Talk:Tropical Storm Arlene (1981)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Here are the hindrances to this article being a GA, by TC project standards.

Information within the lead (unusual formation of Arlene, evolution into a non-tropical cyclone) is either not described within the article below, or in such a different way that non-meteorologists would be confused. This needs to be sorted.
- better?
  - I'll consider this satisfied. Non-tropical low just means not tropical. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Numerous wikilinks (For example: Caribbean sea, wind, rain for starters) are just plain missing within this article and need to be added, though only for their first occurrence.~~
- re: above
~~Watch/warning information for Cuba missing and should be placed within the preparation section...they had to be issued.~~
- nothing from the NHC... which i though was weird. should i mention there were no warnings?
  - Done After looking into this, I cannot find any references mentioning that gale warnings were in effect for Cuba, so I withdraw the item. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The date format throughout the article is inconsistent. If you say May 8th in one place, it should be that way throughout the article.~~
- what do you mean, it all looks the same to me
  - Done I fixed this issue. There was one occurrence where it just said 6th, rather than May 6th. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions how Arlene's formation was unusual, but there appear to be no references regarding why its formation was unusual, which would violate wikipedia's referencing and original research rules.
- TCR said it was weird, so that's just what i wrote...
  - Done It is now resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be mentioned towards the end of the article that the name Arlene was not retired, and when future occurrences of the name were used within the Atlantic basin, with the appropriate reference after those lines.
- how should i reference it? most other articles don't (like Hurricane Lili (1984))
  - We had been lax on this criteria within the met and TC projects until 2008. Lili passed GA in 2007. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_format_citations shows you the format, which includes publisher year and publisher. While you don't have to use cite web formatting, if you wish to bring this article to FA at some point, cite web formatting is helpful. You have partially resolved the issue with lack of retirement, now you need to add a citation after that sentence for the future examples of Arlene's use. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - that work what i did? i got the naming ref from an article that's on fac right now.
      - Done Thegreatdr (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert templates from mph to kph and mb to inches of mercury are needed.~~
- could someone help with this??
  - Done "Edit" the page so you can see the format of the convert templates. For future reference, TC articles use convert templates for exact wind speeds that occurred within tropical cyclones, though not for maximum sustained winds since NHC rounds to the nearest 5 knots/5 mph. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While publishing year information is generally included (good, although it is still needed for reference 10), publisher information is generally missing, and in one case is just incorrect. NOAA is the publisher for the HRD. Publisher information needs to be added for all references, per the Manual of Style.
- I just copied the HRD one from another article. what is the publisher for all of the NHC ones?
  - NOAA. Just make sure within the inline reference that there are no acronyms...NOAA will need to be spelled out. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Thegreatdr (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to check over the article further to see if any additional work will be needed to bring this to GA standards, but this is a start. I will strike out issues which have been resolved, when the appropriate edits are made. You have one week to make the appropriate changes, as always.

- - - k thx, got em.

Reviewer: Thegreatdr (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here are sources that might be of use. I'll look through them this afternoon to see if any additional information can be harvested. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some bits and pieces of info that might be worth adding, but nothing substantial. Personally, since the article covers most major aspects of the storm, I'd be comfortable passing it as a GA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow that was alot! got most of it --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out what is left above. You have one week from today to make the appropriate changes. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done i think --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Congratulations! Thegreatdr (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tanks a lot! :) --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]