Talk:Tropical Storm Norma (2005)

Merge?

Should this be merged because it is so short? BTW, it does not tell the reader when Norma dissipated. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Let's talk about this once the article is complete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still actively working on the article, and I understand it's not finished yet. A few others suggested that I should userfy the article, but I'm getting it completed as soon as possible. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update, there is a new proposal to merge this article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Norma (2005)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There is a good bit of jargon, and a few sentences left me scratching my head a bit. Some important meteorological terms aren't linked, which is a problem when the writing isn't clear. Here are some of the more confusing statements. It traveled weakly in a circle in the lede. One particularly well-defined vortex spun out of the southeast edge of the deep convection early on September 22 and spent most of the day traveling in a loop to the east of the convection in the first paragraph. The formation strengthened, storm to increase in speed due to warmer waters, in a southwestern circle. It also doesn't follow the MOS too well, as there is unit inconsistency, and also since all times are supposed to be in UTC.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As I said before, there is some jargon, but it seems some things are missing. What caused the initial tropical disturbance to form? Why did it track the way it did? What allowed it to strengthen/weaken? Some of that may require research outside of the tropical cyclone report.

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:

   I was going to put it on hold, but the article hasn't been touched by the author in 22 days, and the author hasn't really even edited any other tropical cyclone articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, HH; I'm back from my trip. Still just getting used to the prose and MOS of these hurricane articles, which to be honest is a little frustrating to figure out. The review is good, though - thanks for taking the time, I'll look over things. Jamie^☆S93 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)