Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Otis (2005)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Otis (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 6, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Otis (2005)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

[edit]

Lead

  • Not sure on the convention on this, but note the year in the lead??
  • Wikilink tropical storm
  • Done indirectly, by linking tropical cyclone to "hurricane" ("tropical storm" would be linked to the same page).
  • Expand the lead to at least two paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
  • Not needed. The article is relatively brief, so it can be summarized adequately in the one paragraph that is there right now. If there's any specific facts or details you'd like to see added, let me know, but otherwise I don't see the need to add text for the sake of adding text. Juliancolton (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "By late on September 28..." should be "By late September 28...."

Preparations and mpx

  • I think you can omit the two specific ships which reported high winds.

Other

  • Links to several redirect/disambugation pages:
    • Agua Blanca
    • Comondu (redirect page)
    • Miraflores

Concluding Thoughts

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Otis (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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

No lead section, blatant violations of WP:WPTC/S, no organization, severe grammar and conventions issues, excessive reliance on a single source, low accessibility, improperly illustrated... need I say more? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten now, so the above should be long-addressed. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)