Talk:Hurricane Hector (2018)

Copy Editing Discussion

Could someone please clarify what the issues are in this article? I honestly saw very few spelling/grammatical mistakes when I checked it. I didn't really see much in terms of flow problems either. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |- wait where did u find this out Derpdadoodle (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

New picture

Can someone please get a new picture for this storm? The picture is seriously outdated. Brandontracker (talk) 1:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

im on it. Derpdadoodle (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Subsections: Yes or no?

I have noticed we are fighting about whether or not to have subsections in this article. Personally, with the way the merge proposal is going, we should have subsections as it appears the article will be kept. The subsections will allow editors to write and readers to read about a specific aspect of the meteorological history. It would work much better with them. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, for now since the storm is still active. Wait til it dies when this can better be discussed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Since Hector is now dead, we should start discussing subsections again. I personally think that it would make it better. Grammarguruguy (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I could see there being 4 subsections right now. One for the formation, EPAC/strengthening, CPAC/peak intensity, and WPAC/decline and dissipation. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I think they should be titled by event (i.e. "Formation") rather than by basin. Grammarguruguy (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disgree with the need for subsections, since the MH would just end up as being even more bloated.Jason Rees (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What I don’t see is how dividing the MH into subsections would cause bloating. The division would make it easier for readers to access and editors to edit. New content to make each section bigger would not be needed, and it doesn’t seem like dividing would hurt any aspect of the article. Grammarguruguy (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there's enough content for subsections right now. I believe that there should be a Genevieve-like expansion on its meteorological before thinking on subdivisions. ABC paulista (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Hector (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Derpdadoodle (talk · contribs) 14:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

comments

Hello. I would like to review Hurricane Hector (2018) and conclude if it is GA criteria. DerpieDerpie:D 14:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

???

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

other comments

• English is on spot.
• Great lead
• confirm image captions, had some confusion with peak image
• impact image possible?
• that's all!

DerpieDerpie:D 16:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

IN CONCLUSION

After I have seen plausible evidence of this article, I am proud to conclude that therefore, in my opinion, this article should be turned into a good article. DerpieDerpie:D 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A-class

Hurricane Hector (2018) A-class review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 22:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If possible, I need someone who would be willing to review four articles for A-class over an unknown time period. Please note that Hector and Walaka both did not receive comprehensive good article reviews (I was a new user when they were just passed without much of a review). Hence the reason why I have completely rewritten Hector and am beginning to rewrite Walaka. Noah^Talk 22:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.