Talk:Hurricane Max (2005)

Improvement still needed

Per the manual of style, a lead for an article this size should be at least a couple paragraphs, not just one line. Fix the spelling within that one line! It should include a slimmed down version of the article's content in other words, or be a short summary. If you're going to link to Linda, and its article is not yet made, link to the hurricane season section for Linda until the article is created. Even using 2005/2006 criteria, there is no chance this article would be considered more than Start class. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no Linda in this season. This is borderline Stub-Start. The sentences should be accurate and correctly spelled if they make up the entirety of a missing element.Potapych (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the lead by copying over the portion from the season article and fixed the reference format to one more suitable for our project. Granted, this article still needs more references, but these changes helped the article along nicely. Since I don't think it needs a preparation section, since no watches and warnings were issued, I'm upgrading the article to C class. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA class, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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):

   • Any information about the naming? This could probably be included in the Impacts section, with the section being renamed "Impacts and naming".
   • I'm going to drop a note on Juliancolton's page and ask him to come look over the article and see if anything is missing. It makes me a little nervous to pass a good article with only two sources, so I'd like to see what he has to say.

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:

The article looks good, but, as I said above, I would like to ask one of the more experienced tropical storm editors to take a look. In the meantime, I would like to see information added on the naming of the storm, so that it conforms with the typical storm article layout. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some comments:
• First thing I noticed is that the storm history should be expanded. I see only one of the discussions are used, which should be increased to several. Also, there is some information in the lead that isn't in the main article.
• The formation and dissipation dates in the infobox are screwy. How can a storm form the day after it dissipated? :-)
• Records should be merged with Impact.
• Some naming information would be nice.
• National Hurricane Center is the publisher of the sources, not the authors.
• Add Category:Category 1 Pacific hurricanes

Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Julian, especially for catching the dates and the publisher/author thing, which I should have seen :P As an update to the main editors, I've fixed the dates and the publisher/author mix-up, but I'm going to leave the rest for you to do! Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this article's GAN. There has been no constructive work on this article in the time since my review, and instead there has been edit warring over the placement of a cleanup banner, with the nominating editor being currently blocked. When this article has been expanded and improved, please re-nominate it at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Max (2005)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs some help, and I have helped it along from its initial state this morning. Appropriate wikilinks as well as more references (perhaps more content) would be helpful to add to this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)