Talk:Hurricane Hugo/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
It contains copyright infringements -
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

I'm not sure a link to this guys's youtube video is particularly suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 142 has an EL as a publisher. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10 has this for a title - <1186:ENPHSO>2.0.CO;2 "Eastern North Pacific Hurricane Season of 1989". and seems dead/not found. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refs are pretty well formatted otherwise. 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

The biggest issue here is length. This is a MASSIVE lede - MOS:LEDE has the lead section at a maximum of four paragraphs. Can we combine/cull? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
was a powerful Cape Verde tropical cyclone - this is quite the lead sentence. Can we state what it is (in Lehman's terms), before commenting on exactly what it was? Simply saying it was a Hurricane, where the Hurricane hit, and when would be fine, then the next sentence you can state what type of Cyclone it was. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Across its track , Hugo - typo? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 million people - two million people MOS:NUM Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is cited - is this not mentioned anywhere else in the body? Probably doesn't need to be cited in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notes are not important in the lede. A good fit for the body/infobox but as the lede is a summary of elsewhere, it doesn't need to be here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lede in general is just too detailed. What is there is mostly good, but we don't need to know the exact course of the hurricane, as this is what the body is for.
I'm not sure why the info on the birds and other species is in the lede - considering the massive monetary damage and deaths, it feels a little more irrelevent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

I do think some of the paragraphs are a little large and could do with splitting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really see any MOS issues Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALttext looks good Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not this article, but the {{HurricaneWarnings}} template could do with unbolding the links (WP:BOLDAVOID). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every fact is cited. Good job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The captions of the images could do with a few more links - WP:OL doesn't affect captions and tables, so feel free to link again. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of overlinks in the article prose itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting this on hold. It's a good article overall, just some lede issues outlined above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CapeVerdeWave: Pinging you since it has been a week. Noah^Talk 23:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, I can't keep this open indefinately. The user has been active since this GAN was created (although not for the last week). It's a shame, as the article isn't in all that bad shape. Drop me a ping if you'd like me to look at a second review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.