Talk:Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the first paragraph of the lede, you say "It's remnant low was absorbed". Err...what's a remnant low?

   • A remnant low pressure area. I linked it to Low pressure area. Plasticup ^T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Consider adding a sentence summarizing the "Naming and records" section to the lede

   • I thought it was (Tropical Storm Alpha was the 23rd named storm of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season) but I added a bit more about it being the first tropical system name "Alpha". Plasticup ^T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   • In the lede, it says it was the 8th wettest storm to hit Haiti, in the chart in the "Preparations and impact" section it says it's the 10th. Which?

   • It was the 8th and has since been surpassed by two more storms. This is now clarified in the body of the article. Plasticup ^T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Be on the look out for jargon, and either wikilink it or explain it in the article. For example, in the first paragraph alone of the "Storm history" section, you have "convective activity", "wind shear", "closed circulation" and "cyclonic circulation" among others. I'm not saying you have to remove all of these, just try to make it a bit easier for the average reader to figure out what you're saying without having to go looking for a dictionary :)

   • I have had a run through looking for this, and have added a few wikilinks. The storm history is a technical section and not everyone will understand every word, but let me know if you think any sections are unduly confusing. Plasticup ^T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   • In the "Storm history" section, you say "While convection remained in bands, the low level circulation was disrupted by land, thus, leaving a very ill-defined center, which made locating the center difficult." This has lots of clauses and reads rather awkwardly. Perhaps reword as "...circulation was disrupted by land and left a very ill-defined center that was difficult to locate." Or something along those lines.

   • I have reworded that sentence too. Plasticup ^T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Refs 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 all have a title that says they're 2002 data, but when you click on the link, they go to all different years. Are these titles wrong or am I just missing something? Same with 16 and 18 both saying they're 2007 data.

   • It took me a while to find them; they are transcluded from a Template. Should be fixed. Plasticup ^T/C 02:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Current ref 14 (Dunn) needs publisher info

   • Ditto. Plasticup ^T/C 02:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a well-written and well-referenced article. All of the things detailed above are fairly minor and should be easy and quick to fix. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to make these few tweaks. If you have questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and thanks for the quick response. I am passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)