Talk:Tropical Depression Two (2010)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tropical Analystwx 13 20:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be too hard...I'll start later on today. TropicalAnalystwx13 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Review

The article Tropical Depression TWO (2010) is reasonably well-written, so I will pass that part. All links in the article are good, meaning they are not broken, and they all lead to relevant sources. The information in the article is factual, and verifiable. The article is easy to understand and clear. However, one thing that I would try to work on is expanding the Meteorological History and maybe even the Preparations and Impacts section just a little. There are only two pictures, so I would try to add more..but the two images up on the article are licensed and appropriate. The article is written from a neutral point of view, and the article is stable.

Good Article Review Checklist (Criteria)

1. Is it well written:

2. Factually Accurate and verifiable:

3. Broad in its coverage: - (Work on expansion)

4. Neutral: -

5. Stable -

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images -

7. Overall -

Pass/Fail (The issue mentioned below hasn't been fixed, and it was brought up 5 weeks ago.)

TropicalAnalystwx13 21:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm putting the previous comment here so it doesn't get lost in the review process, since these issues appear to have been overlooked. The main text of the article in the impact section with regards to rainfall is at odds with the rainfall graphic (it talks about 3" of rain across much of Eastern Texas, which just wasn't true), and it somehow references the inland advisories without actual supporting inline references. Also, the link to the last sentence is unable to support the last line, since that page deals with a different cyclone (Alex). Last I checked, the Alex article does not refer to Tropical Depression Two impacts at all. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The precipitation information within the impact section of the article still doesn't match the rainfall graphic to the right, after 5 weeks. I'm not the primary reviewer, so it's not completely up to me to pass/fail, but I recommend it be failed since the changes needed here were straightforward, but not followed. Thegreatdr (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be put on hold for the time being. There was only one issue within the article, but it hasn't been fixed. I don't know how to put it on hold though. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, holds are placed for one week. It's been 5 weeks since the comments were made about the disjointed impact section. As primary reviewer, it's your call. Whatever you decide I'll support. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...then I guess you can go ahead and fail it... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a secondary reviewer. If I still understand the policy right, only the primary reviewer can pass or fail. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]