Talk:Hurricane Douglas (2002)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]