Talk:Hurricane Douglas (2002)

Hurricane Douglas (2002) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
Date	Process	Result
April 25, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
April 27, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Douglas (2002)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The first thing I noticed is the lack of a sufficient lead section. It should be expanded by several sentences. Also, the prose is poor throughout the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It never effected land like most tropical systems in the Eastern Pacific. - There needs to be a source that says most tropical storms in the East Pacific don't affect land. Also, is it just tropical storms that don't affect land, or does that include hurricanes?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
There needs to be at least one or two sentences explaining the lack of impact—Tropical Storm Erick (2007) provides a good example of such.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sorry, but considering the above comments, the article does not meet the good article criteria at this time. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 21:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, but I think I've fixed the probs in the article. I've expanded the lead and noted the impact, though impact's a bit short, and removed the "did not hit land like most storms" part. I'll resubmit after a copyedit by someone else is done.Buggie111 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the article. I don't know how most Hurricane articles go, but this one seems solid enough. NielsenGW (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Douglas (2002)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

The conversions are wrong! Please use the {{convert}} formula for all conversions, see WP:CONVERT. For instance, 70 miles is 110 km and not 113km as stated.

Overall, there were some minor copy edit issues, which I have fixed for you. I will put this On Hold for up to seven days for the above issue to be resolved. I believe that all other requirements have been met except for this. -- S Masters (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Actully the conversions are correct as we are converting form kts to mph and km/h and the convert templates can not handle this.Jason Rees (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did an overall copyedit to standardize the article, so there are no major issues. However, most of the info on predictions and forecasts is unnecessary, unless the storm drastically defied a particular forecast. Good luck with the GAN. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final summary: Thanks for all the work done on this. I am confident that it now meets the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it. Well done! - S Masters (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 PHS GT

Ok, it looks like we are screwed. The 2002 PHS is a timeline way from a GT, yet I'm afraid that if and when this goes to GT, someone will object about lack of consistency among articles in particular the fact that Alma does not have an article and this does. What should we do? We have the easy way out by merging this, or we could make an Alma article (which am I happy to do if we agreed to do it, which given the state of WPTC is unlikely). Any thoughts? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging would work fine, given the lack of impact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed down the redundancies in the MH, and I think it should be merged now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone, but will you demote it from GA plz. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]