Talk:Tropical Storm Marco (1990)
|Tropical Storm Marco (1990) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|Current status: Featured article|
|WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms / Atlantic||(Rated FA-class, Low-importance)|
Should Hurricane Marco (the disambiguation page) link to here, or is it Wikiproject TC convention to link to the main season article? I'm not sure, hence I didn't change it. Cheers, Daniel 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Good Article Assessment
Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment..
- 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.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- It is stable.
- (Even if was created in one edit)
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a Pass/Fail:
Here is a greater analysis of my findings:
- I can find no original research,
however the lead has no references, so that will need eventual sourcing.
- All images were appropriately tagged.
- There was a use of images, that helped the reader gain a greater understanding of Hurricance Marco.
- Only a few grammar mistakes, with commas and tagging etc., but most has been sorted by me.
- All references used were independent and reliable
- There was a correct use of cited sources, which were placed in the appropriate place (after the punctuation)
- The prose was excellent.
Post Assessment comments
I have previously encountered storm-related pages before at the good article nominations page, all of which I have passed because of their well-written and tone of address, i.e informing but not trying to "dumb it down", as it were. I am will to pass this article on the basis of the current revision (already provided). Well done to the users involved. Rudget talk 15:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sweet. Two things. First, the article was copy and pasted from a sandbox I made, but because I was the only editor (and this article was a redirect) I copied it over. Second, the information in the lead is based on info from the article; to avoid clutter in the lede, those references appear later in the article where that information appears. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see. :) Sorry about the wait. Rudget talk 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Not referencing the lead is coming into play in other articles I'm currently involved with since it is stated in the manual of style. One part of the hold up in the GA status of wind shear is this idea of the lead requiring links. Some people only read the lead of articles, which has been pointed out by editors on other pages. If it's a wikipedia standard, why depart from it? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am only a reviewer. I have been led to understand that the references in the other sections could also be used in the lead. In which case, "oversourcing" (relying upon it more than 6-7 times) is a consequence, and that could (IMO) subsistitute as reliance upon a source. I could jiggle with the references in place, if you want? Rudget talk 16:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well, the rule for sourcing the lede (per WP:LEDE) is that challenging info should be sourced, and I doubt there is anything challenging in the lede (just raw statistics for a fairly boring TS). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)