Talk:Hurricane Elida (2008)

Hurricane Elida (2008) 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
October 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 19, 2017	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Todo

I don't really know what to add! I'll give it a C until someone else sees it because I think it is very good. --Rose09 ^Rashmi ^Next 20:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm missing it's movement and reasoning for movement. I'm going to add that now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movement added in Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good for the most part. The storm history is a tad excessive, though. Try to condense it a little bit. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What parts should remove to shorten it? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history of Hurricane Elida

Since the MH is very long, should I make a sub-article for the history? Or just leave it be? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do it.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather prefer someone who has a good history as an editor to give their opinions on this. Not someone who has been ridiculed extensively. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's fine as it is. First of all, there's been an overall, albeit unofficial, agreement on IRC to limit the Meteorological history subarticles to the more notable storms that affected land. In this case, if a met. history were created, a good chunk of this article would have to be removed to avoid redundant information. Without a long storm history, this article would have little sustenance. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Elida (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the third paragraph of the MH section you say "The eye became better defined in the afternoon as a ragged eye appeared on visible satellite images." Can this be rewritten to take out one of the instances of "eye"? Especially since "eye" was used in each of the previous three sentences too...

Would it be possible to split the MH section into two to three subsections? I don't think that you should split it out into another article (as suggested on the talk page), but it is a big chunk of mostly uninterrupted text. Perhaps the subsections could be "strengthening", "weakening" and "dissipation", or something along those lines...
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):
Was there nothing reported about this hurricane in any source except those published by the National Hurricane Center? If not, that's fine, but it would be interesting to see what other sources had to say about the hurricane. Perhaps in Mexican/Central American sources?
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:

There are just a few minor issues with coverage, prose and MOS, so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with these issues. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticup tried to split the MH in Hurricane Hernan (2008) but it was reverted because it's against project standards for TC's. I'm looking for other info on Elida now and I'll fix the sentence shortly after I gather that information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Spanish sources and they all basically say the same thing, Elida formed or Elida has become a Category one hurricane. Should I still include that?

The repetitive eye thing, is fixed, I changed the second sentence of the trio so it doesn't have eye in it too. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if it's against project standards then it can stay. It's just a really big chunk of text :( Don't include stuff from other sources if they still say the same thing...I was just hoping that they said something different! Besides that, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it is long, but also tend to write every bit of detail I can, as you can tell, every discussion on Elida issued to the public is there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]