailor", like how does a blind sailor sail? Never mind; probably off topic, but does nit warrant such a mention in the lead?
I think it does actually. While searching for information, I found tons of news reports on this guy, I'm also confused as to how he was sailing blind, but there is no additional detail for the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it not unusual for a storm to start in North Caroline and end up flooding the Iberian Peninsula and Italy? Should not more be said about the weather factors causing this? (As a general reader who knows little about weather but who pays attention to tropical storms and hurricanes, I am curious about this.)
Storms have reached the Iberian Peninsula several times before, some have tracked from the Gulf of Mexico to the Scandinavian Peninsula. As for reaching Italy, it was only the moisture from the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Hurricane Arlene (1987).JPG seems generally useless in conveying any information. What is it supposed to be showing, as it is unclear where the location is?
Added a bit of detail to it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Concisely written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Neutral
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Stable
  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: Pass

Nice job!

Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)